Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to continue reading.
Please log in, or sign up for a new account to continue reading.
Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.
Log in or read 2 more articles before registering, and 8 before becoming a member.
Thank you for reading! On your next view you will be asked to log in or create an account to continue reading.
Thank you for reading! On your next view you will be asked to log in to your registered account or create an account to receive 6 more articles over the next 30 days. join now for unlimited access.
Share unlimited digital access with 4 family members… join now.
Thank you for reading! To continue reading your local news, please register for free. Or join for unlimited access. (Already a member? Log in.)
Thank you for reading! To continue reading your local news, please register for free. Or join for unlimited access. (Already a member? Log in.)
Local news and analysis – and much more. By joining you get unlimited access to it all.Join now.
Share unlimited digital access with 4 family members… join now.
Thank you for reading! To continue reading your local news, please register for free. Or join for unlimited access. (Already a member? Log in.)
Checking back? Since you viewed this item previously you can read it again.
Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to continue reading.
Please purchase a subscription to continue reading.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content.
You get home delivery Monday through Saturday – plus full digital access any time, on any device – with our six-day subscription delivery membership.
This membership plan includes member-only benefits like our popular ticket giveaways, all of our email newsletters and access to the daily digital replica of the printed paper. Also, you can share digital access with up to four other household members at no additional cost.
Subscriptions renew automatically every 30 days. Call 240-215-8600 to cancel auto-renewal. Most subscribers are served by News-Post carriers; households in some outlying areas receive same-day delivery through the US Postal Service. If your household falls in a postal delivery area, you will be notified by our customer service team.
With our four-day Wednesday-through-Saturday home delivery package, you get home delivery of our popular Food and 72 Hours sections as well as the full Saturday-Sunday weekend paper.
And, as with all of our packages, you get full access to all of our online content, any day and on any device.
Membership includes access to newsletters, special offers and the ability to share your subscription with up to four additional household members.
Subscriptions renew automatically every 30 days. Call 240-215-8600 to cancel auto-renewal. Most subscribers are served by News-Post carriers; households in some outlying areas receive same-day delivery through the US Postal Service. If your household falls in a postal delivery area, you will be notified by our customer service team.
With a digital-only membership subscription, you get individual access to all of our online content, 24/7, on any device.
Digital memberships qualify for special member benefits, like our popular ticket giveaways.
Plus you get access to the ePages, a digital replica of the printed paper, and all of our email newsletters.
Subscriptions renew automatically every 30 days. Call 240-215-8600 to cancel auto-renewal.
Our short-term pass is the digital equivalent of buying a couple of papers at the corner store. You can access all of our digital content for 48 hours with each non-renewing pass.
Sorry, no member giveaways, custom newsletters, linked accounts or ePages access with short-term passes.
Sorry, no promotional deals were found matching that code.
Promotional Rates were found for your code.
Director of Utilities Matt Campbell speaks next to at the Brunswick Wastewater Treatment Plant on Thursday. The Brunswick Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants are hoping to receive $15 million from the federal government in order to help modernize their facilities. The sludge removal at the plant is a concern with the infrastructure dating back to 1989.
Water is filtered through at the Brunswick Water Treatment Plant on Thursday. The Brunswick Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants are hoping to receive $15 million from the federal government in order to help modernize their facilities.
Director of utilities Matt Campbell stands next to the belt press in the Brunswick Wastewater Treatment Plant on Thursday. The Brunswick Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants are hoping to receive $15 million from the federal government in order to help modernize their facilities. The infrastructure at the wastewater plant was built in 1989.
Director of Utilities Matt Campbell stands next to the filtration system in the Brunswick Water Treatment Plant on Thursday. The Brunswick Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants are hoping to receive $15 million from the federal government in order to help modernize their facilities.
Director of Utilities Matt Campbell speaks next to at the Brunswick Wastewater Treatment Plant on Thursday. The Brunswick Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants are hoping to receive $15 million from the federal government in order to help modernize their facilities. The sludge removal at the plant is a concern with the infrastructure dating back to 1989.
Water is filtered through at the Brunswick Water Treatment Plant on Thursday. The Brunswick Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants are hoping to receive $15 million from the federal government in order to help modernize their facilities.
Director of utilities Matt Campbell stands next to the belt press in the Brunswick Wastewater Treatment Plant on Thursday. The Brunswick Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants are hoping to receive $15 million from the federal government in order to help modernize their facilities. The infrastructure at the wastewater plant was built in 1989.
