Green Pond, Bournes Pond, and Eel Pond in East Falmouth

A week after a day-long symposium on the potential for outfall pipes to handle the Cape’s wastewater problem, I’ve finally figured out what’s been bothering me.

It seems that wastewater managers and engineers, in their infinite wisdom, operate according to the “if it can be complicated, why make it simple?” ethic.

The speakers at the ocean outfall forum did not mince words: it would take no less than an amendment to three state acts protecting marine resources—not to mention, years of study and millions of dollars— for an outfall pipe to be constructed on these shores.

They were less candid about the probable impacts on the environment— and were subtle about the whole reason for entertaining the idea of an ocean outfall: it’s cheaper than the only other “approved” method of disposing of wastewater.

Having attended my fair share of conferences, symposia, summits, and forums on wastewater, it seems that there are two distinct schools of thought on the issue. Some play by the rules, insisting there is no way to serve an entire municipality with anything other than sewers and wastewater treatment plants. Others push for “alternatives” such as composting toilets and shellfish aquaculture— options that seem outside the box until you realize that’s the way humans have been disposing of their “waste” for millenia.

An important difference between these two schools of thought is the attention and resources given to the “big pipe” option, while grassroots groups are left to their own devices to promote eco-toilets or aquaculture. Kudos to the Falmouth wastewater committee (CWMP-RC for short!) for opening their minds and supporting a successful town meeting article to give sewering alternatives adequate study— while the taxpayer-funded report by the engineering firm Stearns & Wheler did not.

Known unknowns

An ocean outfall off of New Jersey (courtesy World News Network)

Popular in places where sanitation services are lacking, outfall pipes have fallen out of favor around the globe. Speaking on “possible environmental impacts,” Batelle scientist Carlton Hunt pointed out that the effects of putting semi-treated wastewater into our precious ocean are pretty much unknown.

Think about what products you use in the shower, the kitchen, the laundry room. Would you want to swim in it or eat it later on the half shell? What about road runoff that flows into storm drains?

Dr. Hunt also pointed out the anti-microbial nanotechnology that is appearing in everything from hand sanitizers to socks. David Dow, of the Cape & Islands Sierra Club chapter, pointed out that the byproducts of pharmaceuticals and personal care products are known to cause reproductive problems in fresh-water fish and amphibians. Studies have shown these contaminants of emerging concern in most of the country’s drinking water supply. What will they do in the ocean? We simply don’t know.

We also don’t really know what pumping precious drinking water into our toilets and sinks, and back across town for treatment will do to the water table— or to our municipal energy bills. We may not be water-poor on Cape Cod, but as the Dr. Hunt pointed out, we don’t know what to expect with climate change. Is it wise to build energy-intensive infrastructure in this age of sea level rise and uncertain weather patterns? How many more wind turbines will we need to handle the additional energy demand? (and how will nearby residents feel about that?!)

A truly holistic approach

Nate Weeks of Stearns & Wheler-GHD, with Dale Saad of the Barnstable DPW and Paul Niedzwiecki of the Cape Cod Commission.

There are essentially two reasons for considering an ocean outfall: the wastewater need not be treated to a point where it’s basically drinkable (through reverse osmosis)and town-owned land resources for groundwater discharge are dwindling.  Finding a suitable discharge site is complicated by the need to avoid putting nutrients back into the ground, which would require sewering the discharge area.

All these problems add up to one thing: groundwater discharge will be expensive.

One of the main messages from the panelists is that we need a “holistic approach” to solving our wastewater problem.

For hydrologists, that means recharging the treated wastewater into the groundwater or for irrigation. For Paul Niedzwiecki, director of the Cape Cod Commission, “holistic” means we need to collaborate as a region, rather than as individual towns. For Nate Weeks, of Stearns & Wheler-GHD, the term means we need to consider all the big-pipe options, no matter the regulatory obstacle course. For residents advocating for eco-toilets, aquaculture, and inlet widening, the answer lies in using our unused nutrients as compost and fish food, removing the “waste” from the wastewater equation.

It could be that being truly holistic means trying all these approaches, but in the end, decisions will have to be made. Why not make it simple, if we can avoid the complications?

Are we flushing money down the toilet?

As someone who goes to a fair share of wastewater-related meetings, I wasn’t expecting to be blown away at last weekend’s Eco-Toilet Summit.

On a conceptual level, I felt I already understood the basics of composting human waste— hey, I do it every day with food scraps.

Adding one step through my digestive system to my garden seemed to make sense… from a theoretical point of view.

But after hearing about the range of eco-toilet options available, and a variety of perspectives from regular residents, the theoretical became possible.

What stopped making sense is the way we use—and view—the bathroom.

Saturday’s Eco-Toilet Summit was a one-stop shop for those interested in reducing household water use and recovering nutrients from our excretia to make fertilizer to grow food.

A mid-size Phoenix composting toilet

Curious residents flocked to the shrines of ecological design—a large blue Phoenix composting toilet, the Ecovita’s familiar white bowl with a tiny hole for urine diversion, and the diminutive, portable Pacto toilet—and took advantage of the friendly sales representatives to ask questions:

How do they work? Does it smell? How much would it cost to install?

Sponsored by a coalition of grassroots environmental groups, the afternoon was dedicated to learning more about modern ecological approaches to dealing with an age-old problem: how and where to dispose of our waste?

That is the $600 million question, as Falmouth considers ways to clean up decades of nitrogen loading to sensitive coastal embayments, and one which the summit’s sponsors hope can be answered with alternatives to centralized sewering.

I know. Maybe not everyone’s cup of tea. But for anyone who poops and pees, it might be worth it to hold your nose and pay attention.

Eco-logical justice

The go-to solution for the past several decades has been centralized sewering, which collects sewage, storm water, and graywater (laundry, shower, and dish water) in a network of underground pipes for treatment and eventual release back into the groundwater.

I won’t get into all the pro’s and con’s of sewering here, suffice to say that there are two factions of environmentalists doing battle in town: biologists who favor sewers as a proven way to keep nutrients out of the groundwater; and ecologists who view the cycle of nutrients as a “closed-loop” system and favor composting to pump n’ treat.

It’s a fascinating chapter in environmental history, as we discover how we are all responsible for the decline of eel grass and shellfish in our beloved harbors.

The debate also takes on an environmental justice perspective, as one considers the economic cost-benefits of sewering vs. composting or diverting our waste.

Eco-toilet panelists Abe Noe (Phoenix), Carol Steinfeld (Ecovita), Hilde Maingay (the Green Center) and former state rep Matt Patrick

For eco-toilet advocates, the solution to nutrient management lies in closing the loop between waste and resources.

