[0:54] Okay, thank you for joining us. Same thing. Same thing is meeting as a combination of select

[0:59] board meeting wanted this meeting and the conservation commission meeting.

[1:03] The objective of the meeting is to take a look at our water issue, lack of water, and also

[1:08] to determine what the proposed steps might be going forward at the best case, so it would

[1:14] take as much as two years once we decide on a wall site to actually get a wall of place.

[1:20] So this is not going to be a short-term process, it's going to be a long-term process.

[1:26] with that please join me to the pledge of allegiance.

[1:30] We shall confess the digler right here.

[1:34] I'm bigger, I'm bigger, I'm bigger.

[1:35] I'm bigger.

[1:35] This one's me.

[1:37] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

[1:40] America, the legitimate republic of which stands one nation.

[1:44] I forgot, and it is all really just a raw one.

[1:52] Okay, put that in.

[1:56] We should turn it up with a one or two session.

[1:57] So why don't we just take a, I'm Scott Marriant, by the way, a log district commission I've sat in this seat for a long time in the school board number.

[2:06] And so why don't we just go around the table, just quickly introduce ourselves and say which board or commission we're on, starting with her honor.

[2:20] I'm Jackie Gordon, I remember the live conservation commission.

[2:24] And just, if you haven't been in here, you have to press the green button to go on but then turn it off because otherwise we'll get a lot of backlash.

[2:34] I'm sorry if you remember Dr. Rackles Foundation Commission.

[2:38] Excuse me, Chuck Carroll, Preservation Commission.

[2:40] Karen Oliver, Conservation Commission.

[2:43] Chuck Garver, Conservation Commission.

[2:45] Excuse me, Anna McFarlane, Conservation Commission.

[2:49] Tom King, Select Board.

[2:52] It was a little like board, it was a little like board, it was a little like board.

[2:57] Chris Burr, right here, it's on the right way to district.

[3:01] Ralph Hickson, right water district.

[3:05] Eric Jones, right water district, super in there.

[3:08] Eric Mayor, town council.

[3:12] All right, so what we thought we would do is have Chris, I'm going to have six slides of

[3:17] very fast. We'll go through some of the issues that we're facing in town, stand why we've

[3:23] been having this discussion, and then we'll get into discussion about the specifics

[3:28] of the Brown property. So those of us on this side of the table, we have to go over there

[3:33] if we want to sit.

[3:38] Yeah, so I'll

[3:51] just take one slide in the

[3:55] rest of it.

[3:56] So the current water supply for the railway district, basically there are three wells that

[4:03] make up existing water supply, the Garlandwell, Bailey Brookwell, and the Cedar Rundwell.

[4:10] Garlandwell is a gravel pack well, and Bailey Brook and the Cedar Rundwell are both bedrock

[4:15] wells.

[4:15] And so the cedar run well, which is the newest well, the district house, as the degraded water quality.

[4:24] There's about iron and vandes at elevated levels in that well as well as elevated levels of TLC.

[4:33] And so when the water district turns that well on, it produces water that is consumable.

[4:41] But it's aesthetically less than the quality of water that a lot of the customer is with

[4:48] it now.

[4:49] Like to say.

[4:51] And so those with having that well offline, which it typically is, two existing wells,

[4:58] have difficulty meeting demands at certain points in the systems, particularly when the summer

[5:04] wants.

[5:05] So, having that well offline reduces the redundancy in reliability of the system and puts the water system in some of the compromised state.

[5:16] So, development of a new water source, which is one of the things the district has been pursuing for a number of years now, would restore that water system capacity and capability.

[5:26] We're done to see a reliability that the district and the consumers within the district

[5:34] here really desire the,

[5:41] that's the less where the system is at right now.

[5:46] So the system is, or the district is pursuing, or has pursued the last number of years starting

[5:53] about 2018 did a survey of the available properties within the within

[6:01] rye that would meet separate requirements for welfare protection has

[6:08] looked

[6:08] through and has done investigations to work through understanding how these

[6:16] sites could get developed and what a quality standpoint they're looking

[6:21] of all insulation stamps.

[6:26] Some of those have covenant restrictions. Some of those have

[6:32] subject issues. Some of those have other issues. But there are a couple of sites within

[6:39] town that the district is pursuing and developing. Most of those properties are either existing

[6:47] in town property, although it's a single conservation,

[6:49] it has a conservation in place on the land.

[6:53] So as we move forward, as the district moves forward,

[7:01] sorry, as the district moves forward in developing additional

[7:08] water supply here to replace or supplement their existing

[7:13] sources, really the locations in the areas that

[7:19] are available for development as well as the place

[7:22] on our areas there in existing conservation.

[7:25] So, and really the goals of

[7:29] the weather protection and general conservation

[7:32] are very much in line in that.

[7:36] And looking to develop,

[7:37] and you can obviously commercial development,

[7:42] it's not in line with in an area where you,

[7:49] be citing well. You want to keep that in as natural estate as you can and have as natural

[7:59] estate around that area so that the well head is protected and the potential for contamination

[8:07] is reduced. So with that, I'll pass it over to Scott and Harry. We're going to talk a little

[8:13] a bit more about the brown probably.

[8:16] So to add in on Chris, I'm actually going to get up.

[8:23] So to add in on Chris, can everybody hear me?

[8:28] So he's talking about water quality

[8:30] and the demise of the well.

[8:31] And you've been at the speaking of my philosophy

[8:33] because the people who are streaming

[8:36] can't hold me over here.

[8:38] Oh, no.

[8:43] This is.

[8:52] Let's toss this.

[8:54] All right.

[8:55] I'm sorry.

[8:57] So, Jackie's holding three samples of water, one from each one of our wells.

[9:05] I want to see to run on his daily broke and one is gone.

[9:10] I assume that you can see the difference in the water quality.

[9:14] So, presently, Cedar Ron has been offline for production since 2018

[9:21] because of what Chris said, TOC.

[9:24] What is TLC? It's put all organic components. Things that you don't want to see high levels.

[9:31] Iron imaginase, iron being more of the biggest issues with C2RON is what's creating the problem with it.

[9:38] We're not going to rectify it. There's nothing we can do to that well.

[9:43] To treat it, you're looking at about ten million dollars.

[9:46] It's a choice of the people. The R1R District has a mission that is to serve the people.

[9:53] What is that mission? That mission is clean, safe, drinking water, and adequate fire protection.

[10:01] So does the water that comes out of the sea level well, even though it has high iron and manganese content?

[10:08] Does it meet the requirements? Does it meet the current state-wide levels for those contaminants?

[10:19] Glad you brought that out.

[10:20] Presently, it exceeds the secondary MCLs.

[10:24] What is an MCL, maximum contamination level?

[10:27] What is a secondary MCL?

[10:29] That is, aesthetics taste odor color.

[10:33] So, presently, the MCL, or the secondary MCL on iron,

[10:37] I'm going to use iron because it's easier for me to remember.

[10:40] The manganese kind of cold inside it's wet.

[10:42] Is 0.3 parts per million.

[10:45] We're seeing levels at periods of time of up to five parts per minute, obviously substantially much higher.

[10:54] And the manganese is following along with it.

[11:00] At this moment, it appears as though an MCL will be implemented for manganese.

[11:08] and Cedar Ron is, I believe, double the MCL proposed or definitely, maybe not double but definitely over the MCL will be definitely over the MCL that is proposed.

[11:23] It was supposed to come into effect on July 1st of this year. It got post-Home type January 1st.

[11:30] Sounds like it made it post-Home again until July 1st of next year.

[11:36] myself, but it is common. The other side of it too is, you know, without Cedar

[11:44] run online, you have two wells. You just have two wells. That's it. One goes

[11:51] down, you have one well. As I showed you, go ahead. So do the other, the water from

[11:58] in the other two oaths, will it meet the MCL for Manganese?

[12:04] Garland Well basically is no detact on Manganese.

[12:08] Bailey Brooke has a below health advisor.

[12:14] What they're proposing is a point one for the new compromised

[12:19] people and infants.

[12:21] If we exceed that point one, then we

[12:24] have to do a public notification.

