Ms. Bent
Mr. Boshart
Mr. Houston

At the Town Meeting on May 9th, Weston voters expressed a point of view regarding Warrant Article 27 and Article 28. Article 27 recommended borrowing $4.6 million to replace the Paine’s Hill water storage tank. Article 28 asked for an amendment to the town’s zoning by-law to remove any height restriction on any water tank and, in turn, the committee oversight and public vetting presently required for non-conforming structures. Both proposals were defeated.

It is not possible to determine exactly why each negative vote was cast. However, on the whole, those present seemed to believe that the Select Board had not devoted enough time to the entire $80+ million water management problem that the town is facing, and for the sake of expediency the Select Board chose to focus on one small part of the problem (the Paine’s Hill storage tank) in a way that was disconnected from, or simply ignored, the breadth and depth of the entire set of water management challenges ahead.

Said differently, we were asked to focus on the tip of an iceberg without any context or appreciation for the magnitude and complexity of what lies below the surface, and how the Select Board intended to address the bigger problem. This was, in our judgment, a bad plan and bad governance.

We would like to recommend a path forward that we believe would get the entire Town to a consensus that makes sense for Weston, with respect to both the near-term remedies and the steps required to protect Weston residents from a failure of our water management system.

1. First and foremost, according to the assessment that was conducted by Wright-Pierce more than three years ago (Page ES-8 of their report), this project, in its entirety, will be four times bigger and more complicated than the Town Center Improvement Project. It therefore deserves every bit as much disclosure and discussion, informing residents of every issue raised by Wright-Pierce and the timing, sequencing and cost of the town’s intended solution. Simply adding the topic to a Select Board meeting agenda or posting the Wright-Pierce report on the town’s website really doesn’t constitute adequate disclosure and discussion.

2. Every major capital project undertaken by the town over the past several years has involved a special committee to investigate, plan, design and present a comprehensive solution to the Select Board and to residents. Those committees generally involved representatives from key town boards, plus volunteer residents who were appointed at large. Why should this project be any different?

3. The Select Board would do well to organize a conversation with residents about a water management strategy before the next Town Meeting at which water management issues will be presented for a vote. That interim conversation should be a discussion; meaning, a two-way discussion, rather than a lecture. It is highly likely that a town like Weston is blessed with a number of people with relevant experience like engineering, construction, project management and perhaps even hydrology, any of whom could make a meaningful contribution to the conversation. Moreover, town residents whose homes, property or privacy would be affected by the remedial work should have the opportunity to voice their concerns in an open forum.

4. There are a number of unanswered questions and unaddressed issues that need to be part of the discussion. Among the most significant of those are:

• The Need for a Comprehensive Plan – The Wright-Pierce engineering study describes 19 individual recommendations, plus the estimated cost and relative priority of each. The reality is that this project amounts to over $80 million. What is the Select Board’s plan for dealing with all of them?

• Storage vs. Sourcing Issues – The issues relating to water “storage” are distinctly different from the issues relating to water “sourcing.” Both have an impact on water pressure and water security. Neither by itself will address both of those problems/risks. At the Town Meeting on May 9th, one of your points was “If we add a second connection and don’t have a tank that’s healthy enough to function, we’ve accomplished nothing”. The converse is also true. What is the sequencing of projects that results in adequate supply and adequate pressure? How much will that cost? And what would the start date and completion date be?

• Potential Use of Conservation Land – What is the process by which the Town will acquire enough “Chapter 97” property to enable construction of new water tanks? How much will that cost? And what would the start date and completion date be for the acquisition of the land?

• Potential Interim Steps – We all agree that storage tanks – and the Paine’s Hill tank, in particular – will need to be replaced, for reasons of water capacity, water security and water pressure. However, it is not clear that the timeline for replacing any or all of the tanks is short enough to solve all those issues. Therefore, are there any remedial steps that could be taken (with respect to any or all of the tanks) that could bridge the gap between their current condition and the construction start date for their replacement?

• Risk of Catastrophic Failure – The single conveyance of water from MWRA to Weston is noted as a significant issue. Specifically, “The single connection represents a significant vulnerability. If it were to fail, Weston could be completely out of drinking water.” From a risk-management perspective, if we have a new tank and our single feed isn’t providing enough water (or fails), we’ve accomplished nothing. Isn’t the need for a second feed an issue that could be addressed immediately, in parallel with the negotiations associated with storage tanks?

• Ongoing System Needs – The Wright-Pierce Report recommends “Routine Pipe Replacement” numbers totaling $49 million over 20 years… or roughly $2.5 million per year. What impact is that likely to have on the Weston’s future financing obligations, residents’ water bills or property taxes?

• Impact on Future Development – The 2019 Report recommendations include, “The Town should develop policy to limit new service connections above a maximum serviceable grade of 281.65 feet to reliably provide 35 psi [of water pressure]”, and “Until additional active storage volume is added, new development should be curtailed”. There is also an issue of potentially significant overall water demand as a result of proposed 40B developments. Have the Planning Board and the Select Board addressed those recommendations? Is part of the rush to judgment on the Paine’s Hill tank driven by the Town’s affordable housing initiatives?

• Alternative Lower Cost Solutions – The possibility of adding pressure boosting pumps to the existing system raises a number of questions and perhaps a number of opportunities. What are the trade-offs between more booster pumps (either private or town-operated) and bigger/taller storage tanks in terms of cost, timing and environmental impact?

• Fire Safety – The issue of fire safety needs to be clarified. The fire department seems to be saying that there have been no occasions where fire safety became an issue. The existing storage capacity, plus new building codes requiring sprinklered living units, plus access to additional fire trucks with water-carrying capacity have been cited as real and valuable risk mitigation. What exactly has the risk assessment by the Weston Fire Department concluded about the inadequacy of the existing system?

As a community, we all want the same thing – a safe, secure, durable, well-maintained, effective water management system. In the end, the issues on the minds of the residents who voted against Article 27 and Article 28 have less to do with money than diligence, management and trust that there is a comprehensive, well-designed, and reasonably accurate plan that will address whatever issues we are facing. Therefore, we look forward to hearing from you a fully-engineered, fully-costed and fully-vetted plan before the Select Board puts water system spending proposals back in front of voters.

With Respect,
Focus On Weston