We all Want a Safe and Reliable Water System
We all agree that Weston needs a safe and reliable water system, but until critical questions are answered, the Select Board should do more than simply put forth another version of the same proposal that voters have rejected.
Focus on Weston has raised several important questions about the water tank proposal each time it has come up for a vote because each time the proposal was incomplete – incomplete from an analytical perspective, a design perspective, an engineering perspective, without a plan for siting and land acquisition and without a reasonably reliable estimate of the timing and cost of all of the work to be done. And the voters seem to have asked themselves the same questions because the proposal has failed to pass. Twice.
At the Town Meeting in May of 2023, Focus on Weston and the majority of voters present supported the allocation of $1 million for “detailed design and engineering” of the project, basically asking the Select Board and the Department of Public Works to complete their work. The reason we were so supportive of that proposal is because we all want to replace the existing water tanks, but we also want voters to be fully informed about the breadth, depth, timing and cost of this major undertaking before they’re asked to authorize funding. Design should always precede funding.
Here is a list of the issues that are still unresolved and which we believe the Town needs to resolve between now and May, the date of the next Town Meeting.
A Detailed Project Plan sufficient to support issuance of an RFP – No project of this magnitude can be successful (in terms of managing cost and schedule) without a detailed plan that integrates the cost and timing of all the critical components of the project. In this case, that means the cost and the proper sequencing of each aspect of land acquisition, permitting, governmental approvals, engineering, construction documents, all of which result in a Request for Proposal (or “RFP”) that can be issued to potential general contractors. Many of those components are interdependent, so it’s complicated. We have not seen such a plan, which leads us to worry that both the cost and the construction schedule for this project are, at this point, significantly at risk. The estimated cost of $43 million may be very different when the detailed engineering and cost estimation gets done.
Siting and Permitting – At the most recent Town Meeting, the siting for each of the replacement tanks still looked quite uncertain. Working through any siting issues raised by residents now is more efficient than dealing with costly litigation that could delay construction. The land swaps that are required to support the siting of the new tanks seemed even more uncertain, and any proposal to swap conservation land will require review and approval by the State. Consequently, siting is a pacing item for design, engineering, project documentation, for an RFP, and construction. This is a significant risk to the project schedule and therefore also a risk to the estimated cost.
Analysis of Water Pressure for Fire Protection – The theory behind replacing all three water tanks at the same time is that we have insufficient water pressure to ensure ample water pressure for fire protection. The Town’s water monitoring system collects data regularly on water pressure, water quality and water usage at various measurement points in the water distribution system. We should use those data to determine exactly how many instances there may have been in the last five or ten years during which the water pressure at a representative number of hydrants has been too low. If the analysis suggests “none” or “not many”, then we should be evaluating whether the better option (with the better overall economics) is to replace the existing tanks sequentially, rather than all at once. Or whether the better alternative is booster pumps at selected points in the distribution system. This is important because it affects both the construction planning and the financial planning for the project.
Analysis of Water Sufficiency – Similarly, using water data to analyze usage (by season, by time of day, by type of customer) would inform us as to how many times we have actually been dangerously short of water, either before or since what may have been an isolated event in the summer of 2016. Even in that case, it’s not clear why the water monitoring systems didn’t see that event coming. This is important because it would affect the sizing of the new tanks, the adequacy of our water monitoring systems and therefore both the design and the construction schedule.
Forecast Water Demand – Arguably the single most important ingredient for determining the right tank sizes, tank heights, water distribution network and monitoring system capabilities is the outlook for future water demand. The underpinnings for a water demand forecast necessarily include forecasts for housing, population and local business development. We are currently facing several big issues that could have a profound impact on housing and population over the next 10-15 years; notably, Affordable Housing, 3A Housing, ADU Housing, in addition to the likely continuation of new residential growth and local business development. Taking advantage of the historical data on water demand, we should be able to estimate the water usage for each type of new user we foresee. Our view of the future will always be imperfect, but without reasonable estimates of future housing demand and, in turn, water demand, we risk both time and money constructing a new set of tanks that doesn’t fit the future.
Completing the Picture – The end game should be a ready-to-issue RFP by May of this year. In order to be confident that contractors will be able to submit proposals on a timely basis, we need realistic, fully-engineered and fully-costed system specifications, with detailed descriptions and drawings, all of which is built upon well-researched assumptions. We also need to have organized our thinking about the other priorities that Wright-Pierce recommended for water surety – upgrading an aging distribution system, a second feed from MWRA and increased annual funding for pipe replacement. Our water system will only be as strong as its weakest link. That broader context should also enable Town Government to estimate the impact of the entire program on Water Rates (or Property Taxes) by year, going forward. Residents are not going to balk at making these investments, but they do have the right to know how this program is likely to affect them economically.
All the above needs to be vetted by an independent working group of Town residents, as we have done with other major Town projects. Simple assertions by the Select Board that all these issues have been fully researched and resolved will not be enough. The details drive water tank sizes, pressure requirements and other critical system parameters, construction schedule and cost. They need to be right. We have also consistently favored having of all the above peer-reviewed and verified by an independent authority, which is typical for a project of this size, scale and complexity. Call it risk management.
We want this project to go forward. We would like for it to be approved at the Annual Town Meeting in May. However, that brings with it a responsibility on the part of the Town to have filled in all the blanks. There are some who worry that the water tank team will push for a Special Town Meeting before May, and before all the blanks have been filled in. We hope that’s not on the Select Board’s mind, but we do recall that after the initial water tank proposal failed two years ago, there was a motion for a “revote” at the same Town Meeting. That motion was overwhelmingly defeated because it was not in keeping with the spirit of Weston’s democracy. A hasty attempt at a revote through a Special Town Meeting, and without resolution of all the open issues, would likely meet the same reaction by residents. After two failed Town Meeting votes, developing town-wide support for Weston’s water infrastructure plan should be as important as the plan itself.