| 
|
By Mary K. Clark
I have 30 years of experience as an onsite water supply and wastewater treatment system designer, consultant, and state regulator. During this time, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many people interested in developing their land, ranging from single-lot subdivisions to multi-lot and commercial developments.
Two major issues arise when land development is proposed:
- Our increased understanding of how conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems work and the use of pretreatment technologies has reduced site constraints for new developments. Pretreatment technologies reduce the wastewater’s strength, and therefore reduce the system’s reliance on the surrounding soils for treatment. While these advances increase the range of potential building sites, they also increase the danger of sprawl in areas where planning and zoning are weak. In Vermont, for example, a study conducted by the Department of Housing and Community Affairs on the utilization of pretreatment technologies showed that a high percentage were used for new construction outside of village centers.
- A high percentage of existing residences and commercial/public buildings that are more than 30 years old contain substandard, poorly maintained, and poorly sited wastewater systems. These can endanger public and environmental health and can also limit growth, particularly in unsewered, older villages. I observed this problem in many of the wastewater feasibility studies I have been involved in for the state of Vermont, and I believe that this situation also occurs in many other areas of the country.
As a result of the two issues described above, it’s easier to build in the middle of a hay field, on top of a mountain, or adjacent to a lake than it is to revitalize and support our existing villages and hamlets through redevelopment. On the other hand, it can also be easier to fix problems with older camps built directly on lakes and coasts that are now being expanded or converted to year-round use.
Following are two examples that highlight these issues. The first instance shows the current state of public knowledge regarding drinking water supplies; the second shows the limitations on growth in villages.
Fish Tank
I hiked up a steep hill in Worcester, VT, with a local resident whose family had settled in the Green Mountains in the mid-1800s. He was showing me his water supply well, a “spring” located high above the village that provided drinking water with enough “head” to pressurize his home and small store without the use of a pump. I was there as a regulator to advise him about a state permit for his proposed expansion, which would include a small apartment.
We reached the spring box, a shallow rectangular concrete tank with an asphalt-tiled wooden cover. He lifted the cover off the tank and there in the crystal-clear water was a small trout, apparently thriving. He explained the theory of keeping a fish in your spring to keep the tank clean. I was amazed and unsure where to begin fitting this into the application of the state’s water supply regulations. Something told me I wasn’t going to convince him to change his ways, although I had to try.
This type of substandard water supply was by no means an isolated occurrence. When Stone Environmental worked on the national onsite demonstration project in the Town of Warren, VT, we investigated water supplies in the village and found drilled wells with caps buried below ground, shallow wells intercepting mostly stormwater runoff, and both shallow and drilled wells in close proximity to drainfields—including one shallow well using the same water source as the nearby brook.
Unsuitable Soil
I carried my coffee travel mug in to a meeting in the community of Craftsbury, VT, where a young couple was excited about opening a small bakery and coffee shop in a building in the lower village. The building currently housed a small machine shop with two part-time employees, but like many New England village buildings its history probably included two generations of families, a working barn, and outbuildings all located on a small village lot. The bakery would be mostly takeout, but they wanted 16–20 restaurant seats for breakfast and lunch. This would amount to an increase in wastewater flows of about 500 gallons per day (equivalent to flows from a 3–4 bedroom home).
The site had a drilled well which could be tested for quality, and limited information was available about the existing wastewater system. We met a backhoe operator at the site and chose a place to dig two soil-test holes. These would help determine the site’s suitability for a conventional drainfield, as the existing system was located subsurface.
Unfortunately, but as predicted by the county soil survey, the soils were not suitable for a conventional wastewater system; neither were they suitable for a mound system, even with pretreatment (which was not an option at that time). A larger area than was available would be needed for a mound. Finally, the site was not large enough for a fully complying replacement area that is tested and set aside for future use if needed, as required by state regulations.
My answer to the young couple was that they could not use the space for a bakery unless an alternative wastewater solution was found offsite. This happened over 10 years ago, and there is still no bakery/coffee shop in Craftsbury village. The scenario has been repeated by me and by other consultants and regulators in similar situations—not always as extreme as this one, but causing similar angst and financial burdens. Stories like this often go unreported because they are seen as individual misfortunes rather than a community matter.