[12:27] more than likely if that continues to happen, treatment will be necessary.

[12:33] There's several means of treatment possible.

[12:36] Blending on the water is water.

[12:40] The blood in the water from one of the wells goes down.

[12:47] No, we're not blended.

[12:51] I just want to clarify this.

[12:53] This is an important point, I think.

[12:55] If one of the wells, this just takes you to run off right now because, so if one of

[13:03] those two wells does both of those wells meet the point one MCL level, magazine one has

[13:10] nondetectable, what's the level on the other one?

[13:13] Bailey Brock?

[13:14] Yes.

[13:15] It's right below it.

[13:17] Act this person's time.

[13:18] just took it, it just the samples,

[13:28] 407.07, so it's below.

[13:31] But the most recent one that I just took is .04.

[13:36] It fluctuates.

[13:37] So that MCL is good for supposed to be .1.

[13:42] So at .07, you're just below.

[13:46] So, and the levels do rise and fall,

[13:50] but if you blend it with garland water,

[13:51] it potentially will meet and under fall underneath that point one value. So again

[13:59] going back to the fact you have two wells that's all we got right now that is

[14:04] supplying the system. The total amount of gallons per minute, Garland puts up

[14:10] an average of 500 gallons a minute, Bailey broke his about 300 gallons a minute

[14:14] that's only 800 gallons a minute to the system. You bring on Cedar Run, it does

[14:20] assist, but you are severely diminishing the water quality and in the future we will

[14:28] be in violation. So it's definitely mandatory, I would say at this point in time that we find

[14:39] some other source that is higher in higher quality to fill that resiliency and redundancy

[14:48] that's needed. Again, at one of these, while it goes down, you have very limited production

[14:58] before Jack.

[15:00] It's also important that we do bring Cedar in the summers because of the irrigation burden and it comes on a lot, because we're close to crisis levels in many days there's a summer. So, and that's something we talked about. The high irrigation use over the course of summer. Last year, I was able to keep Cedar on offline. In order to support the system and keep ourselves in a somewhat decent place to fight.

[15:29] for fire protection. I had to bring all three wells on at various periods. I'm just giving

[15:37] an idea, a short cycle, the pump cycles to fill the tanks so that I was keeping more water

[15:42] in the tanks. I would bring Cedar Run online at a much higher level than in the past historical.

[15:52] So in the past, I would, the third well would kick on and say 34 feet. I was now kicking

[15:58] it on at 36 feet but shutting it off at 36 feet. So limiting the amount of time that I'm

[16:05] exposing that water to the system but getting us out of that critical time frame.

[16:13] So in order to supply a ton of rye with the adequate water that we needed, you had to use

[16:19] all three wells but you used them in a way that when the blended the results of the water

[16:24] meant the. No. I cannot answer that because that is not we don't have that information.

[16:34] So we don't know, but so

[16:36] President, we don't test every day. Okay. So and at this point in time those laws and regulations haven't been put in two

[16:43] places. Just for manganese, right? Right. Let's just not talk about the manganese. So you're saying that by using the three

[16:52] wells, you can supply water, although one of the wells, the water is not as delightful

[17:00] as the other two per requirements of the right water district customers, but the water

[17:07] is available and other the manganese, it meets the requirements for healthy drinking water

[17:18] has defined by our drinking water standards, is that right?

[17:22] I wouldn't answer that no because it exceeds the limit of 0.3 on iron excessively.

[17:31] The EPA says that 0.3 is an anything below 0.3 is acceptable.

[17:38] Is it for me to answer that that when you've got five parts per million to say that that's

[17:42] It's healthy, acceptable water, no way.

[17:46] Yes, but that's if you use the water directly, right?

[17:50] If you use the zinc injunction with the other two sources.

[17:54] Assuming that the two sources are available.

[17:56] Right.

[17:57] I'm just trying to, the feeling that I have is that we're at A,

[18:03] and you want to jump to Z.

[18:05] And I want to take us to Z in a way that I understand

[18:09] and so that, do you understand what I'm saying here?

[18:13] I believe so.

[18:14] OK, good.

[18:16] Because this is not what we're working together,

[18:18] but I want to understand how it is that.

[18:24] Because if, for example, we find out the source of water,

[18:28] it's two years away, right?

[18:30] So what are we going to do between the next two years?

[18:32] And people think that one well is coupled, right?

[18:37] And we only have two good, but every time you say that,

[18:40] That reinforces in the minds of the public that we have, I don't want to put people into

[18:46] a panic.

[18:48] Is what I'm trying to do.

[18:49] You want to see what I'm saying?

[18:49] Yeah, we're not trying to panic people either, but we're trying to, but if we don't start

[18:54] now, then we're another two years away, and then another two years away.

[18:59] And we, you know, we have to start, because if we are in a, or we say people can't water

[19:05] belongs. We can't increase the size of the town. And things like that. And I'm fine with

[19:11] not one. So you see my law. But there's a lot of people who would object to that. And

[19:17] so it would impose a different lifestyle. These are all choices. That's what I've said.

[19:23] These are choices that people have to make. And we're just saying it's risky to only have

[19:32] to good wells, and if we have the legal rights to look for water on other properties, we would

[19:42] be negligent as commissioners to not move in that direction.

[19:54] So again, just to put out there that one of the things that Dissert has been doing is

[20:01] looking at irrigation control, what type of by-laws can we put into place that puts regulation

[20:07] on irrigations, rate studies, structures, and stuff like that.

[20:11] So part of another avenue is conservation.

[20:16] Controlling the consumption is utilized by irrigation.

[20:19] There's a couple of ways to do it.

[20:21] Put mandatory restrictions out.

[20:22] As you know, well, I've put those out.

[20:25] The other thing is changing the rates.

[20:27] And that is not a simple thing to do.

[20:30] You don't want to hit the customer that

[20:33] is already being conservative.

[20:35] But you want to be putting something out there that hits home that gets someone to wake

[20:42] up and say, oh, I am abusing the water.

[20:45] So the other option is tripping.

[20:48] In order to treat this water, you're looking at $10 million.

[20:52] I mean, you've heard us talk for years and years since I started at the district.

[20:57] There's been discussions of a central drill water tripping plant.

[21:00] You know, the prices for that has come up over the course of the years.

[21:05] Keep in mind that this is the level of service of what our customers have gotten used to.

[21:13] It's non-processed, basically non-treated water.

[21:17] It's much different than processed treated water.

[21:21] You bring this one online and you are going to have to treat it.

[21:27] It will have chlorine, it will have a different taste, it will have a different odor.

[21:33] It's up to the people, what do they want?

[21:37] Could I ask you a question, I just look at the newsletter, if I'm reading the charts

[21:43] right, is it true that about one quarter of the population is using about two thirds of

[21:48] the water?

[21:49] Yes.

[21:49] Okay.

[21:50] Yes, and I put that out there on purpose.

[21:53] Right, right.

[21:56] Eric also, there's been conversations in the past about an interconnect with Aquarian.

[22:00] Right now for fire suppression on the summer time, but perhaps in the future for domesticated

[22:07] water.

[22:08] Is that still a possibility?

[22:09] That is still a possibility.

[22:11] We ran into difficulties with the querian, not on a querian's behalf, but because of the

[22:17] PUC.

[22:18] We were going down a suit avenue, but it's been halted.

[22:22] We haven't dropped it.

[22:24] We're going to come back to it at a different day.

[22:28] However, we have acquired some infrastructure out there that has put

[22:33] aquariums, hydrant, and one of the right, eventually one of our hydrants within about 50 feet of each other.

[22:40] It's not a connection, but it's a temporary availability.

[22:45] That being so close, closes can be connected to the hydrants, our hydraulic grades are similar,

[22:51] or a fire pump truck can be put in to support the systems.

[22:56] At that same time, we do have an inter-connected reinforcement at our office at 60 Saga Morro,

[23:05] which we're in the middle of doing a redesign.

[23:08] The equipment that in there is probably dating back in 1955 hasn't probably been utilized

[23:14] into the system for production since the late 70s.

[23:19] Not something that you can rely on, but we are looking at revamping that and making

[23:29] I think we're trying to say, so Bill, it's a good point, Bill, there's other interconnect

[23:36] options.

