The Tisbury board of health has rightly moved to address the long-term consequences of excess amounts of nitrogen entering Lake Tashmoo and Lagoon Pond, but has unfairly chosen to saddle only new development, including additions and renovations, in the Tashmoo and Lagoon watersheds with an annual fee.
The board of health has also suggested that acting on its own authority, it could impose these new fees as early as the end of this summer. That would be a mistake. If the town is to tackle the problems associated with nitrogen in our ponds, there ought to be general voter consensus on how best to do it. Significant public policy ought to be decided at town meeting and not be set by a three-member board of health — even when acting with the best of intentions.
And the costs ought to be spread evenly across the town’s $2.7 billion property tax base. As now proposed, these new regulations would likely have a disproportionate effect on a small number of nonvoting, mostly nonresident taxpayers — the group that subsidizes the majority of town services already — and generate only enough money to nibble at the edge of a larger problem.
The Tisbury board of health proposes a “no new net nitrogen” policy, under which property owners would be financially responsible for mitigating the effects of wastewater-based nitrogen that enters the groundwater through an annual fee, based on metered water usage. For example, based on average water usage and use of a Title 5 septic system, the owner of a new three-bedroom home in either watershed would pay an annual fee of $3,200. Under the proposed fee schedule, the charge could be reduced to $2,100 with the installation and use of an enhanced denitrification system, designed to remove nitrogen from the wastewater. The use of denitrifying toilets in combination with advanced systems could reduce the annual fee to $320.
Under the draft regulations, the Board of Health defines new development as “any new structure, the renovation of, or addition to any existing structure and, in the case of commercial and industrial developments, also includes any increase in intensity of use, or any change in use, which generates an increase in human wastewater flow for disposal.”
Not included is the unregulated inn business. A quick glance this week at the Airbnb website shows 157 listings for Tisbury. And what about the weekly flow of vacation renters?
Essentially, the owner of an existing business or home would not have to face up to any responsibility for the problem, but someone new to the Vineyard, or someone who wants to improve his or her property, would have to pay up annually.
The fee would cease either after 20 years, when the development is connected to the town sewer system, or when the town successfully removes enough nitrogen to certify water quality standards. That would be the same town sewer system that town leaders intentionally hobbled with limited capacity under the mistaken notion that they could check development. What do you know, it didn’t work.
The small number of hookups relative to the system has placed an increasing financial burden on users, who have seen their rates continue to rise. The board of health proposal would place an unfair financial burden on a select group of new homeowners.
There are 3,188 taxpayers in the town of Tisbury, according to the office of the town assessor. That figures includes some duplicates attributable to owners of multiple properties. Approximately one-third — a total of 1,041 taxpayers — benefit from Tisbury’s residential exemption. Tisbury ought not now seek to shift the burden of maintaining our water bodies.
The elected three-member board of health — Michael Loberg, Jeffrey Pratt, and Malcolm Boyd — have acted, they said, out of a sense of urgency. The proposed regulations are an attempt to keep the nitrogen-loading problem from getting worse; the idea is to maintain the current health of the pond.
Would dredging to increase water flow in Tashmoo help in the short term? What measures would Oak Bluffs, which shares Lagoon Pond, be willing to embrace in the short and long term? How can all homeowners be persuaded to use less fertilizer and accept a not-so-green lawn?
All of us benefit from healthy water bodies. All of us ought to share in the cost and decision-making to keep them healthy.