##VIDEO ID:TtzWMD5SpzE## [Music] okay um it is 5:30 this is a joint meeting of the water quality management committee uh and the Board of Health we asked the Board of Health to meet with us so we can let them know what we've been looking at and working on uh hear a little bit more from them about where they're at with uh uh their regulations that impact uh the nitrogen reduction um I think it's probably appropriate just for procedural purposes I'm calling the meeting to order for the water quality management committee and I'm calling the meeting to order for the thank you and I don't know if this is working or not maybe right and I will take one minute to acknowledge there's many people in the audience tonight more so than usual um but I do believe we have at least two members of the select board here uh which is good um and then uh we have two members of the pond committee here as well and the rest of you are here as generally private citizens are representing certain groups and interests um with that what I'd like to do if I can is just sort of present a little bit of where this committee's at and where we're going I will go to the Lector and uh Kristen are do we have a couple of slides even have paper so um to the two members of the board of Select that are here uh the water quality management committee is very much aware that we're an advisory committee to the select board um we've spent a considerable amount of time over the last six or 6 months or longer looking at Watershed by Watershed for the nitrogen paired areas um what the sort of outline of a watershed plan might be um we are working towards a presentation to the select board probably February uh possibly early March where we will talk about what we're doing and provide an outline and recommendation on where to go with the Watershed planning um today I sent to the town manager's office a charging document because our original charging document from 2011 says that we're to work on helping with the comprehensive Wastewater management plan and alternative uh Technologies to see if there's a way to reduce areas to be sewered well clearly since that time with the Watershed uh plan and permit process developing what we're doing is much different than before so probably in the near future the select board we'll see a proposed updated charging document that we spent better part of our last meeting putting together sorry so just just to help everybody out um this is a map of falmouth's watersheds uh the red lines obviously represent present the corporate boundaries of Falmouth and mash P um and Bourne and as you can see there are multiple multiple watersheds there um this is now a more colorcoded map and what we've done here again for the benefit of everybody in tonight's discussion um is we've put numbers on there be representing buzzard Bay s representing the sound and we've numbered them um and just to run from the top to the bottom so we all know what we've got the m at Harbor Watershed is in an NSA ran Canal B2 is in an NSA fd's Cove is in an NSA wild Harbor aring Brook is not in an NSA West Falmouth Harbor is great simple is it Creek has no designation little cpis March has no designation um B9 is a direct discharge this we're moving now down onto um the bottom end of the Marine heading down to Woods Hole um B10 is quisset Harbor then as you come around to the other side um you pick up oyster Pond which has got a NSA designation Salt Pond does not um there is a small direct discharge uh S3 S4 is found with Inner Harbor which does have an NSA designation Little Pond Great Pond Green Pond bornes Pond and eill pond M Bay have that NSA designation the area in red here I guess that's red red maroon whatever that is so those are the NSA um designated watersheds question came up I think uh in the past how many of the pawns are in the NSA area so to the extent that Watershed planting puts together things having to do what homeowners can and can't do in the water sheds whether it's an advanced treatment system they get on a sewer at least 67 of the 78 ponds in town are within nitrogen sensitive areas this last slide is sort of where we've gotten to a little bit this is zoomed out a little bit so you can see all of uh the Woods Hole end of the Marine um again those areas are not in an NSA designated area the map shows the existing sewer surface areas uh I guess that's the I guess that color is pink um the pl sewer area on here represents the areas that um the Tasser area um where we're sort of marching forward already and then based upon the comprehensive Wastewater management plan adopted 14 15 years ago now4 it was a draft one so it's been out for 10 or 10 or 12 years I think yeah yeah 2012 and and so then there's some proposed sewer areas and then the area in light blue I hope you can distinguish that as this committee's consult technical uh consultant and the board looked at things we identified the extent to which if we use 10 milligrams per liter for uh performance of an advanced treatment system the extent to which if nothing else gets modified or changed through the Watershed planting process sort of if you will the maximum extent to which we would have to designate areas that alternative systems go into um as you can see there's a couple of watersheds where we identifi that virtually every property in that Watershed would have to either be on a sewer or um have an advanced treatment system um the last thing I've got here um to the extent that people want to as we talk about things move back and forth between any of the maps or whatnot I hand it out to all of the folks sitting here representing the two boards hard copy of this um so this is a little bit difficult to absorb immediately but we're in 2025 right now at the start there's roughly a 7-year period to develop submit and to be issue a watershed permit from the D we did apply for a notice of intent and those were accepted and we identified that we would do four different groups of watershed plans one in 2027 one in 2028 one in 2029 and one in 2030 part of that that is to break up uh the work of preparing but more importantly since once a watershed plan is accepted by the D it starts a clock of which every five years you have to do a progress report that's the bottom line down there which talks about annual water quality monitoring a progress report and to the extent that we don't make the progress in the plan that we hope to have we have to come back with how we're going to get back on track with that plan so if you think about this if we did all of the Watershed permits in one year applications for them there'd be an awful lot of work every five years to gather all that information for each Watershed so we've spread it out to make it a little bit more manageable in terms of gathering the information getting the data and and and submitting it I won't be around in 2050 um but that that is if you go to the 2030 Watershed permit group quet Harbor uh Manet Harbor wild Harbor you know the the group out there at the 2030 point you know that that 20 years to implement the Watershed permit plan takes you out to the year 2050 so this is a this is a long uh long timeline however one of the reasons to sit down with the Board of Health and I I thank you for agreeing to to do this with our board is as as this board marches forward and make some suggestions and recommendations to the select board one of the key things is going to be how as we develop Watershed plans do we implement the areas in which Advanced treatment is going to be needed you know um does that go by through the Board of Health who has the authority to issue things that are from public health does that go as an informational element to town meeting um we're we're not fixed on that and that uh just to give you a hint when we come in before the select board will be probably the item that we are looking to to hear from you and get feedback if you want to do planning overlay districts or or or how you want to go about doing that over the time and this this board I think is committed to helping with whatever path we decide to do do um to be ready to say that as we put our plans in this is how we're going to implement it but but a big portion of tonight I hope is a conversation we have seen um Jed I think you put together four or five uh versions of the regulation that the Board of Health has been looking at add the home petition i i how do you refer to it uh the 15 paragraphs that you home Ru home Ru it's home R home Ru you guys have been wrestling with and are I think making excellent progress towards a home rule petition that would apply to certain specific um situations from the time you decide to implement that home rule regulation until we get to the point where Watershed plans are accepted by the DP and we take the the bigger package to the town okay all um any questions from any board either one of the boards on what what we've done so far George yeah uh the designation no designation versus no NSA no NSA it's been determined that it is not a sensitive area or that it just hasn't been looked at or it's not an official NSA by D regulation so hering Brook the state has indicated that it's impaired the town did a study on Herring Brook and indicated that it wasn't impaired so there's some disagreement between whatever the state did in the past and now um but there is no tmdl and so therefore it's not an NSA and so I I did distinguish that from the ones where there's no designation and there's no indication from this at any level on the state that they're impaired or not so particularly as you get down in into Woods Hole you know those are those watersheds are going out to to the ocean the bay okay did I answer your question yes what the good doctor I didn't understand your answer that is to say anything that says no designation just means there's no disagreement about the designation whereas not an NSA mean is the town and the state disagree I I just want to be real specific about those because I don't on on hering Brook I I wouldn't characterize it that the town and the state disagree okay the state at one point indicated that Herring Brook was impaired when the town um I can't moment I can't remember the impetus for this but there was a question on hering Brook and so the town contracted with um in essence some of the people that did the MEP reports to evaluate hering Brook uh relative to the fact that beds 14 and 15 uh discharge through Crocker Pond and down towards Herring Brook and whether or not there were issues isues there or not and the result of that report was that relative to the amount of nitrogen that was going to be developed at beds at those beds that it was not not going to be an issue for the marsh because the marsh had capacity for nitrogen so I I would say we've done the town's done additional evaluation uh beyond what was done by the state uh specific to um some night some additional nitrogen loading in that area and and to further answer uh Dr George's uh question George I know but there's another George so what am I gonna do um so no designation indicates that it does not discharge the groundwater does not discharge into an enclosed Estuary but instead directly to sound or or uh uh bay I would say for great cisit Creek and little cisit Marsh that's not entirely that's true good description of those two locations but for example if you go down to oyster Pond or I'm just going to scroll down here again to help delineate that you know these areas are all draining not to a a creek or an estuary but are draining to the sound or or or Buzzards Bay directly yeah okay and the CPO isit simply because they're more Marsh than Estuary or what yeah yeah I I would presume that's what it is that again I