Water officials make their case for $12.5 million plant

By Matthew Bernat | Mar 16, 2017
Photo by: Matthew Bernat Wareham Water District Superintendent Andrew Reid talks about removing iron from district water at a workshop on Thursday.

A Wareham Water Water District workshop offered a glimpse of the debate likely to occur at the district’s annual meeting as residents fired off questions about a proposed $12.5 million water treatment plant.

The proposal, endorsed by the Board of Water Commissioners, would bring a state-of-the-art water purification plant to the district, mainly to treat high levels of iron and manganese. The latter is known to cause health issues, including neurological problems.

Lowering iron levels would reduce instances where tap water is discolored. According to water officials, the plant would lower the district’s need for chlorine, too. Officials said water that tastes and smells of chlorine has historically been a major complaint. But both would come at an increased cost to ratepayers.

According to Wareham Water Department Superintendent Andrew Reid, the new plant will go a long way toward meeting state requirements related to reducing the level of manganese in the water.

On Thursday, Reid noted that without the plant, rising manganese levels may force the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to issue a consent order, forcing the district to comply in the future.

“We have wells that have a significant amount of manganese and the state is concerned and have asked us to look at that,” said Reid.

Some audience members expressed skepticism about the price tag.

“You haven’t convinced me to vote to spend twelve million bucks. I haven’t heard an alternative,” said Charles Rowley, a West Wareham resident and consulting engineer for the Planning Board. “I hope you could convince me because I want clean drinking water like everybody else.”

Rowley said he wanted to see the district isolate what’s causing the high levels of manganese and eliminate the source. He asked why two district wells showed manganese spikes, but not the others.

According to Kirsten Ryan, a project manager with Kleinfelder, the district’s engineering consultant, the answer is unclear. It’s an issue towns across the state deal with, she said.

“The short answer is no one really knows why you get spikes in one area,” said Ryan.

Rowley suggested the district stop using the problem wells and try another source before committing to a new treatment plant.

Also discussed was a $5.5 million request to install a treatment system in the new plant. The treatment system would remove chemicals used in pesticides, defoliants, fuel additives and other chemicals from the water supply.

Known as Synthetic Organic Compounds (SOC), the chemicals have been detected at low levels in the water over the past 15 years. According to water officials: “The fact SOCs are being detected suggest a link to human activities up-gradient of the wells” including “clandestine dumping and/or agricultural activities.”

Resident Ed Pacewicz pressed Water Commissioners present for clarification on where the chemicals are originating. Board of Water Commissioner Chair Edward "Jay" Tamagini told him a nearby cranberry bog was the culprit.

In response, Pacewicz said he favored removing the chemicals with a new filtration system, but not on the district’s dime.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to clean up somebody else’s mess, specifically the bog owner's mess,” said Pacewicz, referring to a bog that borders the district well field off Maple Springs Road.

He recommended asking the grower to halt operations or have the town take the bog by eminent domain and shut it down.

“If we don’t stop the source this is a never ending problem,” said Pacewicz.

Approving the new filtration system would place it in the new treatment plant. Reid noted that if voters don’t approve the $12.5 million purification plant, then the $5.5 million filtration system would be off the table.

Reid said the filtration system would reduce potential health risks associated with the chemicals. However, it was up to voters to weigh those risks when deciding how to vote as the Water Commissioners have not provided a recommendation either way.

Reid explained how much customers could expect their bills to increase if one or both proposals are approved. The district sends bills out every six months, in which time the average customer uses 53,100 gallons of water. That bill is roughly $300. Approving the purification plant would tack on $72 to that bill. Approving both the plant and the chemical treatment system would add $108 to the bill, said Reid.

For comparison, Reid said Wareham currently ranks 206 out of 254 communities when it comes to what people pay for water, the number one ranking being the most expensive. If voters approve both items, the town would rank 65 out of 254.

The annual district meeting is scheduled for April 10, at 7 p.m., in the Wareham High School auditorium. All registered voters living in the Wareham Water District may participate.

Comments (38)
Posted by: Dick Paulsen | Mar 17, 2017 04:55

Since I wasn't in attendance, let me ask a  couple of questions and then offer an observation.

 

There is a statement "he was told.."   Now, who was the person making the statement? Someone who would actually know? Or someone else, someone perhaps in the room? In other words, was there "authority" behind the statement or was it just someone's opinion.

