Q&A with 2026 candidates for Water District Commissioner

John Petersen

A strategic perspective on Acton’s water supply and demand is the foundation of the answer to questions 2, 5, and 6. The AWD Master Plan has not been updated since 2018. That plan predicted rising demand but the opposite has been observed. While correctly identifying the timing of peak demand (August), the plan is limited in scenario analysis. The Master Plan update must be completed in 2026.

A severe drought is not a hypothetical. The 1960s drought lasted roughly nine years with 34 of 46 months showing below-average precipitation. In the case of drought, the District is well prepared to implement water restrictions and is fortunate that the community has responded by reducing water use. Minimizing leakage is as important as increasing supply. The AWD’s 135-mile distribution network includes mains that are aging and in some cases approaching end of useful life. The District should also increase supply (prepare to restore operations at Whit-Clapp) and, over the longer term, connect to MWRA [Metropolitan Water Resource Authority] if feasible. An MWRA connection (see Question 5) would substantially increase drought resilience. Drought does not threaten the Quabbin and Wachusett reservoir system the same way it threatens shallow groundwater. A hybrid supply, Acton groundwater plus MWRA, maximizes resilience. Note that in the case of regional drought, neighboring communities would be facing the same supply issues and would not be a potential resource.

The District must continue to encourage conservation (rain barrels, drought resistant landscapes). Importantly, the District must work with the Town to encourage practices that promote recharge (surface permeability) through zoning and in the course of permitting. The District should make permeability education a focus of its outreach efforts.

Stephen Stuntz

Managing a severe drought requires coordinated action from all stakeholders. The District is prepared to monitor water supply, water use, and environmental conditions and to promote compliance through both voluntary and mandatory measures. Our long‑standing relationship with customers fosters trust and cooperation, as demonstrated by successful voluntary reductions during past drought conditions. Past practices have demonstrated our ability to continue serving the community in times of drought, contamination, and operational constraints. Strengthening relationships with our neighbors, the state, and the community will help us tackle future times of drought and changing weather patterns. The addition of the bedrock wells in 2025 is one major step towards diversifying our water supply to better weather drought.

John Petersen

Septic system failures represent a long-term challenge for Acton’s water supply. Failing septic systems introduce nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, and pharmaceuticals into the shallow aquifer from which AWD draws its water. The Board of Health has documented ongoing Title 5 violations at multiple properties across at least six meetings in the past year. Compared to neighboring communities, Acton has a low percentage of properties served by our sewer system (15%). In Concord, 35% and in Maynard, more than 95% of the properties are connected to a sewer system.

The most recent effort to expand sewers in Acton failed. Consequently the long-term maintenance of septic systems in West Acton will be difficult. Unfortunately, the new Boardwalk campus is struggling to bring its on-site septic system into compliance with nitrogen regulations. Installing sewers would have prevented this problem.

Recently the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC), a Town committee, met with the BoH to discuss the status of septic systems in Acton. Both our approach to monitoring septic performance and educating the community about septic system maintenance need improvement. I’ve participated in both WRAC and BoH meetings to advocate for:

• implementation of new governance for our sewer system,
• recognition that sewers provide benefits to the community not just connected properties,
• improved monitoring and education related to septic systems.

Moving sewer oversight from the Select Board to a dedicated board of sewer commissioners is an important step that the Town should take no later than Town Meeting 2027.

Editors’ Note: According to the posted minutes of the meeting referred to above, two members of WRAC met with Health Department staff.

Stephen Stuntz

While the District now operates advanced treatment facilities that effectively isolate septic system failures from the microbiological quality of delivered drinking water, it remains important that all properties return to regulatory compliance. Source water protection, which involves land use, wastewater, and infiltration, is a key area of ongoing collaboration. Noncompliant systems increase treatment demands and operational burden. The District does not have enforcement authority and therefore relies on the Board of Health and Town, as well as those of our neighboring communities’ actions to address these issues. We continue to provide input on zoning and land‑use decisions to protect groundwater resources and maintain close collaboration with Town departments, built on longstanding trust and mutual respect. Having a two way dialogue of raising concerns about our sources of supply and being informed or consulted on issues, is critical to identifying the most pressing issues for resolution.

John Petersen

In 2023 the annual meeting of the AWD unanimously passed a non-binding recommendation calling for a rate study. The AWD should complete a rate study with an independent consultant no later than December 2026 to inform the FY28 budget. An efficient way to complete this study is to select a consultant who has already conducted such a study for a Massachusetts community and hire them to perform a comparable study for Acton. The rate study is independent of the AWD Master Plan update. The AWD rate policy must be revisited at the completion of the study.

What is already known about rate setting? The current rate-setting process, which calculates a fixed debt fee based on debt service in any given year, does not yield a consistent fixed revenue percentage. Since 2022 fixed revenue, service fee plus debt fee, has ranged from 38% to 51% of water revenue. In the proposed FY27 budget, the fixed percentage increases from 38% to 44%.

Management argues that most of the Acton Water District’s costs are fixed, and that the marginal cost of producing an additional gallon of water is low, so the fixed percentage should be high. Management also argues that fixed-fee billing, no usage charge, is antithetical to both the goal of wisely using our water supply and to the goal of incentivizing conservation. No one is arguing that the fixed percentage should be either 0% or 100%. The unanswered question? What fixed percentage strikes the right balance between reliable revenue, recognition of fixed expenses that are not usage-dependent (fire systems), and conserving our water supply?

I recommend setting the fixed fee at 40% of water revenue. This value lies between the fixed percentages for FY26 and FY27. Once the rate study is complete, the value will be adjusted to align with the study’s recommendation.

