proposed septic ordinance
Summary
- There are 24 posts — by 12 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Melinda Spinler at 2009 Dec 05 20:50 UTC
Out where I live, and all over the county, folks are concerned about what scrutiny they will be subjected to because they have a once legal outhouse, and also carry water in by hand but have a once legal gray water drain out of the house. These systems may seem crude by suburban standards but make great use of the land's ability to deal with waste if it is not concentrated (i.e. too many per acre). All of these people's systems are far enough from creeks, lakes, wells, and neighbors to once be considered "okay". People with these systems are among the most environmentally concerned people out there: they don't discard of inappropriate chemicals or drugs in their toilets, they use biodegradable soaps, and they don't waste water. The proposed ordinance doesn't say so but it seems that the writing is on the wall trending towards getting rid of these simple, inexpensive, but effective systems in favor of systems that are merely convenient for inspectors, and profitable for pumpers and installers. Don't get me wrong, I totally believe in protecting surface and groundwater, and the health of the public, but isn't there room for the tried and true? If so, why aren't outhouses and gray water systems even mentioned in the proposed ordinance? Did I miss it? Even composting toilets are not mentioned. Did I miss that too? And I know it makes some people cringe, but what about the so called "humanure" systems (used effectively around the world)? What about a system for allowing "experimental" systems such as small wetlands, or others? Write in some standards if need be, but let people continue to use "nature's way" to deal with waste when appropriate as an alternative to expensive, water wasting/polluting, energy intensive, and often short lived systems. It's not appropriate for everybody and every place, but where it is, it should be officially sanctioned.
Thanks, Mouse
Kent: You make very good points. I confess I did not read the entire draft ordinance in the newspaper, so perhaps you know the answer to this question: Does it REQUIRE that every home have a septic system, or does it just prescribe new requirements for those that do have them? Could it be that by not mentioning the "tried but true" approaches you describe, it signals that they will not be regulated? I confess ignorance on this point.
You have raised thoughtful questions, ones that were raised by members of the committee that helped draft the ordinance. The committee was aware that certain types of systems exist "out there" in use, apparently successfully, for some time. But the question then arises, "how do you know your system is not affecting groundwater, nearby wetlands, creeks etc."? Alternative systems are permitted as well as privies and other systems that are not type I systems. It must be demonstrated that these systems, by design, are not affecting groundwater nor are they an imminent threat to public health. Biz Clark
Thank you Kent for posting these questions. As you know we live under the same conditions as yourself, we consider ourselves to be highly educated in alternative systems, considerably concerned with our ecosystem as we grow our own and others food, and greatly dismayed with the ignorance exhibited with the latest ordinance. A few years back we discovered that MN was part of a group of like-minded, similar ecosystem states that decided that what would "pass" in one state would be approved in the others. Then we found that the local government was not as familiar with many of these systems and the 'good 'ol standby' would suffice. Through effort on a number of residents a few other systems were granted use here in the county, as were already in use in Lake Co. I agree it takes time for education for inspectors and time for them to actually inspect and visit with property owners so of course this becomes a monetary issue as well. We should not allow the county to get by with taking the easy road to state-wide compliance. Again it comes back to education, (as in all things) and we need to be educating the powers that be that there are viable alternatives and this is a place where those alternatives are needed. "One does not throw out the baby with the bathwater!"
