Open Letter To The Marlborough MWPCA
Letter Via Email: 
Marlborough Water Pollution Control Authority
Attn: Jack Murray
Town Hall
Marlborough, CT 06447
Dear Mr. Murray,
I request that this letter be read aloud and attached to the minutes of the November 4th MWPCA meeting. I have skimmed the October 22nd version of the regulations you plan on adopting this evening, and must point out several remaining issues.
Section 7.4 states, “The minimum base assessment to be levied against all properties is to recover capital expenditures in an equitable manner based on the value of having the benefit of Public Sewers.”
You have yet to, despite repeated requests, define what “having the benefit of Public Sewers” means. If “having” means connected and using, then please explain how an unconnected resident benefits from the sewer. In fact, that has been your contention all along, claiming that the rest of the town doesn’t benefit, stating it’s “your sewer”, and “why should other people in town pay for you to flush your toilet?”
If you truly believe that people who are not connected to the sewer do not benefit, then you must apply that logical equally, and equitably. An unconnected sewer district resident does not benefit from the sewer any more so than any other unconnected resident. You cannot claim that it is equitable to assess someone who isn’t connected to the sewer, simply because of their geographical location, unless you assess everyone in town who isn’t connected to the sewer. I firmly believe a court will find logic to the contrary, laughable, should the residents proceed with challenging this point in a court of law.
Section 4.1 of the regulations states, “The Owner of any property abutting a street, alley or right of way in which a Public Sewer is located Shall connect by means of a Building Sewer.”
Please explain how the residents of Washington Rd, who abut the Public Sewer “Shall” connect without grinder pumps? That will be a neat trick.
Section 4.1 goes on to state, “Failure to make a connection within ninety (90) days without the granting of a time extension from the MWPCA will result in removal of the Grinder Pump core and reinstallation at a later date at the Owners cost.”
Firstly, the word “will” is not defined in the regulations. It should either read, “…Shall result in removal…”, or , “…May result in removal…” Please, make up your minds and use the correct word. The MWPCA has had over a year to get these regulations right, and “will” has no place in this section.
And, please do explain how gravity fed system property owners, who fail to connect, will have their grinder pumps removed. That would be a neat trick, too.
Lastly, regarding this section, there is no financial penalty defined for not connecting, other than, “at the Owners cost.” May one then assume that you have no intention of fining and causing even more financial harm to Marlborough’s sewer district residents if they simply cannot afford to connect? In fact, when I asked your board at the February 26th, 2009 WPCA meeting, “What financial penalty will there be if I don’t hook up?”, Peter Hughes responded, “None, but you will not be able to expand your home, you would have to pay for your own grinder pump when you do decide to hookup, and it will cost more later.” I am not recalling this from memory – it’s in the meeting minutes.
How a court would side with your board, if you attempted to levy administrative fines against people who do not connect, after your board and this town’s planning department have repeateldy stated otherwise, and those statements are recorded in your meetings minutes, is truly beyond me.
In fact, I believe a judge would find this mess intolerable. Sewer lines laid down where pumps were supposed to go, but not enough money to install the pumps; 50% failure rate on the installed pump housings; 60% of a project at 100% the cost; dismissed petitions on bogus legal opinions; a board consisting of mostly people who won’t share this financial burden, and those that will, benefit from building new homes or expanding existing ones; and, an exemption clause for people with septic systems of a certain age. I cannot see the MWPCA justifying that one in court. Do you actually believe saying, “Mr. Doe is exempted because his septic works and he has room for another septic, but Mr. Durel isn’t exempted because he’s the same as Mr. Doe but his septic is a little older”, will hold water in a court of law?
Instead, I implore you, one last time, to take a step back from the monotony of managing the project, and think about the residents.
There is no reason to force people to connect. There is nothing to prove. Be heroes to the community instead of villains. The people who want to connect, will connect. The rest of us will pick up the bill in our taxes. We all were allowed to vote this project into existence, and we should all be expecting to pay. However, forcing an additional financial burden on to people in the form of a benefit assessment charge, when they’re not connected to the sewer is simply unfair. You cannot force someone to have more money than they do, threatening them with administrative fines and foreclosures, for something they just don’t need right now.
You must be compassionate in your serving of the community, and understand that times are very difficult. Do not force people to connect. Let them do so as they’re able and as the need presents itself. Assess them the benefit charge then, if you must, but not beforehand. In all reality, an unconnected sewer resident is no different than vacant land, which you don’t assess. If you don’t use the thing, you just don’t “have the benefit of Public Sewers.” Or, you must assess the entire town equally, where connection is irrelevent, as that is your claim for sewer district residents.
Lastly, the town gets paid back anyway so there is absolutely no logical reason to enforce mandatory connection. In fact, flow rates would be lower resulting in less of a bill from East Hampton.
Be compassionate, and leave people alone who don’t need to connect, and assess and charge them only when they do. It is the fair and honest thing to do, and will put an end to much of the “sewer controversy” in this town. The whole premise of this project was to protect the lake. If someone’s septic isn’t failing, then you’re still protecting the lake by leaving them alone. Plus, it will shut me up, and make me go away, if that’s any inspiration.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
David J. Durel
