Climatide

Courtesy of Elise Hugus

An Eco-Toilet Summit in Falmouth last weekend touted urine-diverting and composting toilets as cost-effective ways to address the problem of nutrient pollution from septic systems while also reducing water usage and creating fertilizer.

Unless you’re a four-year-old boy, dedicating an entire afternoon to potty talk probably isn’t on your weekend must-do list. But an Eco-Toilet Summit held here in Falmouth last weekend attracted a hundred or so adults interested in learning more about alternatives to sewering that could help address the Cape’s pressing nutrient pollution problem.

I missed the event due to my entire family being under the weather. But Elise Hugus was there, and with her history of reporting on Falmouth’s wastewater issues, that’s almost better than being there myself. Elise frames the issue at hand this way:

The go-to solution for the past several decades has been centralized sewering, which collects sewage, storm water, and graywater (laundry, shower, and dish water) in a network of underground pipes for treatment and eventual release back into the groundwater.

I won’t get into all the pro’s and con’s of sewering here, suffice to say that there are two factions of environmentalists doing battle in town: biologists who favor sewers as a proven way to keep nutrients out of the groundwater; and ecologists who view the cycle of nutrients as a “closed-loop” system and favor composting to pump n’ treat.

The Eco-Toilet Summit was dedicated to exploring available technologies in the latter category, particularly urine-separating toilets and composting toilets. Former state Rep. Matt Patrick laid out the financial advantage, saying that installing two urine-diverting toilets in each home would cost just 10% of sewering the same areas. Others pointed out the ecological benefits of reducing household water usage and using the nutrients in human waste as a resource (i.e. fertilizer) rather than treating them as an inconvenience or pollutant.

But there are logistical and sociological hurdles on the path to deploying alternative toilets on the scale that would be required to reduce nutrients in the Cape’s coastal bays to acceptable levels. Continue reading →

The Woods Hole Group – a local environmental engineering group – tagged my post on the variety of options available to Cape planners taking on the issue of nutrient pollution from septic systems. They point out that officials are incorporating alternatives beyond conventional wastewater treatment plants:

One encouraging piece of news can be found in the bowels (please excuse the pun) of the Falmouth Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, which was recently approved by the town’s Board of Selectmen.  The CWMP sets aside 12% of the proposed $15M budget to essentially begin an adaptive management program at Bourne’s Pond – with demonstration projects including increasing tidal flushing, installing a 15 acre oyster bed, and installing a 1500-foot permeable reactive barrier.  This sort of forward thinking and willingness to test science-based adaptive management is going to be essential in finding sustainable solutions throughout the Cape.

Wastewater may not be sexy – quite the opposite – but it sure is big news around here these days. Falmouth recently approved a town-wide comprehensive wastewater management plan calling for hundreds of millions of dollars in spending to install sewer systems in parts of town that surround coastal bays particularly hard-hit by nutrient pollution from septic systems. And Falmouth is far from alone; towns across the Cape and Islands are struggling with how to fund wastewater treatment systems that are the backbone of efforts to meet federally-mandated reductions in nutrient pollution.

But not everyone is convinced that costly centralized sewer systems are the way to go. At a recent forum hosted by the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, experts discussed the options. Elise Hugus says they fall into four categories:

flckr/CasaDeQueso

1. The Big Pipe Method: This includes conventional centralized wastewater treatment plants, but also individual “on-site” systems and cluster or satellite systems that collect and treat waste from a smaller group of homes. Although costly, such options may end up being the most cost-effective and also offer the greatest opportunity to address non-nutrient pollutants, such as pharmaceuticals and household products, that are emerging as potential environmental and health concerns.
2. Innovative and Alternative Systems: From augmented septic systems to composting or urine-separating toilets, there are many options for individual homeowners to reduce the flow of nutrients out of their backyards. However, getting all homeowners to install, maintain, and properly operate such systems could be a logistical (and financial) nightmare.



flickr/huggingthecoast

3. The Shellfish Solution: Shellfish aquaculture can act as a natural water filtration system, feeding on the algae that bloom in response to elevated nutrient levels. The added bonus here is the potential economic benefit of a commercially viable food product. But it’s not a panacea. The number of oysters or quahogs needed to completely filter a pond or bay might get in the way of other activities. And uptake of pharmaceuticals by shellfish might be a concern.
4. Flushing the Bays: Drawing on the old adage that “dilution is the solution to pollution,” one possibility is widening the inlets that connect coastal ponds to the ocean. This option only works if tides are large enough to flush the bay well. It also comes at the expense of barrier beaches and the unique ecosystems of the Cape’s coastal ponds, which have evolved with restricted contact with the ocean.

Bottom line: there is no ace in the hole. All of the options have their strengths, their limitations, and their costs. But we have a full deck of options. The trick will be putting cards together to make a winning hand.