Nearly five years after the original deadline, California has finally issued draft regulations to implement a 9-year-old law on design and operating standards for onsite wastewater treatment systems.
After Assembly Bill 885 passed in 2000, state officials were given until 2004 to draw up implementing regulations, but they didn’t make it out of the state bureaucracy until late 2008. Hearings for public comment began last December and were to be completed over the winter, but were subsequently cut short.
Along with the regulations, the California State Water Board has issued an Environmental Impact Report, which assesses the potential effect of the regulations on public health and the environment, as well as expected economic impacts on local governments, businesses and septic system owners. A key element of the regulations are requirements for so-called “impaired water bodies” — many of them coastal — believed to have been polluted in part by septic systems.
Earlier this year, though, the new regulations were derailed again, as hearings were postponed due to unexpected criticism from the public. So it’s back to the drawing board, as the law is revised again before the process continues.
Norman Hantzsche, a principal and managing engineer at Questa Engineering Corp., based in Richmond, Calif., is the resident expert on AB 885 and its regulations on behalf of the California Onsite Wastewater Association. Besides duties at Questa Engineering, which provides engineering and planning for onsite wastewater treatment facilities for small communities and other customers throughout the state, Hantzsche has represented COWA to a statewide stakeholders group on the regulations.
COWA’s members include septic system designers, manufacturers, contractors, and regulators. The organization provides members with technical updates, training, and networking opportunities, and it advocates for best practices in the onsite wastewater industry. Hantzsche recently brought Pumper up to date on the on-again, off-again regulations.
Pumper:
What’s the status of the AB 885 regulations now?
Hantzsche:
After hearings, the state water board staff will start reading through and responding to comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report and regulations. They expect that will take at least four to six months. At the end they will issue final recommended regulations. The final documents would be brought to the state water board, which might adopt the recommended regulations, or adopt them with changes, and will also be asked to certify the environmental document.
Pumper:
What are the biggest concerns about the regulations as drafted, particularly from the pumping contractors and their customers?
Hantzsche:
One general theme of criticism has been the state’s attempt to get into the minutiae of the details of some of the design and siting requirements for onsite systems. In California we have complex and diverse soil, geologic, climatic and groundwater conditions. But the state has attempted to try to define the requirements for an idealized wastewater system, as opposed to minimum criteria for water quality protection. That, we think, goes too far into issues better dealt with at the regional water board and the local county level, especially when it comes to design.
Pumper:
What local changes are taking place in response to the proposed regulations and the law?
Hantzsche:
Of the 58 counties in the state, some are not doing anything because they’re already set with fairly progressive programs, some are not doing anything because they don’t know what to do, and some are pushing ahead and figuring, “We just need to do it on our own.”
Pumper:
What are the basics of the new regulations?
Hantzsche:
There are a lot of general provisions and statements that no one really disagrees with, related to how onsite systems should perform, the correction of problems when they occur and minimum permitting and submittal requirements.
There are some minimum siting requirements, but there’s what a lot of people think is a gap in the regulations. Whereas typical regulations utilize a buffer or setback to wells, watercourses and other features, that’s noticeably absent from the regulations. The proposed siting requirements are all about depth of soil, types of soil and rock percentages to protect groundwater quality directly beneath the dispersal system.
A lot of the criticism of the regulations centers on design requirements for dispersal systems. They have bits and pieces of design requirements, but not a complete set of requirements that you could design from. They have a section on supplemental treatment systems that apply where soil depth is minimal and at the discretion of a regional water board actually requiring supplemental treatment, for nitrogen removal as an example.
Monitoring is another key component. Both existing parcels and new development with wells would require testing of groundwater from their well … or from a monitoring well installed within 100 feet of a septic system every five years. There is also a requirement that every existing and new septic tank be inspected and pumped as necessary every five years. An estimated 500,000 to 600,000 existing septic systems that have a well on the property would be affected by the testing requirements.
Existing and new onsite systems within 600 feet of the edge of a defined impaired water body have a certain period of time to implement the new treatment standards or connect to a community wastewater system.
Pumper:
In COWA’s view, do the new regulations help ensure a base of business for pumpers, or might they drive people or communities away from septic systems entirely?
Hantzsche:
There’s not going to be any one particular response, but a mix, depending upon the local circumstances.
The consequence may be driving some areas away from even attempting to utilize onsite systems or simply working outside the regulations. (But) it’s hard to believe that suddenly people will start building and expanding sewage treatment plants to replace onsite systems. Sewers are not necessarily popular in many areas of California. A lot of people are not convinced that septic systems are bad and would not support abandoning their use. But there will be areas, like Malibu, where people will see a real need for something other than the septic systems because of the strict requirements for properties near impaired water bodies.
Pumper:
How has the public responded to stories about the regulations, such as higher fees or new investment that has to be made in systems?
Hantzsche:
A lot of the public is not that aware of it, but in certain areas they are more aware. AB 885 started as an effort to deal with managing onsite wastewater systems in communities in California’s more affluent coastal region. Now the real impact’s likely going to be on the rural areas. There’s growing negative reaction to the way this has all played out, that it has lost sight of what the real intent was. There’s also a sense that the proposed regulations are not minimum standards, but tend to be more idealized standards.
Pumper:
What sort of public education does COWA think is appropriate for this program?
Hantzsche:
The state meetings really are public hearings to take input and not to discuss pros and cons. COWA felt what was needed was a series of workshops — all-day sessions working with local health departments, giving an overview of what’s in the regulations, sharing with everyone the criticisms that we’ve collected along the way, opening up to general give and take, and then breaking up into small groups to discuss some key issues. Then we are bringing in someone from the local planning department to talk about the environmental review process.
Pumper:
Do you find that California is something of a trendsetter in onsite system regulations — and that if it happens in California, you can expect it to happen in other states in the future?
Hantzsche:
At the local and regional level, we do have a lot of onsite system management programs, operating permit programs, so I think there’s a lot of things to look to that have been done in California. But I wouldn’t expect, just because we’re doing it here, that everyone else is going to jump on the bandwagon.
The AB 885 minimum statewide standards has been a frustrating disappointment in the way it’s been handled, how long it’s gone on, and the reluctance on the part of the state water board staff to really engage and work with regional and local regulators as well as those in the private sector.
We tried to tell the state, ‘Look around, you’ve got a lot of good examples in the state at the local and regional levels; use those to form a statewide standard.’ We haven’t completely given up hope of trying to salvage something, but we are more than a little disappointed that a good opportunity wasn’t seized and taken the way we think it could have been.
Norman Hantzsche is a managing engineer at Questa Engineering Corp. and a representative of the California Onsite Wastewater Association. Reach him by e-mail at nhantzsche@questaec.com or phone at 510/236-6114, ext. 214.
