To the Editor:
Let’s move beyond scapegoating and solve Marion’s sewer issues.
Marion’s sewer rates are ridiculously high. And, unfortunately, it’s not because the town treats its sewage to a better standard than anyone else. In fact, the opposite has been true. The last statewide survey of town sewer rates in 2017 found that Marion residents pay more than double the statewide median. The Marion sewer rate for an average household was $1,785 versus a statewide median of $862. To rub salt in the wound, the surrounding towns do even better than the median. Wareham residents next door paid an average of $596 for that town’s state-of-the-art, award-winning sewer plant. Mattapoisett’s average bill was $820, Falmouth’s $804, and Fairhaven’s $848, to list a few.
This is not the fault of the current Board of Selectmen or town staff— all of whom I believe are trying to come to terms with decades of mismanagement by their predecessors and move forward. But in their frustration, the selectmen’s current advocacy aiming to secure a $2 million state grant is falling back on some tired political tactics— baseless rejections of science and scapegoating— and does little to set the town on a new course to fiscal responsibility.
I’m referring to an October 29 letter and a subsequent ‘Key Points’ email sent out by the selectmen.
Let’s clear the air on some of what’s in that letter.
1. Double the Sludge and the Lagoons are still leaking: We’ve all learned a lot over the past decade about just how negligent the town has been in its mismanagement of its sewer infrastructure. The impact of that is seen in everyone’s sewer bills today, but also in the bad decisions and deferred maintenance that led to groundwater pollution from unlined sewage lagoons that are only now finally being addressed.
For 49 years now, Marion’s sewer plant has held raw sewage in unlined lagoons prior to treatment. Those lagoons leaked through their bottom into the town’s groundwater. This fact was first confirmed in a 2011 study by the engineering firm Horsely Witten, who was hired by the Buzzards Bay Coalition in partnership with the town. That finding was confirmed by the town’s own engineers, CDM Smith, in 2015. The data was reviewed and accepted by both the state Department of Environmental Protection and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. We even went to the extra step of having the evidence reviewed independently by top scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marine Biological Lab, and the University of Connecticut at Avery Point. All confirmed that the data show that the lagoons are polluting Marion’s groundwater.
There is no validity in the theory that the sewage lagoons somehow don’t leak nitrogen and other pollutants into the groundwater. The selectmen’s continued peddling of this false narrative serves no one— definitely not Marion sewer rate payers— and only perpetuates a reputation as a town unwilling to accept science and properly manage its own waste before state and federal agencies and funders.
And, now, the finding just in the past months that the lagoons (which are finally being decommissioned and cleaned up) are holding two – three times more toxic sewage sludge than first estimated is shocking for a few reasons. First and most importantly, (wow!) that’s a lot of toxic contamination sitting in town. Sewage sludge holds the accumulated stock of all of the contamination that people have been dumping down their drains and that can’t be naturally broken down. This is often bad stuff, and that’s why towns today dispose of their sludge annually as a regular Operations and Maintenance cost, which also serves to spread out the financial impact. Let’s be clear: The costs that Marion is facing right now to properly dispose of their sludge is not a new expense, and Marion is not being treated unfairly. The town has been dodging this sewer expense for decades and it’s finally caught up to them.
The other factor that’s shocking about the sludge volume finding is that it was the town’s own engineer, CDM Smith, that tracked and reported sludge estimates. No one at the EPA, DEP, or Buzzards Bay Coalition ever had a hand in calculating those sludge volumes. If the actual figure was two – three times their original estimate, the town has no one to blame other than their own engineers.
2. There are better ways to finance the town’s wastewater needs: Wastewater treatment is not cheap, and Marion is challenged by the fact that it’s a small town trying to provide this service all on its own. And there is a lot more work to be done if Marion is going to continue to go it alone and update its sewer infrastructure to modern standards that protect the town’s waterways. So how is the town going to pay for it?
We should start by asking, why is Marion still having just 1,700 rate payers cover all of the cost of its sewer infrastructure? It’s no wonder that sewer user bills are so large. Marion is fortunate to have many high-value, seasonal homes contributing to the town’s tax base. Yet, many of those homes are outside of the sewered part of town, and therefore do not contribute to solving the town’s wastewater treatment challenges. But everyone benefits from having clean water in the town’s harbors and coves.
That’s the same question Cape Cod towns— most of whom are facing wastewater expenses much greater than Marion— have been asking themselves in recent years and coming up with a different approach.
Chatham is in the middle of a $100 million sewer expansion, spending $15 – 18 million per year, and they are paying 100 percent of the capital expense on the town-wide tax rate. That spreads the cost over Chatham’s 6,000 residents, not just their 1,000 sewer users. Next door, Orleans is also spreading 100 percent of the $15 million capital costs of a new wastewater treatment plant across all taxpayers. In Falmouth, large areas recently got new sewer service and the town is splitting the $30 million cost, 30 percent on the town-wide tax base and 70 percent of the homeowners getting the new sewer hookups.
Another approach emerged in Sandwich last year where voters approved an innovative town-wide 2-percent property tax surcharge to create a Water Infrastructure Investment Fund (WIIF). The new fund is designed to generate the $86 million needed to fund 25 years of water quality improvements. And to ease the burden of a new tax on homeowners, they paired the decision with a reduction in the property tax surcharge collected by the town’s Community Preservation Act from 3 percent to 2 percent.
And then there is the developing opportunity of an Upper Bay Regional Wastewater Plant between Wareham, Bourne, and the Massachusetts Maritime Academy that Marion will have the option to join. There could be long-term economies of scale that would make this a cheaper alternative for a small town like Marion and relieve the town of managing its own expensive sewer plant. For instance, Dennis, Yarmouth, and Harwich are pursuing a similar regional project, and it is estimated that those communities will save a combined $83 million in capital costs and $6 million in annual operating costs by sharing a treatment plant. Each of these approaches has their own unique pros and cons, but the bottom line is that there are better ways to finance needed clean water improvements, and Marion doesn’t need to look far for examples.
Marion has a lot of work ahead of it as it transitions from decades of mismanagement to a town that is both financially and environmentally sustainable. The selectmen should lay off the scapegoating and denial of the science and put their efforts into learning from their neighbors. I’m sure that all of us who care about clean water and sound fiscal management in Marion would be right there with them working together to make it happen.
Mark Rasmussen, President of the Buzzards Bay Coalition
The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.