Minutes_100202

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 any surrounding.

Sue M. asked about using d-sal though we need the costs. Paul C. said they considered putting in something for emergency supply. One trailer will pump 300 gallons per minute. The rough cost is ½ million. We would need well and pump. The reverse osmosis process would be better with starting and stopping. Sue M. asked what would be the leasing cost of an R/O unit. Paul C. said we could buy the water by gallon. The town would probably have to sign some sort of an agreement for a period of time. The brackish treatment is readily available. Sue M. asked if d-sal cost is for full treatment facility. Paul C. said yes it is for the whole thing. Sue M. asked if d-sal treatment could be for other parts of town. Paul C. said wouldn’t use for wastewater treatment. Wastewater would need pre-filtration and then treat. We would have to add some things to it. Sue M. commented that the membranes are changeable in the R/O unit. Paul C. said that yes they are. Sue F. asked if we need to hire someone to run the unit. Paul C. said that a town employee could run it. Gary S. said that R/O is simpler to operate than other systems. With wells water changes constantly and need more training to handle this. With R/O it is same procedure for any type of water.

Paul C. went on to say that to rent could include treatment operation. Bruce C. wanted to know what the rental cost would be for 4-5 months. Sue M. asked when we could have the leasing costs of the system. Paul C. said that we could have the leasing cost next week. [see email from Paul Cote]

Gary S. said that a lot of warrant articles for N.H. the wording is very important. The warrant articles have certain provisions in regards to the language. The metering and the source should be all tied together. The article has to be a package that is endorsable by the state and town. Sue M. said that we might have to go with two or three different scenarios. We don’t know how quickly funds will be available. Sue F. said we have a better chance for approval with diversion treatments and include meters. Paul C. asked if we would put d-sal on the warrant. Gary S. commented they would have to tie both together. Sue F. said that we have to figure the price of diversion with the meters. Sue M. commented that the d-sal could be phased in. We have to put meters in for some solution.

Gary S. said we don’t have economic growth if phased in some solution. Sue F. said that capital improvement plan just put in their wish list. An article is capital reserve fund so that as we get to big items we have built up taxes that will cover these items. Sue M. said that diversion would be packaged in with meters. When we put out the warrant article she would like to see a cost per household included. Sue F. said this would be part of the capital improvement plan. Paul C. said that you could show that in situation A your increase would be 10 cents per thousand on your taxes and in situation B it might be an increase of 15 cents per thousand on your taxes. Gary S. said that some gets spread over water rates. Taxes and water get blended in.

Sue F. said that we need to get appointment with selectmen about cost and rates of meters. We need that information to put out to the public. Paul C. that typically meters first time will have a transition period. The rate would end up same and shift cost into water rate. Sue F. said meters could be phased in so individual would get statements to see how much they use. Paul C. said that so many units per cu. Ft. so end up paying same money as now if stay under limited amount.

Sue F. said we currently have one bill. The committee had discussed that it should stay the same with the sewer facility in cost with water. Paul C. commented that the cost to operate water pump is cheaper than wastewater plant. Sue F. said we have to figure out so will still have water/sewer bill. Paul C. said that it might be a 60/40 or 70/30 split with water and sewer. Sue F. feels that they should still be together.

Gary S. asked if water and sewer is subsidized. Sue F. said that yes it is through taxes.

Sue F. asked if volume into sewer is so much different than water into houses. Paul C. said we could tell that with a two-meter system. Paul feels that it is really not worth it in Seabrook.

Sue F. feels that an increasing block structure would discourage industry. Angeljean asked if we could have different rates for industry and residential. Bruce C. commented that we could fine-tune the rates for them each year.

Sue M. asked Paul what he would do when approaching the selectmen. Paul C. said that if money were no object he would go for d-sal. To be practical he would definitely put diversion point at the town line. This backs up the supply we have but doesn’t get new source. With diversion it also stabilizes what we have.

Sue F. said that with the warrant article we should combine meter with diversion and another article that puts money away for improvements.

Paul C. that they did another study. Well number 5 needs to be treated for it’s high level of arsenic. The town will have to treat it. The engineers feel maybe we can put in another article because this well does supply 600 gallons per minute. Sue F. asked if R/O could treat arsenic. Paul C. said that it is possible. Gary S. said the first thing is economic impact. By not having water it is hard to get business to come in.

Sue F. asked if the Watt’s site is possible for a long-term well site. Gary S. said that long term he is not sure of. The drainage area is pretty small. This well is not used as long term source, just to let the town stop pumping other wells. Bruce C. asked how long we would have this emergency well, two or three years. Gary S. said possibly two years. Hopefully until we get this problem solved. Bruce C. commented that meters are 1.2 million to install. Paul C. said that yes they were. Gary S. asked if we were going to put in a long term or intermediate solution in the warrant article. Sue M. said probably an intermediate solution and tie that in with meters.

Motion to accept minutes of November 6^th meeting by Sue F. Seconded by Linwood N. Unanimous

The next meeting is scheduled for November 20^th at 4 p.m. in the selectman’s meeting room.

____________________________________________

Earth Tech

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

11/26/02
TOWN OF SEABROOK
Water & Sewer Advisory Committee - November 26, 2002

Present: Sue Foote, vice chairman
                Sue Manzi
                Owen Latham
                Bruce Cassassa
                Sandy Beaudoin
                Carrie Fowler, secretary

The meeting opened at 4:10p.m.

