Michael Sullivan, Director of the RI Dept. of Environmental Management, delivered a blunt assessment on the North end of Portsmouth to the Town Council and about 25 residents in an occasionally heated 2-hour wastewater workshop tonight.

"You need to sewer three specific areas," said Sullivan. "You need to remove the waste from the region and process it. You are at a ripe time for a bold advance toward solutions."

At issue are the usual suspects — Island Park, Portsmouth Park, and Common Fence Point — and the Council tiptoed right up to making a decision to apply for state grant money and low-interest loans to fund an engagement with the wastewater engineering firm, Woodard & Curran, which did the most recent study. The goal would be a full "facility plan," a detailed description of the proposed solution, with accurate cost estimates, which could inform the preparation of a bond referendum for the November ballot. Sullivan made it clear that time was of the essence.

"Addressing your problems will not become cheaper with time," he said, adding that one thing at risk the 90K in DEM grant money — half of what the facility plan would cost, the rest to be picked up with 3-year, 1% interest loans. "The 90K is not on the table forever," he said, "And we're only willing to invest money in a full facilities plan, and along the [current] trajectory."

There was still doubt on the Council about whether the "trajectory" inevitably ends up at sewers. Council Vice President Jim Seveney again raised the issue of actual versus potential threat. "This report says the water [offshore] is clean," he said. "We're measuring 60 outflows right now, and the samples are over at URI."

This is a critical point. Apparently, the DEM themselves have failed to find high E. Coli counts in the offshore water measurements. I asked Angelo Liberti, DEM Chief of Surface Water Protection, and he said that while the offshore measurements failed to show anything, there were samples at the outflow pipes above the limits. And these are not measurements of street runoff, these are dry weather readings as well. "Those pipes are not watertight," he said, indicating that ground water, contaminated by failing septic systems or cesspools was leaking into them.

DEM Director Sullivan echoed this concern. It was a question of "loading," or how much the relatively thin permeable soil layer typical in Northern Portsmouth could hold. Essentially, the top layer of soil is a sponge, holding and gradually dispersing the waste material discharged into it, and the only real way to mitigate the problem is to sewer and stop the loading. "I see no way around it," he told me. "I wish I did. I'm a small town government guy."

Yeah, maybe the offshore readings are negative. As Carl Sagan used to say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I may not be a soil scientist, but my ingoing hypothesis is that if you are putting 742 households worth of waste water into a thin layer over a relatively slow-permeable substratum, eventually plumes of contaminated water will find their way to the Bay. And the patience of the DEM seemed to be wearing thin.

"Don't force us to a greater level of enforcement," said Sullivan. "You have three consultants who have all reached the same conclusion. My offer still stands."

Action on applying for the DEM grant and engaging Woodard & Curran was continued until Monday night at 6pm, pending consultation by Town Solicitor Kevin Gavin. Jack Callahan and Jeff Hatcher lobbied the Council to consider an alternate treatment scheme and argued that the RFP for the Woodard & Curran work didn't include a follow-on piece, and this should be put out to bid, a process that could take another six weeks and kill the chance to have a bond before the voters in November.

Councilor Seveney was acutely aware of the ticking clock presented by the DEM folks in the room. "You're the guys with the hammer," he joked.

Sullivan calmly replied, "The hammer is there for you to pick up to drive the solution."

I'm not thrilled with the potential for a $2,000/year sewer bill, but I find that more palatable than spending $30K, a significant fraction of the value of my 900-square-foot cottage, on a septic system that the DEM might decide (seems to have already decided?) doesn't solve the problem. What do YOU think?