It was very good to see the article about highly limited ground absorption capability vs. town septic needs in the Press of Feb. 22.
At one point Devens offered to take Harvard’s sewerage into its new disposal system. I wrote a letter at the time of that offer, trying to explain from an engineering perspective what an unbelievably good deal that was, no matter what a pipeline to achieve it might cost. Mario Barba and Charlie Perkins, PE, both sketched out plans for this option in the ’70s. Shirley and Ayer just said “yes” to Devens on connecting. It is done now.
People seem to forget that the present “new” school septic system is in fact itself a replacement for an earlier one that failed, and that this present one will fail too. Has it failed already? I note very large amounts of money appropriated periodically to try to bring into compliance a system that is not meeting Title 5, yet is sending about 15 million gallons per year into our water table.
I would like to see the itemized total spent on this system. And I would like to know what the plan is when it fails— not “if it fails”—when it fails.
Maintaining a package sewerage system that we own as a town is unequivocally wrong—in town or in Still River. They are not permanent solutions; they fail.
This is a critical environmental issue. It involves possible permanent future pollution of our groundwater, far more important than compact fluorescent lights or carbon footprints. It is not a question of whether or not pollution will occur with an in-town system—it is only a matter of degree, compared with shipping unlimited effluent from a densely populated problem area—including the now and future schools—out of town. A civilized town needs an adequate sewerage disposal system, not an erratic sinkhole for money every 15 or 20 years.
That permanent solution will not need a replacement, or “expansion areas,” or daily staff, or more frenzied studies anew in 2015.
Quite simply put, it is the right thing to do.
John Grady, professional engineer
Slough Road
