Letter to the Editor: Now is the Time to Settle the Middle Interceptor Dispute

For the first time in almost three years, the Board Members of the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority (the "Regional Authority") and the six member municipalities have an opportunity to resolve the dispute over the proper location of a new 54" sewer line along the Perkiomen Creek known as the "Middle Interceptor."

The dispute arose in the spring of 2010, when DEP advised the Regional Authority that its proposed location of the new line on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen violated the Act 537 Plan adopted in 2003 by the six member municipalities. Recently, the Regional Authority began a process of updating its Act 537 Plan, including a consideration of all of the available alternatives for siting the disputed section of the Middle Interceptor. 

That planning process recently yielded some good news that should lead to a settlement of the Middle Interceptor dispute. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that it is not opposed to location of the disputed portion of the new Middle Interceptor in the same right-of-way and same trench as the existing 42" line that it replaces. Not only that, the Corps of Engineers indicated that the location of the new Middle Interceptor line in the same trench as the old line is actually the preferred location for the line. Up to that time, it had been incorrectly assumed that locating the new line at the bottom of a steep slope, in the existing right of way and existing trench, would not be approved by the Corps of Engineers. 

With that issue resolved, a comparison of the three available gravity flow alternatives demonstrates that locating the new line in the existing right-of-way and same trench is the best of the three options. Some of the advantages of locating the line in the existing right-of-way and same trench are as follows: 

1. Since the trench has already been disturbed, installation of the line will not cause the destruction of sensitive ecology and will minimize destruction of large growth trees. This avoids a problem that plagues the other gravity flow alternatives on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen. 
2. Installation in an already disturbed area assures the Regional Authority that the project will not be interrupted by the discovery of archeological artifacts of the type encountered (547 Precontact Artifacts) on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen. In that regard, it is noteworthy that the archeological testing on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen only covered an area 400 feet in length and significant additional archeological deposits will likely be encountered on that side of the creek beyond the 400 feet where the test pits were dug. For that reason, the true cost of artifact retrieval and resulting project delay on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen are unknown and could significantly exceed the suggested estimates. 
3. The two gravity flow options on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen permanently disrupt the creek by installing two major stream crossings, referred to as inverted sewers. Inverted sewers of that type require continuing maintenance, with a risk of clogging and overflowing into the creek. Installation of the new 54" line in the existing right-of-way and existing trench eliminates those major stream crossings, making it a true gravity flow option without special sections. Furthermore, installation in the existing right-of-way and same trench will lead to only temporary interference with the creek, a course which the Corps of Engineers recognized as being preferable to the permanent installation of major stream crossings. 
4. No amendment of the Act 537 Plan is needed to install the new 54" line in the existing right-of-way and same trench because the six municipalities have already agreed to that location in the Act 537 Plan. Installing the 54" line in the same trench will fully meet the sewage flow capacity needs of the six municipalities under the Act 537 Plan. 
5. By averaging the quotes obtained by the Regional Authority from three contractors as part of the planning process, it becomes evident that the construction cost of the three gravity flow alternatives (one in the existing trench and two on the Lower Providence side of the creek) are essentially the same. It is understood that the averaging of the quotes received from the contractors is a more reliable planning methodology since the quotes received were rough estimates and were not, to any extent, guaranteed prices. 
6. Installation in the existing right-of-way and same trench eliminates the need to condemn a permanent easement across private residential property and limits condemnation to temporary construction easements. By contrast, both of the gravity alternatives on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen require condemnation of a 40-foot wide permanent sewer easement across 18 private residential properties. 
7. It is sound engineering practice to "replace" sewer lines in the same trench. 

To date, none of the parties have commenced litigation and the dispute has not impacted the rate payers of the Regional Authority. Resolving the matter at this point will have the added benefit of avoiding time consuming and expensive litigation among the parties. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the public interest is best served by seizing the opportunity to settle this longstanding dispute. The suggested resolution places the new pipe in the existing right-of-way and same trench as the old 42" line, at a location already agreed upon in the Act 537 Plan by the six municipalities. 

Richard Gestrich, JD, MS 

Township Manager, Lower Providence Township