Over the last several years, students may have noticed a difference in the Smith landscape – each November, the tranquil body of water known as Paradise Pond transformed into a barren mudplain. Smith has dredged the pond periodically for decades. But outside of the Landscape and Environmental Studies departments, few members of the Smith community actually know why this happens, or why it is a significant event on the campus.
Most people know that the pond was artificially constructed. In the 1700s, many dams and dikes were constructed on rivers all over Western Massachusetts, for economic purposes. The Mill River in particular was extensively dammed during the Industrial Revolution, when factories and mills began to spring up along its banks. However, because most of these no longer work and their dams are deteriorating, they are increasingly being removed, according to Paul Wetzel of the Center for the Environment, Ecological Design, and Sustainability (CEEDS).
Up until the 1990s, Paradise Pond was dredged every six to eight years using removal dredging – a method that involved draining the pond and removing sediment (which is filled with toxic contaminants, including mercury and lead) that had built up over time. That sediment was then relocated to a nearby Northampton landfill. Beginning in the mid-90s, this removal method was abandoned in favor of a different approach more in tune with the environment’s natural system. In this new method, which involves sediment redistribution rather than removal, the pond is drained, leaving water flowing only through the riverbed, and sediments are shifted downstream to the area near the dam at the Lamont Bridge. When water flow increases, the sediments are released back into the system. This way, the sediments that build up in the pond due to erosion and storms are redistributed naturally, without the expense of invasively removing them, and with the added benefit of keeping the nutrients they provide in the system.
“It’s [dredging the pond] still an experiment to some extent, to see whether it could be done, and how best to do it,” says Professor Robert Newton of the Geosciences department, of the new method. This seems pretty open and shut at first glance – but if you dig deeper, you uncover an ideological battle over the pond: a battle over ecological sustainability, financial sustainability and the future of Smith college.
Reid Bertone-Johnson, a lecturer in the Landscape Studies department, argues that Smith isn’t looking at the system in a way that acknowledges the ecological function of the river.
“We need to interrogate the importance of a pond to Smith as a campus, and to the Smith community,” he said.
So what function does the pond serve on campus? While the dam was originally put in place centuries ago for economic purposes, the pond’s functions are now primarily aesthetic. While the boathouse and outdoor programs do teach Smithies valuable life skills, many of the traditions associated with the pond have fallen out of practice, perhaps given increased awareness of the toxicity of the pond’s sediment.
“A river system is ecologically healthier and more sustainable – both environmentally, and financially, than maintaining a pond. It costs the college money,” says Bertone-Johnson. “The college reveals its values by deciding that the aesthetics of keeping a pond is worth spending its money on.”
Bertone’s observation is that there is no financial reason to keep the pond, “except that the college perceives that alumni won’t give money to the college if the campus no longer looks like the campus they remember.”
However, it is also important to consider the value of alumni support. When discussing the pond, or any change at Smith for that matter, the question of alumni inevitably comes up. What will they think? How will changes to the Smith landscape affect their donation rates? It’s a tricky question. – Oon one hand, wealthy alumni might give less if the Smith they’re giving to doesn’t resemble the Smith they attended. On the other hand, how much should speculation about alumni reactions be allowed to control a school they no longer attend?
Pond management falls under the umbrella of facilities, and specifically under the control of Gary Hartwell, Project Manager for Facilities Management. Hartwell is the “pond guy,” so to speak – he is in charge of most of the regulatory decisions that govern the pond, and, in his own words, he’s “the name on all the forms.” When asked about the financial implications of removing the pond, Hartwell responded, “It would save a fortune. It’s not inexpensive.” While the current system is much cheaper than the previous practice of removal dredging, current pond maintenance can cost around $91,000 per year (though this number can increase drastically if dam repairs are needed, as they are roughly every 25 years). On the question of the pond’s value to Smith, Hartwell is neutral. “I think it has high educational and aesthetic value,” he said of the pond. But then again, he acknowledged, so would a river.
Regardless of opinion, almost everyone involved with the pond is a fan of the current drainage plan. And there may be another benefit: awareness. By draining the pond every year, instead of dredging it every 6-8 years, the pond’s artificiality and the extent of its required maintenance is thrown into relief. The pond is just as much a cultural phenomenon as an ecological one – and when it disappears every year, students begin to ask questions about its role on campus. Bertone-Johnson would like to see the spillway removed, and a riverfront area constructed. “I actually believe that more people would engage with it – dangle their feet in, wade in, you know, experience the river.” Buildup of toxins, sediment, and bacteria would decrease. The ecosystem would be healthier and more sustainable.
Bertone-Johnson argues that we are quite literally “washing our problem downstream.”
“I think of everything in the landscape as an expression of Smith’s values,”he said. “We have a dam on a river for no reason other than looking at a pond.”
Do you have thoughts or opinions about the Pond? Want them to be heard? Consider writing a letter to the editor, or contact chaug@smith.edu.