The minutes of November 20^th meeting were moved to be accepted by Sue M. and seconded by Bruce C. Unanimous.

Sue F. opened the meeting with discussion about Paul K. being no longer a member of the committee. The committee then nominated Sandy as a new member of the committee. First by Sue M., seconded by Owen L. Unanimous.

Sue F. then went on to tell Sandy the intention of the committee. Which is to get data from Earth Tech and Warner to figure out Seabrook’s water situation. The committee is assisting selectman in making decisions about water. The committee is presently working on wording of a warrant article. The committee feels the best way to charge is base charge. You get an x amount of water and then an increasing block structure after this amount is used. We would have the same rate we are currently paying and then surcharge. Sue F. said the intent of this is to hopefully discourage waste of water. To get a new source of water we have to take the method and piggyback it with metering. Sue F. said all of the towns alternatives are in the Earth Tech report. Because of mandate by state they will not permit other large withdrawals. The temporary well is only temporarily permitted. The state has mandated that conservation plans and meters are needed for large withdrawals.

Sandy then asked if it was possible to truck in water from other places. Sue F. told her that the state will not allow you to do it. Sue F. went on to say that is the reason we want meters together with the source. The committee had thought about diversion point at the town line with Hampton Falls. This diversion point is the highest of all capacities and next to the last least expensive. Sue M. then said we have to package something for town meeting.

Owen L. commented that he feels with diversion it would take from 8-10 months for the water to get to the wells. He feels we should use desal. Sue F. said that at last meeting the committee figured it not to be cost effective. Also with desal it could take 2-3 years to get permits. The rules and regulations have to be made as it goes along by state. Sue F. said that the state goes along with the EPA. Bruce C. said he feels because we are virtually an isolated island we would stand a better chance to get the permits. Bruce feels that we have no sources west of Rte. 107. He feels that there are four options. The first being desal with two units. Secondly meters with biannual billing with increasing block, which estimated cost is 1.2 million. Third is to work with USGS for data collection site on Taylor River. Sue F. said that there is one on Mill Lane on Hampton Falls River. The fourth being pumping out to well field.

Sue F. said the one thing she’d like to do with desal is how much additional cost if we do have a plant and pull out of marsh. As opposed to 100-150 wells at the cross beach area which will destroy cross beach back dunes area. There will be a total of 30 test wells at Seabrook beach to do test pump. Owen asked why would they have 150 wells? Sue F. responded that Gary said that at one of the first meetings each well could only take so much water. To get by drawdown they have to use more wells. Owen then said he thought we only needed five to triple capacity. Sue F. said that it was prior to drawdown. Sue M. commented that putting in marsh could cause damage. Sue F. feels if we can pull from Blackwater River and pump from that it could be the cost of filters. Sue F. feels there would be no drawdown in that river. The river at the treatment plant is maybe half the size of Brown’s and Markey’s. The area behind the treatment plant is stable enough to draw water from it.

Owen L. feels that we need to get the Earth Tech engineers to attend the meeting next week. Bruce C. agrees with this saying we need to work on the RSA’s about desal with them.

Sue F. commented that it is not just her that is against desal at the beach. The conservation commission is against sinking that amount of wells at Cross Beach. Sue M. asked if we could put wells along roadsides. Sue F. said the town owns right of ways by sand dunes. If we could pick three or four in front dunes, which are not a unique habitat, would be better for the environment at the beach. Sue M. said even to sink them at the Yankee Co-op area would be better.

Owen L. commented that all reports indicate that we need at least two systems to solve Seabrook’s water problem. With diversion already voted upon he believes we should take diversion water from ponds and treat with reverse osmosis or mobile. Sue M. said we need the detail on this. Sue F. commented that we could do tests on water to see when it gets down in well area. The water would be treated with a radial isotope with a monitor from ground water to well. Bruce C. said to see affect it should take 48 hours. Earth Tech was saying 48 hours is not likely we would see results.

Sue M. said rather than to let go into ground this would let us take from the holding pond and treat. Sue F. said the ponds have gone down 18 feet. They have more capacity; the ponds are currently 12-14 feet in depth. Sue M. said we could divert rivers into them and take water from them. Sue F. said that well #5 within two weeks of the pond dropping dropped capacity. Owen commented that we could use mobile units as well for desal system. Sue M. commented that that would be expensive for just pond treatment. Sue F. said that to treat with reverse osmosis is expensive because of the amount of energy you have to use to treat the water. The energy used is proportionate to contaminants that you take out.

Bruce C. asked if it would be possible to pump the water to the treatment center. Owen commented if it was possible to have pipes to surface. Sue F. said it would have to be pumped into well pump with downstream side of chlorine. The water has to be treated with chlorine.

Sue M. feels that the ideal situation is to divert water into ponds and to purchase the desal unit. Owen L. he feels we should put ocean water into holding ponds and treat at same time we would have a system that wouldn’t need desal. Sandy asked about using wastewater. Sue F. commented that yes it is the cheapest water usage except for diversion but the problem is the stigma with drinking wastewater. Realistically there hasn’t been any water that hasn’t had some sort of bacteria in it. Sue M. feels we should have a reservoir near Rte 286. Owen asked of Hampton Falls and Taylor River. Bruce commented that Earth Tech spoke against ponds most of the time.