With urine-diverting and composting toilets, the waste products are collected and pumped out roughly every six months, depending on the size of the household. With a compacting toilet, waste is packaged neatly into a plastic or biodegradable bag, which can be collected for compost or thrown out weekly with the garbage, just like regular diapers.

Storage from six months (for urine) to two years (for solids) removes pathogens from the waste, a process that may also break down pharmaceuticals and contaminants of concern.

A composting toilet or urine-diverting system takes advantage of biological processes to break down the nutrients in urine and feces to create potent fertilizer and carbon-rich humus, said Don Mills, a sales manager for the Lawrence-based compost toilet vendor Clivus Multrum.

A conventional wastewater treatment system uses the same process, but combines household waste with stormwater, requiring enormous amounts of energy to pump and adding heavy metals and pollutants to the mix.

Earle Barnhart, whose Green Center organization was the primary sponsor of the summit, noted that treating human waste as a resource could lead to the development of new industries. Whether collected and processed on-site or elsewhere, the compost and fertilizer could be sold and used to grow organic produce, he said.

Dollars and sense

For former state representative Matt  Patrick, the eco-toilet alternative would save residents millions in betterments and taxes to finance the sewer system. Going the sewer route, he warned, could force middle- and low-income residents to leave town.

I don’t think any of us want to live in a community that’s all wealthy, where middle class and low-income families can’t afford to live. But that might be one of the outcomes if we press forward with a conventional sewer system.

-Matt Patrick

According to Mr. Patrick, installing two urine diverting toilets in every home in the south coast watershed would amount to just 10% of the cost of sewering those neighborhoods.

(2 UD toilets + 2 UD urinals @ $1,500-$3,000/home)                    x 8,000 homes = $12-24 million

+ $175/year pump-out  x 8,000 homes = $1.4 million

x 10 years= $14 million

Grand total cost for 10 years installation & maintenance:

$26-38 million.

Not only would about 80 percent of the nitrogen currently leaching from septics be stopped in its tracks, but local plumbers and waste service industries would be employed by this system, Mr. Patrick said.

The cost for each alternative system varies depending on household needs, but the vendors estimated about $1,000 for a micro-flush urine-diverting toilet; about $1,100 for a compacting toilet, plus $200 a year for disposable bags; and up to $6,000 for a large composting toilet, not including installation and maintenance.

A three- to 12-watt fan is required to remove odors from the composting system, but Mr. Patrick noted that the electricity cost for such a system is less than one energy-saving light bulb.

The Falmouth precedent

One of the recurring questions from the audience was whether this innovative method of handling waste had been done elsewhere.

Mr. Patrick said that UD toilets are popular in Sweden. Don Mills of Clivus Multrum pointed out that Europeans, Americans, and Asians only stopped using “night soil” as fertilizer in the last century.

I might add that Africans are also composting their waste, providing low-cost sanitation as well as bananas, a source of food and income.

Hilde Maingay, of The Green Center, makes the case for eco-toilets as a means of achieving social justice

Faced with an almost overwhelming dilemma, Falmouth has a unique opportunity to set a precedent among coastal communities. Yes, it is scary to be the guinea pig—but how appropriate, given our world-renowned science community and ecological pioneer residents.

Money is relative to social justice and long-term stability. [Eco-toilets] could add more stability to communities and make them more socially just.

-Hilde Maingay, the Green Center

The Eco-Toilet Summit organizers are not expecting anyone to just take their word for it, however.

They are hoping for a study of these alternative systems, including an energy-use cost-comparison with a conventional system and the regulatory mechanism by which residents could install (and maybe even get loans for) an eco-toilet system of their choice.

The cost-benefit

Mr. Patrick is in favor of urine-diverting toilets, which sequester the high nitrogen content in urine while using small amounts of water to flush feces into a septic system.

He’s a fan because of the relatively low cost and high nutrient recovery. Given that the system only needs to be pumped periodically, the maintenance requirements are also pretty low.

Composting toilets are already approved by the Department of Environmental Protection and are widely used in Massachusetts, but urine-diverting toilets have yet to go through the permitting process.

While the jury is still out as to whether composting waste will remove the pharmaceuticals and other harmful chemicals, eco-toilet proponents make a good point that it is better to remove those “contaminants of concern” from the waste stream altogether, rather than combine them for centralized treatment.

Currently, most wastewater treatment plants lack the technology to remove the aspirin, caffeine, hormones, and pesticides from effluent anyway.

Even with an eco-toilet, septic systems would still be required to handle the household laundry, bathing, and dishwater, also known as graywater. The pollutants associated with those systems would not be addressed by an alternative toilet system either.

I’ve written at length about UD toilets, composting and compacting systems elsewhere on Under the Lens, so please click here if you are interested in the details.

Footnote: it’s in the report

For further reading, it’s interesting to note that Stearns & Wheler, the engineering design firm that developed a draft of Falmouth’s comprehensive wastewater management system, devoted a few pages to “waterless toilets” and UD systems in its 454-page report.

a. Wastewater flows and loads are reduced if properly designed and installed.

b. Water consumption is significantly reduced.

c. Minimal environmental concerns occur when properly sited and designed.

d. Composting toilets require minimal energy use.

e. Size of standard septic system can be reduced to treat only gray wastewater.

f. Routine maintenance is minimal and requires no special training.

As for urine diverting toilets, Stearns & Wheler lists the advantages:

a. Water consumption is reduced.
b. Minimal environmental concerns occur when properly sited and designed.
c. The nutrients in the urine could be positively recirculated in the environment by use as fertilizers.
d. The technology could decrease the nutrient removal costs associated with wastewater (less the urine component) at the WWTF.

Urine source separation toilets have the following disadvantages, according to Stearns & Wheler.

a. Existing biological and chemical technologies at WWTFs are not sufficient to treat concentrated urine. Additional facilities would need to be designed and constructed.
b. Homeowner renovation costs would include new toilets, plumbing, and urine storage facilities. Urine separating toilets are likely to be costly and lack decorative design options which may decrease homeowner acceptance.
c. Increased homeowner disposal hauling costs associated with two separate collection systems.
d. Septage hauling trucks may need retrofitted equipment to properly handle concentrated urine.
e. Technology works correctly with proper use. Proper use is limited to sitting on the toilet, meaning behavior modification for males.
f. Technology works correctly with proper maintenance, which includes removing urine scale that can block pipes over time and using certain cleaning agents which would not contaminate the collection tank.
g. Human urine use as an agricultural fertilizer may not be socially acceptable.
h. Not well suited to high seasonal community and tourist population.

A typical urine-diverting toilet collects solid and liquid waste, which could be processed into fertilizer, removing nitrogen from the waste stream

Considering that we all flush at least three times a day, it’s surprising how little we know about where our waste goes. Into a white bowl and then down a pipe— never to be seen, smelled, or thought of again.

