Members: Interim Chairman Paul Lauenstein, Len Sekuler, David Hearne, David Crosby, and Jack Sulik
Others: DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper, Selectman Joe Roach, ESES Chairperson Mary Tobin
Late arrivals: WMAC Secretary Rory McGregor, Selectman Rich Powell, Town Administrator Ben Puritz
Interim Chairman Paul Lauenstein welcomed David Crosby and David Hearne as new members of the WMAC. New member David Ferestien was unable to attend.
Review and approval of the WMAC minutes for October 12 and November 16 was postponed until the next meeting, when it is hoped that all members who were present at those two meetings will be in attendance.
Eric Hooper presented his memo of December 15 covering a number of issues.
Eric Hooper commented that the Water Department reserve fund is down to $300,000.
Jack Sulik said that the $376,000 budgeted for system rehabilitation and improvements in 2008 seemed light, especially considering the costly iron/manganese filtration plant planned for Well #6.
Eric Hooper replied that once the Mansfield Street water main project is complete, he is planning to replace only water mains that will be paid for by developers. He added that the $376,000 for system rehabilitation and improvements consists of items such as consulting services, the Consumer Confidence Report, new source exploration, new water meters, and water conservation.
Eric Hooper recalled that Cliff Towner had asked about the scope of a groundwater study mentioned by Selectman Bill Heitin at a Selectman’s meeting last fall. Eric Hooper said a study of Sharon’s water resources should include both surface water and groundwater.
Eric Hooper said he felt that an academic institution rather than a consultant should conduct a study of Sharon’s water resources to allay any suspicions that a study by a paid consultant would be influenced by the Water Department, which chooses the vendor and pays the bill. He said the Water Department had been accused of “making the shoe fit” in connection with past consulting reports.
David Hearne pointed out that even an academic institution might be sensitive to the wishes of a patron of a study for which significant sums of money would be paid.
Eric Hooper said he intends to involve other town entities such as the Conservation Commission in underwriting the cost of the study so all stakeholders will accept the results.
Eric Hooper said he plans to call a special meeting in January to get input from various stakeholders regarding the scope of the study. He explained that he will be seeking questions from stakeholders to which the report should provide answers, such as, “Does groundwater pumping affect the lake?” He added that he visualizes the study being conducted over a period of several years.
Eric Hooper explained that nitrate monitoring is only required at Well #4, but the Water Department tests other wells too. He reported that nitrate levels at Well #4 and Well #3 declined slightly in December.
Paul Lauenstein asked about nitrate testing at Well #2, where the nitrate level recently exceeded 5 ppm, triggering a study by Woodard & Curran. Eric Hooper replied that no nitrate testing was conducted at Well #2 in December because Well #2 was shut down.
Eric Hooper presented a map of Sharon showing the locations of the 50 or so monitoring wells. Most of them are clustered near the Town’s six municipal wells. He said the groundwater level in each well is measured once a month. Groundwater records have been kept on a quarterly or monthly basis for the past eight years since December, 1998.
Eric Hooper also presented a map of Sharon’s aquifers resulting from the 1987 IEP study. Paul Lauenstein commented that it looked a lot like a USGS aquifer map. Eric hooper replied that the USGS map is based on data from the IEP study.
Eric Hooper said that many test wells have been drilled in Sharon in addition to those that are involved in the monthly monitoring program. He said records exist of the results of past well testing. Much of that data is included in the 1987 IEP report.
Eric Hooper presented a map delineating Sharon’s sub-basins. He explained that each well has three zones. Zone I consists of a circle with a 400 foot radius with the well in the center (250 feet in the case of a well field). Zone II is the capture zone of a well running at the approved pumping rate, assuming a six month drought. Zone III is the watershed upgradient from Zone II. Eric Hooper offered to provide WMAC members with GIS maps upon request.
Eric Hooper said the groundwater monitoring over the past eight years indicates that the water table has risen by about 13”, based on comparing average depth to water of the monitoring wells on 12/28/98 with the latest set of monitoring data.
Paul Lauenstein questioned that assertion, saying that the average depth to water can vary seasonally by over two feet. He said that comparing the difference in the depth to water for different dates would lead to different conclusions depending on which dates are compared.
Eric Hooper said it is important to compare data from different years in the same month to eliminate seasonal effects.
Paul Lauenstein asked what starting date and ending date Eric Hooper used in arriving at his conclusion that the water table had risen by 13”
Eric Hooper replied that the starting date was 12/28/98 and the ending date was 12/1/06.
Paul Lauenstein pointed out that a difference of a month can be significant, since groundwater levels in Sharon are responsive to weather events. He added that the two months prior to 12/28/98 were the driest two months in at least 18 years.
Jack Sulik argued that there is no discernable trend in the data, and said that is an indication that Sharon’s pumping is in equilibrium with rainfall. He added that 25 years of data are needed to draw scientifically valid conclusions about groundwater dynamics.
David Hearne asked if other towns have monitored groundwater levels for longer than Sharon. Eric Hooper replied that Norfolk has a longer period of record, but the data is not robust.
Eric Hooper reported that the master meters on the wells are being calibrated, as they are every December. He reported that the new Mag meter on Well #5 was out of calibration, under-reading by about 10% for five months since it was installed in July. Well #7 was found to be recording properly. The master meters at the other four wells will all be calibrated by the end of December.
Eric Hooper presented 12 graphs showing pumping for each month of the year going back 12 years to 1995. Except for December, the data for which are not yet available, every month except January showed lower pumping in 2006 than in the corresponding month going back at least six years, despite population being at an all-time high.
Paul Lauenstein pointed out that raw meter data for January of 2005 indicates that 39.80 million gallons were pumped, whereas the corrected pumping for January of 2005 reported to DEP on Sharon’s Annual Statistical Report was only 37.99 million gallons, a difference of about 1.8 million gallons, or 4.5%. Paul Lauenstein asked how there could be such a big discrepancy in January, only one month after the meters were calibrated. Eric Hooper replied that he did not know.
Eric Hooper commented that lawn irrigation restrictions have become progressively stricter over the past few years, declining from 4 hours to 3 hours to 2 hours. He said restrictions on lawn irrigation have significantly reduced demand for water in summer.
Eric Hooper reported that the well site evaluation at the Islamic Center was abandoned upon discovery that there is only one foot of Freetown muck at that location. He said the thin layer of muck is not sufficient to prevent well pumping from influencing surface water in the nearby wetland.
Eric Hooper reported that the NSTAR site has a similar problem of well pumping potentially having an adverse impact on nearby wetlands. He said that site control issues related to nearby human habitation could be overcome by installing a shallow well field, which only requires a Zone I of 250’ radius. He added that DEP is phasing in stricter Zone I regulations over the next three years.
Eric Hooper said well fields are limited to a 22 foot drawdown, which is an artifact of the physical limit of a suction pump. Suction pumps are no longer used since they risk drawing in contaminated surface water if holes develop in the well shaft. Instead, immersion pumps are installed at the bottom of the well to push the water to the surface under pressure, so any leak hole in the well shaft would result in water being pushed out rather than being sucked in.
The 22 foot drawdown is measured from the static water table rather than the surface of the land. An allowance is made in cases where the water table is under the influence of the cone of depression of a nearby well, such as the irrigation wells at Sharon Memorial Park.
Mary Tobin, Chairperson of the Environmental Study and Education Subcommittee (ESES) of the Conservation Commission, requested copies of the monthly data provided to the WMAC for herself and other members of ESES. Eric Hooper provided her with the copies she requested.
Mary Tobin also requested an electronic copy of the monitoring well data.
Paul Lauenstein suggested that the Water Department simply upload the monthly data to the web to make it convenient for anyone with an interest in analyzing it. He added that this would save the expense of copying and delivering hard copies to the WMAC and the ESES.
Jack Sulik said he prefers to receive hard copies.
Eric Hooper responded that he would email the monitoring data to Mary Tobin, but he expressed reservations about making the data available on the internet. He said he was concerned about the possibility that people without expertise in statistical analysis might look at the data in inappropriately simplistic ways and draw faulty conclusions.
Mary Tobin said she has a Master’s Degree in environmental science and has a considerable amount of professional experience analyzing hydrologic data. She said Eric Hooper’s conclusion that groundwater levels in Sharon are increasing based on average depth to groundwater on just two dates is itself simplistic. She said water tables fluctuate seasonally as a result of a number of factors such as well pumping, rainfall, plant growth rate, evaporation rate, ground freezing, etc, all of which must be taken into account for a proper analysis.
Eric Hooper asked Mary Tobin what her purpose was in requesting the data. Mary Tobin replied that the mission of ESES is to gather and analyze information that will be useful to the Conservation Commission in making policy decisions, as well as to community groups such as the Sharon Friends of Conservation and the Sharon Garden Club for educational purposes. She said she initially wants to gain a better understanding of the interrelationships among the various factors that affect groundwater reserves in Sharon. Once she has had a chance to work with the data, other questions may come to mind, which is why she said she needs unfettered access to the data as it becomes available. She added that ESES is taking a global approach to the entire ecosystem in Sharon, and considering many factors. Reviewing the historical data is an important first step.
