Ken Weissman kicked off the discussion by questioning the projections related to Hopkinton’s water supply. Weissman highlighted the town’s current maximum daily usage of approximately 1.7 million gallons and critiqued the projected requirement of 2.7 million gallons per day as an overestimation. This figure is based on assumptions that all private wells would connect to the public system and anticipates growth in residential and commercial areas, as well as in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) community zones. Weissman noted the potential financial burden on residents if these projections led to unnecessary infrastructure expansions, with costs possibly exceeding $25,000 per household for connecting private wells to the public system.

Central to the discussion was the issue of “unaccountable water,” which Weissman estimated to be around 16% to 20%. He suggested that addressing leaks could reduce the town’s maximum daily usage to 1.4 million gallons. This topic is crucial as the Water Resources Commission requires any interbasin transfer approval to be contingent on mitigating unaccountable water losses, which Weissman argued should be a priority for the town.

Weissman also challenged the assumptions underpinning the projected water needs for residential growth, questioning the feasibility of a 20% increase in homes due to the limited availability of large parcels of land near existing water mains. He emphasized the economic impracticality for developers to extend mains to these areas, casting doubt on the projected need for an additional 300,000 gallons per day. Additionally, he mentioned concerns over industrial and commercial growth projections, which suggested an additional 70,000 gallons per day. He noted that past water usage on South Street has decreased due to factors such as COVID-19, and current occupancy levels have dropped, affecting future demand. Weissman acknowledged the existing water mains but remained skeptical about relying on growth projections that may not be realized given current economic conditions.

The conversation also delved into the projected water needs for the MBTA community zones, which anticipated an additional 160,000 gallons per day. Weissman highlighted the unrealistic assumption that these zones would undergo redevelopment. He questioned the assumption of three people per unit, stating it was not reflective of current housing trends and expressed doubts about the proposed population density in these areas.

Further discussions centered around the town’s infrastructure challenges. Concerns were voiced regarding the existing sewer treatment capacity and the implications of additional wastewater discharge into the Charles River through the Milford Wastewater Treatment Plant. The financial implications of utilizing this plant, which were noted to be higher than those of Westborough or Hopkinton’s own Fruit Street plant, were also discussed. These issues present significant hurdles in attracting large water users or pharmaceutical companies to Hopkinton, despite the town’s favorable location and zoning.

There was a proposed realistic water usage number, suggesting a potential reduction to 1.99 million gallons per day, taking into account existing use, potential leak reductions, and the connection of existing homes. This figure aimed to guide the design of future solutions, emphasizing the importance of addressing current infrastructure limitations and realistic growth projections.

The need for studies on potential contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) was also emphasized, with recommendations for the town to inform private well owners of potential solutions. Local treatment options were suggested as more economically feasible than relying solely on interbasin transfers.

A call was made for collaboration with the Water Resources Commission, whose input would be vital in determining the feasibility of proposed solutions and ensuring the sustainability of local water sources. The meeting concluded with anticipation for an upcoming presentation on the interbasin transfer act approval process, addressing concerns about the current design’s efficiency and potential financial waste.