Seabrook         [Home] [Sophie’s Page][Dick’s Page][Our Family][Seabrook][Greyhounds]

[Water Conservation]

TOWN OF SEABROOK - Water & Sewer Advisory Committee

Meeting Agenda, Minutes and Responses⁽¹⁾
[10/2/02] [10/16/02][10/30/02][11/06/02][11/13/02][11/26/02][12/18/02]
[01/08/03][01/22/03][02/05/03][02/12/03]

Present: Paul Kelley, Chairman
            Owen Latham
             Linwood Norton
             Sue Foote
             Sue Manzi
             Carrie Fowler, secretary

Dick Dodge comment: The Pacific Ocean is 33,000 to 35,000ppm TDS (and so is the Atlantic Ocean). What is the TDS of the "seawater brackish" intended for RO treatment?

EPA recognizes that water for farm animals is considered potable up to 1000ppm Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). I understand that the water leaving the de-chlorination site for discharge is at or near 500 ppm, which would be considered safe for body contact, and in fact suitable for potable (drinking water) water in an emergency situation. We are told that the water leaving the SB treatment plant is chlorinated and the contact time from the plant to the de-chlorination site at the beach eliminates all of the biologicals, there are no organics, no toxic metals and in short that water with a modest cleanup would meet EPA (and California) water quality standards. Treatment by RO would only have to remove about 120 ppm TDS and that would exceed the quality of the ground water currently being pumped by the SB water wells, which are treated at the site anyway. If the treated plant water that is currently sent to the ocean were injected under the dune freshwater lens (on top of the brackish water), the quality of the water brought up for reverse osmosis would be on the order of 500-600ppm. The cost of the energy to treat 500ppm TDS water would be far less than that for 25,000ppm brackish water.

The dune fresh water lens would be increased to the amount of the current discharge to the ocean and the drawdown for the extraction wells would be eliminated. This sort of water banking is currently practiced by many water districts throughout the Nation and is becoming more and more common as all jurisdictions are forced to seek additional water supplies. (see the Western Water article which is ten years old). Seventy percent of the wastewater processed in California and Nevada is presently injected into existing aquifers.

Craig went on to show a clip of how the process reverse osmosis works. Reverse osmosis uses water pressure to push water through a special filter (differentially permeable membrane). This filter lets water go through and keeps larger particles on the other side of the filter. The water then comes out of the machine with one clean stream and one dirty stream. Because of the pressure the process uses with seawater, 35% of the water that goes in comes out as clean water. To use this with a brackish system 75% of the water that goes in comes out as clean water.

Owen asked what would be the cost of this. Craig said about ½ million per 300. (300 of what?) What will be the cost per acre foot (325,000 gallons) of RO treated beach brackish water, compare that to the cost of RO treatment of the water being discharged into the Ocean. (for the record SB discharges about 3 acre feet (900,000 – 1,000,000 plus gallons a day in summer of body contact quality water).

Paul K. asked how the machines could have an endless supply of brackish water. Paul C. replied that essentially it would be brackish water. The pumps will take from salt water so the units will only be limited by the wells and pump. Why not use the treated wastewater for the RO pumps (before injection). This water would be far less corrosive and it is already under pumping pressure on its journey to the ocean or hopefully to the injection pumps.

And how long will the lens last without supplement, if domestic irrigation water from wells and water for treatment is removed? What is the current drawdown of the fresh water lens, how will this effect the water table for endangered and threatened species of plants. What will be the effect of the drawdown on domestic wells currently in use?

And how much overhead will be added to our water bills to pay for the RO maintenance and profit of the "water & technologies place?"

Am I missing something. It makes no sense at all to RO 24,000ppm TDS "brackish water" which has to be pumped and subjected to 1000psi pressure to recover probably not more than 45% of the water. If the treated waste water were used after mixing with the lower part of the fresh water lens the recovery rates of already treated and disinfected water could be on the order of 75% or more.

Which of course mandates the recharge of the beach dunes fresh water lens, lest the beach aquifer, which judging by the signs on residences during the water ban (is it still in effect?) be irreparably ruined, which of course would exacerbate future water shortages even more. The time for recycling the "wasted" wastewater has come to ensure the long term water supply of all Seabrook.

I have two video tapes "Nevada Water Recycling" and "California Water Recycling" which I will send to Sue Foote, which explain the use of recycled waste water in many applications including the recharge of ground water aquifers. This Process has been used in southern California for 50 years or more to stem the intrusion of seawater as fresh water was extracted for agricultural irrigation. Orange County (Anaheim and Disneyland) has for years used water which arrives in Orange County from The San Bernardino Mountains after being through at least three recycling phases - Used by a water district for domestic potable water, treated by a sanitary district and discharged to a river or ground water aquifer – to be treated by the next town "downstream" and recycled up to three times before it comes to the Del Prado Reservoir (a busy recreational area used by virtually all communities in the Los Angeles Basin. The Orange County Water District treats the Del Prado Reservoir water and injects it into the aquifer to act as a barrier to sea water intrusion (Pacific Ocean). This water is migrating to the Orange County extraction wells in 4 years and they pump it out to blend with purchased water from the Metropolitan Water District (LA) at a rate of 70% recycled water and 30% new water from LA. This water is delivered as potable water and has been used for at least 40 years.

The Truckee Sanitation District (North of Lake Tahoe) is the first tertiary treatment plant in California (circa 1970) This plant removes the excess Nitrogen and Potassium, which is sold to commercial agricultural fertilizer plant. Phosphorous was not removed until recently. The waste discharge was into an old gravel pit, which has been used for highway and urban development for the "metropolitan" development of North Shore Lake Tahoe. In about 1980 it was discovered that the phosphorous was surfacing into the Truckee River and that a portion of the Truckee River flow into Nevada was from the treatment plant. Because Reno derives much of its potable water from the Truckee, there was some concern that the sanitation district was exporting its affluent across state lines. Testing by both Nevada and California confirmed that the discharge water was high quality and that Nevada lobbied to continue to allow the sanitary district to discharge into the gravel pit so rather than pumping the plant discharge to a basin that would feed California water supplies. The Truckee sanitary district is at present installing advanced tertiary treatment to make the discharge even cleaner.

What are the environmental ramifications of this? The injection of SB plant discharge into the beach low TDS fresh water lens would eliminate this potential environmental hazard. The current treatment of the plant discharge to remove chlorine before discharge to the ocean and injection into the beach water lens would eliminate the need to mitigate further the plant water that is currently wasted. The small amount of TDS that would have to be discharged by treating the recycled water would still be less than the TDS naturally found in the ocean. 

