Hopkinton’s water supply has become a paramount town-wide issue. To meet the increasing demand for water quality and quantity, Hopkinton has been taking steps to connect with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s system.
The three Select Board candidates in the May 19 town election each reflected this growing concern. With Hopkinton experiencing a drought, the town has banned outdoor water use.
The water rate, which rose 40% last year for fiscal year 2025, will be discussed by the Select Board in June.
The presence of a group of chemicals known as PFAS in Well 6 in 2023 alarmed residents and led to the implementation of a water filtration system. (PFAS are perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances developed as protective product coatings.) In response, Select Board member Shahidul Mannan proposed creating the Water Sewer Advisory Board (WSAB). It is studying Hopkinton’s options (and has two open seats).
In a recent interview with the Independent, town leaders stressed the history behind the MWRA connection plan and explained why having a sustainable water source is critical now.
Talk about MWRA not new
“It’s been discussed for a while as an alternative to the town’s sole source of water for meeting future demands for clean, reliable drinking water,” said Town Manager Elaine Lazarus. “Connecting to the MWRA would be a more viable solution in the long run.”
“It was stated at the 2022 Annual Town Meeting that the current water supply is bedeviled by PFAS, iron and manganese contamination,” she added.
At this year’s Annual Town Meeting (ATM) on May 5, residents approved Article 21 in a 128-21 vote to appropriate $375,000 to finish the design work approved in 2022.
Department of Public Works Director Kerry Reed pointed out that discussions about a potential MWRA connection began a decade ago. An article seeking approval for a connection via Ashland was approved at the 2016 ATM.
“This has been supported by Town Meeting and the general town for quite a while,” she said. “From my perspective, as the DPW director, I am continuing to move forward this initiative that the town had already decided on.”
The decision was prompted by the town’s significant growth over the past decade, she added, with a 24% growth in water accounts during that time frame. Water & Sewer Department manager Eric Carty added that the development of Legacy Farms prompted him to raise concerns 10 years ago.
“Then about four of five years ago, the fire chief approached the town about expanding the system for fire protection, in particular for the Granite Street/Lumber Street area,” he said.
Expert critical of plan
Ken Weismantel has an extensive background in water-related issues. He has been a public member of the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (WRC) for a decade and has served in multiple town roles. A vocal critic of the MWRA connection plan, he presented his theories about potential PFAS contamination areas at a recent WSAB meeting.
The former gravel pit on Fruit Street, where firefighters trained in the 1970s and early 1980s, is one area he cited. The owner, according to Weismantel, was the brother-in-law of Arthur Stewart, then chief of the volunteer Fire Department. He allowed firefighters from Hopkinton and surrounding towns to use foam containing PFAS. Extinguishing a large fire could use about 10,000 gallons of foam, while a “nuclear-type fire” would need as much as 3 million gallons, he explained.
“Well 6 is within the plume, as well as two nearby wells,” Weismantel said.
“Weston Nurseries applied a significant amount of compost from the wastewater treatment plant in Merrimack, New Hampshire,” he explained of its former growing fields. “This [plant] was an industrial PFAS pollution hot spot that has been studied and litigated.”
“There’s no sampling data and there’s no technical data,” Reed said, noting the presentation wasn’t done by an engineering consultant. “Ken was using his experience, his knowledge, his resources and his conversations through the Water Resources Commission.”
Testing of wells raises concerns
Homeowner testing of private wells is problematic, according to Weismantel. Reporting a high PFAS count to the Health Department would trigger an alert to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection.
“MassDEP operates under the assumption that if you discover PFAS, you may be the cause,” Weismantel explained. “So people don’t test.”
The current MassDEP policy is that PFAS levels in drinking water should not exceed 20 parts per trillion for six major PFAS. On April 10, 2024, the EPA announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six major PFAS is 10 parts per trillion.
Because 40% of the town’s residents have private wells, he suggested that those homeowners purchase filtration systems at an estimated cost of $10,000 per well as a cheaper alternative to the MWRA connection.
“I think Ken was trying to make the distinction between it being cheaper for someone to install their own private filtration system on their well versus trying to extend the water main a long distance, and the cost inherent with that,” said Assistant Town Manager Lance DelPriore.
Added Reed: “I think he has been providing some misinformation.”
WRC has role in MWRA process
“The WRC enforces clean water in the community and develops water policy,” explained Weismantel. “It approves interbasin water transfer across town boundaries and makes sure rivers aren’t depleted by being overtaken by towns.”
Weismantel alleged that the town had not spoken to WRC staff in two years, despite needing WRC approval before MWRA approval can be granted.
Reed shared a letter from former Town Manager Norman Khumalo to the WRC dated March 4, 2024. It stated the town’s intention to pursue an MWRA connection via Southborough.
“We have started that conversation,” said Reed. Town staff has participated in WRC and MWRA meetings.
Weismantel asserted that the town’s estimated future need of 2.7 million gallons of water per day was too high and would not get WRC approval. He said it would likely be closer to 2 million, and the WSAB agreed.
Reed explained that the estimate was “a maximalist approach.”
Town wells get tapped out
“The town wells are being stressed and not allowed to rest,” Carty said of requests to consider local options.
Well 1 has seen a dramatic increase in usage, while the Alprilla Farms wells are losing capacity despite being cleaned two years ago, he said. Preliminary testing showed wells near Whitehall Brook would severely decrease its capacity.
Carty noted that MassDEP would not allow the town to increase its pumping capacity permit, even if new wells were built.
Said Carty: “That would be like drinking a Coke with one straw and adding five more straws to the glass.”
Lazarus has asked John Gelcich, the acting director of the Land Use, Planning & Permitting Department, to perform a buildout analysis of areas currently served by town water.
People can see my complete presentation on PFAS in Hopkinton at the following link.
https://www.youtube.com/HCAMtv
PFAS Data is available on all ten Hopkinton Public Water Supplies (many with multiple wells) including Hopkinton Water Department wells.
You should know if you are on a private well and are near a known hotspot. You might have a decision to make- do I accept the health risks of possibly drinking PFAS contaminated water? Or do I want to test if I have PFAS in my water and likely pay for expensive treatment equipment for my house if it is found.
If you are on Town water or away from the hotspots and associated spread areas your private well water likely does not contain PFAS above Commonwealth’s limits.
Has the Town enlisted the support of an Licensed Site Professional to determine the source of the PFAS plume? And if so, have we started the process of getting Downgradient Property Status? If not, why not? Ultimately it behooves the Town and our residents to pursue source identification, identify the Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs) who are responsible for the release (knowingly or more likely unknowingly), seek remedial action for the source, and seek reimbursement where appropriate for remediation costs from PRPs. Ignoring it or moving too slowly only expands the potential for additional public and private well impacts.
While PFAS may be a relatively new contaminant there is a very well established pathway to remediation and closure when contaminants to public and private wells has been identified (it’s the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, or MCP). So none of this is new or rare and there is no reason to treat as such. And even if the Town is a PRP due to our fire department being one of the several that practiced using the foam, we are only one of several that will end up sharing the financial burden.
To think that anyone would complicate this very serious water situation is very surprising. And strange, we don’t need that info. Its abundantly clear that we need to focus and expedite the MWRA process. On behalf of all of us. Especially the many women who are expecting, babies, and immuno-compromised Hopkinton residents, who are most vulnerable to the effects of PFAS.
Hi,
I don’t see any conclusions here. What is the next steps in step by step manner? what is the current plan? I understand the issues and Can we have clarity on path forward?
This patchwork of quotes article does not help advance understanding the subject matter. I think the town needs a single point of contact that manages this project, consolidates and issues the communications as to status of the evaluation. Most likely the DPW director or Town Manager. I am totally confused by the point of this article.
I think you’re correct, it is a complex set of issues. As I understand it there are a few key aspects at play:
1. Due to a variety of concerns the Town has long been considering connection to the MWRA water supply to satisfy the long-term water needs of the Town. This connection requires approval from the MWRA and will be expensive to build. There is not only the costs to connect to the MWRA system, but expansion of the Town water supply infrastructure to deliver water to additional homes that are currently on private wells.
2. At the same time, certain Town water supply well(s) have been found to have levels of the emerging new contaminant known as PFAS that require treatment to meet state and federal drinking water standards (and likely nearby private drinking water wells that serve individual homes, but there has not been much if any testing as the onus to test is on the homeowner).
3. While the Town is pursuing the the MWRA connections, others with relevant technical knowledge are pointing out that a) we don’t know the specific source or extent of the PFAS contamination, but there are some known potential sources including the former Fire Departments’ foam practice area and Weston Nurseries (not due to an intentional malfeasance). And b) while it may be expensive installing PFAS treatment systems at individual homes, it may end up being less expensive for private homeowners when compared to the cost of connecting the MWRA, expanding the Town water system to areas that don’t currently have access, and connecting those homes to the system.
4. It’s not clear that the Town wells can actually meet the long-term supply needs of the Town regardless of the contamination issues.
5. Regardless of the water supply concerns we still need address the PFAS contamination impacting groundwater in our area. If potential responsible parties are identified, they would likely be required to share the costs for remediation and treatment.