PORTLAND, Maine — On April 23, heavy rains pounded Portland. The next day, many of the city’s most recognizable water bodies were the color of sewage.
“I look out my window at the bay and it’s brown,” said Casco Baykeeper Joe Payne, whose Friends of Casco Bay headquarters is across Portland Harbor in South Portland. “When I see just the visuals from a storm like that and know that millions and millions of gallons of pollutants and sewage and runoff went into the bay it makes me anxious and saddened.”
Two decades after the city of Portland entered into a consent agreement with federal environmental regulators to systematically eliminate combined sewer-stormwater overflows, or CSOs, signs of the overflows are still prominent after every major rainstorm.
Equally striking for Portlanders is the estimated $170 million price tag tied to the next 15 years of working on the problem, a cost that comes on top of $94 million spent or scheduled to be spent on sewer system fixes between 1993 and 2014, and which is expected to double or triple sewer bills for many local ratepayers.
Scariest of all is the acknowledgement that there’s no end in sight for either the polluting overflows or the crushing expenses associated with reducing them. By the time the next wave of projects is scheduled to conclude in 2029, the city annually will continue to pour 87 million gallons of contaminated water and sewage into Back Cove and Portland Harbor.
In CSOs, rainwater enters into underground sewer pipes. When the combined volume is more than city treatment facilities can handle, it bypasses the sanitary checkpoints and spills into Casco Bay and other bodies of water. The discharges carry oils and chemicals washed from the city streets as well as excrement from homes and businesses tied into the sewer system.
Even where the water isn’t brown, Payne said, the impact of the overflows can be tested. After one recent storm he navigated his boat out into the bay near Fort Gorges and tested for salinity. Payne said he was forced to go down six feet of depth on a open ocean bay before he found salt water.
That’s six feet of freshwater, flushed into the bay through runoff and sewer overflows, riding on top of what is supposed to be ocean water. Payne said he was surprised, and most other people are as well when he tells them of the experiment.
“Raw sewage can contain parasites and pathogens of concern that can come back to us on our plate or while swimming,” said Payne, who last week was given a lifetime achievement award by the Environmental Protection Agency. “In fresh water, you get into drinking water issues. Here, people get concerned about fecal matter in seafood. Our communities are past the point where anyone thinks it’s OK to dump raw sewage into the bay, and people are shocked by it — people don’t know that it’s happening.”
In recent years, a ‘concerted effort’
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection this week released its annual statewide CSO report, revealing that Portland in 2011 discharged 496.3 million gallons of runoff and sewage into water bodies through combined sewer overflows.
That represents 44 percent of the state’s entire CSO volume. Portland has 120 miles of piping in which stormwater and sewage are combined, compared with 68 miles of dedicated stormwater pipes and 107 miles of dedicated sewer pipes.
“Obviously Portland is our largest city in the state, and rightly or wrongly it’s our largest CSO contributor in the state,” said David Breau, the department’s CSO coordinator. “They have more sewer pipe in the ground. Therefore, they collect more water and combined stormwater and wastewater.”
The next closest communities on the list are Bangor and Brewer, with 146 million and 140 million gallons discharged in 2011, respectively.
But while the most recent numbers are daunting, they represent a great leap forward for Portland, which discharged more than 1.8 billion gallons as recently as 2006, according to DEP data.
Even those figures seem sparkling when compared to Portland’s anecdotal history of water pollution.
“We’ve got reports going back to the 1850s and 1870s, where they were trying to get rid of the ‘nuisance’ of Back Cove, because it was all sewage,” city engineer Bradley Roland said.
Payne noted that Portland didn’t even build a sewage treatment plant until the late 1970s, “so all the city’s sewage went into the bay” prior to that time. He said a six-foot-wide wooden trough, once used to carry untreated effluent, can still be seen stretching out into Portland Harbor from underneath Long Wharf during low tides.
“Think about running around Back Cove 20 or 30 years ago,” said Sean Mahoney, director of the Maine branch of the Conservation Law Foundation. “It would not have been a very pleasant experience, especially after a heavy rainstorm. The Presumpscot River would peel the paint off of people’s houses it was so bad. That’s the type of thing not many people may remember.”