It defies logic to treat 24,000ppm TDS brackish water when ample supplies of 500ppm TDS water. One of the benefits of RO is that all of the objectionable contaminants in the water can be removed. The cost of RO is great, and the cost goes up geometrically as the TDS content goes up. Sounds to me like there may be some lobbying for a high cost system (to rate payers) is being promoted to increase the profits of the commercial firms and consultant to be associated with this project. 

What is the explanation of this need to pre-treat wastewater and not brackish seawater? The water from the treatment plant is already highly treated as an EPA requirement for ocean discharge including removing the chlorine that is added at the SB treatment facility and removed at the beach before discharge to the ocean. 

Greater or less pressure for wastewater? Is not the principle of RO based on the TDS of the water being treated? It would seem to me that if the wastewater being discharged is already cleaned of biological, organic and the chlorine used for disinfecting. My answer to Paul C, would be that the pressure would be reduced to effect the clean up of the wastewater for discharge to the ground water. This would materially reduce the cost of the RO system.

What is the extent of the fresh water lens. What is the status of the fresh water that supports a small cranberry bog? I visited this site in August before I left the beach. There is a test well pipe near this site was this site tested?

Was the question answered? I.e., what is the extent of the fresh water lens? It seems to me that the known fresh water lens was avoided.

This is perhaps why the Navy uses RO to recycle all water produced and used aboard submarines. NO effluent or for that matter fresh water is allowed to escape from a nuclear submarine (tracking could be accomplished by testing the ocean for the fresh water discharge). All wastewater is recycled and reused in this closed environment.

This defies logic unless there is a replenishment of the brackish water as it is removed. Certainly the fresh water lens would draw down from extended pumping of the brackish water below.

Next meeting October 16,2002 at 4 p.m.

⁽¹⁾Response to Water & Sewer Advisory Committee Meeting of 10/02/02 - by Dick Dodge

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

10/16/02
TOWN OF SEABROOK
WATER & SEWER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
October 16, 2002

Present:  Sue Foote, vice chairman 
        Bruce Cassassa  
        Owen Latham  
        Sue Manzi  
        Russ Bailey, town manager  
        Linwood Norton
        Warner Knowles, water & sewer superintenden
      Carrie Fowler, secretary

Sue Foote opened the meeting at 4:02 p.m.

Sue Manzi moved to accept minutes of October 2nd meeting as written.  The motion was seconded by Linwood Norton and passed unanimously.

Warner K. then took the floor and told of the emergency well that the town attempted to put in Friday.  They had three excavators, three backhoes and seven pumps working.  They worked until 7:30 p.m.  They had a water main break on the highway so that took away a few men for a period of time.  The pumps couldn't keep up with the quantity of water coming in the trench pocket.  The gravel there is so fine water goes through it like a sieve.  Warner wanted to get the trench well 3-4 feet down but couldn't.  They broke a lot of equipment.  Four pumps working could bring it down 3ft maximum.  They were pumping 500 gallons with these pumps round the clock.  They still couldn't keep up with water.  The lasting affect of this appears that it is a good site.  Usually a well like this goes down to a point and pumps nothing but air, this pump goes down and stabilizes.  The pumps maintained the water level. 

Owen L. asked when they would attempt to put in the well.  Warner said they would have everything ready Monday. 

Owen wanted to know how this well differs with others.

Warner responded that for a normal well you would have a drill rig come in which would cost up to $150,000.  It would be an 18" diameter well.  They put a stainless steel screen down in vertically and surge the well.  The depth of the average well is usually 55 feet.  The depth of the water is critical.  The max. depth is only 24' which only 21' has water.  With this method you put the pipe in there like a T.  Instead of a vertical well it's horizontal.  Fill the trench box with stone all the way up, seal the top with clay so nothing can penetrate down into the well. 

Linwood N. asked where the water supply was coming from.  Sue F. responded that it was coming from a gravel ridge that starts at 286 off of 495.  Warner said behind cemetery is clay; the water goes on top of it and runs into the store.  Sue F. said the water is part of the same aquifer as Cain's Brook.  The water goes under the town hall up by church and to Cain's Brook.

Linwood N. wanted to know what supplied Seacods pond.  Sue F. replied same aquifer.

Owen asked when the well would be on line.  Warner responded that they would hopefully be putting it in on Monday.   

Sue F.  Commented that there was a lot of information about d-sal on the west coast in Dick Dodge's comments.

Warner said that they did three extensive studies on d-sal in March relating to the cost and method.  Russ B. commented that they have the earth-tech engineers scheduled on selectman's agenda on October 30th.   

Dick D: Are these "extensive studies" available to the Committee? Will they become available when E-T makes its report.
Will the Sewer & Water Committee have a chance to make input to the report or is it signed sealed and delivered? 

Sue M. wanted to know if they have any figures as to the cost for the service or for us to buy it outright.  Russ responded that they have yet to give is that.  

Dick D: Will they provide options in their report or will it be locked upon presentation?

Sue M. said that Dick D. wanted to know where to put the pumping station.  For example the commercial dock or the area where Rte. 286 meets Rte. 1A where there is now the welcome to Seabrook beach sign.

Russ responded that we couldn't put it in the commercial dock because of the co-op.  Warner said that no matter where you put the plant you would have the same result.  You can't go down too far until you get to peat lens of sand, which isn't that, thick.  We're going to need a series of wells.  The wells with vacuums in line operations building will look just like a colonial house on Rte. 1A.

Russ said we were looking at the treatment facilities placement at the plant.  Though we are trying to keep the placement of it to town owned land. 

Sue M. inquired if we could put it adjacent to the pumping station.  Russ said no Gateway took it by imminent domain.  Sue M. wanted to know where what the town owned on Rte 1A.  Warner responded after Captain's quarters, basically the west side.  Sue F. said from Old Colonial Rd. to Rte 1A.  

Dick D: Sue: Captain's Quarters is back to the edge of the dunes area (?) How about Behind the property to the South, Is not there a parking area and commercial land between Capt Quarters and the Round Rock Restaurant Building? What is the status of the land that the fireworks store has its storage containers upon? Is Old Colonial Rd. an easement and does it go through the Capt Quarters property. How much square footage would the Desal trailers take? Could they be lined up on the Old Colonial Road easement which I assume would be the location of the pipeline for the "brackish (I think more seawater) water" feed pipeline. 

Dick D: Sue: your comments re: putting the pumping stations underground on the beach access easements along Atlantic Avenue with the pipeline using existing streets sounds like a good idea. There will be some negative reaction from the neighbors, though there is a septic pumping/collecting station underground at the corner of John Koury's and my place and frankly I don't even know it is there. I would sure support this idea....... however I am still concerned about the destruction of the freshwater lens, as well as the desal of near brackish water, which will be quite expensive to all.

Warner said that he knows that Sue F. had made a comment about taking water down too far in the dune area.  Warner felt that this wouldn't happen.  Sue M. asked if drawing down the water would deplete the source.  Sue F. responded that it's drawn down in numbers of 10's not numbers of 100's.  She feels that even a 10ft. drop of an aquifer in that ecosystem could have a major affect.