[23:39] I think we should be pushing stronger conservation efforts, but I think this is a belt in suspenders

[23:47] thing.

[23:48] We can't rely on one option.

[23:50] So, I'm just going to, we're not here, we're here just because we like each other,

[23:55] we're here to talk about testing for water on the brown property.

[24:00] We believe based on the covenants and the deeds, and we have an attorney here, so I have multiple

[24:06] attorneys here, I know, but I don't want to forget that.

[24:11] We have the legal right to do so and to do so carefully, but we don't want to force this

[24:18] down into this room.

[24:18] We want to work together.

[24:20] So we do it in the best way possible and that's why we're here. That's what I want to have this meeting again

[24:26] If we wait two years, then we're two years later. And again, not

[24:32] Not to scare people, but you need to understand

[24:37] There's a lot to providing and securing safe clean drinking water. All our wells are in the same exact area

[24:45] If something is simple, it's a fuel truck that could roll over on a snowy day and take

[24:49] us out.

[24:51] And we're done.

[24:52] If we have a well in a different location, that builds, we don't have a resiliency into

[24:58] it.

[25:01] Chris put up the slide of what we're talking about and what we're looking at.

[25:09] Ready through real quick.

[25:10] This is the Brown property, which is located up west road.

[25:15] So this property is owned by the Ryan Conservation Commission, a managed, I'm sorry,

[25:21] managed by the Ryan Conservation Commission, and the Water Rights Associated with the

[25:27] Property Management Government by NIA.

[25:31] And our CSD, this property is currently used as a public, there's a trail network that's

[25:37] connected through the land recently, back in May of 2022, where it appears to be a

[25:46] and construction with a district conducted to geophysical surveys, lines, the yellow lines

[25:52] that are indicated on the figure there, and identified three primary and drilling targets

[25:58] along those lines.

[26:01] The target one is the preferred site one and two would be the ones we've been most interested

[26:08] in investigating and conducting drilling, one and two are the ones closest to best road, so

[26:14] One is actually the one in the middle and two is the one closer to the west road.

[26:18] Three is the, it would be the backup if one had tuned in and out to investigate.

[26:24] But all three of these are located very close to the existing wood, wood's road that is on,

[26:29] the existing, on the property and the investigated with the,

[26:38] it's minimally invasive, as possible.

[26:50] So

[26:58] the wellhead protection for the well is radius of 400 feet correct?

[27:08] The sanitary radius SPA is 400 feet.

[27:13] The wellhead protection area is much larger than that.

[27:16] In some cases, it's not a circle, it's determined by DES by the flow of water and surrounding

[27:26] businesses.

[27:28] Okay, so the sanitary protection area is 400 feet and radius.

[27:37] So how many of the circles is that in square feet or in an acreage?

[27:43] Have you counted?

[27:46] It's 13 acres,

[27:55] it's 502,000 square feet,

[28:02] yeah go right ahead.

[28:07] So I say that because that's a significant amount of space and parcel is 51 acres and

[28:15] And it was purchased for conciliation and the enjoyment of the bribe, of the public,

[28:22] tax payers dollars.

[28:23] So I think that the consequences of that have to be discussed as well.

[28:34] And to add into that too is we are toward the other day revealed that we are a trail system

[28:41] that comes through to two of our sanitary protection areas and people on a regular basis

[28:47] is almost daily basis, walk through there, what did it dogs, and we don't prevent people

[28:54] from doing that.

[28:55] So it doesn't, having a sanitary protection area, it's, yes, you would love to keep it and

[29:01] shut it down and, you know, board it up and never let anybody go anywhere near it.

[29:06] That's the best thing, is that, is that, what's going to happen, you know, as good, I mean,

[29:13] for years people have been walking, hunting, all kinds of different activities, nothing

[29:18] obviously with vehicles going through the air or something that really poses a risk

[29:23] to the wells.

[29:26] It's three acres, would you say?

[29:29] I mean, yeah, there are 125,000 square feet, 200 times 200 times 3.14, it's a four hundred

[29:39] I think it's for radius.

[29:41] radius?

[29:45] No, it's for you.

[29:53] I'll see to you about this afterwards.

[30:06] I just want people to be aware of that. And how is that going to be?

[30:17] How does that protect the

[30:22] There is, Eric said, and it's all a part of that discussion as far as what's allowable

[30:29] use within that sanitary reason.

[30:34] And dad into that, we've had DES makes decisions on what's allowable and what's not allowable.

[30:43] The district could say, oh yeah, we have no problem with that, but we do have to put it in

[30:49] in the head of the Department of Environmental Services and as it's been stated to me, there

[30:56] are leniency, you know, I mean people walking through as long as you got proper signage

[31:02] and people aren't understanding what's out there, I think that's acceptable.

[31:07] Again, I'm just reiterating, I mean, we've got people coming through our area daily.

[31:12] That

[31:19] was standing all of those new trespassing systems.

[31:21] Well, and as I said to you, those no trespassing signs are requirements, but they will also put into the location because of the incident that happened in 2020 where an individual decided to go through conservation land and then access water district land with his, with the Jeep.

[31:47] So, Erica, I think what conservation is trying to bring up, just so everybody's aware

[31:51] of it, is that depending on it, we encourage you to start with one well, or you go directly

[31:59] to three from the towns approval, that impacts this land and the accessibility, and there are

[32:07] other reasons that this land was concerned. We did get water rights on it. I was involved in that.

[32:12] I still think it's a good idea, but I think we have to take it extremely slowly.

[32:17] Should we not want to lose control of our solar power?

[32:20] I completely agree with you.

[32:22] And as we discussed the other day, you know, even though since three targets out there,

[32:27] we're not looking to activate all three.

[32:30] Again, we drill one.

[32:32] That one could come up with, say, 250 gallons a minute and it's got crank, you know, water quality to it.

[32:38] That's when we drill say 400 gallons a minute, but it doesn't have good water quality.

[32:43] We're not going to target that one for production, we're not going to drill all three and activate

[32:48] all three.

[32:50] It's all I got.

[32:51] And we like that we only have one operational one after that.

[32:55] So the forward radius is not for the test wells, it's for the operational well, should we

[33:04] get it?

[33:05] Absolutely.

[33:05] So it's not going to be three of these.

[33:09] They're not going to be any, depending on the number.

[33:11] It might not be any, but we don't know if we don't look.

[33:14] How far off the trail is as well, is the drill spot.

[33:20] I mean, I walk there all the time, and I have an idea

[33:23] where number one is, how far off the wood

[33:27] road would that be drilled?

[33:30] I think that's part of the conversation.

[33:32] right now that the alignment that we did the survey on was along that wood's

[33:38] road to minimize disturbance or what that. So the right now the way that

[33:44] we're envisioning, I guess it would be part of the conversation is those test

[33:50] wells would be very close to the existing wood's road.

[33:55] When you say very close to me in 10 feet, 15 feet, what's very close to me?

[34:00] somewhere along that. So it's the intention would be to minimize the disturbance of associated

[34:08] with the test well, really. And then we would continue to have that conversation around

[34:15] where those, where the results, you know, that out positively said, all right, well, we're

[34:22] going to either develop this well as a production well or put a production well close to this area

[34:29] because it's, it feels good water, I mean, have a conversation about where that production

[34:36] model would be sighted, would it be an improvement today because it has wealth or would it be a production

[34:42] model, whether it's, I think some of it would be based on some of that sighting, maybe based

[34:49] on if that production well should be a little farther off the Woods Road because the Woods Road

[34:54] is the existing access path. So, and I think those are all conversations that can happen

[35:01] as this progresses.

[35:04] Okay. My question really was, you know, where you do a test well is not necessarily where

[35:10] even if it's a good water to find, it would be necessarily exactly where it will be.

[35:17] Correct.

[35:17] Because so you don't have to identify that prior.

[35:20] I

[35:24] don't have a question, I just want to make a comment on something that Sally has brought

[35:29] up.

[35:30] And in looking at the bigger picture, say Brown, Lane Farm doesn't produce anything.

