Barbara 11 Orch Nashua,

Monday, January 15,2007

Debra A. Howland Executive Director and Secretary NH Public Utilities Commission 21 South Fruit Street, Suite 10 Concord NM 03301-2429

RE: DW 04-048: City of Nashua - Pemichuck Water Works, Inc.

Dear Ms. Howland:

As a citizen intervener in the above mentioned case I respectfblly request that the following documents recently received be accepted as testimony. They expand and further explain my already submitted testimony.

Given the holiday today and the PUC procedure scheduled for tomorrow, January 16,2007, I shall carry in all of the copies for everyone. There will be 8 copies for your department and copies for all parties in attendance.

1. Letter arrived last Friday January 10,2007 from the NH Securities Division. They are making public the supporting documents for the December 16,2004 State and Federal SEC statements concerning Pemichuck. They have been withheld as indicated in my testimony of January 10,2006. The 2 Sec reports were submitted into testimony April 22, 2005 attachment 3b and 3c. I request the right to submit at a future time testimony from these newly released documents. 2. Mr. Alan Manoian has continued his research on the history of Pennichuck Corporation as submitted in May 2006.

3. Two newspaper articles in the Nashua Telegraph on Sunday, October 22 and 29&. They will be submitted later once made available electronically. They reconfirm the history as written by Alan Manoian.

Thank you for accepting this testimony.

Sincerely,

Barbara Pressly

Mailing Address Location State House Room 204 State House Annex Concord, 03301 -4989 25 Capitol St. Telephone (603) 271 -1463 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Facsimile (603) 271-7933

Barbara Pressly 11 Orchard Ave Nashua, NH 03060

Re: Pennichuck Corporation and Maurice Are1 INVO2-40

Dear Ms. Pressly;

This letter is in response to your request under the Right To Know law, NH RSA 91-A. A determination has been made to open the file to the public. As the investigation of this matter was extensive and transpired over a considerable period of time, our file is voluminous and contained in over a dozen boxes. Therefore, the Bureau anticipates that the release of the file under 91-A will be an ongoing process requiring an ongoing review and determination of which documents will be released. Further, the parties involved with the investigation may assert during the Right To Know process that certain information should not be released.

At the outset, we are opening a portion of our file to the public so that it may understand the gist of our investigation and the issues addressed. As you read through the information provided, please make note of any additional information that you seek, such as a document referred to. so that the Bureau may identify that document(s) and make a determination on its release to the public. Copying portions of the file will require a cost for reproduction paid to the state. Finally, 91-A exceptions which protect information from release dictates that we my deny your request for further and more specific information.

If you would like to review our file, please indicate a date and time that you are available and we will try to accommodate you.

If you have any questions, please call.

TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964

Barbara Pressly 1 1 Orchard Avenue Nashua, NH 03060

Jeffrey Spill, Deputy Director Bureau of Securities Regulation Department of State The State of New Hampshire State House Room 204 Concord-NH 0330 1-4989

Re: Pennichuck Corporation and Maurice Are1 INVO2-40

Dear Mr. Spill;

Thank you for responding to my request of many months ago and opening the above mentioned file to the public.

The first available date I have to review the file is Friday, January 19,2007 at 9 in the morning. I would like to bring a friend to make the task go more quickly.

Please let me know if the date, time and more than one person at a time are acceptable to you. My phone number is 880-7752. You are welcome to leave a message on my machine.

Thank you. fl

Barbara Pressly V Barbara Pressly 11 Orchard Avenue Nashua, NH 03060 Phone (603) 880-7752 Email: barbaravia@,aol.com

January 10,2006

Debra A. Howland Executive Director and Secretary New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission 2 1 South Fruit Street, Suite 10 Concord, NH 0330 1

RE: DW 04-048: City of Nashua - Pennichuck Water Works, Inc.

Dear Ms. Howland:

Enclosed for filing with the Commission in the above-captioned docket are the original and eight copies of my testimony of public interest as a supporting intervener meeting the January 12,2006 deadline for filing. Please consider and re-file the testimony filed early on April 22,2005 as part of this filing

Sincerely,

Barbara Pressly

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CITY OF NASHUS'S PETITION FOR PURCHASING PENNICHUCK CORPORATION

Docket No: DW 04-48

PUBLIC INT.EREST TESTIMONY OF BARBARA PRESSLY, SUPPORTIVE INTERVENOR FOR CITY OF NASHUA PURCHASING PENNICHUCK WATER SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 12,2006

1. Please accept the testimony regarding public purpose filed early on April 20,2005.

2. The most important portions of that filing are the two securities announcements attachments 6 and 7 of the filing of April20,2005.