 

And there is another statement attributed to "water officials."  Which water officials?  Ours?  Or is this a more general statement, emanating from some functionary in Boston?

 

And if they indeed are local, how do they know there is "clandestine dumping."  Either they know it, or they are guessing, and it makes a difference as to which assumption is correct.

 

Now to my conclusion. If I am driving down the road, and hit a tree, I accept that it is my fault and would not turn to the town to "pay" for my oversight, my error.  If in fact there is a bog close by that is causing this problem, then let them take care of it. And "if" is very much the operative word.

 

Has anything been done in that regard? It looks to me as if we have some of the facts but not all of them.  This may not be a good analogy, but think back to when Tremont Nail was bought. It is clear, in retrospect, that not enough questions were asked and not enough thought was given to "now what."



Posted by: Rosebud | Mar 17, 2017 08:06

I, too, would like to see the issue of the cranberry bog resolved before paying out  any money.  Has anyone contacted the EPA or other appropriate authority about this issue?   Mr. Reid needs to prepare his proposal much more thoroughly.

 

That being said, we should keep in mind that not only would we be paying for the initial cost of the plant, but probably for more employees, etc., to operate it.



Posted by: baron1701@yahoo.com | Mar 17, 2017 08:10

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to clean up somebody else’s mess, specifically the bog owner's mess,” said Paciwecz.


Absolutely correct. Who's looking into this? Why treat the problem when we can eliminate the source.



Posted by: joycebakes | Mar 17, 2017 08:14

The REAL, human being living in East Wareham water experience.  The year I moved in (9+ years) I went to make coffee one summer day and coffee is what came out of my faucet.  Did I mention I was also doing LAUNDRY???  I had dark brown, not see-through water in a glass.  This has happened at least 2 times a season SINCE I HAVE LIVED HEAR!.  The water department is great and at least have left phone messages when they were going to make my water brown by cleaning, but that does not could the many spontaneous times it has just been brown and stinky.

You talk as if it if only a money problem.  So back to my laundry.  Many of the 'white' clothes that went in did not return.  They are a greige- sort of between grey and beige.  Not a bad color but not for water.  Some articles had to be thrown out coz they were too brown.  I had to run washer an extra time with bleach to make sure the manganese was gone from my washer.  I had to re-clean the toilet.  I had to buy a new, $75 filter for my refrigerator.  I had to clean out my manganese coffee pot.  Half a day to recover from this.

So please don't make this a money issue (although I spent some, replacing thrown out clothes).  It is about neighbors.  How many of you have asked your neighbors and friends 'Do you get brown water?"

I know everything costs money.  But don't all town residents have a right to decent water?  Please vote to allow this new plant.  We certainly need it

Thanks.



Posted by: baron1701@yahoo.com | Mar 17, 2017 08:25

My soft rule is to take estimates and pretty much double them. I'm not often pleasantly surprised. There are always hidden or unforeseen costs.

Im waiting for the cup of coffee a day argument.

Rosebud put it well - "That being said, we should keep in mind that not only would we be paying for the initial cost of the plant, but probably for more employees, etc., to operate it."

 

This will blow up in our faces. I don't drink tap water now. If the little tap water I ingest happens to be lightly tinted sometimes and it bothers me I will put in a filter. Without these improvements it seems we will be ok for many years. Most of my water goes into my septic system anyway. I will have to look into drilling a well if this gets worse.



Posted by: Zephyr | Mar 17, 2017 08:33

When I lived in East Wareham at least 2 or 3 times a year I would have brown water but it was only due to hydrant flushing. They did my street once a year.  But because I lived on a very long street the water would turn brown again when they flushed way at the other end. There was always enough notice with signs that I knew it was going to happen.  There was one time we had a house fire a few blocks away.  And after the fire department put it out my water was brown because of the hydrant. Then all I did was run the water until it was clear.  My water never tasted bad.



Posted by: bob | Mar 17, 2017 09:04

If the source of the problem is from the cranberry industry bogs why isn't the EPA being involved to have them fix there problem.....



