Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Water district candidates debate rates, PFAS settlement and annual‑meeting access
Loading...
Summary
In the Acton Water District race, candidates John Peterson and Steven Stuntz sparred over the balance between fixed debt fees and usage‑based rates, use of a roughly $2.3 million PFAS settlement fund, and whether annual‑meeting procedures give voters sufficient time to debate budgets.
John Peterson and incumbent Steven Stuntz traded sharply different priorities at an April 8 League of Women Voters forum as they sought a single Water District commissioner seat, focusing on rate structure, groundwater protection and how the district uses a $2.3 million PFAS settlement.
Peterson, a scientist and former school committee chair who serves on the district’s finance committee, told the forum he proposed setting the fixed portion of rates at about 40 percent during a pending rate study, arguing that preserves conservation incentives while ensuring stable debt repayment. "It's important that the district maintain a significant usage charge to incent conservation," Peterson said.
Stuntz, who described long tenure in town water service and a focus on conservation, explained the district’s existing approach: a capital access fee to cover bond costs and variable usage fees to fund operating expenses. "We reward our low water users by, in fact, having a variable rate," Stuntz said, adding that hardship cases are handled separately.
Both candidates addressed groundwater threats from two Superfund sites that affect local wells. Peterson named the Concord nuclear‑medical metal site and the W.R. Grace site near Conant wells, said the EPA monitors remediation under the Superfund program, and noted that granular activated carbon systems at district facilities provide protection. Stuntz said monitoring and treatment plans exist but that the district remains "not satisfied" with past corporate failures and continues to monitor water quality closely.
The candidates diverged on how to use money from litigation related to PFAS. Moderator background read that the fund holds about $2,300,000. Peterson said that money belongs to ratepayers and supported the $600,000 appropriation the district approved at the annual meeting while keeping reserves for future uncertainty. Stuntz said the settlement funds are being invested and used to offset remediation costs and ongoing treatment expenses rather than new capital projects.
On public participation, Stuntz conceded that debate at the recent annual meeting was cut off too soon when a motion was called, limiting opportunities for extended public discussion. Peterson urged residents to engage earlier in the budget process — he said deliberations begin months in advance — and recommended clearer handouts and presentations so voters can participate effectively under the tight annual‑meeting rules.
The Acton Water District administers about a $9,000,000 annual budget, the candidates said. The forum concluded with both urging residents to attend a special district meeting to vote the budget on April 22.
The district election is part of Acton's municipal calendar; voters will decide on April 28. The forum was recorded April 8 and hosted by the League of Women Voters of the Acton Area.
