Because the Shaker Lakes Parklands are:

A historic public landscape, protected under federal preservation law, and held in trust for the public.

Irreversible actions taken before the legal review is complete could permanently damage a place that

cannot be replaced.

No emergency has been declared by ODNR the state regulator.

ODNR identified maintenance and compliance issues, but it did not declare an emergency, order evacuations, or say failure was imminent.

This is a situation that requires careful, lawful planning — not rushed decisions. The issue is not about stopping maintenance or safety work. It is about stopping irreversible work before lawful review is complete

Dam removal is one option, but it is not the only safe option.

Across the country, many similar dams are repaired, modernized, or adapted. Federal law requires that reasonable alternatives be evaluated before historic resources are permanently altered. That full comparison has not yet occurred here.

Yes.

The Shaker Lakes Parklands lie within the boundaries of federally listed historic districts on the National Register of

Historic Places. Federal law protects historic landscapes and parklands, not just buildings. That is why federal agencies

are already conducting Section 106 review.

That’s a common misunderstanding.

National Register status does not prohibit change, but it does require process: federal review, public input, and evaluation of alternatives before irreversible

actions are taken. These requirements are legally binding.

Because removal is not “free.” That framing is incomplete.

Decommissioning is also expensive and NEORSD already has ongoing responsibilities in the Shaker Lakes watershed related to stormwater management regardless of whether the lakes remain or are altered.

The real question is not payment versus nonpayment.

Even if a construction project is funded by NEORSD: The cities inherit long-term maintenance costs, eligibility for

historic and restoration funding may be lost, and a self-sustaining natural landscape is replaced with an engineered system

requiring perpetual care.

The real question is what kind of system is being maintained.

NEORSD is a regional wastewater and stormwater utility (they are not dam experts).

Its statutory mission focuses on: Stormwater conveyance, Water quality compliance, Flood management, Regulatory efficiency

NEORSD is not charged with: Historic landscape preservation, Cultural stewardship, Community well-being, Long-term place making.

As a result, NEORSD evaluates the Shaker Lakes primarily as infrastructure, not as a historic

Public, recreational, community or cultural landscape. This reflects mission alignment, not malice.

From a utility standpoint, natural lakes and dams are difficult to model, manage, and maintain over time. Dams also create long-term responsibilities and regulatory risk. Engineered channels are simpler to account for, fit more easily into modern stormwater systems, and make compliance easier to measure.

This approach is common among utilities nationwide, especially those operating under federal consent decrees. In NEORSD’s case, the existing Shaker Lakes do not count toward meeting EPA requirements under the stormwater models they are required to use. As a result, the lakes, as they exist today, have little value within the system that drives compliance decisions.

Removing the dams and replacing them with engineered infrastructure can generate measurable compliance credit, even if the construction itself is costly. From a regulatory and accounting perspective, that makes engineered solutions appear more attractive than preservation.

NEORSD is a powerful regional utility. From the cities’ perspective, dams are framed primarily as risks.

When a utility presents removal as the safest and most definitive solution, it can crowd out consideration of alternatives.

The cities are going along because they have deferred decision-making to the utility instead of

independently leading on stewardship, historic obligations, and long-term public value.

Dams are human-made, but the Shaker Lakes Parklands are not artificial placeholders — they are 170-year-old, fully

naturalized ecosystems. Over generations, the lakes have developed stable hydrology, mature soils, wetlands, trees, and wildlife that function as a living landscape.

What is proposed is not a return to an original natural state.

It is the removal of a mature lake ecosystem and its replacement with a newly engineered stream and park system, built with excavation, grading, massive tree removal, and ongoing maintenance. The real choice is not “artificial versus natural,” but whether to steward a historic, self-sustaining ecosystem or replace it with a constructed/engineered landscape that cannot replicate what is lost.

You can clear land and build a park anywhere.

You cannot rebuild a 170-year-old landscape. Lakes have proven value to communities.

The Shaker Lakes Parklands are living ecosystems shaped by water, soil, trees, wildlife, and generations of community

use. Once destroyed, that original place is gone forever.

No. This is about doing the project lawfully and responsibly.

Federal review helps ensure that decisions are durable, transparent, and in the public interest. Skipping steps creates legal

risk and often leads to costly reversals later.

Because the benefits extend far beyond recreation.

The lakes provide: natural stormwater buffering, cooler temperatures and better air quality, wildlife habitat and biodiversity, a free, nearby “third place,” and a unique regional identity. These benefits exist whether or not you visit every week.

No. It’s about stewardship.

The lakes were gifted to the public in trust by earlier generations. The current challenges exist because maintenance was

deferred — not because the lakes are obsolete. Stewardship means repairing and protecting what we inherited, not

discarding it without real consideration.

This situation is often described as a case of “misaligned incentives,” but that framing alone is incomplete.

What occurred reflects the interaction of three forces: utility incentives, municipal responsibility, and public narrative choices.

A. Structural Incentives (NEORSD) -NEORSD operates within a framework that rewards liability

reduction, regulatory simplification, and eligibility for infrastructure funding. Engineered channel

projects align more easily with those incentives than preservation of historic lake systems.