Posted by: shop247 | Mar 17, 2017 09:26

I'd be more apt to pay for this is if Wareham had a usage based system of billing.  I don't use enough water to be charged a minimum. I live alone and I work all day,  I think many people (one and two person households and summer residents) are OVERCHARGED.  I think commercial users need to pay more since they use more.  I believe the way it works is I pay one unit so does a small restaurant (12 seats).   Most restaurants, open at 11:30 and close at 10pm (?).  A small, diner or breakfast/lunch place is open for at least 6 hours  I work all day, I run water to brush my teeth and make coffee.  My toilet flushes no more than 5 times a day.    The restaurant flushes more than that in an hour, every hour.  They make more coffee than I do, they cook more than I do, they wash more dishes than I do, they wash their floors more than I do... THEY USE MORE WATER THAN I DO, so why are we both charged a minimum?  Charge us for usage or at the very least, charge commercial users for usage and lower the minimum on small households.  Do that and you might have the money to build the plant without taking more money out of my pocket.



Posted by: Chaka | Mar 17, 2017 13:51

So many good comments in this thread, but my favorite is Bobs. The cranberry industry is powerful enough to NOT have to fix their mistake. Otherwise this would have been fixed ages ago when the pollution source was identified. But spending the millions necessary (as we're being told) would lower profits and upset shareholders. So the issue is passed onto the citizens who do not have teams of lawyers to fight it. most people can barely find enough time in the day to go to work, raise their kids, get 8 hours of sleep, run errands, eat 3 meals and spoil their pets; let alone spend time fighting for clean water. Do you realize how much time that takes? How much knowledge is necessary? How many of you are professional engineers, lobbyists, lawyers or pollution experts?  Do you think our town officials will fix it for us? Or the actual water dept that you faithfully send money to twice a year? Nope. They know when they are bested and their best way to fix the system is to have "YOU" pay for it.



Posted by: Dick Paulsen | Mar 17, 2017 15:31

Well, unless there has been a recent change, we do have a lawyer.  We pay $5,000 a month for legal advise, and have for several years.

 

It seems to to me that he Selectmen should-and perhaps they have-get him to work on this.

 

He is certainly being paid paid enough to devote some time to this issue, or at least that is my surmise.



Posted by: Rosebud | Mar 17, 2017 16:46

The more I think about the fact that the Board of Water Commissioners knew about the problem with the cranbery bog and, apparently, did nothing about it, really disturbs me.  Please correct me if my facts are wrong; and I hope they are because I already have very little trust in our government now.



Posted by: Knocked for six | Mar 17, 2017 19:53

$5000 a month?



Posted by: felinesmom | Mar 17, 2017 20:34

Mr. Paulsen, do you think town leaders are willing to take on the cranberry lobby?



Posted by: Beaver Dam | Mar 18, 2017 00:33

Board of Water Commissioner Rick England told him a nearby cranberry bog was the culprit.

Let them pay the 12.5 million. Then sue the bog owner for the damage done over the past years.



Posted by: Peter W. Teitelbaum | Mar 18, 2017 08:18

"It seems to to me that he Selectmen should-and perhaps they have-get him to work on this."

 

Why?  It's not our property.  The Wareham Fire and Water District owns the wells, not the Town.  We have no legal standing to get involved.

 

Taking off my Selectman's hat and putting on my environmental attorney one, I'd refer you to the numbers provided in the Water District's report submitted along with the most recent water bill, i.e. over 2,700 tests with 90% showing no detectable levels of pesticides, and only one of the remaining tests showing an exceedance of suggested Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection levels.  Note in particular the words "informal health guidance concentrations" in the reports.  While opinions can vary whether any amount of pesticide should be in the water supply,* no one is going to get very far in court with that little evidence of contamination and no showing that there is a violation of Chapter 21E.

 

* I looked up the pesticide mentioned in the Water District report.  It is a fungicide that is allowed for use on several crops, including mushrooms, cherries, tomatoes and potatoes (in addition to very limited use on cranberries per Massachusetts state regulations).  The United States EPA has found and does allow some level of this pesticide and its breakdown constituents as residue in produce brought to market.  So unless you're eating an entirely organic diet, you're probably already munching on this stuff as it is already out there at your grocery store.



Posted by: Dick Paulsen | Mar 18, 2017 08:54

OK! Here's an idea. Cut his pay on the town side to (a still generous) $4,000 and have the Water District pick up $1,000.

 

 



Posted by: Peter W. Teitelbaum | Mar 18, 2017 09:08

Why would we cut anyone's pay - which by the way is governed by contract - for not doing work for an entirely different governmental entity that he was never expected to do in the first place?



