We all benefitted from the discussion on Water Management at the March 28 meeting of the Select Board. Based upon a recommendation from Laurie Bent, the Select Board decided to withdraw two planned Warrant Articles related to our Water Management challenges (at approximately 1:12-1:27 in the meeting video). The first of those would have authorized $26.2 million for the replacement of two water storage tanks, plus additional remedial work related to water sourcing and distribution, including the Pumping Station at Wellesley Street, our only source of water from the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA). The second Warrant Article would have changed our zoning bylaw to enable the Select Board to govern the height of related new structures, pre-empting the Planning Board and the interests of the resident abutters who would be affected by any new structures.

We support a phased approach, but Article 21 is still problematic

In place of the Warrant Articles that were withdrawn, the Select Board approved a new Warrant Article 21 that would authorize $1 million of Free Cash plus some undisclosed amount of federal funds (formerly $2 million) for a more measured first step – “design and engineering” of the work contemplated in the Water Management Warrant Article. As written, the Article would also allow for “constructing water storage tanks, and all incidental and related cost.” We understand that the Select Board will not be recommending the $20+ million required to actually make all of the changes outlined in their earlier Article, and that Article 21 is just poorly written. Assuming this is the case and that someone will have the good sense to amend and remove that construction-related phrase, we could support Article 21, and commend Laurie Bent for her proposal for a phased approach, and commend the Select Board for its support.

However, if the language of Article 21 is not amended, we are simply back where we started. Or worse. Article 21, as written, gives the Select Board a blank check to pursue siting, design and construction “and all incidental and related costs” of an ill-defined project.

If the Select Board DOES amend the wording to clarify the phased approach that was presented and approved at their March 28 meeting, then we will be facing a number of important opportunities:

1.    De-risking that earlier $26.2 million cost estimate

In a report that the Town received in 2019, the consulting firm (Wright-Pierce) included a table (ES-2) summarizing 19 projects that comprise our water management needs, with an estimated future cost of $89.6 million. The 6 highest priority projects, with an estimated future cost of $16.7 million, were:

Replace Paine’s Hill Tank & Inlet/Outlet Pipe – $4,893,000

Second Connection to MWRA – $465,000

Replace Cat Rock Tank & Level Instrument Tank – $6,578,000

Upgrade Wellesley Street Booster Pumping Station – $1,533,000

Replace/Upgrade System Monitoring & Control (SCADA) – $478,000

Replace Inlet/Outlet from Cat Rock Tank to North Avenue – $2,788,000

Subtotal – Priority Projects – $16,735,000

The projects that were to be authorized in the withdrawn Warrant Article were roughly equivalent to the Wright-Pierce list of high priority projects, but Wright-Pierce’s estimated cost was almost $10 million lower. Some of that could be differences in forecast construction cost inflation, but $6.2 million (or 60%) of the difference (and 24% of the total cost) was “contingencies” related to engineering, permitting and construction. One of the benefits of taking a more measured approach to the overall process should be to eliminate as many of those uncertainties as possible so that we have higher confidence about the sequencing and detailed specifications that are put out for bid, rather than allowing for $6-10 million of budget overruns.

2.    Let’s make sure we know exactly what should be engineered

FOW’s position on all of the Water Management proposals that have been made to date has NOT been that we don’t need to remediate the water management system. Rather, we have been saying all along that this is an incredibly complex and expensive undertaking for the Town, and that there are still too many unanswered questions about the design, the timing, the sequencing and the cost of each element. Consequently, we still don’t seem to have a comprehensive picture of the solution, or the cost, or how it will be funded.

Here are some examples of the pieces that were (and are still) missing with respect to the projects that comprised the $26.2 million Warrant Article, let alone the $89 million ultimately required to properly position our water infrastructure for the next 75 years. If we have not yet resolved all of these interrelated and complex issues, we must – before we ask an engineering and design firm to do $3 million worth of work. 

I.      Fundamental Demand Assumptions

• A detailed and more realistic estimate of future water demand, based upon reasonable estimates of population growth, the town’s Affordable Housing plans, and the nature of water demand (household water versus lawn irrigation water, future peak demand, likely volatility of demand throughout the year, and surge capacity requirements).

II.     Water Storage Issues

• Tank placement – Exactly which parcels of land are required, at what elevations?

• Acquisition of conservation land – How many new acres are required, what time is required to acquired them, and at what cost?

• Replacement Tanks – What style, height, cost, start dates and completion dates?

• Tank sizes (storage volumes) – Analyze the trade-offs among tank volume and the risk of “water aging” (bacteria), and whether a second source from MWRA might enable all of the storage tanks to be smaller and less expensive.

• Interim tank repairs – What technologies exist to repair and protect existing tanks until new tanks are functional, at what cost, what start date and what completion date? And what life expectancy?

• Site access & Abutter Issues – Have all resident concerns been addressed?

III.   Water Sourcing Issues

• Upgrade in pumping systems at the Wellesley Street Pumping Station – What is the timing, cost, start date and completion date?

• Second source from MWRA -- What is the timing, cost, start date and completion date? Will the addition of a second source reduce storage tank volume required to meet peak demand?

IV.   Water Operations Issues

• Uniformity of water pressure – How will we plan for, measure and manage expected water pressures for all homeowners throughout the new system, both before and after the new storage facilities are online? What are the potential consequences of higher water pressure on the water distribution system?

• Upgrade Monitoring & Control Systems – What are the specifications of a modern water management system? What will it cost? Since it will need to be integrated with sourcing, storage and distribution, what is the sequencing, start date and completion date

In summary

If Warrant Article 21 is amended to remove the language allowing actual construction “and all incidental and related cost” of new water tanks before a comprehensive plan is developed and consensus achieved, we would support that proposal. However, if the language in Article 21 is NOT amended to narrow the scope and contain the cost of a truly phased approach to solving our water management challenges, then we DO NOT support Article 21 and urge you to attend the Annual Town Meeting on May 8th and vote NO.