Conservation Commission Letter to School Board
The Hinesburg Conservation Commission expresses concerns over turf field
By the Hinesburg Conservation Commission
The Hinesburg Conservation Commission submitted this letter to the CVSD board on May 18.
Dear Members of the School District Board:
The Hinesburg Conservation Commission has closely followed the presentations and discussions about the Community Field Project. Like so many residents of Hinesburg we remain deeply concerned about the risks of contamination of our drinking water but are also troubled by the possibility that excessive restrictions placed on donations might distort your decision-making process, limit your authority to effectively plan and manage the project, and polarize public opinion.
How the risks of drinking water contamination will be eliminated, how polarization of our communities can be avoided, and how a large public project on the CVU campus can most effectively be planned and managed in an extremely volatile construction environment and a time of changing regulatory standards are fundamental, first order questions. The commission believes they should be very carefully explored before voting on whether to accept this donation.
Our primary areas of concern are as follows:
Contamination of Public and Private Drinking Water
The risk of contamination of drinking water resulting from the CVU campus’s location within Hinesburg’s Source Water Protection Area has been cited many times by residents of the school district, by the Hinesburg selectboard, and by this commission. We believe it may be helpful at this time to provide some specific information on the Source Water Protection Area:
A Source Water Protection area is a state-designated zone from which a contaminant released to the land surface or subsurface will move toward, and most likely reach, the drinking well source. In Hinesburg this is our town public wells as well as many private wells located within the area.
Town Map 8 (attached) shows the location of the Source Water Protection Areas with arrows pointing to the CVU campus and public town wells #4 and #6.
A second map (attached) shows the surface water flow from the athletic fields downhill to the location of the town wells.
We have also attached a copy of Hinesburg’s Source Protection Plan to show the importance of this state designation and the degree of special monitoring and regulation by the state and town to protect the quality of our drinking water.
Proponents of artificial turf often cite its use in other Vermont school districts but, to our knowledge, none of these are in a Source Water Protection Area with the very high degree of risk faced by Hinesburg.
PFAS Contamination
The consequences of PFAS contamination of our drinking water for public health and the financial future of our town, our school system and our residents, including their property values, are potentially catastrophic. The Conservation Commission believes that no risk of PFAS contamination is acceptable and accordingly, along with many residents of the school district, we prefer a natural turf solution.
If, however, the school district board elects to consider moving forward with artificial turf, we believe that a clear protocol for testing must be established based on the following:
A recognition that this is a water protection issue in addition to a consumer products protection issue, and that a turf product with zero PFAS content from all the approximately 15,000 different PFAS compounds is required. If it’s present, it makes no difference whether the PFAS has been intentionally added or not.
Fundamental due diligence and the need to establish public confidence require that the school district conduct independent testing by a laboratory recommended by experts in testing for PFAS. Test results submitted by manufacturers or donor-related groups do not satisfy either of these objectives.
Vermont Act 131 is a consumer protection law and bans artificial turf containing any intentionally added PFAS. However, §2494(e) of that law currently allows a maximum of 100 parts per million from non-intentional sources, with a reduction to 50 parts per million effective July 1, 2027. While this may be considered by some to be adequate for consumer products, it falls far short of the protection required to protect drinking water from PFAS, a “forever chemical” that does not degrade and concentrates over time in the environment and the human body. The EPA measures maximum allowable PFAS concentrations in drinking water in a few parts per trillion, with the level for some compounds set at zero. In January 2026 Vermont tightened standards for maximum levels of some common PFAS compounds found in drinking water. The Preventive Action Level for four of these compounds has been lowered to two parts per trillion. The Conservation Commission believes that the maximum allowable combined concentration level from intentionally added and non-intentionally added PFAS necessary to protect our drinking water is zero and asks the school district board to confirm that any artificial turf field must meet this standard.
Since at least one potential turf manufacturer, Field Turf, claims to have zero intentionally added PFAS, we believe that all turf manufacturers considered for this project should be required to meet this standard and to eliminate any non-intentional PFAS as well. Testing of samples taken in the factory, as recommended by the Synthetic Turf Council, the industry lobby group, should eliminate the risk of contamination from outside sources.
Microplastics
While most of the discussion about contamination of drinking water has focused on PFAS, some residents and experts in water quality have also expressed serious concern about microplastic contamination from the artificial turf. The commission notes that on April 2, 2026, the EPA announced an initiative to include microplastics on its Contaminant Candidate List for drinking water protections. The announcement cited microplastic contamination as “one of the most urgent and growing public health challenges facing Americans.” We urge the school district board to conduct a review of issues surrounding potential microplastic contamination from artificial turf before agreeing to proceed with an artificial turf option.
Liability
The commission suggests that the school district board very seriously consider its potential liability for any project related PFAS and microplastic contamination before a decision to move forward with an artificial turf field.
Donor Gift Restrictions and Acceptance of Donations
The Conservation Commission is concerned that Community Field Project donors may intend to impose unusual restrictions on gifts, which if accepted, would significantly limit the school district board’s authority to plan, design and manage this project and would curtail important public participation in the planning and decision-making processes.
While donors may reasonably wish to place restrictions on the uses of their gifts, this is a public, not a private project, and restrictions that go beyond those typically placed on the permissible uses gift funding and encroach directly into areas normally within the purview of the publicly elected school district board should be rejected.
To have a fully informed public discussion, the commission urges you to make public all gift restrictions proposed by the Community Field Project or other donors prior to beginning your review of whether to accept their donations. The public needs to understand the full ramification of accepting these donations.
Project Control and Management
We believe that the school district is ultimately responsible for this project and that the elected board should retain full and direct authority over planning, design, budget and project management. Development projects, particularly public ones, are complex undertakings and proceed carefully in phases from initial concepts and scopes of work through final designs and specifications, budgets, schedules and construction, purchasing contracts and bidding. Important changes typically occur throughout this process, and the final terms of contracts and agreements cannot be fully determined upfront. The project development process is far too complex and fluid to be prematurely incorporated into a gift agreement. The commission also recognizes that we are in a very difficult business environment, with extreme price volatility and unprecedented supply chain disruptions. Successful projects require flexibility by owners and a responsive and expert project management and design team. We ask that the school district board, in consultation with state agencies as required by law, put such teams into place and that the board does opt to not assign authority and responsibility to donor-related organizations.
School districts, as you well know, are subject to state regulation, including requirements for public bidding and additional state oversight in the management of large projects, which this is. The project is also subject to local zoning and development review for issues such as stormwater, lighting, and traffic and may also be subject to Act 250 review. Clearly gift terms must comply with applicable laws and regulations. We suggest that you carefully review all applicable state, local and federal regulations, identify what approvals are required, and reject any gift terms that may violate these requirements.
Natural Turf Field
The commission agrees with those many residents who prefer a natural turf field designed to the higher performance standards now technically achievable with expert design. We suggest that the school district consider funding a feasibility study to determine the performance improvements that are achievable and the estimated costs of the field and associated improvements in drainage. Cost proposals for the study should be solicited from design firms experienced in advanced natural turf field design possible and sources of funding for the study investigated.
The commission submits these thoughts out of mutual concern for the future of our community and we hope you will give them careful consideration.