Posted by: bob | Mar 18, 2017 09:23

PETER,No disrespect but maybe your board should put the town console position out to bid.like other town and cities do....As you know there is just as many Law Firms out there as there is cranberries...



Posted by: Peter W. Teitelbaum | Mar 18, 2017 09:41

We did that a few years ago.  Attorney Bowen's price worked out to be considerably lower than the prior firm he worked for, as there were so many exclusions in that firm's proposal that we would have been stuck with legal bills approaching a half-million annually once again.

 

We are comfortable with Attorney Bowen's availability, his knowledge of our issues, and the fact that for a flat annual fee he works hard to head off trouble rather than embrace it via the billable hours system most other attorneys use.  This is reflected in the fact that we only have one pending case in Superior Court these days.

 

So sure, we could save a few bucks in legal fees with someone a little cheaper, but we'd end up in worse financial shape as far as the quality and effectiveness of the representation goes.



Posted by: Spherebreaker | Mar 18, 2017 10:00

The town should totally be involved, the towns water provider is about to soak its residents for 18 plus MILLION dollars to cover the problem created by an abutter to the wells. This is the Towns business to protect its residents from A: The water provider and B; The party that is polluting the towns water supply. Its time to do away with the WAter District systems and have the Town take control of the vital issue of Town water. I mentioned it before, could mixing water from Onset and Wareham bring these pollutant levels to a proper level thru dilution?

 



Posted by: Steve Holmes | Mar 18, 2017 10:22

While here I am very blessed to live in Onset, drink right out of the tap no smell, no problem. In the summer my camp in Carver same thing. So why in Wareham?? The same people that defend the 2 Districts, now sound like they want the BOS to get involved? And by the way bring in the Town's Counsel? He defends the Town against the Districts when required, and that happened a few times during my 6 years on the Board. This is not his jurisdiction, nor is it the BOS, the District can afford their own Counsel, and may already have one, if they don't then they should. Now many know Dolores and I are in Atlanta, talk about crappy water, the kitchen smells when you run the faucet. A 32 dollar solution, went to Wal-Mart picked up a 5 stage filter, canister with a spigot, problem solved no smell, no bad taste, great coffee, and just refill it with the water from the faucet, comes with a tester and we test it once a week. Still have not had to replace the filter in over 3 months. We run at least 4-5 gallons a day through it. Mr. Bowen has saved this Town millions. I wish we could tell you how and when but law dictates no details. I am curious as to how many people will show up for this vote, in the past the dollars have been larger than this and only a handful voted for the entire district.



Posted by: Steve Holmes | Mar 18, 2017 10:32

Sphere, there have been times that I would agree with you, but in today's world given the limits on cities and towns, you can see how we have had to rip our Town Departments to shreds. Would you want to see that happen to our Fire and Water Districts? They can raise money outside the (Town limits) that's why you can have a great Fire Department and Rescue Services and equipment, Onset has great water, I am not a fan of blaming all of Wareham's water problems on a cranberry bog. See Mr. Petes explanation above. Wareham's water has been a problem for some time now. I did not attend the meeting but will this fix, finally solve all the water shut downs we experience every year, I remember a few years ago it was on a Labor Day weekend. Businesses lost significant dollars, our weekend tourist could not drink water, that was a disaster, will this plant fix that??



Posted by: Janet | Mar 18, 2017 10:39

Sphere, we in Onset have enough problems paying for our new Fire Station because our newest engine does not fit in our current station, and we have outgrown the space needed for all our firefighters and equipment.  Onset water has always been superior to Wareham and I doubt any of us would agree to share our clean water with Wareham, and the latest increase in our "district fire & water tax" would probably send residents in Wareham over the top with anger.  The old Clean Water Committee was dropped by the BOS just after old Yogi Bear campground incidents showed a lot of violations including un-sewered waste water flowing into the ground behind camping areas.  The swimming area was unsanitary & causing rashes.  EPA took note.  And soon the CWC was banished, coincidence?   