B. Affirmative Responsibilities of the Cities - the cities are not neutral bystanders. They have an

affirmative responsibility to:

• Represent community interests

• Exercise independent judgment

• Serve as a check on third-party agencies

• Ensure that public claims are accurate and not misleading

• Protect historic resources under federal and state law

C. Messaging Choices and Public Narrative -NEORSD did not merely present data. It chose a

narrative. The public narrative has relied heavily on terms like ‘restoration’ and ‘returning to nature.’

These terms carry strong positive connotations but do not accurately describe what is proposed. This

matters because clearing mature trees, regrading land, cutting channels, and installing engineered

controls is not a passive return to nature. It is a large-scale construction project that permanently alters the landscape.

It is about a system where a utility optimized for infrastructure compliance and funding alignment, and where

the cities did not fully exercise their duty to serve as an independent check, particularly when public messaging

blurred the line between construction and “restoration”.

If state regulators believed there was an immediate risk of failure or loss of life, emergency powers would have

been invoked. That has not happened.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the sole authority on dam safety in Ohio, has not declared an

emergency at the Shaker Lakes, has not ordered evacuations, and has not stated that failure is imminent. ODNR

identified maintenance and compliance issues, not emergency conditions.

NEORSD’s statements describe what could happen if a dam were ignored indefinitely. That is fundamentally

different from the finding that such a scenario is unavoidable or imminent. That distinction matters when

irreversible actions are being proposed.

This is not minimizing safety. Federal law exists for situations like this, where safety, historic resources, and

environmental values intersect. It requires risks to be evaluated, alternatives to be considered, and transparent

decisions before irreversible change occurs. That process was and is not complete.

ODNR’s actions were regulatory (compliance and hazard mitigation support), not emergency orders — and the

“emergency” rationale used publicly comes primarily from NEORSD’s risk framing and city council materials that

interpreted ODNR’s position in that context.

Destruction by neglect is a well-recognized concept in historic preservation. It occurs when a historic resource

is allowed to deteriorate over time through deferred maintenance, until its condition is then cited as justification

for demolition or irreversible alteration.

The 2023 Ohio Department of Natural Resources dam safety reports align closely with this pattern at the Shaker

Lakes.

1. Reliance on Emergency Narratives Is Unsupported by the Record

The parties’ asserted justification for immediate and irreversible action rests on claims of public-safety

emergency. The record does not support that narrative.

The ODNR reports identify maintenance and compliance deficiencies, not an emergency condition. ODNR did not declare imminent failure,

did not order evacuations, and did not invoke emergency powers. Instead, the reports document conditions that developed over time, including

structural deterioration and maintenance concerns that required attention and correction

This distinction is critical. ODNR’s findings describe a dam that required maintenance and compliance action, not a dam in immediate danger of catastrophic failure.

2. Upper Lake (Horseshoe): How Destruction by Neglect Played Out: At Upper Lake, routine maintenance needs accumulated over many years.

Those needs were not addressed in a timely or comprehensive way. The state of deterioration from 2018 is referenced in the 2023 ODNR report.

As a result, the dam’s condition deteriorated to the point where regulators required significant intervention.

Once the condition reached that stage, the narrative shifted from maintenance and rehabilitation to removal as the preferred solution.

The earlier failure to invest in routine stewardship then became the justification for irreversible change.

This is the textbook definition of destruction by neglect. The resource was not lost because it was inherently

unsafe or unmaintainable, but because deferred maintenance was allowed to compound until removal appeared inevitable.

3. Lower Lake: Why the Pattern Is Concerning: At Lower Lake, similar warning signs are now present.

Maintenance needs have been identified, but comprehensive long-term rehabilitation has not been prioritized.

As conditions worsen, there is a risk that deterioration itself will again be used to justify drastic intervention.

If the same pattern continues, Lower Lake could follow the same trajectory as Upper Lake:

Deferred maintenance leads to regulatory findings.

Regulatory findings are framed as safety crises.

Safety framing is then used to justify irreversible alteration.

This is precisely the cycle federal historic preservation law is meant to interrupt.

Bottom Line: The record supports the conclusion that what happened at Upper Lake fits the established pattern

of destruction by neglect, and that similar conditions appear to be developing at Lower Lake.

It reflects a governance failure where routine stewardship was deferred, conditions worsened, and deterioration

was later treated as justification for irreversible change. Recognizing this pattern is essential if Lower Lake is

to avoid the same outcome.

Three reasonable things:

1. Complete federal review before irreversible actions take place

2. A genuine evaluation of preservation and repair alternatives

3. Transparency and accountability for decisions involving public land

This is not obstruction — it’s responsible civic engagement.

• Stay informed and share accurate information

• Attend public meetings or submit comments

• Ask elected officials to respect the federal review process

• Support transparency and lawful decision-making

• Ask for a genuine evaluation and an independent party review of alternatives

Protecting the Shaker Lakes protects a legacy that belongs to all of us.