But as many Cape Codders are beginning to realize, that’s not really the case. The by-products of our waste are seeping out of underground septic systems and into the groundwater, flowing finally into coastal ponds. The nutrients are harmless by themselves, but in concentrated form, throw off the ecological balance of sensitive estuarine systems.

Though there are many nutrients and “contaminants of concern” to be worried about, nitrogen is known as the culprit for changing pristine harbors into algae-filled swamps, devoid of marine life. Or so we fear.

Last night, Falmouth selectmen approved a town-wide comprehensive wastewater management plan (CWMP), developed over the course of several months last year by a panel of community members. It calls for over $300 million to install a sewer system in the neighborhoods south of Route 28 from Little Pond to Seapit Peninsula. Millions more are expected to sewer the next phases north of Route 28.

The CWMP committee and selectmen also set aside funding for the study of alternatives to sewering, which could lower the overall cost of the plan.

Several of these options were covered in a forum held earlier this month at the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (WBNERR), in which four experts in various areas of wastewater treatment delivered “The Scoop on the Poop” from the perspective of traditional sewer systems, alternative systems, shellfish aquaculture, and coastal engineering.

It’s not as complicated as it sounds. In fact, it should be taught in grade schools.

The big pipe method

Falmouth's wastewater treatment plant on Blacksmith Shop Road is one of just five such facilities on Cape Cod

Michael Giggey, the senior vice president of Wright-Pierce, an engineering and consulting firm, started off the evening with an overview of the municipal treatment options, from individual “on-site” systems to cluster and satellite systems to centralized wastewater treatment facilities.

As an advisor to the Town of Orleans on its comprehensive wastewater management plan and an islandwide wastewater plan on Martha’s Vineyard, Mr. Giggey noted that each watershed has different needs, which can be met through a combination of technologies.

The simplest option, he pointed out, is to simply eliminate the main controllable source of nitrogen pollution by removing enough septic tanks to meet the TMDL and connecting those homes to a sewer system, discharging the treated effluent outside the watershed.

However, across the Cape, that strategy has proven to not be so simple, and certainly is not cheap.

In Falmouth alone, the cost of sewering homes south of Route 28 from Little Pond to Seapit Peninsula is expected to cost $310 million for the first two phases, to be paid for by a combination of taxes and homeowner betterments. Across the Cape and Islands, these figures add up to billions.

In a report compiled last April by the Barnstable County Wastewater Cost Task Force, the study found the most important factor when choosing a wastewater treatment strategy is the amount of nitrogen that each system can remove per dollar spent. Centralized wastewater treatment facilities can reduce nitrogen down to 3 milligrams per liter, whereas effluent from on-site denitrifying systems ranges from 10 to 19 mg/L, Mr. Giggey said.

Though sewer mains and wastewater treatment facilities require a large amount of capital up front, the task force found that operation and maintenance costs for a centralized sewer system were far lower than on-site denitrifying systems, cluster, or satellite systems.

“It’s not just about cost, but cost-effectiveness,” said Mr. Giggey, who served on the task force. “It would seem the most cost-effective option is with the larger systems.”

David Dow, president of the Cape and Islands chapter of the Sierra Club, asked Mr. Giggey whether wastewater managers on Cape Cod have had any experience with removing “contaminants of concern” from effluent. These chemicals are the byproducts of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and detergents that most wastewater systems do not treat, or even monitor.

“Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of local experience. We’re just now getting our arms around what nitrogen does. Contaminants of concern are not just one compound, it’s thousands,” Mr. Giggey said.

Innovative & Alternative systems

The British-designed "Loowatt" toilet was originally built with the waste disposal needs of developing countries in mind.

Also serving on the task force was panelist George Heufelder, director of the Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment, who established the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center at the Massachusetts Military Reservation in 1999.

Mr. Heufelder noted that every wastewater treatment option works on basically the same principle: to “manipulate the nitrogen cycle inside a black box.” Though some methods are more efficient than others, the basic idea is to break down nitrates into nitrogen gas, a major component of the air we breathe.

In over a decade of testing, Mr. Heufelder found that innovative and alternative (I/A) systems “remove about 50 percent of the nitrogen 70 percent of the time.”

Emerging membrane technologies, such as the Nitrex, is capable of removing 90 percent of nitrogen from groundwater. The Nitrex, which Mr. Heufelder referred to as “a box of proprietary cellulose material, otherwise known as wood chips,” and other membrane systems are also becoming cheaper and easier to maintain.

A composting toilet: the only difference is the pipe

Another affordable and effective option for individual homeowners is the composting toilet, which Mr. Heufelder noted has an added benefit of separating toilet waste from graywater—the shower, sink, and dishwasher water that usually goes down the drain.

In an earlier comment from North Falmouth resident Alison Robb about the need to keep drinking water from becoming wastewater, Mr. Heufeulder agreed that the tradition of defecating into potable water “is lunacy, but we do it.”

However, he said it would probably require “mass hypnosis” to get every resident to install a composting toilet and never put kitchen scraps or chemicals down the drain. Even if Town Meeting members bought into composting toilets as a nitrogen management strategy, the Department of Environmental Protection would need a way to ensure its regulations were being met, he said.

“It’s trust and verify. Not everyone’s composting nicely in the back yard. There will be some nitrogen [in the system], and we need to know what it is,” said Mr. Heufelder.

The Eco-flush urine diverting toilet can remove 90% of the nitrogen from human waste, using 80% less water than a traditional toilet

Another innovative home nitrogen removal method on the market is the urine-diverting toilet, which was on display at WBNERR, thanks to Conrad Geyser, president of Cotuit Solar.

Though Mr. Heufelder admitted that he and other men might have a problem sitting down to use the toilet, he said one day the market for phosphorus and nitrogen would put a premium on mankind’s most abundant waste product.

Because urine contains up to 90 percent of the nitrogen and 50 percent of the phosphorus in domestic wastewater, separating and collecting it is also a simple way to prevent nutrients from reaching the groundwater.

“I envision a day when someone comes to your door to write you a check for good-quality urine,” Mr. Heufelder said, estimating that there is a total of 150 more years of phosphorus left in traditional mines.

Mr. Heufelder noted that membrane systems can be “a little power hungry,” using five to eight kilowatt hours per day in a typical home. However, the Nitrex makes use of a trickling system with lower energy use, he said.

There are other costs associated with on-site systems that should be factored into their overall costs, said Mr. Heufelder, estimating that one full-time employee would be required for every 1,500 on-site systems to ensure they meet environmental standards.

Furthermore, homeowners are required by regulations to have a maintenance contract for their on-site system, and any residual waste would have to be disposed or converted into fertilizer by a private company, he said.

