Newport’s CSO Problems & the City’s Solution

A sign reminds beachgoers to avoid the creek that divides Easton's Beach from Atlantic Beach. (File Photo)

NEWPORT, R.I. – The city’s combined sewer overflow problem has hit the fan. In a video appearing today on the New York Times Web site entitled Toxic Waters, Polluted Harbors, Newport’s persistent battle with stormwater runoff and its aging infrastructure takes center stage in the Grey Lady’s coverage of the nation’s water quality problems.

Featured prominently throughout is Newporter Ted Wrobel, who in 2008 along with three other local residents, sued the city for failing to address the long standing problem of CSO events at Easton’s Beach and Newport Harbor.

“It would be nice if you could jump off your boat and not worry about what you were going to get,” Wrobel says at one point in the video.

Also featured is Director of Public Utilities Julia Forgue and Clean Ocean Access’ Dave McLaughlin. Forgue, who has been working with engineers on a sweeping rehabilitation plan for the city’s water and sewer infrastructure, acknowledged that the city is not where it would like to be in terms of stemming its overflow problem.

One of the components to her plan is the installation of a UV filtration system at Easton’s Pond. On Thursday, residents filled the City Council Chamber to hear details of the proposal.

Peter Fagan, one of the co-founders of the Aquidneck Island Watershed Council had this to say of the meeting:

As the Obama Administration wrestles with a commitment to reduce carbon emissions for the Copenhagen Conference, Newport’s City Council must decide if the City will build an energy intensive UV plant to treat stormwater run-off at Easton’s Beach. The workshop last Thursday evening was well attended in spite of the lack of public notice.

Dean Audet, lead engineer for Fuss and O’Neill, the City’s consultants, gave a detailed presentation of why the City needs to build the plant rather than rely on storage and natural filtration, the preferred methods for treating stormwater run-off. Mr. Audet and his assistant did an excellent job of presenting the research leading to the conclusion that a UV disinfectation plant was the best choice for the Easton Beach location. No doubt, the City Council will concur and vote to go forward with the project.

What was missing from the discussion was the broader question of the City’s commitment to changing its ways regarding infrastructure investment and maintenance. There is a long history of postponed maintenance and a “wait ‘til it breaks” replacement strategy. Decaying roads and sidewalks, the force main break at long Wharf, the near breach of the dam around Easton’s Pond, increasing CSO discharges into the harbor, the delay in repairing sea walls and bridges, and an aging drinking water system are examples of the City’s failure to have a long term vision. The law suit, EPA and DEM will eventually force the City to make the infrastructure investments neglected over the past thirty years at great cost to the ratepayers.

The question remains—is the UV plant the best choice for dealing with the pollution plaguing Easton’s Beach? The Fuss and O’Neill proposal is the first of its kind built on an Atlantic Ocean barrier beach. Questions from the Council and the audience revealed some of the kinks that need to be addressed and the risks involved. These include—l. reliance on well-trained, creative operators, employees of United Water, who will need to adjust the intensity of the UV lamps as turbidity and flow change during a rain event 2. a self-cleaning automatic gate that will filter out debris from the flow 3. a reliable source of electricity (there is no back-up generator) 4. technology changes that may make the plant obsolete before the end of its 20 year life cycle 5. dramatic increases in sea levels due to climate change and 6. a major storm that could destroy the plant situated so close to the beach. There is also the risk that the City will lessen its current efforts to control stormwater run-off and rely instead on the UV plant as the major focus of stormwater management. EPA best management practice (BMP) guidelines emphasize storage through catchment basins and rain gardens; natural filtration using permeable surfaces; increased street cleaning and servicing of storm drains; and citizen education and participation. Recently, stormwater best practices have been missing from City projects as exemplified by the repaving of the Rogers High School parking lot and the west lot at Easton’s Beach. City buildings continue to discharge stormwater into the sanitary sewer system in violation of City ordinances. A citizen may ask if the building of the UV plant will herald a change in culture in City Hall or yet another temporary fix to long neglected problems.

Addressing the entirety of Newport’s water infrastructure shortfalls is not going to be a short or inexpensive process. In September, the city received $3 million in state and federal for work associated with its water infrastructure, and has applied for another $5 million.

In the coming days, check back at Newport Now for a pair of related stories which point to some positive signs of recently released data and detail some of the city’s near term infrastructure improvement plans.

Tagged as: Local News, Newport