by Chris Jones ·
Friday, July 3, 2026
The low water level at Bare Hill Pond has garnered attention this spring, and at a well-attended June 25 Conservation Commission meeting, Bare Hill Pond Watershed Management Committee Chair Bruce Leicher updated the committee and the public on the state of the pond in a 10-minute slide presentation. According to Leicher, an unusually dry spring with below-normal rainfall is responsible for the pond’s current level.
After the presentation, Conservation Commission Chair Jim Burns set aside 20 minutes for public comment. Almost every speaker thanked the pond committee for their efforts, but some questioned the fall drawdown, especially this past fall when the region was in a level 2, or significant, drought. Resident Adam Hughes said, “... I would never stop the drawdown, but the weeds I’m seeing in May and an inability to put in boats and enjoy the pond matter a lot. So I think we would be at least a foot higher with no drawdown. I’m not gonna say we wouldn’t be low, but that’s my opinion.”
In a prepared statement, Brett Fairbanks supported drawdowns and believed that they benefited the health of the pond but was concerned that the committee’s thinking might be becoming “stagnant.”
“My hope is that future drawdown decisions incorporate not only the historical record, but also site-specific, hydrological information such as groundwater measurements, recharge conditions, and other local observations,” he said.
Garry Baer of Clinton Shores Drive agreed with Fairbanks and cited climate change as a reason for the pond committee to adopt a flexible strategy going forward: “And what you’ve seen other people do on the other lakes is manage with an all-the-above [strategy]. So when we’re in drought years, we cut back our drawdowns. We all know long-term, we’re going to need dredging, and some lakes have actually relied on herbicides, right? There’s no one tool in global warming that’s going to help us.”
In addition, in the June 19 edition of the Press, a letter to the editor questioned the pond committee’s drawdown strategy. The author proposed a modified 40-inch drawdown as opposed to the standard 6 ½ feet which, according to his calculations, would have left the pond full this spring.
The concern over the pond drawdowns appears real, so why does the town continue the practice and could the practice be responsible for this year’s low water levels?
In Massachusetts, drawdowns are heavily regulated, and they must be permitted through local Conservation Commissions which, in fact, did happen last year in Harvard. According to Leicher, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) doesn’t like drawdowns unless they benefit local wildlife and ecosystems, and that’s what the Bare Hill Pond drawdown is designed to accomplish. For close to 20 years, drawdowns at the pond have successfully controlled invasive weed populations as well as phosphorus levels which can lead to summer algal blooms. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, algal blooms release potent toxins which can make recreational activities, such as swimming, unsafe for people and pets.
The pond committee has carefully tracked the effects of drawdowns on Bare Hill Pond and has healthy amounts of data to support the drawdowns’ efficacy. In fact, when the pond’s pumping station broke in 2023, which prevented the full 6 ½-foot drawdown, the results were noticeable. Rainier Park and Pablo Carbonell, both pond committee members, had this to say in the June 19 issue of the Press: “When the pump broke in 2023 and again in 2024, the town could only pull the boards for a shallow, 3-foot drawdown—and the weeds came back with a vengeance. This past year the pump worked, the cold reached the exposed pond bottom, and the weeds appeared to be knocked back,” they wrote. Harbormaster Ben Baron agreed. “If we do less than the 6 ½-foot drawdown, then there is more water for the weeds to stay alive in. Why would we want that?”
And as to the health of the pond, the drawdowns appear to have had a positive effect. “The frogs are doing fine and the turtles are doing fine. Their numbers are healthy … We’ve had two fishing derbies already, and in the last one, the winner caught fourteen pounds of largemouth bass which were released back to the pond,” Baron said. On a recent boat tour of the pond, Leicher pointed out an eagle’s nest and added that blue herons are also fishing Bare Hill Pond’s waters. An environment is usually healthy when wildlife flourishes.
The data suggests that the fall drawdown has beneficial effects, but the question about water level remains. Once again, the pond committee has recorded a lot of data over the last 20 years to shed light on an answer.
In 2021, the town drew the pond down 6 ½ feet, and by June 15, the pond was full. In 2024, the town drew the pond down 6 ½ feet, and by June 15, the pond was 2 inches above what was considered full capacity. In 2011, the town drew the pond down 8 feet, an additional 1 ½ feet. The state and Conservation Commission permitted the larger drawdown because the town wanted to excavate the beach. By June 15 of that year, the pond was just 2 inches shy of being full. But this year, the pond is 16 ½ inches below what is considered full. One variable tells the story, and that variable involves rainfall.
In 2012, 2022, and 2025, the spring rains averaged 19 ½ inches, but this year, Harvard has seen just 16 ½ inches total rain and only 3 ½ inches since March. “The pond level is at an unprecedented low level. The average rainfall from January to June is 22 inches, and we’ve had 16,” Leicher said. According to Leicher, former pond committee member Gene Marsh measured Bare Hill Pond level and rainfall for 20 years and concluded that under normal conditions, for every inch of rain, the pond rises 4 inches. At present, Worcester County isn’t under normal conditions; in fact, Harvard finds itself in a level 2, or significant, drought. Under drought conditions, the pond rises just 2 to 3 inches for every inch of rain because the ground surrounding the pond will absorb a lot of the water.