Thanks to all who have had very valid points and questions regarding the proposed septic ordinance thus far. One point I'd like to clear up right away is that while all lots that currently accomodate human habitation have to have some type of adequate treatment for the human waste, that treatment does not have to be what is considered to be a "standard" type septic treatment system. Only properties that have an actual pressurized water supply system that feeds directly into the dwelling are required to by the state of Minnesota to have a septic system. For all other homes, cabins, hunting shacks or simliar rustic dwellings that rely on hand carried water, several variable types of human waste treatment options have been, and will continue to remain as adequately suitable alternatives to a standard type septic system, the most common of which being the outhouse. It is important to note that while outhouses can indeed be perfectly suitable for the treatement of human waste, in order to achieve that adequate level of treatment necessary to kill off all of the bacteria and pathogens, the outhouse needs to have a minimum of three feet of unsaturated soils extending below the bottom of the pit, which is often difficult to obtain in Cook County. Other non-standard treatment options that are currently approved and in use within the county include: composting toilets; holding tanks; and the incinolet (incinerating toilets). There have also been a few "humanure" projects in place so as to be able to evaluate the type of treatment achieved and longevity of the process, since it is labor intensive compaired to other alternatives. I hope this clarifies the misconception that outhouses or other adequate types of human waste treatment systems would no longer be allowed as a matter of local ordinance, since it was the intent of the septic ordinance committee to recognize and work with the various types adequate alternatives. We will take these concerns and look for ways to clarify that issue in the proposed ordinance language. That all being said, it is important to note that if it is determined through an inspection that an active outhouse is not adequately treating the human waste, the outhouse would have to be either repaired or replaced with one that does adequately provide the treatment. My next post will address the "point of property transfer" septic system inspection requirement that's found in the currently proposed ordinance.
One of the major possible modifications from the current county regulations that's found within the proposed septic ordinance relates to the inspection of existing septic systems (including outhouses). What is proposed by the septic ordinance committee is the adoption of a "property transfer" trigger for the inspection of existing systems, in addition to those triggers that already exist within the state rules. Minnesota state rules have long since required that existing systems, including outhouses, be inspected for compliance in conjunction with any land use type permit request within any shoreland area, which is defined as all lands within 1,000 feet from a lake, or 300 feet from a river or stream. State rules also require a compliance inspection for any property in conjunction with the addition of a bedroom regardless of whether the property is located within a shoreland area or not. The reason that the addition of a bedroom triggers a compliance inspection is due to the fact that septic systems are sized primarily according to the number of bedrooms within a dwelling. Existing system compliance inspections are intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the natural treatment of human waste by taking into consideration the design of system installed, and the type & depth of the soil layers present between the human waste and the ground water or bedrock. While many existing systems seem to function adequately in that they move the waste effectively from the dwelling into the ground, the actual findings over the last ten years of inspections indicate that more then one out of every three existing systems failed to adequately protect the ground water resources. Starting in 2001, Cook County instituted a lakeshore septic compliance inspection program targeting a number of lakes that were prioritized relative to the amount of existing development and water quality characteristics. The program has worked by inspecting all of the properties surrounding each of the targeted lakes, and then requiring the upgrade within two years for all failing systems found through the inspections. Through this program, we have completed compliance inspections around the following lakes: Pike; Caribou; Devil Track; Gunflint; Poplar; Seagull; and Sagnaga. As stated earlier, the septic ordinance committee has recommended the adoption of a "property transfer" compliance inspection process. The intention is to be able to evaluate a greater number of existing systems at a time where an increased amount of resources would be potentially available to repair or replace a system if found to be failing. The "pro's" of a point of property transfer type inspection program include: 1. The ability to evaluate a larger number of existing systems that would otherwise not be inspected through one of the other state mandated "triggers"; 2. Property conveyances are times where there would more likely be money on the table that could potentially be utilized for the upgrade or replacement of a failing system; and 3. An existing system inspection at the time of property conveyance can provide some protection for the person receiving the property who may otherwise be unaware of the functional status of the system. Some "cons" of adopting a property conveyance inspection program include: 1. A possible adverse impact on the existing lakeshore septic compliance inspection program since we have been investing our limited resources into inspecting what we had considered to be the most environmentally sensitive areas of the county. With a property conveyance inspection program, we would spend more time and resources in the non-shoreland areas of the county that may not be in as much need of resource protection as the shoreland areas where we are currently focused; 2. The more systems that are added to the inspection process within a year’s time, the more of a burden that is placed on the existing infrastructure including the administrative support needed at the county level to process the paperwork for the significant increase of additional inspections and upgrades that would be triggered. In addition to the administrative support that would have to be increased to accommodate the new requirement, there could also be a potentially adverse impact with regards to the increased overall amount of septage pumped from the septic tanks during the inspection processes. Currently Cook County has a limited amount of lands available for the application of septage waste pumped from septic tanks, and the City of Grand Marais is limited in the amount of septage waste it can accept. As such, it may be appropriate to locate additional suitable lands available for the application of septage waste before initiating a more intensive existing septic system compliance inspection program. In the next Posting, I will focus more on the potential requirement in the proposed septic ordinance for the routine periodic pumping of all septic tanks.
Tim: Thank you for doing your posts. They are clear and easy to understand, and they add an enormous amount of information to this discussion.
Kent Jones asked whether homes that have a graywater pipe leading out of their homes would be allowed under the proposed septic ordinance. The draft states, "It is unlawful for any person to maintain, occupy, or use any building intended for habitation that is not provided with a wastewater treatment system. Disposal of wastewater shall be conducted in a manner that complies with the provisions of this ordinance." (Article IV, Section 6.01) I would suggest that people who are concerned about this issue show up for the public hearing Wednesday, November 18 at 7 p.m. at the courthouse. It will be part of a meeting of the Cook County Planning Commission.
With regards to Jane's comments, which are a follow-up to the grey water question posed by Kent Jones, in an earlier post I noted that indeed according to Minnesota State Rules, any dwelling intended for human habitation must have some means in managing the human waste generated at the premises. According to the state rules, dwellings that have a pressurized water supply into the structure, would be required to have a septic treatment system, even for just the grey water (which would have a slightly lesser standard than wastewater mixed with human waste). However, if the water supply for a dwelling is hand carried in, then no treatment system is required for the grey water, and a pipe would be allowed. The requrired "treatment system" would then presumably consist of the alternatives earlier described such as an outhouse or composing toilet. The septic ordinance committee worked through the state generated model ordinance which is based directly off of the state rules changes. Although the language Jane quotes out of Article IV, Section 6.01 should be written more clearly, it actually represents no changes from what has already existed for many years under the previous state rules. Likewise, we would also encourage everyone who's interested in this ordinance to attend the public hearings to help us make sure that the language, and intentions are clearly stated. Continuing to post questions also helps us in being able to clarify issues or language discrepancies before the actual hearings as well.
In my experience, it would seem from Tim's last post that Cook County and the state of Minnesota differ on when a system is required. Last year I was specifically told by a Cook County Planning and Zoning staffer that I would be required to install a complete septic system (and probably a mound system at an approximate cost of $12,000) if I drilled a well on my property, hand carried water into my home to fill my 165 gallon water tank, and elevated the tank inside my house to provide some pressure to run water lines to my sinks. I have a permitted composting toilet and it was not the issue. I was told that ANY pressurized water system inside the house triggered this requirement. I was also told that a large holding tank for my greywater would not meet this requirement as a complete septic system could be installed on my property. With the right amount of money and fill to cover the rock I live on, of course a mound system is possible.
Good discussion point Mary... One of the many things that is truly appreciated about Cook County is the vast diversity of personal dwelling choices that are in play throughout the county, and the varying methods employed in attempting to reduce the amount of impact on our area resources. Along with that diversity however comes with it certain challenges on where specific thresholds are crossed in making determinations regarding when and what type of septic treatment systems may be required for any particular dwelling. Like many other topics, the issue of hand carrying water into a dwelling and the disposition or "treatment" of the resulting wastewater can be viewed relative to the scale of use. The specific reference within the Minnesota State Rules regarding the hand carrying of water into a dwelling is found within MN Rules Chapter 7080.1500, Subp. 2 which specifically points to hand carried water into "primitive structures" that are "without plumbing" (pressurized water system). The most common method of hand carry water usage, is accomplished by carrying a container of water into a structure without internal plumbing, and subsequently pouring that water directly into a basin or sink, which is then either hand carried back outside, or allowed to drain from the sink onto the ground. By adding a sizable internal water storage tank and running a gravity fed pressurized plumbing system from that tank to water fixtures within the dwelling, it becomes much more problematic for county staff to take the position that the dwelling is either primitive or is without plumbing. It is again important to note that neither the new state septic rules, nor the currently proposed county level septic ordinance, would change the language that has been in place for many years regarding the disposition or treatment of hand carried water.