Director of Utilities Matt Campbell stands next to the filtration system in the Brunswick Water Treatment Plant on Thursday. The Brunswick Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants are hoping to receive $15 million from the federal government in order to help modernize their facilities.
A computer screen at the Brunswick Water Treatment Plant was full of shapes blinking red and green. Blue arrows lead to boxes full of more blue. Some circles were white.
Brunswick’s director of utilities Matt Campbell traced his finger along the arrows explaining the lights and boxes. The screen showed the process of water treatment from the Potomac River from beginning to end, he said, with the colors showing how the systems were running.
The answer: as well as a system, with elements dating back to 1991, could run. It’s okay, but it could be better, he said.
Brunswick officials are hoping to receive $15 million of federal funding that will go toward renovating and modernizing their water and wastewater treatment plants.
A bill that would fund local water system infrastructure passed the House of Representatives June 8. Part of that bill, named the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, will give Brunswick $15 million for the Brunswick Water Treatment Plant/Wastewater Treatment Renovation Project to update their water and wastewater treatment facilities. Now, it awaits its fate on the Senate floor.
Through their own city money and state grants, Brunswick has been attempting to modernize aspects of their water and wastewater infrastructure, Jeremy Mose, assistant city administrator of public facilities, said. Now, they are waiting to see if they’ll receive the $15 million from the federal government.
The federal funds would be a “game-changer”, Mose said, since it would not only pay for the construction, but the engineering as well. Usually, cities are responsible for the engineering, and federal funding covers the rest.
But engineering costs, which can cost upward of $1 million, are challenges for small cities like Brunswick, and that’s why the federal funding is so pivotal.
“It’s so critical for small communities to have these infrastructure project fundings,” Brunswick Mayor Nathan Brown said. That way, they don’t have to worry about a financial burden that would take decades to pay off, he said.
When it comes to potable water, Brunswick gets it from two sources: the Potomac River, which supplies most of their water, and the Yourtee Spring Water Plant in Washington County, which supplies roughly 20% of the city’s potable water, Mose said.
The water treatment plant takes water from the Potomac River and cleans it, Mose said. But the technology is so outdated, particularly the filtration system, that it doesn’t do as good of a job as it used to.
When the river gets agitated from things like rain, the water gets dirtier with all sediment floating around, Campbell said. When it goes into the plant, the old filter technology can’t remove all the sediment, Mose added.
Campbell explained that the water follows gravity and filters through three levels: first gravel, then sand and finally anthracite coal.
Part of the $15 million could replace the filtration system with something more modern.
The treated water still meets regulations for safe drinking water, Campbell said. There’s just more advanced technology nowadays, he said.
“There’s just better technology out there now that can just be more efficient for one, be more cost effective and it just makes a better product.”
Outside of the water treatment plant, the city has spent $1.5 million of city money to renovate the Yourtee Springs Water Plant in Washington County, Mose said. The state closed the spring in 2018 due to groundwater contaminating the spring source with high levels of bacteria, he said.
Mose said this project should be completed in about a month, so the city can finally use the spring a resource for the first time in four years.
There’s also a state grant of $1.5 million that will help fix broken pipes on the Yourtee Springs water line. This project hasn’t started yet, Mose said, as the city is waiting to receive the money.
Some of the pipes were built back in the 1920’s and have experienced a lot of corrosion. Some of the originally 10 inch pipes have shrunk to 4 inches in diameter. But the grant will only fix about a quarter of the pipes, not even close to what is required, Mose said.
But the water plant and system aren’t the only infrastructure that needs a makeover. There’s also the Brunswick Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Sludge removal at the plant is the biggest concern, Mose said. The infrastructure was built in 1989 and it still has the original sludge removal equipment, he said.
“We’re close to violation of our sludge transportation permit, just because we can’t get the required amount of treatment with the old technology that we have,” Mose said.
Most notably, the city wants to replace the belt press, which takes out water from the sludge byproduct of wastewater treatment, Mose said. State regulations require that the sludge which ultimately gets hauled to landfills is 15% solid or higher, he said.
Brunswick’s sludge is around 85% water and roughly 30,000 gallons of water taken to landfills a month, Mose said.
Not only is that wasteful, he said, but it’s also inefficient. With newer technologies, not only can they treat the wastewater better, but they can also make the percentage of solids in the sludge higher and save money across the board, he said.
A truck outside of the plant was filled with the byproduct, something Campbell called “sludge cake”.