Mahoney said the Conservation Law Foundation recognized Portland was not in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and began a dialogue with the city in 1991. He said the city averted a potential lawsuit filed by the foundation by entering into a consent agreement with state regulators, lining up a plan to reduce CSOs over time.
Early on, environmental watchdogs such as the Conservation Law Foundation and Friends of Casco Bay argued the city was falling consistently behind schedule. Payne said that Portland took eight years to accomplish the plan’s first three years’ worth of work.
“I think everyone would agree the city did not meet a lot of the early deadlines called for in the consent decree, and that was, quite frankly, disappointing,” Mahoney said. “But over the last several years the city has made a concerted effort to address the issues listed in the consent decree in a manner that’s very reasonable.”
Since 1993, the city has completed more than 100 CSO abatement projects, eliminated 11 of its 43 overflow points and reduced average overflow volumes by more than 42 percent.
“If you didn’t have an appreciation for the distance we’ve already traveled in cleaning up Casco Bay or Back Cove or our river, you do a disservice to the time and money people have spent to get us to where we are today,” Mahoney said. “The idea that people can swim at East End Beach on a regular basis now [is recent] — 40 years ago, you did so at risk to your health.”
New ‘stormwater fee’ proposed
The city of Portland is finishing projects associated with what is known as Tier II of its ongoing CSO plan. Tier III — the $170 million phase of the overall work — is due to begin in 2014. The aim of the Tier III projects will be to eliminate CSOs into the Fore River, cut Back Cove CSOs from 416 million gallons annually to 70 million gallons and reduce overflows into Portland Harbor from 145 million gallons per year to 17 million gallons.
In addition to strategic “green solutions” to prevent stormwater from ever running into the drains — such as strategically placed gardens and porous pavement to absorb rain where it falls — Tier III projects include several massive underground storage tanks meant to gather the first inch of rain from any storm. Such tanks, to be located near Baxter Boulevard, Marginal Way, West Commercial Street and the Fore River pump station, would hold rainwater and runoff until a storm passes, then route the additional water through the treatment facilities when the weather’s dry and there’s plenty of capacity.
The Tier III work would leave Portland’s total overflow level at 87 million gallons per year after about 35 years and $264 million in investments. In comparison, the town of Rockland entirely eliminated its CSOs by spending about $6.4 million over about a decade.
“You just can’t do enough projects to eliminate them all [in a city Portland’s size],” city engineer Bradley Roland said.
Over the past year, a city task force chaired by City Councilor Ed Suslovic was charged with developing a plan to raise the next $170 million.
In March, the task force officially recommended the creation of a new stormwater fee to be added to existing sewer fees. Under the plan being proposed, 50 percent of the $170 million in costs will be raised through sewer fees and 50 percent through stormwater fees.
The task force reasoned that the new fee would create equity in shouldering the burden, considering the fact that stormwater runoff is a major part of the CSO problem. According to a task force presentation delivered by Suslovic in March, an average Portland home annually contributes about 110,000 gallons to the combined sewer and stormwater system — around 70,000 gallons of sewer volume and 40,000 gallons of runoff from driveways, roofs and other impervious surfaces.
While a typical privately managed parking lot in the city contributes nothing in the way of sewage, it is responsible for about 3.5 million gallons of stormwater runoff annually, easily having a greater CSO impact than the average home. Yet, under the current system of billing, the parking lot owner pays nothing toward the CSO fixes while the average home over the next 15 years will see its annual annual sewer bills climbing up to around $850.
Under the recommended division of bills between sewer and stormwater, that same home in about 15 years would today pay $490 in sewer fees and $360 in stormwater fees per year, while the parking lot owners would pay $2,000 in stormwater fees and no sewer fees.
The big winners, according to the task force’s model, are large or industrial ratepayers. An average industrial sewer user might be looking at $435,000 per year in sewer bills 15 years out as its share of the CSO fix. But with the burden spread out to include stormwater contributors with no sewer inputs, the average industrial property would be billed about $260,000 — $250,000 in sewer fees and $9,500 in stormwater fees.
