Social Acceptance of Alternative Nutrient-Reduction Technologies in Estuaries
Citation:
Mulvaney, K., N. Merrill, S. Lyon, AND M. Mazzotta. Social Acceptance of Alternative Nutrient-Reduction Technologies in Estuaries. 30th Annual Nonpoint Source Pollution Conference, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, April 18 - 19, 2019.
Impact/Purpose:
On Cape Cod, as a part of an update to the Clean Water Act's Section 208 Plan, towns are actively developing plans for reducing nitrogen. These plans include traditional sewering and wastewater treatment plants, but they are also considering the use of a number of other technologies as well. The use of the technologies are being considered to identify opportunities for reduced sewering costs, to reach policy goals more quickly, and for areas where the traditional infrastructure is not appropriate. We conducted interviews with decision makers to understand why they see the different technologies as useful or not for reducing nitrogen pollution.
Description:
Implementation of nutrient-reduction technologies to reduce loading to estuaries requires agreement by local communities to site, permit, fund, install, maintain, and monitor those technologies. This means federal, state, and local decision makers must trust the technologies to effectively reduce nitrogen in the estuarine system and communities must be willing to accept the financial and social impacts of using them. These considerations make implementing both traditional (sewering) and non-traditional (aquaculture, permeable reactive barriers, innovative septic systems, and more) nutrient-reduction technologies difficult. Communities on Cape Cod have recently completed an update to their Clean Water Act Section 208 Plan for non-point source nutrient pollution affecting more than 30 estuaries. Most of the communities are actively considering the use of both traditional and non-traditional technologies for mitigating nitrogen within their watersheds. We conducted 22 interviews with 37 participants from regional planning bodies, industry, consulting companies, and local, state, and federal agencies working on Cape Cod to highlight the barriers to social acceptance as well as to identify opportunities for moving forward with the use of alternative technologies. Perceptions of reduced costs of implementation; aesthetic, job-related, or recreational co-benefits; and possibilities for shorter time frames for implementation indicated positive potential for increasing use of alternative technologies. Key barriers included uncertainty related to the effectiveness of the technologies in reducing nutrients and their costs, siting and permitting challenges, and monitoring needs. Overall, most participants saw some role for the use of alternative technologies, but almost always as a supplement to traditional sewering.