Cisterns: Before the Aqueduct
By Jennie Shurtleff
About 150 years ago, in July of 1874, one of the hot topics being debated at Woodstock’s village meetings and in its newspapers was water… or more specifically, the cisterns into which water could be placed.
Woodstock had lost a number of its buildings to fire over the previous decades, and consequently a committee had been appointed to review the village’s water supply and how it could be used to put out fires. At a village meeting in 1874, the committee was “called at the instance” and asked for their suggestions. Mark E. Slayton reported that the committee was in favor of building three large wooden cisterns - devices designed to collect fresh rain water. The polemical part of whether to build the cisterns was determining who should pay for them.
Each cistern would cost approximately $150 to build, and each would hold about 150 barrels of water. The committee proposed that the first cistern would be placed near the court house, and it would be filled with water collected from the courthouse roof. The second was to be placed near W. C. French’s residence (23 Mountain Avenue) and filled with “the waste water from Solomon Woodward’s supply.” The third was to be placed by the brick church (present-day Masonic Temple) and filled with either water from the roof or from a nearby spring.
Above: 1859 print of Woodstock Village. The red arrows show the general locations of the three cisterns that were originally proposed.
Those on the village committee appear to have been ready to take a vote, then and there, and settle the matter. However, a few residents who were in attendance, stepped forward and asked that it be considered more closely. Col. T. O. Seaver, the famed Civil War veteran, suggested that since the idea was a new one, that the vote should be postponed until people were better informed about the cisterns. The proponents who were eager to push the vote through countered that the matter had been under discussion for several years.
Dr. Thomas Powers, who the newspaper states “opposed the cisterns with his usual vigor but without his usual wisdom,” noted that he was opposed to the cisterns because the plan reeked of “sectionalism” – where a group of people living in the immediate area of the cisterns would benefit, but all the taxpayers would have to pay. He tried to have the meeting adjourned, before a vote could be taken, but he was unsuccessful, and instead a resolution was adopted in which, not three, but five cisterns would be built that would include one near the Congregational Church (on Elm Street) and one near the Methodist or Episcopal Church.
Dr. Thomas E. Powers
1859 Print of Woodstock. The red arrows show the 3 original proposed sites for the cisterns. The green arrows show the additional proposed sites: one at the Congregational Church on Elm Street and one at either the Methodist or Episcopal Church.
With that the meeting was adjourned. Those at the meeting likely thought that the issue was settled, but they had underestimated Dr. Powers’ doggedness. Although the news article that appears a few days later in the Spirit of the Age does not bear Thomas Powers’ name, clearly the sentiments are those for which Dr. Powers advocated. This article reads, “After looking over the situation we are opposed to the building of cisterns by the village. We go for the good of the greatest number. The cisterns as proposed, only benefit a few at he expense of the many. Even the proposed benefit to the few is questionable. If the village is going into this cistern business, every man should have one in his front yard… We shall vote to rescind the action of the former meeting, at a meeting warned for Monday evening the 14 inst.”
The Woodstock Post in a subsequent news listing writes “The enemy has got up a petition for another village meeting, seeking to countermand the building of the cisterns, and a meeting is warned to be held Tuesday evening, the 14th. The thing is getting ‘sectional.’” The paper goes on to assert that the resolution will likely be undermined if people don’t unite to fight Dr. Powers and the group that he represented who felt that everyone’s taxes should not be raised so that a few could benefit.
At the meeting on July 14, the issue was resolved. After both sides had shared their views, a vote was taken. Those opposed to raising taxes to build the cisterns were in the majority by ten votes, and the resolution to build the five cisterns was rescinded.
It should be noted that Doctor Powers, who was the most vocal opponent, owned several properties near the Episcopal Church and one across the street from the Methodist Church. When the resolution was expanded to include five cisterns, one of the five cisterns was slated to go near his properties, and the resolution that he was so heartily opposed to on the grounds of “sectionalism” would have benefitted him. In short, it appears the Powers was actually putting his ideals ahead of his personal interests.
Detail from 1869 Beers Woodstock Village Map with arrows added. Arrows indicate 3 properties owned by Thomas E. Powers that were located in the general area of one of the proposed cisterns which would have been located at the Episcopal Church (at the head of Park Street) or the Methodist Church (across Park Street from one of Thomas Powers’ homes).
Ultimately, the need for satellite cisterns was largely eliminated when the Woodstock Aqueduct was completed as it brought water to diverse locations within the Village, thus enhancing the town’s fire protection. Interestingly, one of the same arguments that was raised when contemplating the building of the cisterns was more recently raised in 2024 through Woodstock’s List Serve discussions – should all be required to pay for a resource that does not benefit everyone equally? In 1874 it appears the answer was “no.” A hundred and fifty years later, in 2024, the answer appears to be “yes,” reflecting a change in values and perception of what services should be provided as basic infrastructure in a village.