| 
|
By Elizabeth Dietzmann
In the first article on this subject, I wrote about comprehensive planning that outlaws the use of decentralized wastewater technology rather than embracing it as a useful tool for managing growth. I analyzed the proposed master plan for Webster Township, outside Ann Arbor, MI, and held it up as a really good example of bad planning, primarily because of its ban against any wastewater system that serves more than one dwelling unit. In many parts of the country, local governments like Webster Township have grown to fear decentralized technology because it actually works too well. Decentralized technology certainly provides developers with a viable solution for wastewater treatment, but where there is no comprehensive planning in place, the technology is often used without regard for watershed protection and open space preservation. The backlash occurs when local governments such as Webster County look at the growth that has occurred in areas with no comprehensive planning and decide that the use of decentralized technology must not be allowed, because clustered systems will spread like kudzu across undeveloped areas if it is. Interestingly enough, Coweta County, GA, where kudzu really is a statewide problem, has taken exactly the opposite approach to Webster Township, and identified decentralized technology as one of the keystones of its proposed comprehensive plan.
There are dual ironies at work here. Not only do both Georgia and Michigan have excellent regulatory frameworks in place for the oversight of clustered decentralized wastewater systems (which I plan to discuss in yet another article), but both Webster Township and Coweta County have the same broad goals: to manage the influx of new residents and the conversion of farmland to residential use so that waste of land is minimized, to resolve conflicts between existing uses and new development, and to retain some of the vestiges of the rural character that has been created by the existence of older farms and historic communities. Similar goals and two diametrically opposed solutions. One solution that forbids the use of clustered systems and the other that mandates their use over central sewers.
Coweta County’s vision statement, taken from its Web site, could be applied equally well to Webster Township:
Coweta County will foster a new frontier of rural character. This county will consistently sustain and improve the quality of life by continuously planning for careful growth with the participation of citizens, private industry, and government. The resulting community will provide a uniquely historic sense of place that nurtures family and cultural values, commerce, education, and preservation of green space.
Much like Webster Township, Coweta County is turning into a bedroom community for a metropolitan area—in this case, Atlanta. Coweta County is about 45 minutes southwest of downtown Atlanta, along the Interstate 85 corridor. The population in Coweta County is expected to nearly double between 2006 and 2026 from 105,000 to 205,000. The Coweta County Commission has spent over a year working on an update of its comprehensive plan by developing a Strategic Framework Plan and Future Development Map as required in the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Local Planning Requirements. According to the Future Wastewater Treatment Strategy, dated May 21, 2006:
Four future growth scenarios surfaced as a result of the County’s goals, vision statement and feedback surveys. They are:
- Scenario 1: Current Trends—Current policies operated over the next 20 years result in dispersed residential subdivisions and commercial development.
- Scenario 2: Village Centers—Growth is guided toward village centers created at strategic points and existing communities, allowing preservation.
- Scenario 3: Rural preservation—Future growth is focused on an urban services area established around existing municipalities, allowing preservation of rural areas around the county’s perimeter.
- Scenario 4: Economic Development—Aggressive economic development strategies, targeted infrastructure improvements, and density bonuses increase the employment base of the County to better suit its population and labor force.
According to the Coweta County Web site, broad concepts of land use and development patterns that reflected the county’s goals were then used to select “Village Center” as the preferred scenario for future development in the county. Following that selection, the specific growth management tools and strategies needed to implement the preferred scenario were identified, and they all hinge on decentralized wastewater:
This development scenario is highlighted by the creation of a series of Village Centers within the County, strategically placed to encourage new development to form in clusters, with a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The Village Centers will include the eight existing municipalities, three redeveloped traditional mill villages, two preferred village centers, and smaller crossroads communities. Village Centers will be surrounded by transitional residential areas, beyond which will lie undisturbed the open spaces and rural countryside that will preserve the character of the County.... It is believed that this pattern of development will create a powerful sense of place and allow new development to improve the community.... Wastewater management has been identified as the most important issue facing the creation of Village Centers because it can greatly impact the development pattern of an area through cost and zoning limitations. [Emphasis added] ... There are few options for the provision of wastewater management. Septic systems are the most common local form of wastewater management. They are not desirable, as sewerage will be needed to promote mixed-use development. Septic systems are susceptible to failure that results in fecal organisms being released to the rivers and streams which results in poor water quality in those systems. The other extreme is centralized wastewater treatment, in which each village center is connected to a large scale system that feeds wastewater into one or more permanent wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). This alternative is not desirable either, because it results in expensive sewer lines reaching across the rural areas of the County. Additionally, developers may take advantage of the sewer lines and connect new developments to them in rural areas intended for preservation, allowing construction on smaller lot sizes than what is desired for those areas. Local sewerage and decentralized treatment therefore constitute an ideal strategy. [Emphasis added] ... There are a number of benefits to using decentralized treatment for each Village Center. As mentioned above, it can prevent higher density in rural areas. ... Local treatment will cause treated effluent to be discharged immediately into surface waters, especially smaller streams instead of large rivers. During periods of drought this can help maintain the necessary minimum flows in streams and rivers. Decentralized treatment with a point discharge also reduces the consumptive usage of water, which was an issue of some debate during the interstate negotiations between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over the Appalachicola-Chattahootchee-Flint (AFC) river basin, the basin in which the County sits. The use of septic systems is considered to be 100 percent consumptive under the negotiations.... The technology associated with decentralized systems has advanced much in recent years. Decentralized systems are now available that do not require staff onsite constantly, but rather they operate automatically.