“I don’t recommend it for birthdays,” he said.
The $15 million will not only help update the infrastructure of the plants, but also expand its capacity, Brown said. The city of Brunswick continues to grow, and the plants need to keep up.
“Our residents have long said in each of our several elections that infrastructure is a priority of the city,” Brown said.
Campbell said the water treatment plant serves about 8,500 people. But there are new developments being built which will easily bring the population to 10,000, he said. And once a city reaches 10,000, that’s when regulations tighten further. The current water plant won’t be able to keep up, he said.
If the city doesn’t receive the $15 million from the federal government, it doesn’t mean that the project won’t happen, Mose said. It just means they would have to scale it back and implement it over many years and phases.
Campbell said without the federal funding, the renovation for the plants could take decades.
“The city would be paying for that for years and years and years,” he said. “Our kids and grandkids would be paying for it and by that time, you’re due for a new upgrade.”
Follow Clara Niel on Twitter:
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
Your comment has been submitted.
There was a problem reporting this.
Brunswick’s director of utilities Matt Campbell needs to work with the appropriate Environmental Finance Center which for EPA Region 3 (which Maryland is in) is the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland (http://www.efc.umd.edu/) There is also the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center which helps PWSs see: https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/about-water-infrastructure-and-resiliency-finance-center Work with the tools that are out there and you won't need to rely on as much government funding for the project.
IIn general conversation, people are critical of the "Build Back Better" legislation, and some say it contributes to inflation. Others say that any reduction in supply line bottle necks will ease inflation by getting goods to market faster.
This is an example of direct support to our local economies and budgets. We all deserve clean water.
Gary, why should the federal government step in to fund infrastructure that state and locals know they need but refuse to budget for? Instead of increasing government services to address issues that may be nice to address but are not critical how about doing that only after critical infrastructure is properly funded? For example, what will all day pre-k really do for the entire population? We do know that it does shift some of the costs of children from parents to the general public but at what benefit especially when critical infrastructure is under funded? The EPA has provided information (Environmental Finance Centers) on how Public Water Systems (PWSs) can fund needed expansion and maintenance. For example see: https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efcn where EPA provides information on technical and financial assistance and partners with organizations to help PWSs figure out how to pay for what they need. Most of EPA's budget actually goes out to the states to help fund their environmental programs and it also goes out to pay for infrastructure leaving EPA without sufficient funding to properly carry out its responsibilities. If build back better were limited to funding federal infrastructure needs it would have my full support. What I don't like is paying for the needs of other state and local governments because they refuse to budget properly (now of course there are unpredictable emergencies but this is not an example o that, it is an example of a local not budgeting properly).
MD, do you not think fed pays for roads, airports, bridges, research and many other services used on a constant basis in the area? Are you that naive or do you just like to spin everything to match your political leanings? Republicans have ignored infrastructure for so long that it has become urgent nationwide. Collapsing bridges, overburdened roads and airports, hospitals that are failing along with things like environmental issues…all faithfully ignored. The last big Republican infrastructure item was Ike’s interstates. That’s caught up big time and it costs money to just bring up to par.
Greg, the federal government certainly should fund federal assets (i.e. interstate highways). The federal government shouldn't be the bank for state and local issues. Ultimately that would mean lowering federal taxes and increasing state and local taxes. I don't know why you think it has anything to do with political bias. I strongly support politicians making sure infrastructure is properly funded. The under funding of infrastructure in this state is mostly by the Democrats. Even MoCo has seriously underfunded infrastructure and you can't blame that on Republicans. Blame the in Texas or somewhere else, but not here in central Maryland, and at the state level it's again the Democrats who push for new programs without adequately funding infrastructure. I don't care who is under funding the needs, they need to be responsible and fund the infrastructure needs. And BTW, as you should know since I've stated it before, I'm a registered Democrat.
"promote the general welfare", not "support"
MD asks, "why should the federal government step in to fund infrastructure that state and locals know they need but refuse to budget for?" The answer is that one of the purposes of The Constitution is to "support the general welfare" of the people. Isn't clean water something that would qualify?
Does it promote the general welfare to spend money on people who won't act appropriately? Is it in the general welfare to start paying me money to do nothing? Is it in the general welfare to waste tax money on those who could but choose not to help themselves when other federal needs are under funded? When you invest money (assuming you do) do you throw good money after bad or do you look at how your investments are doing and what their expected to do and then put your money where you expect to get the best return for a given level of risk? The government already provides technical resources and financial information (and loans) it shouldn't need to give money to these communities when they actually have the ability to pay for themselves.
