“Section 4(b), the municipality reserves the right to alter utility easements without prior resident consent, provided a 30-day notice is given.” That line, buried deep within Chesterburgh’s recent sewer infrastructure contract, may have just shifted more power to the town than residents realized—and it’s making waves in our little community.

Earlier this month, the town council approved a $4.2 million agreement with Riverbend Engineering, ostensibly to update and expand Chesterburgh’s sewer and stormwater systems. To casual observers, it looked like a straightforward infrastructure upgrade, necessary to meet state regulations and avoid costly penalties. But when I got my hands on the contract—as I do with most public spending these days—the devil was in the details.

Specifically, Section 4(b) caught my attention. It grants the town the authority to unilaterally modify utility easements crossing private property, with just a 30-day written notice to affected residents. Easements, in case you’re not up to speed, are the legal rights allowing the town’s pipes and wires to run under or across private land. Before this contract, altering those easements required homeowner approval or at minimum, a negotiated settlement. Now, Chesterburgh can change the path of sewer lines without direct resident input—sometimes uprooting garden beds, fences, or even trees without mutual agreement.

This clause wasn’t brought into the spotlight during council meetings or public hearings. I scoured the minutes and public notices—there’s little mention beyond a generic nod to letting Riverbend “access necessary easements.” For a community that values its quiet neighborhoods and tree-lined streets, this shift feels significant.

Linda McCarthy, who owns a small bungalow on Maple Lane and has lived here for 28 years, reached out after I posted an excerpt on my blog, Parked Data. “They’re threatening to dig up the pathways to my apple trees,” she told me. “All with just a note? That’s a slap in the face to homeowners who’ve cared for this neighborhood for decades.” She even supplied me with the letter she received last week: a formal 30-day notice informing residents that the sewer path would be redirected to optimize flow, meaning more heavy machinery and clogged streets in her immediate area.

I wanted to know how unique Chesterburgh’s approach is. Comparing contracts from neighboring towns, it turns out we’re not alone. Several smaller municipalities have slipped similar clauses into their infrastructure agreements over the last five years, citing efficiency and streamlined project timelines as motivation. But unlike Chesterburgh, some towns hold public forums or require town approval before triggering such easement changes.

Digging further, I requested the town attorney’s opinion memos associated with the contract. They confirmed that this clause is legally solid under state law, but they also noted potential diplomatic consequences with residents. They advise the council to “engage in clear communication prior to implementation.” How well that advice will be heeded remains to be seen.

The council's justification, as expressed in a recent public statement, centers on the urgent need to upgrade septic and sewer systems. Mayor David Hinton is quoted saying, “Our priority is ensuring compliance, avoiding fines, and protecting public health. While resident concerns are valid, the easement clause allows us to move forward without unnecessary delays.”

However, some residents feel caught in the middle. There’s no active neighborhood association to collectively bargain or challenge such moves, and the fragmented nature of property ownership along crit