DD. Sue: I certainly agree with you on this one. I would like to have a lot more assurance than a "feeling." 

Sue M. wanted to know if we could refurbish the aquifer with wastewater.  Sue F. said that idea was discarded.  Warner said this was discarded because we can kill all bacteria in the wastewater but we can't guarantee that we will kill all viruses.

Dick D: Of the many many RO systems in operation one of the prime reasons for use is to remove solutes, biologicals, including viruses, and organics. Were there not a high order of confidence in the operations there would be no RO units in use.   Furthermore how much virus and other biologicals are already leached into the beach aquifer from the many years of septage that was produced there? "And it seems to me that the well water in the entire system is treated with chlorine at the well head because of long past practices of burying animal waste from commercial activities.

Dick D. Virus are inactivated at a temperature of 84-94 degrees F, which should be accomplished in the ww treatment process. Anyway the RO treatment will remove virus. Nuclear submarines RO waste water directly and feed it back into the system. All of the tertiary, RO and traditional wastewater plants in operation in CA and elsewhere that inject wastewater into the groundwater are clear of all biologicals. It is a requirement of the CA State Water Quality Control Board that all biologicals, and hazardous (even increased concentration of) chemicals be removed from any surface water (including surface water from the statewide irrigation canal system) before that water can be injected into the "Pristine Waters of the State." This even includes chlorine and yes even thermal pollution before injection. 

Dick D: By the way if there is a chlorination problem with virus,  there is little removal of virus from the well water that Seabrook now uses (ergo the reason for the extant chlorination requirement). Is anyone willing to make an issue of virus and chlorination, because if they are, the past "commercial and civic" transgressions should be reviewed as it relates to the current well water quality situation and the existing Town well fields. In fact, the water now being dumped into the ocean is probably in better condition than the surface water currently found in ponds and lakes in the region. What is the status of virus in the Town's well water supply? And how does this number compare with the virus released from the treatment plant?

Dick D: The issue of using waste water is a social/cultural appendage of the past, since now in the USA about 70% of the potable water produced (treated) is by using so-called waste water. Anywhere that chlorine must, by state requirements, be chlorinated, there is water recycling being practiced.

Sue F. wanted to know with reverse osmosis is there more water out there.  Warner said they don't believe the draw down will be that much.  They will be pumping 4 million gallons per day and the water is coming horizontally to recharge.  

Dick D. I really want to see the cost numbers on this little item. I hope the Beach Precinct folks are aware of what this will do to their "post hole wells" that seem to be necessary for any landscaping in the beach area. It would seem to me that at low tide the shallow wells will be pumping air with a ten foot draw-down. If it does recharge horizontally, then it will be drawing down from the sands upon which the home wells are located. I do know that when septic tanks were common, at 307 Atlantic at low tide there was little or no water in the septic tank, and at high tides the bathtubs on the ground floor would back up and not drain. 

DD: By the way has anyone done any testing on the quality of the post hole well water used for landscaping? I believe some of this water has been derived from the septic tanks that were in use until tens years ago. What is the virus content of this water? Does anyone know? I still cannot fathom why Seabrook would throw away up to a million gallons a day of fresh "body contact" quality water (EPA standards) and opt for the treatment of seawater (brackish @ nearly 24,000ppmTDS vs seawater @ 33,000ppm TDS). If nothing else part or all of that treated water could be used to enhance the quality and extent of the floating "freshwater" beach dune lens). I would prefer to see "French drains" used for disposal rather than injecting it into the ocean. It would be no different than the surface freshwater (and in the near past septage) that supplies the cranberry bog. I cannot believe that there is a belief that the bottom of the fresh water lens will not be drawn into the extraction wells. In fact if I were a suspicious sort, I might conclude that the insistence of drawing at the top of the brackish lens  is not a way to avoid the concern for damaging the dune ecosystem.  As you pointed out (below), Sue, the fluctuation of ten feet or more would dry out the beach ecosystem without recharge of some sort.

DD: By the way please forgive my 40 years of teaching and research, but water engineers still use the old adage that: "The best solution to pollution is dilution." This is natures way of managing the hydrologic cycle which of course recycles all waste water.

Sue M. wanted to know of the conservation of the cranberry bog on the dune.  Sue F. commented that it was the only area like it in N.H.  There are two globally unique communities on the dune.  In 1975 extinct species were found to be in that community area.  Sue F. feels that by pumping there can throw it off kilter.

Warner said that the recharge of the water is real fast.  A shift of pumping for 10 hours a day the water would come back in 5 hours.  Sue F. wanted to know if it would be fresh or salt water back.  Warner said they were not touching the freshwater lens.

Dick D: I would like some evidence of Warner's statement. Will the pumping of brackish come from the top of the brackish (mixing zone with the fresh, especially if the flow is enhanced by the pumps) or from the mid to lower level of the brackish water? What is the depth to brackish top and bottom? and what is the tidal fluctuation? I cannot imagine that there will not be some withdrawal of the fresh water unless they are at the bottom of the brackish water lens.  It would seem to me that the pumping of "body contact" quality water to the bottom of the fresh water lens and extraction at the fresh water-brackish boundary would be a far less costly RO operation and at the same time would would maintain the fresh water aquifer. I have included some links to the "Indirect Potable Reuse" now being used in California, also a paper by the National Resource Council concerning caution and a tight monitoring of the biological content of the treatment plant outflow. It really comes down to the confidence in the Seabrook water works. The fact that the well water supply must be chlorinated tells me that there could be a serious problem if there is lax monitoring in the system as is. We don't use bottled water in our CA home because we get frequent and confidence building data from the Water District. However we do use bottled water when at Seabrook. Probably more a commentary with our lack of knowing where to obtain the water quality information.

DD: The recharge of brackish (24,000-33,000ppm sea water) water may be fast but the "loss" of freshwater supplying the surface wells will not be recharged. I would think the Beach People (impacted population also known as stakeholders) would insist on at least replacement volume of recycled water.

Warner commented that d-sal is costly. [ dd: And I agree depending on the TDS of the water to be desalinated with RO. Your cost of RO is inversely proportional to the total solutes to be removed from any body of water.]  His idea is to pump only in the spring and let the other wells rest.  He feels we should use it conservatively to get the maximum amount of efficiency.  Although he does feel we need meters. [dd: see comments below, re: meters].

Russ said that the warrant article for d-sal would be mixed in with the meters.  That way you have to vote for both or nothing, this is a package deal.  Warner said that the package deal came from the state not the town.  

