Over a decade ago, shoreline property owners stated that they were willing to pay more for cleaner water, but their interest has been unreciprocated
A 2009 study asked if people would pay varying amounts up to $1,000 for cleaner water in Green Bay. Property owners who lived along the shore of Green Bay were more willing to pay: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/nanna/record/92235/files/stpap538.pdf?withWatermark=0&withMetadata=0&version=1®isterDownload=1. This older survey discussed runoff reduction, but the concept that shoreline property owners are more willing to pay for clean water could also apply to other projects.
Today there are large metro areas are working on infrastructure improvements for wastewater. Washington, DC is doing the Potomac River Tunnel Project, Ellicott City, Maryland is doing the Extended North Tunnel, and St. Louis is doing Project Clear Tunnels. In Pennsylvania, the ALCOSAN and DELCORA sanitary authorities have effluent tunnel projects. Their areas include Pittsburg and communities near Philadelphia.
These tunnel projects are expensive for the customers, but they don’t really have a choice. They are being driven by government requirements, especially the EPA which doesn’t want raw sewage being dumped during rainstorms in communities with combined storm and sanitary sewers.
In one sense, Sturgeon Bay is already implementing an expensive solution. The Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal, itself expensive, sends out effluent from the treatment plant at 670 Shorecrest Drive. Hopefully it goes towards Lake Michigan instead of west towards Green Bay. More often than not it ought to flow east, but if not, it is mixing with cleaner water coming in from Lake Michigan anyway. This is a win-win situation for Sturgeon Bay.
Currently the DNR has issues with Sturgeon Bay’s effluent, described in https://www.sbunet.com/sites/sbunet.com/files/July%20SBU%20Commission%20Packet.pdf. Yet it would be worse if the plant was located way out on the west side. Sending more E. coli into Lake Michigan is not as bad for public health as sending more E. coli into Green Bay.
Recently, Sturgeon Bay Utilities has discussed millions of dollars worth of wastewater treatment improvements: https://doorcountypulse.com/sturgeon-bay-giving-green-tier-another-look/. The results of these improvements will hopefully satisfy the DNR.
It doesn’t make sense for communities to spend considerably on things beyond the requirements from the DNR, because overspending on infrastructure makes a municipality uncompetitive.
Such overspending could include treating stormwater, or releasing treated effluent miles away on the lake side. Yet, if presented effectively, the environmental or recreational advantages of overspending could interest bay side shoreline property owners who want cleaner water outside their windows. From one perspective, it isn’t overspending if it is your own quality of life, living by the water every day.
If bay side shoreline property owners formed association(s) in order to ask for an annual fee, just for them, for towards some specific project, this conflict could be resolved. Funds could be saved up, and then infrastructure could be over-engineered from the legal perspective, without making utility bills uncompetitive.
If interest was strong enough, even property owners who aren’t receiving sewer services might be willing to be part of the tax assessment. But how will they know what the possibilities could be, without working in utilities themselves?
Other posts about pollution: