Our History

It was the intention of Boise Cascade that the projected 700 build-out lots at Woodridge Lake would have individual septic tank systems but due to soil type, steep slopes, ledge, and the main fact that the lake was located in a public watershed the Connecticut State Department of Public Health overruled those plans. The only way for the development to move forward was for Boise Cascade to construct a sewer system to accept the wastewater that would be generated by the homes in Woodridge Lake. Under the CT state statutes, the Department of Environmental Protection must work with a municipality for the design, construction, and approval of a public sewer system and not a private corporation. The Town of Goshen at that time did not have a Sewer Authority and turned Boise Cascade down when they were asked to consider forming one. Boise Cascade then came to the 15 original property owners within the boundaries of the sub-division but not part of the sub-division to form a municipal sewer district. As a bonus for forming the district, Boise Cascade agreed to hook up the 15 properties free of charge and to pay their sewer taxes for the first ten years of operation of the system.

The Board of Directors of the district was organized to act for the district’s best interest and to keep the district’s taxpayers informed of such actions. The Sewer Authority Board is responsible for the operation and maintenance of a sewer system and has the powers to take action, which a district Board would not have. Acting on the advice of legal counsel a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Woodridge Lake Sewer district was held on July 26, 1971 and an ordinance creating a nine-member Sewer Authority Board was adopted. Also at that meeting, an engineering firm was hired by the district to work on behalf of the district with the engineers for Boise Cascade and the CT Department of Public Health (DPH) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). After extensive hours spent by engineers at the drawing boards and many meetings held between all parties concerned, the DPH and the DEP on January 1972, the Woodridge Lake Sewer district received the approvals needed. The approvals permitted Boise Cascade to initiate construction of the pumping stations and associated structures along with the approximately 19 miles of sewer lines. State approval of the design and construction of the wastewater treatment plant and the ridge and furrow beds to handle the treated wastewater was not received until January 1973.

The ridge and furrow beds to handle the treated wastewater were a relatively new concept back in 1974 with only one other system of its kind in use in the United States. Due to the fact that a tributary of the Bantam River, which flows into Bantam Lake, borders the 98-acre site of the ridge and furrow beds, the DEP did not want to allow discharge of the treated wastewater into the stream. The beds, which vary in length, consist of ridges about 32 inches wide with furrows approximately 9 inches deep on either side of the ridges. Canary grass is planted on top of the ridges to absorb the nitrogen in the treated wastewater.

On July 8, 1996 the DEP issued an approval relating to a hydraulic study required by the July 1989 consent order. It included conditions requiring more detailed engineering studies by the district to deal with the amount and quality of wastewater discharge that our sewer plant and filter beds could handle. On December 20, 2002 the DEP issued a letter to the district indicating DEP’s reluctance to favorably review a non-point source discharge option.  DEP established criteria for evaluating lateral and vertical sand filters.

On July 6, 2005 the Torrington Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) sent a detailed response to the DEP raising a number of questions with the district’s scope of the study. Relative to upgrading the district plant, Torrington argued that given the exceptional high-quality treatment of water and the need for sand filters should be re-evaluated and justified given its very high costs. Relative to the Torrington pipeline, Torrington WPCA raised a whole host of questions: • The potential connection of Goshen Center, Tyler Lake, and Dog Pond was not discussed in the study neither were limitations placed on the connection to these locations. • They questioned the effectiveness of only one pump based on the terrain and the high pressure required. The pipeline would operate with varying pressure and limited operating time leading to problems of stagnation, blockages, odor, and a very high head requirement for the pump. • The force main pipeline would be extremely long and require special high maintenance. Odor concerns were a significant issue. • The smaller pipe system in Torrington would require substantial re-piping to larger pipes. The higher nitrogen content of the district’s wastewater would require modifications to the treatment plant at an estimated cost of $600,000. Torrington WPCA also recommended a value engineering study with the following considerations: • That recommended on-site plant improvements do not use any existing structures • Improvements to the plant are based on extreme flows that are more than twice the current discharge levels. • Review the pump station costs to Torrington, the current costs appear low. • Evaluate the need for provisions for ledge obstructions in the construction of the pipeline. • Conduct a sensitivity analysis on costs of operation of the combined facilities.

On July 20, 2009 the DEP wrote the district requesting a written response by October 2009 as to how the district planned to comply with its conditions for sewer operations at the plant that the DEP had earlier outlined in 1989 and 1996. These conditions related to the amount and quality of wastewater discharge that our sewer plant and filter beds could handle. The DEP found the district’s 2005 scope of study inadequate as, among other things, it did not outline a preferred solution and plan of implementation. In its letter, the DEP outlined the shortcomings of certain possible solutions including vertical sand filters and lateral gravel filters and indicated that it would likely concur with only two long term solutions: either sending our wastewater to Torrington by pipeline to be processed or rebuilding our plant and filter beds with significant water quality improvements including a constructed lateral sand filter (CLSF) system. The DEP also indicated a rebuilt plant with CLSF would come with conditions attached including capping our system at the existing level of connections. The DEP requested that WLSD provide a preferred solution with supporting justification along with a detailed program and schedule to execute the preferred alternative by October 15, 2009.

On November 25, 2009 the DEP responded by letter stating that it indicated in its December 2002 letter its reluctance to favorably review the nonpoint source discharge option (lateral gravel filter). The DEP outlined that both lateral and vertical sand filter systems are more costly than the Torrington alternative and new surface water classifications that must now be considered only make the Torrington alternative more attractive. That is, if the discharge from a lateral sand filter is considered a point discharge, it is prohibited into a class A or AA surface water body. As for its statement of practice, the DEP indicated it is a work in progress draft that is undergoing internal review and will be incorporated into its regulations. It gave the district until January 2010 to respond with our preferred alternative and plan of implementation.

As of December 2010 the Woodridge Lake Sewer district Sewer Authority is still operating under the conditions of the consent order. Since the consent order was issued the district has been working with the engineering firm hired by the district on a scope of work relative to alternate plans for the handling of the discharge of the treated effluent. A number of studies have been commissioned over the last several years to better understand the challenges and options available to the district to include: in 1995 the “Ridge and Furrow Wastewater Disposal Facilities”, “Report on Hydraulic Capacity Analysis”; in 2001, “Engineering Report on Increase in Permitted Flow Capacity”; in 2002, “Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Modification of Non-Point Source Discharge System”, in 2005, “Engineering Study Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal Alternatives, Volume 1 and Volume 2”. The district is now, via the newly created Planning Committee and the Board, actively engaging the DEP in the resolution of the consent order issues.