One issue within the proposed septic ordinance that has generated some of the most amount of direct comment back to the County thus far is the provision found in Article VII, Section 2.03, which would require that all septic tanks that are not under an operating permit or management plan to be pumped and inspected every three years. Minnesota Rules 7082.0100 Subp. 3(L) states that counties must adopt into their ordinance the following: "For systems not operated under a management plan, a provision requiring solids removal from septic tanks or determination of the need to remove solids from septic tanks no less than every three years. The ordinance must require removal of solids if the solids accumulation needs to be removed". This particular issue did generate a significant amount of discussion among committee members, and in the end the committee determined to opt for the requirment of the removal of solids from (or pumping) the tanks every three years over just an evaluation. The main reasoning for this determination was in favor of greater ground water protection since the pumping of a septic tank provides the best means to fully evaluate whether the tank is operating effectively, and to also be able to start addressing older systems that may not have been pumped for many years. The main concerns expressed thus far from members of the public about this proposed requirement include: 1. Whether tank pumping requirements should be based more upon actual individual use of the systems rather than applying a blanket requirement for every system regardless of seasonal or full-time use; 2. The increase in costs to property owners, and whether that increased cost will balance out what is really trying to be achieved through the proposed pumping requirement; 3. Questions as to whether there is sufficient septic tank pumping capacity within Cook County with just the one pumper. As I referenced in the state rules above, the only alternatives that Cook County have regarding this provision are to either adopt the three-year pumping requirement, or to adopt a three-year tank evaluation and possible pumping requirement. Please continue to submit your comments to the Cook County Environmental Health and Planning & Zoning Department.
I appreciate Tim Nelson's clarification that if the water supply for a dwelling is NOT provided by a PRESSURIZED system but is manually carried into the dwelling, then no treatment system is required for the grey water, and the required "treatment system" would then consist of an approved outhouse or composing toilet. Tim's post (11/9/09) pointed to MN Rules Chapter 7080.1500, Subp. 2 where this is spelled out, but I would suggest that this clarification should be specifically stated in the language of the county ordinance as well (and/or the State Rule referenced), just to avoid confusions or mis-interpretations. Secondly, a three-year mandated pumping requirement seems overkill for the many people who own cabins in Cook County that are not their primary residence and are used only infrequently. For a good many of these infrequently-used structures, after three years, the tank is still probably 95% air / 5% solids. Any potential threat to grounwater contamination would seem to be appropriately addressed by opting for the three-year evaluation as opposed to pumping requirement for these non-primary vacation residences, and considerable time and money could be saved.
I second the opinion about seasonal cabins not needing to be on a three year schedule. I (unfortunately) spend only around 40 days a YEAR at my small cabin, so have little need for a three year pumping schedule, contrasted with year round use in the normal rural residential setting. On a second point, looking for clarification, even though water is hand carried in, if it is placed in an *elevated* tank, does that not constitute it being a pressurized system? After all, the element that introduces hydraulic pressure in a city system are not the pumps that fill a water tower, but rather the head that is created from the height of the water tower.
Thank you Tim for all your clarifications of this issue. Perhaps you could take a stab at why the county is not looking at other grey water systems that are in use throughout the US. in geographically challenging areas such as ours. Mounds are generally considered NOT to be the best system yet they are prevariably pushed upon the residents as "the" system of choice for black or grey water. Hand carrying water inside and then letting it run out a pipe in the side of the house is NOT the answer. Anyone who lives this lifestyle will tell you the problems with critters this brings, the small food scraps left right next to the house is a gold-plated calling card. There are proven ecologically sound methods to deal with grey water and I would like those to be included within this new ordinance. Have you folks explored any?
