I've never permitted a guest writer on this blog, but as
they say, there’s a first time for everything. Lower Providence, meet Lisa Mossie.
While I’ve researched and written about our regional sewer
authority and LP’s participation in it extensively over the past couple of
years (here and here), and particularly the disagreements over the placement of
the middle portion of the sewer interceptor project (can we all agree, at
least, that we have to have SEWERS??) I
have long felt like the only person paying attention to - and reporting - ALL sides of the dispute. 
That is, until Lisa, a supervisor in Upper
Providence, the other primary municipality involved in the dispute, was elected
in 2011. She quickly developed an understanding of this complex project of many
moving parts and political layers and has been a welcome voice of reason. In a recent piece in the Times Herald, ("Lower Providence Contradicts Its Own Arguments",) she
frames the status of the project and the disputes well. * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer
Authority needs to construct a new sewer line known as the “middle interceptor”
along the Perkiomen Creek in order to serve the needs of its six member
municipalities, Trappe Borough, Collegeville Borough, Skippack Township,
Perkiomen Township, Lower Providence Township and Upper Providence
Township. A dispute has arisen between the LPVRSA and Lower Providence
Township as to which side of the creek an approximately 3,000 linear foot
segment of the middle interceptor should be located.
Upper Providence has historically not engaged
in media campaigns to achieve political ends. For the last year, our
Board of Supervisors has chosen to remain on the sidelines of the dispute,
while the various options were explored. We remained confident that the
decision would ultimately reflect the best possible alternative for all
concerned. Five of the six member municipalities agree that the middle
interceptor’s best location is on the Lower Providence Township side of the
creek, where it can be constructed as a simple gravity line. This route
is known as Arcola 1.
Last month, we were informed that Lower
Providence Township endorsed a gravity option for the middle interceptor to be
placed on the Upper Providence side of the creek. This route is known as
Arcola 3. Because so much precious time has been wasted in the political
and legal maneuvering surrounding this issue, and because time is now of the
essence with this project, and because more years of legal wrangling is
promised from Lower Providence if their preferred option is not chosen by
LPVRSA, as a member of the Upper Providence Board of Supervisors, I wish to
provide my thoughts about the proposed interceptor’s location.
The Arcola 1 route on the Lower Providence
side of the creek is clearly the optimal path for the middle interceptor.
Engineering analyses have determined that, due to very steep topography, it
would cost at least $2 million more to construct the middle interceptor on the
Upper Providence side of the creek than on the Lower Providence side, even
taking into account the costs to recover American Indian artifacts on the Lower
Providence side. These additional costs would, of course, be passed on to
all of the LPVRSA’s customers, including those living in Lower Providence
Township. Constructing the interceptor on the Upper Providence side would also
mean that the LPVRSA would lose the additional capacity already provided by the
existing interceptor. This could require another sewer expansion project
in the not too distant future, also at the expense of the LPVRSA’s customers.
Lower Providence and a small interest group of
residents has waged a coordinated political and media campaign on ever-shifting
grounds in an attempt to box in the LPVRSA’s viable options under the
presumption that nobody is paying attention to the inconsistencies in their
arguments. It is my opinion that, by endorsing the Arcola 3 route on the
Upper Providence side of the creek, Lower Providence effectively contradicts every
previous public argument that it has been making for the last several years, in
an effort to stall this project.
At different times during the middle
interceptor conflict, Lower Providence and its special interests have raised
the following spurious objections:
·
The
project is unnecessary.
As part of this process, the LPVRSA conducted an Act 537 study of the region’s
sewer needs. The study reflects the current flows of the six member
municipalities and, based upon zoning and other considerations, anticipates
future flows for the next 10 years. This study clearly indicates that the
middle interceptor is necessary, and that Lower Providence’s assertions
otherwise are false. Furthermore, Lower Providence’s endorsement of the
Arcola 3 route tacitly acknowledges that they also believe the middle
interceptor is necessary.
·
Pump
station alternatives are better. The LPVRSA examined several pump station alternatives to
the Arcola 1 option. None were feasible due to monetary and operating
concerns related to the construction and ongoing maintenance of these pump
stations. Lower Providence’s endorsement of the Arcola 3 gravity option
effectively acknowledges that Lower Providence agrees that a gravity option is
the best solution.
·
No
residences will be impacted by construction on the Upper Providence side of the
creek. (refer to comments by
Catherine Beyer:
http://lowerprovidence.patch.com/articles/lpvrsa-releases-official-position-on-sewer-interceptor).
The map depicting the Arcola 3 route clearly shows that it will impact one
residence on the Upper Providence side. Furthermore, the impact of
construction on that residence would be exponentially greater than the impact
on any of the residences on the Lower Providence side. The Upper
Providence residence is on a very narrow lot, and the construction easements
would have to come within 5 to 10 feet from his home. Construction on the
Upper Providence side will also necessitate 6 months of sewage bypass pumping
with a pump placed on this resident’s property. The lots along the Arcola
1c route on the Lower Providence side are all very deep, with construction
activities taking place farther away from the homes.
·
Placing
the middle interceptor on the Lower Providence side of the creek would result
in catastrophic damage to the environment. All parties involved agree that there will be some
temporary environmental impact due to the interceptor’s construction.