3. Since that time it has been discovered that the investigation into the conduct of Pennichuck Corporation is not concluded. I had requested the supporting documents from the State Securities Division. Their formal reply states that the government continues to investigate the matter of Pennichuck Corporation. This continuing government investigation necessitates the supportive documents that I requested remain confidential. This secrecy suggests that other possible misdeeds are still to be revealed.

I

The citizens and rate payers of Nashua and surrounding area deserve to know who is managing their water supply and be protected fiom unaccountable ownership. Only municipal ownership can assure this. Barbara Pressly 11 Orchard Avenue Nashua, NH 03060 Phone: (603) 880-7752 Email : barbaravia@,aol.corn

April 22,2005

Debra A. Howland Executive Director and Secretary New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission 2 1 South Fruit Street, Suite 10 Concord, NH 0330 1

Re: DW 04-048; City of Nashua - Pennichuck Water Works, Inc.

Dear Ms. Howland:

Enclosed for filing with the Commission in the above-captioned docket are the original and eight copies of my testimony of public interest as a supporting intervener. The points will be exclusive to Public Purpose. Copies shall be provided to the parties on the service list by email and regular postal service. The attachments shall be underlined to highlight the portions supporting my points.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this filing.

Sincerely,

Barbara Pressly STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CITY OF NASHUA'S PETITION FOR PURCHASING PENNICHUCK CORPORATION

Docket No: DW 04-48

PUBLIC INTEREST TESTIMONY OF BARBARA PRESSLY, SUPPORTIVE INTERVENOR FOR CITY OF NASHUA PURCHASING PENNICHUCK WATER SUBMITTED ON APRIL 20,2005

PUBLIC PURPOSE is served by The City of Nashua taking ownership and exclusive decision making responsibility for our life sustaining WATER, a commodity owned by the people of the State of New Hampshire.

1. Water is a unique utility. It is a monopoly in the purest sense of the definition. NO competition is possible. Only one entity can have exclusive control. Water is essential to life. Water is a natural resource owned by the State, produced in the State, and housed by the State. Most other utilities produce, house and own the commodity they process and deliver. Pennichuck Corporation takes what belongs to the customer, processes it and delivers it to them.

2. Public ownership will ~rovideaccountability and transparency. Pennichuck Corporation has a long history of secrecy from its customers and stockholders. Municipal ownership will produce transparency and allow the ratepayers to know what the decisions are, how they are made and how to communicate with the decision makers. Municipal ownership will have all meetings and decisions open to the public and press a. Attachment 1 is the timeline written by myself with the facts leading up to Pennichuck planning to sell the Corporation. See the underlined portions showing Pennichuck being less than forthright with the customers and the stockholders.

b. Attachment 2 is the newspaper article reporting the fact that I had to purchase a stock in the company in order to communicate with the decision makers (stockholders). Pennichuck refbsed to give me the stockholders list in accordance with State Law because I had publicly stated my objections to the sale. See underlined portions.

c. Attachment 3 is the Superior Court Petition filed to force the Corporation to reveal the names of the Decision Makers. This demonstrates the tactics of delay, bullying and expense to keep secrets which would be common knowledge if it were owned by a government entity. The costs of their tactics were passed on to the ratepayers. See underlined portions and particularly page 2.

d. Attachment 4 is the settlement where Pennichuck produced the shareholders list and paid my court costs. See the underlined portions of pages 5 and 7.

3. Public ownership will protect the wetlands (the natural water purification system). Pennichuck Corporation has permanently destroyed the wetlands and buffer areas which naturally protect out drinking water supply. The profit from this development was pure profit for the shareholders. I believxt if the water had been owned and managed by the City, the wetlands would NOT have been destroyed. The citizens of Nashua would have known about the plan and would have actively objected.

a. Attachment 5 is "The Telegraph" Editorial Opinion of Saturday December 18,2004. It is the most concise, accurate explanation of what happened between 1980 to the present. It reports how the Pennichuck Board of Directors allowed unethical practices to occur in the destruction of the wetlands. b. Attachment 6 is the Federal SEC order of December 16, 2004.

c. Attachment 7 is the State of New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulations announcement December 16,2004. See einedpo>ions of document. - - d. Attachment 8 is "The Telegraph" story covering the SEC announcement dated December 17,2004. See underlined portions of article.