Under any scenario, the task force warns, the bills will be going up for everybody.
The task force estimates that a property or business owner currently paying $1,000 per year in sewer fees would see those bills raise to $1,900 by 2030 even if the city refused its Tier III obligations. Spreading the Tier III costs over 15 years through a series of bonds, which is the expected funding mechanism to be used, would push that same sewer user’s fees up to $2,840 annually by 2030.
Ian Houseal, Portland’s sustainability coordinator, said that while the city’s problem seems massive compared to Rockland, Philadelphia is facing $200 billion in costs to fix its CSO problems.
“Everybody’s wrestling with numbers that are almost unimaginable,” said Michael Bobinsky, director of Portland public services.
For those looking at the potential of skyrocketing bills, the sobering thought for Portlanders is that after Tier III, there very well might have to be a Tier IV.
“As a society, we’re past the point where for any reason — even economic reasons — it’s OK to dump raw sewage any more,” Casco Baykeeper Joe Payne said. “But then comes the rub that Portland’s spent $70 million so far and is going to spend another $170 million and they still won’t be done.”
Added Bobinsky: “We also recognize there are future environmental laws coming — ultimately, [the stormwater] may all have to go into the treatment plant. Where does that put us?”



This is exactly what’s happening in Bangor.
Tune in to the Infrastructure Committee meeting on May 8 to find out more.
Tell me more, tell me more..
I know Bangor used to dump raw sewage into the ‘skeag decades ago.
Socialism.
Requiring property owners to pay for their portion of stormwater pollution sounds like the complete opposite of socialism.
Another part of CSO problems are old and leaking pipes that allow groundwater infiltration. In the past, pipes were often made of clay which has disintegrated over time allowing root damage from plants and trees as well as complete failure if crushed or broken (driven over by heavy construction equipment for example). There simply was no PVC back when much of the piping was installed and now replacing the piping is costly and in a city of Portland’s size, it would be never-ending. After excavating to install new piping, there are, of course, paving costs. ANY town or city with old pipes is going to have problems and that includes “up North”.
The sheer volume of raw sewage that the supposedly “progressive” city of Portland is spewing into Maine’s coastal waters is downright repulsive…
If the city of Portland was a “conservative” city, the sheer volume of raw sewage spewing into Maine’s coastal waters would still be downright repulsive…
The funny thing is that the worst water polluters via sewage outflows were the northern, liberal cities until litigation and the federal government forced said cities to clean up their act.
These are also the oldest cities in the country. Drop the partisan blinders for a minute.
I should have explained my position better. I grew up in the Boston area. (No ad hominems please.) I know it’s an old city with old infrastructure.
Just the same. My point is that liberal politicians such as Menino, Flynn, and White (Boston mayors) and the Democratic governors are all for talking liberalism, but when it comes time to walk the talk themselves, Boston Harbor was allowed to remain polluted for a long, long time. Dukakis did NOTHING to clean up the harbor, until courts, some environmental groups, along with, believe it or not, the *Reagan and Bush administrations*, forced him to clean it up. I had an aunt and uncle that lived out on Squantum – a part of the City of Quincy that is a peninsula jutting out into Boston Harbor, surrounded by tidal flats, and man, I *hated* to visit them in the 60s and 70s on account of the smell.
And I have no “partisan blinders” as I haven’t voted for a major party pres. candidate in over 20 years. (It’s really a two-head, one party system we have.)
Reminds me of Boston circa 1988 and how then governor Micheal Dukakis was humiliated by Bush I in a commercial where Bush stood next to a filthy Boston Harbor and blamed Dukakis.
Probably at least 50% of the cost of getting this under control is greed (profit) by the contractors. It could be done for less.
You make it sound like profit is a dirty word, so I assume you are a worker and not a business owner.
At the end of the work week do you expect to see your profit (in the form of a pay check)?
Everybody should make a profit but an obscene profit, at taxpayer expense, is just plain wrong. You know as well as I do it can be done for less. This is going to be a government contract and just ripe for cost overruns and corruption.
You said “Probably”, in other words, you don’t know.
