County septic rules: Gone too far?
By LARRY KLINE - Independent Record - 04/06/08
Last summer, Jerri Clark Kirby and her husband decided to have their septic system looked at and pumped. They bought their north-valley home on Douglas Circle six years ago, had the system — installed in 1972 — pumped once, and they figured it had several more years in it.
Then the maintenance worker opened the tank, heard a mechanical click and said, “Uh-oh.”
A few months later, they had a brand-new Level II wastewater treatment system, per Lewis and Clark County’s temporary zoning regulations. They paid more than $17,000 and signed a maintenance contract, which will cost them $500 annually starting in the fall of 2009.
All of this was unexpected, and Kirby, a professional writer who meticulously documented the ordeal, isn’t happy.
She knows county commissioners passed the rules a year ago because of concerns about groundwater quality, but she thinks the whole issue has gone a bit too far.
“The whole damn thing was overkill,” she said. “People are being yanked around.” Paying the price
to upgrade
On May 15, 2007, county commissioners passed hotly contested interim zoning regulations for the Helena Valley Planning Area. (To see a map of the district, follow the Planning Department link at www.co.lewis-clark.mt.us.)
Since then, anyone who owns a lot smaller than five acres within the district must install a Level II treatment system, at a cost between $13,000 and $18,000, when building a home or replacing an old system. Simply installing another standard system would cost somewhere in the $4,000 range.
So folks who already had a permit for a standard system and may have been saving up to build on their new lot, suddenly have to consider shelling out about $10,000 in unexpected costs. Other folks, like Kirby, get a nasty little surprise when their old system goes belly up.
And still more are finding an additional wrinkle: Some homes are bigger than their septic systems are permitted and built to handle. Some have been expanded as owners added additional bedrooms without securing a new septic permit and paying about $1,500 to dig a new drain field. In other cases, builders looking to save cash secured smaller permits than what was needed for a large home.
When the home is larger than the septic system is permitted to handle, the system violates county sanitation regulations, which have been in place for years.
More and more of those cases are coming to light, though exact numbers aren’t available.
When the noncompliant systems are discovered at homes for sale, buyers and sellers — in a market where sales have slowed a bit and prices are already up — must negotiate who pays the cost of a new Level II system.
In all, county officials have approved 83 permits for the more costly systems in the past 10.5 months, Planning Director Kelly Blake said, though he said he has no way of knowing how many were actually installed.
In the same time period, officials issued 39 permits for standard systems on lots outside the zoning district or larger than five acres.
“It’s another one of those issues where I think the majority of the public has no idea it’s there,” said Frank Preskar, a county environmental health specialist who reviews septic permit applications.
“Those that are in the process … they’re not happy,” he added. “No. 1, even without the Level II issue, a failed system is not something folks plan for financially — $3,000 or $4,000 is not a pleasant surprise. Throw on top of that another $10,000, $12,000, $13,000? It’s not pleasant. It’s a large, unanticipated expense.”
When commissioners created the zoning rules, they didn’t change any of the sanitation rules, creating an issue with administration. Health Department employees send folks coming in their door up to the Planning Department, where Blake’s staff informs them of the requirements. I think that has added to the confusion of the public, unfortunately,” Preskar said.
Blake was more optimistic.
“Especially early on, there was concern about how it was being administered,” he said. “For the most part, I would say things have gone fairly well in that regard.
“They’re advised of everything that they need to do, and they can make their own decision,” he added.
Real-estate woes
Some real-estate agents say the additional costs have delayed or even broken up some deals. They’re hopeful something will change soon, and county officials say they’re considering going with a different standard next month, when commissioners will decide whether to keep the interim zoning regulations, amend them or allow them to expire.
“My perspective is that there are many houses out there that aren’t sellable because of the interim zoning,” Century 21 Heritage Realty Inc. owner Parker Heller said. “I don’t think the county meant for this to happen … I honestly think they’re going to get this fixed. Something has taken place that they weren’t counting on.
“I think this was way out of left field. I don’t think anyone was expecting this to become this big of a problem,” he added.
