Jul 27, 2025
Pictured is the Fredonia reservoir.
Over the year and a half since the village of Fredonia opted to draw down the Fredonia reservoir and switch to buying water from Dunkirk, a lot has happened.
Between a lawsuit, constant conflict between village officials and SOR (Save Our Reservoir) members, the new engineering report published by LaBella this May, and the elephant in the room, the fact that we just experienced a week-long boil water order, it is time to reflect on the full scope of this issue — and persistent questions that remain with our village’s water system.
As a journalist for the Fredonia High School newspaper and who has been following and covering our village’s water troubles since the December 2023 decision, as someone who has conducted dozens of interviews with our village’s government officials, with the county officials, and with residents and SOR members, I can say without a doubt that a few issues have come up time and time again.
That said, my interviews, especially with former village officials and residents, have also revealed numerous aspects to this issue, numerous unanswered questions, and numerous possibilities for improving our water system that our village’s government can and should address today. Some of these questions have been answered by village officials, but in any case, their answers have not pointed to concrete, immediate actions. More than that, several key points of disconnect exist between the two sides of this issue — disconnect that requires open dialogue and transparency to be addressed.
One key issue is one that has been raised for several years, that being the loss of water revenue from drawing down the reservoir. Nearly every SOR member I’ve interviewed has mentioned this issue, and every current village official and the county department of health have responded with the same answer: the village has been selling its water at a loss for years. Both sides are correct: the sale of water can and does provide revenue, but, at least under current water sale rates, our revenue does not account for the cost of producing that water.
However, Fredonia has been entangled in arguing about this issue for several years when negotiation and real action between the village and our water districts could at least alleviate this issue right now. According to New York municipal law, any public utility providing a public service, including but not limited to water, is entitled to earn a profit equivalent to the amount of tax said service would pay if it were privately owned (NY Gen Mun L § 94, 2024).
All this to say, negotiating a new rate for the sale of water to our surrounding water districts to at least ensure the village is breaking even would be a reasonable course of action, and something that not only does not require any studies or projects, but can be started today. Further, it would alleviate the village’s financial situation and help pay for future water projects.
Another question exists regarding the existence of three water interconnections between Dunkirk’s water system and Fredonia’s. Specifically, there is one at Vineyard Drive that can allow for the transfer of a maximum of 800 gallons per minute and two on either side of Route 20 that can allow for the transfer of 450 gallons per minute each.
Though they have been installed for years, they are currently partially inoperative, as booster pumps and pressure regulators are necessary for Dunkirk’s water, which has a lower water pressure, to enter Fredonia. In the case of the two connections on Route 20, plans were in place during the interconnections’ installation by Chautauqua County around six years ago to make them operative both ways with pumps, but pumps were never installed.
Whereas the Vineyard Drive pump station was acknowledged by LaBella’s most recent study, the other two smaller interconnections have not been, and in any case, LaBella has not suggested immediate action. However, as is the case with adjusting the price of water sales, installing booster pumps on these existing interconnections is a project the village can undertake without the need for additional studies.
Engineering plans already exist for the Vineyard Drive pump station through LaBella’s study and via Chautauqua County’s engineering plans for the other two. Not only would installing these pumps improve the resilience of both Dunkirk and Fredonia’s water systems in a situation like what we just experienced, but the project would cost relatively little compared to building new interconnections as the connections themselves are already in place.
A final point of disconnect that I have seen time and time again between both pro-reservoir and pro-interconnection sources regards the cost breakdown between Alternatives 1 and 2. Pro-interconnection village officials frequently cite the fact that alternative 1 (keeping the reservoir) would cost significantly more than alternative 2 upfront, at $34.9 million vs. $20.7 million, and the fact that alternative two would have a greater potential for intermunicipal grants, including the possible IMG grant for 40% of the initial project cost up to $30 million.
Meanwhile, SOR members frequently cite LaBella’s breakdown of the the final annual cost of both alternatives over 30 years for the village water customer, at $1,407 per year per equivalent dwelling unit (ie. the average volume of water use for a single-family home) for alternative 1, as opposed to $1,837 per EDU for alternative 2.
In fact, even considering the total of all these costs annually by category over 30 years, with no grants for alternative 1 (which itself is unlikely) and grants covering 50% of alternative 2, the total cost would still be $5.8 million per year for alternative 1, as opposed to $6.94 million for alternative 2. This is primarily because the average annual cost over a 30-year period of debt service for either project, at $1.2 million to interconnect and $1.9 million for upgrading the current treatment plant, is overshadowed by the cost of purchasing water in alternative 2, estimated at an average of $4.7 million per year.
In other words, there is a compelling financial argument for keeping the reservoir when the final cost for the average resident is considered. Addressing this point of disconnect not only would resolve a key question many residents have, but also improve the future credibility of the village’s government in implementing a draw-down of the reservoir, if that is the option that is chosen for reasons such as project cost or non-monetary considerations.
This commentary piece is not written with the intention of criticizing or bashing the village. In fact, the village is undertaking what it can in improving the state of our reservoir, such as with the resolution passed on July 7 to study improvements to the reservoir under FEMA, as well as moving forward with examining what a majority of trustees believes is the best solution through a $19,500 contract passed on July 7 for a SEQR and grant writing through Labella.
However, there are still many things the village can and should do today — examining options for our existing interconnections, renegotiating a fair deal for the sale of water, and addressing questions from the other side of the debate — that would improve our water system today, help balance the village budget, fulfill village officials’ civic duty by answering residents’ concerns, and ultimately create a better, more secure future for our water system.
Ray Dai is a Fredonia resident.
Body-worn camera video footage that shows a Sheriff deputy being shot and another officer shooting and killing a …
Copyright © 2025 Ogden Newspapers of New York, Inc. | https://www.observertoday.com | PO Box 391, Dunkirk, NY 14048 | 716-366-3000