4 Public ownership is cost effective and will save money for the ratepayers. The profit paid to the shareholders will be eliminated. The bond to purchase can be extended over many years and eventually paid off.

SUMMARY

The public interest will be served by open, honest, transparent, and accountable management, protection of the land, and cost savings when the City of Nashua owns the processing and delivery of the water which already belongs to the citizens of the State.

I formally request that the Commissioners grant the request for the public to own and manage their driiing water. I Wher request that the Commissioners place stipulations on the City or any fbture government entity to assure that the ratepayers are the representatives that make the decisions and that they are proportionally represented and that all appropriate checks and balances protecting the ratepayer be incorporated into the governing charter.

Research by Alan Manoian December 2006

In May of 1908, a Nashua Telegraph reporter conducted an interview at the invitation of Pennichuck Water Works superintendent William F. Sullivan, so as to conimunicate to the people of Nashua the nature of the ongoing "house-cleaning" operations under way at the Pennichuck reservation lands and supply ponds. Superintendent Sullivan proudly stated, "The best way to keep a water supply pure, is to keep it pure; you can't do it by allowing everybody to do as he pleases on this reservation".

This was the firm and unequivocal standard, practice, technology, and ethic adopted by Pennichuck Water Works during its formative years. As early as 1866, it became necessary to acquire saw mills aid waterldam privileges along the brook and ponds in order to cease the dumping of saw dust into the water supply, and also acquiring parcels with other small cottages for fear of contamination by human and animal waste.

The practice of adding more and more buffer land and planting pine tree forests around the water supply begun with the introduction of driven spring water wells in 1897, reached its zenith or "golden-age" b 1920's, and continued up through the 1970's, with the intr ion of the modern water filtration or treatment plant. In 1980 rdinary population growth, auto- oriented suburban sprawl, speculative economic opportunity, political pressure, and emerging technology changed the whole game in Southern New Harnpshirq $ geheral, and the City of Nashua in particular, regarding the protection and conservation of the Pemichuck Brook watershed. For the fact is, Pennichuck Water Works founded in 1852-53 is a private corporation, which exists to make profit, and which is responsible not only for providing the public with water for health and protection, but also for providing a reasonable and consistent monetary return to its shareholders. As was stated in the Pennichuck 75" Anniversary Commemorative in 1927, "From time to time, whenever the company could spare any surplus from operations, portions of the watershed were acquired.. ."; and so here is the critical phrase "spare any surplus". Business had to come first, and the ethic of land conservation would by necessity always be second. Business is business; and Pennichuck Water Works, by its own charter and deep rooted corporate culture, is first and foremost a business and private investment instrument.

Up the Valley some 15 miles, the City of Manchester established its public water supply system in 1873-74. It was established as a municipal or publicly-owned water works system, not a privately-owned company as in Nashua, with Lake Massabesic as the pure and eternal water source. The economic, environmental, socio-cultural, political, and some may say, ethical distinction or contrast between the two Merrimack Valley city public water supply systems, including their respective costs and benefits, as well as the legacy of watershed conservation, is most striking and compelling to examine.

Consider the cities of Nashua and Manchester, New Hampshire; consider and Lake Massabesic; each community, although established for planned 19" century industrial manufacturing purposes, traveled two distinct paths in the provision of .the most hndamental resource of viable urbanism and economic growth, a public water supply system. Here is a useful lesson in the importance of individual & civic leadership at critical moments in time, the power of resilient New England paternalistic economic and political influence, and most importantly the driving and deeply subconscious force of the human need to gravitate towards the socially restorative, and highly profitable, places of water and bordering forested lands.

The two grand natural wonders of Pemichuck Brook and Lake Massabesic posses their own distinctive ecological, geological, geographical, and social cultures and characteristics. This clearly and historically factors into how the public has related to, and valued, each regional natural resource through time.

