Mr Jannitto,

There are communities in RI who have 100% of their water supplied from the Scituate Reservoir with no redundancy. This includes Providence, Johnston, Smithfield, East Providence. Further, there are many communities who have primary reliance on the Scituate Reservoir and only a partial reliance on a redundant "backup" system. BCWA went for years without a working water treatment plant or a properly working backup route through East Providence (which is still not working properly).

In OCG / RISC's review of this matter, it was found that no work had been done by BCWA to investigate recommendations in the 2010 Camp Dresser McKee report which held that the Nayatt Wells could provide needed emergency redundancy if properly managed. Also, BCWA scheduled a meeting with Swansea to discuss their implementation of desalination technology, but cancelled that meeting with no followup. And what about other emerging technologies for water processing to provide emergency backup? Do you even know what they are?

Mr Jannitto, there is a cost / benefit for everything in life. Every family would like to have more life insurance, more emergency funds in the checking account, a second car to go to work. The question every family faces is one of cost. As Chairman of the BCWA Board, why have you ignored Camp Dresser's own recommendation to evaluate the full scope of alternatives and costs for redundancy. As Chairman, that is your responsibility to the rate payers.

Mr Jannitto,

Having run out of room in my last post, I would respectfully like to challenge your other assertion in the "Opinion". OCG / RISC have reviewed all of the statutes and state bonds available to BCWA. The opinion of OCG / RISC's legal counsel and forensic auditor is that BCWA does not have $6.9 million in state funds for the Shad Project. There is less than $5 million. Further, that $5 million is to "complete" the Shad project, not start it.

On December 20th, this information was presented to the Water Resources Board Finance Committee. Since then, they have not disagreed with the findings of OCG. The point is, if the Shad pipeline is installed at $10+ million, ratepayers are currently responsible for 100% of all cost overruns.

I am sure rate payers may be concerned that they are responsible for all the millions in additional costs for the Shad project. The Board appears to also be misinformed on the statutes. You may want to ask the WRB whether they agree with your conclusions on these matters.

Mr Jannitto,

Could you please investigate the two below options and report back to the rate payers

From the Valley Breeze under:

Coming down the pipe: Water treatment deliberations intensify
Published: January 26, 2011

"Pawtucket is kind of setting itself up as the big elephant in the room because they overbuilt their plant with the hopes of this huge investment," Fontaine had said at a previous council meeting. "By us coming and stepping in to provide the transit of the water supply in the northern R.I. area, we may not have a big plant like they do but we become almost an equal player in that regional approach because they've got this big plant and we've got conveyance."

As I understand our current network of pipes, BCWA connects to East Providence, East Providence has a connection to Pawtucket which now appears to have, as reported, an "overbuilt" plant". So if this is true, does this open one more emergency backup option?

Also, as reported in the Wednesday, October 13, 2010 BCWA Board minutes:

1. Water Treatment Plant Project Update, Executive Director DeLise stated that a teleconference was held with Legal Counsel Ms. Sandra Mack and Chairman John Jannitto. The strategy is to obtain an answer from Rehoboth. Correspondence has been sent to Rehoboth for a license application. If the application is refused, BCWA will rehab the Shad in our easements."

How much is the rehab vs. an entirely new pipeline? Could you please provide this information?

Gary they will never address questions such as these.

There is no reason that the same water supply used prior to the cross bay pipeline which provided 100% of our water during the worst drought in recent history cannot be used as a backup. Indeed I believe the BCWA has used that as a reason to keep treating water from the reservoir in Warren. Now its an emergency that ratepayers be given a $20 million dollar bill for another connection (that's an estimate since the BCWA is incapable of one).

Whenever some big project is illogically pushed over less expensive options I see a big vague outlay of money where there is lots of graft and bidder pay backs. It's the RI way.

Jim

You are correct that BCWA is not likely to address any question head on. A case in point.

At the Jan 25th BCWA forum, Sandra Mack promised Marina Petersen an answer as to whether or not the backup pipeline route through East Providence was working as required. The design called for the backup route to carry 6 million gallons per day in either direction for either EP or BCWA.

Marina Petersen has not heard from Ms. Mack since then.

This is why they showed in force at the meeting - order to obfuscate the issues.

The towns need to put a stop to the BCWA's use of a lawyer for every communique with the public.