I can't speak to back when the M study was originally set up and done how they eventually chose which ones were quote estuaries and would fall under their review um but having sat through your meeting on Monday night a week ago um thought this graphic would be helpful and by putting some numbers to the different watersheds as you're considering what you're looking at you you know you can wrestle with whether you want it to be for the entire town I guess i' I've jumped ahead here a little bit perhaps uh maybe Jed or some once somebody could you know walk through what you've got for regulation and what what what you've what you're considering for different things yeah so the the Board of Health has over the last few years has been gradually uh increasing the level of regulation on IA systems uh years ago when I first came to the board we required collection of data but there was no um real requirement that an IIA system meet the mandated quote mandated um nitrogen levels in the affluent there was a period of time when IAS were being improved approved and data needed to be collected to help um with Improvement of the technology at this point there are technologies that can get quite low nitrogen levels 10 11 12 milligrams per liter total nitrogen um we're making efforts to uh more strictly require that IIA systems meet the the designated levels when they're permitted um and what we're discussing right now are the possibility of updating our local regulation to require installation of IA systems with new construction or with major renovation of of homes with the idea being that we have a lot of nitrogen in the environment now we know it's going to be very expensive and difficult to remediate um making the problem worse over the next 30 years on Steve's timeline here out to 2050 will only make the the problem more difficult to remediate so if we can reduce the amount of nitrogen the new nitrogen that's going into the watersheds through this path that's the um that's the effort uh Jed do you want to do you want to talk about some of the decision points that are reflected in the in the scenarios that you've written up right so initially we leaned on um the sort of the version one which is I hope for you um was is leaning on the um definitions in um Title 5 which is 310 cmr1 15 um to give it its full name um which designates nitrogen sensitive areas uh which of course is you what you've just described um and uh gives a map lookup for individual addresses um and uh that uh the revisions from that were prated in 2023 also Incorporated uh the requirement to incorporate best available nitrogen reducing technology um which will uh at present we believe will meet the 10 millgram per liter um uh level that's that's in the modeling right now um in fact there's reasonable data to suggest it's actually slightly better than that but um and we uh focused it specifically on or nitrogen and sensitive areas to follow Title 5 got um and then we also um added to follow the the um a requir reement for uh substantial buildings undergoing substantial Improvement in nitrogen sensitive areas we we added in the requirement to um incorporate an IIA into the into the system um then there was initial additional discussion um to add nitrogen impaired Weds as well as nitrogen sensitive with the recognition that by allowing Contin new construction in in the nitrogen impaired area there progress it will likely progress towards a nitrogen sensitive area um and that was version two in your packet version three um uh essentially extracts expands it to all of thma with the recognition is if you look at this map um the vast majority of falls into um a an actual nitrogen sensitive formal nitrogen sensitive area and most likely nitrogen impaired area um recognizing that um uh the cisit great cicit little cicit marshes um simply haven't been evaluated um for nitrogen um sensitivity for whatever reason um and then the last one um adds in a uh essentially a a credit for um installation of the best available nitrogen reducing technology um recognizing that the life of a system is about 30 years we think um and uh not requiring someone to connect to the Sewer if they have already in because of this regulation installed um an IIA system uh IM not requiring them immediately giving them some some period of time I put in 15 years because that's the time that some other um towns have have established so that's sort of the the summary of the differences on these um I think the main thing is the difference between putting it into a nitrogen requiring it only in a nitrogen sensitive area and recognizing that most of fam contributes to the nitrogen sensitive areas uh and uh um that it's makes the broadest sense to think of it in that context or at least certainly discuss it in that context does that satis is that in accordance with the board feels yeah go ahead George well I'd just like to add that the biggest challenge to the Board of Health is that as the town proceeds in deciding where sewer will be uh and the uncertainties that go with that and some of the certainties that do go with that we're trying to figure out what the best and most Equitable way to introduce this is because if we require an IA system in an area that all of a sudden because of a new development in the Wastewater management plan I know that there's talk of the outfall and what the capacity would be there let me shift things even very quickly we're trying to decide what the best approach is and some areas there'll be as we discussed and undoubtedly some areas where there'll be a requirement to put in an i system at new construction uh during repairs that's typically a time when somebody is really hard up against it they just need to get the waste water into the ground or away so we've discussed things like we do now is putting on the plan an accommodation for that so that it's engine neared and ready to go the standard system could be put in and then we're discussing at what trigger would that have to be pulled for instance at a real estate transfer in an area where we didn't make them do it when uh they were hard up against it and a repair they only needed to get that repair done uh but we realize that that may sit in a very nitrogen sensitive era that's not going to be sewered so so we need to decide what triggers would cause that to be put in real estate transfers seem to be uh a time when that should happen or a sunset Clause uh so we're set up uh up against a lot of uncertainty as to how hard to push and how fast so if you sense from the board that we're not exactly screaming forward and saying everybody put these things in now it's somewhere between that and what is reasonable what is equable and what won't break the bank when it shouldn't be broken so so in in the version four which is in front of me which I think is where you work to there is nothing specific in here that says if a system fails that could be at the time of real estate transfer an inspection gets done and it doesn't pass or whatever that they have to upgrade you haven't you haven't yet Incorporated that wording in here correct that's correct but you're considering it yes okay the second one uh that I would note and coming on is on under item four uh the fact that you you will not be required to connect to a sewer service area I don't think you have to put it into your regulation but I think it needs to be understood that once a sewer service area is def find and the town proceeds forward the town winds up assessing betterments against all properties for their their their proportion of that sewer so homeowners need to understand as as they exercise the option of putting in best available because of your regulation about system upgrades or whatever that they're still not they're still going to have to pay the benit when it shows up okay correct that's what we assume that's the law as it is now yeah I just I just we we're filming this and other people are going to see it and what not yeah and what we would have to do if you while through the chair what we would have to do is uh Grant a variance because most of the permits that are issued you for best available technology indicate that uh you have to hook up when sewer becomes available right becomes available of course is when it's front and in front of your house so there would have to be a Varian and extended timeline we would have to discuss with the uh and probably in context of your Wastewater management plan what the allowances would be that would forestall that immediate hookup and you know also of course we have to talk to folks who are putting the sewer in because I I'm sure the econom ICS of the sewer depend on the betterment I'm not so sure how the economics work for connections because connections provide Revenue also okay if I I usually allow people on my board to you know go down the line with comments they might have and then I'm usually willing to open it up to the public if they have comments so talking to where we're at with a regulation you're looking at and how it fits together uh can let start at your end uh I don't have you know have any substantial thoughts beyond what you're already doing I mean I think you're going in the right direction we've had this power in Title 5 for a long time and I been I'm glad to see it's finally being used I guess that's what I would say Ed I I think it's outstanding the work you've done um I think version four kind of closes it and brings in everything including the eventual availability of a sewer which the only thing that's in the drawing board and approaching time for funding is the task of expansion beyond that we're probably 15 years down the road at best before we're ready to sewer another area and go for funding because you know there is Extreme Capital costs that have to to be raised to fund additional sewering so task is going to happen assuming it passes through town meeting and the general electorate but then to get to the next phase we're probably 15 years away from a shovel in the ground at the earliest and it dependent too upon the outfall pipe and available capacity for the discharge so it's a it's a long Horizon and I think your your 15-year Clause really covers that very well I had a concern in my reading of this prior to the meeting about the not having failed systems in this trigger and you've explained that quite well that yeah people are really under that gun if A System's failed and they got to repair it otherwise you know go down the street to a hotel to use facilities so I think that makes sense that that answered my concern quite well um I I like it um you've covered the increase in flow from substantial Improvement so um good job Steve um thank you for making sure there's always the fire behind us um but I want to clarify one thing I know that anything we propos has to be approved by the select board and town meeting and possibly Town voters but am am I correct that you can do things because you're a regulatory board even if no one else likes the idea well we have to have public hearings but do you have to listen to them if they're reasonable I I think there's the first and foremost trigger as I recall from sitting on the board of health was it has to relate to Public Health and Title Five is very clearly public health of the envir public health uh regulation so any modification or home rule relative to Title 5 I think is covered it is covered it is absolutely true that a Board of Health after two public hearings can pass regulation despite any objection we usually don't do that we listen to it it gets modified and in this case it's far-reaching it's really far-reaching so uh it's kind of new ground we'd love a boat of confidence Town through town meeting to say