East Bridgewater Rejects Washington Street Cell Tower RFP over Drinking Water Security Concerns
EAST BRIDGEWATER — June 8, 2026 — Following an intense wave of public opposition and critical security concerns raised by the Department of Public Works, the East Bridgewater Select Board voted unanimously not to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a cellular wireless tower lease on town-owned land off Washington Street. The landmark real estate decision safeguards the municipality’s critical drinking water supply infrastructure from potential construction and security liabilities.
The Full Story
The meeting room filled quickly as neighborhood residents gathered to protest a formal letter of interest from a wireless developer aiming to lease municipal land for a new cell tower on Washington Street. Before opening the floor for public feedback, Select Board Chair Peter Spagone Jr. requested a comprehensive report from Director of Public Works John Haines to ground the evening’s conversation.
Haynes revealed that the targeted municipal site hosts two primary drinking water wells installed in the mid-1960s. The location represents 25% of East Bridgewater’s total water infrastructure network. Haines explained that cell tower construction could permanently compromise the wells’ “cone of influence” and limit the town’s ability to drill vital satellite wells in the future. Furthermore, federal protections tightly govern the site for safety and anti-sabotage security. Sharing site perimeter access with commercial telecommunications crews posed an unacceptable risk to the town’s water security.
“There is significant security measures that are taken to secure our quality and safety of our drinking water... we would need significantly more information about what’s actually being proposed before we would be comfortable.” [34:33] — DPW Director John Haines
The board’s posture shifted swiftly upon listening to the technical assessment. Vice Chair Carole Julius stated the water risk pushed her firmly to the “no” side of the equation. Board member Katherine Mullen, who was absent, submitted written correspondence indicating she also strongly opposed moving forward with the project lease.