Meeting the Challenge
On the contrary, I believe that these are community issues that need questions researched and answers implemented, and I am asking for your help. No matter what area of water resources you work in, you can have a direct impact on protecting our villages and natural resources. We are recognizing water as the vital resource it is—but a resource that experiencing more negative environmental impacts than ever before through misuse and overuse of our water resources and increasing potential for exposure to pathogens, nutrients, and emerging contaminants. My challenge to you is as follows:
Septic tank pumpers and maintenance providers: You interact directly with homeowners and can provide good, basic information on how septic tanks and systems work, the condition of a system, what repairs are needed, and recommendations for improvements. You also may possess or have access to the only available data on an older system built before permits were maintained and as-built conditions recorded. How often a septic tank is pumped, along with the tank’s location, depth, and age, all may influence where a drainfield is located and may enable estimates of soil and site limitations. In Massachusetts, for instance, a system is considered “failed” if the tank is pumped more than four times a year, and pump-out information is required to be reported to regulatory agencies.
Contractors and installers: You are involved both with upgrading and replacing failed systems and with new construction. While many jurisdictions require that a designer and possibly a regulator perform construction certification, these are usually spot inspections, and the responsibility of meeting construction and regulation requirements ultimately rests with you. While you are not directly responsible for the design, you are responsible for its execution, and in some cases that requires changes to the design to accommodate site constraints.
Designers and site evaluators: Experience in the field is often more valuable than coursework and workshops. Sharing your site-specific knowledge about location, design, installation, operation, and trouble-shooting with regulators, researchers, and planners is crucial for making appropriate rule and design changes. Push for consideration of a range of decentralized and centralized options, and think individually and community-wide to identify the best environmental and community-based solutions.
Regulators and policy makers: Level the playing field between centralized and decentralized projects regarding regulatory constraints and funding priority systems originally designed for wastewater treatment plants with direct discharges. Identify and request research into how to maximize both traditional and innovative (pretreatment) systems. In many states, regulators responsible for individual onsite systems are different people than those responsible for community wastewater systems or facilities. Since there was little need in the past for these departments to interact, each is often unaware of the other’s activities. Now that it is difficult and costly to construct new traditional centralized sewer collection and treatment facilities, using a mix of individual onsite, small, and large cluster systems can be the most appropriate answer for a small community.
Unfortunately, a paradigm shift needs to occur before the right level of involvement of community members, consultants, and regulatory departments can be achieved.
Where newer technologies are considered, regulators should consider using the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA) model performance code documents as a basis for developing new rules. These documents, the result of many years of work, can provide a framework for a jurisdiction to follow. Legislators can also ask their state agencies to consider this framework during the rulemaking process.
Everybody: Be involved in local committees, national education and professional associations such as NOWRA, town and regional planning efforts, state regulation advisory committees, and national funding and environmental and public health protection efforts. Help develop new management and financing scenarios that include all decentralized and centralized properties in both the cost-sharing and service provision of comprehensive wastewater management districts. Reach out to related groups such as planners and home builders.
Individual onsite water supplies are the other seldom-discussed topic that requires attention. As with onsite wastewater systems where septic tanks have “never been pumped”, individual water supplies are often ignored after construction. Water supplies are seldom tested other than during the sale of a property, and even fewer are tested for more constituents than bacteria. Older water supplies, even drilled wells, may not be constructed to today’s protective standards—for example, they may not be finished aboveground but carefully sealed into bedrock or impervious soil layers to tap an isolated groundwater source. We all need to be educated and advised on when to either upgrade existing water supplies or build community water supply systems. Since community water supply systems are typically less expensive than sewer systems, it may be more appropriate to construct a community water system and leave the wastewater treatment onsite. This is where careful review of soil and site conditions, and of wider community issues, is needed.
There have been many improvements in the onsite industry during my 30-year career, and I am proud to be an advocate for continued improvements to the industry. I have always been a strong proponent of homeowner and community outreach, and the members of the Warren wastewater advisory committee, with their dedication and individual outreach efforts to gain public approval, taught me the power of individual actions. I am still waiting for a national TV and radio ad campaign showing people drinking from their faucets and being aware of water conservation, properly disposing of other wastes, mailing their onsite utility bill to keep their system maintained and repaired, and swimming in a pristine brook in a small village setting.
Mary K. Clark is a Project Director and Group Leader for the Water Resources and Wastewater Management Group at Stone Environmental, Inc. in Montpelier, Vermont. She can be reached at mclark@stone-env.com.
OW - September/October 2006 |