[35:40] The owner who let us put this land into conservation central letter to all of us, as I look at the

[35:48] picture. We want to take this slowly and be mindful when she lives next door. And two is we

[35:58] are talking with several people in town who want to conserve their land. We don't want

[36:05] them to take water rights off the land because of going too fast or alienating the people who

[36:14] conserved the land. So for me, it's not just brownling farm. It's a much bigger

[36:20] picture of when, say, brownling farm works fine, but then the other two wells go.

[36:27] Bailey Brookins and Garland, you are going to be looking for another well. And so I

[36:34] agree that we have to have education, education, education for the residents of

[36:41] that they understand the process.

[36:44] Yeah, I think that's a great point.

[36:47] And so that is, that's why we're having this meeting.

[36:49] It's when we're trying to figure out

[36:51] how to move at an appropriate, but respectful

[36:55] and the liberative pace, but to move.

[36:59] And so that's why we're here.

[37:01] I don't have to select many of the things.

[37:03] Yeah.

[37:06] Yeah, I think this is in, you know, the sky's point.

[37:10] What we'd like to do would come from this meeting would be a plan, at least the first couple

[37:16] steps of the plan.

[37:17] What do we do next?

[37:18] I think we all agree that we need water, brown seems to be a good location.

[37:24] So what do we, where do we go from here?

[37:26] This concerns about losing access to the brown property for conservation.

[37:30] I'm totally understand that we want to mitigate that as much as possible.

[37:34] But how can we work with the Conservation Commission and the water district to again hold

[37:40] a cord?

[37:41] Can I get that?

[37:42] I guess I would answer that and we don't make plans as a commission unless we've all

[37:49] had a chance to talk about it.

[37:51] We don't have all the commission people here.

[37:53] So in my mind there's no actual decisions being made tonight.

[37:57] The other thing we have to do is end CRS, isn't it, in RCS?

[38:03] Yes.

[38:04] I'm getting that.

[38:05] They're a big part of that.

[38:07] So they had to say, yes, for the geophysical survey.

[38:11] You can't even just ask us.

[38:15] So coming out of tonight, I think it's more of an informational meeting.

[38:19] The public can hear of what may or may not have been.

[38:22] but we have to go back and our CS has to know the process.

[38:27] Yeah, I accept the fact that it's informational,

[38:30] but I think that I'd like to get a timeline.

[38:32] When is your next meeting?

[38:35] Conservation.

[38:37] The second Thursday of the month, October 13th.

[38:42] Okay.

[38:43] Would it be possible to have meeting sooner?

[38:48] I'm not going to speak for the whole commission,

[38:50] But I can tell you that the sidewalks alone this week were taxing on the volunteers, but

[38:58] I can always ask.

[39:00] I mean, we would have to say that we would have to submit the written plan to PANRC

[39:05] as not you.

[39:06] So that's, you know, that's not, is that not ready to go yet?

[39:09] No, so we, you know, it's, so keep your meeting on October 13th and we're lucky to get something

[39:17] done that fast.

[39:18] And so, these things don't have to operate in sequence, they could operate in parallel.

[39:24] You guys can have immediate, because ultimately, I believe it's NRCS that will give us the

[39:30] approval or not.

[39:31] It's not, you guys don't have, I don't say, it's nasty.

[39:37] You don't have the approval authority, right?

[39:39] It's NRCS, as I understand.

[39:41] We have the need, though.

[39:43] I mean, we can approach them and say, you know, they weren't with us to get the water

[39:48] rights on this property. So we were in touch with them when this was happened. Their turn

[39:53] around is extremely slow, so don't count on them to rush us along.

[39:57] We never count on anyone to go fast, so I'm fortunate.

[40:01] And I think, you know, I think conservation, like I said before, the water rights were put

[40:05] on that property deliberately. We're not unaware of the water crisis, but as Jeff pointed

[40:10] out and Eric confirmed minority of people are using the majority of the water and the

[40:18] majority of that water is going to irrigation is my understanding of what Eric said.

[40:22] So we're going circles here. I mean if we could control drinkable water being casually

[40:32] treated that would solve a lot of the problems that got us where we are now.

[40:38] I think so. It would a short term, but we're looking at expanding on the US one. We're looking at. I mean, it's going up. We're looking at 180, but it's going up potentially in the next two years.

[40:52] So that's the one that somebody in it's right. Bill, but I think when you approach as if let's make this about using conservation land for more water.

[41:04] That's not going to be a symbol of a lot of people, because it shouldn't be about development, future development, it should be about sustainability or what we've provided so far as Eric's own with my foot.

[41:17] You know, we're trying to get back up to speed, not see how many people, you know, additional buildings we could put in.

[41:24] I don't think that's the way it approached.

[41:27] I think we probably have a different sort of opinion a little bit.

[41:32] I certainly understand your position, but I think our, from a slight voice standpoint,

[41:37] our commitment is to provide the highest quality of services to our residents.

[41:42] And if the residents want irrigation, that's part of what our commitment is going to help.

[41:47] Now we do have commitment in place by water district to come up with some mitigating

[41:56] controls during irrigation. So the irrigation is going to be a period back.

[42:02] Number one, we're going to add some additional cost to it to dissuade people from the irrigation.

[42:07] Number two, we're going to limit the irrigation itself.

[42:09] So, this isn't a one-time, it's an combination of, I think, programs to be able to solve the problem, this is just one.

[42:20] So, I agree with you on that. It's not just a one avenue.

[42:23] But Eric, can I interrupt you for a second? Eric, can I interrupt you?

[42:28] Yes.

[42:28] You gave us some, we had a site walk with Eric yesterday?

[42:34] Two, Tuesday.

[42:38] And you gave us some numbers on irrigation and I think from the noise I just heard in

[42:46] the crowd here if you could actually go over some of those numbers again.

[42:50] So in the conversation that I had with all of the commission the other day is that I reached

[42:58] out to one of the bigger irrigation companies in battlebought.

[43:03] So numbers of how many customers we serve, and the size of the irrigation systems, and

[43:14] basically the quantities of what those systems were using and that equates to about 1,800 gallons

[43:25] per service, not service, I should say, per customer,

[43:30] and that equated to about almost 400,000 gallons a day

[43:34] just in the ones that he's serving.

[43:39] You know, are those super-pacurate numbers?

[43:41] It could be, it could be a little bit, it could be a little bit.

[43:44] I don't know.

[43:45] And that's definitely not encompassing all the other

[43:48] private systems that he's not serving,

[43:52] other irrigation systems.

[43:53] So there's a substantial amount of water that is going directly out on the ground just to grow grass.

[44:02] You also told us the other day that it's really high summer, really hot summer days.

[44:11] The wells produce 1.1 million galas, and would you say 7 to 800,000 of that?

[44:20] And average daily production in the off season is about 250,000 to 300,000 gallons a day.

[44:29] That's like a baseline.

[44:30] Now, you do have some more people coming in in the summer season that adds into domestic

[44:37] use.

[44:38] I can't really calculate.

[44:40] I can tell you that our seasonal customers are pretty low use costumers, they generally

[44:46] don't have high use.

[44:48] where the additional people coming in is people that are actually year round and having more of their family members and stuff like that.

[44:57] So in 2020

[45:00] I think we have experienced in upwards of 1.1 to 1.2 million gallons produced out to the system during the course of the 24 hour period of time. My assumption is at least, somewhere 700, maybe even 800,000 of that was out to irrigation. That's saying, taken the 250, the 300 average to bulk it it up to 400,000.

[45:28] and then you guys, the remainder is 800,000.

[45:32] So that's, am I positive?

[45:35] No, but that's...

[45:37] But you're educated.

[45:38] Right, I've all been educated.

[45:40] Yeah, that's a lot, yeah.

[45:41] That's ridiculous.

[45:42] Yes.

[45:42] When people don't have water to drink,

[45:44] or we're worried about that,

[45:45] or water to put up fires,

[45:47] and they're putting it on their lot,

[45:49] I think we really need to do some warrant article work

[45:54] about no irrigation or minimal irrigate,

[45:57] really restrict ourselves on irrigation.

[46:01] I agree.

