Sustainable Land Development Today - November/December 2008 - (Page 34)

WASTEWATER Upon Further Review: Maybe You Have Something There Regulators are catching on to the benefits of decentralized wastewater management. By Bennette D. Burks, P.E A work crew installs elements of an on-site wastewater system. evelopers looking to lower project costs while increasing their development options should consider onsite wastewater treatment. Once considered the lowly step-sister of traditional sewers, onsite wastewater treatment—or decentralized wastewater management—is now worth a second look, and regulators are doing just that. Developers are finding that decentralized wastewater management lowers costs and provides them flexibility in selecting and developing land. Now, the maturation of regulatory practices, treatment technologies, and management systems make this alternative an attractive approach. D Background Developers face increasing costs from all sectors: materials, land, professional services, and labor, just to name four. One vexing cost is “impact fees,” a term used to include the costs for extending water and sewer lines and increasing treatment capacity. Depending on the locality, impact fees range from marginal amounts to over $30,000 per lot. Regardless of their source, impact fees are an increasingly high burden for developers, and in their drive to reduce costs, developers find themselves considering parcels outside of water and sewer service districts. Despite these costs, developers often shy away from traditional, onsite wastewater treatment systems. They may have heard horror stories related to excessively large lots, raw sewage running in ditches, and lawsuits related to inadequate designs and lack of maintenance. Developers may have also been discouraged by state and local septic system regulators, who provided few options and enforced prescriptions inappropriate for their developments. Potential homeowners have their own concerns based on their backgrounds and experiences. Traditional septic systems have a checkered history and not an attractive solution. Utilities have their own issues, too. Increasing costs affect their ability to transport and treat wastewater. Environmental regulations, regional politics, and conflicting visions make expansion of sewers and/or treatment capacity difficult. Even if both the utility and developer agree upon a solution, the cost to extend sewer lines may render some developments impractical. Many regulators once believed that sewers to centralized treatment were the only viable solution to manage both urban development and wastewater pollution. They embodied their beliefs in regulations, capacity development plans, and other planning tools that direct urban, suburban, and rural development. The realities of limited budgets have forced these regulators to reconsider their visions. In regard to wastewater management, reconsideration is most evident in the EPA. Acknowledging that a nationwide system of sewers and centralized wastewater treatment facilities was an unrealistic goal, the EPA examined decentralized approaches. The EPA’s “Report to Congress” encapsulated their findings when it stated, “Adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long-term option for meeting public health and water quality goals, particularly in less densely populated areas.” Maturing Regulatory Systems and Treatment System Technologies Just as developers and utilities experienced financial constraints, regulators began to experience pressure from individuals wanting to develop parcels and the manufacturers of products that made such development feasible. At one time, the only onsite wastewater solution available was the traditional septic tank-soil absorption field. This approach, which is highly dependent on soil and site conditions, has limited application. “Septic systems” do not work in many soils, and they often require large flat spaces for a drainfield. Newer technologies replace the drainfield, producing “clean” water that can be dispersed in a variety of methods, discharged to nearby streams, even recycled for non-potable purposes. Individual property owners and manufacturers were demanding that regulators recognize the use of these products. Regulators are responding to these demands and amending state and local codes to allow a wider range of alternatives. Instead of implementing “one-sizefits-all” prescriptive codes, regulators are developing and promulgating “performance-based” codes, which allow individuals to choose among competing 34 November/December 2008 Sustainable Land Development Today

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Sustainable Land Development Today - November/December 2008

Sustainable Land Development Today - November/December 2008 Contents Our Voice Editorial Board SLDT Resources The BottomLine Go Forth and Tread Lightly on the Land It’s About Name Recognition Managing Risk in the Sustainable Building Frontier Industry Spotlight Achieving Sustainable Land Development Worthy of Recognition Stormwater Wastewater Erosion Control Innovation Classifieds Advertiser Index Last Word

Sustainable Land Development Today - November/December 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.