Updated March 12
There is momentum building on the Island with towns starting to move beyond the planning stages of large wastewater projects and to the action stages while addressing the long-term health of local water bodies, plans that will be both costly for taxpayers and lengthy to implement.
The infrastructure projects — which have been estimated at over $100 million, for example, in Oak Bluffs — are meant to reduce nitrogen pollution in Island watersheds.
While nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for aquatic plants and algae, an excessive amount can cause potentially toxic conditions like cyanobacteria blooms, or blue-green algae.
“We have to do something for the ponds, to restore ponds,” Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) water resource planner Sheri Caseau said. “That’s a part of the draw of the Island.”
And although some estuaries have seen improvements, the excess in nitrogen has been exacerbated by the effects of climate change.
Island towns have been taking a cue from Cape Cod, where towns have started building sewers to address pollution, many that have excessive costs. In Barnstable, for example, the town is implementing a more-than $1 billion plan.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) launched new septic system regulations for the Cape last summer, forcing action.
And the Vineyard could be next. MVC executive director Adam Turner said the Cape was more involved with this process because of a lawsuit filed by an environmental action group called the Conservation Law Foundation. The foundation alleged that the towns and state knew nitrogen and phosphorus were the source of water degradation, but still allowed the nutrients to flow into watersheds from septic systems.
While the Vineyard was excluded from these new regulations, Caseau says that they expect to see them arrive on the Island within the next five years.
As a result, more densely populated Island towns are looking to implement lengthy plans like making improvements to existing sewage treatment facilities, replacing and building new sewer pipes, connecting more homes to existing sewer systems, all in an effort to stabilize nitrogen levels.
“The goal is not to study the problem anymore, it’s to solve the problem,” Turner said, adding that progress had been made and more denitrification options are now available compared to when he joined the commission in 2015.
Aside from sewer expansion projects, some Island towns are looking at installing hundreds of so-called innovative and alternative systems to replace septic systems, which has been estimated to cost around $45,000 each to install. Those costs could ultimately come down to homeowners forced to install them.
“It’s a huge cost,” Caseau said, adding that Vineyard towns will need to figure out ways to implement the I/A system upgrades, particularly with the question of whether the market would be able to handle the large amount of equipment needed.
One option could be pursuing low interest loans from the state. There is also Community Preservation Committee funding and other grant opportunities. On the individual level, people can pursue up to $15,000 in tax credits to repair or replace a failed septic system and septic upgrade grants from Dukes County for Vineyard residents.
But even so, there has been pushback with some residents suggesting the requirements would be a burden on homeowners.
In Tisbury, the town is looking to replace 700 septic systems with the I/A systems over a 20-year period. It’s part of a denitrification plan developed for Lake Tashmoo and new nitrogen regulations implemented last November by the town’s board of health in an effort to reduce pollution in Lake Tashmoo and Lagoon Pond.
There’s been considerable pushback to the regulations with some people, including realtors, saying too much of the burden to pay for the system is falling on homeowners.
Tisbury water resources committee chair Ben Robinson told The MV Times that the state should be taking more action. Had the state implemented Title 5 regulations back in the 1990s, homes wouldn’t have been built with septic systems that leech nitrogen into local waterways.
“I think [MassDEP] should accept some responsibility for that,” Robinson said, pointing out the state’s role in burdening homeowners.
Cost estimates for the actual implementation of these comprehensive wastewater management plans are still in the works by towns, but one town had a potentially high sticker: Oak Bluffs’ plan has been estimated at about $105 million over 30 years. The town is looking for grants to help pay for the project and is considering entering into the Cape & Islands Clean Water Trust Fund, which uses funding from member municipalities’ short-term rental tax.
Oak Bluffs Select Board member and wastewater commissioner Gail Barmakian told The Times that the $105 million includes the amount that some people will need to pay for septic system upgrades, so it doesn’t reflect the total amount the town will need to pay.
Engineering firm GHD estimates that it could cost properties with an existing sewer connection $540 each year, and properties that need new sewer connections $2,230 while the town would pay $1.2 million annually over a 30-year span for the capital.