[46:02] Yeah, I know.

[46:03] The challenge we face, to be honest,

[46:05] is the limo we're wrestling with,

[46:07] is we have mandatory restrictions right now,

[46:10] drive around town, you see a lot of really green lawns.

[46:14] We don't have the moped patrol,

[46:16] like, you know, they do for parking enforcement of beach,

[46:19] unless we get those kids to get up early.

[46:20] We don't have an enforcement mechanism right now.

[46:23] And so it's building an infrastructure,

[46:24] again, when I come back to the belt and suspension, I am strongly in favor. I think it's a crime

[46:31] in the amount of people water. Bluegrass doesn't belong here, but we have to do more

[46:38] than that.

[46:39] I'll add in something to that too, Scott touched on it. I mean, the district is pretty limited

[46:45] staff. There's myself as a working superintendent and then I have two guys. You know, just today

[46:52] one of my guys called me, it's like, hey, we're still in restrictions, and I said, yes,

[46:57] we are.

[47:00] I instructed him, if he desired to approach the property owner, to be cautious, just

[47:06] inform them, educate them, don't put them in a situation where they're feeling harassed.

[47:12] We've had on numerous occasions an attitude developed where, well, I've got the money I'll

[47:16] pay for.

[47:19] charge them. So charging is will not stop them and they don't care. The only way to stop them is to limit your

[47:30] engagement rights. Can we just get back on it? It's like 20 times a and I'm thinking that we should get

[47:38] back to the matter. I'm sorry. I just you know work that way. We can deal with this in a separate

[47:45] issue because this is a bigger problem as anything.

[47:49] It's something we talk about at every meeting.

[47:52] Okay.

[47:52] So yes.

[47:54] Okay.

[47:55] So just what are, knowing what hour can we then regroup after our October meeting and you

[48:06] do the work that you feel that you need to do and we can be in this meeting after our meeting.

[48:17] So what we would like to do is we would like to move forward

[48:21] preparing the application to our CS.

[48:24] We're not going to submit it.

[48:26] We'll talk and we'll share internally.

[48:29] But we don't want to wait until after October 13th

[48:33] and November 13th, wherever it is, to wait to get to go ahead

[48:37] to even prepare the application.

[48:40] So all this could be fit in around other all time jobs.

[48:43] As long as you're understanding that you filling up the paperwork is not a consent or not part.

[48:51] We understand that.

[48:54] Thank you.

[48:57] If you have, it would make a lot of sense.

[49:01] I can't promise that.

[49:04] How about if we see it before you give it to NRCS?

[49:07] That's what I said.

[49:12] I meant it's entirely internal to arrive to the state.

[49:19] Yeah, I'd also, I think what I'd like to do is come away

[49:22] participating with a template.

[49:25] We don't need to put dates in everything.

[49:27] But the first thing is that obviously you

[49:29] have to meet an application in CRS, a copy

[49:33] to you, let's look at it first.

[49:35] But then what's the next step?

[49:37] The next step is they're going to say,

[49:39] This is a fabulous plan, and we're going to submit it to NRCS, and Ralph will run

[49:44] it in spite of their delays. They have a required 30 or 60-day turnaround on this stuff.

[49:49] So let's try and remove the ball down the field.

[49:53] Which we understand, but I think we don't want you to get to a point that there's implied agreement.

[50:00] Let's say that we come to an agreement on concertation or a recommendation agreement.

[50:06] that we think one well drilling like you picked the one that you thought was

[50:12] most productive potentially which is in the middle of the property target one and

[50:19] we'll stay there until we figure out what goes on. I mean that could be a

[50:22] recommendation from us. It could be and you know I would ask Chris Erick to

[50:27] weigh in on that you know it might be just might be more cost effective

[50:34] I have water effective to try to put it as long as you're out there, two holes in the ground, but I don't, I'm not the water engineer.

[50:42] Can I ask one question about that?

[50:45] Well, number one, I saw the overlay of the Bruno Pools, which I know that Ray passed.

[51:00] which he didn't bring that to our meeting, our recent meeting, but well number one is

[51:07] not near Bernouple. Well number two is right next to a Bernouple. And we have, you know,

[51:13] Bernouple's, we have three major Bernouple's on that property. And they're extremely important,

[51:18] and that's part of the reason NRCS is, you know, as our partner in this. So what Sally

[51:24] saying is well number three doesn't look that great if you're looking at all the stuff

[51:31] that Greg Smith gave us. So I think it's reasonable to start with one and kind of unreasonable

[51:38] to think about two because of where it's located. That's just a layman's purpose.

[51:43] Sure, viewpoint.

[51:44] Yeah, one of the things is that this is a Beirut phone you're hoping to find water fairly deep

[51:52] down in the ground and have those fractures.

[51:54] If there's no fracture intersections that we're looking for,

[51:58] be deep and not shallow.

[52:01] One of the reasons why I see a rod is compromised,

[52:04] that it is, it's got a number of fractures

[52:07] sort of higher up in elevation,

[52:09] so it's pulling that,

[52:11] it's seeing connection to the ground

[52:12] to the surface water,

[52:15] and so it's pulling that organic carbon

[52:16] in from the surface water there.

[52:18] And so, one of the things that have been

[52:21] and as part of the permitting process

[52:23] with, through the state, for a large groundwater withdrawal

[52:26] permit as well, is that we do a review

[52:30] of all those environmentally sensitive factors associated

[52:33] with rental pools and wetlands and making sure

[52:36] that this well is minimizing or not impacting

[52:40] rental pools or wetlands associated

[52:43] with production at that level.

[52:45] So,

[52:48] you know, taking a look at that, too, and making sure that if we were to drill garbage,

[52:54] it did not impact or are minimally impacted, and those are normally sensitive factors.

[53:00] But, again, you know, we don't necessarily need to have that discussion to go down that pathway.

[53:06] I do just want to remind everybody here that the funding for this, we spent six years leveraging

[53:12] and 544-something-thousand-came from NRCS with the protection of the burnables and so people should realize that because the price of the property is 625 so we made up very little of this.

[53:29] So we really feel an incredible obligation to the water resources on that property as we should.

[53:35] Absolutely. And so does NRCS, obviously we can't do this without their approval. So they

[53:41] know where the work was started. I think it's protected on both ends. So I just started

[53:48] feeling I just briefly chatted since this is not a work session, but it's a meeting.

[53:55] We probably have to take public comment.

[53:59] The mic doesn't work, so it didn't come there.

[54:04] And so if anybody has a comment, two minutes, limited?

[54:17] My

[54:33] name is Joanne Price, and I reside at 19 Park,

[54:38] Rejavano, and as a tax paying member of the community,

[54:45] this is really the first time I've been aware of the seriousness

[54:49] of the problem.

[54:51] And so I think I heard somebody say that you've been aware of it since 2018, is that correct?

[55:00] I'm wondering why it hasn't been addressed previously.

[55:05] It's a very important part of how this community will prosper.

[55:12] Have you looked at other possibilities for the well?

[55:16] Why have you just decided on this particular location?

[55:22] would seem that the way you described the possibilities that one of the other two wells

[55:30] could very well also fail in some fashion, that you really need a master plan of water

[55:39] use and water availability in the community.

[55:43] This seems like

[55:49] an attempt to do something quickly and to get it over with.

[55:57] It doesn't seem to have been any consideration of really letting the public know how serious this problem is.

[56:07] I think that if everybody knew how serious it was, they would be willing to do some of the

[56:18] things that are necessary to make the water available to everybody fairly.

[56:27] Also, it brings up the thought that should there be a hiatus on any development

[56:33] because we may not have the water to provide for it,

[56:38] it requires the water district to really have a master plan of some sort

[56:47] that looks to the future and requires the select board to think seriously about what

[56:55] measures they should put in place to help the public know what we're facing.

[57:06] Certainly civilizations in the past have had to leave their locations because they didn't

[57:11] have enough water suddenly.

[57:14] I don't know really how serious this problem is, but it sounds very serious.

[57:20] So I'm thinking of the future, and I'm thinking that plans should be made not just for now

[57:26] but for the future.

