Waterways nitrogen plan too weak, critics say

Bid to target only septics within 200 feet of water proves controversial

By Bruce Burdett
Posted 1/11/18

WESTPORT — A nitrogen reduction plan hatched after a year of study by the Westport Water Resources Management Committee met with a cool reception when introduced recently to both the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Register to post events


If you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here.

Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content.

Day pass subscribers

Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.


Waterways nitrogen plan too weak, critics say

Bid to target only septics within 200 feet of water proves controversial

Posted

By Bruce Burdett

WESTPORT — A nitrogen reduction plan hatched after a year of study by the Westport Water Resources Management Committee met with a cool reception when introduced recently to both the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen.

Members of both boards criticized the draft for not going far enough to reduce nitrogen dumping into the Westport River, particularly from residential septic systems.

In fact even the Water Resources Committee itself was divided — the draft and a proposal that it move straight to town meeting for a bylaw vote passed by a 3-2 vote. Selectmen Brian Valcourt said that if he had been present and a new member had been allowed to vote, it might have gone down to 4-3 defeat.

The nitrogen proposal

Water Resources members Maury May and Phillip Weinberg presented the proposal to selectmen on December 27, offering it as response to a mandate from both the federal Environmental Protection Administration and state Department of Environmental Protection that the town make deep reductions in the amount of nitrogen landing in its river.

To meet that order, the town needs to reduced by 71 percent the amount of nitrogen entering the waterways from septic systems, Mr. Weinberg said. That nitrogen is the primary culprit in river problems including algae blooms, marsh collapse, oxygen deprivation leading to fish kills and more.

To reduce that nitrogen, the plan calls for requiring advanced nitrogen reduction septic systems (that use enhanced bacterial activity to release nitrogen as a gas into the air rather into the water) for lots within 200 feet of the river or a stream that feeds into the river when …

• A new home is built or there is an increase in flow to an existing septic system

• A septic system has failed

• A cesspool is in place (only required when ownership of the property is transferred).

The reaction

Their PowerPoint presentation met promptly with criticism and questions, and much of the focus was on that 200-foot buffer.

Mr. Valcourt said the year-long process had been “very contentious,” especially with respect to that buffer.

“In order for this to actually reduce nitrogen, we need to make that zone larger,” 400 to 500 feet. Going with just 200 feet might remove 15 to 20 percent of the septic system nitrogen input, nowhere near the required 71 percent, Mr. Valcourt said, adding that he also believes all new construction, regardless of location, should be required to comply.

Selectwoman Shana Shufelt asked, “You said we are under order to reduce nitrogen loads by 71 percent.- How then did you decide on 200 feet and how much of a nitrogen reduction would that accomplish?”

At one point there was consideration of including 100 percent of residences, Mr. Weinberg replied, but the 200 feet came primarily as a result of “cost implications and how many people would be affected.”

Mr. May said that in the spring of 2016, David Cole “came before our committee and put forth a four-phase proposal” that included a de-nitrification bylaw for homes on the river and streams, a sewer system for around 500 homes in a high impact area, cluster systems along the river, and better management practices for agriculture.

“So this is really part of David’s original four-part vision … I buy into David’s vision,” Mr. May said.

Mr. Cole is not here, Ms. Shufelt replied, but given that the Planning Board, of which Mr. Cole is a member, voted 5-0 against the Water Resources Committee proposal, “I am concerned that you are invoking his name in a way he might not appreciate.”

Why the rush to push this through town meeting, she asked.

Because every year, the Board of Health is getting 75 to 80 new or upgraded septic system requests — almost none of which include advanced denitrification, Mr. Weinberg said. “By not doing anything you continue to add that nitrogen to the river.”

Ms. Shufelt said she does not favor the bylaw approach, which she said has little flexibility to accept new technology down the road.

“And my understanding is that the Conservation Commission is not allowing septics in these zones (right along the river) anyway so this seems pretty ineffective. I think it doesn’t go far enough to make a meaningful difference.”

Planning Board Chairman James Whitin said that board voted 5-0 to oppose the plan because it contains “a lot of things that could be improved,” especially that 200-foot line which “is a real problem.”

Mr. Whitin, too, said all new construction should be included. “In the past three years we have done over 750 septic systems that don’t do anything to take nitrogen” out of the river — “a missed opportunity.”

The whole town should be held to that standard, Mr. Whitin said, “so as not to pick winners and losers.”

Advanced systems can often be done for less money than standard septic systems, he said.

“It is not a factor of cost, it is a factor of will and I think we need to step up and do the right thing.”

Sean Leach, a member of the Water Resources Committee, said he likes the inflexibility of the bylaw approach since it gives the rules more clout and removes the possibility of exceptions and politics.

But doing more would have a tremendous impact people on some parts of town — people who live far from the river would have to come up with $4,000 to $12,000 to update their septic systems.

The biggest problem, he said, is that the state DEP “is 25 years behind the times” and takes forever to issue approvals and recognize new technology.

“I’d rather see something less flexible. We tend to go easy” on those who ought to be held to high septic system standards, Mr. Leach said.

“Most recently, a cottage on the river sold for $900,000 — the septic system is 40 feet from the river. Scary,” he said.

Korrin Petersen, of the Buzzards Bay Coalition, said, “The way the current draft stands now is not something the coalition can support … It would deceive the town into thinking it was doing something meaningful. I encourage the town to take a harder look at what the town of Wareham did.”

After the discussion, Selectmen voted to keep the issue of moving forward but offered no endorsement of the plan specifics.

Septic system loans

Selectmen did, however, agree to support a Water Resources Committee request to renew a program approved to provide low interest loans for those seeking to update septic systems. The previous $500,000 loan fund approved by town meeting has dwindled to $39,000.

That matter will be presented as an article at the next town meeting.

2024 by East Bay Media Group

Barrington · Bristol · East Providence · Little Compton · Portsmouth · Tiverton · Warren · Westport
Meet our staff
Jim McGaw

A lifelong Portsmouth resident, Jim graduated from Portsmouth High School in 1982 and earned a journalism degree from the University of Rhode Island in 1986. He's worked two different stints at East Bay Newspapers, for a total of 18 years with the company so far. When not running all over town bringing you the news from Portsmouth, Jim listens to lots and lots and lots of music, watches obscure silent films from the '20s and usually has three books going at once. He also loves to cook crazy New Orleans dishes for his wife of 25 years, Michelle, and their two sons, Jake and Max.