April 27, 2004 Meeting Summary

Statewide Code for On-site Sewage Wastewater Treatment Task Force

The meeting was convened with a review of the meeting summary from our

April 13, 2004, meeting. No comments were received and the summary was accepted for record. A list of those in attendance is attached.

Members were provided a map prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) summarizing local health department (LHD) requirements with respect to required unsaturated soil depth above water table for conventional systems as agreed to at the April 13, 2004, meeting. Isolation requirements vary statewide from a minimum of 18 inches to a maximum of four feet.

The survey of LHDs, with regards to minimum lot sizes required by local sanitary codes, revealed that while several jurisdictions have required minimum lot sizes for certain alternatives, that generally minimums are not specified. In many communities it was noted, however that local zoning has required acreage parcels in areas to be served by on-site systems with an underlying assumption that large lots were a necessity.

Remaining discussions during the meeting then focused on suggestions contained in the agenda regarding regulatory structure, financial issues, and land use issues. A major objection was raised with the terminology of “minimum standards” and the ability of LHDs to enact higher standards. Issues were also raised that there is not a clear definition of what the term “more stringent” means. After discussing this at length, there was general consensus that an alternate approach for minimum standards should be considered that is based upon risk. A risk based approach, based upon science would dictate the minimum site suitability conditions and design necessary to result in the desired protection of public health and the environment. It was suggested that such an approach must allow for flexibility, based upon risk, by LHDs to have differing standards. Subsequent to this discussion, other regulatory structure issues were also discussed with general agreement that the overall regulatory structure in statute should include the following:

• The enabling statute will set flexible standards for site suitability, design and operation and maintenance based upon risk. Differing situations such as environmentally sensitive areas, impaired waters, vulnerable aquifers etc. should consider the range of solutions to provide necessary protection for public health and the environment.
• Details of the code will be contained in administrative rules.
• Statute and rules should contain provisions to allow for variances approved by LHDs and the DEQ rather than some other type of structured appeals.
• Rather than an upper limit based on daily flow, the statute should be applicable to all soil based systems utilizing subsurface dispersal and possibly complete recycle.
• The DEQ and the LHDs should share in responsibilities, with overall LHD jurisdiction specifically authorized per contract or based on capability.
• The statute should enable the establishment of two separate advisory committees to the DEQ; one being a rules advisory committee and the other being a technical advisory committee.
• Statutory language should contain general language calling for on-going program oversight at the local level by DEQ.

Discussion then turned to the issue of funding the program at the state and local level. At the local level, programs are currently funded by a combination of state general funds via contracts with LHDs, permit fees and local general funds. It was pointed out that in LHD programs, in many cases, are not currently funded at the 50 percent level as required under the public health code, and that this will continue to be an issue which relates to the statewide code effort. There was general agreement that funding at the state level should be a combination of state general funds and fees. With respect to fees, the following possibilities were offered.

· A separate pass along fee collected by LHDs at the time of permit issuance to fund the regulatory structure at the state level. This would be similar in concept to the current statutory process for the food service sanitation program.

· Licensing/certification fees collected as part of the credentialing process for on-site professionals.

· Product review and approval fees.

· Plan review/ permitting fees for review and approvals by DEQ.

· Operating permit fees and/or filing fees collected at the time of reporting of mandated inspection/maintenance events for systems.

Discussions conclude with discussion of land use implications. It was suggested that a statewide code would be sprawl neutral. On one hand, the code may open the door for development of a wider range of sites now deemed unsuitable. A wider range of options may allow for existing gaps to be filled and provide for the ability to do land use planning which controlled sprawl. There was general agreement that enabling legislation should mandate permitting of on-site systems be compatible with land use and zoning requirements.

The next step in the task force process will be the development of a draft “white paper” which summarizes the task force discussions and recommendations that would be followed by draft enabling legislation. It was committed that the DEQ would have the draft white paper available for task force review within two weeks and that a subsequent meeting would be scheduled for final discussions. The time and place of the meeting will be announced at the time that the draft is submitted to members for review and comment.