hey go for it but as with and John Waterbury knows during the smoking War as we call them we uh had uh aside from Veil threats and actual threats we had to go against public opinion and there was a lot of people and there was more more heat than light in that room that night uh this is going to be something that costs a lot of money uh for folks and we would like to see as a board some support from the town um some go ahead yeah that that's the way we have to go but also and I'm sure your board has thought about this is the equity piece of it I mean somebody putting in an Innovative alternative septic system for the public good is going to Bear the whole cost whereas once the sewer goes in the public bears that cost so at some point somebody has to look at the financial piece of this of folks who put in I systems at a pretty decent expense uh for the public good very similar to some sort of subsidy somewhat like the sewer so if I if I can just I'm going to ask you all to hold the subsidy conversation a little bit cuz I have another slide that I want to bring in here to talk a little bit about costs and some monies and whatnot so let's I was going to go into but George just said 80% of what I was going to say next if you hadn't said it that I think we have to solve that financial plan uh before you create a separate class of people who haven't paid anything and then we have to create a new class that we have to pay and I think you you sounds like you understand that um the other suggestion I have is more detailed on the threshold for renovations Falmouth prop I researched this today Falmouth properties range from 400,000 to 24 million the average is 900,000 um amazing you would not if you we were asked before whether we should use whether we thought you should use the assess value or an apprais value and I think we all agreed on assess value but today I realized there's a third possibility which is a fixed absolute number which you can pick but let's for purpose of discussion say 400,000 or 450,000 half of the average value that way if you don't do that the person in the $10 million house can install an indoor swimming pool and four bathrooms before he gets to the half price point whereas the poor guy hits it right away at 200,000 if you use a fixed absolute value you solve that problem plus you push it you pick up a few extra users who can a really afford it and B live close to the water I like that a lot yeah I think it's simp and you can have all kinds of obvious things for adjusting it for inflation as the time goes by that's all I want that's brilliant that's what you pay me for I know I'm going to have to get another cup of coffee this week huh um John um I had a couple of suggestions for Jed uh if you look at what the variance triggers are that you've got you said if within five years there was going to be I think it makes a lot more sense to say that when a a sewer service area is designed and has been approved and funded yeah and the other thing is when we've talked about the major reconstruction John's writing let make sure make sure he gets it down before you you go next okay sorry the other the other thing I would suggest is that when you describe dve uh 50% a major reconstruction that you add at the end uh if there is an additional building permit issued within three years uh of that it automatically triggers the IIA going in that's language and cumulative yeah you don't do a bunch of $50,000 yeah divisions you know break break up the work into multiple parts to get underneath it um I stole that this paragraph actually from somewhere else in in the F town code I can't remember exactly where so so this leans on the 12 month a 12 it's a 12 month is I just cut and paste so we can we're talking about three years we can do a threeyear cumulative period that's fine that's that's easy fixed um so so um er going back to Steve's Steven's connection uh in terms of a sort of a a lower threshold trigger than than say 12 million um how about something to the effect of um 50% of the median sale value in the year um during the year in which the permit is requested I want to know how much variance there was in that I mean you could that I just don't know it it should be the previous year because previous year previous yeah I mean there's yeah but it will skew if a $24 million house sells one year but what's wrong with true picking your number and adjusting it as you go along because I don't want to have I don't want to I do don't want in a regulation something that we have to adjust every year I want it to be some Auto adjusting because otherwise um yeah it and I don't want to like index it to inflation or whatever else because then which inflation number do you use and I'm I'm going to suggest it we made we'll do some work we made a comment I don't don't know that we need to word Smith it right now but is I'm get that that idea has got some Merit we'll do some research and figure out what a good good index number is George are you you you want to comment no okay John John's still up no I'm done okay Tom ah the advantages are going last most of the big targets have been beat up but I I've got a couple of fine things here first of all it says any structure undergoing substantial Improvement I think it should say any residential structure because we have barns we have boat houses and if you say any structure then people are going to be scurrying to try to figure out right it should be residential what about commercial no commcial I want our commercial right I'd like to take a moment here to point out to the Board of Health that um Tom is our structure it could be anything without in a $400,000 Barn you can probably afford an i oh I'm it's not a matter of affordability yeah but it's but it's any structure undergoing substantial Improvement shall incorporate in a subsurface seage Disposal system if they don't have a subsurface Su if they don't have a septic system they don't need to use we don't it does it's just not relevant so you could you could say something like any structure that requires disposal of waste water yeah something along that line want primary structure now let's go a little bit farther into the weeds the D uses impaired to refer to estuaries and uses sensitive to refer to Weds and I think the need to obviously an NSA is a watershed that drains into an impaired estuary but they seem to get crossed over back and forth when we have our discussions because the Watershed isn't impaired it's the receiving body of water that's impaired pick up on that and they use the term sensitive to apply water sheds that drain into a body of water that has a that has a limit on nitrogen inputs so and and I it may be a moving Target but I've gone back and read through what I could of the DP regulations and stuff and they seem to refer to estuaries as impaired and watersheds as sensitive we can add those to the definitions um Kevin if I if I can um what do you think your the board of Health's timetable is you you you talked about trying to get your wording down then holding a public hearing and then implementing that do you see that happening over a two-month period sorry two two public hearings and yeah I think that's a reasonable time frame to consider unless we run into any serious problems with this this decision you know if um if anybody identifies I'm not not going to hold you do but it sounds like sometime in April Maybe earlier I would suggest yeah about you know not not next fall correct yeah I have a question on this since we're um we have it open if for I was going to suggest we do I like Steve's idea why don't we go down the line start with Amy that's all right Jed that's fine yeah um well we definitely have a lot to consider I guess my general question for water quality is is is everybody leaning to toward version 4 at that point I mean we we've had serious discussions amongst ourselves between nitrogen sensitive areas and impaired water bodies that's been a Hot Topic um and then to expand out to all of fouth that's another big step that will certainly draw a lot of public attention is that where every I like number four that's one I as you see I SP the time on well and that's what we've had the most comments on tonight so I just want to make sure everyone's capturing that particular critical element of version four as opposed to the earlier I mainly noticed that version four had to change the 5 years to the 15 years which I thought was essential in fact if anything I thought it should go to 30 since you just said the lifetime of 30 um and I have to admit I didn't notice the other differences yeah it' be worth summarizing the differences because it's an important question what the water quality management committee Jed do you have it all in your head can you say what the differences are between version one and version four I there's a key yeah the key it's up at the top actually yeah introduced by there's so version one is is using the nitrogen sensitive areas is defined in 310 CMR 5 5.2 and4 to be precise um then we uh then uh I kind of we waffled and said nitrogen paired um and in version two in version two to expand it uh to still areas that have been intended to areas that have been um at some point or another identified or or not as as impacted and we'd have to we we might have to Define that yes uh version three uh and version version three is expanding it recognizing that all of fouth is in fact nitrogen sensitive uh and uh n in one way or another um and version four was adding um uh a a credit for the installation of the best available nitrogen reducing technology um I want to note that number three that item three is um in fact a a delay allows for a delay right of of installation um if a sewer is going to go if we know a sewer is going by um just so that somebody's not putting some you know as as George has pointed out if somebody's not burying a car in their backyard and then abandoning it 5 years later have have you estimated the annual rate for the four different scenarios the number of that would wind up being required um I don't know I'll actually this is a question for our health agent as to approximately how many systems he approves every year and how many new ones this was actually going to be a question I had for which one brand new homes I would say usually now subdivision Construction don't have a lot of new slots but when you add the bedroom increase I would say somewhere around 100 to 15 oh if it was all of found the full time I'm talking okay so my 150 is based on the new bedrooms adding flow okay new construction all of Falmouth all of Falmouth how many building permits do I look at in a year will there be an additional bedroom or something that would increase flow I sign on about 600 to 650 building permits a year that I look at I would say a third a quart to a third the 650 would be something that would meet the new construction definition as far as the substantial I usually don't look at what the cost of the project is so I don't know exactly because I don't I can care less what the cost of the project I need to know whether it's going to be the septic that's there the septic they propose equals what's going to occur in the building permit or if there's any encroachments it's the main reason why I'm looking at building permits so I can tell you maybe a quarter to a third of the building permits that get you be meting the new construction definition so 150 to 200 if it was all of fouth it was all of fouth it's just I don't have a good number in my hand about the sub a rough idea it's not not not less than 50 it's it's not less than 50 it's not more than 200 so work number will be then if you go if you cut that down to only the question a the impaired