Looking at algae blooms washing ashore reminded residents of Huron-Kinloss, Ontario, of when Lake Huron was pristine. They didn’t like seeing the mucky mess and the health department closing beaches to swimmers. They demanded action from the Township Council.

Officials turned to their civil engineering firm, B.M. Ross in Goderich, to design a septic inspection program. Although the firm had 10 years of water quality data showing onsite systems and agriculture were equal polluters, it focused on septic tanks after researchers found high E. coli levels in a stream not connected to farming and running through the middle of Point Clark.

“We concluded that the cause was probably partially remediated septage leaching into the sandy soil and the high water table flushing it out,” says environmental planner Matt Pearson.

The community accepted the responsibility of owning sewage treatment plants in their back yards and endorsed the inspection program voluntarily. It was recognized at the 2011 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference for protecting the quality of the Great Lakes.

Pumper: How many onsite systems are in the township?

Pearson: We have 2,800 systems serving 6,500 permanent residents and 3,500 seasonal ones along 12 miles on or near the southeastern side of Lake Huron. Our densest populations are in Point Clark at the south end of the lake and near the town of Kincardine at the north end. Lucknow and Ripley, serviced by sewers, are the largest inland towns. The rest is farmland and wooded areas.

Our septic scene has changed over the last 20 years. Many retirees have converted seasonal cottages to year-round homes and developers built large subdivisions near the lake. The Ministry of Environment was concerned about pollution from the onsite systems, so we did a risk assessment of continued development. The systems seemed to be working. The caveat is once they are approved, no authority checks that they are being maintained.

Pumper: What are the most common types of onsite systems?

Pearson: Most are traditional septic tanks with stone beds. About 1 percent have been replaced with peat moss biofilters. New construction in clay soils favors raised mounds with leach fields.

Pumper: What were the parameters of the inspection program?

Pearson: The idea was to have everybody in the township participate, including the 35 percent who are seasonal. We planned the program over seven or eight years to ensure that inspections were done correctly. We also change the target locations every year so people recognize the program and associate it with our advertising.

If communities do something like this, it’s important to change people’s attitudes from “I’ve gone 10 years without a pump-out and probably don’t need one” to “I need to have the tank pumped.” Education is always part of the plan because homeowners should understand what is happening and why.

Communities also must identify barriers that will prevent people from participating. The biggest one is usually money, followed by the fear of having their yard torn up. Handing homeowners a $400 inspection bill is sticker shock, so we proposed and they accepted a $55 increase in their annual township taxes to cover the cost of the program.

Pumper: How did you implement it?

Pearson: We began in 2007 with 400 inspections. The key was involving people by mailing notification letters that asked them to call for an appointment. Fifty percent responded. The letter also explained that the inspector needed to see inside the tank and that required calling a pumper – and they did.

Because it’s an important job, we hired an inspector from our Grey Bruce Health Department. We wanted a qualified person interacting with the public, and most inspectors are environmental technologists from colleges or universities.

During the inspection, they remove the lid and examine the tank with a camera, take a history of the system and family practices, and try to find the drainfield. Ontario didn’t begin issuing Certificates of Approval until 1976. B.M. Ross worked with health officials to match upgraded systems with original certificates and to spatially map them.

After the inspection, we mail a package with educational materials and an aerial photo showing the location of the onsite system. Homeowners really like that. The package also includes the inspection report, a risk rating, a pump-out log, and a copy of the original Certificate of Approval, if we found it. We also tell them to leave the package for the new owners if they sell the property.

Pumper: How did you handle residents who didn’t make appointments?

Pearson: We sent a university student to their property the next year. If they weren’t home, she hung a reminder on the door. Half the people responded, giving us 75-percent voluntary compliance in two years. After that, students phoned, which meant finding numbers because many owners lived out of the area.

Mainly, people didn’t participate because they set the notice aside and forgot about it or were away for the year. After five years, we have almost 100 percent compliance in the early target areas without chasing too hard.

In 2011, we mailed 800 letters expecting 400 appointments, but 75 percent responded. People were simply waiting their turn. We did 600 inspections, breaking our record of 470, bringing the total to 2,000.

Pumper: What is the percentage of low-, medium-, and high-risk systems?

Pearson: From 2007 to 2010, inspectors rated 59 percent or 1,652 systems at low risk, 37 percent or 1,036 at medium risk, and 4 percent or 112 requiring replacement.

Pumper: What are the most common problems on mid-risk systems?

Pearson: Broken or missing outflow baffles and clogged effluent filters. Filters became mandatory in 2006, but most people don’t know they have one. We show them how to clean and replace the filters. We find crumbled concrete lids and buildings, trees, and even a croquet court on the drainfield. Risers weren’t popular until 10 years ago, so we suggest to homeowners that they have them installed – and they do, after we explain that spending $400 now can save them thousands of dollars later.

Pumper: What is your relationship with pumpers and installers?

Pearson: Solid. Early on, we met with the five pumping services – two also do installations – and gave them brochures about the program to hand to their customers. They lend components for us to show on demonstration days, and they have been very helpful informing us about their work. We’re tracking all repairs and entering them in a spatially mapped database. We’re also asking homeowners to send a copy of their repair bills, and compliance is high.

Pumper: What advice would you give communities wanting to start an inspection program?

Pearson: Keep it at the local level or risk bogging down in politics and going nowhere. There is no reason to make it bigger. Don’t waste the opportunity to gather all the information you can. Manage it with GIS connected to properties so you can use the data for other things.

What we’ve seen are small communities believing they can manage everything. In truth, they don’t have the resources. Hire the data management, the graphics, the marketing. Is it expensive? Yes, but consider this: We’ve been working with the same $55 per property or $165,000 a year for five years. After the first year, the initial startup expenses were gone and we became more efficient.

Communities must think of onsite systems as assets. Ours are valued at $10,000 to $15,000 each or $20,000 if it’s a biofilter. Multiply $15,000 times 3,000. We’re spending $165,000 a year to maintain $45 million in assets or 0.33 of a percent on inspections. If everybody pumped their tank once during the program, we might have another 0.33 of a percent. Spending two-thirds of 1 percent a year to maintain an asset is pretty cheap.

That’s the real key to this program. It’s not subsidized by anybody. You own this asset; it’s your responsibility to take care of it.