Time to Move

Marco Island has spent years studying its water.We have tested it, modeled it, debated it, graphed it, and discussed it at length. And after all of that analysis, one thing is clear:Our canals continue to struggle with nutrient impairment. 

Excess nutrients fuel algal growth, and when those blooms die and decompose, they consume dissolved oxygen — the very element marine life depends on to survive. 

That is not a partisan statement. It is the one fact both sides of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) debate agree on. Everyone agrees excessive nutrients contribute to algal blooms. Everyone agrees summer conditions make it worse. Everyone agrees water clarity affects marine life, property values, and quality of life. 

Where we disagree is on what to do first. 

Regulatory Reality 

Marco’s waterways were placed on Florida’s impaired waters list for nitrogen based on historic monitoring data. Since then, nitrogen levels have declined, and the city has implemented a restoration plan under state oversight. The canals remain on the federal impaired waters list while progress is assessed. 

But saying the canals may meet a numeric nitrogen threshold while visible algae persists is a bit like saying a patient’s lab numbers have improved while the symptoms remain. Technical progress matters — but so does lived reality. 

If residents still see recurring summer algae and diminished clarity, then declaring success because we are technically “within criteria” is not enough. The question is not whether we satisfy the minimum legal standard. The question is whether we want our canals to visibly improve. 

The Debate, Fairly Stated 

Those advocating for AWT argue that Marco’s wastewater reuse system is a significant and fully controllable source of nutrients. The city treats wastewater and distributes reclaimed water for irrigation. That water still contains nitrogen and phosphorus. When sprayed on lawns, some nutrients can make their way into the canals. 

The proposal would require reducing nitrogen — and further limiting phosphorus — in reclaimed water to Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards, at an estimated capital cost of $2 to $8 million, or roughly $20 to $80 per household annually. At the scale of reuse water distributed each year, even modest nutrient reductions can have cumulative impact. 

Recent testing has also detected compounds such as caffeine and sucralose in canal water, tracers commonly associated with human wastewater. Supporters see this as further evidence that treated effluent influences canal chemistry. Others caution that this does not automatically establish the plant as the dominant source. 

Opponents emphasize that Marco’s current plant is already considered high-performing and argue funds might yield greater benefit if directed toward stormwater improvements, septic connections, or canal sediment — the “muck” that may continue releasing nutrients even if incoming levels are reduced. 

These are legitimate questions. 

My Perspective: Perfection Is the Enemy of Progress 

I am not a wastewater engineer. But I have read the materials from both sides.And what strikes me most is not the disagreement — it is the delay. 

Marco’s water challenge is multi-layered. External inputs matter. Internal sediment loading may matter. Stormwater design matters. There is unlikely to be a single silver bullet. 

But that does not mean we should wait for every variable to be resolved before acting. 

The wastewater plant is a point source fully under city control. Upgrading it is definable, measurable, and enforceable. It produces guaranteed reductions in nutrient output and supports healthier dissolved oxygen levels in the canals. It may not solve everything — but it moves the needle. 

Sediment studies can continue. Stormwater improvements can proceed. None of these efforts are mutually exclusive.Waiting for perfect alignment across every theory risks turning progress into paralysis. 

Start Somewhere 

No credible voice claims that AWT alone will fix every canal. The question is whether it is a reasonable place to begin.From my vantage point, it is. 

Many residents have recently received a petition seeking to place Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards before voters. Signing that petition does not mandate construction tomorrow. It simply allows the community to decide the question directly. 

If you have received the petition, read it carefully and return it if you believe the issue deserves a public vote. If you have not seen it, reach out to the sponsoring committee for more information.We have studied the issue. We understand the trade-offs. 

At some point, the community must choose.I believe that point is now. 

Let’s get it on the ballot and let Marco decide.