I think the three-year septic site inspection requirement is reasonable. I don't think a three-year pump requirement is reasonable. It doesn't seem very "green" to have a pump truck running around doing unnecessary pumping and then having to dispose of the waste somewhere. Where is all that waste going to go? What is wrong with the three-year evaluation with possible pumping requirement? It seems to me that with the number of seasonal properties in Cook County, there would be quite a few underutilized septic systems that would not require pumping in three years and people who live alone are going to be putting much less pressure on a septic system. I have a friend who lives in Trempealeau County in Wisconsin where they have the three-year inspection for solids requirement. She lives alone and had her three-year inspection. Her system didn't need pumping at three years. It wasn't even close to the percent solid fill that would require pumping. The inspection cost was $50.00 and I think any of the licensed septic system installers were qualified to perform the inspection as well as the approved pumpers themselves. This didn't require any increase in county staff to perform the inspections. Why waste the homeowners money requiring pumping when it may not be needed? Steve Schuh
I'm happy to see that this topic has generated some discussion. I hope that people who are concerned about the ordinance as currently written will attend the public hearing at the courthouse on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 7 pm. I'm concerned about how the ordinance will affect people who own homes or cabins without plumbing. I've read the applicable sections of the ordinance and I find that its intentions are unclear. 1. Under Article I, Section 1.02(D); and Article III, Section 1.0, only “privy vaults” are referenced. “Privy pits” (utilizing soil filtration) should also be referenced. 2. As Jane Howard has noted, the ordinance states, "It is unlawful for any person to maintain, occupy, or use any building intended for habitation that is not provided with a wastewater treatment system." -- "Wastewater" is not defined. If it includes graywater, must all habitations be provided with a system that treats graywater? 3. Under Article II, Definitions, Type II systems, including privies (outhouses), are defined as systems "that may be permitted for use on a site not meeting the conditions acceptable for a standard Type I system." -- This could be interpreted as meaning that privies will *only* be permitted on sites where space limitations or soil conditions don't allow construction of a Type I system. 4. The ordinance adopts Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7080 and 7081 in their entirety..." It follows that nearly all of the county's existing privies will become noncompliant when the new ordinance is adopted, since MN Rule 7080.2280 states that privy pits or vaults “must have at least 25 cubic feet of capacity.” (The last time I checked, the county's minimum requirement was 9 cubic feet of capacity.) There are additional state requirements; e.g., “The door and seat must be self-closing” and "The sides of the pit must be curbed to prevent cave-in." 5. Tim Nelson stated in his Nov. 3 post that "the actual findings over the last ten years of inspections indicate that more than one out of every three existing systems failed to adequately protect the ground water resources." With the more stringent requirements of the proposed new ordinance, the rate of noncompliance for existing systems could easily increase to 50%! Thank you for your attention.
Sorry--I noticed an error in #4 of my previous post. The county's minimum dimensions for an outhouse pit are 3'x3'x3', which is 27 cu. ft. (I shouldn't do math after midnight.) However, the MN Rules require several additional features, so I still think most Cook County outhouses will become noncompliant if the proposed ordinance is adopted as currently written. The provisions of the ordinance would be retroactive.
Tom's articulate posts vividly illustrate the value of this forum. Moreover, I would venture to guess that this is the only forum in e-democracy.org's world wide ventures to feature such a learned discussion of outhouses.
