Regarding treated wastewater: no to zero-sum, yes to win-win

I’ve taken a break from wastewater issues for the past few weeks while focusing on the less-controversial wildlife of our area. But it’s time to get back into one of the most pressing issues in Sussex County.

This all started with a column about former Sussex Administrator Joe Conaway, who lobbies in Sussex on behalf of developers and industry. I followed that up with a column about Artesian’s plans for a large wastewater network and its claims that the network can ultimately result in an improved environment.

Since then I have talked to folks in agriculture, folks concerned about contamination of their wells, Sussex County’s engineer in charge of county wastewater systems, and an additional wastewater treatment operator.

Somehow it all led my thinking to the concept of the zero-sum game. To my way of thinking, that means that for there to be winners, there also have to be losers. That runs in opposition to win-win scenarios and the question of whether such scenarios are truly attainable or simply idealistic targets.

I will dig in deeper over the next few weeks, but here are a few sound bites from my recent discussions that will lead to deeper discussion:

• Conaway’s glass is half full: “I’m concerned about the poultry industry. There are pollution problems, but they are correctable. We all just need to work together to help preserve this important part of the economy.”

Farmland preservation?

• Eastern Sussex farmer Jeff Wells’ family tills thousands of acres between Milton and Milford, many of those acres in fields where Artesian plans to spray treated wastewater. “Artesian wants to put too much water on those fields, which will ruin them over the years. I also am concerned that the nitrogen in the wastewater won’t be available when the plants need it most. There’s no way it’s right to be dumping wastewater on land preserved with agland preservation money. The whole idea was to preserve land for agriculture, but I think allowing preserved lands to be used for spraying treated wastewater will only encourage more development and lead to the end of agriculture sooner than later. I don’t think that’s what taxpayers thought they were getting with farmland preservation.”
• Artesian officials say they have more than enough land in the 1,700 acres of fields they have leased to handle treated wastewater from Allen Harim’s Harbeson processing facility. “Based on extensive soil and crop studies,” said Artesian officials, “and using conservative calculations, we think we have at least 30 percent more acreage than we need. Same with the storage lagoon we’re building. We have 30 percent surplus capacity there. And our calculations and science show that while we will be applying nitrates differently than Jeff presently does, he will ultimately find he will be growing strong crops. If the fields don’t produce as they should, we have a contract that covers that too.”
  They said those same studies indicate nitrates getting into the groundwater will average less than 10 milligrams per liter, which is the drinking water standard.

• Delaware Department of Agriculture Deputy Secretary Austin Short said the state’s farmland preservation rules permit spraying of treated wastewater on preserved lands. “Those lands have to be actively farmed and generating ag income every year by producing crops. The proof will be in the pudding. It’s a big block of land. People have done their homework. It has to be done right, and if it is, it should be a win-win. I think all are trying to do the right thing.”
  Short said the Department of Agriculture is relying on its sister agency, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. “If DNREC says the plan is appropriate, that it follows the laws, then it’s OK for preserved land.”
• Sussex County Engineer Hans Medlarz said agriculture utilization of treated wastewater for its nutrients is part of the solution for wastewater disposal. “Artesian has taken a very conservative approach. I can truly say that I think their plan is more conservative than the minimum requirements of the regulations. In many spray partnerships, the spraying is only done when the water and the nutrients are needed. They often let the interested parties control the valves. If spray irrigation with treated wastewater is done right, it can be a real enhancement to the landscape. Done wrong, it can be a detriment.”

Monitoring wells

• Tom DiOrio and Tony Scarpa of the Milton-based Keep Our Wells Clean group are concerned that nitrate regs aren't really safe for drinking water, and that nutrient-laden waters flowing in groundwater toward Milton will contaminate wells. They’re concerned that cancer clusters in Sussex County may have a connection to contaminated water, and it only makes them more suspicious when their requests for state records from monitoring wells are denied. Specifically, they’re concerned about spray water getting into the groundwater flowing toward vulnerable communities like the Russell and Collins neighborhoods just west of Milton, that are downstream – groundwater-wise – from wastewater spray fields.
• Gerry Desmond’s Clean Delaware Inc. operates a wastewater spray field in that vicinity that has been in business for 30 years. “This operation is much more environmentally thoughtful than it was in its earliest days,” he said. “In 2011 or 2012 we had to renew our permit, and that renewal required the installation of monitoring wells around our perimeter. Right away the nitrogen numbers were high, so we had to change some of our practices, stop taking material from some of our customers. We had to protect our neighbors. We knocked on every door in Russell and Collins, and provided water treatment systems or whole-house treatment systems depending on the numbers.”
  Desmond said groundwater upstream from the Clean Delaware fields also registered high in nitrates. “That’s from long-term agricultural practices,” said Desmond. “I wish we had benchmark numbers, but we don’t. What I do know is that all the monitor wells that initially tested high are now compliant with drinking water standards. To me it’s a success story because before, we weren’t required to monitor at all. I’m not taking credit for all of this, but I’m not taking the blame either. We want to be good neighbors.”

There’s much more than this, but at the end of the day we all want clean water, and everyone should be watching our state environmental officials closely to make sure the economy and the environment both win in this process. It should not be just the economy winning at the expense of the environment and our health.