Monona residents press council over proposed high‑capacity well at Waterman Park, citing contamination and park loss

Dozens of Monona residents used the council's appearance period on May 19 to press elected officials to reconsider plans for a proposed high‑capacity well (Well No. 4) at Waterman Way Park, saying the site risks drinking‑water contamination and would remove valued neighborhood green space.

The comments focused on three themes: potential contamination from nearby historical dry‑cleaner PCE plumes and leaking underground storage tanks, a very high local water table and standing water near the site, and the loss of parkland and neighborhood character. ‘‘There are several reasons that I'm against this proposal. Primarily, there are several known contaminant sources and potential contaminant sources within the site review area and also within the capture zone of a 1,500 gallon per minute high capacity well,’’ said Constantine Saurus, a Waterman Way resident.

Speakers cited the presence of nearby leaking underground storage tanks and a documented tetrachloroethylene (PCE) plume from a dry cleaner on Monona Drive. ‘‘If you install a high capacity well at 1,500 gallons per minute, there's very likely occurrence that it will start to draw in some of those contaminants and that residents of Monona will be drinking impacted PCE contaminated water,’’ Saurus said. Multiple residents also raised the possibility of PFAS and other legacy contaminants being present.

Other speakers emphasized neighborhood impacts. Carrie Bradley said she was ‘‘concerned about the public health and the loss of green space with regard to the proposed Well Number 4 on Waterman Way’’ and asked the council to consider alternatives. Greg Samolis thanked council members for pausing work on the project and said his family ‘‘are opposed to putting a new well in this location’’ and questioned proceeding without sampling or testing. Several residents said they were not notified in advance about surveying on private property and described surprise when survey crews appeared.

Speakers also disputed elements of the city's site materials: Andrew Homburg said the original plat and title records show the area in question is parkland, not a simple right‑of‑way, and urged the council to scrutinize any waivers of setback requirements from potential contaminant sources (sewer manholes, dewatering wells and the like). Residents repeatedly requested hydrogeological testing, soil borings and monitoring wells before any final siting decision.

Speakers mentioned an estimated project cost of roughly $2,600,000 and said that cost would be borne through water rates; several urged that existing wells — including Well No. 1 at the civic campus — be maintained rather than replaced before the city finalizes plans and financing for a new civic campus. ‘‘There doesn't seem to be a fire to put out or an urgent need for a new well at this time,’’ Samolis said.

No formal council action on siting was recorded during public comment. Multiple residents thanked the mayor and council for pausing the process to allow public input; the transcript contains speakers' praise for that pause. City staff and council did not present new hydrogeological test results during the appearance period.

Going forward, residents asked the council to require site‑specific testing (deep aquifer testing, monitoring wells and soil borings), to publish detailed notification and outreach steps, and to compare alternatives that would avoid park impacts. The council did not make a final decision on Well No. 4 during the meeting; the item remained under review.

The appearance period included a lengthy list of written statements entered into the record from other neighborhood addresses expressing opposition to the Waterman Way location.