Failing Septic Systems: Problems and Solutions Protect Our Waters 2003 Legislative Session Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Minnesota Environmental.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
BAT Work Group. BAT Work Group Goals Develop a procedure for identifying technologies eligible for funding Propose policies and regulation necessary to.
Advertisements

An Accurate Assessment of the Situation Determining a Communitys Wastewater Needs Nick Haig- University of Minnesota Onsite Sewage Treatment Program
Presenter: Karen Fligger, US EPA. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Managed onsite or cluster wastewater systems used to collect, treat, and disperse.
1 © 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. 11 A UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE PARTNERSHIP SHIRLEY.
Land Use Program Septic System Overview Scott Weldon
HOUSE BILL 89 ONSITE WASTEWATER STAKEHOLDER MEETING 2 nd meeting September 8, 2011 Crystal Lovett, MO DNR Facilitator, and DNR-DHSS Panel.
1 R URAL L ANDOWNER S TEWARDSHIP G UIDE for the Ontario Landscape Self-assessment for your environmental performance as a property owner Second Edition.
OSTDS Management: An overview of EPA management models, case studies, and financing options Jaime Boswell Environmental Scientist Charlotte Harbor National.
Brown County Planning and Land Services Zoning Bill Bosiacki 305 E. Walnut St. Green Bay WI (920) Website:
Stormwater, Wellhead Protection and Drainage Issues Public Hearing.
Introduction to Onsite Wastewater Treatment for Single Family Residences Texas AgriLife Extension Service.
Springs Protection Options Septic System Evaluation Program Board of County Commissioners Meeting November 13 th 2012.
The New Mexico Environment Department The Department’s Mission is to provide the highest quality of life throughout the state by promoting a safe, clean,
California’s New Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Policy Richard Sanchez, REHS, MPH President California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health.
Environmental Auditing on the Yellow River Basin Liu Huibo from CNAO 5/7/2015 Penang, Malaysia.
1 Module 2: Promoting Compliance with Environmental Law.
POWTS Maintenance WCCA Fall Conference November 3, 2006 Pete Tarnowski Manitowoc County.
Rule Change Update MPCA 1/13/ Mid-Sized ISTS (MSTS)
Hide-A-Way Lake, Inc. Low Pressure Sewer System Prepared by Dungan Engineering, P.A.
Maine Department of Health & Human Services February 26, 2009 Wells, Maine Division of Environmental Health Subsurface Wastewater Program VOLUNTARY INSPECTOR.
Printed by DEVELOPING A NON-PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA Scott A. Uhlich, MCP Georgia Department of Human.
Preliminary Results of MGSP 2008 Survey Center for Economic Analysis Michigan State University 29 July 2008.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND WELLS IN SOLANO COUNTY Solano County Environmental Health Division 601 Texas Street, Fairfield CA (707)
TECHNICAL SECTION 2000 TRAINING LIQUID WASTE LAND USE SOLID WASTE BIOSOLIDS HOUSING VECTOR WATER INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC.
Wellington County Septic Social!
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
Lancaster County Property Transfer Code John Chess REHS, MPA, Water Quality Supervisor Lincoln Lancaster County Health Department Doug Smith REHS, Environmental.
Protecting Water Resources: The U.S. Legal Framework Babette J. Neuberger, JD, MPH Associate Dean for Academic Affairs University of Illinois at Chicago.
SHANNON WILLAERT IDT 510 ASSIGNMENT #4 Water to Drink NEXT 
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Workshop (APSA).
1 Innovative Use of Administrative Order Authority Management, Operation and Maintenance (MOM) Program.
Clean Water Act (CWA) (1977, 1981, 1987). Description and Affects This Act was put into place in order to regulate the amount of pollutants that were.
We are a coastal community. We have beaches and marinas. We have salt marshes and tidal inlets. We have parks with fantastic water views. “ Where the.
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING Public Information Session August 29, 2013 Town of Clinton, CT Water Pollution Control Commission.
WASTE TAXES Past Taxes and Projected Changes. Solid Waste Operators of Solid Waste facilities and Transfer facilities pay a $6 per ton tipping fee. Vermonters.
Rules Overview: Why Do We Do What We Do Alisa Max, P.E. Harris County Alisa Max, P.E. Harris County.
My septic system is working just fine! New State Wide Rules Began 1 st of 2015 replacing the 1977 code Goals Update system designs to currently available.
TMDLs on the Clearwater River Fecal Coliform Impairment of the Trout Stream Portion of the Clearwater River By Corey Hanson Water Quality Coordinator Red.
Human Waste Disposal More than 500 pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites can travel from human or animal excrement through water. More than 500 pathogenic.
Pelican Group of Lakes Improvement District Public Hearing on Facilities Plan Agenda Introduction of PGOLID Board of DirectorsDale Haakenstad Introduction.
Water Pollution. Types and Sources of Water Pollution  #1 problem - Eroded soils  Organic wastes, disease-causing agents  Chemicals, nutrients  Radioactive.
Problem Statement: On-site Sewage Disposal Systems (OSS) are routinely implicated as the primary contributor of non-point sources of pollution that threaten.
Septic Health Initiative Update - Summer 2006.
All About Sanitary Surveys David Edmunds Environmental Program Specialist ADEC Drinking Water Program Sustained Compliance: What It Means to Public Water.
Compensation in Czech law Petra Humlickova Utrecht, Water and Oceans Law in Times of Climate Change 2013.
2015 MOWA Winter Conference MPCA EXISTING SYSTEM COMPLIANCE INSPECTION MANUAL.
Kentucky Growth Readiness for Water Quality Does your water quality matter?
NC Rules and Requirements: Certified Inspectors of Subsurface Systems NC Certified Inspector Training School.
MPCA: An Agency & Legislative Update Brad Moore, Commissioner June 22, 2007.
Jessica Williams. History/ Basic Information The CWA was formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which was made in 1948 and was the.
76. The central U.S. law regulating water quality is the Clean Water Act (CWA), adopted in The Act initially focused on point sources, which it.
Prevention not Intervention Developing a Sound Response to Erosion and Sediment Control Problems through the Planning Process.
Crow Wing County Ditch #13 Public Hearing 10/27/15.
1 New Territory Municipal Utility Districts Strategic Partnership Agreement Discussions With the City of Sugar Land.
City of Rosenberg DEBT SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET JULY 28,
1 Staff Public Workshops Fall 2011 Policy for Siting, Design, Operation and Management of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems San Luis Obispo: October.
Resolution: Protect King County Waters from Failing On-Site Septic Systems Darrell Rodgers, PhD Public Health - Seattle & King County Environmental Health.
Septic Re-inspection Programs
Minnesota CLE June Webcast Extravaganza Environmental Law Basics for the Business and Real Estate Practitioner Joseph G. Maternowski, Hessian & McKasy,
Septic System Overview
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Compliance
Homeowner Responsibility
The EPA and Susquehanna River
Tuscarawas County Health Department Operation Permit
An example of Finland's approach to wastewater treatment for households in rural areas Kimmo Tiilikainen Minister of the Environment Finland
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems
What to Expect When You’re Inspected
Homeowner Responsibility
BAT Work Group.
Know Your Septic Systems Check it, Fix it, Maintain it
Presentation transcript:

