The Save Dunham petition has now received over 2,200 verified signatures! This growing support sends a clear message: the public wants transparency, safety, and full consideration before any irreversible action is taken. Please continue to share the petition with your networks, every signature adds strength to the call for accountability.

I recently sent the following email to Commissioner Pro Tem Randy Simons of New York State Parks and Historic Preservation.

Dear Commissioner Simons,

I’m writing as the organizer of the Save Dunham Reservoir petition and a concerned resident of the Capital Region regarding the proposed removal of the Martin Dunham Dam in Grafton Lakes State Park.

After reviewing the most recent feasibility report prepared by Stantec, I was concerned to find that it does not include a comprehensive downstream flood risk assessment. While the report includes an inundation map showing the potential impacts of a catastrophic dam failure, it does not provide any modeling of how prolonged weather events or post-tropical hurricanes would be managed, or retained, by the proposed engineered wetland system that would replace the reservoir.

The Dunham Reservoir currently slows and retains stormwater runoff from the steep and fast-draining Quacken Kill watershed. Its removal would eliminate that buffer, raising the risk of accelerated flows into downstream communities like Poestenkill, Brunswick, and Troy. With climate models projecting more frequent high-intensity storms in the region, the consequences of losing that control structure deserve thorough evaluation.

The report does state that “a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will be required during final design to confirm that the proposed outlet structure can adequately pass peak storm flows and to evaluate downstream impacts.” But nowhere does it say that such a study will be conducted prior to final decision-making. There is no stated timeline, no guarantee it will inform the outcome, and no commitment that the results will be made public. That uncertainty is unacceptable to the many downstream residents who have contacted me in recent weeks, worried about the safety of their homes and neighborhoods.

It’s also important to recognize that engineered wetlands take years to establish, and even once mature, they do not offer the same stormwater retention capacity as a reservoir and dam. Replacing a proven system with one that is slower to develop and lower in retention ability, without first modeling how it will perform under extreme weather, puts lives and infrastructure at risk.

A downstream flood risk study must be completed and released to the public before any irreversible action is taken on dam removal. Can you confirm whether such a study is underway? And will the results be shared prior to a final decision?

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to greater transparency as this process moves forward.

Sincerely,
John Bulmer
Organizer, Save Dunham Petition
www.savedunham.org

The Downstream Flood Risks of Removing Martin Dunham Reservoir:
Why Downstream Communities Deserve Answers Now

The future of Martin Dunham Reservoir is on the table, and what happens next could reshape the flow of water, risk, and accountability across Rensselaer County.

At the state’s feasibility meeting in June 2025, officials released an inundation map showing where water would go—and how fast—if the Martin Dunham Dam were to fail. The results were sobering. Entire corridors downstream of the reservoir, from Grafton to Poestenkill to Troy, lie in the potential path of catastrophic floodwaters.

That map wasn’t hypothetical. It was based on engineering models of what happens when tens of millions of gallons are suddenly released into narrow stream valleys and developed floodplains.

Now, the state is considering removing the dam entirely—without offering a single piece of downstream modeling for what happens next.

A Critical Connection: Reservoir Out, Flow In
Here’s the problem: if the dam is removed and the reservoir drained, there is no longer any structure to hold or slow stormwater. The engineered wetland proposed in its place would not include impoundment. It would not include flood gates, outlet valves, or a spillway. It would not be inspected like a dam. And it would not provide flood detention in any meaningful sense.

While engineered wetlands serve critical ecological and water-quality functions, they are not designed to replicate the stormwater detention capacity of a reservoir. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “engineered wetlands are generally designed for pollutant removal or habitat, not for flood protection unless explicitly sized and engineered for that purpose.” Most are “ineffective at buffering high peak flows unless combined with detention basins or levees” (EPA Stormwater Wetlands Guidance, 2004).

The Martin Dunham Dam currently regulates flow from a roughly 1.5-square-mile watershed, about 960 acres, providing both storage and timing control. If the dam is removed, flow from that watershed will exit the uplands more rapidly and without delay.

Yet no updated map has been provided showing how post-removal peak flows will behave. No estimates have been shared showing what happens to the very same homes, roads, and culverts featured in the June inundation model.

The public has seen how dangerous it would be if the dam fails. What the public hasn’t seen is whether removing it might create new risks of its own—especially in the face of more frequent, intense rainfall.

This Isn’t Just About the Distant Floodplain
Removing the dam won’t just change things miles away in Poestenkill or Wynantskill. It will change the hydrology closest to the reservoir, too. Right now, the reservoir acts as a shock absorber, capturing runoff and releasing it gradually through a gated outlet. That’s a function engineered wetlands, unless specifically designed for flood attenuation, do not serve.

If the dam is removed, water will travel faster and more directly out of the uplands. Homes, driveways, and crossings near the current reservoir footprint, including those on Shaver Pond Road and South Long Pond Road, could face stronger surges during storm events, with no control valve to manage the release.

The feasibility study released by the state includes no site-specific hydrologic or erosion analysis for these local impacts. No one has ruled out increased flooding or infrastructure damage close to the reservoir—because no one has studied it.

This Affects Everyone Downstream
This isn’t a local issue. It’s a watershed issue. Water from Martin Dunham Reservoir flows into Dunham Brook, the Quacken Kill, the Poesten Kill, and finally the Hudson River. Communities in Brunswick, Poestenkill, Wynantskill, and Troy depend on stable and regulated upstream flow.

When a dam is removed, everything below it changes. And that means every town, every highway crew, every taxpayer, and every emergency planner who operates downstream deserves a voice in what happens now.

Demand a Full Hydrologic Study
The feasibility study acknowledges this gap, stating that “a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will be required during final design to confirm that the proposed outlet structure can adequately pass peak storm flows and to evaluate downstream impacts.” Yet no such study has been completed—or committed to—before a final decision is made. That leaves residents without answers and communities without assurances.

The State of New York has proposed spending nearly $10 million to remove a Class C high-hazard dam, without conducting any public flood modeling of what happens afterward. Removing the dam is a permanent decision. Once the outlet is gone and the reservoir drained, there is no turning back.

Downstream communities deserve:

• A comprehensive hydrologic and hydraulic study under dam removal scenarios
• Updated inundation and erosion risk maps post-removal
• Detailed modeling of flow timing and peak intensity in Dunham Brook, Quacken Kill, and Poesten Kill
• Transparent public engagement and technical justification from NYS Parks, DEC, and their consultants before any final decision is made

Anything less is a gamble with water, and with lives, that no community should accept without full disclosure.

The inundation map showed us what happens if the dam fails. Now we must ask: what happens if it’s simply erased?

Sources:

• NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Martin Dunham Dam Feasibility Study – Public Meeting Documents (2024–2025). parks.ny.gov
• NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. Dam Safety Program: Classification System. dec.ny.gov
• NYSERDA. ClimAID Report – Climate Change in New York State (2021). nyserda.ny.gov
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Constructed Wetlands for Stormwater Treatment: Principles and Performance (2004).
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineering With Nature: Flood Risk Management and Nature-Based Features (2021).

Disclaimer:
This letter and accompanying article are based on publicly available information as of July 29, 2025, including engineering documents released by New York State Parks and its consultants, as well as verified data from agencies such as NYSDEC, NYSERDA, the EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While every effort has been made to ensure factual accuracy, this communication reflects the author’s interpretation of available data and concerns raised by residents. It does not represent an official position of any governmental agency. Readers are encouraged to review all source materials directly and to contact relevant agencies for the most current information.