Sue M. said we have to come up with article. It has to be done by mid December. Sue F. said that at our last meeting we had discussed a capital improvement fund for water resources to study specific solutions. For instance how and where to have desal. We have to get the package together for the selectmen with the x amount of money and particulars. Sandy asked if the fund would just be sitting there. Sue F. said yes so we have money there for big projects to do with the water situation. Sue M. feels this would put cents as an increase on their rate. We need to select something quick and educate on diversion. She feels the wells need to be preserved. Sue F. commented that we are not intending to solve our problem in one year. Sue M. said to put capital improvement fund to desal using Tri-town pond, portable facility and desal.

Owen commented that he feels we should take from diversion to treat water immediately. Sue F. feels that to treat diversions and put in to system is not a good idea. When the flow in the streams are high the town doesn’t need water. Owen then suggested taking the water from diversion ponds into the treatment center. Bruce said there is no guarantee that the water will go into the well systems. He feels that high flow tide will go into the system. Owen then commented that we could use the water that flows from the rivers into the holding ponds. Sandy said that when the water level is up she feels we should turn the wells off. Owen said that we could take water from holding ponds and pump directly. Sue M. said to take diversion from river to Tri-town pond when river flowing well. Sue F. commented that the total capacity of the pond to the top is 50 ft of water. Sandy asked if this was at Rte. 107. Sue F. said that yes that was it.

Sue F. said that she had talked to Karen Knight about getting the selectmen to meet with the committee. Sue M. asked if the article in town could be more palpable to read in town elections. Sue F. said that no it has to be the same wording both in state and town. Sue M. asked if we could have a simple synopses attached with the article. Sue F. said that yes that would be possible, something with simple wording. Sue F. said that in the article diversion is linked with meters and then capital improvement plan to buy reverse osmosis machinery. Owen would like to know without the capital improvement plan what would the cost be for the machinery. Sue F. further commented that with the article we couldn’t have choices. For instance if the town votes for reverse osmosis and not meters we can’t get anywhere. We have to have meters for a new water source. Sue M. asked if we could have reverse osmosis funded over a period of five years. Sue F. said that we could bond it out. Meters are going to be 1.5 million. If we piggyback with diversion the cost will be 2.5-3 million. She feels that the 3 million will be approved. Sue M. feels that $320,000 for the reverse osmosis isn’t much. Sue F. said that is just the one unit. Sue F. said we could have meter input and output.

Sue F. motioned to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

The next meeting will be December 18, 2002 at 3p.m. in the selectman’s meeting room.

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

12/18/02
Water and Sewer Advisory Committee
Town of Seabrook
Wednesday, December 18, 2002
Selectmen’s Meeting Room
2 p.m.

(Note: prior to the start of the meeting, two representatives from the NH Department of Environmental Services met with Water/Sewer Superintendent Warner Knowles, Selectmen Oliver Carter and Asa Knowles, and various committee members. Brandon Kernen and Robert Mann, from DES, explained to those present that the State could possibly be involved in issuing a growth moratorium for the town [absent the passage of the water meters]. Warner Knowles said that if the meters are not approved at town meeting, there is a possibility that the town will be forced to disconnect the new well. Asa Knowles said we have always had a water ban and because the town is growing, something has to be done. He added that if the voters turn down water meters, the selectmen cannot overrule the people.

Kernen and Mann explained that in 1995, Hampton had a problem with growth so that a moratorium was put in place for large industrial/commercial building but not on residential. Mann said if voters turn down water meters, then you would be in a box and wouldn’t be able to serve the customers, because the state will prohibit new water sources.

They explained that if town meeting disapproves meters, the new well will be shut down and there will be no permission given from the state for new water sources. If the town does approve water meters, the new well will still be allowed to be used even though metering will not occur immediately.

They announced that a meeting will be held on January 9, 2003 at 10 a.m. at Portsmouth City Hall which will be for seacoast towns from Seabrook to Durham regarding interconnection of water supplies.)

Attending: (*) Denotes voting members of Committee

            *Susan Foote vice-chairman
            *Karen Knight, Selectman
            *Oliver L. Carter, Selectman
              *Asa H. Knowles, Selectman
              *Sandra Beaudoin
            *Bruce Casass
              *Richard Dodge
            *Owen Latham
            *Suzanne Manzi
            *Linwood Norton
            Cora Stockbridge, Secretary
               Acting Town Manager Joseph Titone
            Water/Sewer Superintendent Warner Knowles
            Paul Cote, EarthTech Engineering

Sue Foote opened the meeting at 2 p.m. She thanked the Board of Selectmen for their attendance. She explained to the Board that this committee has been meeting for 2-3 months, working with Warner Knowles and the engineers to figure out the warrant articles and the costing involved.

Paul Cote distributed copies of drafted articles for the town warrant relating to the water/sewer departments for review by the committee and Selectmen. Articles 4 and 5, relating to water meters, diversion of a water source, designs and permits for a desalination facility and the establishment of a Water Resources Capital Reserve Account.

Bruce Casassa questioned the 2 year lapse period for the funds in the articles. Warner Knowles suggested that some articles have a 5 year lapse period. He suggested that the lapse time frame can be checked out.

Karen Knight asked if the funds in Article 4 which addresses the water meters would be a bond. Warner Knowles said this would be the Selectmen’s choice. There was a discussion that if the $3,600,000 is raised in one year only, the impact would be 18 cents per $1,000 on the tax rate. There was a suggestion that it might stand a better chance to passing this way rather then bonding.

