Grassroots Effort From Residents Stalls Multi-Million Dollar Sewer Project

Ever since Catherine Beyer first addressed the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority’s middle interceptor project in her Patch blog, ‘The Resident’s Story,’ in August 2012, a lengthy and passionate public conversation has followed on the blogs of Patch and during municipal meetings.

The question that rages on is whether a pipeline, known as the middle interceptor— connecting sewer lines that run from Skippack and extend to the Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plant—should be placed on the Upper Providence side of the Perkiomen Creek, where the pipes have been since originally constructed in the 1970s, or on the Lower Providence side of the creek.

(For a detailed look at a timeline of the project, the LPVRSA’s reasons for choosing the Lower Providence side of the creek, and the potential ramifications, click here to read the first of our two-part series.)

Beyer, and some other Lower Providence residents who will be affected by the sewer-pipe installation in their back yards, have lobbied Lower Providence Township, state elected officials, the Army Corps of Engineers and other organizations against the proposal, which will go to the DEP for a final decision in the coming months.

“We have looked at this, we have studied it, we have talked about it, we have looked for other alternatives,” said LPVRSA Chairman Terrie Stagliano of the installation and the construction, which should last roughly six months. “People aren’t going to be happy, and we’re very sensitive to it.”

Arcola Road easements

“They CONDEMNED our land with out the proper authority!”- Lower Providence Resident Catherine Beyer

According to Beyer, she was shocked on Christmas Eve of 2009 when the sewer authority condemned her property for construction of the sewer lines, which she believes will wreak havoc on the landscape behind her home, destroy the Perkiomen Creek, and will be a hazard during floods.

Sewer officials tell a different story. According to LPVRSA Solicitor Robert Brant, the authority and sent letters to homeowners along the creek in June 2005, stating, “The existing/or proposed interceptor is planned to parallel the creek, but not necessarily on the same side of the creek as the existing interceptor.”

Brant said that all protocol was followed and residents received notices of the potential construction years before it was set to occur.

“The perception is we walked out there and stuck a sword on somebody’s ground and said ‘It’s going to be here, it’s the government,’ but that is not the case,” said Brant.

During the summer of 2009, notices were mailed requesting easements for the middle interceptor, and meetings were held with residents who requested them, including Beyer. By October of 2009, Lower Providence Township had authorized easements required for the township-owned properties along Arcola Road, including Hoy Park; in December 2009, Declarations of Taking were filed against some homeowners for some of the easements – the “notice of condemnation” referred to by Beyer.

In February 2010, concerned residents began attending Lower Providence Township meetings and objecting to the middle interceptor project on the Lower Providence side of the creek.

The public-relations battle

‘HELL YES we are NIMBYS’ – Arcola Road Resident Catherine Beyer on a Patch Blog

In April 2010, the Lower Providence Township solicitor sent a letter requesting that the PA DEP permit be delayed to begin building until issues were analyzed and reviewed; weeks later, the application was sent back to the LPVRSA, having been determined to be “administratively incomplete”.

Since the permit was put on hold, a public relations storm between residents and the authority has raged.

“We’re all trying to do what’s best for everyone, even those residents,” Stagliano said. “Are we going to make everyone happy? You never do.”

Beyer posted several Patch blogs on the topic, which can be read here, often attacking LPVRSA leadership, staff and consultants, referring to the LPVRSA’s “Campaign of Misinformation.”

“This land was never supposed to be considered for this construction project,” Beyer said. “Too many errors of judgment and not playing by the rules have brought the residents of this community and LPT unwarranted hardship. We did not choose it. We are the victims of injustice and have been unfairly burdened with three years of turmoil and ridicule by the continual threat and actions of LPVRSA.”

According to Beyer, countless residents have attended LPVRSA meetings since 2009 and signed petitions against the proposed sewer-line location. She also said that several hundred residents attended a rally at Hoy Park to protest the sewer location and protect their land.

“LPVRSA continues to spend ratepayer’s money fighting needless litigations, unnecessary condemnations, and hiring Public Relations firms instead of applying common sense and sound budget reform in seeking an alternative that works.” Beyer said.