Dick D: Sue M: A note to the Beach Precinct residents, who will bear the brunt of this project cost, relative to the impact of the project, whatever its final form would be in order, especially if there is to be a vote on the warrents. My discussions with many this past summer thought highly of the idea of recharging with the high quality treated waste water that is being WASTED to the Ocean. Obviously some of the treated wastewater will have to be mixed with the discharge of the RO units for dilution purposes. I will provide references online as to the capability and effectiveness of RO, after some research. You might try a NHDES site that describes a desal system run by Millipore.

Russ feels that we should have had the metering system a long time ago.  Warner said we are the largest provider of water that does not have residential meters.  Sue F. commented that a town up country once installed meters and the rate of consumption dropped 70%.  Warner commented that this was unusual the rate is usually 10-15%.

Dick D: Does anyone have a figure for the decline in fresh water supply domestically from the outside Water Ban that is in force?
Also the real benefit of meters is the control of leakage (and also the cheating on the water ban ordinance). 

Russ said that meters are not going to solve our problem.  Warner said we have a lot of "weekend plumbers" in town.  The water freezes up and then thaws, which cause the pipes to burst and water flies everywhere. 

Dick D. In fact I think meters will control this problem also. There are a number of coastal cities out here that use automatic meter readers (either drive by and the meter is read electronically or even a satellite link to each meter that can be monitored at the water works office.) There are numerous remote sensing stations for environmental monitoring in the Western States. Including floating stations on Lake Tahoe that provide weather data as well as atmospheric fallout for pollutants. If I were a seasonal beach resident I would appreciate paying for a remote sensor that would act just like my electronic security system, as a matter of fact flooding is one of the services provided. It is a simple matter to add a transducer to the water meter that would be readable by the water works to monitor unusually high flow, like a broken pipe (or illegal outside watering).

Russ said that one argument could be if d-sal cost of water increases we should fairly distribute the cost by rating consumption.  Warner said we could come up with rates.

Dick D. I have a chart that summarizes water meter charges for a number of desert communities for a local candidates forum I am conducting Friday I will add it to this site for your information. I am also sending you (Sue) a copy of the water recycling tape for Nevada that I recently acquired.

Owen asked if we would need any stock money to get this started.  Warner said only to initially put the meters in.  Sue M. wanted to know if there is some resource to sell meters to town.  

Russ said the information has to be put out so people can vote the next meeting.  One thing that needs to be done is the cost to run two systems.  The cost of water is going up but will take several years.  One critical issue with metering is base amount that everyone pays.  Usually you will have a base amount with the same charge.  Russ feels that this is critical to have this.  

Dick D. Note that the Mission Springs Water District quoted in the "forum chart" provides free service for the first 500 cubic feet as a "lifeline" benefit.

Sue F. wanted to know how many gallons are in a unit of water.  Russ said that some towns use cu. ft. and some gallons.  Sue F. asked how many gallons are in a cu. ft.  Warner said a cu. ft. is 7.4 gallons.

Dick D: Note that all water rates in the chart are based on hundred cubic feet (HCF) increments.

Russ said we would have to come up with some method of determining the standard family in town.  Russ feels that we should determine the usage of 2-4 people and use this rate as the base rate.  In other words if you use more than 2-4 people would use than your water bill increases. 

Dick D: Careful here, most rating systems are based on water usage, and have no factors for size of household or number of residents. After all leaking toilets are no respecter of economic or sociological factors. I would suspect that the Beach use is quite high in the Summer because of the vacation crowd and especially the rentals which would highly inflate the occupancy and of course use.

Warner said for instance commercial businesses stay under our regular meters.  We could make the rate the first 100,000 gallons would cost $60 and over 100,000 would get progressively higher.  Russ said that we have to figure what it will cost each resident.  We could use an average household of four people.  

Dick D: see chart below for examples ranging from very high (Ridgecrest) to quite low (Mission Springs). The Monthly "ready to serve charges are the real cost of operating the system. Also note that almost no systems tap tax assessment for water consumptive use. The biggest wasters of water are municipal and other governmental agencies (especially schools) and the fact that the school district must budget for water usage has been a high motivator for practicing AND teaching wise water use (Conservation).

Owen asked if it would be easier to figure the rate per person.  Warner said it would be complicated.  There are on the average 4.2 people in a family. 

Dick D: This is a very cumbersome way to calculate, especially where there are rentals or transient populations. Nothing works better for a landlord than a water use fee to monitor ones tenants as to their water use practices.

Sue F. asked if our water bill now of $60 covers the cost of the water.  She also wanted to know if we could figure in the money for water in the taxes.  Russ said we are not paying much because of the commercial usage and the power plant.    Warner said that the water department would be self-sufficient with a cost of $105.  

Dick D: Which does little to foster conservation.

Matt Mastasia asked if we could determine the rate with the bedroom size like we do for leech fields. 

Russ responded that we would get as much information as possible the next meeting.  The argument of meters is that we're paying for our own industry.  The tax base is 60% tax, 25-30% commercial, and 20-25% residential.  There will be a slight shift in taxes but not much.  Warner said the ideal situation would be the taxes paying for the water.  Russ said that right now industry is paying more than their share of the water.  The power plant will be 50% or less next year, when you look at our services in the town it is good. 

Bruce C. asked if we were going to pay for sewer with the water bill.  Russ said yes we were.  Warner replied that sewer is same as water.  Sewer would be percentage of water.

Bruce C. asked if we only considered water the commercial might slide down.

Matt M. commented that reverse meters are more sophisticated.  Warner said some cities use them.  They have two meters one to regulate water that goes into the sewer and the other for all water used.  These cities only get charged for the water that goes into the sewer.

Sue F. said the outside use of water would be insignificant.  Russ said that if we didn't have the water ban the outside water usage would increase.  Russ said that is the concept.  If you can afford it the public will use the water if they can't they won't use it as much.

Dick D: In our town we had "water cops" that monitored over-watering of landscape. The system failed because the local courts would not enforce the fine structure (mostly because of complaining by the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club). Thus the District went to a graduated fee structure that had a base "Monthly Ready to Serve Charge" which in many places has a low rate for the first 5HCF and then a steeply graduated consumptive use fee structure. Business really liked this plan because most small businesses use little water. The larger use businesses (including the U.S. Navy) began to use conservation techniques to maintain control of water use costs.

Sue F. said that just about anyone concerned with their landscape already have put in a well.  Sue M. asked of the past situation and wells.  She wanted to know if e are suppose to be enforcing the wells and inspecting them.  How does the town know if they do have a well?  Warner responded that the water department haven't gotten to everyone yet.  Sue M. said because of the conservation issue shouldn't we inspect them all.  Warner said that he went around the town and most people were honest.  He spot-checked everyone.  If they were using outside water they took a sample of it and tested it for chlorine.  The chlorine wouldn't show up in well water.  Bruce C. wanted to know how many were not good.  Warner said a lot of people watering lawns.  Though there were no repeat offenders, all written warnings no need to bring these people to court.