There was a discussion on the wording of Article 4 relating to a sentence addressing approval of permits by the state. It was felt that as the article is written, there might be confusion that, if passed, we may have to wait from 2 to 5 years for the permits and then have the meters installed after obtaining the permits. Sue Foote expressed concern that if this were true, would any remaining money in the article lapse and be returned to the general fund.

Cote explained that the state is saying we have to vote for water meters before we can get a new source of water. If the town votes affirmatively, permits for various sources – diversion, desalination and so on - can be sought.

Angeljean Chiaramida, Newburyport News reporter, asked for clarification of the information provided by the NH DES representative before the start of the Advisory Committee meeting. It was verified that they had stated that if the town turns down water meters, the state will refuse any new sources of water and that the current agreement to obtain water from the Watts property would be violated and the permit could be pulled.

Owen Latham said his opinion is that it doesn’t matter if the state ok’s sources or not, we have to have a good conservation program including water meters. He added that water meters are a must in order to measure water usage.

Foote reviewed the history of the water meter situation for the Board of Selectmen, listing the past defeated water meter requests, the current crisis that exists, and suggested linking the hope of getting a new source of water with the need for water meters, then we would stand a better chance of getting the article passed.

Knight said an educational plan needs to be undertaken. Richard Dodge emphasized the loss of the current new well if meters are defeated. Latham suggested everyone on the committee as well as the Selectmen need to tell everyone “we have no choice.”

Suzanne Manzi suggested that the committee review the wording in Article 4, particularly the phrase “if the diversion and permits for the desalination facility are approved by the State.” She suggested leaving that sentence out of the article. Foote also suggested replacing 2 years with 5 years. Latham suggested inserting “install [meters] right away.” Warner Knowles responded to Latham’s suggestion that, if the article passes, the selectmen could (actually) start installing meters right away. Kernen said that it could take 45 to 90 days for the state to review and approve the permits.

Motion: Suzanne Manzi to eliminate the rest of the sentence from “if

Second: Owen Latham the diversion…..”to the end of the sentence.

Unanimous

Chiaramida asked about the breakdown of the 3.6 million dollar request. Cote said that 1.2 million is earmarked for meters and installation (the type of meters would be decided upon by Warner Knowles and the Board of Selectmen); 2 million for diversion; and $400,000 would be for designing and permitting for desalination.

Manzi asked if the board would take a vote right now. Foote suggested that this would be early since the Board is just receiving this detailed information today and should review and discuss it first.

Chiaramida was told that a 2/3 vote is required on a bond issue and that the cost for the 3.6 million would be 18 cents on a thousand. It was stated that the committee decided not to ask for the bond issue because a majority vote would be easier to get than a 2/3 vote.

There was a discussion of Article 5 which addresses the establishment of a Water Resources Capital Reserve Account for purchase of equipment, land, buildings and related costs. This would establish a fund which would get the ball rolling, Foote said, for having the money to construct a building and other water related projects. It would allow use of the money by the Selectmen after having a public hearing, rather than having to go back to town meeting for approval to use the money. Knight said that town counsel John Anthony Simmons will review the article.

Warner Knowles said there would be enough money in the article for a portable desalination plant. Cote said the article is broadly written to leave it open to purchase water as well.

Foote brought up the types of meters available and the rate structure. It was stated that the committee is suggesting that once on meters, billing could be done in the spring and fall so that customers can see their water usage and make adjustments, if desired. There would be an expanding use rate system whereby there would be a standard amount established per six month period. When users go over that amount, there would be increasing rates to encourage conservation. Foote said that there would need to be several years of use to see how the usage goes, at which time adjustments to the fees could be made.

Latham said he thinks we cannot solve our water problems with just one source. He feels we need ground water, surface sources, and possibly a desalination program, but we would need at least two sources.

Manzi said that once the meters are put in, statements showing usage can be sent to customers so that they can be aware of their own usage. These would not be actual bills but for informational purposes only, until the whole town goes onto meters and real charges are levied.

Warner Knowles said that if there is still a water ban on after meter installation, there are mechanisms to determine who is still illegally using water.

Foote suggested that the Planning Board could issue a mandate that placement of water meters has to be shown on submitted plans. Cote stated that the Planning Board could between now and March require that a meter setter must be constructed. Warner Knowles said that there should be duel check valves required for backflow prevention and these should be placed in the setters.

Manzi asked if this committee should be looking at the types of meters. Warner Knowles and Cote explained that there are two types available. They said manufacturers are constantly calling because they are following the Seabrook water meter situation. Warner said that meters can be installed in less then six months to all buildings in town.

Latham said he hopes the Board of Selectmen will not have this committee dissolved even if meters are voted in. He said sometimes, articles are not carried out.

Foote said this committee has to get the word out about the meters and suggested that the committee continue to meet on a monthly basis, rather than weekly, from now on.

Oliver Carter said the selectmen will get all the water/sewer articles to town counsel for review. Foote explained that Planning Board Town Planner Tom Morgan did extensive research on the Capital Improvements Program which is designed to maintain a level tax rate. She said his studies of special articles over a period of time shows that approval of 3.5 to 4 million will not create a great impact but anything over 4 million would. Foote is concerned that voters are apt to add up all the articles for cost and then vote them down.

