Can Wiscasset avoid moving its sewer plant and instead build a seawall and do other upgrades for climate resilience? Not and still get state or federal funds for the project and avoid the risk of fines, according to the manager of one of the multiple sources of funds the town has sought toward moving the plant. That fresh word from a program manager at Maine Department of Environmental Protection came in a phone interview Wiscasset Newspaper sought a day after town leaders, an engineering firm and a group of villagers talked for two hours. The residents had been given time on selectmen's agenda after those residents started a website and put up lawn signs opposed to the plant going where public works is now, which is near them.

The town has never stopped trying to get government environmental agencies to support a seawall instead, Town Manager Dennis Simmons told residents who spoke Sept. 2 against moving the plant to the public works site. Early tension gave way to common ground, and a plan: The villagers would draft and get signatures on a statement supporting a seawall instead of a move, and Simmons would get the group the information on who to give it to.

When villager Shannon Babcock, addressing the board, cited multiple science articles describing pollutants from wastewater treatment plants, Olver Associates' Bill Olver called that "fear mongering." And Babcock called that description "rude and disrespectful."

Moments later, Olver apologized "if it was viewed as rude. I wasn't trying to be ... Journals are journals and I get that but the real data of all these plants including the one you have now, I don't think you have a record of illness in the neighborhood of the (current) plant." And if the environment in sewer plants across the country was making workers sick, no one would be able to work in the plants, he said.

These were peer-reviewed articles, Babcock said.

Babcock said she and her husband have considered selling their home, not due to the plant issue, and "have been told that we will not be able to sell our house at fair market value because the vote has occurred listing the town garage as the place that this is being relocated to and people will not purchase our homes to be that close to a sewer plant."

Simmons said no realtors have called the town office to discuss this issue "with me or anybody else. So they need to do their jobs as well and call, because I would have gladly explained ... there's a long process that has to take place here. There's a lot of permitting that needs to be done and it's not guaranteed the DEP will even permit this location."

Selectmen's Chair Sarah Whitfield has lived near the 69 Water St. sewer plant most of her life. "My parents have lived there for 49 years. Not once have they ever smelled or noticed any air quality issues there. I now live as almost one of the closest houses to (the plant). We never notice it. However, I'm telling you this because I get that it's personal. I get that you are afraid about it. But I want to assure you that this is not the crisis that it is being blown up to be. And ... I've just been a little bit frustrated because I know someone else who is currently selling their house on Hodge Street and ... there were people going around trying to dissuade potential buyers ... even though their realtor had been very upfront explaining everything. That's not the kind of community we live in. Please come talk to us. Like thank you Shannon for coming and talking to us."

Fielding a resident's question, Olver Associates' Mandy Holway said after the years of fundraising and permitting conclude, construction could take two to three years. "It's not going to preclude people from getting to their houses," and workers can do their best not to be disruptive, Holway said.

'We would much rather build a seawall'

Whitfield said last November's town vote that named the site was mainly held because "funders will not really even consider you until it looks like the community has made an effort to figure out where they want the place."

Whitfield continued, "Even though we have had the town vote (on the site), that does not 100% lock in that location. One, we know the funding's really difficult ... We don't know when or if we will be able to find the $50-plus million ... to move it anywhere. We would much rather build a seawall if that becomes an option. And with the way government keeps changing, maybe it would become an option. We don't know."

Whitfieid said she would love for the environmental agencies to agree to help fund a seawall instead of the move.  A wall would be much cheaper, she said.

Said Simmons, “I have been fighting to keep the plant where it is, because I think it’s the best thing for the town. And I think you guys need to reach out to DEP and say, ‘We think this is the best place to keep this.” He predicted funding the move will be “very, very difficult. It’s coming in in very small amounts and very slowly, and costs are rising faster than we are getting funding for it.”

Whitfield told residents, "While yes, the town chose a site, we chose it under duress because we didn’t want to” move the plant.

'No way' will agencies support wall option; new plant will 'look like the house next door'

In a phone interview Sept. 3, Brandy King said the wall idea is "shut down" as an alternative to moving the plant. King is manager of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

"We've shut the wall down completely. No way, no federal funds and no (Clean Water State Revolving Fund) funds will allow a wall, because we follow FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) flood regulations, because the current treatment plant is in the hundred year flood elevation."

King reiterated, "the wall is totally out" for Wiscasset. "That is agreed upon by multiple agencies that are going to be looking at this (new plant) to potentially fund. So it's not just the DEP. It's federal agencies, too, that have agreed upon this. So state and federal agencies have agreed to move the treatment plant, and that the wall is not a chosen alternative."

King added, "With all the new things coming down the line as far as permitting goes, (the current) site is too small." And other towns are facing similar wastewater treatment plant projects, including, like Wiscasset, a move, so this is not an instance of a town being targeted, she said.

Forgoing a move "would be a disadvantage if the town decides not to move the (wastewater) treatment plant, because there would potentially end up being permit violations, and if there's permit violations they come with fines and things like that. And we don't want to be in that situation. We're looking at the future. We want to be proactive and not reactive.And that's why for the last two years we've worked diligently with the Wiscasset town manager and Olver Associates to come up with this plan ... and the new treatment plant is not going to look like the old treatment plant whatsoever. It will blend in ... It's going to look like the house next door."

King encourages residents to visit Oxford's new plant. "That blends right in with the town. And if you're not careful (looking for it), you will miss it." The plant's workings are encased, with no smell, and the plant increased property values, not decreased them, she added.

'Do a petition of the whole dang town'

Wiscasset villager John Davis recalled his involvement with getting a seawall in Scituate, Massachusetts. And he wondered if Wiscasset stands to get more federal funding given the new presidential administration is "not thrilled" with Maine Gov. Janet Mills.

Asked Sept. 3 if the current political climate will might impact funding toward the Wiscasset plant's move, DEP's King said, "I can't see into the future, but the money that's been secured thus far, holds true."

Whitfield told Davis that Simmons and plant superintendent Rob Lalli are always looking for different ways to address the sewer plant issue. Whitfield added, "If we could get funding enough to do the seawall, I think we could go ahead and just defy EPA and DEP and just do it."

"It's not us that's holding up the seawall. It's DEP," Simmons told Davis. "So, if you think it's a great idea — and we've tried this and we continue to try it — reach out to DEP, and all of you, reach out to DEP and say, 'You need to reconsider your decision to deny us that opportunity.' Because they're the ones saying (we) can't do it. And if we defy them, and just go ahead and put up a seawall, they've already told us legally they can't force us to move this plant. We can build a seawall around it if we want to. But any time we need to do major upgrades to that plant in 20 years or whatever it is, they're not going to give us any money. The responsibility will fall 100% on the town."

Simmons said he recently asked the EPA if, given the new federal administration, "is there any chance that this (wall option) could be reconsidered." He was still awaiting a response.

"Folks, it's not like I'm not working on this." He and Lalli are working on it "all the time," Simmons said.

Babcock asked if residents could throw in their support, as concerned citizens, "because we all know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease ..."

That would be "immensely helpful," Whitfield said. "The more people they hear from, the better. And we keep telling them we would rather just do a seawall and (in additional ways) make that site resilient." 

Simmons said he could send the contact information. "Perfect," Babcock said. "That would be wonderful."

"Do a petition of the whole dang town," Selectman Pamela Dunning said. "Seriously. Go door to door if you have to. Put a push on. We don't want to do what people don't want done."