Both water bodies and watersheds were established as the sole public water supplies for each Merrimack Valley planned industrial community in the mid-late 19'h century; one publicly- owned, the other privately-owned. Both fiom the beginning were subject to ever increasing protection fiom potential and existing contamination by ever encroaching development along the shorelines and watershed lands up until the early 1970's, when technology challenged longstanding and fundamental ethics, cultures, politics, systems, economic value, and beliefs.

New and innovative technology has a way of testing human values, it dramatically alters financial systems and investment opportunities, it creates winners and losers; where once marginal resources can become highly prized resources, and it forces us all to make choices about the future and what progress really means; old traditions and economies give way, and new traditions and economies are forged.

A lake is a destination place, a social place; one can mentally get their "arms around it". Everyone would love to go to a cabin or house on a lake. Lakes stand, lakes have a circumference, lakes are contained, lakes are spatial, lakes have their own gravity, and people instinctually are drawn to them; lakes can be owned legally and culturally. Lake Massabesic is a natural wonder, and is a distinct place. In 1896, Clara B. Heath wrote the following poem; "Tis a thing of beauty the lake so grand, That stretches across our border land, A joy forever! Her island fair, Are isles of beauty and everywhere, There are visions to delight the artist )s eye, Though her waters reflect an angry sky. Lake Massabesic! In shade or sun, It is seldom we see a fairer one. 9 J

Comparatively, rivers and brooks are directional; they are active. Brooks run, flow, fall, drop, bend, and traverse great distances through various areas and towns. Brooks often change character depending on their location and the surrounding geography, and they are eternally going somewhere. One can't really own a brook; water rights, flow rights, and privileges to its waters may be secured, but you can't really get your "arms around it". Pennichuck Brook is a natural force and joy, a moving organism, but not a distinct and singular destination place.

However, Henry David Thoreau wrote lovingly of our Pennichuck Brook in 1839; "Salmon Brook, Pennichoo k, Ye sweet waters of my brain, When shall I look, Or cast the hook, In your waves again?"

Each natural wonder, Lake Massabesic and Pennichuck Brook, offer their own culture, potential, and value to the public interest, the public realm, the economy, and yes poetry.

Lake Massabesic is formed of two great bodies of water, the so- called Front Pond and the Back Pond, or the East Pond and West Pond. The lake is bordered by both the City of Manchester and the Town of Auburn, NH; in fact two-thirds of the lake is in Auburn.

As stated in the 1897 History of Manchester, "The Massabesic is a most beautihl sheet of water, or rather sheets of water, for it is in reality two lakes united by a straight some twenty feet in width.. .It is very irregular in form, and indented with points and dotted with islands, it presents to the eye a most picturesque appearance.. .The lake is about twenty-five miles around it, while its greatest diameter is not more than three miles.. .the water of the lake is clear and pure.. .In later times it has become a fashionable resort for invalids and pleasure seekers."

From the ancient days of the indigenous Pennacook people, Massabesic has been a destination and a "life-giving" place for sustenance, ritual, and tradition. By the 1790's with the laying out of the Derry Turnpike, Lake Massabesic became quite accessible, and a regular stopping place for teamsters and travelers going back and forth between north-central New Hampshire and Boston.

It became a place of taverns. In circa 1800 the Cogswell House was established upon the shores; this later became the Massabesic House or Hotel. In 1806 John Folsom opened the Folsom House in Auburn. In the 1840's the Island Pond House was opened for business. With the coming of the Concord Railroad in 1842 along the Merrimack River, the Deny Turnpike became less traveled, and the taverns of Lake Massabesic became less active and more rustic; a place of solitude and communion with nature. However, with the establishment of the massive planned manufacturing city of Manchester in 1839, Lake Massabesic would soon once again become a valued focal point and critical resource for growth and public benefit.

As in Nashua in 1852-53, it was not the immediate need for pure drinking water that drove the modem water-works issue in Manchester, but devastation of life and property by fire. In August, 1844, the new Manchester Town Hall was totally destroyed by fire. The town Water Committee at that early time determined that only the substantiual waters of Lake Massabesic could provide sufficient capacity to protect the fast growing industrial city from hture devastation by fire, as well as providing pure healthhl water for the growing population. However, in those formative years of the new city, the extraordinary cost of a water delivery system was not supported by the taxpayers of Manchester. Three separate private water-works ventures between 1852 and 1870 were proposed, and all failed to attract sufficient capital and willingness. It was Manchester's @at Mayor James A. Weston, an accomplished civil engineer by profession, who provided the required leadership and determination, along with several other devastating fires, to finally build the political support to establish a publicly-owned municipal water-works system in New Hampshire's Queen City.

It was written of him, "He believed that all ordinary expenditures should be met by annual taxation; under his wise and beneficent administrations much was done to secure the introduction into the city of an abundant supply of good water fiom Lake Massabesic, the sewerage system was enlarged and extended, and a general plan was adopted for the establishment of the grade of streets and sidewalks."

The City of Manchester Annual Report stated, "It had at length been discovered that the construction and control of water-works would be better conducted by the city than by private enterprise, and in 187 1 the city councils requested of the State legislature authority for the undertaking.. .The city was empowered by the legislature to construct water-works at a cost of not over six hundred thousand dollars to be raised by loan or taxation, and to appoint a board of seven commissioners to have them on charge.. .The work was begun in July 1872, and finished substantially in the fall of 1874.. .water was pumped from the lake into the city on the fourth of July, 1874." In addition, "Massabesic Lake, which has thus been irrevocably fixed as the source of supply for some time to come, lies easterly of the city, has an area of twenty-four hundred acres, a watershed of forty-five square miles, and a circumference of twenty miles on the shore line.. .The amount of its flow is estimated to be not less than forty million gallons a day."

The lake lay some three miles west of the urban core of the growing industrial city, and was quite protected from developmental pressures and resulting contamination. However, it continued to be a destination place for those seeking to commune with nature, to cool off from the heat and dirt of the city, to socialize and recreate, and to partake of strong "spirituous" refreshments fieely.

A rail-line, a fine little railroad station on the Auburn side, and ultimately an electric trolley was established to take people directly from the city core to the lake, and the developmental pressure began to spike. New hotels or "houses" as they were known began to spring up; Fletcher's Island, Mountain Grove, Ed Stowe's Beach House, Frank Elliot's Mill Dam House, Pine Bluff House, and of course the old Massabesic House were going full tilt. It is said that by 1894 there were 10 boarding houses just on the Auburn side, accommodating 10-50 boarders each.

In January of 1885 it was reported, "There is reason to fear that the purity of the water at the source of the supply may in time be much impaired by the filth which is liable to be discharged into the lake from outhouses connected with the cottages located upon the shores. It is hoped that some steps may be taken to prevent any serious consequences to our citizens on this account." For in addition to the commercial hotels doing business on the lake countless, small rental cottages were increasingly being built upon the shoreline of the lake for seasonal use.

In February of 1885 the following, "Acting on the suggestion the Board of Water Commissioners held a meeting Saturday and adopted a recommendation to the city government favoring an application to the state legislature to dis-annex fiom the Town of Auburn and the County of Rockingham that portion of Lake Massabesic within said town and county and annex the same to the City of Manchester and Hillsborough County."

In May of 1885, an article entitled "Massabesic Ripples" stated, "Hon. E. H. Hobbs is adding another story to his pleasant cottage on the south end of Fletcher's Island. Fletcher's Island teems with activity, preparatory for the coming season. The foundation has been put for a hotel 86 feet fkont.. .The steam yacht Louise, owned by George H. Weeks, was given several trips yesterday and worked to a charm.. .The new steamboat, the Joe Cobb.. .has a length of 55 feet and a width of 15 feet, 4 inches. She is strongly and compactly built and will make regular trips daily to all trains."

Ultimately a whole fleet of steamboats plied the waters of Massabesic including, the Joe Cobb, The Lone Star, The Winnie L, The Dark Secret, The Mineola, The Fannie Bell, The City of Manchester, and others.

In 1895, the City of Manchester initiated a comprehensive eminent domain taking process around the shoreline of Lake Massabesic, within the Manchester municipal portions. The takings involved numerous individual parcels containing various cottages along the rustic shoreline. This was done to protect the water supply fiom increasing contamination fiom human waste. By 1906, the Manchester Board of Water Commissioners had purchased most of the land around the lake to the tune of about $175,000. It was at this very same time that Nashua launched and expanded its new driven spring water well system upon the shores of Pennichuck Brook to provide improved water as well.

