WEST CAPE MAY — Borough resident John Rowley is questioning why Borough Commission will not order an engineering study to discover the source of 121 million gallons of water missing from 2003 to 2009 valued at $695,000.
Rowley said he located information from a former borough engineer who suggested the unaccounted for water loss is due to the design of the water distribution system.
The borough has contracted with a forensic accountant, Eden’s Water Recovery, but not an engineer.
At a June 16 Borough Commission meeting, Mayor Pamela Kaithern said the accountant met with the City of Cape May which sells municipal water to West Cape May. She said they shared data and tried to isolate areas of concern.
The mayor said both parties left the meeting with a task list which included more data gathering. She said the consensus of opinion is the missing water is not the result of a leak.
The mayor said calibration reports for the meters Cape May uses to measure water entering and leaving West Cape May indicated 99 percent accuracy.
Rowley said he found information online from John A. Feairheller Jr., a former engineer for the borough.
In a letter, Feairheller notes the missing water problem dates back to 1992. He said the borough’s water distribution mains were replaced beginning in 1988 and during that process, all un-metered services were found as the old mains were shut off. The borough’s water system should result in unaccounted-for water of less than 5% except during period of new water main construction or metering periods during which major fires occur, said Feairheller.
He noted: “The percentage of unaccounted for water between November 1, 1991 and February 4, 1992 for the Borough of West Cape May was 60%. This followed a quarter with 49% unaccounted for water. The water supplied to the borough at that time was metered at four locations.”
“An impromptu test was conducted between April 2 and April 6, 1992 during which the borough was disconnected from the Broadway water main with the exception of 94 property meters feed from the Broadway main. During those four days, the 94 users meters measured 74,000 gallons during which period the difference between the water entering and leaving the Borough on Broadway as measured by the Cape May City Master Meters was 354,000 gallons which on a quarterly bases is 6.3 million gallons,” said Feairheller.
He continued: “The City of Cape May objected to the manner in which the test was conducted, and in 1994 the City of Cape May revised the master meters at the Wilbraham Park. These metering revisions were designed and implemented by Remington & Vernick Engineers working as the Municipal Engineer’s for the City of Cape May.” Rowley said the borough could wait for the Eden’s study to be completed but should also consider hiring an independent engineer to study the distribution system.
“This guy points out to me that we have a wacky system,” said Rowley.
Feairheller noted, “All of the water supplied to the Borough of West Cape May must travel through water mains operated by the City of Cape May. The flow of water is measured by master meters installed on the transmission mains that lead into the Borough. The water transmission mains within the Borough then supply water to the City of Cape May, the Borough of Cape May Point and the Township of Lower. The flow of water out of the Borough is again measured by master water meters installed on the transmission mains. The Borough is billed for the volume of water that is measured entering the Borough minus that which is measured leaving the Borough.”
Kaithern said Feairheller was a resource the borough continued to use. Rowley said the borough needed a study of how to isolate its water system and not rely on figures and meters from other municipalities. He suggested the borough seek a grant to pay for such a study.
Rowley said if the borough could reduce its water loss from 38 percent to 15 percent, it would produce a savings of $65,000 per year which represents more than $600,000 over 10 years. He questioned why the borough was not seeking an estimate of cost to conduct an engineering study of the water system.
Kaithern told Rowley the borough was not going to undertake an engineering study at this time because it was in the middle of the accounting study by Eden’s Water Recovery at a fee not to exceed $15,000. The borough has made a payment of $1,800 to Eden’s.
Commissioner Peter Burke said it was still possible the problem was outside of the borough but within the utility.
Resident Kathy Gallagher, who has been analyzing data on her own, said it was hard to believe after several months, the commission had no answers for the water loss. She said looking at data from January 2009 to December 2009, the water use of several West Cape May water customers has decreased by one half compared to other years.
