What to do about older unsewered areas within the City of Prescott, Ariz., has stumped officials for about 30 years. At that time, the city agreed to sewer those areas after residents agreed to annexation, but did nothing. Today, the original septic systems have exceeded their anticipated operational life expectancy.
A study by the mayor’s Advisory Committee on Unsewered Areas identified the northern area of Prescott as having the largest number of older systems, and the city once again proposed installing a sanitary sewer. City manager Steve Norwood estimated that hooking to the sewer system would cost $20,000 to $40,000 per residence.
Knowing homeowners would not accept that amount, the Advisory Committee recommended a public education program stressing maintenance to the City Council. The board of the Arizona Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association saw an opportunity to develop an education program for homeowners, the first of its kind in the state.
“Many issues could be remedied if homeowners just knew more about their systems,” says Brian Bishop, president of AzOWRA. “The majority want to avoid hooking to a sewer. Since the city has no funds to pursue an educational objective, this was the perfect time for us to fulfill the educational part of our association’s mission statement.”
The program and Homeowner’s Manual is a joint effort of AzOWRA and Yavapai County Development Services Environmental Unit staff members Geoff Meek, R.S., manager, and Suzanne Ehrlich, R.S., senior environmental health specialist. Bishop owns AIM Environmental Industries, a small wholesaler of wastewater treatment equipment and service contract provider, and Bishop Construction, an installer of alternative wastewater treatment systems and sewage pumping systems. Both are in Dewey, Ariz.
Pumper:
How many septic systems are in Prescott and what percentage are failing?
Bishop:
Yavapai County has 60,000 septic systems of which 6,000 use alternative technology. The number of failing systems is unknown, since Arizona’s septic code has no annual inspection requirement. The rule states that property owners must maintain the systems, but provides no specifics as to how this will be accomplished or enforced. The county is required to respond only when there is a complaint. The other avenue for dealing with failed systems is the transfer of ownership inspection program. Homeowners can either repair the system or sell the house as is, provided the failed system is disclosed on the report.
The law does not mandate yearly inspections, so identifying failing systems is hit and miss. Currently, only one county requires annual inspections, but all inspectors do is look, sniff, and listen. If they don’t see a problem, if they don’t smell anything, if the system has a blower and it sounds as if it is running, then the system passes inspection. They don’t open lids or flip switches to verify that components are functioning.
Meanwhile, the city likes sewers because it irrigates golf courses with the treated effluent or gets ground pumping water credits. Most homeowners, on the other hand, prefer their septic systems and complain to the county about Prescott forcing them to hook to a sewer. The debate is unnecessary, because the enforcement process could work under the current rule if it required annual detailed inspections. That’s the missing element in the law.
Pumper:
What topics are covered in your course?
Bishop:
The course addresses how septic systems work, how proper care and maintenance save money and enhance property value, and how to extend the life of septic systems. We teach homeowners how to recognize common system problems and what to do about them, what regulations apply to their systems, and that O & M protects their family’s health, the groundwater and the environment.
Pumper:
How did you jam all that into a 90-minute PowerPoint presentation?
Bishop:
By focusing primarily on standard systems because they are the vast majority of our installations. We show slides of standard systems and alternative systems popular in the area, explain the components and how they work, then talk about maintenance and pump-outs. Our initial goal was to keep the presentation short, which was a big challenge. The next challenge was customizing the mass of available information for Prescott. Unable to stuff it all in, we updated the AzOWRA Homeowner’s Manual and made it part of the program. Now we’re fine-tuning the presentation to be universal so we can do the program in other counties.
Pumper:
How did you promote the first presentation last fall, and was it well attended?
Bishop:
Board member Lowell Fagen wrote public service announcements that played on our radio stations, were posted on the Yavapai County Web site, and appeared in local newspapers, one even making the front page.
Some 70 people made reservations for our first program, but there were so many walk-ins that it was standing room only. Most attendees lived in Prescott, but about 30 came from as far as 35 miles away. We had 187 names on the sign-up sheet and turned away 20 or more latecomers. They all asked that we contact them about the next program in Prescott or in the Verde Valley region. The response totally blew us away.
When asked, about 90 percent of the audience indicated that they hadn’t received any O & M guidance when purchasing their properties. Tons of hands went up during the Q & A session, causing the presentation to run 20 minutes overtime. Now we’re considering reducing some detail to extend the Q & A period or expanding the program to two hours.
Pumper:
Was there any feedback from the presentation?
Bishop:
Yes. Two rural Yavapai County community groups requested that we bring the program to their areas. As presenters, Geoff, Suzanne and I received numerous calls from homeowners with issues. We heard many positive comments about our Homeowner’s Manual with its Dos and Don’ts page and record-keeping forms. Our hope is that those who attended will help educate their neighbors, and tell them to download the manual at www.prescottcreeks.org.
Pumper:
Who is funding the program?
Bishop:
No one. We’re all volunteers, though Lowell did find supporters. The City of Prescott developed, printed and mailed 250 tri-fold flyers, arranged for the meeting room, posted the flyer on the city’s Web site, and provided light refreshments. The Prescott Creeks Preservation Association also announced the program on its Web site. The Prescott Area Association of Realtors committed $100 toward printing the manuals, with AzOWRA making up the difference. JT’S Septic LLC, a pumping contractor in Humboldt, provided items used in septic system construction — effluent filters, drainfield rock, a leaching chamber, risers, filter fabric — for the attendees to see and handle.
Pumper:
What is your committee’s ultimate goal for the program?
Bishop:
I recently read that you can give educational talks until you’re blue in the face, but if you haven’t changed the habits of homeowners, you have wasted your time. Therefore, our goal is to make the presentation motivational enough to change people’s habits when they return home. And that motivation is financial. If it affects their checkbook, short term and long term, they are more likely to follow our recommendations.
Brian Bishop may be reached at 928/632-3900 or bbishop.3@netzero.net.