Asa Knowles suggested inserting into the article that the Water & Sewer Advisory Committee has approved the two articles. The committee agreed that this should be inserted just before the wording on the Selectmen’s and Budget Committee’s approval statements.

There was discussion on the strategy of article placements for favorable voting. The Board of Selectmen will decide on that.

Manzi suggested that the articles should be sent out beforehand to inform the public. Latham suggested that letters to the editor be written. There was discussion on whether a mailing to the public could be done by the Selectmen. Warner Knowles pointed out that there was a policy passed which says if the Selectmen chose to do that with town funds, then any opposing view can also be mailed out using town funds.

Latham said he has had it and suggested that if anyone wants to attempt to change our form of town meeting from RSA 40:13 he would not take steps to prevent it. There was discussion as to the pros and cons of the previous type of town meeting and the current type.

Foote said there were minor corrections to the minutes.

Motion: Suzanne Manzi to accept the minutes with corrections

Second: Bruce Casassa

Unanimous

The next meeting will be on January 8, 2003, at 2 p.m. in the Selectmen’s meeting room. Foote said that the Economic Development Advisory Committee will be meeting there at 3:30 p.m. The next meeting of the Water & Sewer Advisory Committee will be a brain storming session on how to get the word out about the articles, i.e. a strategy planning session for public awareness. Manzi brought up the public service channel, Channel 22.

The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

Minutes by C. Stockbridge

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

TOWN OF SEABROOK

Water & Sewer Advisory Committee January 8,2003

Present: Sue Foote, chairman

Linwood Norton

Bruce Cassassa

Owen Latham

Dick Dodge

Carrie Fowler, secretary

Sue opened the meeting at 2p.m.

The meeting started with Dick commented that we need water meters for conservation.

Bruce asked if the selectmen had come up with an article. Sue said that she thinks that they are going to take ours with a few edits. The article will be separated from the water department and submitted as by the committee itself.

Dick asked how to get the word out. Sue feels that if we target a couple of select areas where new housing and beach area to get the newer citizens of Seabrook aware of the situation and the importance of voting.

Sue said she was hoping to get the power point presentation on to a website. Somehow to design a website to link it to the power point presentation. Linwood asked who would do the website. Sue said that since Jason Bowley is no longer an employee we could possibly get Oliver Carter to sponsor the website. Dick said that if we get the power point to the TV. station 22 and link to website displayed on this. Sue said we could possibly set them up at the recreation center in the lobby.

Owen said that he had been forwarding the minutes to people that he has access via email. Sue told him that he shouldn't do so until the minutes are approved by the committee. Owen went on to say that he is going to write a letter to the editor stating that if Seabrook does not approve the water meters then we will have no water.

Sue said she had talked to Branden Kernan Monday and that he said the emergency well has yet to be approved for. When the well at Susan Lane gets hooked into our system the quality of the water will be drastically different. This is because the manganese level is extremely high. The well is only suppose to be used when our wells are "bone dry" not to let our pumps rest as we were led to believe.

Owen commented that he feels our primary hope for getting the word out is channel 22. Sue said she has no idea as to when channel 22 will be up and running.

Linwood asked if we had the money could we do a flyer. Would we have to do a pro/con look on water meters in this flyer? Sue said that the way the ruling is as far as flyers the only time municipalities has to provide funds is if they take a controversial opinionated stand. As long as we are supplying information and facts we would not have to do a pro/con flyer. Bruce asked how much money would it take to do the flyers. Sue said just for printing of 4000 flyers would be 150-175 dollars. If we mail to residents and but not post office boxes would cost about $750.

Dick asked what if we put it out with the election brochure. Sue said that this would be too late some residents don't get them until 2 days before the election. She feels we have to have something repetitive not just a one-time thing. Bruce said that his grandson is able to do web pages and he would ask him if it is possible to do it. Sue said she is not sure if we can do a web-displayed presentation. Bruce asked how many people are going to watch channel 22. Owen commented that we are not sure how many people may watch the channel. Sue said the problem is once we get on channel 22 how are we going to present it. Unless we have an endless loop of the presentation.

Dick said that in terms of town procedures what would happen if someone takes it upon themselves to get this information out. Sue said there is nothing anyone can do. First amendment rights say freedom of speech. Although we would probably have to have permission to put it on a town website. Dick asked if the papers would take an article about this. Owen said that he could write a letter to the editor all they need is to sign it and a telephone number. Dick asked if it is possible to get an article in the paper. Sue said yes that we could deal with Susan Morse of the Hampton Union. Sue said that we could call the local papers and tell them that we have an article that they may be interested in. Owen feels that if it is interesting enough that they will print it. Sue said the one downfall of the papers is that you have to have something new and interesting for them to print every time and need to have it there every day. Dick commented that a lot of the beach people get the Lawrence paper. Sue added that a lot of the people west of Route 95 get it also. Dick said as far as the Internet goes he feels that it is a very limited resource. Sue said that she feels that 75-85% of people in the town of Seabrook have the Internet.

Owen went on to say that he feels that most people think that with the rain and snow that we have gotten that we will have plenty of water. He also said that if water meters were not passed this year the town would not be able to have any new buildings because we can't support the water. We would have to get a moratorium and we can't get a moratorium because we wouldn't have meters.