Angeljean, reporter, asked if the second warning would you turn off water.  Warner responded the first was oral, second written and third is a fine.

Motion to adjourn Linwood Norton.  Seconded by Bruce Cassassa.  Motion unanimous

Meeting adjourned 5:06p.m.

Next meeting October 30, 2002 at 4p.m. in selectman's meeting room.  

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

Water Rate Charges:

Dick D: The chart below was prepared for a recent Public Forum to meet the candidates for election to the IWV District Water Board. (Ridgecrest, CA). One of the election issues has been that the local district has extremely high water rates. Many have asked for what reason are the local rates so far out of line. The comparison below was used at the meeting to discuss this issue with the local election candidates. One of the reasons given for the high rates is to force water conservation on all district users, including schools, parks and other public places. The local Oasis Garden Club has been concerned that the high water rates may severely impact the quality of life in the district, especially when the cost of water for landscaping and physical education facilities at schools and parks becomes a major budget item.

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

10/30/02
TOWN OF SEABROOK
Water & Sewer Advisory Committee
October 30,2002

Present:  Paul Kelley, chairman
                Sue Foote, vice chairman
                Sue Manzi
                Bruce Cassassa
                Owen Latham
                Linwood Norton
                Warner Knowles
                Russ Bailey, town manager
                Carrie Fowler, secretary

Paul Kelley opened the meeting at 4:10 p.m.  The minutes of the October 16^th meeting was moved to be accepted by Sue F. and seconded by Sue M.  The motion was unanimous.

Paul K. asked Warner for a quick update of the new well.  Warner K. responded that the emergency well is in.  They finished the well on Oct. 30.  The well will be rated and cleaned on Monday the fourth of November.  The first attempt of putting in the well was unsuccessful.  They tried with trench boxes at 19’.  They then put hydraulic frames and sheeting don over 30’ in ground with sheeting.  Then filled with 15-16 feet of stone.  On top of the stone they put fabric to stop fines from going into it.  Warner then said they put 4-5 feet of virgin gravel on top of this and poured 4-5 feet of concrete to seal to seal off totally.  Then they will put 3 more feet of virgin gravel on top of this.

Sue F. asked if they have to pull the sheeting.  Warner responded that they had already pulled the sheeting.

Sue M. asked if the hydraulics stayed in.  Warner said that the well didn’t expand that much had to physically pull out and let water rise to hold in the sides of the well.

Owen Latham asked about the capacity of the well.  Warner responded that he feels that the estimate of the engineers was low.  The engineers estimated 300/gallons per minute.  Warner said that when they were pumping the well they were pumping 700-800/gallons per minute.  The water was coming in at over 300/gallons per minute with sheeting.

Sue F. wanted to know what they would do with the water being pumped from the well.  Warner said they would discharge it way off the property.  They will surge the well to keep it moving.  To pump it 24 hours a day he feels we will pump 400,000 gallons per day.  He said this would enable the town to shut some other wells off.  The temporary pump station, chlorination will take some time.  The temporary supply could be up to 2 years.  Sue M. wanted to know when the lease ended.  Warner responded that it ended in April.  Then we could buy land or sign a new contract. 

Paul K. asked if the well is on the last lot on Susan Lane.  Warner said yes.  We have to control 400 feet from every direction in order to have a permanent well.  We will not have any permanent sources of water unless we have meters. 

Sue M. asked if the town passed the warrant about meters will the well stay.  Warner said yes, it seems to be a good source for the town.  Warner said they are not sure how the well is recharging.  He thinks it could be an underground pond or recharged from afar.  Of the two possibilities Warner believes it is recharged from afar. 

Paul K. wanted to know the odds of Salisbury negatively affecting the well.  Warner said there is not much vacant land in the zone of influence.  A windshield survey showed 5 abandoned gas stations.  Warner isn’t sure if they could get 400 feet away. 

Sue F. commented that Massachusetts’s regulations are more stringent than New Hampshire’s. 

Sue M. asked about the total cost of the well so far.  Warner responded that it was about $100,000 so far.  He feels the sheeting should have been done first.  The trench boxes should have been wider and longer. 

Paul K. then asked Russ where he sees the committee going.  Russ responded that the board should have something decided in the first or second week of December.  The latest is mid December.  Russ said the budget committee has to review the recommendations and will have time to do so by this date.

Bruce C. asked about our options of meters, diversion and desalination.  Russ said that with meters it will cost approximately one million dollars with us having someone install him or her.  The diversion points we can do in the first year or a two-phase approach.  There is also an article on arsenic.  Three total, two are marginal the biggest is over the limit.  Warner said that well number five would have a new pump station, which will cost 1-1 ½ million.  Bruce commented that the Earth Tech engineers report is listed as over two million.  Russ said that we have to do it under that amount. 

Warner then said we have four years left.  Russ said we could do this in phases.  We could possible pursue the wells with d-sal.  We have a lot of different options and they don’t have to be done at once.  Russ says we have to determine how we want to do this.  If we find that we pump extra water should we sell it?  If so we would need regulations concerning that.  D-sal can be phased in with diversion.  Diversion is easier to dig and put in.  The diversion method can be utilized by spring.  Russ feels that no matter what we decide he feels that we won’t have anything in place for next summer.  Russ said we could have something in place in the winter for the summer of 2004. 

Owen L. asked if the method and the meters have to be a package deal.  Sue F. commented that the town might vote down the package.  Russ said that there is a lot more support for the metering system than we realized. 

Paul K. commented that he has a meeting with Judd Gregg’s assistants to speak of federal assistance.  Russ said there is money there for protective use in grants but no money for new wells or meters.

Warner said we would be pumping before the warrant is voted upon.  He said that taking the water and using it every day as a main source.  Then opening the conduit and let it go into the pond.  When it rains pump it and open the other.  Sue M. asked where we would pump it.  Warner said right there on surface water. 

Sue F. commented that one thing about diversion if the town decides to do it and not pump ground water would help considerably.  We can’t negatively impact water from stream.  Pumping the surplus into the ponds should increase the groundwater.  Our aquifer is made up of ridges of clay, which is very leaky.  For every ten gallons of water we only recover six gallons, which is a 40% loss.  Other alternatives are costly and Sue feels they cause a negative environmental impact to the tri-town pit.  If we use complete diversion we could do 2 or 3 methods instead of d-sal. 

Sue M. said it might be good to have A/V valve.  Asa Knowles, selectman, said we need a solution quick.  Warner said the treatment plant would take some time to set up.  Owen asked if we could possibly erect more storage tanks to store the water we filter.  Warner responded that the well would pump 1.3 million gallons a day and the one we have holds 1 million gallons.  To put another up would be expensive. 