David Hearne said the information is public and should be made available to anyone who requests it without having to justify his or her reasons for wanting it.
Joe Roach asked who are the members of the newly formed committee. Mary Tobin said that, in addition to herself as Chair, there are five other members: Richard Mandell, Michael Birschbach, David Grasfield, Chuck Goodman, and Cliff Towner.
Eric Hooper reported that he compared three academic programs, Tufts, UMass and MIT, as candidates for providing the town with a comprehensive evaluation of its water resources. He said he is leaning towards the Tufts program, headed by Rich Vogel. Eric Hooper said graduate students would also be involved who have experience evaluating the Ipswich and Upper Charles River watersheds. Len Sekuler added that Tufts has also worked with the Mystic River watershed.
Eric Hooper said that water resource evaluations are normally conducted on watersheds rather than individual towns, but Sharon’s special circumstances (high elevation, residential character, and lack of sewers) make a town-wide analysis feasible.
David Hearne expressed concern about the objectivity of a study conducted under the supervision of, and compensated by, the Water Department. Eric Hooper replied that a consortium of stakeholders including ESES and the Conservation Commission should fund the study in order to avoid any question of bias.
David Hearne asked if either ESES or the Conservation Commission has any money for this purpose. Mary Tobin replied that ESES has no money, but speculated that a grant might be available. Mary Tobin pointed out that Conservation Administrator Greg Meister would be hard pressed to provide supervisory input given his heavy workload. She added that although she herself thought the study sounded like a good idea, she could not speak for other members of ESES.
Jack Sulik said that without buy-in from other stakeholders in the community, the credibility of the resulting report would be undermined.
Len Sekuler said that he believes that participation in defining the scope of the study by all stakeholders would go a long way to ensuring their acceptance of the results.
Eric Hooper said that an affluent community such as Sharon with enough money for purchasing conservation land and CPA funds for community preservation ought to be able to come up with funds to supplement the DPW contribution toward paying for the study.
David Hearne responded that the DPW is paid for with funds from the community. He said that the burden of justifying the cost of the study to the citizens, who are already saddled with high property taxes, rests with the Water Department.
Eric Hooper replied that the only obligation of the Water Department is to provide the community with an adequate supply of clean, safe drinking water. He said that the Water Department would be willing to fund the first year of the study on the condition that other stakeholders agree to pick up at least part of the cost of the study in subsequent years. He added that he expected the study would take several years to get a good understanding of the town’s hydrology.
Eric Hooper reported that $56,000 has been expended on 280 washing machine rebates since the inception of the program. He added that only one rebate of $150 has been awarded for high efficiency toilets (HETs).
Eric Hooper reported that the proposed 156-unit Avalon Bay development has applied for a waiver of the Inter-Basin Transfer Act in order to send its wastewater from Sharon to Boston Harbor via Norwood’s sewers and MWRA’s Deer Island treatment plant. He said the Town of Sharon would comment favorably on the application.
Eric Hooper reported that the ZBA hearing of the 104-unit Pine Woods 40b development would close soon, and the ZBA’s decision would probably be appealed to the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC). He said the aging 6” cast iron water main along Norwood Street is tuberculated, which restricts flow, and would have to be replaced to accommodate the additional flow to the development.
Eric Hooper emphasized the importance of having sufficient water for fire fighting during and after construction of the Pine Woods development. He reported that Avalon Bay has agreed to pay for a new 12” water main along Route 27 from Maskwonicut Street to the Avalon Bay site. The Selectmen waived all but $4,000 of the $624,000 hookup fee in exchange for Avalon Bay installing the water main because Avalon Bay’s labor rate is significantly lower than the town’s labor rate. This new water main would also provide water for the Pine Woods development, so timing of the installation of the new water main is of concern.
Eric Hooper said that Pine Woods will pay a hookup fee of $4,000 per housing unit ($416,000 for 104 units).
Eric Hooper said he is moving forward with evaluation of locations for an emergency connection to MWRA. He said he is looking at three locations along Bay Road, plus the possibility of an emergency connection via the proposed Brickstone development. He said the intersection of Chemung Street and Bay Road is the most likely candidate. Eric Hooper said the rules for obtaining MWRA water are different from those governing the use of MWRA sewers. He added that MWRA’s new membership fee policy imposes a surcharge for summer use only.
Jack Sulik commented that individual developments such as Avalon Bay or Brickstone cannot use MWRA water unless the Town of Sharon joins the MWRA system.
For the benefit of new members, Paul Lauenstein explained that MWRA’s OP-5 policy covers hookups to the MWRA system for emergency backup, while MWRA’s OP-10 policy covers hookups for routine importation of supplementary water. There is a substantial MWRA membership fee for OP-10 hookups, whereas OP-5 hookups are free, except for the cost of purchasing and installing the requisite pipes, valves, meters, and pumps.
