(Don’t) love that dirty water – sewage problem needs treatment with more balanced growth
The lyrics of the Standells’ classic 1966 hit about loving that “Dirty Water” today give us pause. Kudos to the citizen activists of Arlington for exposing the 50 million-gallon deluge of untreated sewage-contaminated stormwater that ran into the Alewife Brook last year (“Despite upgrades, 50 million gallons of sewage were released into the Alewife Brook over 2021,” Jan. 16). For comparison’s sake, that’s the equivalent of nearly eight Olympic-sized swimming pools. To add insult to injury, that level of contamination comes after almost $200 million dollars was spent precisely to prevent this problem.
The important point here is not government incompetence – in fact, our city’s Public Works Department has made protecting the Alewife a priority. The problem is simply so much bigger than anyone thought, and only getting worse. Back in the 1990s, when these efforts began, the double whammy effects of climate change and overdevelopment were seriously underestimated.
That sewage-stormwater mix isn’t just bad for the wildlife of the Alewife brook. It travels into people’s homes. Roughly 3,500 residents of North Cambridge live in the Little River-Alewife Reservation’s 100-year flood plain.
Calling it a 100-year flood plain, moreover, is a quaint relic from an age of “100-year floods.” Thanks to climate change, these now happen every few years. Last year was one of the wettest recorded for Massachusetts, but 2018 was even wetter and climate scientists say that more water, from sea-level rise and more precipitation, is our future.
And speaking of the environment, this same Alewife brook area is the former home to the Native community here – overseen by a female chief (sachem) who negotiated with the first Europeans to arrive in Cambridge. Our rivers and the environment more generally are critical to this Native legacy. Sewage flowing to this wetland is deeply troubling, especially with renewed concerns about the climate.
To bend the curve of climate change takes more than the goodwill of Cantabrigians. We can (and must) do something about overdevelopment. Since the 1990s, development in the Alewife area has exploded with thousands of new apartments and scores of office buildings with hardscaped surfaces that prevent stormwater from being naturally absorbed. Stormwater can overwhelm the sewer system, flushing everything back out into rivers and people’s homes.
Today, there is a commercial land rush going on in the Cambridge Highlands next to Alewife. One company has spent more than a half-billion dollars in just the past year to acquire 36 acres for a “life-science campus.” Back in 1979, the city endorsed mixed-use development for that neighborhood, and in 2019 our government reiterated that goal. That hope is evaporating along with the 1,000-plus housing units (including hundreds of affordable units) that might have been built on that parcel. The City Council proposes a temporary freeze on permitting for new labs, but our history on this issue doesn’t inspire confidence.
How does all this tie together? In the particular case of development in Cambridge Highlands, the City Council, Planning Board and city manager must work together to ensure all new construction relieves the pressure on local housing and residential needs and infrastructure. That means a full environmental review and an iron-clad commitment that all mitigation measures will be enforced, including permeable surfaces (which we’ve already put forward in our zoning petition), bioswales, significant plantings and even a stormwater tank, if required. The city has to get tough to prevent disasters, not just react to them.
On a larger scale, these issues underscore the increasingly seat-of-the-pants nature of planning now and into Cambridge’s future. Envision Cambridge, which cost millions of dollars and countless hours of work from city staff and residents, seems like an elaborate public relations stunt rather than a tool for managed growth. Increasingly, developers of all kinds are being given a green light to build whatever they want, wherever they want. Environmental concerns, including protecting our modest tree canopy and green spaces, are treated like frivolous extras rather than the front-line defenders against climate change that they are.
When we look at the flooding danger threatening a big chunk of the city – a danger that was consistently underestimated – how can we be so cavalier going forward?
As the demand for space in Cambridge, residential and commercial, continues to skyrocket from investors and others, we can’t ignore the message that the contamination of the Alewife sends us. We need balanced growth (with priority given to new affordable and non-luxury housing) that won’t leave us knee-high in sludge. While we disagree with the Standells about loving that “Dirty Water,” we agree with them about loving our hometown.
