Firehouse Well Water Issue Takes Alternative Route

The East Hampton Town Council met on Tuesday night and on the agenda was a recommendation for the council to approve a water main extension from the Village Center water system to Company No. 1 Firehouse on Barton Hill Road.

A consent order from the state Department of Public Health was received by the town in May, the content of which cited the town on two issues: failure to maintain compliance with water testing schedules and failure to maintain separating distances.

The firehouse has a history of coliform bacteria in its well water. Coliform bacteria is generally harmless, although it can be an indication of a potential contamination that could lead to sickness.

Vincent Susco, public utilities administrator for the town, called the water testing schedules an administrative fix and said it was quickly resolved. The separating distances, however, would be more complex.

“The administration portion was not an issue, but getting rid of the pollution that was associated with the well, the proximity of the well to a source of pollution, was going to take some additional time,” he said. “The original consent order was dated from May, we did get a 60-day extension to evaluate how best to proceed.”

According to Susco, about a half a dozen alternatives were considered through meetings with the departments involved, the consensus being that connecting the firehouse to the village water system was the best course of action.

The alternatives discussed were:

• Reducing the pumping capacity of the well to under 10 gallons a minute
• Relocating the existing catch basin
• Providing for a water tight storm drainage system
• Introducing chemical/Ultraviolet treatment to the current water supply
• Drilling a new well
• Connecting to the existing Village Center water system.

The town has until July 16 to submit its proposal on how to resolve the issue.

The cost for the extension to the water system was estimated to run about $50,000 or $60,000 with the possibility of a grant to help defray the cost. Acting Town Manager Jeff Jylkka said the likelihood of a grant came with “a high degree of certainty.”

The cost did not sit well with the council.

“There are cheaper solutions, but some of those solutions may not be acceptable to the state,” Susco said.

Susco admitted, though, there was no way to know how the state would respond until the proposal was submitted.

“If there is a less expensive alternative that would be otherwise acceptable to the State of Connecticut then it would seem to me it would at least be prudent for us to inquire of that,” council member Derek Johnson said.

Currently, the Village Center water system has 30 customers. Adding on to the existing system without a plan also was a concern.

“Let us figure out what is really going to happen to the Village Center, what’s going to happen to the centralized water system,” council member Ted Hintz said, referring to the possibility of a new centralized water system down the road. “There’s a lot up in the air right now. … Let’s face it, that building has a lot of issues.”

The council’s focus shifted to the least expensive option, UV treatment, which would cost about $10,000, a figure that includes work associated with meeting the distance requirements. In addition, there would be an annual expense, but Jylkka said that would probably be offset by the savings from bottled water, which Company 1 has been using.

There is little risk to that proposal. Should the state reject it, the town would have the opportunity to submit a new one.

The council voted unanimously on the UV solution and should hear back about 30 days after the proposal is received by the state.

Why not follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook?