A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to examining the viability of various water treatment scenarios and the associated costs of interconnections with neighboring towns. This figure was met with skepticism, as it doubled initial expectations, and concerns were raised about Townsend’s insufficient pressure to meet Lunenburg’s needs. The board acknowledged that these discussions marked only the beginning of a broader planning process, emphasizing the importance of clear communication with the public to prevent confusion about the proposed scenarios.

Exploration of new water supply options was another topic, with discussions about the potential for purchasing water from other municipalities like Fitchburg and Leominster. The board expressed concerns over the long-term sustainability of such arrangements, highlighting the potential for ongoing costs that could be burdensome over time. Emphasis was placed on developing an independent water source, as it would eliminate the need for continuous payments to municipalities, contrasting with the unpredictability of purchasing water.

The conversation also touched on the importance of redundancy in water treatment, particularly concerning the Keadings plant and the necessity of interconnections to ensure reliability. Participants debated the implications of higher hardness levels in the water and the challenges of mixing water from different sources to manage these levels. The board recognized the need to establish a backup plan if Keadings were utilized, with a member affirming that treatment could not proceed without such measures.

Public engagement and the need for community support were central themes. The board emphasized obtaining a two-thirds majority from residents for any significant initiatives. To facilitate this, the board planned to streamline their focus from multiple scenarios to three viable options and to gather feedback from stakeholders. The importance of educating the public on the complexities involved in water management decisions was highlighted, with a member noting the need for residents to understand the implications of their choices.

Funding challenges were a recurring concern, particularly regarding federal assistance for addressing water quality issues. The board discussed the impact of the State Revolving Fund and the principal forgiveness program, noting that while past funding had been beneficial, future support remained uncertain. Additionally, the meeting addressed recent testing requirements for Lancaster’s wells, where elevated levels of contaminants prompted immediate retesting. The board anticipated potential costs of $400 per test if monthly testing became necessary.

Operational aspects of the water district also featured prominently, with discussions on equipment procurement and maintenance. The board considered the potential benefits of investing in machinery to reduce reliance on contractors, debating whether to purchase or rent equipment like a 30,000-pound excavator. The conversation highlighted the cost-effective potential of owning tools for main replacements and other tasks, though some members insisted on the necessity of engineering services for compliance and efficacy.