In 1899, state legislation was adopted and passed banning public swimming in Lake Massabesic for fear of contamination by human fecal bacteria. The push was now on to proactively keep the public water pure. However, it was also at this time that Lake Massabesic was rapidly becoming a regional recreational-social destination, especially on the Auburn side of the lake, and Manchester had no legal authority over the Town of Auburn and how they used the shore land. Auburn welcomed the business attraction and the money in the pockets of the lakeside visitors. The shoreline land was ripe for aggressive commercial and residential real estate development.

A 1952, Manchester Union Leader article described Lake Massabesic of 1900 as follows, "It was a center of fun and frivolity during the summer.. .the principle occupations were dispensing liquor and providing facilities for dancing, boating bicycling, (a zoo), and the like.. .there were more than 100 camps along the northern shore of the "Front Pond". ..just before 1900 this area looked like a small "Coney Island".

The lakeside tourists arrived at the Massabesic Railroad Station also known as the Severance Station. There were a number of legendary boat clubs upon the shores of the lake including, The Frivolous Ten, The Thirteen, The Emerald, The Trident Boat Club, and the Manchester Boat Club. Great gathering places for dancing, drinking, big bands, and boxing were the Pavilion, the Acadia, the Coliseum, Reed's Dance Hall, and the Point Breeze Inn which boasted a 75-foot bar with ten bartenders behind it; the Point Breeze Inn on one Fourth of July day reached a new record for selling more than two railroad cars of liquor! Therefore, shoreline and immediate watershed lands of Lake Massabesic from the earliest days of it being a public water supply was subject to intense commercial development, unlike the Pennichuck Brook reservation and watershed lands.

By the 1920's and 30's the Manchester Board of Water Con~missionersbegan, in the face of extreme public, political, and commercial pressure, to control and push this profitable private development back in order to protect the present and future public health of the consumers of Lake Massabesic water. One today can only image the individual and united fortitude and courage of these appointed members of the Manchester Board of Water Commissioners. It was reported, that "in 1930, Boston banking interests offered $12,000,000 to buy up the Water Works property at the lake.. .and they were prepared to invest another $25,000,000 for its development." That was an astronomical sum during the Depression Years. However, the lake provided other renewable resources and income; for in 1930, the Manchester Coal & Ice Co. harvested 30,000 tons of ice at Lake Massabesic; by 1965 only 1,800 tons were harvested.

Many of the tourist "houses" such as Kimball's Beanhole, Ed Stowe's Beach House, Frank Elliot's Mill Dam House, and the old Massabesic House passed into history with their leases through the Water Works expiring in 1944.

The heyday of the "Cooney Island" destination atmosphere began to wane by the 1930's and 403, as more city and town families were able to afford automobiles, gained greater mobility, and as recreational and tourism destination areas expanded and became more accessible upon the coast and northern regions of New Hampshire and New England. But, the issue for the city people, and especially the working class folks of Manchester, relative to Lake Massabesic became swimming in the hot summer months. The people of Manchester increasingly insisted and cried out for the right to swim in Lake Massabesic. In the 1950's and 1960's it became one of the most heated and politically contentious issues of Manchester. Understand, no filtration plant existed, and the water was disinfected only by the use of chlorine; as was the common practice of the time, with water, and for that matter milk.

In the 19603, Manchester Water Works Superintendent James Sweeny was the point-man who caught the brunt of political, commercial, media, and public outrage and pressure at the barring of citizens fiom swimming in Massabesic. A Union Leader article from the early 1960's documented, "The reporter reminded the new superintendent that the people of Manchester technically owned the lake and could vote to make any use of "their lake" they might see fit and conceivably they might inform their elected officials that they wanted to swim in it, and or, see the forest lands opened up to greater public use." Sweeney responded, "I can't see how we could allow any bathing without filtxation, we are relying solely on chlorine. I think it would be a dangerous practice to continue. I would have to recommend a filtration plant.. .It would be a tremendous outlay. We have no indication that the public thinks it would be justified. The money would have to come fiom the Water Works and that means the consumer." The article concluded with the following, "Investigating the possibilities of the forest lands for recreational use, hiking, picnicking, scenic drives in the family auto.. .in the enchanted forest, a Sunday news reporter drove over the miles of dirt roads in the huge Water Works empire.. .The scenic splendor rivaled anything in the great National forests. And he wondered would the people of Manchester and surrounding communities someday be able, and encouraged to, enjoy all this and a refreshing swim in Massabesic?"

