Slowing down the flow

The town wants to reactivate old drinking water wells and build a water treatment plant to reduce its reliance on more expensive water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Doing so would save the town at least $1 million a year and allow it to upgrade its aging water and sewer infrastructure to keep pollution from streaming into waterways.

If the proposal is approved by state environmental officials in the next two months, Framingham would probably receive more than $5 million in stimulus funds.

But opponents say that the town does not have enough time to conduct an adequate environmental review and that the project should be slowed down, even if it means losing federal dollars.

“In the rush to expend stimulus money, the state has forgotten to look at whether this project is even necessary, let alone environmentally wise,’’ said Margaret Van Deusen, deputy director of the Charles River Watershed Association, an environmental advocacy group. “An unintended consequence of the race for stimulus funds is that the environmental review process is being jammed.’’

The state Department of Conservation and Recreation says the use of well water could draw down Lake Cochituate enough that boating would be difficult and reduce water flows in the already taxed Sudbury River. Agency officials said an initial environmental assessment the town submitted to the state provided too little data to support its contention that ecological effects from the project would be small.

The MWRA has also expressed concern, pointing out that if Framingham cuts its use of the system’s water, other communities would be forced to make up the estimated $3 million difference because the system has so many fixed costs, in part to pay for the Boston Harbor cleanup.

State environmental chief Ian A. Bowles denied a request by Framingham earlier this month to use a draft environmental review as the final document, saying there were many issues the town had to address. Bowles also said the community could take no more than 3.2 million gallons a day without an even more stringent environmental review.

Still, he directed state agencies to work closely with the town to complete an extensive final environmental review “in an expeditious manner.’’

By working together to finish the environmental review, “the project should be able to proceed promptly while ensuring full protection of environmental resources,’’ he wrote.

The proposal is one of scores of state infrastructure projects scheduled to receive federal stimulus funds, although most others are further along in the environmental permitting process.

Framingham officials say they know they are looking to shorten a normally much more drawn-out review, but promise to work with state officials after they receive permits to ensure there is no harm to any waterway.

“In the end this is going to help, not hurt, the environment,’’ said Peter Sellers, director of public works for Framingham. He says money the town would save by eventually halving the amount of water it gets from the MWRA, along with the extra boost from stimulus funding, would go toward plugging leaks and preventing pollution such as sewage from pouring into rivers and lakes. Without it, he says, ratepayers would face skyrocketing bills when infrastructure charges are added to MWRA water bills.

“Doing this will allow us to make many other improvements,’’ Sellers said.

The wells were used for years before they were closed in 1979 because of high manganese and iron levels, and today the town gets virtually all of its drinking water from the MWRA’s Quabbin Reservoir in Central Massachusetts.

Five years ago, town officials began exploring reactivating the wells. This year, when it became clear the community was eligible for stimulus money, the town rushed to finish an environmental review to ensure that the project is under contract by February 2010, a requirement for receiving stimulus funds. Town Meeting approved the $40 million project this spring.

Framingham officials say they are willing to do whatever is necessary to protect the lake and river, including shutting wells and switching to MWRA water during dry summer months.

State Department of Environmental Protection officials indicated in a letter to Bowles, who is energy and environmental affairs secretary, that they believe that most issues can be worked out.

However, the DCR disputed Framingham’s assertion that the wells will have no impact on the Sudbury River watershed.

“It is a basic tenet of hydrology that the proposed pumping will reduce the flow in the river by an amount almost equivalent to the amount of water to be pumped from the wells,’’ DCR commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. wrote in commenting on the draft environmental review. In addition, he said, the draw-down of the lake could mean that more invasive plants would grow in the lake.

Meanwhile, US Fish and Wildlife officials said in a letter that the town failed to properly analyze the impact on fish and other wildlife during low flow periods in the Sudbury River and the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, downstream from the wells to be reactivated.

The project does have powerful backers. US Representative Edward J. Markey wrote in support: “I applaud the Town of Framingham for finding a creative way to recognize their responsibility while relieving their residents of a financial burden.’’

Beth Daley can be reached at bdaley@globe.com.