Sue said that meters have nothing to do with availability of water. The water ban in the town has been in effect for 15 years and most of the town's people are doing conservation measures because of this ban. The meters are to see where the water is going. For us to pump two million gallons per day and only one million is used a day by the town we have to know where it is going. The power plant uses 250,000 gallons a day, which is sent out into the ocean but that still leaves us with 750,000 gallons of water that is untraceable. She feels the state wants the meters to know where the water is going.

Linwood asked where we are going as far as the meters are concerned. Dick asked if we have a chance for meters. Sue feels that if we get the word out to people we would stand a good chance to get the meters passed. Owen said that another way to get the word out is to make up a little handout and to give them to people the day that they vote. Sue feels that if we wait for voting day it will be too late for this to have any effect. She feels that most people will be annoyed by the fact that they are getting interrupted on the way to the polls. Dick asked if we have a voting list that is accessible to us. The committee told him that yes we do. Bruce said that one possible thing we can do to get the word out is to write to the editor, put something on channel 22 and a sample ballot. He also suggested holding a placard outside of the recreation center on the day of elections.

Sue feels that we should downplay the fact that it is a state mandate for the meters. She feels we should promote logical reasoning behind the meters. She also feels that if the meters are voted down that the town may experience severe repercussions from the state. Dick asked if any other part of the town is set up like the beach association. The committee told him that no it was not.

Sue said that the first thing that we need to get working on is the wording of the warrant with power point presentation. She thinks that the power point presentation should possibly include URL links with education about water conservation. Dick commented that the state has some good links with water conservation.

Dick asked what would happen if this committee put up a website, would we have to have the approval of the town. Sue said that we would have to inform them if it was committee sponsored. Owen feels that just as a common courtesy we should inform them of what we are planning to do.

Bruce said that he feels that most people think of the meters as a way for the town to generate more revenue. Sue feels that we should stress that it is the committee's recommendation to have the meters not the towns. We need people to realize that they are paying for the water mostly through their taxes. Over 60% of the water department costs comes from property taxes.

Sue said the one thing we have to do is gather information. The wording of the article we need. We also need some idea for eye catching for when we work out the presentation. She would like to have a voice over of someone with a good speaking voice. She wants to try to make this look like an intelligent presentation. Owen said that he would like to see the reverse osmosis presentation combined with this.

At the end of the meeting Sue asked Dick if he would volunteer to put together the power point presentation. Dick said that he could do this. Bruce will ask his grandson to work with Dick on the presentation.

The minutes of the last meeting we motioned to be accepted by Sue and seconded by Bruce. Unanimous.

The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.

The next meeting will be held on January 22, 2003 at 2 p.m. in the selectmen's meeting room.

NOTE: Draft of minutes to be approved by the committee next meeting.

Note: On 1/8/03 The Economic Development Committee approved providing the WASAC with the sum of $1500.00 from their funds to pay for the printing and mailing of a brochure regarding the need for meters and other sources of water. We must include the P.O. Boxes as part of the mailing.

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

TOWN OF SEABROOK

Water & Sewer Advisory Committee Janu ary 22, 2003

Present: Sue Foote, Chairman
                Owen Latham
                Bruce Casassa
                Sandra Beaudoin
                Dick Dodge
                Carrie Fowler, Secretary

Also Present: Topher Hemann, Daily News

Sue opened the meeting at 2:12 p.m. The minutes were accepted with the changes of Dick's. Motioned by Owen Latham and seconded by Bruce Casassa. Unanimous.

Dick commented that the previous minutes of this committee could be seen on-line at www.rsdodge.info under the Seabrook heading.

The meeting then proceeded with Owen distributing a diagram that he had made of the Seabrook water distribution system. There was a discussion about the location of meters throughout the water and sewer systems. The diagram will be corrected where necessary and used for educational material. Owen stressed that the public needs to understand that the only part of our water system that is not metered is the residential services.

Owen would like to know how much water is being pumped from the wells and how much is accounted for. With leak detection meters can locate underground losses. Sue commented that the town is purchasing them. Owen asked if anybody knew if the new well is being used at this time. Sue said that she is not sure if it is on line yet.

Owen would like to know how and why are we using more water now than in the summer months. Dick said that one possibility is that when it is cold out people leave the taps running. Sue commented that by doing this sewer pipes could possibly freeze up.

Owen said that the red areas of his diagram do not solve our water problem. Ground water wells were the town's first step and he believes the town should have had a fresh water system. Sue said that a fresh water system is difficult to do within the boundaries of town. The town to comply with other town’s and state regulations. The town may be required to provide water service to the town in which the new wells may be located. The cost of installing out of town services may exceed the benefit of the water.

There was a discussion about additional water loss in the winter due to the practice of leaving a faucet running all winter to avoid freeze-up. Additionally some of the vacant homes could have leaking or frozen pipes.

Warner Knowles arrived at 2:32 p.m.

Sue asked Warner what we are pumping daily for water. Warner commented that people do run their taps in colder weather and he does have a daily pumping record. Bruce asked of Warner if there are meters on the wells. Warner responded that yes there are meters on wells. Warner then called one of his workers to get the daily totals of water usage for today and yesterday. The amounts were 1.4 million today and 1.5 million for yesterday. Warner said this is an increase of about 100,000 gallons from the previous week. It was probably due to the extreme cold weather and people running taps to avoid freezing pipes. Dick asked what we pump in the summer. Warner said we usually pump between 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 million gallons per day. There was a discussion about the WASAC accessing the SCADA data.