The issue of swimming and development of Lake Massabesic lands raged through the 1950's and 60's, with Superior and Supreme Court challenges and cases to open up the shore lands to greater public and commercial use. Endless news articles reported the following, "The Manchester Water Works fearful of human and animal pollution, has made a virtual private domain of much of the watershed and the edges of its many tributaries.. .Fairly recently they lost in their effort to stop all recreation on the Back (west) Pond when the State Supreme Court upheld a Superior Court decision turning down the Water Works' petition for closure through the State Board of Health.. .Water Works Superintendent Percy A. Shaw, said he knew of no absolutely safe way to guarantee the purity of the water if swimming were allowed.. .A full modem filtration plant would cost probably $2,000,000, and even then, we would have to chlorinate as we do now." A public hearing was held on November 14, 1955, in order to submit testimony and evidence to the New Hampshire Council on Resources and Development, and the State Legislature to investigate the opening of Lake Massabesic to great development. It was reported, "Others have suggested developing summer and year-round homes on the land to be leased around the lake under rigid regulation. This would provide a great source of revenue to the city in the form of taxable real estate, they contend. The same would be true of commercial facilities-restaurants, hotels, motels, inns, dance halls, and the like, all of which would not only give the city new revenue but would provide many jobs for residents of this section." Those who wished to see Lake Massabesic developed for residential and commercial purposes, and who opposed the relentless protection of the lands surrounding the public water supply began to refer to it as "Percy Shaw's Water Empire".

In an April 1960 article entitled, Fights Fencing At Massabesic, it was reported, "Alderman Emile Simard of Ward 8 charged yesterday the Manchester Board of Water Commissioners is guilty of contempt for the taxpayers in its proposal to partially close three more streets around Massabesic Lake.. .(he stated) "Unless the people of Manchester rebel against the arbitrary dictates of this power-dnmk commission, they will undergo slow forfeiture of their rights to the only recreational area within easy access from their l~omes...as far as I'm concerned this would be little short of criminal."

In September 1960, the water rates took a sharp increase; as was reported in an article entitled, "Hiked Water Rates Shock Suburbs"; "A Pinardville man who paid an average of $5.80 per quarter under the old rates is now paying more than $10 for the same amount." Also, "The new rates will increase municipal revenue by about $150,000, according to James Sweeny, Water Works Superintendent."

In 1974, the City of Manchester and the Manchester Board of Water Commissioners funded and built the city's first water filtration plant. Proudly, for Manchester it was the 3rdbiggest water filtration plant in New England, the most modem and automated plant in the United States featuring both sand & carbon filtration technology, and the largest hydro-chlorine generator in the world; its was in fact one of only three in operation in the world. The new and plant and technology was funded through the issuing of municipal bonds, not the sale of land, as was the case with Pennichuck Water Works in and after 1980.

However, the swimming and recreational development issue still raged in Manchester, as evidenced by a July 198 1 article entitled, "Why Can't We Swim In Lake Massabesic?". Water Works Superintendent Fred Elwell stated, "But you can't swim there, because it is also the source for our drirking water.. .The treatment process we have now is excellent, we have filtration systems that remove any number of bacteria and pollutants that result fiom natural causes and fiom power boats and the drinking water is the highest quality, . ..the way the system is set up we could possibly adapt it to allow for swimming in the lake but we see it as inadvisable.. .it would not be in the best interests of the city to do so.. .I don't think you can be too cautious when you're dealing with drinking water.. .Our job is to keep the water supply clean, not just adequate, but better than that.. .the people that think the department is over-zealous are those who want to get around the rules. " The legacy and ethic of public water supply protect runs deep and wide in the City of Manchester.

To this day since 1873, the City of Manchester Water Works has sold only 12 of its approximately 8,000 acres of its water supply reservation lands; and that was to the Town of Auburn for the construction of its new Police Station. Any and all capital improvements or upgrades to the water supply and treatment system are hnded through the issuing municipal bonds, not the short-sighted sale of irreplaceable watershed land.

Let's go back to where we started this analysis, with the Superintendent of Pennichuck Water Works William F. Sullivan who stated in 1906, "The best way to keep a water supply pure," says Mr. Sullivan, "is to keep it pure. You can't do it by allowing everybody to do as he pleases on this reservation." That was once the original ethic and legacy of Pennichuck Water Works, and comparatively is the continuing ethic and legacy of the Manchester Water Works to this very day.