Letter: Middle Interceptor Sewer Project Need Not Take Private Land

Please, can we get the facts straight regarding the Middle Interceptor?  First off, the residents that are supposedly stopping the Middle Interceptor sewer project along the Perkiomen Creek have already had their land condemned, since 2009.  So how can they be stopping the project?  The Sewer Authority has the sewer easements across their property.  

So we need to get to facts.  This is a clear case of legal and engineering legerdemain that began in 2005 when the pipe location was switched to the Lower Providence side without an amended Act 537 plan.  The Act 537 plan is a long term capacity and siting plan that must be approved by all municipalities (townships) and DEP prior to commencing with other phases of the project.  In 2001, and then again in 2004, the Act 537 Plan was amended and approved by all parties and it clearly states that the pipe “will be in previously disturbed areas, will not affect any more land than currently affected, will be within and adjacent to the existing right of way (ROW), will not affect any known wetlands, accomplished within the existing right of way such that no land acquisition cost is included.” 

In 2005, the pipe location was mysteriously switched to the Lower Providence side and a complete 90 page engineering plan was developed without amending the 537 Plan.   Hence, there was no approval by “all” participating municipalities or DEP.  As such, without following the proper 537 procedures, there was no public comment period for the citizens and local residents to voice their thoughts regarding the site change prior to their proceeding ahead.   So, if residents and property owners along the proposed route change are enraged since their land was condemned in 2009, they have a legitimate right to be. 

In truth, if the sewer authority would have followed the proper regulations and procedures, they would not have wasted millions of tax payer dollars on a full-fledged engineering design for the LP side prior to 537 plan approval, and the condemnation process and litigation on an unapproved location, and $10,000 on a negative publicity campaign against the residents and Lower Providence Township.  To me, it is clearly unbelievable that they are blaming Lower Providence and two property owners for stopping the pipe and wasting rate payer dollars.  To set the record straight, there are many other property owners and hundreds of concerned citizens that have voiced objections to this project.  And also to set the record straight, it is the mistakes and or inattention to regulations, of the LPVRSA that has caused the delay and wasted tax payer’s money.

To make matters worse, they have ignored a May 3, 2011 and September 4, 2011 strong recommendation by the DEP to have a third party engineer do alternative studies regarding route location, cost and pipe design.  This came after two permit attempts for the LP side were denied by DEP and four letters were sent from DEP to the LPVRSA (April 30, 2010, August 11, 2010, April 26, 2011 and November 17, 2011) along with a meeting held explaining that the proposed change to the Lower Providence side was inconsistent with the approved 537 plan of 2004 (in short it is on the wrong side) and the amendment process must occur.      

Instead, after refusing to follow DEP’s recommendation to obtain a third party engineer to do the alternative route and cost studies, they decided to use their own internal engineer to undertake an “unbiased” critical review.  On February 6, 2013, a memo to the LPVRSA compared results from three contractor ‘estimates’ coming from the authority engineer’s report showing that using the existing ROW and trench showed no significant difference in the average costs. With that, Lower Providence wrote a letter to the sewer authority on March 8, 2013 titled “Now is the Time to Settle the Middle Interceptor Dispute” saying that they should move along with placing the pipe in the existing ROW and trench.   After that we believed the pipe would be placed in the existing trench and property owners would not have to be subject to the taking of their land.   Wrong!  On April 11, 2013, at the LPVRSA meeting, where over 20 residents and concerned citizens voiced their objections, the sewer authority voted to move along with the revised LP route and go through 16 resident’s properties instead of using the existing trench that is already approved by the DEP.  This was followed by a series of additional convoluted and questionable cost estimates attempting to justify the Lower Providence route, a plan developed without regard to government regulation for which many dollars were wrongly spent.  There is no need to perpetuate egregious past mistakes made by the sewer authority, especially when the property owner’s concerns over the unapproved revised route on the LP side were significant - they are:

1)      There will be two major stream crossings in less than 3000 feet versus zero major and two minor if using the existing trench.

2)      The pipe will traverse through the floodway in highly erosion sensitive soil and wetlands whereas the existing ROW and trench has naturally occurring rock to prevent erosion.

3)      Extensive blasting will be required to meet the 20 foot and greater depth requirements whereas limited blasting, if any, will be required in the existing ROW and trench.  Blasting can affect wells and foundations of homes.

4)      There will be four 90 degree bends in 3500 feet raising flow concerns.

5)      Two “high maintenance” inverted siphons will be required, raising another serious flow concern.

6)      It is a highly sensitive environmental area full of wetlands and hundred year old trees with many animal species including potential nesting area for the red belly turtle. 

7)      Known historical artifacts have been found and studies are continuing.

8)      A historic wall and erosion barrier will be destroyed.

I am under the firm conviction that the taking of public property should be avoided when there is a viable alternative.  In this case, there is a viable alternative.  From the minutes of a Joint DEP 105 meeting held on February 24, 2013 the Army Corp of Engineers said, “Replacement of pipes in previously disturbed areas is preferred.  The impacts would be temporary to the waterways.  No Act 537 Plan Update would be needed.”  The bottom line is, we have an alternative that will not take private lands, traverse through a residential neighborhood, destroy private assets and historic artifacts and upset an environmentally sensitive floodway. This alternative is already DEP approved for a non-residential hill in a trench in previously disturbed areas.  From their actions so far, the LPVRSA has demonstrated outrageous behavior with far too much power and far too little oversight.