Frog Pond or Drinking Water: What’s a Bigger Priority?

The Townie is an opinion website. The views expressed in this piece belong solely to the author, do not represent those held by The Townie, and should not be interpreted as objective or reported fact.

There has been much ado about the drinking water in Newburyport and for very good reason.  Not only is the taste, odor and appearance completely intolerable, but the risks to our drinking water infrastructure are even worse.  As I stated in a previous article, the fixes will be incredibly expensive and will have a major impact on residents’ wallets for a long time to come.  In light of that, I’m incredulous that the Mayor is asking the City Council to pass a bond for a $5.2M project to fix the frog pond at the Bartlet Mall.  

To be clear, that “fix” according to the city website includes: 1. Dewatering the pond (and dumping the water into the Merrimack)  2. Drilling a bedrock well, installing a water quality system, including a pump shed, to house equipment to keep the water circulating and aerated 3. Installing a liner system to encapsulate the impacted sediment, including a geogrid layer to provide structural support, a high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) layer, and 6” of armor stone and benthic sand to provide habitat and facilitate maintenance 4. Restoring the central fountain 5. Installing a dock to support a future boating recreation program 6. Installing a walkway surrounding the pond 7. Installing plantings 8. An unfunded potential add-on installing a granite perimeter around the pond.  If that sounds like a fancy swimming pool for frogs to you, it does to me too.  In fact, over the years residents that are experts in the restoration of bodies of water just like the frog pond have written to the administration and appeared at Council meetings to say that the project was over-engineered and could be fixed for far less money.  As a former City Councillor, I chaired these meetings and was very compelled by the discussion but they were summarily dismissed by the administration. To make matters worse, the city estimates that it will cost an additional $20-$30K per year to run the system. 

The argument from the administration is that we can afford to do the frog pond project because they intend to use Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding for the project which cannot be used for water infrastructure.  In isolation, this statement is true but the devil is in the details.  If you don’t understand the CPA, I encourage you to learn more on the city website here which also includes a nice summary of all the appropriations of CPA funds since its inception in 2005.  The most basic description is that CPA money is your tax dollars that have been put into a separate bucket to be used specifically for projects related to affordable housing, historic preservation, open space preservation and recreation as defined by the law. 

Over the years, the city has spent $37M of CPA funds on various projects in the city.  Each year the city utilizes roughly $1M – $5M on projects such as much needed affordable housing, open space preservation including watershed protection around our fragile reservoir system, the Memorial stadium at the high school, Fuller field track, the rail trail, the waterfront park, lower Atkinson commons/Pioneer park improvements, Nock tennis courts as well as improvements to many churches, the Customs House Museum, the Museum of Old Newbury, the Firehouse, City Hall, etc…  The city needs these funds and uses them on many important projects every year.  If the administration gets its wish and the Council says yes to a $3.5M bond for the frog pond, it will be the largest ever appropriation in the history of the CPA.  It will tie up these CPA funds for many years to come and those funds won’t be available for all the other projects we typically fund through CPA.   Therefore, those projects will need to be funded through the general fund which will drive up your taxes. 

Everything is a trade off in municipal budgeting.  The needs never end and the only way to fund those needs is through your taxes.  Listen to any Council meeting these days and you will hear a never-ending theme of how difficult it will be to balance the budget next fiscal year and the need to tighten our belts.  Things are extremely challenging and it’s entirely possible that the city will need to cut even more positions, after cutting 14 positions last year, to make ends meet.  More importantly, we cannot lose sight of the $120M++ that the city needs to ensure we have clean water to drink. How can we even be considering a $5.2M swimming pool for frogs?   

I’m sure you’re wondering why the administration would even consider this project. The people behind this effort are a very small group of individuals that are very well-connected politically. They are good citizens that have contributed a lot to the city over the years. However, I cannot justify $5.2M for a passion project for a handful of good people when the city has much bigger issues to fix.  

The Bartlet Mall is beautiful and our most historic park.  However, in a world where we are cutting positions, it’s ludicrous to even consider tying up funds for many years that would be better spent on much more critical needs.  For my tax dollar, the protection of my drinking water is much more important than a fancy frog swimming pool.  I encourage you to join me in reaching out to our elected officials to implore them to vote no on using CPA money for the Bartlet Mall frog pond project by emailing them at CityCouncil@newburyportma.gov

Connie Preston
Newburyport resident
Former City Councilor At-large

Passionate about a local issue? We want to hear from you. Check out our submission guidelines.

Subscribe to our Newsletter


Comments

9 responses to “Frog Pond or Drinking Water: What’s a Bigger Priority?”

  1. Jennifer Costain Avatar
    Jennifer Costain

    There should be grant money available for this

    1. Richard Lodge Avatar
      Richard Lodge

      There might have been environmental or land conservation grants available in the past but with a tighter state budget and huge cuts by the federal government for environmental work, grants from above are unlikely.