That’s right, I don’t. Just a wild guess. I’m sure you want more of your tax dollars spent than necessary. I’m just against obscene profits. That’s why this economy is in the situation it’s in.
Like the health industry, for example. $7 for an aspirin. That’s obscene.
And how is it that you know that they are making obscene profits? What is obscene to you? What is a fair rate of return when you borrow millions to buy equipment to do the jobs, you invest your life savings in the business, you work hundreds of hours a week to make the business successful, you need additional capital to grow the business and employ more workers, what is your definition of obscene and be specific?
read my reply to gotclog.
“Everybody should make a profit but an obscene profit, at taxpayer expense, is just plain wrong.”
WHY! Why is it so wrong for someone risking SO MUCH more then just their money to build a business to make a profit?
Is your profit at the end of the week above minimum wage?
Did you give up your last raise or did you sucum to the “greed’?
I know plenty busting their butts for a bit over minimum wage that would say it’s “obscene” for someone to make $16 an hour.
I can’t speak for corruption. I know little about it in the construction industry. I will agree that ANY amount of corruption should be delt with with heavy hands.
Overruns have little to do with the contractor, and a lot to do with poor planning, regulation, change orders, etc…
It’s not “their” money. It’s the taxpayers. It seems like you think obscene profits are ok. So if the project costs X amount of dollars and a reasonable profit is X plus 25% you would rather pay X plus 75%? You must have more money than brains.
If people are making minimum wage it’s their choice. They could further educate themselves and get a better job. Maybe not in this economy but overall.
Nobody chooses to make minimum wage, people have to take the jobs that are available.
you can’t have obscene profits without corruption because a free, un-corrupted marketplace will naturally balance supply and demand. In such a system, obscene profits are just an opportunity for someone else to underbid you.
Your 50% estimate is absolutely ridiculous. These things get put out for bids. Raise a billion or so in capital to start your own company and then try to be the lowest bidder. Expect to lose because for-profit companies might be more concerned about staying in business and staying the same size than making an immediate profit. Laid-off workers and rusting equipment is not the ideal way to come out of a recession.
The work is bid out competitively. Get in to contracting if you can beat their bids.
ew and :(
Having areas where sewer and storm drains come together means that all of that water must pass through the sewage treatment plants. Installing larger basins to hold storm water back until there is sewage capacity at the plant makes sense or even installing more of them. However, one wonders why the sewage capacity can be overwhelmed so often. Maybe the engineers need to check whether the sewage capacity is enough to handle the city, Plus, do all storm drains need to be diverted to the CSO’s or can they be run into the bay without going through the treatment facility. More exists to this problem than is being dealt with.
How many millions of gallons of water is dropped on a city the size of Portland for each inch of rainfall? It has to be in the billions of gallons. Where would we build those containment ponds for a storm that drops 2,3, 4 or more inches of rain?
Wow. Interesting to note that Bangor and Brewer are still dumping 300 million gallons of sewage/stormwater mix into the Penobscot and it’s mentioned only as a side note. If you figure populations of the two metro areas into the equation, Bangor/Brewer are producing a lot more untreated sewage per capita as Portland is and it’s going into a river, not a bay. People get to enjoy the sewage for 30 miles to the ocean.
I saw people swimming down at the Hampden landing last year on a hot day. Yuck.
Everybody does it and nobody wants to clean it up.
Stop the sewage, and what will the lobsters eat?
What they ate before cities existed
And all the BULL that comes out of Portland… LOL…
The U.S. faces trillions in infrastructure costs. Portland sewer system is just the tip of the ice berg. We as a society will either pay for the maintenance or we won’t and will suffer the consequences. We will end up paying for it one way or another. For example, Congress will be debating a highway repair bill next week. If we do not maintain the roads we do not save money in the end because we will pay for repairs to the suspensions of our cars. We can let bridges degrade until they collapse, and pay by having to drive to the next bridge which my be a long distance away. The list goes on.
Many of these infrastructure costs are Federal responsibility. The F-35 is expected to cost $1.5 trillion between construction and maintenance. Cancel the F-35 and put the savings into infrastructure and our country becomes stronger and safer, with an improved quality of life. This is not liberal/conservative, just the goal of maximizing the common good.