Haverhill City Council candidate Christian Miller believes tapping the Merrimack River for drinking water will create a financial burden for the city that it cannot afford.
Miller said that according to his research, the city faces a $6 million expense to use water from the Merrimack River because of costs associated with treating the water, permitting, improving infrastructure and delivering the water to customers.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHOULD HAVERHILL CONTINUE THE STUDY OF MERRIMACK RIVER DRINKING WATER? SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE GAZETTE'S HOME PAGE TO ANSWER THIS WEEK'S ONLINE POLL.
Miller said the city would likely need a second water treatment plant for the river water or a completely new plant to treat all the city's water at one source.
The city has been studying sources of water for several years. Mayor James Fiorentini said Haverhill needs to prepare for an increase in water need and usage as the city comes closer to the 7.1 million gallons a day it is allowed to draw from Kenoza Lake, currently the city's only source of drinking water.
According to Bob Ward, city water/waste water superintendent, the city's current annual average of water from Kenoza Lake per calendar year ranges from 5.8 to 6.8 million gallons per day.
Miller argues that tapping the river gives the city access to far more water than it needs.
"The Merrimack River is a wasteful, ineffective solution to a problem of questionable need," Miller said.
Fiorentini approved the search for water with the goal of finding enough water to provide for a population of 75,000, projected for the year 2030.
Miller said tapping the river allows the city to access enough water for a population of 90,000.
"Do we really want to live in a Haverhill that has over 90,000 residents? The cost associated with new schools, added public safety, and added services would be astronomical. Property taxes would definitely increase and if you think your water bill is high now just wait," Miller said.
Ward said he estimates that the cost to develop a new water source is between $1.7 million and $2.5 million for every 1 million gallons per day developed.
Miller said tapping the river would create an expensive gap between the city's water needs and the remainder of the city's needs, incuding schools and public safety.
"We cannot afford to spend $6 million to tap the Merrimack River, especially when we are facing a $5 million budget deficit, and a Hale debt payment that will continue to rise until it tops at $13.5 million per year," he said.
In addition, Miller said, future cost associated with the city's waste water treatment - combined sewer overflow program - and the Haverhill landfill will end up costing Haverhill approximately $60 million.
Ward said the city's water and wastewater treatment facility will need an upgrade in roughly 10 years, whether a new drinking-water source is developed.
"To add to our ever growing debt problem, we are now faced with a $1.7 million deficit for our downtown parking garage," he said.
Haverhill Public Works Director Michael Stankovich said it is too early to tell what effect tapping the river might have on the city's water treatment plant and whether a new plant would have to be built.
"Everything is still in the exploratory stages. At this point it is premature to talk about costs until we can ascertain how much water the well technology could produce and what treatment will be used," Stankovich said.
Stankovich said the first step is to find out the amount of water volume available, what needs to be taken out of it and how to treat it.
"There are a number of options to look at. In some cases there is on-site treatments where we wouldn't have to use the plant at all. Or we could use a combination of both. It will all depend on how much water we take and where we take it from. It is premature to put a cost on any treatment," Stankovich said.
Miller called for city regulations to require water conservation.
"I believe we can better accomplish our goals through conservation rather than throwing extravagant amounts of money at tapping the Merrimack," Miller said. "I say let's put forth a plan that not only increases our water capacity but also reduces the amount of water we consume," he said.
Miller said the city can and should seek out national producers of high efficiency faucet aerators and shower heads that use 1.6 gpm (gallon per minute), a modest measure that has been adopted in numerous towns across Massachusetts and proves a remarkably cost effective way to reduce overall water consumption.
"This simple yet inexpensive add-on, which in most cases would cost less than $30, could reduce water usage by 30 percent on homes built after 1992. Homes built before 1992 would see an even greater increase in savings,' Miller said.
Secondly, the city should seek ways to direct the use of high efficiency shower heads, faucet aerators, and dual flush toilets on all new construction, he said. The additional cost to the building would be trivial, and the added savings benefit not only the homeowner through lowered water bills but also the city overall, Miller said.
"Third, if we connected the Millvale dam directly to our treatment plant we could capture the entirety of the overflows from the dam," Miller said.
According to Miller, this measure would increase the city's water capacity by 8 percent or up to 180 million gallons of water per year in an ecologically sustainable manner, costing an expected $1 million.
