How did we get where we are with the proposed “$13 Million” Water Bond, and why are the Mayor and the DPW Director having to defend it? The answer is a lack of transparency. Let’s start with a few basic facts: In 2017 the City Council passed a $5 Million Bond. We were told by the Water Dept that this would cover all of our water filtration costs. This included $2 Million for a Granulated Activated Carbon filter system on Wells 7 and 8. These wells are the most heavily contaminated with Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS), which is the Aqueous Film-Forming Firefighting Foam used by the Air National Guard.
In early March the Mayor asked the Council for another $13 Million Bond, on top of the previous $5 Million Bond, with no supporting documentation. At the Finance Committee meeting on March 8th (I am a member of the Finance Committee), the DPW Director presented a spreadsheet with 5 lines of what projects they wanted to do, and the costs. There were no reports, and no reasons as to why an additional $13 Million dollars in ratepayer’s money was needed. The answer we were given was, and I quote, “costs increased” (this is on video). This is not what any rational person would call transparency. Why did costs increase? If costs have increased so much, perhaps looking at other alternatives to the current course would be in order?…
As a member of the Finance Committee I am responsible for ensuring prudent spending by our city on behalf of all of the citizens of Westfield. I refuse to vote for a $13 Million expenditure that will raise water rates significantly over the next few years (at least $200 per year on the low end) without due diligence and hard questions answered. Since the beginning of this bond process, the costs for filtration on Wells 1 and 2 has increased by $2 Million from $7 Million to $9 Million, and that is just in 2 Months! According to recently revealed information, the frequency of carbon change-out (replacing PFAS polluted carbon in the filter systems) on Wells 7 and 8 is likely to be closer to every 6 weeks due to the level of contamination. The costs appear to be rising into the multi-million dollar range each year, on top of a $1 Million bond payment. Now we are looking at expenses of $3 to $4 Million each year to maintain these filtration systems.
I have advocated since the beginning of the process that the city look for alternative sources of water. One such source that has been studied is an interconnect to Holyoke’s under-utilized Reservoirs. According to 2008 and 2009 reports for the proposed power plant on the Northside, which was to tap into Holyoke water, Holyoke has two 20” mains coming from the reservoir in Southampton, capable of delivering between 2 and 6 Million Gallons Per Day. Lining both mains would create long-term reliability with minimal maintenance costs. This interconnect may cost less money to get up and running and would provide us with a clean and reliable source of water. According to a newly-released report on a possible Holyoke interconnect (dated Oct. 11th 2016, and released May 1st 2018), our DPW Director stated the costs could be somewhere around $2 Million.
This report also made clear the primary reason for rejecting the plan was cost. This plan was rejected in 2016, long before we understood the extent of the pollution of the Barnes Aquifer, and before the costs for filtration of the polluted water skyrocketed. Another item of note in the newly released Holyoke report, is that the costs for building a filtration system for the Holyoke interconnect included a joint filtration plant for both Wells 7 and 8 and the Holyoke water. This apparently was to dilute the contaminated Barnes water. I believe we ought to see if filtering Holyoke water alone would be less costly. It seems that now is a time to put a break on the bond and revisit the Holyoke option.
The new Holyoke report also indicates that temporary filters could have been installed on our wells long ago, and within weeks. In the time between this report in 2016 and now, our Northside residents could have had “safer” PFAS filtered water. After installing temporary filters (the temporary filters are really just a portion of a permanent system), we work through the Federal Government’s CERCLA – (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) process, in order to have them cover the costs of our long-term mitigation.
I am more convinced than ever that the CERCLA process is the quickest and most reliable way to recover our mitigation costs. According to Randy Chambers, Chief of Environmental Law for the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Guard Bureau (I will remind you I am the only person in Westfield government to have ever contacted him), Westfield is currently in Site Inspection – Phase 2. These are the sub-steps in the overall 6 step CERCLA process, which are necessary prior to an Interim Remedial Action (some of these are year-long processes, many take only a few months):
- Site Discovery – Done
- Preliminary Assessment – Done
- Site Inspection (Phase 1) – Done – Site Inspection (Phase 2) – Underway
- Assignment of a HRS Number (Hazard Ranking System) – Number of 28.5 or Greater needed to place a facility on the NPL – National Priorities List.
- Entry in Federal Register to be placed on NPL. (Not necessary for clean-up under CERCLA).
- Remedial Investigation (Interim Remedial Action Can Happen at this Step).
Under CERCLA the Department of Defense is allowed to use Interim Remedial Actions to provide alternative water supplies, such as allowing the use of federal funds to purchase bottled water, hook up people to an alternate public water supply (read Holyoke Water Interconnect), or construct a filtration system, as an interim remedial action (IRA).
According to National Guard Bureau, pressure on Federal Officials is necessary to provide a funding mechanism to allow the Federal Government through DoD, NGB, or ANG to Partner with a municipality to construct water infrastructure. This is why many Councilors and WRAFT have been asking the public to contact their federal elected officials to ask them to advocate for the DoD to sign an Environmental Services Agreement with Westfield for our long-term mitigation costs, and to provide Westfield with an Interim Remedial Action to ensure our citizens have a safe and cost-effective source of drinking water. Please call your federal representatives to ask for their help. I also encourage you to call the Mayor’s office to ask him to explore alternative mitigation processes that will ensure clean, safe drinking water at a minimal cost to our already over-burdened residents. Those that polluted our water should be the responsible parties to pay for the clean up.
Mayor Brian Sullivan – 413-572-6201
Representative Richard Neal – 413-785-0325
Senator Elizabeth Warren – 413-788-2690
Senator Edward Markey – 413-785-4610
Andrew K. Surprise
City Councilor – Ward 3
Phone: (413) 570-0899
Email: [email protected]