Heller said he really came to grips with the issues in the past six weeks, as his office has fielded an increasing number of calls from potential sellers who’ve discovered their systems aren’t compliant and have to be replaced.
“We hear about this five days a week,” he said.
Helena Association of Realtors President Liane Taylor, who has long opposed the zoning regulations and who, on a platform calling for more discussion before the creation of the rules, ran against Commissioner Andy Hunthausen for an open seat in 2006, said there’s concern in the marketplace.
“The buyers, sellers, Realtors are all trying to work together to work through this,” she said. “There have been some deals that have fallen through.
“People are confused, and that’s the biggest thing,” she added.
Taylor said she knows some folks are waiting to see what commissioners do in May before making real-estate decisions.
Personally, Taylor wants to see the county’s regulations return to the old standards. She doesn’t believe the county has proven any sort of water-quality emergency.
“I think that if there’s a concern about water quality, that having a maintenance schedule for people who have septic systems would suffice,” she said. “I do not think the county has the science behind them to do what they did.”
Slowing contamination
Next month, county commissioners will revisit the interim zoning regulations. Those rules were largely approved because of information showing increased nitrate levels in various areas throughout the valley.
Commissioners have backed the Level II requirement, which they blanketed over the entire landscape of the district, as a means of slowing the rate of nitrate contamination.
Preskar said standard septic systems release up to 50 milligrams of nitrates per liter of wastewater to the drain field, where soils act to remove nitrogen and other nutrients.
Level II systems remove 60 percent of those nitrates before the waste stream meets the dirt, he said.
Also in the past year, county officials have begun efforts to create a septic maintenance district, which would work to increase awareness about homeowner responsibilities and drive up the chances of failing systems being reported.
They’ve also begun a groundwater vulnerability study to pinpoint areas of concern and identify lands where soil quality reduces the need for advanced systems.
And a group of smart-growth advocates, builders and citizens has developed a proposed set of comprehensive zoning standards — including density designations that could play into the septic-system rules — which commissioners also will consider in coming months.
Exploring options
Commission Chairman Ed Tinsley, who along with his two colleagues voted for the new rules last year, said the regulation was the best option the county had at the time to protect the health of the public.
He pointed to the additional efforts the county has made to learn more about the problem, and said the commission is interested in potential alternative solutions.
For instance, Preskar is now researching other septic systems, the Level I-B category, to see if they would be acceptable in the valley.
The systems cost about $7,000 or $8,000, and remove about 35 percent of nitrates from the waste stream before the drain field. It’s too early to know whether officials will recommend commissioners take that route, but Tinsley said he’s interested to learn more.
“If Frank can show us that this is a viable alternative, I think the commission is willing to endorse it and amend the regulations,” he said.
“We’re not interest in making it hard on the citizens of Lewis and Clark County whose septic systems are noncompliant,” Tinsley added.
“But we’re not going to give up the fight to clean up the water issues in the valley.”
Reporter Larry Kline: 447-4075 or larry.kline@helenair.com
Then the maintenance worker opened the tank, heard a mechanical click and said, “Uh-oh.”
A few months later, they had a brand-new Level II wastewater treatment system, per Lewis and Clark County’s temporary zoning regulations. They paid more than $17,000 and signed a maintenance contract, which will cost them $500 annually starting in the fall of 2009.
All of this was unexpected, and Kirby, a professional writer who meticulously documented the ordeal, isn’t happy.
She knows county commissioners passed the rules a year ago because of concerns about groundwater quality, but she thinks the whole issue has gone a bit too far.
“The whole damn thing was overkill,” she said. “People are being yanked around.” Paying the price
to upgrade
On May 15, 2007, county commissioners passed hotly contested interim zoning regulations for the Helena Valley Planning Area. (To see a map of the district, follow the Planning Department link at www.co.lewis-clark.mt.us.)
Since then, anyone who owns a lot smaller than five acres within the district must install a Level II treatment system, at a cost between $13,000 and $18,000, when building a home or replacing an old system. Simply installing another standard system would cost somewhere in the $4,000 range.
