Draft WMAC Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2010

Attendees:  David Crosby – Chair, Ann Carney, David Hearne, Paul Lauenstein, Rory McGregor – Secretary, Len Sekuler – Vice-Chair, Bob Weeks

Guests:  Eric Hooper - Superintendent, DPW; Nancy Fyler – Neponset River Watershed Association staff member and Sharon town resident, Barbara Cook, Weston & Sampson, Blake Martin, Weston & Sampson, Leah Stanton, Weston & Sampson

1.  The minutes for the April 15 meeting were approved with minor modifications.

2.  Master Plan - Report on Chapter 7: Wastewater and Stormwater Recharge

Blake Martin presented a draft Chapter 7 of the new Master Plan, which addresses the possibilities for infiltrating stormwater runoff and wastewater back into the ground to recharge the town’s aquifers. He pointed out that water withdrawn from Sharon’s municipal wells is often transported into different sub-basins. That results in a net loss to the basins where the water is withdrawn, and a net gain in basins without any town wells.

Measures to help re-balance the water budgets of the sub-basins by capturing stormwater or transferring wastewater could lead to healthier local ecosystems and higher Water Management Act permit limits in the long run.

Blake Martin presented GIS maps showing the relative favorability of various areas to recharge water to the ground based on various hydrologic characteristics such as depth to water, soil permeability, and soil transmissivity. Other factors such as proximity to wetlands and NHESP priority wildlife habitat, and the location of private wells were also factored into the analysis, which was performed at the HUC-14* level.

One way to pay for infiltration structures would be to set up a stormwater utility. Several towns in Massachusetts already have stormwater utilities.

3. Prioritization of capital projects

The Master Plan has identified needed improvements to Sharons’s water supply infrastructure, including refurbishment of town wells, tank maintenance, and replacement of severely deficient water mains. Other needed capital projects include a new well, an emergency backup connection, and a filtration facility to remove iron and manganese from Well #6.

Leah Stanton reported that approximately $1.1 million per year is needed to keep up with the gradual deterioration of Sharon’s water supply infrastructure. Paul Lauenstein pointed out that the FY 2011 budget recently approved at Town Meeting totals less than half of that.

Blake Martin recommended that Sharon take a “go slow” approach to constructing a new well at Canton Street. He suggested securing the land and completing the pump test within the next year or two, but then holding off for several years on actually building the well while other priorities are addressed. He said the reason for delaying construction of the well is that it would re-open Sharon’s Water Management Act withdrawal permit, which could lead to its being reduced.

Barbara Cook suggested adding an iron/manganese filtration facility at Well #6 in the Taunton River watershed because of the fact that Well #6 is permitted to withdraw 350,000 gallons per day, considerably more water than is currently withdrawn due to iron and manganese.

Alternatively, Sharon could join MWRA for supplementary water, which would entail a membership fee, or as an emergency backup source, which would not. However, MWRA water has different chemistry from Sharon’s well water, and might cause discoloration of the water as deposits lining the walls of water mains are dislodged by the change in water chemistry.

Another possibility is a deep bedrock well.

Paul Lauenstein suggested that an aggressive water conservation and leak detection program would pay for itself by reducing energy and chemical treatment costs. In conjunction with an emergency backup connection to MWRA, it would be a much less expensive solution than a supply augmentation project, while still ensuring that the town would never be without water.

Eric Hooper said it is useful to classify potential capital projects into three categories: replacement of water mains, rejuvenation of existing wells, and new projects such as a new well a filtration plant for Well #6, or an emergency backup connection.

Len Sekuler presented a systematic approach to prioritizing capital projects. The first step is to identify significant capital projects, and prepare a three to four page business case to justify each one. The write-ups would provide an overview, a summary of the benefits, a description of service levels, and a clear answer to the question: What problem are we solving?

The second step is to prioritize the projects. Factors such as condition of the asset, risk of failure, consequences of failure, and desired service level contribute to an overall score for each project. A matrix is then generated showing risk versus consequences, and each project is plotted on the matrix to help decide which projects to do first.

Len Sekuler said that if this approach is taken, each WMAC member could research a possible capital project and write a business case.

4.  Next meeting will be May 27 at 7:30 at the Community Center to prioritize the projects in the Master Plan.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Lauenstein

*The term "HUC-14" is from the hydrologic unit code system developed by the United States Geological Service for delineating and identifying drainage areas. The system starts with the largest possible drainage areas, and progressively smaller subdivisions of the drainage area are delineated and numbered in a nested fashion. A drainage area with a hydrologic unit code (HUC) designation with 14 numbers, or HUC-14, is one of several sub watersheds of a larger watershed with 11 numbers, or a HUC-11.