Groundwater the Fluid of Life

To survive over time, a population must live within the carrying capacity of its ecosystem, which represents a form of natural capital. One of the most important elements of the ecosystem is potable water. Without water there can be no life. As populations grow water is needed for drinking, bathing, to support irrigated agriculture and industry.

Unlike other natural resources or raw materials, groundwater is present throughout the world. Possibilities for its abstraction vary greatly from place to place, owing to rainfall conditions and the distribution of aquifers (rock and sand layers in whose pore spaces the groundwater sits). Generally, groundwater is renewed only during a part of each year through precipitation, but can be abstracted year-round. Provided that there is adequate replenishment, and that the source is protected from pollution, groundwater can be abstracted indefinitely.

Groundwater forms the invisible, subsurface part of the natural water cycle, in which evaporation, precipitation, seepage and discharge are the main components. The “visible” components are all strongly affected by weather and climate, and although they can be contaminated quickly, they generally recover quickly too. By contrast, the subsurface processes of groundwater are much slower and longer lasting, ranging from years to millennia. However, with careful management, these different timescales can be used to create an integrated system of water supply that is robust in the face of drought.

The groundwater cycle in humid and arid regions differ fundamentally from each other. In humid climates, with high rainfall, large volumes of water seep into the groundwater, which contributes actively to the water cycle feeding streams, springs and wetlands during periods when the rainfall is lower. In semi-arid and arid climates, there is by contrast practically no exchange between the surface water and groundwater because the small volume of seepage from the occasional rainfall only rarely penetrates the thick and dry (unsaturated) soils. The groundwater is much deeper and isolated from surface contact. In these areas groundwater resources are only minimally recharged. Our understanding of the complete water cycle is only rudimentary.

Any attempt to accurately model the groundwater component of the water cycle requires adequate measurements and observations over decades. The computer models in common use in the United States only address the shallower groundwater and surface water interactions; GSFLOW (USGS) and ArcHydro (ESRI) are two commonly used models. This has not yet been done, instead rules of thumb and common knowledge assumptions are utilized instead of facts. Robert Bisson of Earth Water Global believes that there is much more water below the Earth’s surface than commonly believed and that the majority of the earth’s water passes beneath the measured surface and groundwater zones undetected.

We do know that groundwater availability varies by location. Precipitation and soil type determines how much the shallower groundwater is recharged annually. However the volume of water that can be stored is controlled by the reservoir characteristics of the subsurface rocks. Groundwater may be present today even in places with very dry climates because of the nature of the local geology and the historic climate cycles that have occurred through time. In the north-eastern Sahara, the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System underlies an area of more than 750,000 square miles in Chad, Egypt, Libya and Sudan, and contains huge amounts of fresh groundwater. Giant groundwater deposits of comparable size and limited recharge are thought to exist on nearly all continents, but the amount of groundwater that can be pumped out is unknown. Water resources can be used sustainably only if their volume and variation through time are understood. However such information is often lacking, even in so-called developed regions. Hydrology as a science is very young and so little is known. Is it possible that water in these arid regions is finite and non-renewable because of changes in the earth’s climate over the millenia? According to Victor Ponce of San Diego State University, deep percolation represents 2% of the precipitation in California. He believes that the shallow groundwater belongs to surface waters. Any pumping of shallow water (especially for irrigation) effectively shortcuts the natural process, returning to the land surface groundwater that was going to return to the surface waters anyway.

Groundwater is usually cleaner than surface water. Groundwater is typically protected against contamination from the surface by the soils and rock layers covering the aquifer. This is the only available clean drinking water in many parts of the world. However, rising world population, changes in land use and rapid industrialization increasingly place groundwater in jeopardy. Once contaminated, groundwater is very difficult to clean and often after removal of contaminated plumes only long term abandonment of use to allow for natural attenuation is the only possible course of action. As droughts and water shortages appear the value of groundwater has begun to be more fully appreciated. Precious groundwater resources increasingly need to be protected and well managed to allow for sustainable long-term use.

The demand for water is rising as population, economic activity and agricultural irrigation grow. However, worldwide resources of accessible water are decreasing, due to overuse or pollution. The balance between demand (consumption) and supply (resource) is becoming unstable. More than 30 countries suffer from serious chronic water shortage, and groundwater is increasingly being used to cover the demand. According to UNESCO Water for People between 700 and 800 billion US tons of ground water are pumped each year. This is two hundred times the annual consumption of oil and coal used each year.

