WRAB-WWMPC
Minutes of meeting 8/14/07
Town Hall, 2 p.m.
Present were Chair Weiss, Co-Chair Whitmore, members Marcel Boelitz, Joan Sullivan, Howard Sandler, Bill Nugent, Muriel Lightfoot, and Sandy Bayne, Health Agent Jane Crowley, Selectmen Martin McDonald and Carol Martin, Fire Chief Glenn Olson, consultants Mark White and Paul Gabriel of Environmental Partners (E.P.), and interested citizens Russ French, Paul Lothrop, Fred Fenlon, Judy Williams, Larry Casson, Larry Young, Marianne Simmel, Louise Young and Dave Crary.
Chair Weiss waived the consideration of the July minutes and other agenda items (staffing of Windmill Weekend booth) so that the discussion could focus wholly on the issues attendees had raised about the proposal considered at May 2007 Town Meeting to develop a municipal water system.
He gave a brief history of the town’s drinking water considerations dating to the 1970’s, and the history of the Water Resources Advisory Board. (WRAB.) He explained that the board knows waste water and drinking water issues are inextricably linked, and so the WRAB and the Waste Water Management Planning Committee (WWMPC) meet jointly, Bruce Whitmore being the current chair of the latter committee. He introduced consultants White and Gabriel from E.P. and explained the board had been working with them for two years on two projects simultaneously: a plan for exploring the possible sources of municipal water for Eastham, and an exploration of the possibility of sharing water resources with other outer Cape towns, especially Wellfleet and Orleans, the latter study funded by a county grant Crowley secured for
Eastham.
He then invited visitors to comment on the key questions raised publicly at town meeting and at other times.
Simmel commented that she understands regionalization of waste water planning gets priority for grants. Crowley, who represents Eastham on the Cape Cod Waste Water Collaborative (CCWWC) answered that there is no more grant money. The only possibility is low interest loans, which the CCWWC was founded to seek out for the region.
Simmel also asked about the possibility of salt water intrusion when a few wells are pumping heavily in a limited area. Boelitz assured her that is not going to happen. Gabriel stated the modeling for that is very sophisticated and Eastham’s ground water lens is very deep.
McDonald and Martin explained that the Board of Selectmen and the WRAB-WWMPC have begun to create a brochure on the municipal water question for town wide distribution, and that it would be based on the list of questions generated by citizens at town meeting. They further explained they wanted to hear from citizens at this point before they finalize it.
The first question to be considered is: why municipal water before waste water? Wouldn’t it make more sense to do waste water first?
In the absence of a waste water consultant, for whom he declined to speak, White explained that drinking water quality has been declining, i.e., the level of nitrogen increasing, for many years because of the increasing density of the population and the consequent proximity of wells and septic systems.
If we were to stop waste water discharge today, it will take many years for the discharge already in the ground to pass through the aquifer into the coastal waters, moving through our wells as it goes.
In addition, other sources of nitrogen exist: fertilizer, road runoff, storm runoff, and point source pollution such as gas spills, which cannot be controlled with waste water treatment.
Too, municipal wells can be implemented quickly and are highly regulated for water quality.
Weiss explained that the town has hired a waste water consultant, Stearns and Wheler, and that the Mass. Estuary Project report on Nauset Marsh, due soon, will state the amount of nitrogen the town must remove from its waste water stream as it enters Nauset Estuary. The waste water planning process hinges on that report. The process is a very long and very expensive one, and is in its early stages.
L.Young asked if we will need both, and White replied most likely we will.
Crowley explained there are several types of waste water systems, of various sizes, tailored to the locality, and it is likely a town wide system would not be the answer.
L. Young asked where the municipal wells would go, and White replied that sites must be owned by the town and protected, and we have three such sites. These have been tested preliminarily, and will need further testing to be sure they can produce an adequate supply of clean water.
Young asked where the waste water plant would go, and was told we don’t know that yet.
Fenlon commented that the number of people living in town full time has been increasing, and that it would be good to know how many of the part time homeowners plan to live here full time.
Weiss replied that the Critical Planning Committee has tried to determine that number, but it is always going to be rather unreliable since it deals with intent.
French commented that if we need water, and he believes we do, we need it regardless of future population growth.
Whitmore pointed out that the proposed system is sized to accommodate all existing homes and empty lots.
L. Young commented that if Title 5 constraints are removed by sewering, then 6 bedroom homes on small lots may become the norm, increasing density and the consequent water quality issues.
As this discussion raised some of the issues behind question 5, Weiss moved to discuss that question:
Won’t a town wide water system open the door to lots of development?
Crowley commented that it is up to the town and its citizens to create regs to control growth before a water system could be completed. She’s working on a regional committee composed of planners regarding this issue, and they are reviewing model regs for such situations.
Sandler and Nugent, members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals respectively, assured the citizens that our zoning laws aren’t based on water supply, and that we are well protected from over development by our current zoning.
Question 2 was considered next: Why can’t everyone install their own water treatment system instead of a municipal system?
White commented that reverse osmosis (R.O.), suggested by Richard Ryder, who was unable to attend but submitted comments, isn’t needed in any Cape town right now, but if it were, one needs to monitor one’s own system and then also one’s neighbors for compliance, as water travels. Towns generally don’t have the staff to enforce individual home system compliance.
Gabriel commented that reverse osmosis is quite expensive for individual use, and that the large scale R.O. plants produce a brine which creates a disposal problem, as it is forbidden to be discharged here on the Cape.
Casson commented that Ryder’s letter submitted to the meeting doesn’t fully cover all Ryder’s concerns in this area.