[57:28] So just for, I don't know, I'll try to understand.

[57:31] So thank you for your comment, first of all, very insightful.

[57:35] We are not required as public bodies to respond to every comment, because otherwise we'd be

[57:40] here too tomorrow.

[57:42] I understand.

[57:42] Yeah, so we meet the first Wednesday of every month at nine o'clock at 60 Sagamore Road.

[57:47] I promise you this is not the first time this on your special period of obsession, of

[57:54] master planning or it doesn't go to sleep at night without thinking about this.

[57:59] So I invite you to come to our meeting and we could talk in more depth about this.

[58:03] Yes, I'd be very interested in knowing what you're going to do, not just think about it.

[58:09] And that's why we're here.

[58:10] Thank you.

[58:10] So I can just make a sweat comment.

[58:12] This isn't the only location that we looked at.

[58:15] We have looked at several locations over the past several years.

[58:19] So last year in 2020, we drilled on our own property,

[58:25] looking up for a backup well to Bailey Brook

[58:28] and a replacement well for Cedar Rhine.

[58:31] We ran into issues that I do not wish to speak up

[58:35] at this point in time, but it's meeting.

[58:36] We also looked at conservation property behind grand property that was 2019, if I remember correctly.

[58:46] We also looked at conservation property off the cedar run at the same time.

[58:51] So this is nothing, though, and it's not the only place we've looked in.

[58:55] We're not focusing directly on the brown property.

[58:58] If that helps, do you understand?

[59:02] Right.

[59:02] Thank you for that.

[59:04] Yeah, you're welcome. Thank you.

[59:07] Other?

[59:13] It's okay if you don't have to make a comment.

[59:25] Excuse me, the one for 31 Wallis Road, I think is Eric knows, I've been reading the

[59:29] water meeting minutes for a good several years, and I do know that you guys have been looking

[59:35] for miles and addressing this stuff, but like Joanne said, I am very concerned about the

[59:39] bigger picture. The aquifer is a big math problem. I don't know if we have our arms

[59:45] around that. Aquarian is looking at drilling warm wells because they haven't

[59:50] eaten. It's all one big aquifer we're pulling from and I really don't think we

[59:55] haven't got a handle on you know the

[1:00:00] Does the math, how much water is in the aquifer, how much can we get out, how good could it be, what's the demand, how much we pull, and with the development that's going on and approving, I do not have a great feeling about our high level thinking and the math. I know Eric thinks about it and doing it, but I think the town has to do it together, just not put all the pressure on Eric. I think this is a huge issue.

[1:00:29] for the entire, for the town. All right, just not the people that live in the right water district.

[1:00:36] So I don't mean it's like Eric Eric said he's got a small staff and you know I think they're

[1:00:43] going in 100 miles an hour just to keep the water we have going and so these are bigger problems

[1:00:49] that need some more horsepower from somewhere to help us get to the inches quicker.

[1:01:13] I don't have anything new to say.

[1:01:17] I wanted to add on to what the two people have formed said.

[1:01:21] It feels like we need a plan not from you guys on another well.

[1:01:28] But a plan at a higher level where we're not adding 180 units and then drilling a well

[1:01:35] to meet the hundred new units. Right? It feels like it's a all-interconnected, and it needs to be

[1:01:44] led in that way. So, seeing your minutes while informative, and we know you're smart, and we know this

[1:01:52] is a solid plan, and you guys have conservation, and you guys want to add more affordable housing.

[1:01:59] these things have to go together or just don't work.

[1:02:04] And those two spoke more eloquently,

[1:02:06] but I didn't want you to think of me two people

[1:02:08] to help that one.

[1:02:09] Thank you.

[1:02:10] That was very eloquent.

[1:02:12] And that is what we're doing is we've

[1:02:14] been select men have been coming to our meetings

[1:02:17] and working on these issues because we

[1:02:19] know about 180 unit.

[1:02:22] We don't have the water.

[1:02:24] So it's not like we're going to put a minute

[1:02:25] that pray for water.

[1:02:27] And so they have to come to us, but the boards are independent, but it's a separate

[1:02:34] election, separate entity for your water district, just like the school board is

[1:02:39] separate from the select board, the school board doesn't report to the

[1:02:42] select board similarly. So that's why we all work together now. But I think it would

[1:02:48] be worth it to hear all the work that right Pierce has been doing for us over the last

[1:02:54] five years to try to help deal with this problem.

[1:02:57] So we don't have to go to anybody there.

[1:03:00] So back in 2018, Ray Pierce was engaged to start diving into and understanding a little

[1:03:09] bit more about where the potential for wells in the district.

[1:03:14] So we did an overall evaluation of the available properties, available that we have the appropriate

[1:03:21] to setbacks for the ASCVCA and came up with a number of sites that I've been working

[1:03:27] with, the district, to review and evaluate those over the last couple of years.

[1:03:34] And like Eric said, we did a number of geophysical surveys across those properties that were

[1:03:41] available and ended up doing some test well investigation on the right water district property

[1:03:49] and the other sites that had now moved beyond the geophysical investigations.

[1:04:00] Beyond that, there's from a planning perspective, the districts engaged in a lot of asset management work

[1:04:06] over the last number of years, and this year, we'll be working on a larger overall project

[1:04:14] that will be doing some population projections, doing some demand analysis that will help inform some of that master claim that

[1:04:29] was talked about earlier in the public comment.

[1:04:31] So those things are being thought about by the district and those tasks are being accomplished and addressed over the next year to be in set to your own project that we are engaging in on the ass management side effects over the next couple of years.

[1:04:50] So it's definitely something that will be working with engaging with town and the conservation commission on getting input into it.

[1:05:01] Also, we spoke about the 180 units, those aren't whole, those aren't approved, and we'll

[1:05:09] represent the planning board, so come back to the water district, the water district states

[1:05:14] that we don't have enough water to be able to allow that to continue, so that's thought.

[1:05:18] But we're balancing a number of things here, we're balancing the water needs, we're balancing

[1:05:22] conservation.

[1:05:23] We're also balancing the need in the community for workforce housing, and for lower price

[1:05:30] housing and what we have on a zoning order is our 20% of all the condos that are put

[1:05:38] in and have to be set aside for workforce housing. We have 90 condos which are in a process

[1:05:43] of going in which gives us 18 units of workforce housing and we put 180 in. That's 36 more.

[1:05:51] So we've got major things we're trying to balance here. Some of them are more important than others

[1:05:56] But we do and people are challenging us to say let the number of families come into town

[1:06:01] That's going to be through workforce housing. That's all we that's the only opportunity we have as we all know the

[1:06:09] The town has been reassessed and our assessed value in the town was 2.4 billion dollars

[1:06:17] Last year with the new assessment we're not the 3.4 million dollars

[1:06:23] So we have a billion, almost a 1.1 billion dollar increase of homes have gone up by 48 percent.

[1:06:32] Young families are not going to be able to live in a town and pay a million dollars for a house.

[1:06:37] So we're trying to be able to provide some workforce housing in the process as well too.

[1:06:41] So there are multiple issues we're looking at here.

[1:06:44] And I like Susan's point about the criminal pools.

[1:06:47] I think these are things that, you know, that's a good opportunity to understand some of

[1:06:53] my concerns or concentration.

[1:06:55] And I think that that's something which the Water District could work with, but, you

[1:06:58] know, to Scott's point, the Water District is an independent organization, and they're

[1:07:06] separate from the town.

[1:07:08] So we're trying to work with them and help them go forward, but they're going to take

[1:07:13] the lead, and they're taking the lead on us.

[1:07:24] Just to put a finer point on what Phil said, the last real big tract of land that's

[1:07:31] available on Route 1 is the Frosky Land which is about 100 acres of land.

[1:07:35] We've seen projects that have been projected for that for like 60, 70, 80 units at one

[1:07:42] time and going back to the water, we've made it pretty clear to everybody over there

[1:07:46] that this cannot be supported because we do simply do not have the resource water to do it

[1:07:51] period. And it just cannot happen unless we have sufficient water and it doesn't look like it's

[1:07:57] going to happen anytime soon. So these 100 unit are not going to be built.