areas and question B the nsas what do you get well then take it take 15 we have 21,000 homes is 15,000 in the watered what's that percent three quarters so so take the number I just gave you cut it by three and that's it's just the Kevin you had suggested you would keep going down the board sort of in order to get comments I just want to jump in here momentarily no no you don't have to be quiet the question about all versus nitrogen sensitive watersheds again we are an Advisory Board to the selectman our our focus is currently on the nitrogen sensitive areas and this Watershed planning Watershed permitting process so I don't know that we as a committee can say all is the best answer or all should not be done but I think from the Board of Health standpoint as you're looking at this I don't think at least I'm not challenging your reasoning for saying all how's that I'm I'm not I'm not sitting here saying that but I I just want this board to be careful that before we turn around and say we are all we are all in favor of all because we don't have the power to say that okay we could we could have our opinion but but but it's not not an official position you can raise his hand first uh a couple of thoughts on on version four first is this issue item three I agree there's some problems there uh because it's intended to protect someone who is in a future service area not one that's been approved and funded at the same time what's how do we know when five years is before right it's going to happen uh there's a third aspect to that regardless of how good these systems are they're probably only half as good at best as being sewered so if too many of the uh homes in these areas that are designated for sewering hook up uh put in these dite systems the uh loading calculation actually might be off so we got to be a little careful about that um with respect to all of fouth I think part of the rationale that we had was in defining the Geo boundaries was that that's a defensible argument you know if you're in an area that's contributing to an impaired Estuary contributing nitrogen to an impaired Estuary there's a legal justification for saying you need to improve your wastewater treatment if you're not I'm just imagining some homeowner saying why do I have to do this I'm going to get a lawyer and what would the state how would the state come down on that that's you know what does Title 5 actually Empower you to do with respect to nitrogen limitation in an area where the home is not contributing to a nitrogen impaired system right and and this is some of what we talked about at our our last meeting and the and the difference between the water quality management committee charge which is to identify plans that will handle these areas designated by the state whereas we're the fouth Board of Health and our mandate is to protect health and environment right and the environment very much is and can be impaired by excessive nitrogen loading even if MEP didn't choose to develop uh a tmdl for a particular area um so it's that doesn't bind us whatever MEP did and and the state designations we're we're here to protect the environment and and health it's a different did you have something to add to that Scott well once you come up with a final draft the Town Council as well yeah I'd be interested in town councils we haven't Part Town Council because we've kind of done quite a bit of changes on every meeting I don't need her to go around on something sort of then you know town coun as well cuz if if you were making direct discharge into Buzzard's Bay for example or Vineyard sound where the outfall is uh you know and I was a an angry homeowner got a good attorney I I I just feel like it might be hard to defend that it would be have we heard from everybody on your so so so um one of the triggers that we've talked about and is not in any of these versions is the requirement for an IA to be installed upon property transfer um and this is something that it did come up in an ear it you know in if there is a failed system or if a or perhaps if a if a house is in an area defined by the Geo boundaries in which an IA would eventually be re required and the the the we haven't included this yet and it's something that we need to talk about and part of this is that um I mean we're talking about having been to some of these meetings um the requirement for an installation of something on the order of 5,000 IIA systems that's a lot of digging um and and in in to to even do it over the course of 20 years is still a lot of digging we're digging these things up in some cases on a sort of semi-regular basis but um spreading it out by starting now rather than in however many years these things will actually start to take effect might be something to consider um and I just um uh uh something to perhaps ask for people's opinions on but um we can continue discussing this so I don't know if anybody an opinion on this but you want to recognize just waiting my turn go ahead George um looking at all of the regulations and we have not had a vote on this or anything at a meeting but uh I would agree with Ken on this very rarely I do but let King uh but there are areas where uh you could not demonstrate a nitrogen loading to the detriment to the environment in thas and in any regulation that I've ever had anything to do with I always in the back of my mind come up with the those Dreadful words the board can't be arbitrary and capricious so when D passed and outlin the nitrogen sensitive areas I thought finally we have a boundary that is defensible and we don't even have to defend it they defend it uh and so the only thing I struggle with is where in town I don't think it should be the whole town I think it should be in areas where we can demonstrate that there will be an impact by the nitrogen the nitrogen sensitive areas are certainly a start on that there are areas that are not impacted now that may be we at buildout or excess of building be impacted I don't know how we're going to define those I you know you might look at the state list for impaired Waters and you might say okay I'll go there I'll go nsas and there and if there was another credible uh sort of designation by somebody who did the study and it was sanctioned by a government organization that I can point the finger at cuz I love to point fingers back at somebody else uh I would say yeah we could use that as a boundary so I mean my leaning is toward having something so defensible that I don't care bring on the lawyer there's the designation here's how it was arrived at the board of health and due diligence is protecting that particular impacted water or could be impaired water uh and that's where I'm go I go with it I think that it's very good that we at least again I go back to the repair situation when somebody's hard up against it and a repair you say okay we won't make you do it now but you will design it in now and when you reach that point where you giving up the ghost or your property or both then it's going to happen so uh that's sort of where I'm at um I couple things uh first uh Steve I know you want to put off talking about the money but I don't think we can talk about any of this without talking about the money up front because if we keep if we want to come up with a fair system of paying for all of this the outflow pipe the sewers the septic system system for the community if we wait until people know which category they're in a and this is going to have to go to I don't know you all know more about town government than I do um this bottle knows more about town government regulations than I do it's going to have to go to town meeting I guess or at least to the select board lots of groups if everybody especially if it goes to town meeting or to a vote of the citizens if they already know which group they're in it's very hard for them to then make a decision about fairness so very famous um John RS famous ethics political ethics guy of the 20th century that these kinds of decisions would should be made with a veil of ignorance about which group you're in so I think we need to solve the fairness an equity of how it's going to be paid for while nobody knows and unfortunately a lot of people are going to think they know which group they're in and they should vote on the fair system before they know as much as we can and we also can't wait for this 20year timeline because one of the things the more experience George has brings up often is we need to figure out what we're going to do in the meantime what are we going to tell the person who comes with a prop with a proposal to the Board of Health next Monday and how is that going to square with somebody who comes to the Board of Health in five years and what about the person the family who came two years ago we can't keep changing the rules but I don't think we can also just say we're going to be Bound by the for sewage the 7030 split that has been generally done in town from what I understand maybe that's good way and maybe it isn't but I don't think there's anything more important than figuring out the equity of the money bit to my mind it should be divided up amongst the entire Community whether you're putting in a sewer or Advanced IIA I understand that state laws or regulations would need to be changed for us to uh for the community to subsidize somebody putting in an IIA system on their property if that needs to be get done then we should have our state representatives in here to help us figure out how to do that I don't think there's anything the difference between between those these four plans is important but compared to the equity issue I think they're small potatoes good points we'll work on we'll get through the sort of the what what do you get what's your regulation then I'm going to get up here and talk a little bit about equity and financing okay okay and the other thing in terms of these four things I agree with George and Ken if if you could back up your maps to the ones that showed there were a few areas I guess because they essentially discharge into either um and also are we pretty certain we don't have to worry about the ocean we always think we don't have to worry about the ocean until we say oh rats we should have worried about the ocean and also phosphates else that's a lot of good yeah anything else so let me commin of emerging concern I think we should lower the raise the mean temperature month I'm going to try to answer one or two of your questions fairly quickly um phosphorus is is is primarily an issue for the pawns um we have for formed a pal committee we're not trying to work at odds with them um but that's why I sort of covered how many of these areas are are in and how many are out so we can see how much of the overlap there is secondly um we are well into the outfall evaluation science work and everything else and I will tell you that everybody is very very aware of what we're doing um there's been an ongoing program of sampling the Wastewater effluence as well as sampling in the sound and comparing all of those things for something called an anti-degradation policy that's an ongoing exercise um we've had a study done by the um USGS as to whether or not an outfall impacts the water supply um so we've got several of those that are evolving and coming out you can always get a different answer but right now from everything that that um I've been seeing Amy is gracious enough to allow me to participate in a certain outfall meeting she has with the town's consultant on this we're not we're not getting to the point of going the oh my okay I'm just just I just want to cover that if you got that concern and you raised it that that wasn't actually what I meant what I meant was the whole ocean we