Petitioners Stand Behind Nauset Estuary Article

ORLEANS – The select board will not be recommending passage of a petition article at next month’s special town meeting seeking a total maximum daily load (TMDL) determination for the Nauset Estuary. But the petitioners behind the article are pressing forward.

 The proposed article seeks the appropriation of $300,000 “for studies and expenses necessary to establish TMDL (total maximum daily load) standards” for the estuary, with those standards to be set “no later than Dec. 31, 2030.” That would involve working with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the federal Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the town of Eastham, on a plan for reducing the amount of nitrogen in the estuary.

 Charlie Carlson, one of the article’s three petitioners alongside residents Bill Amaru and William Brotherton, said that action has lagged on addressing nitrogen loading in the estuary since a Massachusetts Estuaries Report on the waterway was done in 2012. Orleans entered into a memorandum of understanding with Eastham in 2023 in which the two towns pledged to work together toward preparing a watershed permit to address the estuary. But he said that work has not extended beyond what he called informal conversations between the two towns.

 More than anything, Carlson said, the goal of the petition is to create some momentum behind addressing the estuary’s water quality. 

 “If it’s approved, the petition would draw the state and Eastham into this dialogue about TMDLs,” Carlson said.

 But the select board on Sept. 30 opted against recommending in support of the petition at the Nov. 16 fall town meeting. 

 “The town of Orleans setting aside $300,000 at this time, I don’t know how that stimulates the state to do anything,” said board member Mark Mathison. “I don’t know how that stimulates the town of Eastham to do anything to join with us.”

 Kevin Galligan, who in addition to serving on the select board also chairs the town’s wastewater management advisory committee, said the wastewater committee has reached out to DEP to see what scientific data is needed to supplement the 2012 MEP report. That report was “never fully vetted” before it was finalized, said George Meservey, the town’s director of planning and community development.

 Meservey said the issue is one of timing, adding that it would be good to have updated data to support a TMDL determination for the estuary for when the area is scheduled to be sewered. Right now, plans are for the estuary and Mill Pond to be sewered in phase 11 of the town’s wastewater management plan, which is about 24 years away.

“Very few people who are alive today are going to witness it,” Amaru said.

 Carlson began getting involved in local water quality testing when he moved to Orleans full time in 2016. He heard concerns from residents about the water quality in Mill Pond, where he is an abutter. The pond serves as a terminal basin for the estuary.

 “I started looking at the summaries of the water sampling, and those indicated that the water quality’s poor,” he said.

 Brotherton, a resident since 2010, lives on Mill Pond and says it’s evident that the water quality is poor.

 “Nothing can live more than three feet down,” he said, citing the lack of oxygen in the pond.

 Amaru, a commercial fisherman and former member of the shellfish and waterways advisory committee, said he’s been aware of the poor water quality in the estuary as far back as 35 years, when he used to harvest scallops in the pond.

 “I was ignorant of the causes of a lot of this stuff,” he said. “I was just wondering ‘Why aren’t we getting the scallops? Why aren’t we getting the soft-shelled clams? What’s happening to the flounders?’ And then it became clear that the water doesn’t support these creatures anymore.”

 The petitioners say they take issue with public comments made by the select board about the petition in recent weeks. That includes suggestions from board members that the petition, if approved, would disrupt the town’s ongoing wastewater plans for Pleasant Bay. 

 “They’re certainly not objecting to doing something positive to try and save the estuary and bring back some of the things that are missing,” Amaru said. “They’re not against it. They’re not for the means by which we think they should approach it.”

 “The underlying reality is that town officials and the wastewater management advisory committee in particular, are unwilling to consider anything for Nauset Estuary that might affect the existing sewer plan. Full stop,” Carlson said.

 Carlson maintains that the intention of the petition is not to upset the town’s existing wastewater planning, but to work concurrently to address water quality issues in the estuary sooner. He said both tracks can be taken without interference.

 “We have been clear that that’s not our purpose to put the Nauset Estuary ahead of Pleasant Bay work,” he said. “What we’re trying to accomplish is an incremental effort that is additional to, not in place of, what is already occurring.”

 The petitioners also push back against the select board’s concern about the $300,000 requested in the petition. Without a project in place, Galligan said, the funding will just sit unused. Others pointed to the lack of a funding source attached to the petition.

 But Carlson said the petitioners are flexible on the figure. The money, he said, is designed to demonstrate to the state the town’s commitment to improving water quality in the estuary.

 “The money is table stacks for getting a dialogue going,” he said.

 Carlson also raised objection to statistics cited by Merservey at the board’s Sept. 9 meeting in which he said with a TMDL designation, the town would have 20 years to reduce the estuary’s nitrogen load by 75 percent.

 “In fact, it appears (in the regulations) that DEP has express regulatory authority to extend the 20 year period (both at the start of the period and at the end) and DEP has the authority to extend other relevant time periods,” he wrote in an email to the select board prior to the board’s Sept. 30 meeting.

 Carlson also noted that the Dec. 31, 2030 date attached to the petition is not a deadline, but rather a date in which the petitioners intend to have a TMDL determination.

 The town’s comprehensive wastewater management plan calls for 16 phases of sewering through the year 2067. Construction is underway on the third phase of sewering in the areas of Lonnie’s Pond, Arey’s Pond, Pilgrim Lake and Crystal Lake.

 But Amaru said the discussion around the estuary opens up the question of whether there should be multiple approaches taken to address the town’s water quality issues. He agreed with Carlson that securing a TMDL for the estuary can be done concurrently with the town’s existing wastewater management plan.

 “There are other things that can help, too,” he said. “That’s one of the reasons the TMDL is important. As long as you get it in place, then you can start assessing the actual ways we correct the problem. But until the TMDL is put in place, all we’re going to be relying on is the big pipe sewer system, which will eventually have an impact, but in the meantime we’re just going to be further and further away from a solution.”

 Galligan said the wastewater committee’s charge includes exploring alternative technologies and other methods for diverting nitrogen from the town’s waterways, including the estuary. He pointed to the ongoing aquaculture program in Lonnie’s Pond, where shellfish are being used to help reduce the pond’s nitrogen level, and suggested that a similar program could be considered for Mill Pond in the future,

 “That is a very low-cost per kilogram option,” he said.

 “There may eventually be an aquaculture project in Mill Pond as a short-term measure, but the clear impression that we have is if the petition does not pass and we just proceed with these occasional meetings, it is likely that those meetings go no farther,” Carlson said. 

 Amaru said while aquaculture programs like that in Lonnie’s Pond can help, they are not a “permanent solution” to the town’s water quality woes.

 “The solution is to make the water clean again, so that oysters will grow as part of the ecosystem,” he said.

Select board member Michael Herman said he appreciates the work that’s been put into the petition, and that his goal is to see the estuary addressed as soon as possible. But he said the “cheapest, most effective way” of improving water quality is prohibiting the use of fertilizers and pesticides in town. 

“If we care about our waters, which we all do, we can simply just stop doing something that we know harms our waters,” he said.

Galligan also pointed to a permeable reactive barrier installed on the campus of Nauset Regional Middle School that he said is “stopping literally all of the middle school discharge” coming from the school’s septic systems. He said the wastewater committee is looking at opportunities for using PRBs elsewhere in town. 

Looking ahead, Carlson said the petitioners are heartened by the public response to the petition, which has generated more than 250 signatures of support. But Town Manager Kim Newman said Sept. 30 that if approved at town meeting, the petition would not be actionable beyond offering “a sentiment of public support.”

“The article goes on, it passes, the select board has to have a follow up conversation about whether or not it wants to do any of these things at all,” she said.

“The state has asked for a formal request to start this process,” Carlson told the select board.

The special town meeting is scheduled for Nov. 16 at 6 p.m. in the gymnasium of Nauset Regional Middle School.