California Water Wars

Friday night the California State Legislature ended its session for the year without taking any action in regards to the state’s water supply issues. There were a set of bills that reportedly would have both diverted water from the Sacramento San Pablo Delta and restored the habitat while potentially adding damns that would somehow add additional water along with the storage. The bills would also require a reduction of 20% in per capita urban water use and created a monitoring system for groundwater statewide. The legislation reportedly lost support of the Sierra Club, the Republicans and some other environmental groups. The fundamentals of the water supply system for California need to be addressed carefully and in a coordinated manner. The legislature has essentially chosen to continue the status quo which is unsustainable. The entire economy of California and possibly the United States will be impacted by the way in which California chooses to allocate water. Slapping another band-aid on the California water supply system is not how to address the complicated ecological, economic and human issues; nor is doing nothing. Cutbacks in surface irrigation water will results in increased pumping in the Central Valley which is nothing more than a geologic trough filled with sediments containing groundwater.

For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. This has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. On less than 1% of the total farmland in the U.S. the Central Valley produces 8% of the agricultural output (as measured by value). In 2002 this translated to $17 billion in crop value. This is all made possible by a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Approximately one sixth of the irrigated land in the United States is in the Central Valley (Bureau of Reclamation, 1994) and approximately one eighth of all groundwater pumped in the United States is pumped in the Central Valley.

According to the US Geological Survey the before the extensive development of irrigation of the Central Valley the natural recharge of groundwater from precipitation and surface water inflows equaled the outflows to evapotranspiration and surface water. After development of irrigation in the Central Valley the balance changed. Recharge to the groundwater was from irrigation return flow, precipitation and surface water inflow. Outflow was from groundwater withdrawals and increased surface water outflows. The net result was that the Central Valley, a 20,000 square mile area of California was mining groundwater at approximately 1,900 cubic feet per second from 1962 to 2003.

When you withdraw the groundwater from fine-grained compressible confining beds of sediments and do not replace it, the land subsides. The incredibly fertile Central Valley was identified by the research efforts of Joseph Poland as the location of maximum subsidence in the United States. Though the tremendous amount of subsidence was famously documented in 1977, it was not until 2003 that the water balance changed to slow the subsidence. In 2007 the USGS estimated the rate of groundwater mining to be 300 cubic feet per second. This change is due to the surface water agricultural deliveries of 13,000 cubic feet per second while groundwater irrigation deliveries are now (or at least were) at 5,900 cubic feet per second. When I was consulting, I saw vineyards and orchards in the Central Valley with groundwater irrigation wells. These vineyards were mortgaged. If the surface water allocation is reduced, how much groundwater are they going to pump? It is their livelihood, it is their investment, it is their way of life. Even if the surface water allocation to irrigation is not reduced the Central Valley is still mining groundwater that is not being recharged. The problems in the Delta estuary maybe more visible, but the long term viability of groundwater is our future.

Station Fire Destruction Has Just Begun

For two weeks, the Station Fire, Southern California's huge wildfire, has burned while California’s fire fighters have fought the massive fire to contain it. The fire has destroyed 250 square miles (160,000 acres) of the Angeles National Forest and only now is “mostly” contained. To defeat the fire more than 400 firefighters bravely continue to build containment lines on the fire's eastern flank by eliminating all potential fuel for the fire near the fire line to prevent the fire from continuing to spread. Two firefighters have died and eleven were injured in this massive battle. The ecological toll is vast, but more destruction is yet to come. The wildfire has completely consumed all organic layers and roots of the understory plants within this vast area. Without plants to protect the soil, runoff and erosion will increase and create changes to water quality and quantity.

The chief concern now is the impact the 250-square-mile Station Fire is having on the watershed. Countless canyons, ravines and gullies funnel water toward communities at the forest's edge and into the water management system. There is virtually no area in California where the water and flood system is not managed. Los Angeles County maintains 14 major dams, basins to intercept debris laden flows from the canyons, 500 miles of open storm channels and a network of underground storm drains throughout the metropolitan area to the ocean. The biggest concerns after a fire are erosion, landslides and flooding in areas where the vegetation that once stabilized the soil has been destroyed by fire. The primary impacts to fish and wildlife (that were not killed by fire or related heat) will be from runoff entering streams and lakes from areas destroyed by the fire. The runoff may carry extra sediment and ash, which can kill fish by robbing the streams of oxygen.

