A Closer Look at the Future of Martin Dunham Reservoir
Understanding the Proposed Plans

Thank you to everyone who has signed the petition and spoken up for the future of Martin Dunham Reservoir. We are approaching 600 signatures! Your support is making a real difference. This place holds deep meaning for many of us, and your voices are helping ensure that decision-makers understand what is truly at stake. Please keep sharing, stay engaged, and continue to advocate for this vital public resource.

The three management scenarios outlined at the June 11 public meeting each offer a radically different future for Martin Dunham Reservoir. While all are framed around risk reduction and regulatory compliance, only one preserves the reservoir as it exists today. The other two would permanently transform the park’s landscape, recreational access, and connection to surrounding communities. Understanding what these options mean ecologically, economically, and culturally is essential as the public weighs in and the state moves toward a decision.

Full Rehabilitation
In this scenario, the dam would be structurally upgraded to meet modern safety standards. The lake and its recreational functions would remain unchanged. Engineers would raise the dam’s crest to prevent overtopping during extreme storms, reinforce the downstream slope, and modernize the concrete spillway to handle up to a 500-year storm. Instrumentation would be installed to monitor seepage and detect early signs of failure. The historic gatehouse and reservoir would remain intact.

This approach preserves lake-based recreation, including swimming, boating, and fishing. It would also retain the reservoir as a drafting site for fire departments in areas without hydrants. Ecologically, the system would remain stable, avoiding the disruption of draining and sediment movement.

At an estimated cost of 20 million dollars, this is the most expensive option and would likely require state funding or additional partners. Construction could temporarily close sections of the park. Still, this is the only path that maintains continuity, protects historic infrastructure, and avoids irreversible environmental change.

TLDR: Full rehabilitation preserves the reservoir, maintains recreation and fire protection, and delivers the highest level of structural safety. It comes with the highest cost.

Partial Removal with Stream Restoration
This option would remove a section of the dam and convert the lake basin into a restored stream and wetland corridor. Engineers would regrade the lakebed, build a defined stream channel, and create flood-absorbing wetlands. The gatehouse would be decommissioned, and the reservoir would be eliminated.

The change would be gradual. Sediment built up over more than a century would need stabilization or partial removal. Visually and ecologically, the basin would undergo a long transition. It would begin as a muddy plain and evolve over years into a semi-natural wetland system.

Recreational use would shift. Boating and swimming would end. New trails and birding areas might be developed, but not immediately. Fire suppression access would be lost unless another water source is secured. Groundwater levels would likely drop around the site, affecting nearby wells and wetlands.

At 9.6 million dollars, this is a mid-range option in terms of cost. It reduces downstream risk and restores a more natural hydrologic system. It also removes a long-standing community resource in the process.

TLDR: Stream restoration removes the lake but creates a new wetland system. It reduces hazard and provides ecological benefits, but with long-term transition and the loss of lake recreation.

Partial Removal Without Restoration
The least expensive option, estimated at 6.1 million dollars, involves breaching the dam without building a new stream channel or wetland system. Water would cut its own path through the exposed basin. Sediment would be left in place unless emergency action became necessary. No recreation infrastructure or habitat restoration would be included.

This would permanently eliminate the reservoir with little environmental planning. The resulting basin could remain unstable and visually degraded for years. Water quality downstream could be affected by unregulated sediment movement. Fire suppression access would be lost, and groundwater drawdown would likely impact nearby wells.

Residents at the meeting expressed the strongest concern about this approach. Many described it as a way to walk away from responsibility. Although it remains an option on paper, it appears unlikely given public opposition and environmental uncertainties.

TLDR: This low-cost option eliminates the reservoir without ecological planning. It increases long-term instability, ends all lake recreation, and raises the risk of sediment impacts downstream.

What Is Most Likely?
Across New York State, partial removal with stream restoration has become the most common outcome when Class C dams are deemed structurally deficient and lack a critical utility function. In recent years, agencies like the DEC and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation have supported dam removals that prioritize risk reduction and ecological recovery, especially when full repair costs are considered unsustainable. Projects from the Hudson Valley, Finger Lakes, and Adirondacks show a clear pattern. When dams are no longer used for drinking water, hydroelectricity, or flood control, restoration is often presented as the most viable path forward.

Full rehabilitation is sometimes approved, but only when a dam serves a clearly defined public purpose or where local funding can supplement state budgets. In the case of Martin Dunham Reservoir, while its recreational and cultural value is high, the reservoir no longer serves an official municipal role. State officials noted that no funding has been allocated and no budget sources identified.

Partial removal without restoration is rarely chosen. While it offers budget savings, its environmental risks and lack of planning make it a last-resort option. It may only be selected if no restoration funding can be secured.

Given these patterns, partial removal with stream restoration appears to be the most likely scenario. Unless there is strong, sustained public support for full rehabilitation, state agencies may choose to frame the project as an ecological transformation. This option is easier to fund, easier to defend, and often backed by outside groups focused on wetland creation and fish passage.

Next Steps
As New York State weighs its options, the public still has an opportunity to influence the decision. While the final choice rests with the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, broad community engagement can shape how the reservoir is viewed. This is not just about compliance or liability. It is about whether this lake will continue to serve as a shared resource for the people of Rensselaer County and beyond.

If you support full restoration of Martin Dunham Reservoir, preserving its recreational use, ecological stability, and historical presence, please sign the petition, leave a comment, and share the campaign with others who care. Public input matters at this stage and could determine how seriously the state considers preserving the reservoir in its current form.

Visit www.savedunham.org to learn more, add your name, and share the petition with others who use, rely on, or care about this place.

The most important thing we can do now is stay informed, remain active in the process, and continue communicating clearly and consistently with our elected officials. This includes the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and Commissioner pro tem Randy Simons, who will ultimately determine the reservoir’s fate.

This publication is provided for informational and advocacy purposes only. All views expressed are those of the author and are based on publicly available information as of the date of publication. For official updates, refer to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.