[1:08:06] If I was like to make an observation or statement, the select board has been encouraging the water

[1:08:14] district to work on this, to deal with this issue for several years now.

[1:08:20] at least, I think tonight our goal is to be sort of neutral but emphasizing the need

[1:08:29] for everyone to work together because we have a real problem.

[1:08:32] That said though, you've got an entity that is not under the town and an entity that

[1:08:39] is part of the town commission that are attempting to but need to work together, but just like

[1:08:48] any other commission or land use board, they can't deal with theoreticals. Just like a

[1:08:57] homeowner going to the planning, zoning, demolition, HTC, it doesn't matter. You've got

[1:09:02] to have a plan, it's got to be written. The board has to be able to review it, commission

[1:09:07] has to be able to review it and talk about it and make a decision, recommend or not. So,

[1:09:14] So I think as far as an action plan tonight, you can have a sense of who's going to do what.

[1:09:23] But I think personally right now the burdens on the water district put together a plan in writing and

[1:09:31] present it to conservation commission because they can't, you can't approve this.

[1:09:39] Just like you wouldn't approve a private developer coming to you and saying well, this is kind of what I want to do

[1:09:46] Let me throw up a slide and put some bullets on it and say

[1:09:50] This is what I want so that that's not

[1:09:55] That can't happen tonight and I don't think it can happen very quickly

[1:09:59] But that's the path that Bill was talking about that we need to start moving out this my observation

[1:10:06] You know, I think it would be good, so I'm afraid we could get some understanding of conservation, so what they need, specifically, and they sure they want to just to provide that to your point.

[1:10:17] I think we know that. I think, and just as good faith in Tom, we didn't come with a written plan to make it seem like it was a done deal.

[1:10:25] So it came to have a conversation before we created a plan.

[1:10:30] We seem to have to go ahead to create a plan.

[1:10:33] It's not going to take months.

[1:10:36] It's going to take more on the order of weeks to create a plan.

[1:10:39] But the plan that we would write for NRCS would be the plan that these guys would review.

[1:10:44] We're not going to do two different plans.

[1:10:46] One for conservation, one for NRCS, one plan.

[1:10:49] That's the next step.

[1:10:50] That's the action step.

[1:10:52] It's on us.

[1:10:52] We have another joint meeting, and we talk about it.

[1:10:59] And for example, would that have the level of detail that you would expect someone coming

[1:11:04] to a planning or zoning board?

[1:11:07] So we're going to respond to NRCS with every point.

[1:11:11] Okay, so what you're saying is that you're not going to give them what they need, you're

[1:11:15] going to give NRCS.

[1:11:16] My example, I mean, just the first step is the entrance off of West Road to this property.

[1:11:23] is not going to be conducive to large vehicles just because of the traffic, the

[1:11:29] gate, and all the rest of that. I mean for a conservation you're going to have to

[1:11:34] have something that NRCS doesn't care about. They don't care about what you're

[1:11:39] going to have to do to reconfigure that intersection or not intersection of that

[1:11:43] road to have large vehicles go down there. Where you're going to put your control

[1:11:51] station where you're going to put your generator in your fuel tanks all of

[1:11:57] that may be all that goes into NRCS I don't know but those are the kinds of

[1:12:01] details they're gonna care about I think they're gonna care about it and that's

[1:12:07] the kind of details that any land use board is going to need to make a decision

[1:12:12] about a project so it seems to me I'm here to disconnect here and that you want

[1:12:19] coming in at NRCS, okay, these are our sites and this is the topography and maybe this

[1:12:24] will affect our pool or not. To me, that's a far cry from what they need, which is we're

[1:12:31] going to trench 10 feet deep for water pipes from West Road, a thousand feet out into concentration.

[1:12:40] So I'm just saying, I think what you're talking about is not what they're going to need, so

[1:12:45] Do you know the requirements for the NRCS plan?

[1:12:48] Can I interrupt you?

[1:12:49] No.

[1:12:49] Because I don't either.

[1:12:50] That's all I want to do.

[1:12:51] Are you saying that there is a disconnect?

[1:12:53] I don't see a disconnect until we figure out what we need.

[1:12:57] We're here to walk around.

[1:12:58] I can easily activate A and answer this.

[1:12:59] Thank you.

[1:13:01] It's a warranty easement deed and it's exhibit D.

[1:13:04] And if you guys don't have it, I can give it to you.

[1:13:07] But it was part of the whole process of purchasing money.

[1:13:10] Oh, I have that.

[1:13:11] Yeah, I have that.

[1:13:14] the proposed locations and access for the test wells and identifying every step of the

[1:13:20] way. But yes, I'm going to reread this and see if there's anything else that maybe

[1:13:27] conservation would be interesting to do. Actually, the whole commission is going to do

[1:13:30] that, not just me. But I keep coming back to the education piece, probably because of some

[1:13:35] of the public comment.

[1:13:38] Because you said, you know, 2018 and I remember walking out for

[1:13:43] a brand, I think that is a big piece of it,

[1:13:46] of maybe including why those weren't pursued,

[1:13:50] so that you can show, you looked here, you looked here,

[1:13:53] and maybe why it wasn't pursued,

[1:13:55] and that's why you've come to here,

[1:13:57] because I'm guessing a lot of people don't know the history

[1:14:00] of this process.

[1:14:06] I think this is gonna be helpful.

[1:14:10] Your comment or?

[1:14:11] My comment.

[1:14:12] We'll judge that.

[1:14:14] What is happening tonight?

[1:14:16] And what is happening in the town of Rye is not an unusual situation.

[1:14:22] The majority of the water supply companies in the Hampshire are very similar to the

[1:14:28] Rye water district.

[1:14:30] So I would love it if this group became an exemplary example of how to handle a difficult

[1:14:41] problem in a thorough way and involving everyone. And I think there's room for that.

[1:14:55] That was helpful. And I just want to say I agree. I think this is the first step and I'm really

[1:15:00] I appreciate being asked to come to the table to talk about it.

[1:15:07] I probably am pushing my luck here, but it's not the other way around. I'm going to hold this in my motion for a second. Let's assume that we have the heavy meeting, the consummation as a meeting, the proposal was put together by the water district permit at RCS, submitted to the committee. You can take a look at it in the sector. And what's the next step beyond that?

[1:15:33] then they're able to submit it if we okay okay so we they submit it based upon

[1:15:37] no. Here at Italy they'll just say this is perfect submit it or we might have to

[1:15:43] have another meeting. I'm guessing the latter but but let's just hope that we

[1:15:48] could move look let's not hear so but I'd love to be able to submit somebody by the

[1:15:53] end of the year the latest but we'll see. So I would also consider a meeting of our

[1:15:59] group again after our public meeting because not that I want to name more meetings but I

[1:16:08] think it's important because I think one of the reasons why we have an audience today

[1:16:12] is because this is a big deal here and so I think that it's something that we should encourage

[1:16:16] you to come to again so we should be scheduled immediately after our meeting in October.

[1:16:24] So just assuming that RCS reviews this how long that they have, you said 30 days, 68.

[1:16:33] Okay, so they would come back with a either rejection request for more information,

[1:16:40] et cetera.

[1:16:42] And but once we have their answer, what's the next step?

[1:16:46] If their answer was positive, then that

[1:16:53] point in time, assuming, you know, approval from the

[1:16:58] conservation commission, it would be scheduling the actual test well trial.

[1:17:05] Doing the things we need to do to make sure that access is appropriate, where the controls are

[1:17:09] in an inappropriate way, and getting that, at least, depending on how the plan is written,

[1:17:14] and felt installing those test wells,

[1:17:19] proving out for an activity of the actual wells.

[1:17:23] Well, or wells?

[1:17:24] Yes.

[1:17:24] So it might start with one.

[1:17:26] I think all we need to point out also

[1:17:29] that the sanitation radius that was one of the failures

[1:17:32] of one of your wells, because of an offsite,

[1:17:36] these two of these three, I think, I believe go offsite.