      1. Richard Lodge Avatar
        Richard Lodge

        I stand corrected. A city councilor has informed me the council accepted a $775,000 grant at its March 23, which I missed.

  2. Graves Robin Reath Avatar
    Graves Robin Reath

    th e drinking water is a HUGE priority
    it is a health issue !!

  3. Peter B. Carzasty Avatar
    Peter B. Carzasty

    One element Ms. Preston didn’t include, apart from the city’s desire to use CPA funds, is another new funding source enacted just this year that is being considered for the Bartlett Mall project. It’s the Curtis Fund – an annual $250K grant to the city from the estate of the Grandson of Andrew Curtis, a former mayor of NBPT.

    https://www.cityofnewburyport.com/home/news/mayor-accepting-applications-for-the-mayor-andrew-curtis-memorial-fund-special-review

    Sources indicate that the current administration has allocated the full amount for the first two years of the Curtis Fund to the Rec Center. Internal discussions have already occurred about directing years 3 and 4 to the Bartlett Mall project. Bartlett Mall is a cosmetic project with limited evidence that it would increase the use of this important city land, designed by a student of Frederick Law Olmsted. Infrastructure is too often dismissed, treated as a lesser priority. The truth is simple: clean water is essential and benefits ALL citizens. Catering to vanity projects driven by a small group is not responsible governance. It’s a no brainer

  4. Sue Gallagher Avatar
    Sue Gallagher

    The water in the Mall comes from a natural spring located by the courthouse so draining it would be nearly impossible. As far as the fountain is concerned there’s a three phase pump in the courthouse that used to run the fountain. Remove the sculpture at the top, put a nozle where the sculpture is connected and turn the pump on. How do I know about the pump? I bought it! My brother maintained the fountain for years until his death in 1986.

  5. Andrea Gaut Eigerman Avatar
    Andrea Gaut Eigerman

    It should be telling in Preston’s article that she does not mention how CPC funds could be helpful in solving our water infrastructure problems. She notes that CPC funds can be used for four categories: (1) outdoor recreation; (2) open space; (3) affordable housing; and (4) historic preservation. Connie’s last idea was to use CPC funds to purchase a property in West Newbury for several million dollars to protect the City of Newburyport’s drinking water from the farmer who owns the parcel. The farmer waters his cattle illegally. I should note there are laws that protect drinking water watersheds from the farmer’s actions, but it is my understanding the City has not pursued legal recourse. So, we would, in a sense, be paying the farmer for breaking the law. Note that CPC funding cannot be used for our needed water infrastructure improvements, only for the four categories above.

    Connie also fails to note that almost $2 million in outside funding has been raised for this project, both in state grants and from private foundations. I don’t know many or any local projects that have done this. Finally, paying the debt of the CPC funds for the project would still leave approximately $1 million in CPC funds annually to disperse to other CPC projects. $2.5 million in CPC funds was given to Market Landing Park—a success—and bonding against CPC funds is an excellent way to get funds for these types of public projects.

    Finally, this is not just a “passion project” for a “handful” of what Connie calls “politically well connected people”. In fact, the water quality of the Frog Pond has its own human health implications. Harmful algae blooms (HABs) occur at the Frog Pond. HABs release airborne neurotoxins, and it is not inconceivable that a fence will need to be put around the Frog Pond in the future if nothing is done. People that have both lived in Newburyport all their lives, as well as newcomers, identify this as an historical park worth maintaining. It has not been maintained properly for years and this water quality issue in the Frog Pond is the result. For real facts, go to the City’s website and read this FAQ on the project: https://www.cityofnewburyport.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif12211/f/uploads/bartlet_mall_funding_faq_6.5.2025_2.pdf

  6. Don Shea Avatar

    The Mall needs attention like every city park and more so due to being neglected for years – toxic water, broken fountain, weeds overtaking the gravel paths, crumbling sidewalk along Greenleaf St., goose droppings all over the pond perimeter, etc. Is this now considered acceptable because the City faces other needs? However, if the funds for the full project are not available, that’s not an excuse to do nothing. The items noted above can be fixed without a significant outlay. Cleaning the pond is an issue that can be debated separately, as there may be other alternatives, changes in scope, or other funding sources. And I find it very disappointing that the article never mentions that almost $2 million has been raised for this work.

  7. Marikje Shreeve Avatar
    Marikje Shreeve

    As a new homeowner on Washington St. The Bartlett Mall initially enchanted me with the beautiful fountain. Since then I have learned the fountain does not work. The water is filthy and slimy with algae and choked by human debris. Once a lovely pedestrian area is now choked by neglect. Something must be done in current state. The pond is a disgrace to residence and tourists. Let’s clean it up!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *