Inflammatory statements and unfounded claims fuel much of the nationwide opposition to land-applied biosolids. Committed adversaries treat fallacies published on the Internet as gospel, while rejecting reputable studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Environment Federation and other notable agencies.

While pumpers wonder where to dispose of their loads, many regulatory officials have tried every possible educational approach to turn the tide. Lacking results, they are resorting to courtrooms. For example, Evergreen Septic of Seaview, Wash., received a permit from the state Department of Ecology to spread biosolids on 80 acres of pasture.

After receiving complaints from some residents, the Wahkiakum County Commission banned land application. DOE sued the county, claiming that the department has the authority to regulate biosolids and that the county’s ban is unconstitutional. The permit, according to DOE director Ted Sturdevant, was the most stringent, protective biosolids permit the department ever wrote.

In Montana, Frank and Vianna Larrabaster, owners of Robbins Septic Tank Service in Bozeman, submitted an application to the state Department of Environmental Quality for discharging septage on 20 acres of farmland owned by Robert Foster. The firestorm of uncivil opposition and threats so unnerved the business and land owner that they withdrew the application. In most of Montana, land application is the only legal disposal option. Opposition to it is mostly in the rapidly developing western part of the state.

Renai Hill, environmental science specialist, serves on the Septic Tank Pumpers Advisory Committee and works with pumpers as part of the Montana DEQ Permitting and Compliance Division. She spoke with Pumper about the challenges of communicating with oppositionists, the environmental threat they pose and a proposed mandate that could improve the situation.

Pumper: How did your biosolids program develop?

Hill: The DEQ began managing the Septic Tank Pumper Program in 1998, and the department wrote the Septic Disposal and Licensing laws by pulling much of the information from the U.S. EPA Part 503 requirements. Septage may be land-applied, disposed at wastewater treatment facilities, septage processor/composters or Class II landfills. Land-applied septage can be injected into the soil, surface-applied and tilled in within six hours of application, or stabilized with lime to 12 pH and applied after 30 minutes. The department regulates 164 land application sites.

Pumper: How do pumpers obtain a land-application permit?

Hill: They submit an application to the county for certification, and if it’s approved, it comes to us for review. We look at site geology, topography, soils, hydrogeology and setbacks. The rules state that waste cannot be disposed of within 500 feet of occupied buildings, 150 feet of surface water and 100 feet of roads or sources of drinking water. A site must be six feet or more from seasonally high groundwater and outside the 100-year floodplain. Also, waste cannot be dumped on slopes with a grade of more than 6 percent or 3 percent when the ground is flooded, frozen or snow covered. If the department finds anything that doesn’t comply, the application is denied.

If the site meets all requirements, we mail an environmental assessment to other agencies and adjoining property owners for a 30-day public comment period to prevent unexamined, unintended and unwanted consequences. To the best of my knowledge, most concerns were addressed by the department or the applicants. Nine times out of 10, adamant objections come from people unaware that land application is a viable solution to waste disposal and done all across the United States and around the world.

Pumper: What is fueling the opposition?

Hill: They believe land application will devalue their property, destroy their livelihoods and produce airborne contaminants. They believe that runoff will contaminate potable wells and gardens, and kill wildlife and their families.

Some opponents have moved to the state from urban areas. They buy a home in a rural subdivision and are not familiar with ranching or farms. While we have peer-reviewed scientific evidence that land application is safe, the Internet and other resources contain some false or exaggerated information. When concerned homeowners do a land-application search, it is difficult for them to ascertain what is accurate and what is not because they lack the technical knowledge to distinguish between the two.

Our best recourse is education. We explain the application and approval process. Pumpers have tried land application demonstrations. We’ve invited residents to proposed sites to show them the setbacks, and they still oppose it. I’ve attended public meetings where people have shown me Internet-based opposing articles and claimed them to be true. It’s very hard to discuss issues when people are unwilling to listen.

Pumper: What do opponents propose pumpers do with the septage?

Hill: Most believe that pumpers take it to wastewater treatment plants. We explain that facilities and lagoons cannot accept large influxes of septage without killing the microorganisms. Those opposed to land application believe that pumpers should pay for more disposal facilities. We explain that building and upgrading wastewater treatment plants fall to local governments and their taxpayers. Several pumpers have attempted to build dewatering facilities, but financial backing is the number one stumbling block.

Pumper: How are pumpers coping with the situation?

Hill: Some sell their businesses. Others have closed them, but indicated that they would resume operating once the economy improves. Several pumpers have filed for bankruptcy. Consequently, homeowners aren’t having their systems pumped as often. We’re seeing more backups and leaching drainfields polluting the environment. Many opponents served by onsite systems still don’t understand the importance of septic maintenance.

Pumper: What are the most popular onsite system technologies?

Hill: No technology dominates because of the various soils, high groundwater and other limiting factors. We see everything from a septic tank discharging to a drainfield to complex treatment trains. County sanitarians and health officers regulate, approve and inspect the systems within their counties. The state becomes involved only for subdivisions or commercial developments.

Pumper: Will special interest groups become strong enough to kill land application?

Hill: I can’t say. While opponents have threatened the department with lawsuits in the past, we’ve never gone to court because the pumper or property owner succumbs to pressure and withdraws the application. That is what happened to the Larrabasters and property owner Robert Foster. Larrabaster services five counties and wanted a central location to reduce travel time and conserve fuel. Instead, he’ll continue hauling to his other site 45 minutes away.

We’ve pressed forward in other cases, but the pumper or landowner couldn’t withstand the criticism. Environmentally conscious pumpers, farmers and ranchers can be intimidated by people who refuse to listen because they believe inaccurate information. One case turned a 45-day approval process into a six-month battle, in which the pumper and property owner were successful because they persisted.

The department averages about 10 applications per year. Last year, four sites were rejected because they didn’t have enough land to apply the specified volume. The other six were approved without conflict, but a lot depends on the location. In 2009, we had one applicant withdraw due to pressure.

Pumper: Why doesn’t the state mandate that each county protect a percentage of the land from development?

Hill: Because land use is a local government issue. The state has no authority to determine local land use or restrictions from use for private property owners. Some local governments are beginning to address septic issues. For example, the Lewis and Clark County Health Department became the first in the state to propose an onsite maintenance program. The plan offers homeowners two options. They can file paperwork detailing household water use and septic pumping history to help determine how often the system should be pumped. Or, they can hire county-certified inspectors to check their systems every four years and base a pumping schedule on the results.

If the program works well, it could expand to other counties. That will help the problem because health departments will educate homeowners about maintenance requirements, and train and certify those who want to maintain their systems. The program will target more vulnerable groundwater areas first, and be implemented over the next three to five years.

One new education initiative is our online humorous guide on septic maintenance for homeowners. Called Under Ground Comics, it uses the Old West and associated lingo, takeoffs on famous Hollywood Westerns and really clever cartoon panels to teach the good, the bad and the ugly about onsite systems. It’s been very popular and that’s encouraging. (Visit www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/swp/default.mcpx and look for the cowboy on the left.)