The following request for action was delivered to the Board of Selectmen at its meeting on Tuesday, September 22.

It calls upon the Selectmen to recognize their “fiduciary duty” to safeguard taxpayer money by more thoroughly investigating alternative techniques and technologies which have been developed that will remediate the nitrogen loading problem just as effectively, at considerably less expense and much more quickly with less disruption and greater environmental benefit than the outrageously expensive approach currently being recommended."

Here is the text in full:

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers’ Position on
Chatham’s Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan

All of us are united in our desire to rid Chatham’s waterways of excess nitrogen. We believe there are ways to do that which are far less expensive and more environmentally beneficial.

1. The projected cost of $340 million for the proposed centralized sewer system – roughly ten times the entire annual town budget – is too much of a financial burden for taxpayers.

2. The CWMP involves committing the town irreversibly in its earliest stage to an ancient and extremely expensive technology. The town’s plan calls for a huge expansion of the wastewater treatment plant at the very start of the process. If completed as scheduled, it would preclude the consideration and inclusion of alternative technologies that we believe can make it possible to save as much as $100 million while solving the excess nitrogen problem. This cannot be allowed to happen. We believe an incremental, gradual expansion of the treatment plant and a measured area-by-area expansion of the existing sewer system, starting with “hot spots,” in combination with alternative wastewater treatment technologies, will result in a superior environmental solution at much less cost.

3. The projected total burden of the CWMP on property taxes over the years has not been made clear to taxpayers. Further, the cost to individual homeowners has been presented in only summary form. For a project of this magnitude, complete transparency regarding the calculation of costs is required. Taxpayers need to know what they are voting for.

4. The proposed CWMP has been developed based on water use and population assumptions that seem unreasonably high and not supported by recent trends. These assumptions in turn have led to plans for a huge sewer system – some seven times the capacity of the existing system for two-thirds of the town -- that we believe is oversized. It is more costly than required and will provide both the capacity and incentive for undesirable development in the town.

5. The Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on July 17, 2009 said residents should have input in the final design and cost effectiveness of the plan and that the town should adopt stricter growth control measures prior to the construction of any new sewer extensions. We agree.

6. The CWMP has never been put to Town Meeting and it should be after all the relevant information, including the cost and environmental benefits from integrating alternative technologies with our existing sewer system, has been developed and widely disseminated. Only a $59 million bond issue was put before town meeting, not a $340 million plan.

7. The $59 million bond issue was accelerated and pushed through Town Meeting on the basis that stimulus funding could be obtained. We don't believe the prospect of stimulus funding should be the tail that wags the dog, being only 4% of the projected total costs.

8. It is our view that the proposed centralized system is not only wasteful of taxpayer dollars, but has environmental shortcomings. It will also be unnecessarily disruptive to the life of the town for years to come, because of the amount of excavation required. Alternative technologies can help do the job better, faster and cheaper.

All of these concerns, taken together with our overriding concern about cost, prompt us to ask the selectmen, in the exercise of their fiduciary duty to taxpayers, to initiate a process, with the participation of independent citizens, to address these concerns, including the need for stricter growth controls, and compare the environmental benefits, efficacy and cost efficiency of the proposed system with an integrated system utilizing the existing sewer system and modular alternatives, such as distributed systems, of which the Nitrex system is an example.