“I cannot imagine DEP allowing composting or urine-diverting toilets unless the residuals leave the watershed completely,” he said.

The shellfish solution

The Sippewissett oyster, a product of local aquaculture efforts

While town officials and residents tend to focus on technical solutions for wastewater treatment, local scientists are turning to Mother Nature to help reduce the nitrogen load.

Diane Murphy, an aquaculture and fisheries specialist for the WHOI Sea Grant and Cape Cod Cooperative Extension, gave an overview of the potential for shellfish aquaculture to remove nitrogen from sensitive coastal embayments.

While shellfish are becoming more accepted as a method for meeting total maximum nitrogen loads (TMDLs), Ms. Murphy emphasized that aquaculture should not be considered the only solution for reducing nitrogen loads.

“Oysters can serve a crucial role in the uptake of nitrogen. Aquaculture should not be the sole source, but should be integrated into a nitrogen management plan,” she said.

Acting as grazers on the sea floor, oysters and other shellfish consume the phytoplankton that tend to grow in the presence of elevated nitrogen levels. The more food there is, the more the oysters grow.

Though there are conflicting reports on how much water oysters are capable of filtering each day, the accepted number is about 20 gallons per day, Ms. Murphy said. Studies have found that a market-size oyster can sequester an average of 0.52 grams of nitrogen and 0.16 grams of phosphorus over its lifetime.

When harvested, all that nitrogen is removed from the ecosystem “free of charge,” she said.

Based on a study of the 2006 oyster harvest in Wellfleet, Ms. Murphy said that 20,000 bushels of oysters can assimilate 282 kilograms of nitrogen. The oyster feces become buried in the sediment, stimulating denitrifying bacteria, a process that results in nitrogen gas being released to the atmosphere. In Wellfleet that year the total nitrogen removed was 2.3 tons.

Even though oysters are good to eat, Ms. Murphy does not advocate turning every coastal pond into an aquaculture site, noting the impact on recreational users’ access to and enjoyment of the water.

A large-scale oyster aquaculture project could clean up Falmouth's coastal ponds, create jobs and increase local food production

About 2.5 million oysters would be needed to filter all the water in Waquoit Bay, Ms. Murphy said, requiring about 10,000 square meters, or about 2.5 acres, for all of the gear.

According to an estimate by Woods Hole resident and aquaculture consultant Ron Zweig, many more oysters may be necessary to adequately filter the water, covering up to 30 acres of the 825-acre bay.

The ecosystem also has a certain “carrying capacity” for aquaculture production, and even oysters have their limits before disease, predation, and lack of food inhibit their growth, she said. Because each estuary is different, she recommended a feasibility study to determine how extensive an aquaculture operation the ecosystem is capable of supporting.

Mashpee Shellfish Constable Rick York. said that conditions in the estuary also determine the type of shellfish most suitable for aquaculture. In the low salinity of the Mashpee River, he had great success in growing half a million oysters without fear of predation or disease. Since 2005, the oysters have removed over a ton of nitrogen, he said, which increased the dissolved oxygen content to the point of being safe again for fish.

However, he said the Mashpee River is unique, and in other areas he would recommend seeding quahogs instead of oysters.

“I take issue with oysters having the most potential,” he said. “Quahogs don’t filter as much water, but they consume as much nutrient.”

Flushing the bays

Another strategy to decrease the impacts of nitrogen in sensitive embayments is to increase the amount of “flushing,” or exchange, between the ocean and the estuary.

Nitrogen concentration is higher at the head of coastal ponds, but becomes diluted in areas of greater flushing

The adage, “the solution to pollution is dilution” rings true in this case, said John Ramsey, a senior coastal engineer at Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, a Mashpee firm.

If the tidal conditions are right, nitrogen concentrations can be decreased to acceptable levels, even if the load remains high, he said. Since people tend to live near the water, the nitrogen load at the head of the bay tends to be higher than that near the tidewater.

Due to coastal geology, estuary inlets tend to become filled with sand, or even become blocked by the formation of barrier beaches, he said, showing slides of such events. Unless the inlets are dredged, flushing will decrease over time, Mr. Ramsey said.

Even if the inlets are maintained, all tides are not created equal. While Cape Cod Bay has a 13-foot tide, Vineyard Sound only has a 1.5-foot fluctuation, and Buzzards Bay tides are about 4.5 feet.

“The size of the pump matters,” Mr. Ramsey said. Some towns, he said, “are at a huge disadvantage for tidal flushing.”

Green Pond, Bournes Pond, and Eel Pond in East Falmouth

In Falmouth, Bournes Pond has been cited as one area that does get a generous amount of flushing activity. Mr. Ramsey said if the inlet could be widened from 50 to 100 feet, the coastal pond’s nitrogen concentration would be reduced from 0.6 milligrams per liter to 0.46 mg/L. That reduction would mean that half as many homes in the Bournes Pond watershed would have to be connected to a sewer, he said.

Although on paper widening the inlet seems like a win-win solution, wetland protection regulations place restrictions on projects of this kind because of the impacts on barrier beaches, which protect coastal zones from storms and flooding and provide habitat for endangered species, said Mr. Ramsey.

“Widening the Bournes Pond inlet will create a bigger footprint of impact on the barrier beach system. It’s something regulators will struggle with,” he said.

Though it is still in draft form, the bylaw declares the entire town a nitrogen-sensitive area, limiting new home construction or additions to four bedrooms per acre, with those on smaller lots limited to three bedrooms.

Homes that already exceed the number of bedrooms per acre would be exempt from the bylaw.

Speaking with the board at its meeting on Monday, attorney Robert H. Ament said the bylaw, as written “would be very bad for the economy” due to limitations on future growth.

However, board member John B. Waterbury, who led the effort to draft the bylaw over the past year, explained that even the most sophisticated wastewater treatment can only remove 90 percent of nitrogen.

Because the treated effluent has to be discharged elsewhere in the watershed, the town needs to ensure that that discharge does not cause any estuary to exceed the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mandated by state law.

“One consequence of sewering is that if there are no rules, development goes berserk,” Dr. Waterbury said.

Homes or estuaries?

The issue boils down to placing limits on development in order to safeguard the estuaries. Falmouth may end up paying $250 million to connect sewer mains from Little Pond to Seapit peninsula with the Blacksmith Shop Road treatment plant, in the proposed first phase of a project to sewer the entire town.

One problem with the bylaw that Mr. Ament didn’t mention is that it assumes the town will choose to install a large-scale sewer system. Unless town meeting members are also asked to approve the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (which selectmen haven’t even voted on yet), consideration of this bylaw would be premature in April.

