Richard Burroughs teaches in the Department of Marine Affairs at the University of Rhode Island. He has served as a member of the board of Save The Bay and as a commissioner for the Narragansett Bay Commission. 

The Providence Journal very correctly points out how the health of Narragansett Bay relates to the well-being of the residents around it through its March articles on the quahog.  And Rhode Islanders can best benefit from changing the Bay, if they can pay for it. By federal Environmental Protection Agency standards, not all can.

Cleanup requires systems of pipes and tunnels to collect wastewaters and then elaborate machinery to clean and disinfect it prior to discharge to the Bay.  A mandated 50% of nitrogen is removed along the way.  As the Providence Journal articles explain, if too much nitrogen has been taken out, then there is an associated question of food for the quahogs. Using food-supply logic, less fertilizer and fewer phytoplankton results in a diminishing supply of quahogs — and the livelihoods related to them. 

More: What’s a quahog? A quick guide to Rhode Island’s iconic clam.

Cleanup costs also include construction of tunnels, electricity for pumps, maintenance of tanks, additives to assist the process, as well as other expenses. 

More importantly, the high costs of wastewater treatment are borne by all households and businesses. Since the fees for the Narragansett Bay Commission customers are for connection and water used, residences with varied incomes will see very different annual bills when measured as a percentage of household income.  Providence, Pawtucket and Central Falls have areas where the bill reaches as high as 7% of median household income.  Other, wealthier, areas in Providence are at 1% or less of household income.  

The Environmental Protection Agency has seen this as a weakness for many, many years and has developed and revised national guidance, most recently last month. The EPA indicates bills that are 2% or more of household income are high. 

Unfair billing is a serious weakness, but it is not without solutions. The EPA suggests, and many communities in other areas have adopted, customer assistance programs. Among them are lifeline rates, where basic water needs are covered and any excess usage is billed at the standard rate.  When this approach was applied in Philadelphia, collections increased as more households could readily pay. These kinds of billing changes are overdue in Rhode Island.

If implemented, costs for continued improvements to Narragansett Bay would not disproportionately fall on those with less ability to pay. 

The message about billing is clear. For some, the bills are too high according to EPA guidance. Important future steps to improve the Bay need to be considered not only in terms of water quality but also in terms of billing impacts on people. Now is the time to move forward and set wastewater bills on an equitable level.