Great Barrington — Back on July 27, a garage fire broke out at 69 Division Street. According to a press release issued by the town’s fire department, a nearby hydrant was determined not to be a viable water source. Water unit tankers from the town, along with tankers from Egremont, Monterey, and Sheffield, were used to fight the fire.
Weeks after the fire, residents at an August 7 Selectboard meeting said that they were concerned with fire hydrants on the Housatonic Water Works system and that they may not have enough water pressure to fight a fire.
At HWW’s informational meeting on Wednesday, August 23, company officials denied all responsibility for the lack of water pressure in the hydrant near 69 Division Street. During the meeting, which was held virtually online, company treasurer and co-owner James Mercer presented to the audience a letter he sent to Town Manager Mark Pruhenski regarding the hydrant in question. “[HWW] is committed to the maintenance of a sound water infrastructure for our community,” Mercer wrote in the letter. “We inspected the hydrant [on August 2] and did not observe any malfunctions of the hydrant itself. However, it is a ‘service hydrant’ that is used for system maintenance such as flushing. It is not intended for firefighting. The hydrant located nearby on North Plain Road at the intersection with Division Street provides fire flow.”
Mercer went on to write that additional service hydrants are located on Prospect and High Streets. “We also have blow-offs throughout town,” Mercer wrote. “Great Barrington is not charged for service hydrants or blow-offs. We are in the process of identifying pressures and flow rates for hydrants throughout the system and plan to install ring labels on them to identify use and flow range so that an incident like this does not occur again.”
Mercer wrote that previous Great Barrington Fire Chief Harry Jennings was familiar with service hydrants and hydrant flows throughout the system. However, Jennings retired from the fire department back in 2012. “We would be glad to meet with interim Chief [James Mead] and the incoming chief [Scott Turner] to share our institutional knowledge and address any questions or concerns going forward,” Mercer wrote. “Our long-term plans to improve water pressures and hydrant flows in the core village area include the installation of an elevated storage tank on High Street and distribution main upgrades based upon [the company’s] 2022 hydraulic study.”
Mercer explained at the August 23 meeting that the company will be installing identification rings on the hydrants which will indicate which ones are service hydrants. “There are service hydrants on High and Prospect Streets as well that were never intended for fire protection,” Mercer said. “They are there just for water flushing or other situations.”
“[This was] misreporting about the hydrant,” company attorney William Martin said, criticizing the local media’s reporting on the incident. Martin is an attorney with Barton Law LLP in Pittsfield. He went on to criticize the town’s fire department. “I do think that there’s an opportunity for a lesson to be learned here in terms of communication and training,” Martin said. “Maybe Jim can address it, but, obviously, this is a situation that no one is happy about. Certainly, the company can’t be responsible if the fire department doesn’t use the correct hydrant.”
“There’s a lot of institutional knowledge that has been lost over the years,” Mercer added. “Years ago, we had certain families that were firefighters, and everyone kind of knew where everything was and how everything operated. But now there are a lot of new members [in the department]. I think it’s appropriate that we meet and go over our system so they are aware of it.”
The company’s comments were not satisfactory to resident Michelle Loubert, who sharply criticized Mercer and Martin. “The fire hydrant in question is in front of my house, and I’ve recently referred to the hydrant in question as ‘Barbie’s Dreamhouse fire hydrant’ at public meetings,” Loubert said. “I was born and raised here, and my parents have always lived here; we all always thought that this was a fire hydrant. To say that people familiar with the area [would know it was a service hydrant] is ridiculous. I do have a video of the fire department accessing the fire hydrant. Some of those firefighters have been around as long as you and I have. I think it’s shocking and appalling to hear ‘Oh, it’s not a real fire hydrant.’ Didn’t the town pay for those fire hydrants?”
“Thanks for that, but I would like to move on,” Martin said in response. “The issue is clear. It is not a fire hydrant. To the extent that this was unknown by the fire department, that’s not the company’s responsibility at this point.”
“But I think it’s shameful that you blame the Fire Department,” Loubert said in response.
“It’s not a matter of blame, it’s a matter of just not being aware,” Martin said. “It’s not a fire hydrant. It never has fire suppression [water] pressure. It’s just a fact.”
“Long term, our goal is to connect Division Street with Route 183 [water lines],” Mercer added.
Loubert was eventually muted at the meeting before she was allowed to make any further points.
The majority of the meeting was dedicated to a presentation by the company concerning its proposed 112.7 percent overall revenue increase, which is scheduled to go in front of the state’s Department of Public Utilities in September.
An article on the rest of the meeting will be published next week in The Berkshire Edge.