The firefighting chemicals can have adverse impacts on water quality and ultimately on fish and other aquatic life. The retardants used, though common chemicals found in fertilizers can cause fish kills if applied directly over lakes and streams. This is because ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus are in many of the retardants. Ammonia is very toxic to fish, and large quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus which if flushed into a stream or lake can use up all the oxygen in the water body. Even if the retardant has not been sprayed directly over lakes and streams, there is the possibility that runoff will carry the chemicals into the surface water depending largely on the amount of rainfall, the steepness of the terrain. Phosphorus readily binds to soil particles and will increase the levels of phosphorus flowing into surface waters throughout the rainy season. Nitrates are mobile in soil and readily move into ground and surface water. Cyanide can be of special concern after wildfires because it is a byproduct of the red fire retardant slurry I thought I saw picture of. In cells of all animals cyanide inhibits the release of oxygen for hemoglobin to individual cells, starving the animal of oxygen.
Fires also release pollutants that are normally found in soil and in living and decaying plants that are washed into streams and lakes either through runoff or transported through the air. After a fire there are concerns about streams flooding when burned areas receive heavy rainfall. Vegetation and forest litter that once slowed runoff are gone. This means an increased amount of sediment and ash will end up in the water where it can remain suspended or become part of the materials in the steam beds. Suspended solids can make treatment and filtering more difficult downstream possibly impacting the drinking water quality. After the rains come there will be much higher risks for landslides and flooding in the areas once stabilized by the now destroyed vegetation. Hillsides will become unstable and mudslides are expected.

The final tally of the destructive impact from this wildfire will be massive, far beyond the direct costs to fight the fire and the limited number of homes lost. The water quality impacts are cumulative as a result of pollutants mobilized by the fire, chemicals released to fight the fire, and the post fire erosion, mudslides and flooding.

Using Technology to Control Global Temperature

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Bjorn Lomborg says a group of climate economists at the University of Venice led by Carlo Carraro looked closely at how people will adapt to climate change they predict a 0.1% increase in GDP in 2100 among wealthy nations and climate change-related losses of 2.9% of GDP in poorer countries. "This remains a significant, negative effect. The real challenge of global warming lies in tackling its impact on the Third World.” There are several economists who believe that some level of global warming will usher in a golden age others do not. The science community has not yet been able to accurately model the earth ecology. The accuracy our current predictive models is unknown, but they do produce conflicting data. Economic modeling which would seem simpler, is apparently no more advanced.

Professor Lomborg goes on to suggest examination of climate engineering to control temperature change. One proposal he mentions would have boats spray seawater droplets into clouds above the sea to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Since this is just a variation of a natural process, it does not sound dangerous. However, I find the prospect of trying to use technology to control the planet’s temperature frightening. We can not predict the consequences of our actions. In a June Wall Street Journal opinion piece “It’s Time to Cool the Planet” the author, Mr. Cascio, a futurist of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies argues for fast acting geo-engineering like releasing sulfate in huge quantities into the atmospheres using jet-aircraft exhaust. This particular action would be equivalent of several volcanic eruptions each year and while it would probably lower the temperature, what else would it do year after year? It is known that volcanic eruptions damage the ozone layer and plant life. We do not have the knowledge to understand the consequences of direct and quick changes to the plant temperature or carbon content. There is a limit to using technology to try and control the planet’s temperature. Would maintaining the planet's temperature come to consume all the resources of the earth and man? When we stopped, or the technology failed we would have masked a problem and suddenly be faced with a jump in temperature (assuming that the global warming projections are accurate). Sudden changes could be far more catastrophic than any consequence imagined by the long term projections of gradual global warming projected by the climate change establishment. Negative consequences of global warming will spur changes in behavior.