Wow! Aside from the statement that decentralized systems do not require staff onsite constantly, this is a ringing endorsement for the use of decentralized clustered systems. More important, the Coweta County plan recognizes that only by concentrating the inevitable development in village centers can the county preserve the open spaces and also protect the public health. Coweta County openly acknowledges that septic systems cannot be used to serve the anticipated mixed-use growth and that they may contribute to public health problems. Sadly enough, instead of allowing clustered systems in certain areas, Webster Township took the opposite approach and has condemned many of its residents to a well, septic tank, and drainfield.
Coweta County has also taken the implementation and management of decentralized technology one step further than any other local government I have seen up to this point. First, the county commission recognized that decentralized clustered systems must be properly designed, installed, and subsequently managed by a responsible management entity which has the technical, managerial, and financial ability to operate them in compliance with the regulations set forth by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Second, the county commission acknowledged that, while it did provide centralized wastewater service to a few areas in the county, it was not willing to undertake the management of all future clustered systems. So the county commission turned to Newnan Utilities, the municipal utility company for the Coweta County community of Newnan.
Newnan Utilities currently provides water and wastewater service to limited areas of the county by agreement with the county, and in light of its experience and long-standing relationship with the county, it agreed to assume full responsibility for the design, installation, ownership and operation of all decentralized clustered systems for all new high density development. In May 2006, Newnan Utilities and Coweta County entered into a cooperative wastewater treatment agreement that will coordinate the implementation of the comprehensive plan with management of clustered decentralized systems. Under the agreement, the county commission has the sole authority to initially approve the location and scope of any potential new developments that purport to utilize decentralized wastewater treatment technology pursuant to its planning and zoning process. In the event that the county commission approves a project which will require decentralized wastewater treatment, the developer is required to contact Newnan Utilities in order to coordinate the wastewater aspects of the project. Newnan will have complete and sole operational control and management authority for any such decentralized wastewater systems constructed in Coweta County. So that all decentralized wastewater systems are managed to the highest standards by a qualified management entity, Newnan Utilities will be the only entity allowed to design, build, own and manage clustered systems within Coweta County. This agreement has the effect of creating a uniform standard for clustered systems in Coweta County, but it does not require the county to jump into the wastewater business either.
By working with a partner like Newnan Utilities, Coweta County can ensure that clustered decentralized systems are properly managed and that each developer does not choose different technology. Coweta County has actually exceeded the requirements of Georgia Department of Natural Resources for the management and ownership of clustered systems, although those requirements set out an excellent management framework in their own right. That is perhaps the final irony in this comparison of these two local governments and their struggle to deal with growth. In spite of the fact that Michigan also has a regulatory framework in place for the long-term operation and management of clustered systems, not only was Webster Township afraid to deal with the increased density that clustered systems would engender, but it was even more afraid “that the Township would have the ultimate responsibility for operating and maintaining a private, central system in the event the owner would fail to do so.” Coweta County faced the same problem, but the county commissioners there refused to let this fear stop them from implementing smart growth. Instead they looked at the management problem as an opportunity for an innovative solution. Maybe management of clustered systems is still the main obstacle to the implementation of decentralized technology, not just the increased density that results In that light, in the next article I plan to discuss the regulatory framework in Georgia and Michigan for the management of clustered systems.
Elizabeth Dietzmann is an attorney in Rolla, MO. She can be contacted at edietzmann@earthlink.net.
OW
- September/October 2006
|
