In recent days, a great deal of misinformation has circulated online about the Select Board’s recent vote concerning Plymouth’s wastewater treatment system. Given the importance of clean water to our community, and the understandable concern many residents feel, it is critical to correct the record and explain what the Board actually voted on, what it did not vote on, and how environmental protection fits into this decision.
First and foremost, the Select Board did not approve the discharge of wastewater into the Eel River, nor did it authorize any immediate change in discharge practices. The vote was narrowly tailored and specifically limited to the submission of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to the state for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). This is a procedural step in a long regulatory process. Any discharge of treated wastewater into the infiltration beds in Camelot Park, if it is ever approved by the state and supported by a future Select Board, would be years away.
Even in that scenario, discharge would not occur by “flipping a switch.” The proposal calls for a stepped discharge process, gradually shifting discharge away from Plymouth Harbor and into the infiltration beds, while closely monitoring groundwater through a network of monitoring wells. If the data show unexpected or unacceptable impacts, discharge levels can be paused or adjusted. This phased, data-driven approach is central to the project design.
Much of the public concern has focused on our sole source aquifer. It is important to clarify that the Eel River watershed ultimately flows into Plymouth Harbor, not into drinking water supply wells. As a result, the risk to the aquifer itself is extremely low. That distinction matters, because it changes the nature of the environmental question. This is primarily about nutrient management in surface waters, not contamination of drinking water.
Another key fact often missing from online discussions is the largest existing source of nutrient pollution to the Eel River – private septic systems. If the state ultimately approves a new discharge permit, homeowners in the surrounding area would be connected to the municipal sewer system. That change would eliminate dozens of aging septic systems, resulting in a net reduction of nutrients entering the watershed.
It is also worth noting who weighed in before the Board’s vote. The Citizen Advisory Committee heard from professional engineers, independent wastewater consultants, Town staff from the Environment and Energy Department, and officials from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. None of these experts expressed concern that discharge to the infiltration beds – particularly if paired with tertiary treatment, monitoring, and phased implementation – posed a considerable environmental risk.
As part of its responsibility to be a careful steward of Plymouth’s natural resources, the town has committed to going above and beyond standard wastewater treatment requirements by implementing tertiary treatment, which further removes nutrients before any discharge occurs. This investment, supported by a $3 million grant, is specifically intended to provide an added layer of environmental protection and to ensure that any future discharge meets the highest available standards. This approach, combined with long-term monitoring, reflects the Town’s commitment to protect our drinking water, the groundwater surrounding the treatment plant, surface waters, and our ocean.
Some critics have attempted to frame this issue as a choice between commercial shellfishing interests and environmental protection. That framing is inaccurate. Today, treated wastewater is discharged directly into Plymouth Harbor without the benefit of ground filtration. The proposed approach introduces natural filtration through the infiltration beds, which removes additional contaminants before water reaches surrounding surface and ground waters. When combined with the town’s commitment to tertiary treatment and heightened monitoring of conditions, this is not an either-or proposition of economic activity versus environmental stewardship. It is a both-and approach that seeks to improve water quality while supporting the long-term health of the harbor and the livelihoods that depend on it.
Reasonable people can, and do, disagree about this proposal. But disagreement should be grounded in facts, not fear or mischaracterization. Submitting a Draft Environmental Impact Report for state review is not an environmental gamble, it is precisely how Massachusetts ensures that complex projects receive rigorous, transparent scrutiny before any final decisions are made.
Protecting all of Plymouth’s water resources is not optional. It is because we take that responsibility seriously that the Town is using science, expert review, and public oversight to guide every step of this process.
– David Golden
Golden is chair of the Plymouth Select Board.