06:51The meeting opened with a discussion about the town’s current water management situation. A draft memo, prepared with the assistance of engineering consultant Brook Westfall, was introduced to address concerns about the ability to concurrently pump from multiple wells without breaching Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations. The memo highlighted that while the wells have sufficient capacity to address shortfalls during emergencies, there is a pressing need for formal assurance from the DEP. This assurance would allow for concurrent pumping without penalties, a measure seen as critical for emergency preparedness. A member emphasized the urgency of obtaining a written statement from the DEP, stating, “I would want something from the current administration at DEP that says yes, in an emergency we’ll waive the requirement in that permit.”

00:42Further complicating the water management discussion was the existing moratorium on water pumping, which was said to be adversely impacting both customers and revenue. The debate underscored the potential risks associated with the current regulatory environment and the historical context of the wells. Although each well is individually permitted based on its safe yield, the DEP’s requirements pose challenges that could impede the town’s emergency response capabilities. The Water Management Act permit had previously threatened to eliminate the ability for concurrent pumping, a point of contention that was vigorously discussed.

11:16In tandem with these discussions, attention turned to the leeching field near Smell Brook and Smell Pond. Claims were made that the discharge from this field meets drinking water quality standards, contributing to the local water system. The board considered drafting a letter to address this matter, relying on internal expertise rather than external consultants, which highlighted the confidence in local capabilities and the desire to manage costs effectively.

24:26Engineering projects were another significant topic, with updates provided on the Main Street water main project and the new well project. Although no major updates were reported on the Main Street project, the Department of Transportation (DOT) had extended the project permit, allowing necessary work to continue. The new well project was discussed in detail, focusing on the DWS17 permit application. The board was working on finalizing this application, spurred by promising yield results from recent testing.

The conversation also touched on the potential involvement of the consulting firm Felder in upcoming water projects. The board stressed the importance of Felder’s attendance at an upcoming meeting, scheduled for July 7, to review the draft application and discuss necessary letters of support for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) application. The goal was to foster confidence among board members regarding the project’s progress and ensure all procedural steps are in place for successful implementation.

32:05In addition to these topics, the board explored the implications of a potential property donation that could impact access routes to well sites. The discussion centered on whether such a donation would serve the water department’s needs or fall under conservation restrictions, which could hinder future development. A specific parcel with a 20-foot easement was noted as potentially providing crucial access.

36:59The meeting also addressed a recent water emergency on Second Brook Street, acknowledging the crew’s efforts in managing the situation. Although an overdue balance related to a shut-off property had been resolved, discrepancies in recent bills persisted, prompting further investigation with the Department of Home.

38:10Administrative matters were covered, including the circulation of conference reports and the collection of quarterly water samples. A notable success was reported in negotiating a three-year contract with W Samson for backflow inspections, securing favorable rates. This was indicative of the board’s effort to ensure cost-effective service provision.

41:46Concerns about the quality of work conducted by natural gas companies compared to the water department were also raised. The board considered whether action should be taken at the state level to address discrepancies in trench work standards, which had previously led to misplaced blame on the water department.

45:19Finally, individual billing disputes were discussed, particularly involving a landlord with a second bill for excessive water usage due to a leak. The board emphasized the importance of receiving proof of repairs before considering any billing adjustments.