never thought we could fill it with plastic and we have I I have no idea I would like to I would like to say that alth is not going to take on the whole ocean well it's a good point let's so I'm going I'm going to backtrack a little bit if I can where I got to go go this way so um just to help you I'm going to walk through these Maps again because you're asking a good question this is the map basically the state put out of watersheds and I put the town boundaries on it um I I'm going to modify that this is is a little bit of a of an expanded map this map here doesn't go all the way down to to to to Woods Hole this is the one with the nsas on them and I tried to help out by putting some numbering so as you guys look at what you want whether you want to do all or whatever you you're you're welcome to use this map as you see fit so for example B6 and B7 B7 and B8 are great and little sip was it you may decide you want to include include them you know and and not not necessarily cover um the ones that we haven't put a number on which are all down in Woods Hole or B9 for example okay um B9 is a direct discharge does doesn't discharge to a pawn uh or it doesn't discharge to a small stream or an estuary the the groundwater flow is down and out to Buzzard's Bay so to the extent you guys want to say it's all or modify a little bit this may may be of some help to you okay well I think it's might be my turn and I'll go really really quick I'll just say that George your point about what is legally defensible is really a strong one the same time I think it was you at our last meeting that mentioned well some of these water bodies might not be impaired or you know in bad trouble now but if we don't do something to reduce uh nitrogen loaning during bill build out they will be in 20 years or so so we have that problem as well um and then building on um Ken's comment about a sewed house being at least twice as good as a a house with uh IA system on it in terms of nitrogen loading I think we just clearly want to sewer a lot more than we want to put in IAS the third point being that at some point as we peace meal add more and more IAS we're getting WS the the going to get towards the point where we need an entity that will manage all of these systems as it is right now and for the the foreseeable future they're individual small wastewater treatment plants and um just having them put in isn't good enough we have to have them well maintained and we have to know that they're wellmaintained so more suing less IAS I would I would say that the water quality management committee was very aware of a couple of items that need to be worked through and resolved you know the financing obviously how do we how how can we or how should we pay for things and then secondly um you know we had a presentation from uh the tech center group on a managed entity how that might look we've also had conversations should the town standardize um what type of systems they would like should the town be buying those systems and then subsidizing a portion of the cost or all of the cost for those elements so we we don't we don't have we don't have a a firm recommendation yet but we are working our way through how those things uh function and and and react okay um this would be the moment since everybody's had a chance to talk onto the regulation component of it I actually have a question I I'm an observation on a question if I might on this I want to note to to the water quality management Committee in particular that portions of of the some of these watersheds particularly in B8 um are already required under state regulations and our regulations to have an IA system installed as a water resource Drinking Water Resource protection zone so um there's a number of those uh areas that are already required to have IAS and have historical IAS installed in them so I maybe you know something I don't know um B8 which is uh fundamentally the uh B8 that B8 is where that is the the resource um the town's drinking water supply okay right so so um it's not a zone two okay part of it is right no it's it's it's actually a S1 a surface water supply one and there's a very small uh area that's defined around the rim of that the town didn't put in um overlay districts a long time ago and that's what you basically you can find a map that has the same shape as that that B8 from a long time ago done by uh Mr kerfoot okay um but it's a town regulation and it requires a subdivision with more than five homes Five lots to put in uh Advanced treatment not every not every location and if you have a 40b it does not apply okay so we we we we've been through this battle on um things that went in in the ba8 area Okay um so I if if if you've got a different regulation that says everybody has to it's no you're right no it's ours is only Zone twos only Zone supp well the Zone Twos for public but the town put put um Watershed overlay districts in they're in the planning document um but they they refer to subdivisions with more than five Lots in them okay right right if everybody's had the comment from the board oh can I make one more technical suggestion um in the regulations that you're planning you say you're going to use the best available Technologies of which there are four uh from the D list um two of those that we particularly interested in the nitrex has a an approval letter that it must meet 10 milligrams per liter the Nitro system has an approval letter for 11 uh milligrams per liter I would suggest that you say for the purposes of this regulation that the systems that are installed must meet 10 milligrams per liter and maintain that throughout their lifetime why not say 11 and get some competition 10 is better then there's only one that's irre it's irregardless of what their letter says we're saying for our purposes they must meet they must meet 10 yeah I get it Steve Steve there's some precedent for this CU previously the Board of Health turned around and said that alternative systems IA systems shall meet a certain number 12 um which was a lower number than a number of systems approved by the state and various vendors then modifi their systems to make sure that they meet the town's value so what standard though what where do we get the performance evaluation from you mean where how do we validate it verify yeah you get data from the the providers have to submit the data as do the owners well my system performs it too well that's fine good you're the man better nameing that doesn't seem that seems like asking the fox uh what is CH the the providers are licensed by the state the grade four operators and you know at some point you have to trust a grade four operator or an operator to submit data it's almost not quite perjury but it's pretty darn close fraud okay uh so I mean where do you start how much do you audit and I think uh responsible management entity that was discussed would have some audit procedure for a certain percentage of the systems but that's retrospective and what this is about is we're telling Frank and Sue who are putting in a new system we to pick from a list not but we may not have if we don't go by the either the manufacturer or the state or somebody we can't say it's got to M oh I'm going to say it's going to maintain and then what if it doesn't yeah John is suggesting that that is what you include in the regulation I think is what you're saying so if somebody gets a system that is not on the list that's approved for that but they are supposed to get it then that person selling that system they're going to go and say hey can you reach 12 CU or 10 or whatever the number is and if they say no we're only approved to 19 then they're going to go to the next one on the list that more or less guarantees it I'm I'm going to try to cut this conversation bring it to I I will say this in the revised regulations that came out that we're all living with they talk about best available control technology with the target of 10 not 11 not 12 not 13 all the work this committee has done has been on the presumption that the system designers providers and whatnot are aware that 10 is the goal that has to be reached over time and that therefore we didn't model it 9 or 12 or 15 for advanced systems we modeled at 10 so I would Advocate 10 okay thank you um this is a procedural item I need to cover um we usually only meet for two hours so we've got about another 45 minutes to cover what we want to cover uh before I ask for a motion to adjourn for at least the water quality management committee um Bo Al is welcome to stay here all night so I would like to give an opportunity if if the board members have covered what they need to cover to let folks in the audience ask questions and I would say that your questions have to be very specific or comments very specific to the proposed regulation not the whole big universe of everything that we're looking at so not all the oceans is it Vineyard sound or the anet sound Tom have we have we answered that yet we'll get there later okay cor and some of us work on lots of the oceans um thank you Mr afy I want to thank the water quality committee and the Board of Health for having this really critical discussion um uh Corin Peterson from the Buzzards Bay Coalition thing I came up with On The Board of Health discussion that yes sewering is the most effective and efficient way to deal with nitrogen to the extent that the town can optimize sewering across town it needs to so long as they're discharging it in an appropriate location hopefully through an outfall into the sound um Coalition is very much in support of that scenario and uh will'll do what we need to do to help and support the town in that effort given the timeline that Mr afy presented at the beginning of the meeting um it is really clear that the town needs to take action sooner or later and specifically with new construction clearly the town has a problem with nitrogen pollution adding to it with more title five systems um isn't helping the cause um whether it applies uh to townwide or to some reduced scope um I think this is a very helpful figure um but I want to point out that these estuaries became impaired because of the development on septic systems so just because there are estuaries on this that are currently not impaired or nitrogen not nitrogen sensitive areas doesn't mean that they won't be in the future because there was a time in FMA history where these were healthy Waters but were having to re engineer what we've done in the past so at a minimum the Coalition supports a Board of Health regulation uh for new construction in impaired watersheds um and nitrogen sensitive areas um I think that the board uh is well on its way to coming up with language that might be able to address um places like B7 and B8 townwide I think also works I think it is defensible uh for the town I know there's other communities around ard's Bay that have applied it townwide the Board of Health does have pretty broad Powers um in order to do so so I just that's our comments for the evening thank you thank you co I'm going to go I'm going to work from the front to the back uh harlo Hawk West fou um the only I'm glad this is a lot of work you guys have been doing and I'm sorry I have not participated in a lot of the Mee meetings but I have concom um one of the items that I think should be looked at a little closer is the um the substantial construction the 50% um I think that's kind of arbitrary when you're talking about assessed values I have many projects I work on I'm a Title 5 installer as well um 50% of a lot of houses is not much when you're talking about the structure there not assessed much these million dooll houses it's the land that's is worth a lot of money not the