Eric Hooper said that gaining admission to the MWRA system is not simply a matter of paying the membership fee. MWRA, as steward of a significant portion of Massachusetts’ water resources, is concerned about aggregate demand on their system, and impacts of withdrawals on the environment of central Massachusetts. Loss of local water sources due to contamination can justify acceptance into the MWRA system, but thorough investigation of alternative local well sites is a prerequisite. MWRA weighs the environmental impacts of local groundwater withdrawals against those of withdrawing water from central Massachusetts.
Joe Roach acknowledged the membership transitions on the WMAC. He said he hoped the reconstituted committee would make a recommendation on revised water rates soon. He also said it would be a good idea for the Selectmen and the WMAC to meet jointly several times a year.
Jack Sulik suggested that Eric Hooper, as DPW Superintendent, should recommend a new rate structure to the Selectmen. The WMAC should review Eric Hooper’s recommendation and provide its own recommendation to the Selectmen, who will then set the new rates.
Eric Hooper pointed out that Sharon’s water rates were last reviewed five years ago. He said they should be reviewed every two years. He added that the Water Department’s reserve funds had dwindled from a high of about $2,000,000 down to only $300,000 over the past few years. Higher water rates are needed to pay rising operating costs, and support infrastructure maintenance and improvements.
Eric Hooper said installation of the new radio meter reading system will be complete in two to three years, at which time it would make sense to review the water rates again in conjunction with switching to quarterly billing.
Eric Hooper said that reaching consensus on a rate proposal would help convince the community that the proposed rates are fair and necessary.
David Hearne said the rates should be driven by the necessary costs of supplying water.
Jack Sulik explained that the Water Department is not a true enterprise system insofar as the town owns all of the Water Department’s assets. However, the Water Department raises its own revenues through the water bills, pays its own expenses, and keeps separate accounts.
Paul Lauenstein said that various factors such as inflation, rising energy costs for well pumping, and reduced water use, as well as necessary infrastructure improvements, have led to a need for higher water rates at this time.
Eric Hooper said that the rates should not be raised too fast. He added that necessary capital improvements are legitimate reasons to increase water rates, but he does not intend to include the cost of deferrable projects such as the proposed High Pressure Service District.
Jack Sulik said the $30 minimum charge does not cover the full cost of maintaining an account. He said that account-related costs such as billing, providing and maintaining a water meter, and dealing with account-related issues and transitions cost at least $45 per billing period. He said that the Water Department is a business, not a social agency, and charging the true cost of maintaining an account by means of the minimum charge is a matter of fairness to other customers. However, he suggested that allowing people unable to pay their water bills to apply for relief in the same way that they can apply for relief from their trash collection bills could be a way to deal with those unable to meet their financial obligations.
David Hearne suggested that water bills be adjusted for the number of occupants of each residence. He pointed out that it is not fair for a house with many occupants to be subject to the same block rates as a house with few occupants in terms of per capita water usage.
Paul Lauenstein responded that the difficulty of monitoring the number of occupants of each household makes it impractical to factor in per capita water use in assessing water bills. He added that there should never be a financial incentive for citizens to try to deceive the census taker.
Jack Sulik said almost no one attempts to save money by saving water because it is so inexpensive. People just use what they want and pay the bill. He argued that charging heavy users higher rates is confiscatory and does not accomplish the objective of conserving water.
Rory McGregor commented that his own water bill is not high enough to motivate him to save water. He doubted that raising water rates by 10% or so would have any significant effect on water use in Sharon. He asked how much additional revenue would be necessary to keep pace with rising costs of supplying water.
Eric Hooper estimated that the Water Department needs an additional $400,000 per year in revenues. He added that it costs about $2.1 million annually to cover operating costs and infrastructure improvements.
Public Service Announcement
Paul Lauenstein offered to prepare a public service announcement through Sharon cable TV thanking the community for conserving water in 2006. He read a prepared script for the public service announcement. The consensus of the committee was to go ahead.
Water Bill Inserts
HETs for Simpson
Paul Lauenstein reported that he had approached the Simpson Company to see if they would consider using High Efficiency Toilets (HETs) that use no more than 1.28 gallons per flush instead of standard 1.6 gallon-per-flush low flow toilets. He said the Simpson people were very receptive to the idea. He said that using HETs at the 180-unit Simpson development could save about 500,000 gallons per year, and set an example for other developments as well as for residents living in older homes wanting to update inefficient old toilets.
January 18, 2007 at Town Hall (upstairs), 7:30 p.m.