Mr. Ament suggested that instead of meeting a per-bedroom or capacity limit, homeowners be allowed to install denitrification equipment in order to meet a certain per-gallon nitrogen limit.  He added that special consideration should be given to non-residential establishments, especially schools, churches, and science institutions that offer a public benefit.

This blogger might add that affordable housing, like the proposed Spring Bars Road and VFW Hall projects, should also be exempt. Managing development should not come at the expense of residents who make less than the median income. Limiting the number of bedrooms allowed per acre would ensure that housing density remains low, thus keeping the housing prices high.

Setting a standard, without “toilet police”

The board of health appeared receptive to the idea of setting a nitrogen output standard, rather than requiring homeowners who want to build an addition or another house on an acre lot to get a variance.

Homeowners could achieve the standard inexpensively by installing a composting toilet, which removes human waste from the equation altogether. The nitrogen breaks down over time, resulting in a small amount of material which then can be disposed of in the trash, buried in a non-edible garden, or turned into fertilizer by professionals.

A Hatchville couple, Hilde Maingay and Earle Barnhart–who have appeared frequently in this blog and in the Enterprise– say that they remove almost all their household nitrogen output by using a composting toilet, composting food scraps or feeding it to chickens, and being careful to use biodegradable, low-nitrogen/phosphorus cleaning products.

They have challenged board of health member George Heufelder to test their septic tank for nitrogen content. It would be interesting to see the results, if that plan moves forward.

Perhaps with a few small changes in each household, we wouldn’t need a sewer system– nor a nutrient management bylaw.

Given that its now easier to find oysters from Duxbury and mussels from Prince Edward Island than it is to get locally-sourced seafood, this locovore’s dilemma begs the question: which came first? The shellfish or the septic system? The problem or the solution?

Sometimes, when overhearing discussions among wastewater experts, the idea is floated that Cape Cod should try to get back to 1619– that is, before Pilgrims landed on these shores.

Though it took until roughly 1990 for humans to load the estuaries with enough nitrogen to kill small fish, the basis for the idea is that we should limit our inputs to the environment to basically zero, just as the native Wampanoag did.

Here's what eel grass should look like

In the past three decades, we have developed our communities to the point where the nitrogen leaching from household septic systems and fertilized lawns has caused our beloved estuaries to seriously decline.

Across the entire Cape, algal blooms clog and stink up the water, leading to unpleasant swimming and boating experiences– and signaling a major ecological disaster.

A lack of eel grass is often the first sign that nitrogen loading has tipped the scales towards an unhealthy estuary. As nitrogen seeps in with the groundwater, it causes algae to grow– and infamously, bloom, when summer temperatures heat up.

Not only is it yucky to look at, algae blocks the sunlight needed by eel grass, causing a rapid decline for this aquatic plant species– as well as the shellfish that grow on its blade and stems.

Dying eel grass: a familiar sight in Falmouth harbors

As the algae dies off, it sucks up the oxygen in the water. If the die-off is extensive, it can cause dissolved oxygen levels to get so low that fish die– or swim to less suffocating areas.

The less lucky marine creatures– snails, worms, and shellfish– are not mobile, and tend to die at much greater rates than fish.

So how do we get back to the way it was in 1619? The state, through the Massachusetts Estuary Project, has set daily maximum nitrogen loading (TMDL) targets that we’ll need to achieve to restore the estuaries, but does not offer any guidance on how to get there.

We need only take a lesson from nature to understand how the nitrogen cycle has balanced itself out over millennia.

A bi-valve solution

While towns on Cape Cod brace themselves for a lengthy, costly, and energy-intensive installation of a sewer system, some residents have taken a back-to-the-Earth approach.

Drawing on his 30 years as an aquaculture consultant with the World Bank, Woods Hole resident Ron Zweig thinks that the solution to the Cape’s water woes could be staring at us from our dinner plates.

Mr. Zweig’s experience with aquaculture in Southeast Asia and at the New Alchemy Institute in Hatchville corroborate the findings of numerous studies establishing the ability of shellfish to filter and remove nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus) from water and suspended sediments.

A Falmouth Shellfish Cooperative cage, used for growing oysters in deep water.

A 2006 study of aquaculture in Waquoit Bay by WHOI’s Marine Policy Center found that 500 oysters and quahogs removed 0.1 kilograms of nitrogen per liter from the water, and an additional 0.1 kg from the sediment underneath the growing tray per year.

According to Mr. Zweig, one oyster, on average, is capable of removing 0.65 milligrams of nitrogen per year during two years of growth.

If grown on an exponential scale, aquaculture could potentially meet TMDL targets, especially if the inlets to some coastal ponds are also widened.

In a spreadsheet analysis of four coastal ponds in Falmouth facing Vineyard Sound, Mr. Zweig recommends setting aside 8-9% of Bournes Pond, Great Pond, and Green Pond for aquaculture, and about 22% of the heavily polluted Little Pond, in order to meet the state-mandated TMDL’s.

Getting Aqua into the Culture

While these studies may be little more than numbers on paper, Mr. Zweig is working with members of the Falmouth Shellfish Cooperative, four companies that hold aquaculture permits in Buzzards Bay, to turn his hypotheses into action.

The Cooperative is currently working on a proposal to start up aquaculture plots in one or several of Falmouth’s coastal ponds. Not only would a more inland location make it easier for the farmers to get to their oyster cages, the development would also serve as an experiment on the potential for shellfish to remove nitrogen.

If successful, the Cooperative estimates that expanded aquaculture operations could create or maintain 165 permanent jobs in Falmouth, while restoring 3,700 acres of shellfish habitat.

An aquaculture site in Buzzards Bay operated by the Falmouth Shellfish Cooperative.

This summer, the Cooperative plans to market their first batch of the Sippewissett Oyster, sold straight from their retail location on Coonamessett Farm. With a fledgling mechanism already in place to put Falmouth’s seafood on the map, the oyster farmers say there is much more room to expand.

In Mashpee, Shellfish Warden Richard York hopes to build on the success of an aquaculture program he started in Mashpee River. The Mashpee Enterprise reports that Mr. York is writing a $75,000 grant to purchase, propagate, and plant 10 million quahog seeds in Waquoit Bay. Quahogs, he says, are ideal for aquaculture because of their resistance to predators.

Even if only half of the quahogs survive to maturity, the initiative will generate up to $750,000 in revenue, enough money for 15 shellfishermen to make a decent living, estimates Mr. York.

It may just turn out that doing the right thing for the environment is also good for the economy– and for our appetites.

The downside of aquaculture

However, the simple solution is not always the easiest. As Cape Codders know well, changes intended to solve environmental problems (think wind turbines) often come with a serious backlash from stakeholders.

The Marine Policy Center quantified the costs and benefits to aquaculture not only from the nitrogen removal angle, but also from the point of view of recreational users of Waquoit Bay.