Sue F. commented that during Gulf Storm they had huge plastic bladders lying on the ground.  Warner said that the bladders look large but they actually only hold 5-10 thousand gallons of water.  Although Warner feels to put in a tank wouldn’t be practical.  Sue M. suggested that we could use diversion and what we don’t need put elsewhere.  Owen suggested holding ponds.  From these take to filter.  Owen said that reverse osmosis could be used for fresh and salt water.  Owen suggested treating the sewer water.  Paul K. wanted to know if there would be viruses left with reverse osmosis using this water.  Warner responded that reverse osmosis would take out the viruses to the point where it would be drinkable. 

Sue F. commented that the Earth Tech engineers supported d-sal and downplayed wastewater diversion.  It appears that the cost is three times more than d-sal.  Russ said we would have to up treatment of the water to use it.  Russ went on to say that we have been reluctant to look into the treatment of sewer water because of the psychological factor.  May be able to sell to businesses for their supply. 

Warner said to pump the rivers very little starting cost is involved.  Russ said just because we don’t support one thing doesn’t mean that we can’t do it in other years. 

Sue F. then told the committee she had been appointed to the Ground water project advisory team.  This committee is just beginning to find preliminary studies.  The study area comprises mostly of seacoast towns.  One thing USGS discovered is the entire seacoast area is virtually an island.  The seacoast only recharges from rain.  The seacoast doesn’t receive inland recharge.  They feel the seacoast is already way over populated for water we use.  This committee is working to consider seacoast a water supply crisis area.  There are plans in Washington. We are not the only ones who are aware.  The state and federal are trying to do something.  Bruce asked about funding.  Sue F. said Seabrook was asked to involve itself and Seabrook wouldn’t pay so the committee took it from the reserve funds. 

Paul K. commented that he is an advocate of d-sal.  Warner said d-sal would be quick solution.  Portable rigs could be set up in a short time.  In 2003 we could have water.  The water is recharged immediately but is expensive.  We would only run it as needed.  Pond water has a lot of algae.  Pumping this into pristine water will clog aquifer and deteriorate our water quality. 

Owen motioned to adjourn meeting. Seconded by Sue F.  Unanimous  Meeting adjourned at 5:10p.m.

The next meeting will be held on November 6,2002.

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

  11/06/02
TOWN OF SEABROOK
Water & Sewer Advisory Committee
November 6, 2002

Present:  Sue Foote, vice chairman
        Sue Manzi
        Warner Knowles
        Owen Latham
        Linwood Norton
        Bruce Cassassa
        Carrie Fowler, secretary

Sue F. opened the meeting at 4:03p.m. After adjustments the minutes of October 30 were motioned to be accepted by Sue M. and seconded by Owen Latham.  Unanimous

Sue F. asked Warner if there was anything Warner had anything to comment on about rates of the meters.  Warner responded that he feels it is good to have different rates for commercial and residential.  There should be an incentive for small families or single elderly to have a base rate and then more cost after that set rate.  In respect to cost he thinks the average house metered will be $60 which is the cost now.  To go above that average would raise your bill and below that average your bill would be less. Though he thinks that the base cost may have to be more because of the cost of putting in meters.  He went on to say that small businesses are metered now.  With their rates now they are able to stay below rate.  The rates do go up if they use more. 

Sue F. wanted to know if it would be possible to have a seasonal rate structure.   Sue M. said we have many winter residents.  Sue F. then said it would be hard to have this because many leave during winter.  Warner commented that there use to be about 300 residents in the winter at the beach and now there is ½ that. 

Bruce commented that Cross Beach and River St. pump all winter to keep their water from freezing.  Warner said that Cross Beach line was seasonal.  There use to be a faucet at the top of the road, which they had to keep running over Blackwater bridge.  When the faucet was there they had to blow air down the line.  With more people wanting to stay they installed a line 18” down.

Sue M. wanted to know if that was still the case with blowing air through the line.  Warner responded that no it was not.  They upgraded with a new article a few years ago and lowered their services in the ground.

Sue F. wanted to know if and when meters go in is the town going to require heat tape at Cross beach and River St. Warner said that they won’t turn on a mobile home’s water unless there is heat tape on the pipes.

Linwood asked if they physically have to see it.  Warner said yes that they inspect the mobile home before they will turn it on.  Warner commented that without the metering system it is cheaper to run water than to buy the heat tape to keep lines from freezing.

Sue M. feels that we should have a rate structure that starts at a base.  If we wanted to establish that we should account for the low users.  Sue F. feels we should have minimum charges for each household.  Warner wanted to know if a fixed rate would include a fixed gallon.  Sue F. said that the fixed rate would be a fixed gallon usage.  Warner said that he thinks we need fixed rate if you stay under the amount of gallon usage. 

Sue F. said we should include the installing, labor billing, an x amount of gallons then usage rate over the x amount of gallons in the bill.  Linwood commented that East Hampstead includes $7.17 maintenance service fee in their bill a quarter.  For a 100 cu. Ft. of water is $1.99 and it goes on from there.

Owen asked the committee what they want the rates to cover.  He feels our cost of $60 for water and $60 for sewer does not cover our cost now.  He feels there should be some floating arrangement with value of power plant fluctuation.  He feels it should cover entire capital cost and maintenance. 

Sue F. feels we could have a system development charge.  This would include water connection charges for new hookups, marginal cost associated with this and a new source which will have to be found could be added to the bill.

Warner commented that he figured out the water bill for Hampton Falls.  Our water department is subsidized by taxes.  From the average house at the beach to a mobile home in Seabrook pays $105 so he charges them $100. 

Sue M. asked if the $60 we pay now covers any administrative cost.  Warner said no it does not.  Sue F. asked if we administer water system now.  Warner said yes with the budget.  They have to take money we get in and figure from there. 

Bruce commented that he feels that the meters are initially for conservation of water.  We should charge an x amount for a certain amount of water.

Sue F. said we wouldn’t know about the leakage of our pipes until we get the equipment to do it.  The estimated leakage is 11-15%.  Warner said the equipment for this is already available.  He also said it is an easy process.  The meters are hooked up electronically so they are capable to transmit how many gallons each home uses to a computer. 

Warner commented that the wealthier people in town would always get the services.  He feels that if people have the money to spend they will use the water more. 

AngelJean then commented that her understanding is that the state will not give the town money without meters.  Sue F. said the state mandated meters.  They are the single easiest way for conservation of water.  Warner thinks the state is in program to conserve water  (?).  He said we are the largest water provider without the usage of meters. 

Sue M. said she tends to agree with Warner about the rate structure.  If we start with a base rate and allow base rate to include service charge and so many gallons.  She feels we should use progressive rate on block structure. 

