Study links frequent Salisbury Beach closures to aging cesspools; town urged to inspect 68 systems

James Reardon, a senior team leader and project manager at engineering firm Weston & Sampson, told the Scituate Town Council on Monday that Salisbury Beach (also called Hope Pond Beach) has become an outlier for water-quality closures and that aging on‑site wastewater systems are the most plausible cause.

“There have been 49 closures between 2021 and 2024,” Reardon said, adding that the number of closures at Salisbury was far higher than the Rhode Island average of two to three per year. His presentation identified about 68 remaining cesspools in the watershed and three stormwater outfalls that showed dry‑weather flow with elevated bacterial levels during desktop review of permitting records and state data.

The study used state Department of Environmental Management (DEM) permit records, Rhode Island Department of Health beach sampling, and U.S. Geological Survey precipitation records. Reardon described the work as an initial, desktop review intended to identify likely sources and next steps rather than provide definitive source attribution.

“Cesspools are antiquated, substandard systems…there are a number of them pretty close to the river,” Reardon said, noting that homes without septic permit records and of a certain age are most likely on cesspools. He also explained how laboratory tests for ammonia and surfactants, or DNA‑based markers, can help distinguish human wastewater from animal sources.

Cindy Jan Francesco, chair of the town Conservation Commission, told the council the commission has done some watershed sampling through the URI Watershed Watch program and has observed persistent bacterial levels that do not decline when waterfowl leave the area. Francesco said that local sampling so far lacks the additional parameters — ammonia, surfactants and other constituents — needed to identify a human wastewater signature.

Reardon outlined recommended near‑term steps and rough cost estimates: a watershed walkover and targeted investigation of three stormwater outfalls (about $10,000), a two‑event wet‑weather sampling study (about $50,000), groundwater monitoring or micro‑wells, and inspection/pumpouts for up to 50 on‑site wastewater systems at about $300 per home (roughly $15,000). He singled out cesspool inspections and pumpouts as “the most bang for your buck” among near‑term actions.

The consultant flagged options the town can pursue: 1) task the building official’s office to identify which of the 68 cesspools have changed ownership since the state’s cesspool phase‑out rules (properties sold or transferred are often subject to replacement); 2) pursue grant funding (DEM, SNAP, USDA and others were mentioned) to finance targeted sampling and homeowner upgrades; and 3) consider creating a local wastewater management district to require inspections and maintenance for innovative/alternative systems if the town moves aggressively on on‑site upgrades.

Council members and residents raised technical and policy questions: how DEM enforcement works (Reardon and Francesco said DEM sets the state standards but municipalities typically enforce replacement deadlines), whether tight tanks or innovative/alternative systems are feasible on the area’s small lots (possible but costly and maintenance‑intensive), and the potential scale and cost of full sewering (Reardon estimated sewering the area could be “$10,000,000–$30,000,000” and recommended confirming source attribution before pursuing that option).

Reardon emphasized that the team’s desktop review cannot conclusively attribute the beach closures to cesspools without follow‑up field sampling that includes indicators of human waste. He recommended adding ammonia and surfactants to routine sampling and, if warranted, DNA‑based source tracking.

Council members discussed next steps and a near‑term administrative direction to the building official’s office to begin checking property transfer records for the 68 identified cesspools and to report back with a plan for targeted inspections and potential grant applications. No formal ordinance or binding requirement was adopted at the meeting; council members instead directed staff follow‑up and left the item on the agenda for future meetings.

The study presentation and the council discussion make clear the town has options at different costs and levels of intrusiveness — from targeted inspections and homeowner assistance to a wastewater management district or sewering — and that additional sampling is required to narrow the likely cause.

Next steps discussed at the meeting included putting a town staff tasking on the next agenda to: identify which of the 68 cesspools have transferred since the state replacement rules took effect; evaluate grant funding opportunities (DEM, SNAP, USDA); and scope a modest follow‑up sampling program focused on ammonia/surfactants and a short list of groundwater or wet‑weather events to clarify source attribution.

Votes and formal actions at the meeting did not adopt a new regulatory requirement for property owners; the council instead signaled staff direction and agreed to keep the issue on the agenda so members could review progress on inspections, sampling and grant applications.