Good afternoon,
I hope you’re having a great weekend. Thank you so much for supporting the Save Dunham petition. Thanks to you, we’re approaching 700 signatures, and every one of them makes a difference. Please continue to share the petition with people and networks you believe will care about the future of this special place.

In this update, we take a closer look at Option 2—the $9.1 million stream restoration plan, and explore what it would truly mean for Martin Dunham Reservoir. While framed as a balanced compromise, this option would result in the permanent loss of the lake, the end of water-based recreation, and a major change to the park’s identity. Understanding this proposal is essential as we continue making the case for preservation.

Save Dunham Reservoir: A Detailed Summary of Option 2
9.1 Million Dollars and the Loss of the Reservoir

The future of Martin Dunham Reservoir remains uncertain, but looking at past trends across New York State, one option emerges as the likely path. Of the three scenarios presented at the June 11 public meeting, partial dam removal with stream restoration, estimated at $9.1 million, appears to align most closely with recent state decisions. While no official decision has been announced, and the timeline for action is likely to be long, it’s important to note that the $9.1 million estimate will likely rise in the coming years due to market forces and inflation. Though framed as a compromise, this option represents a permanent and profound transformation: the lake would be drained, the historic gatehouse decommissioned, and the reservoir reshaped into a stream-and-wetland system.

To understand why this may be the preferred path, it’s essential to examine what the $9.1 million option actually involves, what it offers, what it removes, and how it fits into broader state policy.

What the $9.1 Million Option Looks Like

Under this plan, a portion of the dam structure would be removed to eliminate its classification as a high-hazard impoundment. The lakebed, exposed after more than a century underwater, would be regraded and sculpted into a defined stream channel, with adjacent wetlands designed to slow floodwaters, filter runoff, and gradually support native vegetation.

The process wouldn’t be immediate. In the first months or years, the exposed lakebed would appear barren, muddy, and unstable. Heavy sediment, accumulated over generations, would need stabilization to prevent erosion. Engineered wetland cells, shallow, vegetated basins, would be planted in some areas, while others would be left to rewild over time.

New foot trails could be developed along the stream corridor, and interpretive signage might be added to promote ecological education. Wildlife would eventually return, including herons, amphibians, and migratory songbirds. But this transformation would unfold over a decade or more, and at the cost of everything that currently defines the site.

Why New York State May Favor It

Across New York, this approach has become increasingly common for non-essential Class C dams—particularly those without a critical utility function such as municipal water supply, flood control, or hydroelectric production. Martin Dunham Reservoir, while valuable to the community, does not fulfill any of those roles.

Based on trends, here’s why the state is likely leaning toward the stream restoration option:

1. Risk Reduction Without Ongoing Liability

By removing part of the dam and reclassifying the structure, the state eliminates the need for expensive, recurring safety inspections, maintenance, and upgrades. Restored stream corridors do not require the same regulatory oversight as high-hazard dams, shifting the liability burden permanently off the books.

2. No Need for Future Repairs

Full rehabilitation would leave the state responsible for continued dam maintenance, sediment management, and emergency response planning. Stream restoration is a one-time capital investment, designed to function with minimal future intervention. In an era of shrinking infrastructure budgets, this alone makes it attractive.

3. Ecological and Political Alignment

Agencies like the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation increasingly favor projects that restore “natural” hydrology. Federal and state environmental policy encourages wetland creation and fish passage, especially where dams block migratory routes or alter groundwater regimes. This aligns the project with statewide conservation goals, potentially unlocking matching grants or federal funding streams.

4. Replicability and Precedent

From the Hudson Valley to the Finger Lakes, dozens of similar dam removal projects have followed this script. Restoration is easier to defend to environmental groups, legislators, and the public, especially when full repair costs exceed $15–20 million. In almost every case, when a dam doesn’t serve a pressing public purpose, the state has favored restoration.

What Is Lost

The 9.1 million dollar option may be practical, but it comes at a real cost.

• The lake would be gone. No boating. No swimming. No ice fishing. No summer shoreline picnics or autumn foliage reflected on still water.
  
  
• Fire protection capacity would be lost. The reservoir currently serves as a drafting site for rural fire departments. Without it, emergency services would need to find and maintain alternate sources.
  
  
• Cultural and historical continuity would be broken. The stone gatehouse, a defining feature of the park, would no longer serve its original function and may fall into disuse or disrepair. Generations of visitors who knew the site as a lake would find it unrecognizable.
  
  
• Nearby groundwater levels would drop. Wetlands and shallow wells in the vicinity could experience long-term decline, as water no longer pools behind the dam.
  
  
• Recreational infrastructure may vanish. Trails designed to ring a lake are not the same as those following a meandering, seasonal stream. Birding and passive recreation are long-term possibilities, but not replacements for water-based activity.

A Predictable Outcome—Unless the Public Intervenes

It’s important to understand that while the stream restoration option is not guaranteed, it fits every major pattern the state has followed for similar dams. It’s:

• Less expensive than full rehabilitation.
  
  
• Easier to fund and explain.
  
  
• In line with state conservation strategy.

Attractive to Outside Funders and Environmental NGOs

The $9.1 million stream restoration option appeals to nonprofit environmental organizations and grantmaking agencies because it aligns with broader goals of river connectivity, wetland expansion, and native habitat restoration. Groups such as The Nature Conservancy, American Rivers, and various watershed alliances in New York State have actively supported and even co-funded similar projects.

This support isn’t just philosophical, it’s financial. Restoration projects can qualify for state and federal conservation grants, including:

• DEC Water Quality Improvement Project (WQIP) Grants
• Environmental Protection Fund (EPF)
• US Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Fish Passage Program
• NOAA Habitat Restoration Grants

Because full dam rehabilitation is typically classified as infrastructure maintenance, it rarely qualifies for these environmental funds. In contrast, stream and wetland restoration often checks multiple funding boxes: ecological resilience, flood mitigation, biodiversity protection, and climate adaptation.

For cash-strapped agencies or parks departments, this outside interest makes Option 2 more viable politically and economically. It allows the state to leverage external dollars, avoid sole responsibility for funding, and frame the project as an environmental success story.

Unless strong public advocacy shifts the narrative, the default outcome is a managed decline of the reservoir into something else entirely—a wetland corridor with interpretive signage and a faint memory of the lake that once was.

What You Can Do

If you believe the lake is worth preserving, now is the time to act.

• Visit www.savedunham.org to sign and share the petition.
  
  
• Engage with the Save Dunham Facebook Page
  
  
• Contact the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and express your support for full rehabilitation.
  
  
• Reach out to Commissioner pro tem Randy Simons and your local elected officials, media, and state representatives.
  
  
• Share your stories and photos of the reservoir to remind decision-makers what’s at stake.

This isn’t just a budget decision. It’s a values decision. It’s about whether Martin Dunham Reservoir remains a living part of the community, or becomes a managed memory, reimagined as something it never was.

This publication is for educational and advocacy use only. All views expressed are the author’s and are based on public records and environmental policy trends. For official project updates, refer to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.