Somerville Wants Sewer Change, Bridgewater Might Stand in the Way

It’s a question of fairness—and officials in Somerville hope that, this time, those in Bridgewater and Branchburg will see it that way as well.

The Somerset Raritan Valley Sewerage Authority is preparing to discuss a request from Somerville officials to change current requirements in the service agreement among members that states that towns allow for a minimum flow through the sewer system, and must pay the difference if they do not reach that.

But for Somerville, a town that has not seen the level of development that Bridgewater and others have, it is difficult to reach that minimum in drier years, and the residents end up paying up to $100,000 to account for the difference.

“In a low flow year, we end up subsidizing the other members of the authority,” said Somerville Borough Mayor Brian Gallagher. “And it is a disincentive to us to reduce our flow.”

Members of the sewerage authority spoke before the Bridgewater Township Council Jan. 13 to discuss the issue, and inform officials that the request for a change will be going for a vote soon. If the authority approves the request from Somerville, each municipality that is a member of the authority must pass its own ordinance or resolution to approve it as well.

If they don’t, the change cannot be made.

And the last time this was brought up, Bridgewater and Branchburg were the only two municipalities to say no.

“This change requires a unanimous vote in the towns themselves,” said authority member Joe Lifrieri. “Only a majority approval is required from the authority itself.”

According to authority director Glen Petrauski, the authority started in 1958 with Bridgewater, Raritan and Somerville that created the service agreement. In borrowing money to get started, and putting the authority together, the three towns agreed to set a minimum flow requirement through the sewer system, and pay costs if they didn’t reach that minimum.

But growth among the towns has not been even over the years.

“Raritan and Somerville today are like they were back then,” Petrauski said. “But Bridgewater has grown.”

Over the years, Petrauski said, other towns have joined the authority, namely Hillsborough, Manville, Branchburg and Warren. And the clause about the minimum flow requirement, he said, has remained.

“But some of the towns have had a lot of growth, beyond the minimum flow requirement,” he said.

And at this point, Petrauski said, the minimum requirement is not necessarily needed because the authority is not a start-up anymore, and it has the funds it needs to be maintained.

The biggest issue, Petrauski said, is that in drier years, some towns like Somerville fall below the minimum, so the town has to pay upwards of $100,000 to comply with the requirements of the authority.

“This is no longer equitable,” he said. “We have discussed that the best thing might be to get rid of the minimum requirement.”

“Should someone pay for what they don’t use?” he added.

For example, Petrauski said, if the minimum flow requirement was 1.9 million gallons, and a town only sends 1.8 million, another $50,000 has to be paid to the authority.

Gallagher said the borough has spent a great deal of money to fix its inflow infiltration (INI), which means that it works to prevent pipes from leaking and groundwater from flowing into the sewer system.

“We spend money to fix that, but we wind up paying more anyway,” he said.

This issue was first brought up in 2003, and the authority agreed to eliminate the minimum flow requirement from the authority’s charter. From there, Petrauski said, the issue moved on to the individual towns.

“All towns must pass an ordinance or resolution saying they would agree to change the contract and eliminate the minimum,” he said.

But, Petrauski said, Bridgewater and Branchburg did not pass the ordinance, so the matter died then. He said Bridgewater expressed concerns about how much eliminating the minimum would cost the residents.

And now, Somerville is asking for the change again.

“2010 was very dry, and Somerville flows fell below the minimum again,” Petrauski said.

Gallagher said the borough has asked the authority to put this issue on the agenda for the next meeting, scheduled for Jan. 24, and is hoping it then goes to the municipalities with a unanimous approval this time.

At the Jan. 13 meeting, Bridgewater council members heard a presentation about the issue, then questioned how it would work.

“Will we be able to find out the cost to Bridgewater if this change goes through?” councilman Allen Kurdyla asked.

Authority member Kenneth Lee said he is not sure if Bridgewater will be able to see costs.

“I don’t know if you’ll be able to see the surplus for the coming years,” he said. “If a town goes through a drought and it falls below the minimum, the municipality will run out of the surplus.”

Councilman Howard Norgalis questioned whether there would be this request for a change if the country weren’t suffering from a recession.

“In Somerville they vacated the area on Main Street, and it will open soon,” he said. “I expect then the municipality will not be less than the minimum.”

“In better economic times, maybe things would have been better,” he added.

And councilman Dan Hayes said he understands the concerns being raised by Somerville officials.

“The issue Somerville raises makes sense,” he said.

But Hayes said it would be nice to look at past values and costs to determine how eliminating the minimum requirement might affect residents.

In 2003, after Bridgewater and Branchburg declined to allow the ordinances to go through Gallagher said, the authority tried to come up with different ways of alleviating the problem, but nothing was decided.

“There was a meeting of the minds for use to maybe get credits,” he said. “But the authority found it could not be done legally.”

Now, with this second attempt Gallagher said, this is Somerville’s last try.

“Our taxpayers can’t afford to subsidize the other members of the authority,” he said. “You should pay for what flows out of your municipality.”

“If the municipalities don’t all agree to the change, we will have no choice but to address this in the courts,” he added.