The discussion on the aging water infrastructure of the Lunenburg Water District highlighted concerns over the reliability and performance of the existing piping system. Historical context revealed that the main trunk of the water system was installed in 1939, far exceeding its typical life expectancy of 50 years, with many pipes in place for 80 to 90 years. The composition of these pipes, identified as transite, a type of cement pipe, raised concerns about future maintenance and replacement needs.

Participants emphasized the necessity of a master plan for replacing these pipes, though the lack of funding has historically hindered proactive replacements. The master plan, completed approximately 10 to 15 years ago, identified critical areas requiring replacement, but funding limitations have necessitated a reactive approach, addressing problems as they arise. One participant noted, “if we don’t have the funding, we can’t do this,” highlighting the prioritization of immediate issues over long-term infrastructure improvements. Challenges in obtaining state funding for necessary upgrades were also discussed, as funding sources have shifted focus towards addressing more critical needs due to changing regulations.

Specific projects, such as the replacement of a 6-inch main at B Street with a 12-inch pipe and the Lancaster pipe, were identified as priorities due to frequent breaks. The conversation underscored the difficulties in executing these projects, especially due to staffing challenges and the need for in-house capabilities versus external contracts that can inflate costs due to engineering and prevailing wage requirements. It was mentioned that “the cost just to engineer a white street” exceeded the cost to complete the project, leading to a preference for in-house operations when feasible.

The financial implications for residents were also raised. An example from the town of Acton illustrated how costs were communicated to residents by providing a clear breakdown of expected increases in water bills, facilitating transparency and informed voting on funding measures. This prompted interest in adopting similar strategies for the Lunenburg Water District to establish a clearer financial framework for residents regarding infrastructure investments.

The board also discussed the new water protection bylaw and the maps associated with it. Concerns were raised about ensuring that all protective measures were included in a new proposed map. A member expressed a desire for clarity in the mapping process, stating, “I want those protective races,” and emphasized the need to present a definitive map to the public and the planning board for town meeting voting. Uncertainty about which maps were being referenced, particularly regarding a July 2021 map that had not been approved, was discussed. The need for a new, approved map was underscored, as multiple versions were causing confusion.

Further debate ensued, with one member affirming the importance of using the 2009 map as a baseline while adding necessary updates. “I would like to go back to the 2009 map with the one addition that we needed to have,” was stated. The necessity of ensuring that the correct map version was submitted for the bylaw, reflecting the necessary protective zones, was agreed upon.

The meeting also covered the topic of a new dump truck, with challenges in acquiring diesel vehicles due to criteria related to electric vehicle production. As a result, pricing for the new truck would be based on gasoline models instead. The conversation briefly touched on the potential for electric vehicles, though no immediate solutions were presented.

Public comments included inquiries about an upcoming fee increase of $25 per household, contributing to a loan for a water project. Clarification was provided that the fee would be per unit, not per connection, and specified on bills as related to the water project. Concerns about the condition of existing water pipes were raised, with one attendee noting that some sections appeared “horrible.” This prompted a discussion on the overall state of the town’s water infrastructure, with an estimate that “more than half” of the town’s pipes could be in similarly poor condition.

The meeting also addressed the hardness of the water, which had been tested and found to contain elevated levels. The hardness could potentially interfere with the removal of PFOA/PFOS contaminants. The implications of managing 3,000 gallons of waste, potentially contaminated with PFAS, were raised, and the challenge of disposing of such waste was acknowledged. Options for dealing with non-contaminated waste, such as using it as road salt after dehydration, were briefly mentioned.