Fenlon had two additional comments. The water planning should occur in two phases: First should be exploration and permitting of water sources; second, layout and construction to follow if first step succeeds. Too, the warrant should reflect the true cost of the project, including debt service cost.
This brought the discussion to a consideration of question 8: why don’t we fund the project in phases? and question 4: What is the projected cost of a town wide system and how can I trust that it’s realistic?
McDonald commented that the first phase, exploration and permitting, will cost millions, and it could be wasted money if the town then decides not to go ahead.
Casson commented that the BoS should know that the proposal won’t pass without a plan. He’d prefer to spend the 4.5 million even if it were to be wasted than to commit to 76 million. He also felt the 4.5 million allotted to phase one in the warrant could be broken down to eliminate permitting, thus saving a substantial amount in phase one.
He further commented he finds the budget incredible as it is based on no plan.
McDonald replied that there is a preliminary plan which town meeting did not see, available to review at town hall.
Casson commented people need to see that plan; they need answers.
Gabriel commented that the plan is a preliminary plan, which is conceptual, and that it will take 3-5 years of working with the community to effect a fully completed plan. The plan does intend to serve all lots.
Lothrop commented that E.P. is a for- profit entity and naturally would be selling us the concept of municipal water. He stated the town needs answers to the bottom line question: What will it cost? What will the tax rate be in 5 years if we go forward?
There are people living on fixed small incomes who cannot afford any increase in their expenses. What do we do about them?
He asked the consultants to state their profit.
White replied that Lothrop could ask Wellfleet if the firm pushed municipal water. He stated E.P.’s commitment is to give the town the facts and let the town decide.
Weiss commented that the question of how to help those who cannot afford municipal water is a question not previously considered, and it should be. Crary agreed.
Lothrop disagreed, saying he never depends on the government for help; people must help themselves.
Olson commented that if we don’t have hard numbers, people will create them. Boelitz commented that the WRAB-WWMPC doesn’t handle pocket book issues. The BoS must do that.
Simmel stated that about 45% of households have an income of less than $42,000 per year.
When Martin stated that the BoS needs to do a better job on financials, Lothrop told her to use the average price home to establish the tax increase for each year using “real figures”.
McDonald stated that the BoS plan 2-3 more public meetings on this subject.
Olson commented that on a fire protection scale where 1 is best and 10 is worst, we are rated 9, as we have no public water and therefore no hydrants. He explained that when there is a fire, they must take time to fill tankers. He’ll review the possibility of possible improved ratings and consequent savings in homeowners’ insurance.
Williams reminded the group that some WRAB board members had discussed improved fire protection ratings with their own insurance agents and had found significant savings would occur with hydrants.
This raised the issue of question 3: Are there other benefits accruing to municipal water not offered by individual water treatment systems?
White commented that in addition to increased fire protection, there are these benefits:
Water is available during a power outage, which happens often in this area.
There is constant regulated monitoring of water quality.
Having a water department to monitor and regulate water quality provides a great convenience.
The related Question 6 was discussed: why is a public water supply better than my own well?
Visitors commented that they hear that Orleans water tastes bad, possibly because it must be chlorinated. Gabriel explained Orleans water doesn’t all need chlorination, but sometimes it is done for preventative reasons. Bayne commented that she has daughters who get stomach upsets drinking her well water and feel it tastes bad. Taste is a matter of individual perception.
Weiss suggested the discussion return to the financial questions. Any more thoughts on this subject?
Gabriel commented that Vanderhoef’s projections did include a 25% contingency amount for inflation, and also projected the increase in real estate values.
French commented: Do we need water? If we do and we don’t provide it, do we have a liability for failing real estate values? It costs less now to do it than it will in even a few years. To those who would complain about tax increases, he replied that there is no other town on the Cape, or likely in southern Mass., to move to where the taxes wouldn’t be 200 % higher. We have the lowest taxes around, as our part time resident tax payers support our needs.
Crary commented that he thinks there isn’t enough time left before Oct. 1, the proposed Town Meeting date, to educate the populace. We need more time for research and education.
Martin commented that there is a draft brochure being prepared and 2 or 3 more public meetings before Oct. 1, and the BoS hates to lose the momentum it believes it has.
French asked whether our lens has good water. If so, the answer to the salt water intrusion question should be included in the brochure.
Casson asked if the wording of the town meeting article could be changed. Martin replied that because the ballot vote was based on that, the town meeting article to follow the ballot must use the same wording. The article can however be amended on town meeting floor.
French asked if we can protect the town and the consultants/contractors with contract wording that allows cessation if adequate water is not found. Gabriel answered yes, and Crowley pointed out that the town is considering alternative sources if that were to occur, such as purchasing water from Orleans or sharing water sources with Wellfleet.
The discussion ended with consideration of question 7: Mandatory or optional connection?
Whitmore commented that two projects the town had proposed failed partially because they lacked a convincing business plan: the purchase of the Norseman (Willy’s Gym) and the creation of the ocean beach parking lot.
Casson clarified that his suggestion is to work in two phases only: planning and exploration, and construction. He feels the town must commit to proceeding through all construction phases once that is voted.
Weiss explained that the intent is for all lots to have water available, but will not be required to hook up immediately. Hook up could be required on change of owner. If homeowners aren’t hooked up, they would pay the increased taxes, but presumably not the connection fee or water use rates.
French asked if the town can afford the system without universal hook up. Whitmore pointed out that homeowners would have the benefit of reduced fire insurance even if they aren’t hooked up.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40.
Submitted by Sandy Bayne, clerk
| 