Marilee Meyer, for the Cambridge Citizens Coalition
Traffic noise, tree canopy loss, now sewage. the problem identified varies, but the conclusion reached by the CCC is the same – stifle the pace of development in Cambridge. An odd jump to conclusions without exploring the magnitude of the problem and the options to mitigate the problem with waste water investment.
I love our hometown, and want to see Cambridge become a dense and diverse city. Not a country club for long time residents and the wealthy.
Never mind that new development has far more sophisticated stormwater management requirements than ever used to be required, and that CDD is currently working on drafting even stronger standards for flood resilience and urban heat island mitigations in response to the city’s Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force report.
Never mind that the areas with the most impervious space per capita* are the single-family homes, driveways, and parking lots in the most underdeveloped parts of the city, and that increased density (and especially increased height) creates opportunities for MORE open space.
When all you have is a hammer (blaming development), everything looks like a nail…
*source: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/yF0dVDt0DUkpmK-F-f4U-L0tPxf02WpuDjvcbDxrBhC3qc8F9kZd9kbKnarmlR4Ug_x_6juqNTTAl6zqxz5APuSCVj8Tqo7D4E8iNJ4nz30AN7hC1TvZiK3K654cBT8FNQ=w1280
Angstrom, please just ask the folks that live in those new buildings on route 2 where the bowling alley used to be, about how successful CDD has been about “drafting even stronger standards for flood resilience”. Ask them about the floods they’ve endured in their buildings over there.
And oh Marilee , in your sentence: “Increasingly, developers of all kinds are being given a green light to build whatever they want, wherever they want.” you forgot to add: ” as long as they throw in the crumbs of a few (what is the %? It is woefully low, that much I know) affordable units”. Because that is the fig leaf is what they always lead with. Never mind the fact that that “% of affordable housing” seductive window dressing is just that…a sham. Why? Because developers are NOT charitable organisations. No they are not! And you can bet that they will not take loss on those units. No siree bob! It is going to be made up by making the market rate units that much more expensive. And guess what? There will many more market rate units than affordable ones. So Voila, the cycle continues and under the guise of creating more housing affordability in Cambridge more and more tres cher housing is created. Just sayin’
Again, the supporters of ABC leap into the fray whenever anyone connected to the CCC sends a letter to the Cambridge Day. This rush of developer supporting responses makes one wonder why they are so concerned that further study of their ambitious developer plans might be a problem.
Stating that new development has far more sophisticated stormwater management requirements than ever used to be required means very little today, because it should be more sophisticated given when much of Cambridge was originally built. So why are they perpetually singing the Real Estate Developer Blues?
While the homeless have no place to go and state that they are being ignored, the developers think this is how they will score big. But their self-centered, profit driven impact on all of us and their reckless building will be our city’s downfall. Using the situation of the homeless to improve their bottom line, and to crowd homeless folks into housing and pretend that what the homeless want and need doesn’t really matter implies that anything is fine if it’s expensive and new.
Apparently, redevelopment of what’s already here is not ambitious enough and not to be discussed. Like Wall Street slaves for money, if it isn’t big, new, shiny and expensive, it’s not worth considering. These are Real Estate Developers we’re talking about. They want profits, which is natural. That’s their job.
The city’s job is to adequately study, research and insure that the new, improved flood management measures they claim and their constant talk of housing affordability are more than empty claims and cheap talk.
Real estate development is a means towards having more housing for people who want to live in Cambridge. Agree with mach that the developer plans should be ambitious and should be studied. And I sure hope the plans are ambitious
I do not see this as anti-development per se. I see this as a reminder to the city officials and investment builders that they have a responsibility for diligent oversight. Maybe smaller developers have problems in complying so it falls on the city to pay attention.
This is not a way to slow development which will happen whether we like it or not, but make sure it is done carefully and responsibly. This article even supports more affordable housing both repurposed and new construction. We may have another opportunity with the proposed development at Rindge Towers. And should we continue to put labs and biotech in with residences? That is worth study too.
Some of our newest projects are mired in problems (warped cabinets, flooded basements, mold) which cost even more money to fix. There are reasons for step-by-step guidelines and regulation. This should not be a free-for-all eliminating any safeguards.
Do it right first time around! faster is not better. That seems to be the point.