Everyone also agrees that measures need to be taken to ensure that these
environmental impacts are minimized to the degree that they can be. This
has been the strongest and most persistent claim coming from both Lower
Providence Township and its residents. In fact, on May 18, 2012, Lower
Providence Township Manager Richard Gestrich sent an urgent e-mail to the other
member municipalities, stating that previous interceptor construction “resulted
in very harsh environmental consequences” and that “[y]ou should be aware of
all the adverse environmental impacts to the creek, before you reach a decision
on the [resolution to undertake updated Act 537 planning].” Yet, despite
all of this concern, the environmental impacts resulting from construction on
steep slopes on the Upper Providence side of the creek will be far greater than
if the interceptor was constructed on the Lower Providence side. If Lower
Providence Township is truly concerned about the wildlife and the health of the
Perkiomen Creek, why would they endorse a plan that is so much more impactful
on the environment?
·
The
DEP never approved the placement of the middle interceptor on the Lower
Providence side of the creek. This is basis upon which many of the legal battles have
been fought and the reason for the member municipalities’ requirement to
undertake updated Act 537 planning. In the original Act 537 plan, the
path for the middle interceptor was drawn as a thick blue line down the middle
of the Perkiomen Creek, and the intended location was described as “parallel”
to the existing interceptor, which is on the Upper Providence side of the
creek. Lower Providence’s attempts to delay member municipalities’
commencement of the Act 537 update was yet another effective stall
tactic. Because DEP determined that there was “wiggle room” in the
definition of “parallel,” at the recommendation of LPVRSA and DEP, all member
municipalities, with the exception of Lower Providence, have undertaken the
project to update their Act 537 plans, and they have shouldered the costs
associated with that project.
·
The
existence of historical artifacts precludes placement on the Lower Providence
side of the creek. The existence
of artifacts from ancient Indians is not in dispute. However, the
commissioned Archeological study of the site indicates that “the archeological
deposits are significant only for their informational value and do not warrant
preservation in place.” The cost of excavating these artifacts has been
built in to the cost of the Arcola 1 option, and is estimated at $66,000.
Furthermore, Lower Providence has not indicated what the status of these
valuable artifacts will be if LPVRSA does not undertake the archeological
excavation. Will they be recovered for posterity to enjoy and learn from,
or will they remain in the ground, of no value to anyone?
·
Additionally, Upper
Providence Township and the LVPRSA proposed the Arcola 1c option, which would
run the middle interceptor further down the Upper Providence side of the creek
to avoid the historical area. In an email dated May 25, 2012, the
Chairman of the Lower Providence Board of Supervisors, Rick Brown, responded
that this proposal “[w]ould mean extending the sewer upstream along the
Perkiomen Creek in Upper Providence Township from the former Proffit property
(+- 500 feet) to a new point where we cross the stream into Lower
Providence. The route requires more extensive earth work. According
to my sources the Army Corp of Engineers would not approve this plan.” In
other words, locating the middle interceptor on the Upper Providence side of
the creek , even for a mere additional 500 feet, is not feasible because of the
impact to the environment.
The LPVRSA has satisfactorily and
comprehensively addressed all of the objections raised by Lower Providence
Township and its special interest group of residents. I believe that the
best all-around alternative remains the original Arcola 1 or 1c option, as it
has all along. The numerous stall tactics and delays undertaken by Lower
Providence have effectively made time a critical issue in reaching a solution
on the middle interceptor, and the LPVRSA is now looking for Upper Providence
to assess to the Arcola 3 option in an effort to keep the project moving
forward.
We have all been hit by increased sewer rates
as a direct result of the years of legal wrangling over this issue. The
residents of Lower Providence have been hit doubly-hard, since they are also
funding the lawsuits that have caused the rate increases. While I have
absolutely no wish to unnecessarily expend further taxpayer dollars on this
project, nor do I wish to further delay this project more than it has already
been by this media and legal circus, I can’t help but conclude that there is
absolutely no reason not to place the interceptor in the Arcola 1 area on the
Lower Providence side of the creek where LPVRSA has always recommended, except
to avoid further lawsuits and delays from Lower Providence. These
lawsuits would only benefit a small handful of residents, would result in
greater environmental impacts to the Perkiomen Creek, would leave valuable
historical artifacts unrecovered, would result in a vastly greater impact on
one of our residents and would cost every resident in the member municipalities
more money in increased sewer fees.
It is not too late to purge the bad blood that
has been accumulated during this protracted and sometimes ugly process.
It is my hope that the residents of all six member municipalities will join me
in calling on Lower Providence officials to look beyond the immediate political
considerations, and in calling on our state elected officials, John Rafferty
and Mike Vereb, to do what is in the best interests of all parties concerned:
end this senseless legal and political maneuvering and agree to let the middle
interceptor be installed where the impact on the health of the Perkiomen can be
minimized: on the Lower Providence side of the creek.
Call these state elected officials and let
them know that enough time has been wasted on the middle interceptor battle:
John Rafferty Ph: (610)-831-8830
Mike Vereb Ph: (610) 409-2615
No comments:
Post a Comment