structures there are a lot of seasonal homes that it doesn't take much to go trip the 50% and literally you can do a kitchen four Dormers re-roof it reshingle it and put a porch on and you've tripped it you should be looking at flow not what you're adding to your house it's the flow you're adding to the system so I think you should really think about that to not say it's substantial Improvement to your home it should be any increase in the flow in the system that's what's impacting the system the the estuaries not not your porch um the other thing um because I don't want to I I'm the giving people only one choice is communistic in my opinion to only be with like the Nitro I know it's probably the best system out there there's going to be more better systems out there and I don't think you should be putting people they're going to be add-ons there already are add-ons um I just I just have an estimate right here the tank alone for Nitro the tank loan is $29,000 you haven't dug a hole you haven't called a plumber you haven't called the electrician you haven't done anything you haven't put the leech field in you've just put a $330,000 bill on somebody that's a lot of money on a lot of people and you talk about affordable housing and retired people it's a burden that you've got to find a a a financial stream to help this out because people just aren't going to be able to pull out 30 grand just for a tank um new construction I have no problem with new construction you know they can build it into the cost and figure it out but for people that are on you know that have been living in a house for 30 years and all of a sudden you going to say hey you got to come up for 30 grand just for a tank you can't put them in a driveway you're burying off the regulation and you're moving into the fin just so you know you can't put the Nitro in a driveway we have all these little teeny lots and we have conservation areas and we have Board of Health you know limits so if you can't go near the you can't put anything on the water side it's got to be on the backside it's got to be in a driveway or I mean it's you're it's prohibitive you got to look at just more than one system I don't think it's fair to anybody Matt do I have other hands out there good evening um Matthew Hanley from West fouth I'm also representing uh Surf Rider Foundation water quality is very important to us um but so is um equality and what is Equitable to the people I you know I I also believe that people need choice and I uh and I think along those terms these IIA septic systems are part of that choice you know the water quality management committee and the Board of Health has done a great job identifying emerging Technologies you know um one of our partner organizations Buzz Bay Coalition is actually using uh the layer cake um technology and Mast is is currently testing some of these new emerging technology to to knock down not only not only nitrogen but also phosphorus for some of our freshwater ponds um on Friday FR I'm actually going to go look at one of the Fuji systems with the fouth ponds Coalition which is used as an iron plate to reduce nitrogen I'm going to I'm going to do this you're talking about like systems I'm looking at the regulation which is focused on so so this this regulation is needed I was going to the meetings three years ago when the Board of Health was looking at fast tracking something very similar and unfortunately the state kind of derailed things and mixed everything up and everything got tossed back into the water quality and now the Board of Health is working diligently I really truly feel the board is trying to find a solution it's going to be a hard solution but the Board of Health is working really hard as as the water quality management committee to find a solution for for the residents of Falmouth it's going to be unpopular you know in my opinion a lot of this should have been talked about 10 years ago but the technology is wasn't where it is today and um I am in favor of a townwide number four version four with townwide and with some kind of uh delay for sewer that will help people that in good conscience are stepping up at the Forefront installing this technology and when the sewer comes yes they're going to pay the betterment but they're not going to destroy something they just stuck in the ground two years ago 5 years ago I was very involved in the sewering for T ticket um for maror Vista and I went to those meetings and people like I just put in a IA septic system now you're telling me I have to I have to dig it up and and hook up the sewer so I feel for the people I I listen to the public and I feel like this is a good start if we start with number four we start this year then we're edging the people of Falmouth into the reality that something has to be done townwide and that if we if we pick unfortunately if we only pick the the watersheds that are impaired or sensitive now some of these large contributing projects like 40b projects are going to pick these other neighborhoods and put in large projects that are going to not have to not have to meet the same standards as the rest of the town so if we do something to be fair and Equitable to the whole town and needs to be townwide and then we will be talking at some point about you know Financial stuff so I'll leave that up to you Steve thank you very much CH Chris Neil you you next hi Chris Neil Marvin Circle so I I just want to thank you for going ahead and having these deep discussions about these hard problems because we we need to do both we need to expand sewering but we're not going to get there just with sewering so IAS are an important piece of that I would Echo corin's comment that you have sewer where you can because the benefits are greater per per unit structure that you hook up but but but I commend you for this I just have uh two things I I I favor the townwide approach for the very same reasons that have been already stated is that we you know all these enclosed Waters if they're not vulnerable now they will become vulnerable in the future there's also there's nitrogen in the groundwater that hasn't hit yet it's still years out and so we should be thinking about a townwide approach but the other thing I want to have you consider is that think about the impact on freshwaters there's a lot of evidence right now overwhelming in fact for freshwaters that it's the combination of n andp we can't say that it's that n has no effect on Fresh Waters it has an effect P has an effect maybe that's slightly bigger than n but when you put them both together that effect is gigantic so keeping an out of fresh water has a public health and environmental benefit uh as well as keeping it out of estuaries and I think that could be used as part of the justification for townwide because you look at this map and there places like our drinking water supply that wouldn't be eligible based on the map of sensitive water so just please consider that and the way you think about this uh entire ende dep thanks Kim you're up Kim comart from the fouth pond Coalition um thanks for Chris's uh comment about p uh because it's phosphorus and it's p um that's a lot of the problem uh um I'm going to just read a quick statement so the the pond Coalition applaud the decision to bring the Board of Health together with the water quality management committee as the town develops plans and regulations for addressing the protection of famous Waters through the installation of advanced septic systems to some extent fouth like many towns on the cape the islands and elsewhere is paying the price for decades of underinvestment in protecting our Waters from the harmful impacts of fur izer surface water runoff septic system effluent and other pollutants as such Wastewater management has become our largest Capital expense and we're facing Decades of massive costs as we try to get this problem under control we all know that freshwater ponds are integrally connected to our larger water system a significant percentage of the nutrients and pollutants in our freshwater ponds enter the groundwater and flow into our Rivers saltwater ponds and estuaries before making their way to Vineyard sound or Buzzard's Bay by protecting our freshwater ponds we protect those other waters this meeting is taking place because plans are being formulated to require thousands of property owners to install Advanced septic systems over the next two to three decades the purpose of those plans is not to satisfy the Department of Environmental Protection the purpose is to protect our Waters and help ensure that they remain healthy for generations to come if fouth fails to consider the protection of freshwater ponds and its Wastewater planning we will undermine our investments in protecting our Coastal Waters again we applaud your commitment to engage in collaborative thinking and planning that said we respectfully recommend that protection of freshwater ponds be considered in this planning process one way to do that would be to invite the freshwater ponds advisory committee a parallel body to the water quality management committee to join these discussions thanks for your consideration Amy LOL hi Amy L Wastewater superintendent um I also really appreciate both groups thinking about this um I worry a little bit that the concern about fairness and um how we how we uh how these things are paid for in the future uh would slow this particular regulation I don't it doesn't seem to me that it has to in particular because it's talking about uh it would primarily affect um new construction and I don't I don't think anybody's concerned about the entire town covering a portion of the cost for IAS for new construction and the other category affected here is uh properties doing very significant inputs to uh improvements to their property so um the reason I'm interested in in um this thing moving forward is is the same reason a lot of people are which is that every new uh every new construction that goes in makes it harder without an IA system makes it harder for us to meet our TM deals we are tasked with meeting the total maximum daily load limits for nitrogen for all all our castal ponds and there are new there's new development going into these watersheds all the time now that uh does not that is adding more nitrogen so adding to the the load that the town needs to deal with in its planning uh so it's obviously that's that's pretty basic that's why we're why we're talking about it but uh but it make adds some urgency um I did want to um support what John Waterbury said in item three um the I would replace the fiveyear um number with uh the Board of Health in the in the past for the past sewer project um did did not require I IIA systems or even septic upgrades I believe is what we were talking about sep septic upgrades when the sewer project had been had been funded so when the town had voted funding for the construction of the project um and I think because nobody even I don't know about a fiveyear time frame but I know that something's happen something's going to happen when the construction's been been um voted uh the last sentence of uh item three I think is not necessary when the sewer um goes in front of the property um they will be required by the by the Wastewater division by the town through its Wastewater division to connect um and uh I don't think if you were going to keep it 30 days is not realistic um but I think I don't think you need that that line um and I I've thought a lot about item four and it I don't think anything is perfect but I think this is good uh a 15-year time frame um to allow people to get uh the benefit out of the IIA system before they'd be required to to connect to the Sewer I think that's