Do you remember when the Cuyahoga River burned in the 1960s? That was before pollution was taken seriously and great steps were taken to alleviate pollution from many sources. Many sources. Stopping one source of pollution wouldn’t have helped; it took a many-pronged approach.

Have you ever seen a chubby person say to himself, “Well, I may as well eat this doughnut — one doughnut won’t make a difference?” One doughnut won’t make a difference. However, if this doughnut and that cookie and yesterday’s ice cream aren’t consumed, it will make a difference. With time and forbearance, that person could lose weight.

So, think about Green Hill Pond in Charlestown. It has a pollution problem, mostly having to do with too much nitrogen in the water and sediment. Now you can dicker over the figures, but most scientific studies of the situation say that the primary source of this nitrogen comes from septic systems. Depending on which source you use, septic system contribution is in the 50-percent to 75-percent range.

There is a technology available that will cut the nitrogen coming from these septic systems by about half. These denitrifying septic systems have been around for several years. Right now they cut the nitrogen coming from septic systems by half; in time the technology will improve and their efficiency in removing nitrogen will improve.

The Department of Environmental Management is requiring folks who need new septic systems within an area deemed to be responsible for the nitrogen that ends up in Green Hill Pond, as well as other salt ponds, to put in these denitrifying systems. There is no question that using these denitrifying septic systems will reduce the nitrogen that ends up in the salt ponds. Now that step by itself will not end the pollution problem in Green Hill Pond, nor any other salt pond. But it is a first step, and a necessary one. Surely not taking this step, this use of denitrifying septic systems, is foolhardy.

We will have to take other steps to clean up Green Hill Pond and the other salt ponds. Goose droppings, lawn fertilizer run-off, and other sources of pollution will have to be dealt with. Maybe Green Hill Pond will have to be breached so it can be flushed of high-nitrogen sediment. There will have to be many approaches to solving the problem.

I have heard several people at recent meetings go on and on about how they long for the pristine ponds of yesteryear where they could shellfish and fish with abandon. Yet these same people are adamant that using denitrifying septic systems is a bad idea. How can this be?

There is no magic solution here. We have to start cutting back on the nitrogen input into the ponds to cure the pollution problem. Denitrifying systems are a good start. What is so hard to understand about this?

Beth Richardson