Bruce asked Warner what he had in mind.  Warner said that while the power plant is paying so much we should put it in a capital reserve fund.  They’re paying 60% of the town’s taxes.  Hampton has every charge included in their bill.  Sue M. wanted to know if they do this with meters and Warner responded that yes they have meters.  

Sue F. said that her mother and grandmother pay their bills quarterly.  A set amount of $120 is charged yet they never use the base minimum of water.  She thinks we should have an x amount of water for a certain cost and over that volume would increase.  There is potential with a lot of elderly and trailer parks they will be using little and paying a lot with the same set-up as Hampton.  

Sue M. wanted to know if the meters are set at a certain level.  Warner said meters record every 1000 gallons. 

Angeljean wanted to know if the average family of four usage of water is 100,000 gallons.  Sue M. said that rate is mandated by the state.  Angeljean asked if cost is based on 100,000 gallons at a certain rate and then after this usage would gradually increase.  Sue M. said that is called the increasing block structure.  Sue M. said we would like to protect the small person. 

Sue F. commented that commercial and industrial should have the same rate structure.  Residential could have an increasing block structure.  She feels that an increasing block structure would have negative affect on industry. 

Warner said we usually change the rate every five years.  They take the average in the state consistent with municipal run water system and figure the average rate.  Sue M. wanted to know if there is a way to see fluctuations now.  Warner said some businesses are seasonal.  We have rates, which start low for the first 100,000 gallons and over that we double them.  Sue M. wanted to know if small businesses have different rates than large businesses.  Warner said the rates are the same.  It was .85 first 100,000, $1.05 next 900,000 and $1.20 over one million gallons uses.  These rates are now doubled. 

Sue M. wanted to know what is a fare rate to charge.  Sue F. commented that this depends on what kind of industry we wanted to come into the town.  We have several industries in town because the water is so cheap.  They use excessive water amounts because of our water rates.  She feels instead of using excessive water to keep products cool they should use a chiller.  Sue M. commented that she doesn’t want to bring industry into town because the water is so cheap.

Sue F. said the amount of water our car washes consume that they agreed to recycle.  Warner said they do recycle their water but are not certain as to how much.  This is because we are not certain where they are getting their water.  Sue M. wanted to know if they are cleaning up the water that they use.  Warner said yes that they are using it again.  Sue F. commented that even their rinse water has to be filtered.  Our water unfiltered would turn rinse cycle into jet blasters which could blast paint off cars.  Warner said we have to run water into the car wash by the Hampton Falls line because it is not enclosed.  Sue F. said they supposedly have to have two wells. 

Sue M. asked if there should be an increase in cost for water maintenance.  Warner said a brand new hookup would cost $350 all together.  $250 for material and $100 to inspect.  Sue M. asked if this is enough.  Warner said that yes it was.  Sue M. wanted to know if this pertains to development.  Warner said they oversee everything that their contractor does.  They charge them connection fee, inspection fee and oversee that.  Sue F. asked if we have the capability to include that in bill.  Warner said we have to put in planning board regulation.  They would have to pay in capital reserve account.  Sue M. asked if this was being done now.  Warner responded that no it was not. 

Sue F. feels we should ratify capital improvement fund and begin charging impact fees. The fees charged would be used between school, fire, police and DPW departments.  If we set it too low would not cover costs for improvements and if set too high could have possibility of court action. 

Sue M. wanted to know if there is a way we could cover the fees.  Sue F. said the Dept. heads have already submitted what they call the “wish list” for the CIP.  What the proposed budget, expenditures, how much commercial and residential costs would be.  Sue M. said we know capital expenditures in water is something we should charge.  Warner said we need capital reserve fund for replacement of meters and other maintenance problems that may arise. 

Sue F. said the water department and DPW are two departments you can charge an impact fee through billing because we will need to find a new source for these departments and maintain them. 

Russ said there is nothing that says we can’t cover capital costs with the rates.  We could put capital costs into rate and get resident rate to be fair and understood.  He feels businesses should have a special classification because the cost to us is more.

Angeljean wanted to know if a capital reserve fund had to be approved by town meeting.  Russ said it initially had to be approved by voters and to take it out you would need approval by town meeting. 

Sue M. asked when setting rate structure should we include future cost.  Russ said we should keep strictly to operational cost and don’t include future costs in rates.  We can pass most on to businesses.  Sue F. said that in the future we could have capital surcharge.  She also commented that all meters wouldn’t be in at once.  Warner said it would take about three months to install all meters. 

Sue F. said that residents for a period of quarters could get meter reading so they could see what they would pay and could adjust their usage accordingly.      Warner said we should probably charge every quarter or semi-annually.  Sue M. asked what he feels would be fairer.  Warner said his thought is we should charge twice a year.  Russ said that there should be a minimal cost to cover installing. 

Warner said that he feels the absolute minimum rate would be $60, thirty and thirty in two bills.  Sue F. said that if we can do it that way, she thinks we should keep the minimum at the current rate.  Russ said we couldn’t set rate per household.  An elderly couple wouldn’t use same as household of five.  Russ feels we can’t set a rate where five people can use more than two.  

Angeljean asked what the rate was called if you based it on number of water outlets.  Sue F. responded that this was called a flat rate structure.

Sue M. compared to types of rates.  A minimum charge, which is, fixed cost even when no water is used and then allowance.  Another, which is lifeline, which is, fixed cost and any excess at greater rate.  Sue F. feels a minimum charge would be fairer to this community.  Elderly and trailer parks would benefit from the lifeline structure.  Sue M. said the committee is starting to think about the lifeline.  Minimum fee would be best. 

Bruce feels we should double the bills to 60 and 60.  This would double what we have now.  He feels we should pro-rate sewerage into gallons over 100,000 paying more for water.  Russ said this wouldn’t be counting additional charge.  Sue F. wanted to know if sewer would be separate.  Bruce responded no water and sewer would be charged together.  Sue F. said to increase usage would cost more.  Warner said that normally sewer cost is more than water capital cost.  Maintenance for sewer is more than water.  It also costs more to run sewer than water.  

Owen wanted to know what the effect Russ’ leaving has on the warrant article of December 15^th.  Sue F. said that it would be a challenge for the article’s wording.  She commented that Margaret Wetherington has a lot of experience with this.  Owen commented that if we can’t get that right then we can’t go anywhere with this until next year.  Sue F. said we just need a general idea of the way the structure will be for when we publish the article.  It is up to the selectman to set the rates.  Warner said her thinks the selectman need to meet with the committee to discuss the rates.  Bruce said we could break down the structure into a minimum rate and then more above.  Sue F. said that the majority of our out of town residents are use to dealing with this way.

Bruce made a motion to accept a minimum rate with a water allowance with an increasing block structure.  Warner seconded this motion.  Unanimous

Linwood motioned for the meeting to adjourn.  Seconded by Owen.  The meeting was adjourned at 5:20p.m. 