It is difficult for someone of my age and inclinations (having worked for the US EPA in the 1970’s) to think of Climate Change, Global Warming without thinking of other mass environmental movements. For example, Silent Spring and the birth of the environmental movement. Though it is often thought that Carson was calling for the elimination of all pesticides, it was her followers who were the extremists. The movement developed a life of its own. As Eric Hoffer points out in his book, “True Believer” mass movements can never be moderate and rational they attract followers by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change. We are a nation of over reactors. Moderate, responsible action seems impossible for us, but that is the skill we must learn as responsible stewards of this earth and as humane and concerned citizens of the planet.

We must balance concern for the earth, worry about climate change as measured by whatever index suites your world view, with the needs of the lesser developed world to escape poverty and disease. What is the point of saving the earth if not for mankind? We must remember that our knowledge is limited and every action has a reaction. Only arrogance would allow someone to believe mankind could hold the temperature of the earth constant against nature indefinitely. The consensus of opinion is mankind has contributed to climate change, not caused it.

The changes we should consider are not massive interruptions in the natural cycles of nature, but conservation, replanting, control of non-point source contamination, and point source contamination reduction in emerging economies. Maybe if we can restore a watershed, reforest the jungles of the Amazon or the foothill of Mt. Kilimanjaro we could then consider bolder action. There is so much that can be accomplished by conservation and replanting, do that first. Start with replanting. According to the Tree Folks a single mature tree can absorb 48 lbs/ year of carbon dioxide and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings. Trees can also reduce air conditioning and heating needs by providing shade and providing a wind shield for winter. Trees also act as natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, roots, and associated soil and other natural elements of the landscape filter polluted particulate matter out of the flow towards the water shed and use nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which are contributing factors to the decay of water sheds. Trees are pretty.

California Water Crisis Deepens

One of the most important elements of the ecosystem is potable water. Without water there can be no life. As populations grow water is needed for drinking, bathing, to support irrigated agriculture, industry and maintain the ecology of the earth. Worldwide resources of accessible potable water are decreasing, due in a large part to overuse or pollution. The balance between demand (consumption) and supply (resource) is becoming unstable in many locations which we think we have nothing in common with. More than 30 countries suffer from serious chronic water shortage, but now that has become the fate of California. As I sit in California writing this I am afraid that time’s up for California.

California has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world. With 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs, the system captures enough water to irrigate about four million acres and provide water to 23 million people. In many cases, water in this system is sold to communities by the federal government. The price for this water is not based on its value or scarcity, but on price controls and rationing. Limited resources that are price controlled and rationed are allocated by the state and federal governments according to political goals. Without this extensive management system California’s limited water resources could not supply as much of the demand. There are limits to the water supply; California has been diverting large quantities of water to supply the ever growing demand of cities and farmers.

Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding area to safeguard the federally protected delta smelt which has been endangered by shrinkage of its habitat. To a large extent those environmental problems have been caused by water diversions, invasive species and loss of habitat to development. We seem to have reached the breaking point for the state despite the fact that California reservoirs have received 80% of their normal amount of water and precipitation in the northern Sierras has been 95% of its yearly average this year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife are restricting water diversions from the rivers to maintaining the flow of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta’s into the ocean and preserve the habitat of the smelt.

As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channeled away from farmers and into the ocean, hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land is left fallow or scorched. Remembering that practically all water in California is channeled to or from somewhere, this decision was made under the endangered species act and through that act Congress has chosen to ignore farmers, without consideration of the overall economic and human consequences of this decision. The full balance of life in California was not considered. Yes, the delta smelt is a protected species, but the people and farms should also be protected.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that he "doesn't have the authority to turn on the pumps" that would supply the farmers with water, and that is true. However, the Governor failed to request intervention from the Department of Interior in the decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to protect the endangered delta smelt. Under a provision added to the Endangered Species Act in 1978, a panel of seven cabinet officials is able to intercede in economic emergencies, such as the one now parching California farmers. Despite a petition, Mr. Schwarzenegger has refused that remedy. The authority of the panel of seven should be expanded to ameliorate more than economic emergencies. Water supply thought variable from year to year is finite. In order to maintain the delta smelt and its habitat, California needs to reduce the number of acres that are irrigated and the population. There is only so much water.

In June, the White House denied the Governor Schwarzenegger's request to designate California a federal disaster area as a result of the drought conditions, which U.S. Drought Monitor currently lists as a "severe drought" in 43% of the state. However, the Governor still failed to call for intervention from the Department of the Interior, but Senator Dianne Feinstein has pledged to press the issue with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The price of water is very dear, the results of price controls and rationing has prevented the kinds of changes and advances in technology and farming techniques to alleviate the problem before the current emergency. Vast water work projects will not materially increase the total water available to the state.

Groundwater Use and Septic Recharge a Green Solution

It is a Common perception that Septic Systems are highly consumptive. However as studies by the USGS, North Carolina Division of Water Quality and the Dutchess County Water & Wastewater Authority have clearly shown, when designed for the correct densities and recharge rates, well (or even surface water) use combined with septic systems is highly sustainable and ecologically sound (Draper, 2006; USGS, 2002). Surface-water resources and groundwater treated in Septic onsite wastewater treatment systems are non-consumptive because they increase base flow into the watershed, and the water can be reused. Properly designed and managed traditional septic systems, alternative septic systems and clustered septic system are an effective method of waste disposal and trod lightly on the earth’s resources. According to the US EPA alternative septic systems, both single family and clustered, exceed the standards for sewage treatment plants and replenish existing groundwater systems, returning clean water to the earth’s water cycle. These alternative onsite systems can be more sustainable to the surrounding ecosystem than sewers and centralized waste treatment and are certainly less expensive for the homeowners in sparsely populated areas. However, the systems need to work properly and alternative systems with multiple tanks, compressors and various parts require consistent maintenance to continue working properly. Remember though, what goes into your septic system goes into the earth. Think carefully about the products you use to clean your house. Paint, solvents, gasoline, insecticides and poisons should never go down your drain. Every chemical you pour down your drain is buried in your yard. In a multitude of ways your yard is part of the earth’s yard.

The 2006 USGS study of water use and recharge in the Atlanta area (before the watering ban) found that average household indoor water use was 200 gallons per day and in the summer months the total water use increased to about 300 gallons per day including outdoor water use. Sustainability should be examined in light of that level of usage. The Dutchess County Water & Wastewater Authority commissioned a study by the Chazen Company at about the same time to better understand County-wide aquifer recharge rates and to provide guidance for setting sustainable development densities specifically related to the use of individual wells and conventional individual septic systems based upon average aquifer recharge. While the quantitative results of the study would apply to the soil types, rainfall and temperature ranges specific to the watershed studied, extrapolations can be made to nearby locations. The weather from New England to the Mid Atlantic to the South becomes warmer and wetter. Currently, average rainfall for New York is 39 inches per year while for Virginia it is more than 45 inches per year. The hydrologic soil groups present in New York are the same groups present in Virginia, but I would guess there is a higher concentration of C/D and D areas. The predominant area of the study, Wappinger Creek is C and C/D soil category. Chestnut Lick, a large creek, behind my house has similar soil hydrologic properties, but the soils on the acres surrounding the house contain a higher proportion of clay. This may be natural or due to the excavation associated with development of the lot and road.

Shallow groundwater flow, or groundwater runoff, intercepts the land surface, feeding springs, and creeks and seeping back into the surface waters as the perennial flow or streams, rivers and other freshwater bodies such as swamps, lakes and ponds. Deep groundwater flow also known as groundwater runout, does not intercept the land surface, flowing instead directly into the ocean. Of all the Earth’s water, only 3% is estimated to be freshwater. Groundwater is estimated to be more than 30% of the freshwater. Precipitation is the source of all groundwater, both shallow and deep. Hydrology is a young science and the modeling of the water cycle is not complete. The recharge rates and water cycle of the shallow groundwater in humid environments is much better modeled and understood than the deep earth sources of groundwater. So, while the entire water cycle is essential to man’s survival, only the shallow cycle will be discussed here.

