Glocester council hears feasibility study for Chepachet public water system

At its Feb. 20 meeting, the Glocester Town Council heard a presentation from Northeast Water Solutions on a public-water feasibility study for Chepachet Village in Glocester.

The study examined groundwater supply, regulatory constraints, water quality and infrastructure options and produced capital and operating cost estimates and a range of implementation alternatives for the council’s consideration. Consultants stressed the work is advisory and nonprescriptive; the report was funded through the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank and Commerce RI.

Why it matters: Chepachet Village’s small historic lots and existing on-site septic systems limit where public wells can be located and create public-health and development constraints. Council members were shown how a public water supply could enable more commercial development, improve fire protection and access grant funding targeted at “emerging contaminants.”

Consultants said the village overlies multiple geologic formations, which explains the wide variability in well yields and water chemistry across short distances. Water-quality concerns noted in the report included high chlorides (which drive corrosion), elevated iron and manganese, and detection of low levels of PFAS in a few wells. The team said current detections do not exceed the Department of Health limits then in place but flagged PFAS and manganese as “emerging contaminants” that increase regulatory and treatment requirements and can create eligibility for specific grants.

Key technical findings and program numbers from the report: - Projected average daily demand (including undeveloped lots and modest buildout): about 62,000 gallons per day; maximum-day demand about 92,000 gallons per day (1.5 peaking factor). - Target firm supply capacity to serve the village: about a 60 gallons-per-minute effective well capacity (with a 25% contingency and a 12-hour-per-day run-time limit). - Distribution infrastructure estimated for the village: roughly 7,400 feet of 12-inch main, 4,900 feet of 8-inch main, about 28 hydrants and roughly 40 service connections (the district has 26 lots but some lots could require multiple connections). - Storage recommendation: an elevated storage tank on the order of 300,000 gallons sized to provide about 1,500 gallons-per-minute fire flow for two hours plus one day’s system demand; tank low-water elevation proposed near 450 feet. - Example well field: an exploratory, high-yield site on the Steer Farm (Buster Steer’s property) previously developed during prior work had tested yields as high as 600 gpm and an estimated effective yield in the 300–400 gpm range; the landowner indicated a willingness to discuss agreements.

Alternatives evaluated: The consultants presented five broad options: (1) extend and connect to the existing regional utility (identified in the report as the Pasco utility district) and build transmission from a regional well field; (2) develop an independent Steer Farm well field with dedicated transmission; (3) develop multiple small, local systems serving portions of the village; (4) rely on point-of-entry or individual-property treatment systems; and (5) other bedrock/sand-and-gravel well locations identified in mapping. The consultants eliminated the individual-property treatment option from further consideration because of treatment-disposal conflicts on small lots and regulatory concerns, and they concluded a multiple-mini-systems approach would not meet the town’s objective of comprehensively serving the entire village (it would serve about 73% of lots).

Cost and schedule notes in the report: The consultants produced detailed cost worksheets in the binder distributed to the council. The presentation cited a conceptual capital figure for village-level distribution and related work of roughly $7,845,000 (implementation scope described during the presentation), and reported a range of total project budgets across alternatives (stand-alone village-only alternatives roughly $14 million–$20 million). When the team modeled connecting to the regional utility, the report described a Gloucester allocation figure in the transcript of about $17,600,000 after accounting for regional allocations; storage-tank plus transmission budget ranges for selected tank locations were shown in the presentation at about $5.6 million–$8.0 million. The consultants emphasized these are engineering-level budgets intended for planning and grant applications and that more precise design estimates would follow.

Funding and next steps: The report summarized state funding programs administered by the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, including Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loans and several grant programs for emerging contaminants and for small or disadvantaged communities. The consultants recommended pursuing design funding and grant eligibility steps (including emerging-contaminant programs tied to manganese and PFAS detections) and offered to return for further council review. On the timeline, the team said an aggressive program from design through construction could take roughly four years; starting design and permitting immediately could allow construction work to begin in about 18 months, subject to regulatory and DOT reviews.

Council discussion during and after the presentation focused on the definition of “emerging contaminant,” potential grant-match levels and the relative time and administrative complexity of joining or contracting with an established regional utility versus creating a new, stand-alone municipal system. The consultants said regionalization with an existing utility could reduce incremental operating cost and speed some administrative steps because the regional district already has administrative, financial and operations infrastructure in place.

The council did not take formal action on the study at the meeting; the consultants left a bound copy of the full report and asked the council for feedback and direction on next steps.