Water Capacity Report paid for
jean...@myfairpoint.net
I have read recently and have been thinking about the fact the Town of Enfield paid for a Water Capacity Study
(doesn't matter if it was a grant !) and it appears the company we paid did not complete their due diligence OR
do all their homework.
I applaud Steve Muszynski and Tim Jennings for writing letters and questioning the information. I too wondered why
the McConnell Well was included but what do I know I am not an engineer !
As I said before the expertise we have in the staff that works for the Town of Enfield we really didn't need to do this.
I am pretty sure that Jim Taylor, Steve Muszynski AND Jason Darling could have told us what we paid for and more !
Steve and Jason do an amazing job in the Water Department.
If anyone wants to read the letters (and more !) you can find the info at this link:
https://towncloud.io/go/enfield-nh/agendas/199
Jean Patten
c aufiero
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Enfield Discuss List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to discuss+u...@enfieldnh.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/enfieldnh.org/d/msgid/discuss/1781797305.wryo0yyvrc4w84s0%40webmail.myfairpoint.net.
c robert Cusick
I appreciate the concerns being raised about the Water Capacity Study, but I do not agree with the conclusion that the study was unnecessary or that the firm failed to do its due diligence simply because residents or officials have questions about parts of it.
A capacity study is not the same thing as day-to-day operational knowledge. Enfield is fortunate to have experienced staff, and I agree that the Water Department employees know the system extremely well. But that does not mean the Town should avoid independent professional review. Outside engineering studies are often used precisely because they provide documentation, technical analysis, liability protection, and a neutral basis for planning decisions, grant applications, regulatory review, and future infrastructure needs.
The fact that the McConnell Well was included may raise a fair technical question, but it does not automatically prove the study was flawed. Wells, sources, reserves, inactive assets, emergency capacity, or potential future use can all be relevant depending on the scope of the study. The proper response is to ask the consultant to explain why it was included, not to assume bad work before that explanation is given.
I also do not think it is fair to suggest that because Jim Taylor, Steve Muszynski, Jason Darling, or others have strong knowledge of the water system, the Town “really didn’t need” the study. Their expertise is valuable, but staff knowledge and an independent engineering analysis serve different purposes. In fact, a good study should incorporate staff input while also applying outside technical review.
Questions about the study should absolutely be asked. If there are errors, they should be corrected. If assumptions were used, they should be clearly explained. But questioning parts of the report is not the same as proving the Town wasted money or that the consultant failed to do its homework.
A better path forward would be for the Town to request a public response from the engineering firm that addresses the concerns raised, including the McConnell Well issue, the assumptions used, and any needed corrections. That would be more productive than dismissing the study's value entirely or implying that professional analysis was unnecessary.
It is also important to recognize that many questions, comments, and complaints have been raised throughout this process, and these concerns may reasonably be viewed as part of a broader effort to delay or stop the project. There has also been litigation related to the matter, adding further complexity. Given the current state-level emphasis on encouraging residential development, the Town and residents should be careful not to unnecessarily disrupt the process, as doing so and initiating litigation may leave the Town or an individual litigant exposed to all litigation costs. A more constructive approach would be to negotiate toward reasonable additions, clarifications, or changes where appropriate, rather than creating obstacles that may expose the Town or residents to further legal and financial risk.
Best
Bob Cusick
--
jean...@myfairpoint.net
Jim, Steve and Jason not only have expertise but they have documented numbers !!!
Jim already provided alot of numbers etc. and answered the question about the capacity but
what many are hoping for is if we do enough studies we will get a different answer !!
I still say due diligence and complete homework were not done !
Jean
c robert Cusick
I do not doubt that the Water Department staff are capable managers and operators, and I certainly hope that is the case. However, the issues they have identified should first be discussed internally, where the facts can be reviewed carefully and not publicly bandied about in a way that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
That is one of the reasons we have a Town Manager and a Select Board: to review the information, sort through competing concerns, and present a clear, informed position to the public. From the outside, this seems like putting the cart before the horse.
Best
Bob