Aquifer recharge consists of the portion of rain and snow (mostly rain in Virginia) that seeps through the soil to the saturated water zone, the aquifer. Another form of recharge is interflow which is infiltration water that flow along clay and bedrock layers, and roots to reach surface stream without entering the aquifer. Only the aquifer recharge supports wells and septic system dilution, while both recharge and interflow support the surface water supplies. In watersheds with high clay content in the soils a large portion of the rains is lost in runoff creating seasonal streams and high creek and river flow during the spring and fall rainy season. The average daily aquifer recharge (from rain and snow only excluding septic recycling) for Soils C, C/D and D in Prince William Virginia are estimated 326-583 gallons per acre. It is essential in a sustainable system that the groundwater level be maintained with recharge and adequate surface water is supplied to maintain the ecology even during drought years. My property totals more than 10 acres and our total indoor and outdoor household water usage was clocked during the early summer at between 100 and 150 gallons a day. We do not water our garden; trying to plant only what will thrive in the natural environment unaided. Virginia gets plenty of rainfall and it seems silly to plant anything that requires irrigation. Thus, not only is my septic system non-consumptive, the recharge rate vastly exceeds our water usage (and hopefully our neighbors since our water supply is dependent on total demand and recharge of the aquifer).

Though as demonstrated by the USGS studies, septic is a non-consumptive use of water, it is important that the septic system is designed and operated in a way that protects the environment. Whatever goes down the toilet or the drain goes into the earth. (See Septic Systems and the Ecologically Sustainable Life.)The Dutchess County report used nitrate concentrations at half the drinking water level as a proxy to achieve adequate dilution and natural attenuation of all contaminants. Historically, horizontal and vertical setbacks were developed without consideration of the dilution for wastewater components like nitrate, pharmaceutical residue, caffeine and other substances we humans consume, process or produce. The NY Department of Health separation distances were assumed (and these are almost identical to the Virginia setbacks), but the overall regional density of septic systems was examined to ensure that groundwater resources would not be overwhelmed by the total load of contaminants. The density recommendations were developed based on the nitrate concentration in traditional septic wastewater. Nitrate was used as a proxy because all humans produce about 10 pounds of nitrate per year, it does not easily break down and there is a drinking water standard. The target concentration was half the drinking water level to ensure all outcomes are safely below the standard since household size varies tremendously.

The Dutchess County study and the NC study found that overall average density of on-site waste disposal should not exceed one unit per 2-3 acres for an average size house to ensure water quality and recharge in groundwater supplies. The controlling factor in minimum lot size requirements in the northeast appears to be maintaining water quality, not groundwater recharge. Adequate dilution, soil filtration and time are necessary to ensure sustainable water quality. An interesting point is that it is not cost effective to install central water or waste disposal on parcels larger than about a half acre, since the cost of the piping (line connections) between parcels becomes much too high. Clustered or conservation subdivisions can be built, but need to maintain the overall density by maintaining open space. Those who live in dense population areas might want to look to the sustainable ideas of Adam Matthews and Siobhan O’Connor in Good magazine, the water issue, though, I find their idea of a composting toilet in any environment to be really scary from a public health perspective.

The Cost to the Homeowner of Septic Regulations in Virginia

On Thursday, August 20th, 2009 the fourth and final meeting of the Virginia Department of Health “Alternative On-site Sewage Systems Emergency Regulations Ad Hoc Committee” took place. I have participated in the process representing the homeowner’s point of view. Legislation approved in 2009 (HB 2551, Acts of Assembly, 2009, Ch 220) requires the Board of Health to promulgate emergency regulations to establish performance requirements and horizontal setbacks necessary to protect public health and the environment for alternative on-site sewage systems. The regulations must go into effect no later than April 6, 2010 and must also contain Operation and Maintenance requirements for alternative on-site sewage systems.

Today, alternative on-site septic treatment systems are designed to be state of the art, meeting EPA's treatment standard one. This exceeds the standards for sewage treatment plants and replenishes existing groundwater systems. These alternative on-site systems can be more sustainable to the surrounding ecosystem than sewers and centralized waste treatment and are certainly less expensive for the homeowners in sparsely populated areas. However, the systems need to work properly and these newer alternative systems with multiple tanks, compressors and various parts require consistent maintenance to continue working properly. The US EPA has found that adequately managed decentralized waste water treatment systems are a cost effective long term option for meeting public health and water quality goals in less densely populated areas. So, let’s manage them correctly, exactly the goal of the Virginia legislation. What will this cost the homeowner? Of course the final cost will be determined by the exact scope of the regulations, but to give you some idea of what this means to your pocket book I have spent some time pricing out the services.

