Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Cornish council told reverse-osmosis is likely required; equipment-only estimate tops consultants' preliminary $3 million
Loading...
Summary
Town officials heard a consultant-backed recommendation that reverse-osmosis (RO) treatment is the only reliable way to address high nitrates and borderline arsenic in local sources. Council members said equipment-only cost estimates and state funding timing make immediate local payment unlikely.
Cornish — Town officials were warned during a council meeting that costly reverse-osmosis (RO) treatment may be the only feasible solution to recently identified nitrate and arsenic risks in the town's water sources.
During a multi-hour presentation, an invited presenter (Unidentified Speaker S5) summarized consultant findings and said treating both springs and the town well likely requires an RO-based system. "RO is the only way to go," S5 said, adding that the consultant intentionally provided conservative, high-end cost estimates to account for escalation.
The presentation put equipment-only estimates for early elements of the project "around $3,000,000 out of just starters," and singled out a separate pretreatment scope for spring sources that alone approached $1,000,000. S5 told the council that pretreatment is important to protect RO membranes from rapid fouling and that arsenic levels, while at or near the limit in some tests, could require additional treatment if they rise.
Council members responded with concern about affordability and timing. "We don't have $3,000,000 extra in the budget," said Unidentified Speaker S2, and others noted prior bids for similar systems were far lower in past decades. The council discussed options including applying for state loans or grants and placing Cornish on the state's funding list before formal program changes take effect.
S5 advised the council to be ready for an application window early in the year and said the state may set aside a portion of funding for small communities; S5 estimated a potential small-community set-aside around 20 percent during a transitional period. The council also discussed alternatives such as treating only nitrates with selective resins, adding chlorination, or using secondary (non-potable) water in some applications to reduce reliance on treated culinary water.
No formal decision to build or fund an RO system was made at the meeting. Council members directed staff to seek itemized bids and clarified that any major project would require securing outside funding; S5 emphasized that the consultant's figures were intentionally conservative and that a full design and final bid process would be necessary to fix costs.
Next steps: council members agreed to pursue funding opportunities, request more detailed itemized designs and bids, and monitor the state's formalization of its funding program that S5 said could open application opportunities in the January–March period.