So folks who already had a permit for a standard system and may have been saving up to build on their new lot, suddenly have to consider shelling out about $10,000 in unexpected costs. Other folks, like Kirby, get a nasty little surprise when their old system goes belly up.
And still more are finding an additional wrinkle: Some homes are bigger than their septic systems are permitted and built to handle. Some have been expanded as owners added additional bedrooms without securing a new septic permit and paying about $1,500 to dig a new drain field. In other cases, builders looking to save cash secured smaller permits than what was needed for a large home.
When the home is larger than the septic system is permitted to handle, the system violates county sanitation regulations, which have been in place for years.
More and more of those cases are coming to light, though exact numbers aren’t available.
When the noncompliant systems are discovered at homes for sale, buyers and sellers — in a market where sales have slowed a bit and prices are already up — must negotiate who pays the cost of a new Level II system.
In all, county officials have approved 83 permits for the more costly systems in the past 10.5 months, Planning Director Kelly Blake said, though he said he has no way of knowing how many were actually installed.
In the same time period, officials issued 39 permits for standard systems on lots outside the zoning district or larger than five acres.
“It’s another one of those issues where I think the majority of the public has no idea it’s there,” said Frank Preskar, a county environmental health specialist who reviews septic permit applications.
“Those that are in the process … they’re not happy,” he added. “No. 1, even without the Level II issue, a failed system is not something folks plan for financially — $3,000 or $4,000 is not a pleasant surprise. Throw on top of that another $10,000, $12,000, $13,000? It’s not pleasant. It’s a large, unanticipated expense.”
When commissioners created the zoning rules, they didn’t change any of the sanitation rules, creating an issue with administration. Health Department employees send folks coming in their door up to the Planning Department, where Blake’s staff informs them of the requirements. I think that has added to the confusion of the public, unfortunately,” Preskar said.
Blake was more optimistic.
“Especially early on, there was concern about how it was being administered,” he said. “For the most part, I would say things have gone fairly well in that regard.
“They’re advised of everything that they need to do, and they can make their own decision,” he added.
Real-estate woes
Some real-estate agents say the additional costs have delayed or even broken up some deals. They’re hopeful something will change soon, and county officials say they’re considering going with a different standard next month, when commissioners will decide whether to keep the interim zoning regulations, amend them or allow them to expire.
“My perspective is that there are many houses out there that aren’t sellable because of the interim zoning,” Century 21 Heritage Realty Inc. owner Parker Heller said. “I don’t think the county meant for this to happen … I honestly think they’re going to get this fixed. Something has taken place that they weren’t counting on.
“I think this was way out of left field. I don’t think anyone was expecting this to become this big of a problem,” he added.
Heller said he really came to grips with the issues in the past six weeks, as his office has fielded an increasing number of calls from potential sellers who’ve discovered their systems aren’t compliant and have to be replaced.
“We hear about this five days a week,” he said.
Helena Association of Realtors President Liane Taylor, who has long opposed the zoning regulations and who, on a platform calling for more discussion before the creation of the rules, ran against Commissioner Andy Hunthausen for an open seat in 2006, said there’s concern in the marketplace.
“The buyers, sellers, Realtors are all trying to work together to work through this,” she said. “There have been some deals that have fallen through.
“People are confused, and that’s the biggest thing,” she added.
Taylor said she knows some folks are waiting to see what commissioners do in May before making real-estate decisions.
Personally, Taylor wants to see the county’s regulations return to the old standards. She doesn’t believe the county has proven any sort of water-quality emergency.
“I think that if there’s a concern about water quality, that having a maintenance schedule for people who have septic systems would suffice,” she said. “I do not think the county has the science behind them to do what they did.”
Slowing contamination
Next month, county commissioners will revisit the interim zoning regulations. Those rules were largely approved because of information showing increased nitrate levels in various areas throughout the valley.
Commissioners have backed the Level II requirement, which they blanketed over the entire landscape of the district, as a means of slowing the rate of nitrate contamination.
Preskar said standard septic systems release up to 50 milligrams of nitrates per liter of wastewater to the drain field, where soils act to remove nitrogen and other nutrients.
Level II systems remove 60 percent of those nitrates before the waste stream meets the dirt, he said.
Also in the past year, county officials have begun efforts to create a septic maintenance district, which would work to increase awareness about homeowner responsibilities and drive up the chances of failing systems being reported.
They’ve also begun a groundwater vulnerability study to pinpoint areas of concern and identify lands where soil quality reduces the need for advanced systems.
And a group of smart-growth advocates, builders and citizens has developed a proposed set of comprehensive zoning standards — including density designations that could play into the septic-system rules — which commissioners also will consider in coming months.
Exploring options
Commission Chairman Ed Tinsley, who along with his two colleagues voted for the new rules last year, said the regulation was the best option the county had at the time to protect the health of the public.
He pointed to the additional efforts the county has made to learn more about the problem, and said the commission is interested in potential alternative solutions.
For instance, Preskar is now researching other septic systems, the Level I-B category, to see if they would be acceptable in the valley.
The systems cost about $7,000 or $8,000, and remove about 35 percent of nitrates from the waste stream before the drain field. It’s too early to know whether officials will recommend commissioners take that route, but Tinsley said he’s interested to learn more.
“If Frank can show us that this is a viable alternative, I think the commission is willing to endorse it and amend the regulations,” he said.
“We’re not interest in making it hard on the citizens of Lewis and Clark County whose septic systems are noncompliant,” Tinsley added.
“But we’re not going to give up the fight to clean up the water issues in the valley.”
Reporter Larry Kline: 447-4075 or larry.kline@helenair.com
Current rating: 4.6 with 24 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
mtwalker1 wrote on Apr 7, 2008 6:57 AM:
"
The county has gone way beyond reason. Where is the affordable housing for this area? Any valley rental now needs to be priced to allow replacement of the septic system to the tune of $15-20K.
If the valley aquifer is endangered
to the point of having to enact such draconion measures then agricultural impact surely needs addressed. Legumes such as alfalfa fix nitrogen into the soil and do leach into the groundwater. Livestock confinement areas have a much greater potential to leach nitrates and microbes into the groundwater than any septic system.
And then look at pesticides use
which is far more widespread than septic tanks...
The valley is a class 3 earthquake zone, what are the commissioners planning to do when we have a seismic event in regards to septic systems?
Valley residents now need some sort of earthquake insurance
to afford replacing $20K septic systems.
We need government that is reasonable
not dictoral. Vote Tinsley out..
"
The county has gone way beyond reason. Where is the affordable housing for this area? Any valley rental now needs to be priced to allow replacement of the septic system to the tune of $15-20K.
If the valley aquifer is endangered
to the point of having to enact such draconion measures then agricultural impact surely needs addressed. Legumes such as alfalfa fix nitrogen into the soil and do leach into the groundwater. Livestock confinement areas have a much greater potential to leach nitrates and microbes into the groundwater than any septic system.
And then look at pesticides use
which is far more widespread than septic tanks...
The valley is a class 3 earthquake zone, what are the commissioners planning to do when we have a seismic event in regards to septic systems?
Valley residents now need some sort of earthquake insurance
to afford replacing $20K septic systems.
We need government that is reasonable
not dictoral. Vote Tinsley out..
"
ruby wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:07 PM:
" It is so unfortunate that the Commissioners continue to lie to the public. It is obvious that Comm. Tinsley is only politiking right now - he'll say anything to get re-elected. We have seen him these last years do whatever he wants and it seems as though he cares nothing about the public. He does, care, though about the far left environmentalists.
