This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
12/02/2020 08:45 AMA long-discussed downtown sewer study recommended by the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) that languished for many years might be on the verge of a revival, with the Board of Selectmen (BOS) expressing support for a rethinking of the town’s wastewater facility plan as well as looking at downtown sewers specifically.
Additionally, the WPCA is once again urging the BOS to update the town’s facilities plan and see how and where to protect the town from wastewater damage and long-term disposal issues, with the threat that the state might step in to mandate changes if Madison does not take action itself.
As the body responsible for oversight of Madison’s septic and waste infrastructure in cooperation with the Health Department, the WPCA has long warned there were potential issues with groundwater pollution around wetlands and beaches.
The town’s current facilities plan was put together and approved in 1981, according to WPCA Chair Tom Hansen. The WPCA urged the BOS to fund the study and look at updating the plan several times over the last few years—at least once in 2014, again in 2016 and 2017, and most recently in the spring of 2019—though these efforts gained little traction.
Though there have not been any large-scale leaking or contamination issues, Hansen said there have been plenty of indications there could be danger in the future. In late 2019, Health Director Trent Joseph said the town was looking at possible stricter regulations or even recommending community wastewater down in the Smith Bay neighborhood, off of Neck Road, due to aging septic systems and more regular flooding events.
Hansen told the BOS that a downtown sewer study will likely cost between $100,000 and $200,000, though the state has grants to reimburse up to 55 percent of the cost. Other funding sources are also likely if the study includes economic development perspectives, according to Hansen.
A potential study could in fact, start with an evaluation of how the town could incorporate financial and zoning incentives to downtown sewers, Hansen said, giving an idea of what kind of long-term benefits and cost offsets the town might see before committing to funding sewers.
Like many other shoreline towns, Madison does not have a sewer system, and residents have long resisted adding one, with many worrying that increased density allowed by sewers will negatively impact the town’s feel or aesthetic, or result in other issues like traffic. Installing sewers can be prohibitively expensive, though state and federal money is currently available to significantly offset the costs, according to Hansen.
Hansen also emphasized to the BOS that any questions concerning economic development fall outside the scope of the WPCA and the state Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP), which also has oversight of septic-related issues and administers related grants.
DEEP “expects” Madison to update its plan, according to Hansen, though it was not clear if there was a specific deadline.
A study or even a fully updated facilities plan will not necessarily mean that Madison is moving toward a fully sewer-dependent town, Hansen and most likely will recommend some level of change and increased reliance on sewers while the town remains primarily served by septic.
There was some discussion at the BOS meeting last month about whether DEEP might eventually mandate changes to how Madison handles its wastewater based on sea level rise and other creeping environmental changes. WPCA member Peter Pastore said updating the facilities plan and looking at a wastewater study could show the state that the town is being “proactive” in combating these issues.
“We’re kind of inventorying where the problems are and what the solutions are, and that would be a good road map,” Pastore said.
First Selectman Peggy Lyons cited nearby towns, including Clinton, which is currently dealing with a DEEP mandate regarding its wastewater systems, as a reason to address Madison’s potential issues sooner rather than later.
“We can kind of control the narrative about where we want this to go,” she said. “I also think that we’re facing a lot more issues than we were even 10 years ago when it comes to coastal resiliency and environmental issues...this is about fixing problems that we know are likely to happen.”
Lyons characterized an update to the facilities plan, from an economic perspective, as a way to “preserve the Grand List” while a sewer study in downtown would be a way “to grow the Grand List.”
Lyons said the facilities plan would be more of a priority, while the downtown study should be predicated on a larger overall plan focused on “what the community wants from its downtown,” which she said she didn’t really think the town had yet.
Hansen agreed that community approval of these initiatives would be vital, and the facilities plan would be “affordable, reasonable, practical, and workable.”
An updated facilities plan would not necessarily require a downtown sewer study, according to Hansen, though it might identify issues that might require alternatives to septic in downtown.
Lyons said the BOS would have further conversations, with the potential of adding funding for the facilities plan into the town’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) “with a more accelerated timeline,” which other BOS members expressed support for.
Selectman Bruce Wilson, while expressing support for the plan, said he saw initiatives more as a “planning project,” and saw the town’s regular operating budget as a more “appropriate place” to seek funding.
DEEP must still approve a final facilities plan, according to Hansen.