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

11/13/02
TOWN OF SEABROOK
Water & Sewer Advisory Committee
November 13, 2002

Present:  Sue Foote, vice chairman
              Sue Manzi 
              Linwood Norton
              Bruce Cassassa 
              Carrie Fowler, secretary

Also Present: Earth Tech Engineers: Paul Cote, Gary Smith

Sue F. opened the meeting at 4:07 p.m.

Sue F. then asked for an update from Earth Tech engineers.  Paul C. took the floor and said he would like to address any questions from the committee.  He commented that they presented an initial draft report to the selectman.  Sue F. asked what the deadline would be.  Paul C. said the deadline is dictated by the town’s financial calendar.  Sue F. commented that this would be about the same deadline as warrant article.  Paul C. said that yes it would.

Sue F. commented to the engineers that the committee had decided on how the metering system would be last meeting.  Paul C. said that the balance of political science, tax information and the water system all get factored into the rate making of the meters.  Sue F. then commented on a flyer the engineers supplied about a meeting in Holiston, Mass on December 4^th about water utility rate making.  The committee commented that they should have one of the members go to this meeting.  Sue M. commented that the selectman wanted something done as soon as possible.

Paul C. then went on with an update.  The engineers looked at for alternate.  Possibly putting gravel well in Kensington or rockwell in north corner of Seabrook by Rte. 95.  D-sal by wells and treatment at beach.  As far as diversion points there were three they looked at.  The first was Taylor River, which would be surface water.  Hampton Falls River starting in Kensington, right at town line.  Also downstream by Rte. 1 as you go down you pick up more surface water.  The final option they looked at was treatment of wastewater to use as recharge.

Sue F. commented that of all the diversions the wastewater is most expensive.  Paul C. said yes that it is.  Sue F. then asked if this would in fact be the most dependable as the other diversions are dependent on rain.  Paul C. said each diversion with exception of wastewater need rainfall.  Shortfall of diversion is the need to rain enough to be able to put back.  The engineers had to estimate on Hampton Falls River pertaining to the water to be generated.  Paul C. said he was talking to Warner that even if the diversion points were in last year he feels it was too late to help with the drought.  The town is going to need a number of years for this to work out.  The water has to fill up tank, catch more water and move the water to where it is needed.

Sue F. asked why Taylor River doesn’t have to be cleaned.  Paul C. said that they might want to pretreat some of the water when less growth is in it.  Some microorganisms are brought in.  Gary S. said that in the pond itself recharge basins prevents microorganisms from getting in. 

Sue M. said that one thing the committee is thinking about is taking the water directly instead of putting it into system.  Paul C. said the treatment plants aren’t operated at best if used all the time.  The town would have to build a tank or something else to hold the water.  Gary S. said that we could have a period of time when the treatment plant is not being used.

Sue F. said that just the stigma of using wastewater would be hard.  She commented that if we did multi diversion tactic with the treatment plan then we could use any source.  Instead of jumping into one we could start in steps and see how each works out.  In the process of this, start building the treatment plant.  Then we could use the water for recharge or use it directly.

Gary S. said that the water amount possible is unknown.  You don’t have the same volume, the aquifer is bedrock.  We would have to let water go through the pond and portion of it will go into the aquifer.  Paul C. commented that we would have to see how it performs.  Gary S. said it is difficult to predict how much will go into aquifer and how much would go into fractures.  This would stabilize water levels not increase.  Sue F. said that with water going into aquifer we would have capability to pump out.  Sue M. asked if it is possible to make fractures.  Sue F. said no, not without destroying the fractures we have.

Bruce C. commented that they had pumped across Rt. 107 and within 48 hours before they saw results.  Gary S. said he’s not sure what Bruce means by results.  In 48 hours the water would infiltrate sand.

Sue F. asked if there is a dye test or a process to flag water to detect how much is from new source.  Gary S. said by pumping water into test area with the possibility that it is over fractures.  The idea is to flood a large area to balance it out.  Sue F. asked if this area is the sand pit area.  Gary S. said it would be by the gun range.  Sue F. asked if we would flood an area no longer usable possibly outside of the range.  Gary S. said they would flood a large general area.  There should be something the town should be able to work on.  The diversions would come from this.  Sue F. asked if this would be sheet flow or injection points.  Gary S. commented that it would be sheet flow.

Paul C. said that individual diversion is very attractive option.  It doesn’t add new source just assurance.  Our wells have 4,000,000 gallons per day pumping capacity but this is not a sustainable yield. The amount of area getting rainfall with diversion trying to put water where it is permeable.  Sue M. said it is important to keep this stabilized. 

Bruce C. said that Watt’s well is temporary and is allowing to stop pumping from well.  He feels we have two year ground guarantees, d-sal and wastewater.  Sue F. commented that it appears that wastewater comes in with highest cost.  Bruce C. said but there is guaranteed water.  There is no guarantee with diversion. 

Bruce C. then asked what is the possibility of well fields going away.  Paul C. said wells are man made and need to be maintained.  In dewatering these wells we could have done some damage.  Bruce C. asked if we could lose them.  Sue F. said we could lose the capacity of them.  Gary S. said that with dewatering them for 10-12 years it takes a long time to get back up.  Paul C. went on to say bedrock well 5 is now pumping 350 gallons per minute which use to be 600 gallons per minute.  This is part of the drought it is going to take a long time for it to recharge.  Gary S. commented that the Tri-town pit is down 10 feet.  Sue F. said that by the town’s estimation it is down 18 feet in the last two years. 

Gary S. went on to say that when water drops down one foot the affect becomes amplified.  The drawdown of 10 feet could be 40-60 feet because of flowing through fractures.  There is not a 1 to 1 ratio with drawdown.

Sue F. said that the town forest management plan is for aquifer and wildlife protection.  We have a town forester, who is surprised at the beaver pond growth, which is 9-12 feet deep.  The beavers also cause a problem with contaminants.  They are thinking of a management plan which could mean limiting pond size and population of the beavers.  Paul C. said that we wouldn’t want to overflow wells with beaver water. Gary S. said that when the beavers dam it up water becomes stagnant and the clarity of it deteriorates.  Sue F. said they are astounded at clarity of the beaver pond.  Sue F. was wondering if there were any springs out there.  Paul C. asked how long the beaver ponds have been there.  Sue F. said they were discovered about three years ago.  Gary S. said that in 92 or 93 the beavers had totally flooded the area.  Mr. Stockbridge commented that Worhtley Ave. brook has become a lot clearer since the beavers have dammed it. 

Gary S. asked if there were any questions about the concepts in the report.  Sue M. said the committee has a good idea about d-sal.  Gary S. went on to say that where we have our supply we don’t need our facility there.  It can be thousands of feet away.  They can fit the facility into an