Due to the potential “aesthetic costs” caused by exposed aquaculture gear at low tide, as well as decreased area for boating, the Marine Policy Center estimated that 1.5% of the head of Waquoit Bay could be used for aquaculture without negative consequences.

One additional issue that aquaculture does not address is the need for a wastewater solution that removes not only nitrogen, but a range of “contaminants of concern” from products consumed and eliminated by humans, now concentrated in your drinking water.

A typical composting toilet: the only difference is the pipe.

Even if shellfish were capable of filtering and sequestering aspirin, Viagra, and shampoo chemical residues from the water, would that solve the problem? (And would you want to eat them?) Or does it just point to a larger question: why are we contaminating fresh drinking water with our waste?

In my humble opinion, we need a variety of options to deal with our wastewater worries. If it is not conceivable to place aquaculture operations in coastal ponds on the scale necessary to remove the entire nitrogen load, it would be wise to eliminate the main cause of the contamination: septic tanks.

Even on a small scale, aquaculture can likely eliminate nitrogen released from non-point sources, namely fertilizer and road run-off. And by installing household composting toilets, we would eliminate at least half of the nitrogen load, while also pre-empting contamination by other, potentially very harmful, chemicals.

A view of West Falmouth Harbor

Earlier this month, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay went public with information about the performance of Falmouth’s wastewater management facility. Had not they not requested this information from the DEP, we would not have known that elevated nitrogen levels are being discharged from the facility to West Falmouth Harbor.  This is the kind of oversight that the media and environmental watchdogs will have to do in order to ensure that nitrogen limits are being met, no matter which wastewater treatment route is taken in the future.

Nitrogen effluent from Falmouth's WWTF, 1994-2009

As the graph shows, nitrogen output from the Blacksmith Shop Road wastewater treatment facility was very high, from the day it was built in 1994.

But even after a $15 million upgrade designed to reduce nitrogen output to 3 mg/liter– which worked well in 2006– periodic spikes have led to an average nitrogen discharge of 5 mg/liter over the last three years.

Averages aside, at times, those spikes have approached 20 mg/liter.  It’s not the sort of performance taxpayers might expect from an expensive upgrade to advanced treatment technology. And it won’t do much to improve conditions at Meshapaquit Creek, the area of West Falmouth Harbor most heavily impacted by a nitrogen plume emanating from the facility.

Let there be light

It’s a shame that we didn’t hear about the problems three years ago, when they started happening. But now that the information has come to light, town officials have started talking, and a contract is underway with the plant’s designer. Hopefully we will see a return to safer nutrient outputs to the harbor, which a Massachusetts Estuary Project study reported could recover, if the Total Maximum Daily Load for nitrogen is limited to 3.5 mg/liter.

In all fairness, the fine people in the wastewater department have been working hard to address the problem. The fact that the spikes tend to happen in the winter indicates that cold temperatures are making it hard for denitrifying bacteria to do their jobs. And they have been working without the benefit of advice from the new facility’s engineer, due to litigation with the designer, Maguire.

Also, to be fair, many of the benefits of the upgrade cannot be used at the current flow to the treatment facility. Because the plant handles just 3% of the town’s wastewater (the percentage of town that is sewered, not including New Silver Beach), it is operating at less than half its 1 million gallons-per-day capacity.  At these low-flow rates, the plant cannot use its denitrifying technology to do more than filter out solids. In addition, the plant accepts septage hauled in from the town’s septic tanks. So, it is handling highly concentrated influent without the benefit of technology designed to treat larger volumes of wastewater.

Permitting Pollution

Another bureaucratic snafu helps the wastewater department save face. Despite the 2005 upgrade, the treatment facility has been operating under a DEP groundwater recharge permit, which expired in 2002. The town applied for a new one on time, but has yet to hear from state environmental authorities.

Under that permit, the facility is performing beautifully. The out-dated guidelines suggest a maximum nitrogen output of 50 mg/liter and 810,000 gallons per day discharge.

One of the reasons that the DEP might not have issued a new permit yet, said the wastewater superintendent, Jerry Potamis, is that they can’t figure out how to regulate a maximum daily limits for nitrogen (the TMDLs) in a groundwater discharge permit. Falmouth’s facility is somewhat unique in that it discharges to the groundwater, but it is also a coastal community subject to state-mandated TMDLs.  Perhaps the DEP could use Falmouth as a study, as other towns seek to build treatment plants and recharge the effluent to the aquifer.

The whole situation makes me wonder who residents are supposed to trust, while swallowing multi-million dollar bills to improve our municipal wastewater treatment system. If the state regulators cannot get their act together, and non-profit advocacy groups are the only ones doing oversight, how will Falmouth residents know that a $600 million investment is doing the job it is supposed to? Right now, the only pressure towns feel to meet TMDL targets is from the Conservation Law Foundation, the group that sued the City of Boston, resulting in the effective, yet expensive, cleanup of Boston Harbor. With the recession on in full swing, it is unlikely that the state will be cracking the whip to enforce the MEP guidelines. Meanwhile, estuarine decline is in advanced stages in coastal ponds around the Cape. Eel grass and abundant shellfish beds may be distant memories by the time anything changes.

High tide flooding covers Menauhant Road

I would like to know why, in all the discussion on the half-billion dollar sewer project, there has been not one word on global warming and sea level rise. There is no question that the sea level is rising, and this century it is likely to rise sufficiently to make the health of the coastal ponds a moot question. …  It seems to me that spending that much money to protect ponds that will soon enough be part of the Atlantic is a huge waste of resources.

Prepare for the Worst, Hope for the Best

Ric brings up an interesting point that is not often considered in the great sewering debate that Falmouth and other coastal towns are engaging in these days. Then again, very little planning is being done with climate change and sea level rise in mind in this country.

In a shift from that trend, the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) is taking an active role in planning for changes to the coastline, by mapping the seafloor and making recommendations for how to mitigate impacts. They’re working on legislation so that towns have clear guidelines for what to do, should buildings and beaches start to disappear into the ocean, or should get-rich-quick contractors attempt to build in vulnerable coastal zones.

Regarding building public infrastructure such as sewer pipes and roads, the CZM posted these guidelines:

• Roads and utilities are absolutely critical during evacuation, disaster response, and recovery. If they’re flooded or damaged, they can become yet another liability, rather than an asset.
• Placing public infrastructure in areas where it may be damaged makes it extremely likely that your community will end up repairing it—an added strain to municipal staff, budgets, and available services.
• Putting public infrastructure (e.g., water and sewer) in a hazard-prone area increases the likelihood that the area will be developed, or that existing development will be expanded, thereby putting more structures and people at risk.

