Controversial Proposal Holds Residents Accountable For Nitrogen Pollution

Residents of Martha’s Vineyard, MA, are debating a controversial potential new regulation, which would hold homeowners responsible for the nitrogen in their wastewater and its impact on area bodies of water, reports the Vineyard Gazette.

According to the Gazette, the regulations — proposed by the Tisbury Board of Health — would require all new developments built on the island to pay a semi-annual fee based on water usage and the type of wastewater management applied.

The regulations aim to protect Lake Tashmoo and Lagoon Pond, two of the most impaired saltwater ponds in Martha’s Vineyard. Data from the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) has projected that about two-thirds of the nitrogen flowing into both ponds comes from wastewater, reports the Gazette.

In a previous Vineyard Gazette article discussing the issue, Tisbury Board of Health chairman Michael Loberg, who serves on the wastewater committee, explained the rational behind the proposed regulations.

“We want (homeowners) to think about: How can I reduce the nitrogen I’m putting into the watershed and the ground water?” he said. “What kind of tools do I have?”

The fees are calculated with the assumption that removing nitrogen through sewering would cost the town $300 per pound, reports the Gazette.

A resistant who owned a two-bedroom house with a standard Title 5 septic system, for example, would have to pay a $2,600 fee. The fee would be reduced to $1,700 for a denitrifying septic system, or $260 for a denitrifying toilet, according to the Gazette.

On June 27 a third and final public hearing discussing the controversial proposal was held. Residents expressed a variety of concerns.

Many challenged if wastewater was truly the main cause of the nitrogen problem in Martha’s Vineyard.

Resident Doug Dowling argued that the town lacks the required data to be certain of where the nitrogen originates, whether from groundwater or elsewhere. Another resident Donald Muckerheide added that rainfall adds far more nitrogen to the watersheds than septic tanks, and therefore residents should not be held financially responsible.

However, most officials working to address the problem agree that excess nitrogen comes mostly from septic tanks leaching into the groundwater, reports the Gazette.

Kent Healy, a civil engineer in the area, claims the MEP numbers for nitrogen entering Lake Tashmoo don’t add up. Using figures in the MEP report, he calculated that the pond receives only up to 24 pounds of nitrogen per day, not the 55 pounds cited in the report.

“Before you start making all these plans, you have to have a good handle on the numbers,” Healy said in the Gazette article.

The fee itself was another key issue.

Muckerheide believes mechanical aeration would be more cost effective than fees or wastewater management.  

Other residents were concerned about how the fees collected would be used. Current guidelines call for spending the fees on nitrogen mitigation in the watersheds, subject to town meeting approval.

Board of Health chairman Jeff Pratt agreed that the rules should clarify how much can be spent on sewers, and he assured residents that the money would be used fairly. “There is no slush fund,” he said to the Gazette.

The board plans to deliberate further and present its final proposal to the selectmen shortly.