[1:17:39] So you're going to have to engage with private landowners

[1:17:42] to even be able to accomplish majority what you're talking about unless there's something

[1:17:48] yeah unless what Chris said earlier is that if the test well could be close to the road but

[1:17:53] the operational well the production well could be further inside the property it still goes

[1:17:58] over then yeah currently the way it looks it goes over yeah the radius is based on the test

[1:18:12] Let's just say that before we had this growth in the town and before we had three wells,

[1:18:20] let's just say we were at x, right?

[1:18:24] And now that we have that well, we are below x.

[1:18:27] And with the new well, we're just going to be back at x, correct?

[1:18:32] So we're greeting ourselves back to a standard level of water production.

[1:18:37] Correct?

[1:18:38] Thank you.

[1:18:39] Yeah, let's also not forget this X plus drought and so X plus climate change.

[1:18:46] And so that's what we're dealing with as well as population growth.

[1:18:50] And so which is why we need restrictions, which is why we need more sources and we've done this.

[1:18:58] So we need it all, but we'd love to work with conservation and conservation.

[1:19:04] I think we also need slow growth, slow growth and no irrigation.

[1:19:10] I mean, we can't, you can't just keep digging holes and getting water.

[1:19:13] We have to slow growth, we have to limit or eliminate irrigation.

[1:19:19] Just, you get new irrigation, just has to be one of those.

[1:19:24] I will sign your petition to our article.

[1:19:29] Just one last comment before we close up.

[1:19:33] I was on a New Hampshire Senate Commission on Coastal Risk and Hazard going back like

[1:19:38] was 2015 and 2018.

[1:19:41] One thing which we did with the Engine Errors and also the scientists of UNHC and Cornell

[1:19:47] is that they're projecting that within the next 50 years that we're going to have as much

[1:19:53] water as we have currently as far as rainfall in the rain. The West Coast will have a substantial

[1:20:01] reduction in water over that time period as well as south. So we're going to be benefited from this.

[1:20:08] But the downside is that these storms will be coming in bigger buckets. So instead of having one

[1:20:15] inch rainstorm now and one inch in five days, we're going to get maybe a six inch rainstorm,

[1:20:21] I don't think for a month and a half, and the problem with getting these rainstorms in

[1:20:25] big buckets is that it doesn't recharge the groundwater a lot of it is so soft in the

[1:20:31] ocean, etc.

[1:20:32] So we're going to be taxed in the future to probably have these wells, but see if we can get

[1:20:38] to all to the aquifers and find another source of the water going forward.

[1:20:44] And Phil, I'd like to put some context into the restrictions that have come up and people

[1:20:49] talked about restrictions on water use and irrigation and that kind of thing.

[1:20:55] One of the many things I've learned recently is that most people would know

[1:21:03] that we do that with our zoning ordinances.

[1:21:05] Well, the water district has a parallel set of water ordinances.

[1:21:11] I never realized that. They have their own whole structure of ordinances

[1:21:15] and those take precedence over ours in some things.

[1:21:22] And there is obviously, if we both put in an ordinance

[1:21:27] about irrigation, I don't know what the lawyers are going

[1:21:30] to say about who takes precedence.

[1:21:33] But that was an issue is that they've put some restrictions

[1:21:37] in their ordinances, they've asked us to do the same in ours

[1:21:42] for this coming warn article process, to me I asked the question of why would we do that

[1:21:50] because now you have one that one of them takes precedence, the other one's going to

[1:21:54] be occasionally correct as it matches and anytime there's a change, one of them's going

[1:22:00] to probably get out of step and not be current.

[1:22:03] So when you need to understand that we don't control, we don't think we can control that

[1:22:10] As a select board for the down, the water difference has to do that.

[1:22:14] They've asked us to do that also, but that's a little confusing and I'm not sure it's black and white.

[1:22:23] So that's part of the master plan, but for now, Suzanne, do you guys have any more?

[1:22:30] It's kind of a haircut.

[1:22:35] So, I think if you want me to answer that question, or certainly if he can.

[1:22:41] I mean, there's ways of crafting a townside ordinance so that in the event of an inconsistency,

[1:22:48] he can provide clarity as to who, which is applicable.

[1:22:52] And it's usually, you know, just like what the state has its own regulations,

[1:22:56] and towns are sometimes empowered to have similar ordinances and regulations

[1:23:01] on the same subject matter, and usually the solution is the stricter or more restrictive

[1:23:07] applies in the event of inconsistency, but I mean the water district does have independent

[1:23:13] authority under RSH after 38 to impose regulations as to the use of its system. I don't believe

[1:23:22] it has to go to a district meeting, but I'll let their counsel speak to that. Unlike a zoning

[1:23:29] ordinance which does need legislative body approval.

[1:23:34] So I just point there is a basically, it's not as simple as us, but it means something like this.

[1:23:39] We are not the final say on the water.

[1:23:43] I just put in one thing is that as the district, D.S. gives us the governing ability to imply

[1:23:51] restrictions whether there's a drought or not.

[1:23:53] If we feel that our system is compromised, if there's a threat to it that, and this is

[1:23:59] as rulings that are given out not just to us, but to water

[1:24:02] prepares.

[1:24:04] Town-wise, but understand that Hillary does not serve all

[1:24:08] of the town or right.

[1:24:10] You have enforcement, you have us, and you have aquarium.

[1:24:13] Again, we'll go back to the aquifer, you know, right?

[1:24:16] So if you've got the district over here

[1:24:19] implying restrictions under a drought

[1:24:21] or a compromised situation that's outside of just the district

[1:24:27] It makes sense that other water purifiers or providers are under those same type of restrictions, all of the customers.

[1:24:37] So this would call for motion to adjourn.

[1:24:41] So I appreciate everybody being here.

[1:24:43] This could be a contentious issue.

[1:24:45] We're trying to do not make this a contentious issue.

[1:24:48] I think we have the first steps.

[1:24:50] We have better understanding of what has to happen going forward.

[1:24:53] I think the one thing that is paramount is that we need more water sources.

[1:25:00] We probably will have a new water treatment plan for the next five or six years.

[1:25:06] It's going to cost us $10 or $11 million and that's coming, so we've got to be prepared

[1:25:14] to face up to that.

[1:25:15] Regardless if we find new water, the PFOA's, the PFOA's, the U.S.

[1:25:23] Thank you again and we'll have the meeting once conservation and water goes.

[1:25:29] Thanks, Bacon.

[1:25:31] This is my quarting.

[1:25:33] I was looking to water this train, yeah.

[1:25:36] You're like, sure.

[1:25:37] I'm so glad.

[1:27:26] Thank you.

[1:27:29] Thank you.

[1:27:29] I think that one of our children is not being planning to be trying to find more food.

[1:27:34] And the mornings are going to take a whole lot of time.

[1:27:37] So the problem is you have to mitigate the problem.

[1:27:44] Yeah, it's vital.

[1:28:22] point that I thought it was going to be free.

[1:28:30] What did you did?

[1:28:31] I did.

[1:28:34] If

[1:28:36] you were to get a clean car, of course.

[1:28:39] Good.

[1:28:39] to say I had a great plan, it was up in the middle of May before you got on board the night.

[1:28:51] We didn't want to talk about anything.

[1:28:53] Potential side of the RAM property.

[1:28:55] Yeah, so I think I can do that.

[1:28:58] Let me see what we can do.

[1:28:59] I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

[1:28:59] We're getting too much trouble.

[1:29:01] You know, I'm the position where I'm in the road here.

[1:29:04] I actually see that.

[1:29:07] Nothing else tonight.

[1:29:09] Good, how are you?

[1:29:11] Hey, who?

[1:29:12] Good.

[1:29:13] I was about to go around.

[1:29:13] Good.

[1:29:14] I'll just show you know that I think the batter is a shot.

[1:29:18] I don't know if anybody needs it, but okay.

[1:29:21] You know, sometimes it's just normal and it's just a tool.

[1:29:24] Oh, all right.

[1:29:55] Yes.

[1:29:56] Yes.

[1:29:58] Don't forget your...

[1:29:59] Don't forget your...

[1:30:00] Okay, for short, so short staff, we have to go down to the morning. Okay, we're good. All right, thank you.

Joint Select Board Rye Water District Conservation Commission

Transcript