In Chatham, a local bylaw prevented new construction of a house in a floodplain, a landmark decision upheld by the MA Supreme Court. One of the prohibited uses of the land in these Flood Hazard Zones is the discharge of sewage. In a model bylaw developed by the Cape Cod Commission, towns would be able to repair or replace their existing sewer and water mains, but not build new ones in high-risk flood zones  “in order to avoid impairment of or contamination from them during flooding.”

Regulating catastrophe?

Despite these regulatory strides, Ric’s question brings up an important point about long-term planning for climate change on Cape Cod, which includes planning for a region-wide sewer system.

It strikes me that the egos and possibly greed of town officials are leading people astray. To refuse to address this question, based on the best science available, is arrogant, short-sighted, and ultimately just plain stupid. It’s not improbable that by the end of the century, if not considerably sooner, that Falmouth Plaza will be the new Falmouth Heights Beach. Perhaps money might be better spent protecting the fresh water supply from salt incursion, though in time that will also be moot.

-Ric Gerace, Falmouth

As I’ve reported in the Enterprise, sea level rise is already a reality on Cape Cod, although occuring at a miniscule rate of 3 millimeters per year. That amount is expected to accelerate as the polar ice caps melt. A very conservative– yet widely accepted–projection from the IPCC of a 2-11 °F increase in average global temperatures would cause an average one meter (3 foot) rise in sea level.

Again, that might not sound like much, but with storm surges, high tides, and erosion over time, Main Street, Falmouth (as we know it), will be waterfront property. Ric’s prediction that Staples will be the next Falmouth Heights Beach may not be too far from the truth. (Click here for an excellent PowerPoint presentation on the issue from Falmouth resident and USGS researcher, Rob Thieler.)

Long Term Gain for Short Term Pain

In 2003, the Coastal Resources Working Group completed a report to Falmouth selectmen on how to deal with the threat of sea level rise. In order to prevent an apocalyptic, beach-less town by 2100, the group made the following recommendations (among others):

• Beaches and dunes will be wide enough for protection from storms and for public access and use.
• Water quality, habitat and fisheries resources of the coastal zone, estuaries, ponds and marshes will be sustained and enhanced.
• A minimum of hard structures (e.g., groins, seawalls, jetties, etc.) will be found in the coastal zone, to reduce
  maintenance costs, allow natural sediment transport, and for ease and safety of public use; adverse impacts of their presence will be mitigated by passive and active management approaches.
• Public infrastructure will be relocated from the immediate coast to reduce maintenance and repair costs and to reduce its impact on the coastal system.

These recommendations contain two important aspects of the issue that Ric brought up: protection of water quality for the health of marine life, and the costs of building and maintaining public infrastructure in flood zones.  They needn’t be mutually exclusive goals, however.  With proper planning, the main sewer line (if that is what happens) should be located well beyond the reach of the flood zone. By restoring the estuarine ecosystem, especially south of Route 28, where nitrogen pollution is most severe, nature’s defenses against erosion will be able to do their job. Eel grass and dune grass are essential for keeping sand and sediment in place. Natural migration of sand (which is rapidly moving eastward in Falmouth) will protect the coastline from erosion and sea level rise.

From there, yes, it would be a matter of time before the residences that connect to the sewer main are compromised by rising water levels. But that will likely take centuries. We may not be able to stop global climate change, but at least we can do something now to restore the local marine ecosystem.

While we have to take the issue of nitrogen (and other nutrient) pollution seriously, we also need to examine the unintended consequences of sewering the entire coast. What impact will pumping and discharging millions of gallons of water have on the aquifer, not to mention, on CO2 levels in the atmosphere? What are some ways we as residents can reduce our nitrogen output on an individual scale?

Last week, I went to an interesting talk by USGS hydrologist Denis LeBlanc, who described the role of the Sagamore Lens in supplying the Upper Cape’s fresh water.

I’d been skeptical that pumping wastewater all over town to a centralized location for treatment, and possibly discharging it through an outfall pipe off of Nobska Point, would not impact our groundwater levels. But according to Mr. LeBlanc, even at a rate of 3-5 million gallons a day, that kind of discharge is peanuts, compared to the volume of the resource.

Whether or not an outfall pipe is a good idea is still up for debate. Experts, including Mark Rasmussen of the Coalition for Buzzards Bay, say that the strong currents at Nobska would create enough “flushing” to dilute the wastewater (treated to tertiary standards) so that it would not impact marine life or public health. But still– in a world where water is considered to be “blue gold,” is it responsible to discharge it into the ocean? Even if we can’t drink it, couldn’t we reuse it?

Eco-logical design

At a conference at WBNERR last spring, environmental designers presented some very intriguing ideas on how to turn wastewater into a resource.

These weren’t pie-in-the-sky dreamers, or con artists trying to sell you back your own pee as drinking water. These were businessmen who had built their reputation on some common-sense notions: why should you flush your toilet or water your lawn with drinking water? Why should we still be using the 2,000 year-old Roman aquaduct system to sewer our communities?

To the speakers, the saying, “the solution to pollution is dilution” is simply not the case. Instead, they suggested a closed-loop system, in which gray water is continually re-used within a building, with minimal loss.

Patrick Lucey, president of Aqua-Tex, a water management consultancy firm in British Columbia, showed slides of a LEED-certified complex he designed on a working waterfront section of Victoria.

The system is designed to reuse the gray water from sinks and showers and collect rainwater from the roof. The “wastewater” is then treated in a centralized sewage treatment that one might mistake for a luscious garden.

Wastewater from toilets is treated to a standard that could be safely used for doing laundry or watering non-edible plants, Mr. Lucey said.

The system could go several steps further by including a bio-refinery to utilize solid waste and garbage as bio-fuels for heating; co-generation technology to create electricity; and removing nitrogen and phosphorus from effluent for use as fertilizer.

Engineered ecology

Closer to home, projects at the Wrentham Mall and Gilette Stadium in Foxboro (home of the Patriots) have achieved 75-95 % water reuse by employing ecological design principles. If every large public building could do that, we’d go a long way in reducing the 1,200 gallons that Americans consume on average per day (through showers, toilets, laundry, dishwashers, and food production).

Even closer to home, a Woods Hole-based firm, Todd Ecological Design, has set the standard for using nature’s principles to deal with wastewater. In municipalities, golf courses, factories, and campuses worldwide, the EcoMachines designed by Dr. John Todd, one the founders of New Alchemy Institute, use micr0-bacteria, plants, and invertebrates to effectively digest the harmful components of wastewater. Designs often include tropical greenhouse gardens that help make this process possible, even in cold climates.