a good compromise um I also think that [Music] um it is going to be it's going to take a while for the town to get to a lot of these areas even though we plan to sewer a lot more than we have sewered or even have um uh programmed over the next few years uh it's going to take a while for us to get there so I think that's a reasonable compromise and as I think Steve said to I want to reiterate properties would still be charged a betterment they would have to pay a betterment at the time everybody else in the sewer area would be charged a betterment but what they're being granted under item four is a delay in the sewer connection and the cost of that sewer connection thank you than Maggie MGA uh from wqu and I will be very brief because most of the things that I would say have been said already simply I just want to go on record uh as a fellow member of the board of the fou Pond Coalition and a member of the board of citizens for the protection guac Bay I just strongly uh approve of this and think that the urgency is enormous to get going and this will allow the town of fou to begin to make progress on this immediately and it should make implementation of the Watershed plans um easier down the line thank you very much Chris do I have a separate slide someplace is setting that up um the whole issue of cost and financing is is a the other Steve on the board likes to use the Expression the elephant in the room it's more like a herd of elephants in the room not just one of them um we are we do not have an answer as to how to do it we've got an opinion that the town cannot spend money on private property without either a home rule petition or uh going to town meeting with uh an article that gets approved by 2third of the town meeting and then goes to a vote because then it makes it a town decision not a Direction so so that's one thing the other side and and we're just scratching the surface on some of this is how have other communities managed these costs where does where has the money come from whether it's on Long Island where there's a sales tax that is dedicated to um upgrading the systems um just uh just today I believe uh Amy has pointed us to how maybe a couple of the other Cape communities have have found ways to finance so we're we're looking at the the bigger picture of how do you raise money how do you finance things um but I did want to talk briefly to the fact that the one thing that is out there right now is a state uh Department of Revenue um tax credit and the tax credit is associated with having to upgrade your Wastewater system uh upon failure or whatever and you get I don't have the numbers in my head I apologize but it's it's some money it's not as as I like to point out you have to bury a car in the backyard at 30 or $40,000 these days to do an advanced system but it it helps to mitigate that somewhat it's a very limited tax exemption right now it only applies to owner occupied principal residences does not apply to second home rental property and it's a tax credit that you apply for over several years um John Kaufman is not here tonight but Steve and John Kaufman uh crafted uh a proposal to go to the state legislature and change that so that every homeowner that has to upgrade their system would be able to get that money so it's it's it's in essence begging the state to fund putting Advanced systems in because as this regulation got written the first time through and implemented the state sort of was clever in not making it a mandated thing where they would have to fund it they kind of work their way around through a legislative lerain but um we did take that suggestion to the board of selectman uh I think three meetings ago now um the board of selectman green led us to go out and you know pursue that so uh again Steve Leighton and uh John Kaufman uh have been putting together an approach a plan how to track down uh through the other communi on the cape who to talk to how to get legislator capewide lined up in favor of that plan and I'd say we've got you know a solid years worth of year year year and a half's worth of work to change that particular element but it's it seems like again coming back to the fairness if you're being told to do it whether you're a principal homeowner it's a second homeowner it's still a cost to you you're paying taxes in the town you should be able to get that benefit but I did want to cover briefly with this table there's a there's a we had that timeline before the Board of Health is indicating that before the summer they're likely to have their regulation in place it's going to be some time before we can change the tax credit and it could be some time before we get to Watershed plans so right now with the limited availability of of the tax credit if you're an owner occupied principal r as it and it's new construction it's not deemed a failure so you can't get that tax credit if you have to do substantial improvements to your property it's within NS NSA and the Board of Health has told you you've got to upgrade it we think it's possibly eligible for that money we would probably have to get a reading from the Department of Revenue but the last time we asked we got a pretty responsible reading back from them um if a substantial Improvement is not within an NSA it's not going to be eligible because it doesn't meet the definition of the way that's set up it's a failed system whether it's in the NS or a nonaa I believe the way that that that that's written that that money is available as a tax credit and if it's a required upgrade by a watershed permit which again is down the roadways um that that that would be eligible for that that that amount there and currently as I pointed out second home rental property uh non-residents they're not eligible for that tax credit um so I I've said that we we have a limited amount of time to talk to fi finances and fairness it's something we are working on um the town has had a model of the 7030 um on the suicide we're hoping that over time we can revise this limitation um I put my hand on the third reil I think at one of the last water quality meetings where I said you know ultimately to do this we may need some form of a proposition two and a half override or a targeted fund of some sort um I don't have a lot more to say other than acknowledging that there's many elephants in the room and we don't know how to hurt them Steve can I ask you to make one point is the cost make it for me well the cost difference between a sewer connection which is pretty standardized between homes and putting in an IIA system which can vary quite a bit uh depending on the property and and if you can elaborate maybe because I think that's what makes it more complicated to figure out how do you help people putting in IA sure so the the town has the 7030 which leads to the betterment assessment but that's for the cost of the sewer in the road that individual homeowners have to hook up to the Sewer from their property line to their house and last time around Amy I think the numbers ranged between 10,000 18,000 is that a reasonable range the range is bigger but perhaps the average is yeah they yeah there were a few outliers at the highend and a couple at the low end but that cost to connect to your house under this uh tax credit eligibility you can take advantage of that tax credit so that that helps you um but you make a good point Ken there's there's work to be done in terms of putting together if I a massive Matrix or table about where all the costs are and everything if I if I might actually um the the cost to putting in a an IIA system is um approx is is more or less the cost of the IIA technology itself because we are already requiring the design to include an i the positioning of an IIA and so um there is some moderately more excavation and then the installation of tank and and a little bit more piping so um new conr uh no if you were replacing a septic system you have to put in a sep you have to put in a septic system anyway a standard Title Five adding in the IIA part of it will cost most of the cost will be the IIA technology and a little extra piping okay Scott is waving his hand furiously well the cost of a septic system varies on a lot of things soil conditions you got groundwater you know so a septic system could cost, to 100,000 right not counting the so the variability is huge can you keep what you have do you have a Lee wheel that will work if you're a septic 10 years old or 72 years old 72 those are cess pools yes to be upgraded but if you have a 10year leech field then you might be have to get away with it so the the cost vary is going to be huge about what each homeowner is going to have to put in in order to get that well but my point was that the additional cost of an IA system is primarily in that components if you have to do a septic system a Title Five the difference between putting in a standard one and one that denitrify is most of that cost I I is is just the IIA you're right about the components the problem is is the installation cost which is more variable than connection cost to sewer or the cost per House of a sewer project K I'm going to try to control the conversation a little bit okay Tom had his hand up next uh another uh fine point this tax credit maxes out at 40% of the design and con installation correct I should have said that thank you Tom yeah that's a it's not yeah you get 40% of of of of your cost back Ed the that that's incorrect it's 60% of the cost up to a maximum of $118,000 the state just recently in the past two years I think raised the amount so the tax credit is for up to $18,000 or 60% of your cost to Jed's Point yes the differential in new construction Title 5 versus an IIA is the cost of the IIA box the quoted figure that we get from Nitro was 225 for the Nitro box there is that was a quoted figure I I see you're shaking your head moreing but that's what they gave us for a figure 225 now that figure some towns are looking at subsidies and they're saying look we'll give let's use the fou number 30% of the cost of the IIA module period so 30 you in the 6,000 range if you're connecting to the Sewer just to put it in you know and I and I did this so I speak from having used the tax credit the tax credit is you're not eligible for your betterment betters do not qualify it is purely for the work upon your property and at the time I used the whole tax credit because I had a 150t trench 8 ft deep and 8T wide to hook to the Sewer it was very expensive and I had a scrap a title that I had put in about seven years before so towns are doing this different some are doing no subsidy Mash B already has a mandate with no subsidy Tisbury has one with some limited number of subsidies it's all over the place the cost can be astronomical to a town when Falmouth might be looking at we came up with I think 7,000 IAS if we just went to the Geo boundaries if you go to townwide You're roughly going to double that if not more and depending on how you figure what subsidy you will give that number will be explode the town budget for the next 50 years so there's a lot to consider in that I think at this juncture start eating the elephant a bite at a time do the new construction substantial Improvement I am in favor of for a lot of the reasons that we're given do it townwide I think it's defensible under the state laws and you know our friend from BBC said other towns are doing exactly that so and the state in effect subsidizes on private property with taxpayer funds by granting a tax credit for work on your property I don't think it's an issue so I'll differ with some of the attorneys other towns are doing it I think we got to move forward we got to start addressing the problem of our messed up estuaries