Cheshire’s Fire Hydrant Wake-Up Call: A Necessary Fix or Another Delay in the Making?
- Richard {Reggie} Smith
- Jul 13
- 4 min read
Editorial Commentary — Cheshire Ct Phoenix News
By Richard “Reggie” Smith
At a recent Cheshire Personnel Committee meeting, there was finally movement on an issue that has quietly been building for decades: the condition of the town’s fire hydrant system.
The committee unanimously approved forwarding a new Fire Hydrant Maintainer position to the Town Council for final approval. The position represents an important acknowledgment that Cheshire’s hydrant maintenance program needs dedicated attention—not occasional repairs when problems arise.
The question now is not whether action is needed. Everyone appears to agree on that.
The question is whether the proposed approach goes far enough.
A Problem Finally Being Addressed
The meeting confirmed several important points:
Cheshire has approximately 1,240 fire hydrants.
Many hydrants have gone decades without comprehensive maintenance.
A pilot inspection found approximately 15% of tested hydrants required immediate attention.
Some hydrants have become so difficult to operate that firefighters carry specialized impact tools to force open stuck caps.
Chief Jack Casner acknowledged that the first year of work may be slow because many hydrants require extensive scraping, wire brushing, lubrication, and repair before they can even enter a normal maintenance cycle.
The town’s response is to hire a dedicated hydrant maintainer classified as a TH8 union position.
The employee will not only work on hydrants but also assist the Fire Marshal’s Office with inspections, transportation, and other duties when weather prevents outside maintenance work.
The position is a positive step.
But it also reveals the depth of the problem.
The Danger of Accepting “Good Enough”
During the meeting, Chief Casner explained that the first year may only allow the employee to service three to five hydrants per day because of the condition of the system.
That statement should concern every resident.
If the system is so neglected that a trained employee can only address a handful of hydrants daily, then Cheshire is not dealing with routine maintenance—it is dealing with a backlog created by years of deferred responsibility.
The proposed plan creates a difficult question:
What happens to the hydrants that are not yet serviced?
If one quadrant receives attention while another waits years, are all residents receiving the same level of fire protection?
A fire does not recognize a maintenance schedule.
A family whose home is threatened by fire does not receive extra time because their neighborhood was scheduled for Year Three or Year Four.
Waterbury Offers a Warning
Recent events in Waterbury demonstrate why communities cannot assume that aging hydrant systems will perform when needed.
During a Bennett Avenue house fire, firefighters encountered hydrants that did not provide adequate water flow, delaying firefighting efforts. Officials launched investigations into hydrant testing, maintenance practices, and whether existing procedures were sufficient.
Waterbury’s experience serves as a reminder that a fire department can have highly trained firefighters, modern equipment, and excellent response times—but still be limited by the most basic piece of infrastructure: a reliable water supply.
The lesson is clear:
A hydrant that has not been properly inspected, flushed, flow tested, and maintained is not a safety device. It is a question mark.
Waterbury’s current hydrant flushing program highlights the importance of routine inspection and maintenance as part of fire protection readiness.
Liability: Knowing There Is a Problem Changes the Conversation
One of the most important issues raised by this discussion is liability.
A municipality can argue that unexpected failures happen.
But when officials know there is a widespread infrastructure problem and choose a maintenance schedule below recognized industry recommendations, the legal conversation becomes more complicated.
The issue is not whether the town intended harm.
The issue is whether the town took reasonable steps after becoming aware of a known danger.
Private contractors operating in this field generally must follow accepted standards to maintain insurance coverage and protect themselves from negligence claims. A contractor who knowingly performs below required standards may expose itself to significant liability.
The same principle applies to public infrastructure.
Fire hydrants are not decorative objects. They are part of the emergency protection system paid for by taxpayers.
A Positive Step—But the Standard Must Be the Goal
The creation of a hydrant maintainer position is a positive development. It creates accountability, provides dedicated expertise, and moves Cheshire away from a purely reactive model.
But the goal cannot simply be:
“Touch every hydrant eventually.”
The goal must be:
“Maintain every hydrant so it works when firefighters need it.”
The town should continue evaluating:
Whether the staffing level is sufficient to eliminate the backlog quickly.
Whether additional contractors should be used to accelerate compliance.
Whether flow testing and performance data should become part of a formal maintenance database.
Whether privately owned hydrants are being properly monitored.
Whether Cheshire’s maintenance schedule matches accepted fire protection standards.
The Cost of Prevention vs. The Cost of Failure
Every municipality faces budget pressure.
Every town must make difficult choices.
But public safety infrastructure is not like postponing a sidewalk project or delaying cosmetic improvements.
A failed hydrant during a major fire cannot be repaired after the fact.
The cost has already been paid—in lost homes, damaged property, firefighter exposure, and potentially human lives.
Cheshire has taken the first step by admitting the problem exists.
The next step is ensuring that the solution is not simply a smaller response to a larger problem.
Because when it comes to fire protection, “almost ready” is not ready.
Cheshire Ct Phoenix News Editorial Position: the creation of a dedicated hydrant maintainer is a welcome investment. However, Cheshire should measure success not by completing a maintenance cycle, but by achieving a fire protection system residents can trust every day—before a tragedy forces the question.
Comments