Why don't you look at the information I provided with my 6/17 7:18pm comment.
Feds stepped in for Flint, MI. MD must just think everything is a socialist conspiracy. We have interstate highways that run through the state that are paid by feds that benefit many that are near them…and not those so far from them. So they should get the benefits and not others? You didn’t comment about republicans ignoring infrastructure either, but also should state that feds are dealing with water issues out west in state level politics too thanks to the Hoover Dam going dry. It’s needed and at this point it’s a little late to ask the developers who let the growth happen without contributing pay for it.
GregF you clearly don't understand what happened in Flint. I worked in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance at HQ EPA during that episode. The Feds stepped in because ultimately it was federal regulations that were being violated. It became a federal enforcement issue since the state refused to do what they were supposed to do under their obligations. The state of Michigan has primacy for implementing federal primary drinking water standards under the SDWA. The state was not properly implementing the regulation. EPA was reluctant to step in (a mistake) but eventually did the right thing because it is EPA's job to ensure that the states are implementing the programs (CAA, CWA, SDWA, RCRA, TSCA, etc.) where they have asked for delegation, authorization, primacy (in the case of the SDWA), etc. to implement the program. For some programs there are a few states where they have not requested the authority to run the program and in those situations EPA implements the program directly (and not always well because of the lack of resources). As poorly as some state programs are run for different environmental statutes the EPA is reluctant to take back the authority because the EPA doesn't have the resources to properly implement the programs. Most of EPA's budget goes out to the states and also goes out as grants for environmental infrastructure (SRF for drinking water PWSs and also for sewer systems). However, EPA should have to fund the projects, the state and local governments should fund their own projects and the federal government should only step in under emergency conditions and a local under funding their infrastructure for decades should not be an emergency condition. Greg, I did comment about Republicans under funding infrastructure too, but in the case we are talking about (Brunswick in Maryland ) it is the democrats that currently are the problem. Your response jumps around to different issues. out west they are having serious problems because of population growth and that growth is clearly not paying for the needs. The solution in the long run is not projects like the hoover dam, it should be projects like California building its own desalinization plants rather than deplete the aquifers in central U.S. As far as who needs to pay for things, in my opinion the existing residents need to pay for maintenance of infrastructure and newcomers need to pay for expanding the capacity to handle the increase in population. It's really quite a simple philosophy. Be responsible for your own impacts. Since we choose not to tax newcomers differently (at least for a while) to pay for the additional infrastructure, we tax developers and they should pay for it, there is no reason for them not too since they are making a profit with their developments that people are demanding.
BTW the statement "“It’s so critical for small communities to have these infrastructure project fundings,” Brunswick Mayor Nathan Brown said. That way, they don’t have to worry about a financial burden that would take decades to pay off, he said." in the article is typical of someone who is ignorant of the possibilities of funding the projects and of someone who generally refuses to recognize that the problem is generally self inflicted (and again there are always exceptions to the general case and again this is not one of them). How many times do politicians tell the managers of their assets to keep costs under control and don' want to hear about needs for planning for proper operations and maintenance and growth?
Without maintenance, infrastructure fails and gets outdated also. Do you expect your car to last forever, or be sufficient if you continue to add family to want a ride?
Obviously not which is why I spend money to properly maintain it while budgeting for its eventual replacement. That is exactly what I expect the governments at all levels to do. You are either misreading my posts or intentionally being difficult. Infrastructure must be maintained and that includes planning for replacement and/or expansion. The only issue is locals and states should shift their costs onto the general public. I don't shift the cost of my water supply and treatment (well and septic) onto others. I budget for maintenance and potential replacement. Or maybe you think I should be able to ask the local government to chip in for those cots for me?
Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language. Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms. TURN OFF CAPS LOCK. Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others. No trolling. Stay on topic. No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures. No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed. Say it once. No repetitive posts, please. Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.
Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.
Looking to hire in Frederick? Reach jobseekers in print and online. Email recruitment@newspost.com.
Keep the conversation about local news & events going by joining us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Recent updates from The News-Post and also from News-Post staff members are compiled below.
Our local business directory includes detailed information for featured businesses as well as customer reviews and direct links to related events.
Stay informed of daily news & events in your community for as little as $3.25 a week.
The Frederick News-Post is printed by FNP Printing and Publishing.