Failing Septic Systems: Problems and Solutions Protect Our Waters 2003 Legislative Session Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Minnesota Environmental Partnership Minnesota Lakes Association Minnesota Project

There are over 500,000 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) in Minnesota An estimated 33 percent of these do not meet safe groundwater standards due to improper design, installation or maintenance.

An estimated additional 64,000 systems discharge directly to surface waters or to the ground surface. They represent “imminent threats to public health and safety”

Direct Discharge Septic

Direct Discharge Septic Systems Are Illegal “Unless specifically permitted by the agency, a system shall not discharge sewage or sewage tank effluent, to the ground surface or to surface water.” MN Rules Part

They are also widespread...

Raw sewage has 5,000 times more fecal coliform bacteria than treated municipal wastewater Municipal plant effluent is required by law to contain less than 200 fecal coliform counts per 100 milliliters Raw sewage contains 1,000,000 fecal coliform counts per 100 milliliters

Collectively, the estimated 64,000 septic systems discharging to surface waters discharge over 7 million gallons per day of septic tank effluent into our lakes, rivers and streams

Impacts on water quality are significant river reaches in Minnesota are listed as impaired by fecal coliform at levels that make them unsafe for swimming

Rivers Impaired by Fecal Coliform

Direct discharge systems are responsible for 71% of the fecal coliform pollution in the Straight River during the critical fall dry season

Despite the enormous impact on water quality of failed and illegal systems, the state has no systematic program in place to identify and correct them. Instead, we rely on finding them through property transfer disclosure or application for a building permit for a bedroom addition.

This system is very weak: State law regarding property transfer does not require proof of system compliance--merely that the owner/seller describe the system in use Even in a county with mandatory compliance at time of transfer (Steele) it is estimated to take years to identify and correct failed systems

Counties play a significant role in ISTS oversight… But only one county responding to a 2001 survey, Faribault, had a program to systematically identify faulty ISTS

Minnesota’s lakes and streams need a program that: Engages every county in identifying and addressing failed and illegal systems Requires ISTS to be compliant at the time of property transfer

That alone won’t be enough… Even properly designed and installed systems can cause water quality problems and have a decreased lifespan if they are not properly maintained

MN Rules Part require ISTS owners to have their tanks assessed and pumped at least once every 3 years, but…

…no out-state county has a pump-out oversight/enforcement program, and the rate of compliance is unknown. Source: MPCA

Five metro counties have developed ISTS pump-out oversight programs--Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott and Washington

In Washington County-- ISTS contractors purchase a $10 license from the County for each tank to be pumped, in advance of the service When the tank is pumped, the contractor fills in the form and returns it to the County The County generates quarterly lists of ISTS due for service and notifies homeowners by letter

Minnesota’s lakes and rivers need a program to: Oversee and enforce the ISTS tank assessment and pump-out requirements

How can these proposed efforts be funded? Require owners of properties with ISTS to provide the county with a certificate of compliance issued within the past 5 years. Owners pay a $15 inventory fee to county.

The county reviews compliance inventory against records of properties on ISTS, sends letter to owners without proof of compliance. The county inspects ISTS without proof of compliance, and covers the costs by use of special assessments

For tank pumpout oversight -- We recommend a program similar to that of Washington County, with a license fee to pump

For ISTS upgrades-- The Agricultural Best Management Practices (AgBMP) Loan Program provides low interest loans for ISTS upgrades, lending over $12 million for this purpose since its inception in 1995

Costs of ISTS by system type Conventional (trench) systems range from $3,500-$5,500 At-grade systems range from $4,000- $6,500 Mound systems range from $5,500-$10,000 Source: MPCA

How can we increase the amount available in low interest loans without impacting the General Fund or increasing taxes? We can activate the provision in the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund allowing 5% of the principal to be used for “water system” improvement loans and direct it to be used for ISTS upgrades. MN Stat 116P.12