Hopkinton demands Potter Hill Dam well-water data from Westerly and DEM for 115 households

The Hopkinton Town Council voted Monday to send letters to the Westerly Town Council and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management demanding copies of test well data, water samples, reports and findings related to the Potter Hill Dam, and asking that Hopkinton be added to every stakeholder list and meeting notification tied to the dam's future.

The item, listed as new business on the August 3 agenda and sponsored by Vice President Burns, passed by voice vote after roughly fifteen minutes of discussion, according to the Hopkinton Town Council's published meeting recording. The recording is the town's own posted video of the meeting, titled "Town Council Meeting 8.3.26."

What is at stake for residents is drinking water. Burns said the council has been trying for years to get information about roughly 115 Hopkinton households on private wells near the dam, on the Hopkinton side of the river, whose water levels could change if the dam is lowered or removed.

"We have 115 residents that we asked for information from the Town of Westerly," Burns said, describing a consultant that came to Hopkinton directly and said it would drill test wells to determine which properties would be affected. "We still have not heard anything from this."

Years of study, then silence

Council discussion traced a long paper trail that appears to have gone quiet. Burns referenced a 2021 fish study at the dam, and other council members recalled that an engineering firm hired by Westerly had evaluated several options for how far to draw the impoundment down — a set of alternatives at different water levels, with one option described as a reduction of about six inches.

Council members said residents who would be affected filled out a questionnaire and returned information, and that test wells and test drilling were the next step. "And then that's where it stopped," one council member said during the discussion.

Burns said the trigger for the letters was word that Westerly is now moving to hand the dam itself to DEM while keeping the adjacent mill property. The transcript attributes that information to a town official who relayed it to Burns; the recording does not include any document confirming Westerly's position, and no representative of Westerly or DEM spoke at the meeting.

"Now that you're trying to give something away, well, wait a minute here," one council member said of the reported transfer, describing a property that sat in receivership for decades.

Burns framed the request as a matter of representation rather than ownership. "Who owns a dam? Who owns a bridge? Who owns a mill? I'm not after that," he said. He noted that the state line runs down the middle of the river, meaning decisions made in Westerly reach households in Hopkinton.

What the letter asks for

A council member read a portion of the draft letter aloud from the meeting packet, at page 60 of the agenda materials. It states that the dam "directly affects both Westerly and Hopkinton, particularly in matters relating to local infrastructure, public safety, environmental impacts, and long-term planning for the watershed," and asks that Hopkinton "be formally added to all stakeholder lists, notification groups, and distribution channels associated with the ongoing evaluation and decision-making process."

The motion that carried directs both letters to seek copies of any information, reports or findings on test wells and water samples, and inclusion in all future discussions and meetings on the dam.

Not every council member accepted the premise that Hopkinton has received nothing. One member said the questionnaire information exists and that Westerly holds it, and objected that the characterization was "not totally true." Burns responded that his records include residents who contacted him and never received results. Another member moved the discussion forward with a simple framing: "Ask the question. Let's ask them for the information."

Context and what happens next

Council members also recounted that federal funding for taking down the dam was pulled back, which they placed in January, leaving Westerly holding a structure it had planned to remove. Their concern, as stated on the recording, is that responsibility could be passed to another entity without Hopkinton having any say — one member warned about "farming off stuff to different entities" with no local control.

One council member also questioned earlier DEM findings about fish passage at the dam, saying that when actual counts were requested, the numbers were small enough to be insignificant. That account is a council member's recollection of 2020-era claims, not a document reviewed at the meeting.

The vote authorizes the letters; it does not compel Westerly or DEM to respond. The transcript does not include a deadline for a reply or a date by which the council expects the requested records.

Residents on private wells near the dam who want to follow the request can review the letter in the August 3 agenda packet, and the council's next regular meeting falls on August 17, when the body has already set a public hearing on a separate liquor license application. The full meeting recording is posted by the town.