The town of Falmouth is considering a plan to accommodate sewage from West Falmouth that goes beyond the agreements made in 1986 with the Woodlands Association.
The plan designed in 2017 was to go through the Central Maine Power corridor along the sides of the Woodville and Woods roads and is not in violation. But the new plan is. The new plan goes through Woodlands private roads. Going through the Woodlands where there are underground utilities raises the cost due to the underground utilities (electric, telephone, water, cable and telephone), the large amount of ledge and the existing sewer lines that need to be skirted around for their new line. (The existing sewer line is maxed out and was considered unfeasible to expand any farther.) The new proposed route crosses underground utility and sewer lines 78 times. So it is likely to also create unanticipated costs and overruns.
I am a Woodlands resident. Woodlands residents pay for their private roads because private roads accommodate golf course users who drive electric carts, which are not allowed on town roads. The town does not pay for our roads. We have easements in place that the Woodlands and the town have always honored. The proposed route violates the agreed-upon easement rights.
The engineering firm’s original analysis showed that the CMP corridor for the additional sewer line was the best and least expensive route. So I think this new proposed plan through the Woodlands does not hold water (no pun intended).
I have always respected the Town Council’s decisions and I hope that the council will reconsider. The town should follow the initial plan through the CMP corridor and not the more expensive plan involving private roads and underground utilities and blasting through ledge, all while violating existing easement rights. I leave it to the council to do the right thing.
Renee Givner
Falmouth
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less