Councilors press Parks for plan after Water Shops Pond overgrowth; hydro‑raking could cost millions, staff say

Councilors at a Springfield City Council Maintenance and Development subcommittee meeting pressed Parks Department officials for a clear plan after residents reported extensive aquatic weeds and debris at Water Shops Pond.

Tom Ash, executive director of Springfield Parks, told the subcommittee that hydro‑raking a small area near Springfield College cost $155,000 and that removing the widespread grasses in the larger pond could cost "several million dollars." "That cost was $155,000 just for that small portion to eradicate that," Ash said.

Adam Nyuolovic, the city’s natural resource manager, explained that large‑scale mechanical removal alters wetlands and requires a formal notice of intent under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, including maps, site plans and detailed narratives. "When you're hydro‑raking, you're pulling any type of vegetation or sediment from a wetland… it’s in every sense of the word altering a wetland," Adam said, adding that permitting and separate filings would be required for different pond areas.

Why it matters: residents who bought waterfront homes said their views and yards are affected; a Garvey Drive resident, Mrs. Merrill, told councilors she has lived in the neighborhood 63 years and described logs, bottles and murky water reaching her backyard. "I've been up for 63 years and I've never seen nothing like this," she said.

Parks said it purchased a shore‑operated dredger that can remove shoreline grasses but cannot address the full infestation; staff recommended obtaining cost estimates and completing permitting before committing to large mechanical work. Councilors asked Parks to get quotes and present a plan that includes cost, permitting timeline and options such as chemical treatment or phased mechanical removal.

What’s next: Director Ash agreed to gather estimates and return to the council with a proposal for capital consideration. Councilors requested involvement from the mayor’s office and the city’s executive branch so the proposal’s priority can be assessed in the larger capital plan. No binding funding decision or permit was approved at the meeting.