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 10:42

First of all the Fire District would like to thank the following parties for assisting the Wareham Fire District's workshop, in no particular order.  1.) Steve Ruiz and crew for taping the workshop to be posted so all town can see, 2.) Derek Sullivan and the Town for allowing us to use the auditorium, 3.) Dave Menard and Municipal Maintenance for setting up chairs and tables, and 4.) Matt Underhill and IT team for setting up power point equipment and audio.    Also the Water Department understands that it is difficult to come out to every meeting that the Town may hold.  As such we have worked with WCTV so that the workshop will be available online for the whole town to review.  Also I can provide a copy workshop powerpoint handout if anyone who wishes to see it.   You can stop in or just email me. There were several questions asked during the workshop requesting more information.  We plan to post responses to those requests online.  Lastly I will provide responses to the facts we know to the above questions and comments in a moment.  Again, my door is always open to asks questions.  On Thursday I had several residents come in and ask for information.  You all are more then welcome to come in.  I would be happy to discuss in detail.



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 10:47

Also one more thank you to Matt Bernat and Wareham Week for covering the story.  Thank you Matt.

 



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 10:52

Response to Rick Paulsen:  The officials are the Water Department officials.  Regarding the dumping,  we have picked up detections of MBTE in the monitoring wells as observe trash dumping, typically paper products from personal trash.  So we know that whether intentional in inadvertent, it can occur and place the water quality of wells at risk.

 



Posted by: bob | Mar 18, 2017 11:08

DWS,Do you have  a law firm looking into the remarks made by Rick England that the source is from the cranberry bogs........



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 11:08

Response to RoseBud and Baron1701:  We have been working with the growers in monitoring the situation for almost 15 years and periodically post the results in our consumer confidence report.  We have enough data now to say that the BoWC has concerns for safety of the water.  We outlined those concerns during the workshop which you should review online or email or stop in and obtain a copy of the workshop powerpoint.  However,  that being said to date we have only one result which is above the health guidelines (albeit not a robost monitoring program due to the cost associated with monitoring which was discussed during the workshop which the District has been covering).

So many questions have been asked why does not MassDEP make the growers do something.  The answer to date is they have not exceeded a point where regulatory action could be taken.  Or phrased another way, the growers have been careful to date in the amount of synthetic organic compounds which have been applied and the health science database used by US EPA has not caught up to the potential health risk associated with the SOCs.

However, having agricultural activities up gradient of your wells carries risk and we outlined those risks during the workshop.  As a water department we would rather have a protective barrier ready and operational rather than having an SOC event and then telling that we had an event and could do nothing about it.

We have reached out to the growers, but as you can imagine the relationship has been strained.  They have discontinued one area of farming but are planning to continue in the areas nearest to the wells. We have reached out and asked them to partner in the monitoring cost and/or the treatment costs.  The response to date has been no response which the Water Department has taken to mean "not yet" or "no."

 



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 11:10

Response to JOYCEBAKES:  This is a common experience that many residents experience and call us on.



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 11:25

Response Baron1701:  The water department is not planning on adding staff.  Historically MassDEP has not required plants such as these to be operated manually and has allowed automatic operation.  Hence we are budgeting to keep the staff we have now to run the proposed water purification plant.

Also, not discussed much in the article is an issue we have had in the past is the boil water orders back in 2007 and 2008 during labor day.  We believe based on the information we have collected to date that the Maple Springs wellfield is a risk for pathogen intrusion. We have addressed the main issues associated with this issue, but still believe there is risk.  This is an issue with many municipal wells and private wells, not unique to Wareham.  So this potential issue with pathogen intrusion is an acute problem, unlike the chronic issue you reference with Fe/Mn which likely won't effect you with one dose.  That is one drink of water that could have pathogens could hurt you.  That is one reason why we have proposed UV disinfection it to address the issue as well has provide a multi-barrier approach to disinfection which is preferred and approved method by USEPA and MassDEP.



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 11:31

Response to SHOP247:  The water department does charge based on water usage.  We bill every 6 months.  The first 4,000 cubic feet (1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons of water) is a flat fee.  Usage beyond that is based on a tiered rate of about $3.00/hundred cubic feet and we have a water conservation rate which is higher.

 

Also it should be noted here the District and the Town are separate entities.



Posted by: Peter W. Teitelbaum | Mar 18, 2017 11:33

"The old Clean Water Committee was dropped by the BOS just after old Yogi Bear campground incidents showed a lot of violations including un-sewered waste water flowing into the ground behind camping areas.  The swimming area was unsanitary & causing rashes.  EPA took note.  And soon the CWC was banished, coincidence?"

