Brookfield loses a fire tanker on I-89—and a vital way to bring water to fires

How does a fire department that has to haul its own water replace a tanker lost while protecting another emergency scene?

That is the problem facing Brookfield, Vermont, after a Toyota Prius struck the rear of its parked Tanker 1 on northbound Interstate 89 on October 27. The car’s driver suffered serious injuries and was flown for emergency treatment. The tanker was totaled, leaving the department seeking a temporary loan while it works toward a permanent replacement. ^{1 2 6}

The truck had been closing the right travel lane, with its emergency lights activated, while firefighters and rescue personnel worked at an earlier crash. The driver’s fiancé has questioned whether motorists received enough warning of the lane closure. Police have not established why the car struck the tanker or whether the warning arrangement was inadequate. ^{1 2}

The consequences extend beyond the highway. Brookfield depends on transporting firefighting water rather than drawing from a city water supply. Losing the tanker therefore creates an equipment problem with direct implications for future fire calls—not simply a damaged vehicle to remove from the road. ⁶

Vermont State Police recorded the initial response at approximately 12:38 p.m. on October 27. That time belongs to the response to the first crash, not a separately established time for the tanker collision. Police, Brookfield firefighters and White River Valley Ambulance were responding, and traffic had been restricted to one lane when the second crash occurred. ²

The first collision involved a passenger car and a box truck, according to a Brookfield Fire Department statement reproduced by Firefighter Close Calls. The department said a sedan then struck Tanker 1 from behind at a high rate of speed, rupturing the water tank and becoming lodged underneath the rear of the apparatus. No measured speed has been established. ⁵

Crews shifted from working the original crash to rescuing the trapped driver. They extricated the driver and requested DART helicopter medical transport. The White River Valley Herald reported that the driver was flown for emergency treatment; police identified the receiving hospital as Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. ^{5 1 2}

The driver was a 28-year-old Burlington resident in a 2024 Toyota Prius. Police withheld the driver’s name, recorded that a seat belt was worn and listed the car as a total loss. Firefighters described the driver as conscious and coherent when leaving the scene. That observation is not a recovery update: police classified the injuries as serious, and no subsequent medical condition has been established as of October 29. ^{2 5}

Two dogs were also in the Prius. One suffered serious injuries, and both were taken to Country Animal Hospital. Their later conditions have not been established. ²

The tanker was a 2012 Freightliner M2 operated by a 52-year-old Brookfield resident, whose name police also withheld. The operator was wearing a seat belt and reported no injuries. Chief Robert Coniff told WPTZ that the operator saw the car approaching in a mirror and braced for impact. ^{2 6}

No Brookfield firefighters or other responders were reported injured. East Randolph Fire, Randolph Center Fire, Randolph Village Fire and Randolph Police helped with scene security and highway closures, supporting crews whose own protective truck had become part of the emergency. ⁵

Coniff’s account of Brookfield’s water supply explains why the department is looking for a bridge to a replacement, rather than simply waiting for a new vehicle. ⁶

In WPTZ’s October 28 report, the department was exploring whether it could borrow a tanker from neighboring Williamstown. Approval there was still needed; a loan had not been confirmed. Brookfield was also waiting to hear from its insurance company. Obtaining a new tanker could take about a year, the report said—a possible wait, not a promised delivery date. ⁶

Those distinctions matter. The loss of Tanker 1 is established; a year without tanker coverage is not. There is no confirmed loan arrangement, insurance settlement or replacement price in the available reporting. The immediate operational question is whether Brookfield can secure another truck while the permanent solution takes shape. ⁶

The driver’s fiancé told The White River Valley Herald that motorists did not receive enough warning of the closed lane and that more warning could have prevented the collision. That is an allegation about the scene’s safety arrangements, not an investigative finding. ¹

Police established that the tanker’s emergency lights were activated. But flashing lights alone do not settle whether the overall lane-closure arrangement gave approaching drivers adequate warning. Equally, the fiancé’s concern does not establish that it failed. The available evidence does not establish the placement or visibility of advance warnings, the driver’s actual speed or the reason the car did not avoid the truck. Police recorded clear weather and a dry road, conditions that do not by themselves explain the collision. ^{1 2}

Even the precise highway location remains unresolved. The Vermont State Police release dated October 28 lists northbound mile marker 37.2. The fire department statement reproduced by Firefighter Close Calls that day places its traffic-control and lane-protection operation at mile marker 38.6 northbound. Both identify the Brookfield incident, but the difference has not been reconciled; neither marker should be treated as settled. ^{2 5}

As of October 29, the latest established police status remained the October 28 release: the crash was under investigation. Trooper Abigail Sikora of the Berlin Barracks is the reporting trooper on case 26A3009000. The release lists a civil violation complaint and court action as pending, but identifies no specific issued charge, court date or final finding of fault. Brookfield’s equipment search can move ahead while that work continues. Explaining how a marked emergency vehicle was struck still requires answers the investigation has not supplied. ²