Without last year’s extreme drought, the plan proposed by the Georgia Water Council for the state’s future water supplies would have been just another document that wouldn’t gain much attention.
The first draft, written primarily by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, or EPD, was released in September 2007. Final revisions were to be completed on Dec. 21 for the 2008 legislative session beginning in January.
The document, however, contained statements labeling onsite systems as 100-percent consumptive water users, and that sewers are the preferred disposal option because they return treated wastewater directly to rivers and streams. If passed, the legislation would create a fast track for Georgia to sewer as much of the state as possible and eliminate onsite systems.
Mark Hooks, National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association board member and regulatory consultant for Infiltrator Systems Inc., the Georgia Onsite Wastewater Association, and major industry manufacturers responded when Carol Couch, head of the Georgia EPD, engaged them for comment. Couch and staff dramatically altered the plan. It now recognizes that onsite systems are a permanent part of the state’s wastewater treatment strategy, but retains the “consumptive water user” statement.
Pumper: How did the concept of onsite systems as 100-percent consumptive water users arise?
Hooks: Georgia has experienced a water shortage in some rivers and streams since 1992, but the drought focused the controversy mainly on the City of Atlanta and its water supply. Atlanta doesn’t have a productive groundwater system, so nearly all of its water comes from surface reservoirs, which are managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. An agreement with the Corps allows Atlanta to draw water from the lake, but the city is withdrawing more than is stipulated.
The state argues that its treatment plants are returning water to rivers and streams, and that offsets the excess Atlanta withdraws from the reservoirs. City treatment plants can meter the return flow, but onsite systems have no meters. The Atlanta Regional Commission documented in a report that it asked the GDEQ for guidance on onsite system consumptive use. The commission was told that treated wastewater from onsite systems was considered 100-percent consumptive use.
We know that isn’t the case. Water flows downhill, and wastewater is no different, but we have no scientific evidence to determine how fast it occurs. Infiltrator Systems Inc. asked Florida State University to do a literature review to locate such documentation. Researchers focused mainly on Georgia and found nothing. Most research focused on water quality rather than water quantity.
Pumper: How did what looks like a water conservation bill become one that discourages onsite systems?
Hooks: When severe drought hit before 2001, the legislature passed a law mandating the EPD to chair the Georgia Water Council and come up with a plan for the state’s water quality and quantity. The absence of data on the return of water from onsite systems to rivers and streams led them to declare that septic systems are consumptive users of water. They assumed that onsite systems hold the water in the ground for decades.
Various industry people, including me, met with the EPD to voice our concerns. We pointed them to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Management Guidelines and third-party research. The revised plan recognizes that onsite systems are a viable part of the state’s economy, do protect the public’s health, and will continue to be around. It’s more in line with national models.
Our only remaining objection is that the plan still describes onsite systems as consumptive water users. Our position is that we need research to determine how much and how quickly does water return to the rivers, and how much is lost through evaporation.
Pumper: What evidence did out-of-state, third-party studies provide?
Hooks: One study, “Consumptive Loss from an Individual Sewage Disposal System in a Semi-Arid Mountain Environment,” was published in the August 2007 newsletter of the Water Center of Colorado State University. It showed that in more arid environments, 85 percent of effluent water returns to the groundwater. (The paper is found at http://cwrri.colostate.edu/newsletters/2007/ 4.pdf)
The Florida Department of Health also has researched wastewater issues. One study focused on whether more nitrogen should be removed through advanced treatment systems. Part of the answer lay in knowing how rapidly water moved from drainfields to underground aquifers. Since Florida shares a common aquifer with the southern part of Georgia, this study is germane to the Georgia issue.
Using two unique tracers, researchers calculated some drainfield flows moving at 285 feet a day, which compares with wastewater flows in sewers. (The FDoH reports are found at www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/ostds/ research/researchreports.htm)
Todd Rasmussen, a professor of hydrology at the University of Georgia, was quoted in a Gainesville (Ga.) Times article that during droughts, properly maintained onsite systems ease water shortages by recharging streams and reservoirs. He visited rivers adjacent to decentralized subdivisions and sewered areas. The only rivers showing any flow were next to properties with onsite systems.
Pumper: Does water conservation in the home create a more concentrated product in the septic tank?
Hooks: Florida’s DoH studied concentrations of wastewater as part of a high-strength waste study. Water conservation in the home doesn’t change how much organic material enters the tank. Yes, it’s more concentrated, but with less water discharging, the same size drainfield can handle it. From the research I’ve seen, drought doesn’t make much difference in the biomat. The key element is maintaining the systems properly.
Simply put, drought is good for treatment. When water tables are low, the unsaturated flow beneath drainfields maximizes the removal of all bacteria and viruses. Soil isn’t a friendly environment for germs.
Pumper: How do you see the future of onsite systems unfolding?
Hooks: Onsite systems are a viable part of every state’s economy and a permanent part of our wastewater infrastructure. In Georgia alone, homeowners have spent something like $3.5 billion dollars installing them. It’s just silly to say that we’re going to replace them with sewers. The cost effectiveness of sewers goes way down on half-acre lots and larger because municipalities must maintain many more feet of pipe per customer. That means higher rates.
Onsite systems will always be more cost effective on low-density development. According to national figures, the cost of a typical onsite system is between $2,500 and $7,500, and $250 every three to five years to maintain. That compares with $1,000 every year for sewer hookup and usage fees.
Pumper: What can pumpers do to help win the big pipe versus onsite battle?
Hooks: Educate the public to maintain their onsite systems. Educate their lawmakers about the problems septic tanks cause if they are not routinely pumped out. Make the point that onsite systems have a bad name because most people don’t maintain them. When they are maintained, they last for decades.
Pumper: What is the best way to educate homeowners and legislators?
Hooks: Become an active member in your state onsite association and join NOWRA. NOWRA has a Memorandum of Understand-ing with numerous national organizations that are trying to spread the message. Talk to your newspaper.
My favorite analogy is comparing a septic tank with a car engine. You don’t wait until the engine seizes up to change the oil. Likewise, don’t wait until the drainfield fails to pump out the septic tank.
Pumpers should sell a service maintenance agreement whenever they pump out a tank or respond to a failed system. To combat the “you’re just trying to line your pocket” argument, point to what the nation’s experts in environmental and public health protection have to say. My favorite link to share with pumpers is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web site promoting proper system management (http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/ septic/index.cfm).
Mark Hooks may be reached at 888/261-8265.