 

Now for some actual facts:

 

a) notwithstanding all the complaints the Clean Water Committee made, the Board of Health documented a whopping one (1) ticky-tack violation of Title 5 at the campground that was quickly remedied;

 

b) the Clean Water Committee also claimed that the campground was contaminating the Water District wells, apparently because water runs uphill out there as opposed to how it behaves everywhere else on the planet;

 

c) while I have no doubt that the Clean Water Committee tried to contact the EPA (and likely the President, Secretary-General of the UN and the head of the Trilateral Commission as well), there is no record of any EPA involvement in that site (nor would there be, as they don't regulate swimming pools or get involved in local water issues that are delegated to the states to regulate); and

 

d) the Board of Selectmen decided that it was time to dispense with the Clean Water Committee as it seemed to have no raison-d'etre other than to make wild claims unsubstantiated by any science whatsoever, for obscure political purposes.

 


 




Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 11:40

Response to CHAKA:  The Water Department is providing the information to fulfill our responsibilities of keeping the public informed and providing safe water.  We would like to highlight the public has a large amount of power.  The District is run at the will of the people.  The public meetings for both committees are open to the public and several community members attend faithfully.  Our committee members are elected by you the public.  The Warrant Articles Nos. 7 and 14 for the proposed water purification plant will be voted on by the public which will determine the water quality you wish to receive.  We wish to service our patrons to the best of our abilities and provide safe drinking water.

In addition, you have the power to make your voice known to the growers.  If you think this is an issue, then make it known to them.  You can write to them, go to their business premises and let them know your opinion.  You have the power to buy or not buy their products.  In the end the growers wish to be good citizens too and wish to do the right thing and provide a good product.  They need input too on what you desire.



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 11:46

Response to BEAVER DAM:  It should be noted that two warrant articles will be voted on at District meeting on April 10th regarding the proposed water purification plant.   Warrant Article No. 7 will be for $12.5M and is for the removal of iron and manganese as well s provided enhanced disinfection.  Warrant Article No. 14 will be for treatment for removing synthetic organic compounds and is for $5.5M.  We purposely broke out the cost so that you can vote if on the SOC issue separately.  The Board of Water Commissioners is recommending a yes vote on Warrant Article No. 7.  Warrant Article No. 14 has no recommendation from the Board of Water Commissioners.  It is a consumer decision.



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 11:57

Response to SPHEREBREAKER:  Regarding the mixing question, manganese tends to not to be conservative.  That is, it will settle out in the distribution system.   We were required by MassDEP to do a study and perform testing and what we found was that as the manganese settles out and accumulates in the distribution system, select taps were receiving elevated manganese.  Also blending will not resolve the disinfection issue.



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 12:00

Response to STEVE HOLMES:  Many people have asked why does the Water Department just place a filter system at the home in some shape or form.  The short reason is that MassDEP would required a certified operator to come in your home on periodic basis (likely daily) to confirm the unit is working properly and document results.  It would be become logistical nightmare and not to mention most of you would not want you in your home that often.



Posted by: District Water Superintendent | Mar 18, 2017 12:04

Response to STEVE HOLMES #2:  Will this solution fix problem.  Yes it will. However, keep in mind the following of the magnitude of the issue.  If we use a well that produce 1 MGD a day and contains 1 mg/L of iron, manganese, or both, and we pumped the well for year (which we don't) we essentially would have placed the weight of one Toyota Corrolla of metal into the distribution system.  So, once the proposed water treatment plant is online, it is going to take us 1 to 2 years to flush out and clean out the metal that we pumped into the distribution system over the decades.



Posted by: Steve Holmes | Mar 18, 2017 13:19

DWS thanks for all the comments, its good that you took the time as this is a very serious decision to make for the Water users of Wareham District. On the filter issue I looked into the under the counter ones, and even though I have messed with some plumbing chores, did not want to mess with that. We just bought a nice portable container with a 5 stage filter in it, about 35 dollars, sits on the counter easy to use. I was suggesting that for anyone that is concerned about what comes out of the faucet. It actually came with a little tester, water from the unit registers 0 ppm, water from fridge with new filter about 27 ppm, and water from my 5 gallon machine is about 010 ppm. Water from the faucet 56 ppm. I drink over a gallon a day for my back pain and diabetes, so I may be a bit over the top when it comes to the ppm in the water I drink. Again thanks for your responses.



If you wish to comment, please login.