Stagliano and LPVRSA staff and consultants take exception to many of the claims brought against the authority, and many of the statements made regarding the project.

One of the most important issues that Stagliano objected to is a claim by the opposition that the Army Corps of Engineers preferred the pipe to be on the Upper Providence Side of the creek, according to the Lower Providence Township Manager.

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Regulatory branch has made no permit decision on any of the alternatives associated with the project,” according to Bryan P. Bellacima, of the Corps of Engineers in an e-mail dated April 15.

Another issue addressed is that the Graterford Prison expansion is the reason for the interceptor project; not true, according to LPVRSA Engineer Bill Dingman.

“Very shortly, Skippack Township and the prison will present a planning document to show that the prison can come into the system the way the interceptor is today,” Dingman said.

Stagliano also addressed manholes; she said a video referencing the proposed construction shows that manholes could extend 12 feet off the ground; Stagliano said the manholes would only be 18 inches from the ground, and the video uses images not belonging to the LPVRSA.

For more of the LPVRSA’s responses to resident’s claims, click here.

Upper Providence Township Supervisor Lisa Mossie has also addressed the debate on Patch.

“The LPVRSA has satisfactorily and comprehensively addressed all of the objections raised by Lower Providence Township and its special interest group of residents,” Mossie’s blog says, after ticking off a list of concerns that have been stated by residents and offering explanations.

Collegeville Borough Vice Chairman Arnold Mann has been more outspoken on the issue, particularly regarding a $10 increase per EDU (equivalent dwelling unit) as a result of the ongoing issue.

“The rates are going up because of the lawsuits, and the fact that Lower Providence has not paid their bills to the [LPVRSA], they have put it in a trust - we need to raise our rates to keep the sewer plant operating,” Mann said at a borough council meeting in October.

Perkiomen Township Supervisor Gordan MacElhenney has been adamant in his support placing the pipes on the Lower Providence side of the creek, particularly regarding a proposal by Lower Providence to build a pump station to avoid the area, which could increase the cost of the project by $10 million.

“This is a ‘Not in My Back Yard’ (NIMBY) situation, but we have 60,000 other residents to consider,” said MacElhenney. “Wasting money is not a high priority of this board.”

Some residents believe there is a bigger picture than what Beyer and her neighbors see, including Lower Providence Township Zoning Hearing Board chairman and supervisor candidate Janice Kearney.

"Township supervisors have a duty to consider the impact on ALL their residents who will be impacted by higher sewer costs, not just the few that are in close proximity to the physical project," Kearney said. "Placing the lateral on the Upper Providence side of the creek makes no sense on an environmental or financial level for our residents. There are environmental concerns on both sides of the creek."

"When the Perkiomen Creek is the point of contention, environmentalism can be a convenient cover for NIMBYs and political gamesmanship," said Kearney in her blog, Lower Providence Out Loud.

“HELL YES we are NIMBYS!” said Beyer, in response to Kearney. “ But not for the reasons you have accused us of— The dangerous common sense environmental consequences that could result from sewage lines in this area are obvious.”

The debate has extended past the authority and municipalities, as State Representative Mike Vereb and State Senator John Rafferty— both of whom represent Lower Providence but not many of the other member municipalities—tried to intervene, refusing to support a grant for the upper part of the middle interceptor, which is agreed up on by all parties, until a mediator is brought in to work out the contested area.

“Speaking for myself, I do not object to bringing money to help with the project,” said Vereb. “But I cannot sign a letter knowing the taxpayers are being taken for a ride.”

Perkiomen Township Supervisor Richard Kratz opposed the inclusion of outside elected officials early on in the process, telling them to ‘bug out.”

“Outsiders are trying to get involved in this and be helpful,” said Kratz during an August meeting. “All it does is cause more confusion than we already have.”

Most importantly, according to Stagliano, the board, staff and consultants are looking out for the ratepayers of the region.

“This board –everybody – all six municipalities – the engineer, the solicitor, the manager, everyone involved here, I see nothing but the highest integrity in everybody here,” said Stagliano.

“We are looking out also for the 60,000 ratepayers, and we’re sensitive to the concerns of those residents along Arcola Road, and the residents along the 25,000 linear feet of pipe that we’ve put down.”