Portsmouth has a history, going back to the early 80s, of successfully dodging the question of what to do with wastewater. In the past eight years, the town has done 3 studies, which reached contradictory conclusions about whether sewers were necessary in the North end of town, or whether upgraded septic systems would work. There has even been skepticism — some was voiced tonight, by responsible people — about whether a problem even existed.

I'll be blunt about this: I'm not a blogger sniping from the sidelines on this one. Our Gormley Ave house, which has been in my family for 3 generations and which I intend to die in, sits in the Island Park zone of which the DEM representative said tonight, "It's pretty clear. For a long-term solution, you're looking at sewers."

Now I hold myself to the same standards as I do others: I will do the right thing, even if that costs me money. And the money being talked about ranges from substantial (2-3k for a sewer hookup) to staggering (25k for a state-of-the-art septic system.) But there's an eerie echo of the school funding dilemma here: the whole town benefits from clean water; should those who, by accident of geography, live in low-lying regions be forced to shoulder the entire cost for keeping all our beaches free from fecal coliform? (In tonight's performance, the role of Brooke will be played by Island Park.)

The Council chewed on the question for 3 hours tonight, hearing from representatives of their wastewater committee (who raised the question of why the Town is responsible for wastewater in the first place, rather than the state), Larry Fitzmorris, who spoke with notable restraint and actually made sensible points about avoiding cost overruns in any bond issue, Mike Schrader, the consultant from Woodward & Curran, who did the most recent study, "All the studies started with pre-digested solutions" (sewer v. septic, rather than starting clean slate), and Angelo Leverto of the DEM.

Leverto was at the podium for some time, and spoke articulately about the need to do something, recommending a robust "facility plan" as a first step. "Wastewater management districts are beautiful in the right location, sewers are beautiful in the right location. What matters is your lot sizes, your soil types, your water table elevation. Engineers like to be conservative. A facility plan should lead to a core conclusion and recommended actions."

In fact, the state is quite willing to help with the facility plan. Jay Manning of the RI Clean Water Finance Agency explained to the council that there are 1% loans of up to 150k to finance this kind of work.

Karen Gleason raised a question about sewering leading to an increase in density. Town Admin Bob Driscoll noted that this was an opportunity to "step back and look at the measure of density that's appropriate," and Schrader suggested that you "control growth by zoning, not by sewer."

Town Planner Bob Gilstein had a handout for the Council on Island Park and its crabbed, gerrymandered lots. Many houses, he noted, actually sit on part of multi-lot parcels. According to figures he quoted, a fully sewered Park could conceivably see a buildout of between 30 and 90 percent, and the council discussed whether it would be possible to change the zoning to, for example, consolidate contiguous lots where a residence occupied only one lot to prevent such expansion.

Bottom line: the final report from Woodward & Curran will arrive in March, and then will begin the process of figuring out next steps, whether through a facility plan or some other framework to help the Council and the town finally engage on this.