the longer we wait the worse it gets and I'd like to live long enough to see some of these estuaries improve thank you does um Steve or or anyone is there a sense for this this uh statement under the bottom you have to have the tax liability in order to use it do most people so so that what that means is is let's say you're making $60,000 a year because you're you know it's a it's basically a retirement income you might not be paying much in the way of a state tax Maybe you're paying $300 or $400 a year so going back to Ed because Ed has got is is is is is like Ed keeps track of these numbers for me it's 60% up to a maximum of $118,000 over over a 5e period so three5 no no no I'm tring three times so if you if your tax your state tax is only $300 yeah five years 300 that's $1,500 you'll get back so it's a regressive so that's what the bottom line is must be tax liability requirements it's a pretty substantial limitation then yeah it sounds good the first time you it sounds good the first time you read it yeah and then when you look at what it really is doing so that's why this board went to the select and said we'd like to start in to see if we can turn this around to be more of a of a real subsidy for all homeowners that have to do this okay thanks Steve can I yeah John you're up um just to put things in a little bit historical perspective uh a number of years ago and I'm not sure when we hired Wright Pierce to do a comprehensive Wastewater plan for oer pond and the conclusion of that was roughly if discharge was available which it wasn't at that point which we're proposing to solve with an outfall the cost of an IIA and a sewer connection were comparable y now that was a number of years ago I think that's an exercise which we're going to need to look at critically again uh in today's dollars right Jed I guess I you get to S go ahead um so so um still on a Cost question but um now on the management of them and the responsible management entity um have there are there thoughts on for example using the county or some other government agency as we got a presentation around this Jed that we'll we'll get you a copy of it okay the the issue becomes that um a lot of that is kind of conceptual right now not actual they it was referenced that there that the county is doing I think they said they had two locations where they were quote the responsible management entity uh George you might be able to help I think one of them was the West Falmouth one 25 or 30 units and then down in Wellfleet I think is another 40 or 50 so uh the scaling that up to 6,000 or 7,000 or 8,000 but it's going to take some thought yes um but but while you're um working with the legislators in terms of funding um it could be an Avenue to explore for um funneling State money to the county to um alleviate the essentially the the additional operating costs of running all these so just a a thought Just for future Dr George a question for Amy when talking about instead of saying five years to to say when a sewer is funded what's the time lag roughly between when planning for a sewer is funded versus construction of the sewer is funded and which do you think should be the threshold yeah I think the thresh the um amount of time between planning and construction funding varies enormously over has vared enormously over time and uh so that's why uh I and once the construction is funded it is a very limited amount of time it's say 3 years before the sewer before the sewer is available yeah the time the town is so far traditionally appropriated money for the planning and design but until you go back to town meeting and you get the money to actually do construction you don't know when it'll be finished but once the money is appropriate for construction uh three years I think is a good number please please question you jump you sat down quick you could have St well I was asked a question now I'm asking a question the the question is um I can't tell if if these two uh committies boards are talking about the the subsidy reimbursement all that do you think that that's relevant to the regulation that you're now discussing do you think that subsidies and the fairness question about cost is that relevant to this regulation which applies to new construction and substantial I'm going to jump in here I I I I put this chart up specifically to point out that this regulation is going to go into effect and the only thing that's out there that any homeowner who's put being told under this regulation to put an IA in has available to him at this time is this so there will be a subset of that ultimate multiple thousands that's going to do something and then later there'll be possibly subsidies available but I'm not I'm not sitting here suggesting that we retroact these make money available to people who have to do things under this regulation okay it was sounding to me like you felt like those questions had to be answered before this regulation could be passed and it sounds like you're saying no it's it does not at least one one of us thinks that no and I think Dr George agreed with that too for the reasons that Steve just said but what you said is very relevant too it with new construction the thought is that these people are swimming in money at the time of new construction no I that I think that was some of the thinking and that that the cost of the IIA is Tiny compared to the cost of the new house so why not make them do it good a head start for all the reasons that many people gave um at no cost to the town or to the other taxpayers but as Steve just pointed out it's more complicated than that because then you create two classes of homeowners and this I don't want to get too deep into the woods but the whole there's the problem that's affected urine diversion and this of this 10 taxpayer law that in principle 10 taxpayers can sue a town for spending money on private property and if once you create two groups that you're creating making different it sort of looks it makes that more likely I'm just say I see both sides of it I think it's complicated I'm just go ahead Amy and I would just say that I think it's a question that we need to have an answer for for public hearings I think that that people are going to stand up and say if I put my development project forth right now I fund this 100% if I wait five years and I'm captured in a watershed then I'm you know yeah but I'm going to offer this we have no Assurance right now that we'll either a be able to get the state tax code changed I mean it's it's not a it's not a a given it's it's it's a very much of an uphill battle and secondly I'm not sure that we're going to ever get to the point where the town of Falmouth is subsidizing things on private property so so to not do anything waiting to find out how subsidies will or will not work I think there are as Corin pointed out there's other communities that have adopted a regulation much like you're looking at um and have gone forward I just want to add to to to Stephen what what you said about swimming in money um the other logic is if someone is doing something in which they have to touch their septic system for any reason then putting in the IIA then is the most economical time to do it right so you're doing construction or if you're upgrading the system you're adding flow that sort of thing then it's um it's just the least cost we have two more minutes before this meeting ends I would like to give a quick opportunity there's somebody in the audience that has got a one minute very pointed thing to the financing thing I I'll recognize you otherwise we will this is not the last time we're going to be talking financing I I'll I'll assure you of that okay I want to thank everybody for making the time to come out I want to thank anybody that's watching this on TV um have a question to the board no our board welcomes feedback and input I believe the Board of Health does as well um we're getting there Steve we have one burning question okay so so I need to revise this I will I have a lot of notes but there are a couple of questions that were raised by public comment that need addressing in order for me to revise this for the Board of Health um the uh I'm going to revise the purpose um because it sounds like the consensus of this board initially is that it should apply to all of fouth um and the purpose was pointed out that it should be to protect the environment that that is that is our mission is not merely to respond to the D um it was pointed out that nitrogen is a pollutant not only for saltwater but also for freshwat particularly in light of increasing cyanotoxin blooms I think that's important um uh one of the concerns was raised as to uh the the the definition of of improvement substantial Improvement as to whether it should be the value of the structure or the value of the property um or increase in flowre or just in that would which is new construction that's not so so new construction is captured any new flow is captured in one but we're we're see seeing substantial Improvement was one of the things that um we did discuss um and we went 450k if I could just pause you y I think we should we should um incorporate Stephen Lion's comment about a fixed number right in the range of say 400,000 which I think would partly address the issue about um a front porch Tri in [Music] uh but we we're still managing we're still managing the nitrogen if we have someone put in an IIA while they're doing a $400,000 upgrade to their home but what you're saying is if I want to fix my house up and I'm not making any more FL to the to the septic all I'm doing is putting on a sun room or swimming pool or whatever and it trips I have not added any more nitrogen now I want to understood the thought is before you do anything you're already part of the problem just like we all are we're all putting out nitrogen now and phosphorus a huge amount of which has to be gotten rid of within complicated cost constraints if you have $400,000 to put a front porch on we want you to take 40,000 and put in an IA too you're no longer poor if you're putting on a $400,000 front Port I'm G I'm going to do this because because we there's going to be there's going to be public hearings on on the actual regulation I I think your you your concerns in point your concerns have been heard they're going to going to do another draft I imagine there'll be more than one more draft on it um you know 400,000 is an arbitra number right now we need to wrestle our way to a number that makes some sense and and then the board wish me to incorporate something on um an IIA trigger upon property transfer or shall we reserve that for a future a future Amendment we talked about that being challenging within families to what constitutes a transfer and is there a dollar amount right right so I think that's a bigger discussion than this one moment agree that's fine then we'll Reserve that for a separate draft for for the next one of the things you said but never seen written was that uh regarding for and the and the time delay that if you're doing it because of this regulation or or you're doing or you just are doing um you said if you're having to do a new system because of this regulation what if you're having to do a new system not because of this regulation because you have a failed system or whatever if you have it but if you're putting it in then we're giving you credit for having put it in because it's you are spending the money whether we compel you or not you're spending the money to get to to protect the environment I think we have pretty good pretty good start on it so let's pick it up for at the next meeting I'll entertain a motion my board motion second not not in discuss in favor standing [Music]