Owen asked if they have rainfall data available. Warner said that the power plant would have this. Owen told that he had emailed the power plant previously with no response. Warner said the fish and game department would have rainfall totals also.

Sue said that the Power Point presentation on de-sal from the Arizona firm is basically a learner's guide of how d-sal works. Parts of it could be used in our presentations. Owen said that he feels we should show how the filter works.

The committee discussed the 3.5 million dollar warrant article. It was noted that the previous calculations of cost were incorrect. The decimal point was in the wrong location. The actual cost would be $1.75 / $1000.00. The cost to the average household would be around $300.00 It was noted that the tax obligation of Seabrook Station was going down every year and a new contract was due to be negotiated this year. In the future it may be even more costly to the residential citizens.

Dick asked Warner about the status of the Susan Lane well. Warner said that it is all set to go that the water department just has to wire it.

Sue noted that she discussed the water articles with the budget committee during the Monday Public Hearing. She explained to them that the reason for placing all items in one article was because with out the approval of meters the other items would be of no use if they should pass. In regards to putting out a pamphlet for people in town we have to make sure the facts are correct.

Warner said the board of selectmen could still have meters installed and add the costs to the water bills. Sue said this would mean that the residential user would have to pay all the costs, rather than the cost being spread across all the property tax payers. Warner commented that without the article passing the resident would end up paying more. Also if town meeting votes down meters the Susan Lane well will be shut down.

Dick asked of the procedures to be put on the voting list. Sue told him you could register to vote with a utility bill or car registration. She believes it is a good idea to put the procedure on channel 22 for the new residents of town.

Sue said that we have a residency mailing list from Cora that we will be using to put out the pamphlet. Bruce said that Joe Titone, acting town manager, had told him that he had to go to the town attorney to approve the $1500 that this committee has received from another. Warner said that he sees no problem with this as long as we are just giving out information and not our opinions. Bruce said that we are just waiting for the okay to transfer the funds from one committee to another. Sue said that we could prepare the flyer and if the other committee is to promote us we will have it ready. Warner wanted to know how much the other committee had given us. Sue said they had contributed $1500. With printing and bulk rate the cost for mailing to just mail boxes is be approximately $750.00, to include all the PO Boxes it will be about $1500.00. Warner said that he doesn't think it would be any problem taking the money from the water department if we needed to.

There was further discussion about Seabrook Station’s plans for the future and their potential property tax obligations.

Motion to adjourn meeting by Owen and seconded by Sue. Unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

The next meeting is scheduled for February 5th at 2 p.m. in the selectmen's meeting room.

Note: Draft Minutes, not yet approved by the committee.

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

TOWN OF SEABROOK

Water & Sewer Advisory Committee February 5, 2003

Present: Sue Foote, Chairman
                Linwood Norton
                Owen Latham
                Sue Manzi
                Sandra Beaudoin
                Warner Knowles
                Dick Dodge

Also Present: Paul Cote, ET engineer
                      Pennichuck Water Corp:
                                Bernard Rousseau
                                Stephen Densberger
                                Bonalyn Hartley
                      Topher Hemann, Daily News

The meeting opened at 2:05 pm. Sue F. then turned the floor over to the representatives of the Pennichuck Water Corp. The representatives then gave an overview of their company and what their company could do for the town of Seabrook. Sue F. gave the representatives some background information about the issues with water meters in the town.

Mr. Rousseau explained that the town could have a lease agreement with the Pennichuck Corporation. The corporation would own the meters until the town can pay them off at the end of the lease agreement. The corporation is also willing to send all of the town's water bills out to individual residents. Sue F. then explained the current water article that the committee has on the ballot.

The representatives then handed out information packets about their company. They had brought the rates of Salisbury, Massachusetts with them as a reference guide for the committee. These rates from Salisbury have a depreciation structure of the equipment built in so the town would not have to deal with bond issues every few years. Mr. Rousseau commented that when their company had taken over Salisbury it had a product loss of 16.5% and now a little over a year later they have dropped that to a product loss of 12%.

Sue M. asked if there was any way to know how much water is being pumped in and what is being taken in. Mr. Rousseau said that the flow going into the wastewater plant is less than pumped out in winter. In the summer 28 million gallons are pumped and 16 million gallons were taken in at the wastewater plant.

Sue F. then explained to the representatives of Pennichuck how our billing system works and how much each hook-up is charged. Mr. Densberger commented that the average residential water bill is approximately $240 per year. Sue F. went on to explain to the representatives that the committee would like to see the base charge stay the same.

Mr. Rousseau then went on to explain how the water meters and the reading of the meters work. Sue M. asked with the congested streets in town how would the meters pick up each individual home. Mr. Rousseau explained that it is just a matter of how you drive by each home. Ms.

Hartley added that at the end of each street the computer would tell you if you have missed any homes. Sue M. wanted further clarification of this. Ms. Hartley added that after all of the information is loaded into the computer they have an edit sheet to see if the range of usage is off from month to month. Sue M. asked if there was any way to fraud the system. Mr. Densberger said that it is highly unlikely because of their edit sheet.

The committee then went on to discuss the rate structure with the representatives. Mr. Densberger said that the town would set the rates of the metering although the Pennichuck Company will give recommendations of how the rates should be structured. The representatives feel that the town should have a monthly billing. Sue F. agreed with this idea because with so many seasonal homes being rented the renter can pay for their water usage from this billing type.