If Oak Bluffs enters the clean water trust, these annual estimates are reduced to $1 million for the town, $410 for properties with sewer connections, and $1,670 for properties with new sewer, all over 30 years.
How exactly the endeavor will be financed is still under discussion, according to Barmakian, but the plan is still progressing. As part of the wastewater management plan’s first phase, Oak Bluffs is upgrading the town’s wastewater treatment facility and the town landed a $4.3 million grant to cover a part of the $26 million borrowed for the improvements.
Barmakian said some of the costs and next steps, like sewer line extensions, need to be discussed further with engineers. The GHD consultants estimated that the facility’s upgrade may take up to three years to complete due to supply chain delays.
Additionally, the Oak Bluffs wastewater department is looking to receive approval during the upcoming annual town meeting for an additional $1.6 million to add several components back into the upgrade project which were initially removed due to cost concerns.
The GHD consultants told the select board recently that 85 percent of Oak Bluffs properties currently use on-site septic systems to dispose of wastewater. The consultants recommended using a mixture of nitrogen-reducing methods, like widening the inlet at Farm Pond to increase the flow out of the pond, setting up a reactive barrier to clean contaminated groundwater, and making on-site and cluster systems for nitrogen reduction.
The town will also have to pursue Intermunicipal agreements with neighboring towns as they look to jointly clean up watersheds. Lagoon Pond, for example, is shared by both Oak Bluffs and Tisbury, and contamination into the watershed comes from homeowners in both towns.
Oak Bluffs is the farthest along in the process, but other down-Island towns are also making progress.
Tisbury began a study for a comprehensive wastewater management plan in 2021. Robinson said Tisbury hasn’t set a final direction for itself, but the town is using an “adaptive management” approach in recognition that technologies, pond conditions, and costs are subject to change in the future.
“Sewering is expensive,” Robinson said, adding that various options are being explored like clustering and remote, miniature sewer systems.
Edgartown is also developing a 20-year comprehensive wastewater management plan. Ian Catlow from engineering consulting firm Tighe & Bond told Edgartown officials that the town’s CWMP is expected to be completed and submitted to the state for review by this summer, according to Edgartown Select Board minutes. Preliminary designs are in the works and are expected to cost $3.1 million. The town is also looking to borrow nearly $5 million to replace a long and critical sewer main.
The Times reached out to Catlow for comment on what the full implementation costs are expected to be over two decades, but it’s expected to be tens of millions of dollars.
It’s not just down-Island towns that are dealing with nitrogen mitigation. The Martha’s Vineyard Commission is developing an up-Island watershed management plan for Aquinnah, Chilmark, and West Tisbury. They are collecting input from the towns’ conservation commissions and health boards.
“Out in the rural towns, the sewers are not feasible,” she said, pointing out that the houses are farther apart from each other, which would lead to costlier installs and more piping. Options like I/A systems, cluster systems, and flushing out ponds are also being considered up-Island.
Chilmark board of health member Matt Poole told The Times that his town has so far received and concurred with the commission’s preliminary work for the plan, which has been going on since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. “It’s going to be a menu of options on how to respond,” he said. “This is not going to be a quick solution.” Poole added that a joint meeting among the up-Island towns’ boards to discuss the plan is likely in the future.
Mitigating excess nitrogen loads are necessary as the effects of climate change can increase the nutrient’s levels, according to Caseau. She explained that the Vineyard is getting more “bursts of rain” than before, preventing the ground from properly absorbing the water and leading more rainwater to flow into the ponds.
Droughts can also lower water levels. Lower water levels can prevent flushing out nutrients from ponds, which Caseau said was an issue on the Island last year. Additionally, drought can increase water temperatures, leading to more nitrogen and algae.
“That’s all going to have an impact,” she said, later adding, “The heat is exacerbating the nitrogen problem.”
A previous version of this story stated the tax credit to repair or replace a failed septic system was up to $6,000.
One thing that can help tremendously is eliminating laundry detergent. The O3 Pure system costs less than $300, generates ozone as a cleaning agent, and clothes are washed with cold water (another environmentally friendly consideration).
It’s easy to install: it just goes into the cold water connection of your washing machine.
I’ve used it for years and am impressed by it’s ability to clean the laundry without any pollution.
The ozone dissipates quickly so it leaves no environmental impact. These systems have been used in Europe for over 20 years and have had significant impact on household nitrogen pollution. They are also used as the preferred cleaning method in many laundry facilities including those that handle hospital laundry.
Look at the articals that talk about ozone breathed in. It appears that while doing a wash with this unit emitting ozone, and people neglecting to be out of the room for 30 minutes, could and does have health concerns.
Phosphate in laundry detergents was outlawed decades ago, and they never did contain nitrogen.
Ammonia, however, is extremely high in nitrogen: 82%
Our urine, too, is very high in nitrogen: 18% – continued below.
Sorry but I honestly don’t know what the connection is between climate change and the increase in nitrogen in our ponds. I thought the foremost contributor of nitrogen was the lawn sprays used on the estates surrounding the ponds . In other words, out of control growth.
I’m sure one of the regulars can fill me in.
Toni– read the part of the article where it explains the connection.
One of the things they don’t explain, so I will attempt to fill in
is that warmer water tends to contribute to algae blooms
and all sorts of other nasty things. Cooler water would mitigate this.
But I fully agree –climate change has nothing to do with the
increased amount of nitrogen –at least in the big view.
That’s all bad policy and
stupid people who could care less about the environment.
The foremost contributor of nitrogen is mammal waste.
Yes our urine is very high in nitrogen: 18%.
Title 5 septic systems enable most of this nitrogen to just drain into the groundwater, which then ends up in our coastal ponds, where it causes these devastating algae infestations, leading to truly disgusting conditions and widespread kill-offs.
Mass DEP (Department of Environmental Protection!) knew from the beginning (1995), that Title 5 would cause severe nitrogen pollution, and that this would cause great harm in our ponds.
That’s why they at the same time, 1995, started the testing program for I/A technologies capable of reducing that onsite nitrogen pollution.
However that program turned out to be extremely discouraging, requiring years of testing at a remote military site on Cape Cod, costing at minimum $100,000.
This is one of the reasons why these DEP-approved I/A technologies are so insanely expensive – $45,000+?!
The other reason is that they require big machines to dig big holes, which often requires removal of beloved trees and garden.
Consequently, after all these years, and many millions spent, almost all of our Title 5 systems are still causing immense nitrogen pollution.
It is a fact that, DEP has known since 1995, that Title 5 releases toxic amounts of nitrogen into our ponds, and has therefore been violating the Federal Clean Water Act law –
– and it is a fact that, in spite of this, DEP has nonetheless continued to force us to install Title 5 systems, at threat of $500/day fine for non-compliance! Please think about that for a moment.
Is there a lawyer in the house???
Recently, DEP finally admitted that, yes, some 80% of that nitrogen pollution does indeed come from these thousands of Title 5 septic systems. And now the DEP is requiring 75% reduction of this nitrogen within 5 years. Sounds good.
BUT there is huge problem: DEP is STILL forbidding any I/A tech not approved by DEP.
What we need now is a local testing program, administered under our boards of health. Under strict supervision, this would be just as effective and safe as testing off-island, and there would be no further delays, and it would cost 90% less, and therefore the cost of I/A technologies would be much more affordable than the DEP-approved ones.
We can start gently, perhaps limiting it to those I/A technologies that have already been proven to reduce nitrogen by more than 75%, but have not gone through the DEP process.
Some of those systems would cost only $15-20,000, compared with $40-50,000 for the DEP-approved systems.
And because no big machines are required, there is no loss of trees or gardens.
And they reduce the need for irrigation water.
Anybody else working on a proposal for a M.V. On-site Wastewater Management Authority?
It takes a village.
I have an idea. Why don’t we place a two percent tax on Vineyard homeowners, and use that money to make it easier for more people to live here?