Montgomery County PSA: Eastmont pump station can support about 60 more homes; 409-unit proposal requires upgrades and paid engineering study

Montgomery County Public Service Authority members said at their May 5 meeting that the Eastmont wastewater pump station can accept only about 60 additional homes under current conditions and that a 409-unit proposal would require upgrades to the pump station, force main and possibly the wastewater treatment plant.

The finding came after PSA staff described a preliminary engineering review and a proposal from an engineering firm to model the local gravity and force-main sewer system, identify needed improvements to serve the 409-unit development, and provide cost estimates. "Eastmont Elementary pump station could handle another an additional 60 units," PSA staff said when summarizing the firm’s report. The staff presented a fee of $17,000 from the firm identified in the packet as Hirt and Profit to produce the modeling and a letter report.

Why this matters: without upgrades, the proposed buildout would push the county’s wastewater system to its limits and could leave little remaining treatment capacity. PSA staff said full buildout of the 409 units would put sewer flow at about 218,000 gallons per day; plant expansion would be required at 237,500 gallons per day, leaving roughly 19,500 gallons per day of headroom under the expansion threshold as presented to the board.

Residents who spoke during public address urged caution. Paige Williams of 591 Allegheny Spring Road said flooding near the schools is already a problem and warned that grading and compacting hundreds of acres for roads, roofs and driveways will increase runoff. "Runoff does not disappear. It just redirects," Williams said. Julie Stump of 3720 Jacob Drive said existing water and sewer lines sometimes have low pressure and that adding hundreds of homes would compound those problems. Kimberly Homer, who said she recently bought land on Echo Hills Road, said she is concerned about falling water tables and groundwater impacts from development.

Technical details offered at the meeting: staff said the relevant force main runs approximately 6,800 feet and is shown in plans as 4-inch pipe, a size staff said is likely too small to carry flows from the proposed development. Board members and staff discussed raising the force-main diameter to 6 or 8 inches as an example of the kind of upgrade that would be required. One member noted that, if upgrades are required, the development should bear the cost rather than PSA ratepayers.

Board action and next steps: the PSA board reached consensus to inform the developer that the system, as configured, cannot support 409 units without upgrades and to ask whether the developer will fund the detailed study. Board members stated the PSA should use its own engineers to run any study even if the developer pays for it, to avoid conflicts of interest. There was no vote to authorize PSA to pay for the study; staff said the developer could submit engineering plans and/or fund the PSA’s analysis.

Unresolved items: the board and staff said they have not received a formal development application for the project at the PSA level and do not yet have detailed plans beyond what has been submitted to the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors. Staff did not provide an overall cost estimate for upgrades; members and residents said costs could be substantial and questioned whether the developer would pay for full upgrades. The meeting record shows no formal approval of system upgrades or funding at this time.

For residents with service issues, PSA staff said new storage (a tank at Camp Christie) is under construction and will help water pressure as it comes online. Staff also said the county is performing studies in other parts of the system but had not committed to an in-depth study of Eastmont without a developer-funded proposal.

Ending: The PSA asked staff to notify the developer of system constraints (4-inch, 6,800-foot force main; pump station limitations; limited plant headroom) and to request whether the developer will fund the detailed modeling by the PSA’s engineers. If the developer pursues a smaller build or submits detailed plans, staff said they will return with analysis and recommendations.