Loudon County currently requires annual inspections and maintenance contracts for alternative systems, so that at least in Northern Virginia, there is a market for the various services. In addition, § 32.1-164 of the Code of Virginia requires Virginia Board of Health to begin an O&M program for alternative septic systems that is based on the manufacturer’s operation and maintenance instructions, local requirements, or state rules and policies whichever is most stringent. These requirements went into effect on July 9th 2009 and remain in effect until final regulations for O&M of alternative systems are in place. Thus, throughout the state there are septic installation and service companies that have been certified by various manufacturers and currently offer the inspection and operation and maintenance service. Though prices seem to be higher for Northern Virginia and Virginia Beach than other areas I checked, prices from a qualified firm tend to range from $400-$680 annually with a 25% discount available if a group of neighbors get together to negotiate a contract or the HOA negotiates contracts for 10 or more homes. Travel time is a big factor in overall expenses to the service company. That expense translates into an annual operating expense of about $40-$50 a month for sewage. If you have an alternative septic system, make sure that the firm you deal with is certified by either the county or the manufacturer to service your type of system. I did have one firm that quoted a price of $1,750 annually!! When I questioned the price, they told me that I had a “buried tank” that would have to be dug up each year. This was nonsense; I have three tanks with surface ports that can be plainly seen and the man was standing in my yard when he handed me the quote. There are no four tank systems.

There is another area of potential expense that was discussed at the final meeting of the Virginia Department of Health “Alternative On-site Sewage Systems Emergency Regulations Ad Hoc Committee,” should there be end of pipe monitoring for single family home systems. This end of pipe monitoring includes several related items: laboratory sampling of end of pipe effluent, laboratory sampling of groundwater, and field sampling/testing. Let me address groundwater first, it is impractical under any circumstance. Sampling of groundwater for compliance monitoring is impractical because without installing at a minimum three monitoring wells and potentially many more it would be impossible to determine if a groundwater aquifer were contaminated and the costs of not only the well installation and sampling but water analysis would be astronomical. In addition, leaving monitoring wells on-site in perpetuity for ongoing sampling would open potential pathways of contamination to the groundwater.

For end of pipe sampling there was some support for the requirement for single family homes from the VDH and some of the engineering community. As Anish Jantrania of Northwest Cascade put it “I would argue that the regulatory requirements for O&M should be set such that they do not become the driver in decision-making process for selecting which approach to take for designing land-based effluent dispersal system. This mainly applies to the requirements/frequencies of effluent quality sampling and lab analysis. If effluent quality sampling is going to be required at some frequency for large systems then it must be required at a reduced frequency for single home system!” The VDH was attracted to the idea of sampling end of pipe as a method to develop a database of the functioning of the systems. As someone who actually went through the expense of sampling the third tank in my alternative septic system just to find out if the system functions properly I am well aware that the cost could be between $350 and $400. The actual analysis costs $240 but to have a company come out and draw the sample according to protocol, ice and deliver the sample to the laboratory for analysis can cost up to $150 more. I thought long and hard about that expense, but in the end I wanted to make sure that at least on a typical summer day my system was operating within design parameters. It was. Since there are no regulatory consequences for single family alternative systems sample results adding an expense to the homeowner to level the playing field or collect data was something I argued against at the meeting. There are potentially economies of scale in clustered systems and that would help level the playing field.

The group did not vote in favor of routine end of pipe sampling for single family homes for approved technologies. However the group was in favor of field sampling. Where field sampling and laboratory analysis was thought to be potentially beneficial was for approving new technologies into a state or for "unproven" or unique designs. Having to routinely sample individually engineered designs would put these systems at a disadvantage. Joel Pinnix made a very powerful argument for the effectiveness of the individually engineered systems and their potential superiority for the out of the box or off the shelf systems. Then went on to say “There is no place in a regulatory process for data gathering. If VDH wants to gather data for informational purposes, then they should do so by getting a grant and performing a scientific study. There is certainly a role for VDH to conduct or fund studies of alternative systems, but the Emergency Regulation is not an appropriate mechanism to gather data for informational purposes.” Colin Bishop of BMN-US pointed out to me in a communication yesterday there is a role for field sampling and possibly laboratory sampling in extreme circumstances. Operation and Maintenance service providers will routinely perform field checks such as Dissolved Oxygen, Turbidity, pH, etc. with field testing equipment. Field tests can be performed for just a few dollars and are extremely helpful in identifying a problem if a system seems "upset" and there is a need further troubleshooting.