It appears that this would explain Bare Hill Pond’s low water level, but of course, drought conditions existed this past fall, so why did the Conservation Commission permit a full 6 ½-foot drawdown? A letter to the editor in last week’s paper suggested that a modified drawdown, perhaps one of 40 inches, would have been more appropriate and, as a result, left more water in the pond. On the surface, this makes sense, but according to the most recent pond level update, that argument overlooks the impact of the outflow pipe.
The Bare Hill Pond dam helps control water levels. When the boards are removed for a 6 ½-foot drawdown, the pond usually drops 3 feet and settles at the water table. To withdraw the remaining 3 ½ feet, the town must use a powerful pump that removes 10,500 gallons of water per minute. The 6 ½-foot drawdown usually takes a couple of months, from Oct. 1 to the end of November so as not to disrupt the habitat.
The dam sits on a grate that serves as the floor of the structure, and underneath the grate is a pipe called the mandatory outflow pipe, needed to comply with the original dam construction agreement. The pipe is “mandatory” because it ensures that a steady, downstream flow of water feeds the wetlands beyond it, and the wetlands act as a natural filtration system cleaning the pond water of chemicals such as phosphorus. The water eventually finds its way to Bowers Brook and the Nashua River.
Last week’s letter to the editor mentioned the outflow pipe and said the pipe released “1,000 gallons per hour from the dam to the wetlands,” for a rate of 24,000 gallons a day, but that’s not accurate. The pipe allows water to travel from the pond to the wetlands at a rate of 1,000 gallons per minute for a potential 1.4 million gallons a day. Even if a drawdown was scaled back to 40 inches instead of 6 ½ feet, the 37-inch “savings” would still flow out the pipe. Leicher, in his most recent pond level update, estimates that if a drawdown had not happened this past fall, the pond would still be at the same low level it is now. From January to June 15, 30 to 36 inches of water would flow through the pipe to the wetlands, and another 10 inches would evaporate as nature intended. What’s needed to fill the pond is rain.
Despite the 6 ½-foot drawdown this past fall, in drought conditions, the pond added 4 feet of water by the end of March, adding it faster than it did the year before. It rose to meet the water table, and it rose because of rain in March. And then, it slowed to a crawl. “With 5 or 6 more inches of rain, we’d have 2 more feet of water in the pond … The real problem is not the water table; the water table is fine. We haven’t filled the pond up because of the rainfall,” Leicher said.
And the lack of rainfall appears to be affecting other bodies of water. According to local pond and lake associations, Lost Lake in Groton is down 9-10 inches, Warren Pond in Concord is down 6-8 inches, and Walden Pond in Concord is down 12 inches despite a record high level in 2024 when the pond contained depths of 110 feet. In addition, the city of Cambridge website states, “Reduced inflow and evaporation have significantly lowered waterlines in many lakes and ponds, leaving wide strips of muddy sediments and dry rock beds exposed along the shorelines.”
Residents raised two other concerns at the meeting. The first involved the Bare Hill Pond Watershed Management Committee being too insular, removed from evolving ideas and practices. The second questioned whether the group needed to reach out to other ponds and lake managers to understand how they were handling environmental challenges. In a follow-up email to the meeting, Leicher pushed back on both these concerns.
First, he said, the committee is advised by Wendy Gendron, an established aquatic ecologist and certified lake manager who frequently provides technical presentations and consulting reports for Massachusetts conservation commissions and lake associations (such as Lake Shirley and Dudley Pond). According to Leicher, she is on Dr. Ken Wagner’s staff, and Wagner is the co-author of the 2025 Guide to Algae and Aquatic Plant Management. He is considered an expert in his field with 40 years experience. Second, Leicher maintains that regular communication takes place between the pond committee and other pond managers: “We have been invited to present our data to the Concord Conservation Commission when they were evaluating strategies for Warner Pond, to the Stow Conservation Commission when they were evaluating strategies for Boon Lake, from the manager of Lost Lake as they considered their options, and have received questions from time to time from Lake Shirley lake association members.”
Alternatives to drawdowns exist, and herbicides are one of them. In the 1970s, Harvard used herbicides to control the weeds in Bare Hill Pond, but in 1983, Harvard residents voted at Town Meeting to ban the use of such chemicals. Herbicides are still used today in some bodies of water; in fact, The Lowell Sun recently reported that the Chelmsford Conservation Commission approved the use of diquat to treat invasive weeds at Freeman Lake in Chelmsford, and last Thursday, June 25, the treatment began. Chelmsford has also treated Heart Pond with herbicides since 2009.
However, that doesn’t mean herbicides are good for wildlife or human beings. On the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources website, it states, “Because product use is not without risk, the EPA does not define any herbicide as safe. It is prudent to minimize herbicide exposure whenever possible.”
This may leave the town with certain choices when it comes to the pond: end the drawdowns and treat the pond with herbicides, modify the drawdowns which will make them less effective, or continue the drawdowns that have data behind them to support their success.
One thing is for certain: Members of the pond committee say they welcome input and discussion, and they welcome concerned residents to attend their meetings.