He's changed his tune right now and it is next to impossible to believe him. If he does get re-elected, mark my words ... he'll shut down the county just like he did last year - only he'll do it for six more years. Not only that, both Hunthousen and Murry seem to follow him around with their tongues on the ground - it's an embarrassment to the office right now.... "
He's changed his tune right now and it is next to impossible to believe him. If he does get re-elected, mark my words ... he'll shut down the county just like he did last year - only he'll do it for six more years. Not only that, both Hunthousen and Murry seem to follow him around with their tongues on the ground - it's an embarrassment to the office right now.... "
rebel wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:02 PM:
" Reading the story and comments posted about the septic debate is very compelling. I must admit that I haven't as of yet (but I will be) checking out the county claims. There were many comments made against this issue that are most likely closer to fact than what the county is. There are many things which contribute to this issue that has nothing to do with a septic system. The few comments I have seen by anyone from the county were bringing up health issues. What about the health issues possed by waste water from city residents which contain countless medicines which end up in the city system. Not to mention the massive amount of artificial sweeteners which are also flushed. This dumping of lethal chemicals is a crime in itself. The county officials should be ashamed of themselves for being a miniture Washington DC> Handing out masive mandates without making sure their ducks were in a row first, if that is the case. As stated previously I will be checking into this furture.
Some of this is just the beginning, where this issue is concerned. I will not be quite on any issue which deals with the health of Montanans. I welcome all comments or info on this and other like matters. If you read this and know me, you know where I am. If not the IR sure knows how to get in touch. "
Some of this is just the beginning, where this issue is concerned. I will not be quite on any issue which deals with the health of Montanans. I welcome all comments or info on this and other like matters. If you read this and know me, you know where I am. If not the IR sure knows how to get in touch. "
coldiron wrote on Apr 6, 2008 2:07 PM:
" Too bad L & C Officials, Residents and other Concerned Citizens whose concerns regarding the septic systems pollution problems in the valley, haven’t read the report for The Department of Environmental Quality , August 31 2006, “Framework Water Quality Restoration Plan and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Lake Helena Watershed Planning Area”, Volume I and Volume II with particular reference to Volume II, Appendix B, Page B-22, Paragraph 31, which suggests the City of Helena is by far the greatest polluter to the Helena Valley. "
mike fasbender wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:46 AM:
" Level II, or level Ib, that is the question. Whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of requiring level II or reduce the requirement to level Ib systems, under the guise of protecting water quality.
Hmmm, I liken this to a doctor asking, should we do invasive surgery or should we do chemo & radiation on this patient, all the while ignoring the fact that the patient doesn’t have cancer, and a simple aspirin would suffice to cure the headache. “Overkill” is an understatement.
Contrary to what the IR and the county commissioners would have us believe, there is not a water quality emergency. It is irresponsible for the commissioners to continue to say so without scientific evidence to support the claim, and even more so for the IR to print that “nitrate contamination” in the valley is fact. Why would the IR fail to report in the article that the EPA action level for municipal water systems is 10 ppm nitrates, and that the average in the Helena Valley is closer to 3 ppm, well below the action level? Why would the IR fail to report in the article the number of different sources there are for potential nitrate contamination: fertilizers, livestock runoff, etc., and instead just lead readers to believe septic systems are the only cuplprit? Why would the IR fail to report that the independently performed North Hills Groundwater Study showed that we don’t have a water quality problem? This type of fear mongering reporting is beyond reproach.
I and many others suggested the aspirin cure long ago, but were summarily dismissed. Last legislative session I wrote to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and suggested that they propose a bill to the legislature that would require inspection of septic systems upon the sale of a property that had a septic. Similar suggestions have been made to our county commissioners. What many readers of the IR have never been told is the fact that a properly designed, installed, and maintained septic system poses no threat to groundwater. Period. And please don’t take my word for it, visit http://www.tgpc.state.tx.us/SepticSystems.htm, the website of the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee, a committee made up of a number of experts in the field of groundwater studies. Further, in the Lake Helena TMDL study, the EPA recommended a ˝ of 1 percent reduction in septic nitrate output in the Lake Helena drainage, a reduction that could be achieved by repairing the failing septic systems in the area. Lastly, I’ve got an email from the head of Montana DEQ stating we do not have a water quality emergency in the valley. It would certainly seem that everyone but the commissioners and the IR understand that new systems do not pose a threat to groundwater, and yet time and again they continue to say or print otherwise.