However, as Falmouth’s wastewater superintendent pointed out after meeting with Jon Todd (Dr. Todd’s son), the EcoMachine cannot get the nitrogen content low enough to meet the limits set by DEP.  In order to prevent further estuarine degradation, some parts of Falmouth need to reduce nitrogen to 3 milligrams per liter– the equivalent of 1.5 drops in a bathtub– which will likely require the services of a modern wastewater treatment plant.

You are what you eat

But there are still possibilities for concerned residents to reduce their nitrogen output. Eating less meat is one idea proposed by Dr. Eric Davidson of the Woods Hole Research Center. While this might be a startling idea to some, consider the fact that the amino acids in animal protein are made up of nitrogen, and to a large extent, are passed out of the body.

If we’re eating meat three times a day, we have a bigger nitrogen footprint. For those who don’t want to be vegetarian, thinking about portion sizes, or whether they’re eating beef, or less nitrogen-demanding pork, chicken, or fish, makes a difference.

-Eric Davidson, sr. scientist, Woods Hole Research Center

Another reason to cut down meat consumption takes a global view: in places like Brazil, rainforest is being cleared at alarming rates in order to create cattle pasture. Cutting forests reduces the earth’s ability to process CO2, and also releases extra greenhouse gases (like NO2) into the atmosphere. So, if not just for the local environment, eating meat (or chosing not to) from these places can make a big difference in terms of climate change.

What else can you do?

Finally, debate over sewering sometimes leaves out small, yet significant components of our community’s total nitrogen output: stormwater and fertilizers. If we could eliminate chemical-based fertilizers from our lawns and gardens, Falmouth could reduce nitrogen in estuaries by at least 10 %. (For info on how to reduce your lawn’s N-footprint, see the Falmouth Friendly Lawns brochure.)

And if the town could install more catch basins to deal with stormwater, less nitrogen (and other pollutants) would flow directly from the roads to sensitive ecosystems. One fun fact to remember as you’re driving in a rainstorm: that first flush of rainwater from the road brings NOx emissions from your tailpipe directly to the nearest water source.

So, a few nuances to consider as we head down the road to figuring out how to create a wastewater design to meet demands of the next century. And we didn’t even get into I/A systems, such as Nitrex or RUCK.

Special thanks to David Dow for putting his two cents in on these issues. As always, we welcome comments, questions, and perspectives.

I have lived in Falmouth for over twenty five years. Our streams, ponds, and shorelines are tanking while we talk this issue to death. Please simplify the process for me. Who in town is ultimately responsible? What board or managerial position must get this done? Who must decide what to do, when to do it, and when can we be given a timeline against which we can measure their progress?

- George A. Chapman, Sady’s Lane, East Falmouth

George brings up an interesting point, which perhaps only reporters covering wastewater issues have any clue about: who is responsible for this mess? Let’s start with the beginning.

For the last 100 years, residents of Cape Cod have been flushing their toilets and not thinking twice about where the effluent goes. But as our population density increases, our waste is having a big impact on the beaches, shellfish beds, and marinas we hold so dear.

The majority of residents have septic tanks that collect and process wastewater (the contents of your toilet bowl, the kitchen sink, and the washing machine) based on a simple concept: given enough air and nutrients, bacteria will break down all the toxic stuff, and the tank will only have to be pumped out  every few years. However, a seeminly benign nutrient–nitrogen, the basis for protein–tends to seep out of septic tanks, entering the groundwater, and eventually flowing to a coastal pond near you. Other sources of nitrogen in estuaries come from fertilizer and road runoff, and to some extent, animal poop.

Here’s what eel grass should look like

An all too familiar sight in Falmouth harbors

The large concentrations of nitrogen that our waterways contain now are enough to trigger algal blooms, especially in hot summer weather. As the algae eventually dies off, it releases a noxious odor that some residents may be familiar with. Not fun to swim in! But for the ecosystem, it is even worse. The algae blocks sunlight from reaching the eel grass, which used to grow in thick mats along the shoreline of nearly every harbor. Eel grass provides essential habitat for shellfish, which adhere to its blades as babies, and juvenile finfish, which hide out and find food in the swaying green forest. If the algae situation gets really bad, it can rob the water of the dissolved oxygen fish need to survive. In extreme situations, fish kills can occur.

To combat this growing ecological catastrophe, provisions under the federal Clean Water Act set up a mandate for removing nitrogen from coastal ecosystems. The Massachusetts Estuary Project (MEP) was set up to study every coastal pond in the state to determine the level of degradation caused by nitrogen– and the Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL) that the waterway can handle while still supporting marine life. The TMDL’s vary according to each coastal pond, but generally, in Falmouth, the waterways south of Route 28 in East Falmouth have the most stringent limits; in West and North Falmouth, the recommended TMDL is about half of the current nitrogen output. The reason is simple: more people = more nitrogen.

The Big Pipe Solution

Currently, only 3% of Falmouth is served by a sewer: parts of Woods Hole, downtown Falmouth, Falmouth Hospital, and Falmouth High School. The main proposal on the table for removing nitrogen (and other nutrients) from our waste stream is to install sewer lines connecting homes to the existing wastewater treatment facility on Blacksmith Shop Road. The first phase of this proposal targets the neighborhoods south of Route 28, at an estimated initial cost of $250 million. What to do with the wastewater once it is treated is still up for debate.

To answer George’s question, there are several people in charge of figuring out the thorny, expensive details. The main go-to guy is Jerry Potamis, the town’s Wastewater Superintendent. He is in charge of drafting the town’s Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan and making sure that the town’s wastewater complies with DEP standards. I wouldn’t want to have his job!

In addition to Jerry, a number of citizens and town officials sit on the Nutrient Management Working Group, which has been working for years to incorporate environmental, public health, and finance considerations into the CWMP. The working group’s mission has just about ended, however, as selectmen have decided to create a formal town committee with a clear mandate and televised meetings to involve more residents in the debate. That committee is tentatively named the Citizens’ Advisory Committee, and will work with a facilitator hired by the town to gather public input on townwide sewering.

To answer one of your questions, George, the person who is ultimately responsible for the project is the Royal “You.” Residents who are concerned about how sewering will impact their tax bill– or how not addressing the problem will impact the environment– are encouraged to volunteer for the advisory committee. While there is a limit on how many members can serve, residents can also get informed by hosting a “sewer social” with members of FACES and the Coastal Pond Management Committee. If you would simply like to voice your concerns, you may get in touch with Town Manager Bob Whritenour or one of your selectmen.

The timeline for the biggest public works project this town has ever seen is a long one, estimated at about 20 years, once we finally get a CWMP approved by both residents and state authorities. As you can imagine, how to fund this project– at approximately $600 million, all told– will not be easy, and money in the state’s revolving fund for low-interest loans is dwindling. Citizens are doing the right thing by demanding that the sewering be done right the first time, with serious public input. But the time to get started was yesterday.