Residents urge halt to proposed Well No. 4 at Waterman Way Park, cite safety and contamination risks

Dozens of residents near Waterman Way Park told the Monona Public Works Committee they oppose siting a proposed municipal well (referred to in project documents as Well No. 4) near the park and homes, saying they were not notified and that the location is environmentally and physically unsuitable.

The speakers — who live on Waterman Way, Clear Spring Court and nearby streets — said the neighborhood learned about the project only within the last few days and that a surveyor had been on private property without prior notice. “I was rather surprised by that,” said Andrew Halberg, a nearby homeowner who said a surveyor had been on his property. Several residents described the park as a valued green space used for gatherings, dog-walking and youth activities and said a well there would remove parkland and reduce property values.

The community also raised technical concerns after reviewing the consultant report. A resident with professional hydrogeologic experience said the proposed site has only about 4.5 feet of soil over the water table at sample wells and argued shallow soils increase the vulnerability of a municipal well to surface contaminants. He pointed to nearby potential contaminant sources cited in the report — a leaking underground storage tank, a permitted solid waste generator and a perchloroethylene (PCE) plume tied to a former dry cleaner — and said the report’s treatment of those hazards appeared to understate risk. One speaker said the report “nullifies” proximity to some contaminant sources in ways they believe the code does not allow.

Public works staff told the committee the project is farther upstream in process than some residents believe. The staff update said the city had applied for an extension or reapproval of an earlier permit with the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and that the permit-related action has been put on pause while staff and the committee address questions. Director of Public Works D. S. Fani told the meeting he has been with the department for 14 years and offered to work with residents but said a detailed agenda item would be needed for an in-depth discussion.

Residents asked the committee several specific follow-ups: release of current plans for the proposed civic campus that staff said is the stated reason for relocating the existing well at City Hall; an explanation of why alternative sites named in the consultant report were not fully evaluated; hydrogeologic studies to analyze shallow water-table risks; and documentation of any required DNR approvals or permits. One nearby homeowner suggested moving the well 75 feet west to avoid the park, citing a provision referenced in project documents (Act 10) that could change permitting requirements if the well is shallow and relocated.

Committee members did not make a formal decision on the well at the meeting. Staff said they would not pursue the permit action while the matter is being reviewed. The chair encouraged residents to email the committee chair with specific questions and to request an item be placed on a future agenda for fuller discussion. The committee also advised that the Public Works Committee is a reasonable starting point for neighborhood engagement and suggested consolidating neighborhood questions through one or two representatives to streamline staff responses.

Clarifying details provided in the meeting: the draft consultant materials referenced a potential new parcel for the well and listed construction in 2026 in some documents, but staff said that timeline reflects older documents and the permit application process is paused; residents reported measurements showing shallow soil (about 4 feet 6 inches from ground surface to water) at sample locations; the consultant permit-related application cited DNR precedent and Act 10 language that residents flagged and asked the city to explain in detail; the city did not present an approved civic campus plan at the meeting. Staff asked residents to request a formal agenda item so staff can present full documentation and answer technical questions.

The committee closed the appearances portion of the meeting after public testimony and said the neighborhood’s requests would be considered for a future agenda item so staff could present technical materials and any updated project documents.

Ending: Residents were asked to consolidate questions and request a future agenda item; staff said the permit action is paused and that additional information and a formal staff presentation would be scheduled if requested.