Commissioner Tinsley is quoted as “We’re not interest in making it hard on the citizens of Lewis and Clark County whose septic systems are noncompliant,”. He goes on to state, “we’re not going to give up the fight to clean up the water issues in the valley.” Wow. Pretty much all the experts agree that septic systems are only a problem when not properly installed or maintained, ie. failing systems. And yet, here we have one of our illustrious commissioners stating he isn’t interested in fixing the non-compliant systems. I couldn’t disagree with him more. We need to identify failing systems, and we need to fix them. I further disagree with the commission that when we do identify a failing system, that every single one has to be replaced with a level II system. Septic treatment requirements are site specific, based upon a number of engineering criteria. Many of the failing systems in the valley are basically a 55 gallon drum with no drainfield. In most instances, a level II requirement is overkill … ie. Invasive surgery when an aspirin would suffice, and homeowners shouldn’t be forced into a very costly “solution” when in fact it is not necessary.
For anyone to suggest that “I don’t think the county meant for this to happen”, is just ridiculous. There were at least 6 public hearings on the interim zoning. Time and again experts from a number of fields, including a DEQ employee, engineers, water experts, and county commissioner Anita Varone cautioned the commission, in both oral and written testimony, that first of all there wasn’t an emergency, secondly their “solution” was very expensive and further did nothing to correct the “emergency, and lastly why not take the time to do zoning right. Of course, as we now know from history, our commissioners ignored the experts and instead told us that they know what is best for us, as they often do. If they didn’t mean for this to happen, perhaps they should have listened to the experts.
The commissioners made a mistake. Plain and simple. But, the truth of the matter is they were warned time and again that they were making a mistake. Time will tell if they have the intestinal fortitude to admit the mistake and take responsibility for their decision, or instead continue to place the blame on others.
"
Hmmm, I liken this to a doctor asking, should we do invasive surgery or should we do chemo & radiation on this patient, all the while ignoring the fact that the patient doesn’t have cancer, and a simple aspirin would suffice to cure the headache. “Overkill” is an understatement.
Contrary to what the IR and the county commissioners would have us believe, there is not a water quality emergency. It is irresponsible for the commissioners to continue to say so without scientific evidence to support the claim, and even more so for the IR to print that “nitrate contamination” in the valley is fact. Why would the IR fail to report in the article that the EPA action level for municipal water systems is 10 ppm nitrates, and that the average in the Helena Valley is closer to 3 ppm, well below the action level? Why would the IR fail to report in the article the number of different sources there are for potential nitrate contamination: fertilizers, livestock runoff, etc., and instead just lead readers to believe septic systems are the only cuplprit? Why would the IR fail to report that the independently performed North Hills Groundwater Study showed that we don’t have a water quality problem? This type of fear mongering reporting is beyond reproach.
I and many others suggested the aspirin cure long ago, but were summarily dismissed. Last legislative session I wrote to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and suggested that they propose a bill to the legislature that would require inspection of septic systems upon the sale of a property that had a septic. Similar suggestions have been made to our county commissioners. What many readers of the IR have never been told is the fact that a properly designed, installed, and maintained septic system poses no threat to groundwater. Period. And please don’t take my word for it, visit http://www.tgpc.state.tx.us/SepticSystems.htm, the website of the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee, a committee made up of a number of experts in the field of groundwater studies. Further, in the Lake Helena TMDL study, the EPA recommended a ˝ of 1 percent reduction in septic nitrate output in the Lake Helena drainage, a reduction that could be achieved by repairing the failing septic systems in the area. Lastly, I’ve got an email from the head of Montana DEQ stating we do not have a water quality emergency in the valley. It would certainly seem that everyone but the commissioners and the IR understand that new systems do not pose a threat to groundwater, and yet time and again they continue to say or print otherwise.
