Cleanup could drain budgets

Communities must pay for Paxton Creek phosphate problem

Saturday, July 05, 2008

BY DAVID DEKOK

Of The Patriot-News

There's little good and a lot of potentially bad news for taxpayers in the final version of an Environmental Protection Agency plan to clean up Paxton Creek.

The Harrisburg Authority dodged a bullet, saving "tens of millions of dollars" over what it might have had to spend, according to an engineer for the authority.

But Harrisburg, Lower Paxton Twp., Penbrook, Susquehanna Twp. and Swatara Twp. must pay to reduce phosphate runoff into the creek by 89 percent.

Phosphates that get into the creek come from fertilizer added to lawns, golf courses and farm fields, one engineer said. They can also come from untreated sewage.

John Hall, a Washington, D.C.-based consultant to the Harrisburg Authority and Lower Paxton Twp., estimated the latter's potential bill alone at $100 million if it has to build runoff retention ponds across the township.

But that cost estimate is overblown, especially if low-tech, decentralized methods are used, said E. Drannon Buskirk, founder of the Paxton Creek Watershed and Education Association, which supports the cleanup,

"It won't be cheap and it will take time," Buskirk said. "It will be millions of dollars, but not as much as they think."

Planting vegetation buffers along Paxton Creek's banks would be one method, he said. So would limitations on the ability of developers to cover new areas with impervious concrete.

EPA's goal is to bring back aquatic insects to the officially "impaired" stretch of creek below Wildwood Lake, where the stream enters a concrete channel for the rest of its journey through Harrisburg to the Susquehanna River.

The hope of EPA is that if the insects return to that part of Paxton Creek, so will fish.

Reducing phosphate discharges won't bring back the insects, Hall said. He cited scientific studies. Planting trees along the creek might help, but Hall said EPA nixed that approach.

Look at Paxton Creek above Wildwood Lake, he said. It has the same or higher nutrient levels as the lower stretch, but also has healthy insect life, as anyone who has hiked the forests near the lake and creek can attest.

If no one successfully appeals the EPA plan, where will that kind of money come from? Pennsylvania's new state budget contains $800 million for water and sewer infrastructure projects, and it appears local municipalities could apply for some of that for Paxton Creek work.

But there likely will be no lack of competition for those dollars because of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup that drove the Legislature to approve the money. All of the Paxton Creek municipalities have the Chesapeake cleanup to worry about as well.

In the good news category, at least for sewage ratepayers, the Harrisburg Authority won permission to have its long-term plan for upgrading its combined sewage overflow system count as its contribution to reducing discharges to Paxton Creek.

That will cost $10 million to $20 million, as opposed to the $40 million to $60 million it could have cost to meet the requirements of the preliminary EPA plan, engineer Edward Ellinger said.

Other municipalities saw their pollution reduction requirements increase. Many said the mandate is nuts.

"I think they're way over the top with this," said Paul Cornell, administrator of Swatara Twp. "They've gone to extremes. I'm as environmentally conscious as the next guy, but there has to be a sense of reality."

Hall wonders whether a reduction in phosphate discharges of 89 percent is even possible. He said a reduction of 40 percent to 50 percent is the maximum that is realistically attainable.

One of the only ways suburban townships could eliminate phosphates is to build retention ponds across the most heavily built-up areas of the township to catch rainwater runoff, Hall said.

Cornell said only 25 acres of Swatara Twp. drain to Paxton Creek, yet EPA says it puts more phosphates in the stream than the city of Harrisburg. He questioned the math and said the township might have to use parking lots or tear down homes to build retention ponds.

What happens next will be determined by the state Department of Environmental Protection, officials said. It will happen when the townships go to renew their pollution discharge permits, but no one was quite sure when that would be.

DAVID DEKOK: 255-8173 or ddekok@patriot-news.com