Dick D. inquired about tertiary treatment of water for the east coast. He discussed treatments used on the west coast. Informed the board about acceptable injection recharge dilution rates. Mr. Densberger replied that there was no tertiary treatment in any area that he knew of. There followed a discussion about using the waste water from the Waste Water Treatment Facility to recharge our aquifer and the associated “yuck” factor.

Warner asked how the Pennichuck Corporation could afford to put in 1.2 million dollars worth of meters into the town of Seabrook. Mr. Densberger explained that the company does have those resources available to them.

Sue M. asked how quickly the meters could be installed. Mr. Rousseau said that it took them about one month to do 600 connections. Ms. Hartley added that the company sub-contracts to other companies to get the meters installed quickly. The representatives then left the meeting.

The minutes of the January 22, 2003 meeting were then voted on. They were motioned to be accepted by Linwood and seconded by Sandra. The vote was unanimous.

The committee then worked on ideas for the power point presentation which committee member Sandra Beaudoin had been working on.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 PM

The next Water and Sewer Advisory Committee meeting will be held on February 12, 2003 at 2p.m. in the selectmen's meeting room.

Minutes approved 2/18/03

[Top of Page][Water Conservation]

TOWN OF SEABROOK

Water & Sewer Advisory Committee February 12, 2003

Present: Sue Foote, Chairman
             Sandy Beaudoin
             Bruce Casassa
             Dick Dodge
             Warner Knowles
             Owen Latham
             Sue Manzi
             Linwood Norton

In the absence of Secretary, Carrie Fowler, Sue Manzi will record minutes.

Sue Foote opened the meeting at 2:00 pm. She presented a Water Advisory Committee Report to be submitted to the Annual Town Report. Sue stated that she had been called by the town to submit a report and prepared it this morning. It has to be submitted now in order to be included in the printing of the town report. Sue Manzi moved to accept the report as written and submit it to the town. Motion was seconded by Owen Latham and passed.

Sue had the revised Power Point presentation on a CD to be viewed and approved before going to the Board of Selectmen for permission to set it up in town public places including the Library, Community Center and Town Hall lobby. Also, in order to present this Power Point presentation over the town cable channel, there would be a need to install a video card in the computer system. Sue stated that she and Vinnie would be willing to donate the card and install it in order to move quickly to get this on the air.

The committee moved into the Town Manager’s office to view the presentation. Sue explained that the information in this presentation is all fact, even though it may be biased to affirming the public on all the positive points, they are still true facts. She played the presentation and then reviewed each slide. Dick Dodge stated that it covered the waterfront and that some of these slides could be used for a brochure.

Some discussion followed on the reasons for the water ban when it wasn’t actually being enforced. Discussion continued on preparing a flyer to be sent to all residents including PO Boxes. The flyer will contain the seven slides in the power point and then a list of FAQ's &A’s on an 11x17” sheet which can be double-folded and mailed by bulk mail.

Dick Dodge agreed to prepare the flyer.

Discussion took place regarding having an open question and answer session on February 26^th at 2pm. It was suggested that we be prepared with the answers to questions, which were mentioned at the Selectmen’s meeting earlier. There was a question regarding the trailer parks, if each home would have a meter and bill or if the landowner would. It was the consensus of the committee that each home would have a meter installed but the landowner would receive the bill with information on each user. It would be up to the landowner to pay the bills and charge each user.

Sue M. asked the committee if the NO and Yes slide should be changed to show YES first. The committee agreed. Also, it was suggested and agreed upon that the first slide show statements of Articles 11 and 33 rather than questions.

Selectmen, Ollie Carter and Karen Knight joined the group to review the Power Point presentation. They gave their approval on the corrected version. Ollie stated that the town budget would take care of the expense for the purchase of the video card required to present this on the cable network. They also approved of having the presentation done at the Library, Community Center and Town Hall lobby.

Sue M. questioned if there was a way to present information at the Post Office since that is a place frequented by townspeople. Karen said there should be no problem in posting information. Just check with Jim Booth.

Sue M. questioned about putting information out on an e-mail network, if there was any network established by the town. Karen said we would just send out to our own and asked that everyone forward it on. Sue F. stated that we want to keep it simple so not to over burden someone with a lot of download time and too much information. The e-mail should reference the web site for people to go to.

The committee reconvened back to the meeting room. Further discussion on the FAQ’s led to more of the questions mentioned at the selectmen’s meeting. Specifically, a question by Ivan Eaton about the water diversion and how will it work. Sue M. questioned Warner if the stream gauge was indeed in place and giving data. Warner will check to be sure it has been installed.

It was decided that everyone send a list of questions and answers to Dick Dodge so he can comprise them for the brochure and in preparation of the public meeting to be held on February 26^th. Sue F. stated that all committee members should have their Q&A’s e-mailed to Dick by this weekend.

Bruce said that he had asked Carrie to question Warner, two meetings ago, about getting information on the water levels of the wells and the pumping numbers now and where they were 2 years ago. Warner will provide the information for Bruce by the next meeting.

All members did not receive the minutes from the last meeting, so approval of the February 5^th meeting minutes were tabled.

Sue called the meeting to adjourn at 3:30 pm.

Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 19^th at 2:00 pm.

Suggested Agenda for 2-19-03: Review the numbers Warner is to provide on wells, all Q&A’s sent to Dick and subject matter to be presented by each person at the 2-26 meeting.

Minutes Approved 2-18-03