Stephen Stuntz

As the costs of providing water service increase, those costs should be apportioned based on whether they are fixed or variable in nature. Water system costs generally fall into two categories: production and distribution costs, which scale with the amount of water used, and infrastructure costs, which are largely fixed. Infrastructure investments are typically financed through bonds with long repayment periods, and these costs must be paid regardless of how much water is sold.

Because infrastructure costs do not typically vary with usage, they are most appropriately recovered through fixed fees that are shared across customer classes. These costs have been approved by the community through separate votes, reflecting a collective decision to fund and maintain the quality and reliability of the water system. In contrast, production and distribution costs should be recovered through usage-based charges, ensuring that customers who consume more water pay proportionally more for the variable costs they impose on the system.

This approach aligns cost recovery with the underlying cost drivers, promotes fairness among different types of customers, and provides clear price signals that encourage efficient water use while ensuring that essential infrastructure obligations are met. There is a further advantage to separately charging for bonded projects in that our bonding agents find that the guaranteed funding source lowers their risk and therefore the interest rate on the bond charged to us.

John Petersen

The MWRA decision is the most consequential long-term strategic question facing the Acton Water District. As noted in question 2, water supply strategy should include diversification of sources. Global events have shown that “single sourcing” always presents supply chain risks. This is true for our Water District. Today we have multiple well fields around town which provide redundancy of supply and allow wells to be periodically rested so that they can continue to produce near design capacity. We also have agreements with neighboring towns like the agreements that were used to provide water from Concord and Littleton during the recent startup of the South Acton PFAS treatment facility. Thus, the decision to join the MWRA should be viewed from the perspective of adding additional supply, not replacing our groundwater wells. From a security of supply view, a hybrid approach, well water plus MWRA water, is preferred. Needham https://www.needhamma.gov/291/Water-Sewer-Drains-Division is an example of a community with a hybrid supply; local groundwater is the main source of supply while MWRA provides 10–20% of Needham’s water supply and provides 100% wastewater treatment. A hybrid approach benefits both MWRA (less demand on MWRA supply) and AWD (better security of supply).

The multi-community study in progress will provide better information on costs and mechanisms by which MWRA water could be supplied to Acton. The cost of the MWRA connection will be larger than any previous capital expenditure of the District. It is unlikely that connecting will be affordable without state and or federal financial support. Advocacy at the state and federal level in concert with neighboring communities is critical.

An MWRA connection is at least a decade away. Now we must complete the strategic review of our groundwater supply and demand and build multi-community support for MWRA expansion.

Stephen Stuntz

In deciding whether the community of Acton should join the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) water system, several key factors must be considered. One major issue is local control versus cost. Joining the MWRA could provide access to a large regional water supply but would reduce local control over some water management decisions and potentially increase long‑term costs through MWRA rates and fees. Remaining independent allows Acton greater flexibility but requires continued local investment.

Water treatment and chemistry are also important considerations. MWRA water is of high quality and meets strict standards, but its chemistry differs from Acton’s current sources. These differences could affect corrosion control, aesthetics, pipe longevity, and household plumbing, possibly requiring costly system adjustments.

The hydraulics and flow patterns of the system must be evaluated. Acton currently benefits from multiple local sources that provide redundancy. Joining the MWRA would likely mean that all water flows across the town from a single external source, creating a single point of failure. Any disruption in MWRA supply or transmission could impact the entire town.

Another factor is the age of the existing infrastructure. Acton’s water system includes aging pipes and facilities that will require upgrades. While MWRA membership could reduce the need for some local treatment infrastructure, Acton would still be responsible for maintaining its distribution system.

Finally, long‑term water availability must be considered. Although the MWRA system is extensive, it is not unlimited. Future population growth, climate change, and regional demand could affect supply reliability. Acton must weigh whether dependence on a regional system offers greater long‑term security than maintaining diversified local sources. Both options have costs and benefits which are now being studied.

Overall, the decision requires balancing cost, control, infrastructure reliability, system resilience, and long‑term sustainability.

John Petersen

Acton has done a good job of conserving water. We’ve actually reduced demand by about 1% per year while adding new customers over the past several years. Every gallon of demand avoided is a gallon of supply capacity preserved for future growth. All of the District programs encouraging conservation must continue. On the district side, efforts to minimize leakage and water use for other purposes, such as line flushing, will continue.

The District must continue its role in project development so that potential water demand is identified and developers understand both the cost and the likelihood that the District can fill the demand.

Another important factor in supply is the recharge rate, surface water percolating into the ground to increase groundwater levels. While we can’t control rainfall, we can influence the development of our town and the management of property. Our goal should be to minimize the creation of impermeable surfaces and maintain properties to improve permeability. Due to the structure of the AWD as an independent governmental entity, the AWD has no direct control of zoning/permitting requirements. The AWD should highlight permeable land use as part of its conservation education. The AWD should advocate for zoning/permitting that increases land permeability and groundwater recharge.

Longer-term, connecting to MWRA and moving to a hybrid supply would assure Acton an adequate water supply for future development.

Stephen Stuntz

The Town and the Water District can collaborate closely to ensure that economic growth does not outpace the available water supply by combining planning, regulation, and conservation efforts. The Water District has established rules and regulations governing how water is used by all organizations, including fee structures that reflect and reinforce responsible water use. We actively encourage and incentivize low-water-use fixtures and promote landscaping and exterior planting that require little or no irrigation. In addition, the Water District works closely with the Town during the review of proposed development and building plans, offering guidance and recommendations early in the process. Fostering timely communication from the Town helps ensure that projected water usage and infrastructure needs are accurately accounted for. In cases where plans have been incomplete or underestimated water demand, usage limits have been applied, and alternative solutions — such as the installation of private wells — have been required to protect the public water supply.