Ok, I will try for a further clarification between the ordinance intent and its language, and the state rules with regards to privies and grey water... In short: Privies/outhouses and vault privies will continue to be allowed as they have been, so long as they can meet the requirements found within Mn Rules 7080.2280, which has not changed; and Greywater that originated from hand-carried water into a dwelling without a plumbing or pressurized water system does NOT require a greywater treatment system, so long as the discharged is in accordance with the State Rules for "primitive structures" as described in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080.1500. With regards to Tom's points: 1. "Vault privy" is a term that is sometimes used apart from the regular term "privy". This is because by definition a privy treats and disperses the waste into the ground directly, which places it into the main category of "SSTS", or Subsurface Septic Treatment System. Vault privies, on the other hand, fall more in line with holding tanks since the waste has to be pumped out and treated elsewhere. That being said, I don't think that there would be any objection to simply removing the word "vault" in each of the references, which would then be inclusive of both vault and regular privies... 2. I would agree that the provision in Article IV, Section 6.01 is too vague; lending itself to concerns of interpretation, and also that the term "wastewater" needs to either be defined if it is to be used within the ordinance, or perhaps replaced with “sewage”. The "wastewater" term is not even used within MPCA septic treatment rules, but is found in the state model ordinance language. 3. This definition of a Type II system comes from a combination of provisions found within MN Rules 7080.2250 through 7080.2290, and is not intended to exclude privies from type I areas. On the contrary, areas that can sustain a type I system would also be best suited for the placement of a privy. Since there are so many questions and concerns regarding both privies and grey water treatment, it may make more sense to incorporate separate sections altogether within the ordinance that could specifically address these issues in greater detail and clarity. 4. This point was already re-addressed by Tom. 5. The more stringent requirements eluded to here within point 5 really relate more to when an existing system is inspected for compliance, and not so much as to whether the existing system would fail or not. Article VIII, Section 2.03 outline the assessment criteria for existing system inspections, and they are pretty much the same as before the rule changes. As such, we would anticipate an increase in existing systems being inspected under the new proposed ordinance, but resulting in the same percentage of systems failed. We also anticipate that the public hearing scheduled for this Wednesday will not be just a one-time shot, but will most likely be continued over the next few months with more meetings as the proposed ordinance language is further clarified.
Tim
For everyone interested in this topic there’s another opportunity coming up to ask questions and voice your concerns. On Dec. 3, at 6 p.m., WTIP’s First Thursday Community Conversation will spotlight the proposed sewage treatment system ordinance. Hosts Jay Andersen and Barbara Jean Johnson will speak with several guests including department officials from Cook County Planning and Zoning. Everyone is invited to call-in during the program or in advance at 218-387-1070 or 800-473-9847 to ask questions or make comments. Email questions will be taken as well at <email obscured>, both during the program and ahead of time. Thanks! Barbara Jean Johnson WTIP News Director
Update on the status of the proposed septic ordinance... For anyone who hadn't attended the public hearing, the Planning Commission received not only the testimony of all those at the meeting, but they also received print-outs of all the questions and concerns that had been expressed over this forum. The ordinance has been sent to county staff to modify some of the provisions in the light of the comments received, and once the changes are made, the ordinance will again be distributed for further review. We will post notification on this forum as well when the updated version is available. The next public hearing date to continue the discussion on the ordinance language will be 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 13th, in the Commissioners room of the Cook County Courthouse. Please feel free to continue submitting any further comments you might have to the Cook County Envirionmental Health and Planning & Zoning Department.
It is also important that we express our thanks and appreciation to those members of the community who volunteered to serve on the Septic Ordinance Committee and assist the county in the drafting of the proposed septic ordinance. It was not an easy task for them to take the state mandated septic rule changes and model ordinance language, and balance them all together with the unique land characteristics and individual living circumstances found within Cook County. So, a hearty thanks to all the committee members for their hard work in helping Cook County in this process..!
Thanks to WTIP for airing Thurs. night's conversation on the septic ordinance. For folks interested in understanding septic issues and to get a better handle on alternative systems available here are two pieces of literature. The first is a must, a great primer on the overall issue, easy and fun to boot. "The Septic System Owner's Manual" by Lloyd Kahn. Tofte-Schroeder Sanitary District might still have a few available, extension service, higher ed. or the library. The second is a system developed by David Abazs in Finland, Mn, 'SymBioSystem', a graywater system that works well here in the northland for pressurized systems. No longer in print but was published in Home Power magazine June/July 2002. Happy reading, Melinda
Loading…
Design Party? Join our Projects volunteer online group to help design a new image for your local forum's home page.
Home - Mobile - Forums - Wiki - Blog - About - Help - Contact - People - Donate - Rules - Archives
Need help? Get support.
Creative Commons - Share our content with attribution
Hosted by E-Democracy.org. Sponsored by OnlineGroups.Net - easier email collaboration for your organization. Powered by GroupServer - open source web-based mailing list manager.