Commissioner Tinsley is quoted as “We’re not interest in making it hard on the citizens of Lewis and Clark County whose septic systems are noncompliant,”. He goes on to state, “we’re not going to give up the fight to clean up the water issues in the valley.” Wow. Pretty much all the experts agree that septic systems are only a problem when not properly installed or maintained, ie. failing systems. And yet, here we have one of our illustrious commissioners stating he isn’t interested in fixing the non-compliant systems. I couldn’t disagree with him more. We need to identify failing systems, and we need to fix them. I further disagree with the commission that when we do identify a failing system, that every single one has to be replaced with a level II system. Septic treatment requirements are site specific, based upon a number of engineering criteria. Many of the failing systems in the valley are basically a 55 gallon drum with no drainfield. In most instances, a level II requirement is overkill … ie. Invasive surgery when an aspirin would suffice, and homeowners shouldn’t be forced into a very costly “solution” when in fact it is not necessary.
For anyone to suggest that “I don’t think the county meant for this to happen”, is just ridiculous. There were at least 6 public hearings on the interim zoning. Time and again experts from a number of fields, including a DEQ employee, engineers, water experts, and county commissioner Anita Varone cautioned the commission, in both oral and written testimony, that first of all there wasn’t an emergency, secondly their “solution” was very expensive and further did nothing to correct the “emergency, and lastly why not take the time to do zoning right. Of course, as we now know from history, our commissioners ignored the experts and instead told us that they know what is best for us, as they often do. If they didn’t mean for this to happen, perhaps they should have listened to the experts.
The commissioners made a mistake. Plain and simple. But, the truth of the matter is they were warned time and again that they were making a mistake. Time will tell if they have the intestinal fortitude to admit the mistake and take responsibility for their decision, or instead continue to place the blame on others.
"
treydenj wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:24 AM:
" This is a bad deal for everybody except the septic service businesses in town. The commissioners got this one absolutely wrong. "
liane wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:41 AM:
" Larry-
Two things.... the story about the Kirby's reads as though the septic was only pumped once since 1972. The Kirby's bought the house 6 years ago had it pumped once and then again this summer. That is the normal recommendation for septic maintenance; once every two to three years.
Secondly... I hope that readers will take the time to check with Aspen, Energy and Alpine Analytical labs. As we discussed, besides the lack of bacterial concern in wells.... the tests that they have done for nitrates have only shown increased levels where the property was in agricultural production for long periods of time.
I think it would be interesting to get more information from them and see how their thousands of tests done annually measure against the county's 39. And, how they see now reason for concern about groundwater contamination, especially the issue of septics leaking into wells. "
Two things.... the story about the Kirby's reads as though the septic was only pumped once since 1972. The Kirby's bought the house 6 years ago had it pumped once and then again this summer. That is the normal recommendation for septic maintenance; once every two to three years.
Secondly... I hope that readers will take the time to check with Aspen, Energy and Alpine Analytical labs. As we discussed, besides the lack of bacterial concern in wells.... the tests that they have done for nitrates have only shown increased levels where the property was in agricultural production for long periods of time.
I think it would be interesting to get more information from them and see how their thousands of tests done annually measure against the county's 39. And, how they see now reason for concern about groundwater contamination, especially the issue of septics leaking into wells. "
billhaslip wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:14 AM:
" If the county decides to require maintenence contracts or garnish ownership of our septic systems and bill us $500.00 a year to maintain them, its tme to get he tar and feathers.Please go to the county web site and take their survey, an see the rediculas agenda they are considering imposing on all the couny residets. Keep in mind the Lake Helena watershed includes land to the top of Boulder hill, McDonald pass, and North hill too! If the State Dept. of Enviromental Quality is really behind this scheme, as the county web page suggests, The State DEQ would be including all this area. It is obvious the county comissioners want to punish us all who live out in the county. Every one of us are already affcted. Its high time we punish hem back, right out of office!!!!! GO DEREK BROWN!!!! "
Text Size:
Small | Medium | Large
View/Post Comments
Email this story
Print this story
Rate Article
Share Article
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
- Presidential hopefuls
address thousands - Clinton: 'America is worth fighting for'
- Voters relish chance to make a difference
- County septic rules: Gone too far?
- Clinton: Incentives key for rural health care
- Obama: Best fix for rural health care is access
- Legend Charlton Heston dead at 84
experience wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:19 AM: