[Winona Online Democracy]
Sorry for the cut and paste. There has been so much slinging of (stuff)
around I felt it necessary to check with the MPCA (Our regulatory authority)
regarding septic vs. municipal systems. It looks like our local rural
experts are trying to make sewage run up hill. For those of you interested
please check out this study and put your shovels away. While I am no
expert I have worked with the MPCA and carried State Certification for the
operation of sewage facilities. While the study below may not be typical
for our soil conditions, it does show the inherent problems associated with
under-regulated sewage waste disposal.
Greg Olson
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/baxter-rs.pdf#search='MPCA%20Septic%20Systems%20t'
Effects of Septic Systems on Ground Water Quality -
Baxter, Minnesota
Individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS or septic systems) have the
potential to impact
ground water with chemicals such as nitrate, chloride, and phosphorus. Once
in ground water,
these chemicals have the potential to move and spread.
In 1998, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Ground Water Monitoring
and
Assessment Program (GWMAP) began studying impacts of septic systems on
ground and surface
water quality. The purpose of these studies is to provide MPCA and local
government staff with
information useful for assessing potential impacts from septic systems. This
information can be
used in land use planning.
Baxter Study Objectives
In 1998, we conducted a ground water study in Baxter, Minnesota. The
Baxter-Branierd area
has experienced rapid growth in recent years, including residential
development with septic systems
(unsewered areas). We chose Baxter because of these changes in land use and
because there are
numerous recreational lakes in the area that could be impacted by discharges
from septic systems.
The objectives of the study were to
· compare ground water quality beneath sewered and unsewered residential
areas; and
· evaluate ground water quality within individual septic plumes.
Study Design
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the study area. The study area
encompasses
approximately 10 square miles. To compare water quality beneath sewered and
unsewered areas,
we sampled 40 domestic and 12 temporary wells at a variety of depths within
the aquifer
underlying the study area. Sampling was primarily for nitrate, but included
other chemicals such
as chloride, phosphorus, and sodium.
The septic systems studied did not meet the 3-foot vertical separation
distance from the
bottom of the drainfield to the seasonally high water table. This separation
distance is necessary
to provide treatment of most contaminants. Due to the seasonal nature of the
water table it is not
know what percent of the time the system is compliant with the separation
distance. It is also
unknown how seasonal variation of the water table affected the
characteristics of the plumes
studied.
For the second part of the study, we selected seven septic systems. These
were sites
located on lakes (See Figure 1). We drilled 15 to 25 holes at each site to
define the horizontal and
vertical extent of plumes originating from each septic system. We sampled
for Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs), bacteria, and a wide variety of inorganic chemicals.
What did we find?
Concentrations of nitrate were higher in unsewered areas (2.0 mg/L or parts
per million)
than in sewered areas (0.78 mg/L). There were three exceedances of the
drinking water standard
(10 mg/L) in shallow wells under unsewered areas, but only one exceedance in
a domestic well.
Concentrations of most other chemicals were statistically equal between the
two areas.
Chemical concentrations in septic effluent and within septic plumes were
similar to
concentrations found in other studies in the literature. Septic effluent is
characterized by
concentrations of ammonia, chloride, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, boron,
VOCs, and bacteria
that are higher than background concentrations in ground water. These
chemicals can reach
ground water beneath the drainfield, except for ammonia, which is converted
to nitrate in the soil
zone. Within a septic plume, concentrations of phosphorus, bacteria, and
VOCs decreased rapidly
and rarely traveled more than 30 feet from the drainfield. Chloride,
nitrate, sodium, and boron
traveled much further, from about 30 to over 500 feet. Nitrate
concentrations within the plume
exceeded the drinking water standard throughout much of the plume. No plume
extended to an
adjacent lake. A typical plume is shown in Figure 2.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Both non-complying and complying septic systems can impact ground water
quality.
Within individual plumes, concentrations of nitrate exceeded the drinking
water standard.
Concentrations of phosphorus and bacteria decreased rapidly within the
plume.
Caution should be exercised when applying the results for Baxter to other
areas. The
Baxter area may not be typical of many unsewered areas in Minnesota.
Additional studies should
be conducted in older, larger subdivisions, and adjacent to lakes that are
more sensitive to nitrate
contamination than the lakes in the Baxter area.
What is next?
We will attempt to replicate these studies in other areas of the state, so
that we can develop
a better understanding of septic impacts on water quality in a variety of
different settings. In 1999,
we will conduct septic system studies near St. Cloud and in Washington
County.
phosphorus (ppm)
nitrate (ppm)
-6
-3
0
3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Feet
Feet
Water table
Septic system Land surface
30
20 10
4.0 2.0
flow
10
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Winona] FW: waste planning
[Winona Online Democracy]
Thanks for your questions Janice. I'm sorry it has taken so long to
respond but I will answer your questions as best I can as quite a bit of
water has passed under the bridge since our presentation by the kind U of
M folks over two years ago.
There are many rural developments throughout the state that use various
types of septic systems and even some municipalities. There are also many
types of systems ranging from modern traditional systems (most often used
by the city of Winona today), mound systems, and cluster systems. When
designed, installed, and maintained correctly, all are more
environmentally respectful than traditional municipal systems and don't
require any discharge into a public water body.
You are correct in stating that typically a township/county resident in
an area zoned Ag/Natural resource has the opportunity to build one
non-farm dwelling per 40 acre parcel. There are some other considerations
and restrictions as well. However, given what we know today from the
participation of expert biologists, geologist, hydrologists, and the
experts at the DNR and MCEA, it is highly questionable that the sensitive
nature of the proposed Phillips development would allow even one house per
40 acres.
Other area government representatives were invited and did attend the
presentation by the U of M. Council members from the city of Winona
received written invitations and did not attend, which is also true of
skeptics and local personalities from Winona Radio and the Winona Daily
News. A highly respected reporter from the Winona Post did attend and
report on the presentation.
Mr. Nelson was correct in his 5/3/06 post in stating that the spreading
of sewage sludge is regulated (with limited success) by the MPCA. What he
didn't say is that once a field receiving this sludge receives a certain
amount of some elements contained in the sludge, it can NEVER EVER receive
anymore sewage sludge. What does that tell us? This is the reason why
the city of Winona has to find new fields it spread on every few years.
There are more environmentally sound and economically feasible treatment
system options for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems today than we have
fingers and toes.
In answer to some off-the-forum comments I've received; Pooping in a
bucket and burying it in your back yard is still far more environmentally
prudent than a municipal system that discharges "treated" water into a
public body of water and spreads concentrated sewage sludge onto crop
lands growing food. And in answer to that other question; No, I don't
think you should just hold it in, but judging from the tone of your
comments, apparently you have been for far too long.
Mike Kirschmann
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Keith Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Daren Engler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Winona] FW: waste planning
Thank you Mike for correcting misguided statements. I believe the public
deserves to know truths not cover-ups.
I know you have been highly involved with the Annexation on the Phillips
property. One of the City's arguments for justifying this development
was that
the City sewer and water was needed to "save" the environment where
septics
would cause outlandish destruction to the environment (according to the
City).
They justified this to a tune of several million dollars of tax payers
money to
run utilities out to a development that is quickly disinagrating and
becoming
harder and harder to justify the taxpayers money. Two failed EAWs point
in the
direction that this land is environmentally sensitive for any
development.
My understanding is if the developer used septics, his development would
need
to
be much smaller according to guidelines and ordinances. I recall that we
had
several experts from the University of Minnesota with PHD's behind their
name
and an enormous amount of expertise and experience in septics and the
environment, present the pros and cons of septics. The consensus
was, septics if managed properly in TODAYS standards, are one of the best
ways
to go for rural developments. Notice I say TODAYs standards. Septics
like
everything else have changed enormously over the last 30 years. When they
City
talks of failing septics and using the arguement of that they are bad for
the
environment they are often referring to septics of old and poorly
mangaged.
These experts used several examples of other developments that have run
safely
and securely for now as long as 30 years of collecting data They stressed
one
of the key factors is monitoring these developments and even had several
examples of how this is done which gets "buy in" from septic owners to
have
their septics taken care of.
Can you elaborate more on this as I know you did your research on itand
talked
to the experts at length.
I also do recall that most other governments in our area and agencies
involved
with environmental protection had someone at this presentation. The City
never sent a representative. Must have thought they had more expertise
and
knowledge in this area than the Big Guys from the Univ. of MN.
You would think since they are still in the
septic business with several locations including a good part of the old
Winona
Township and Prairie Island, with no immediate plans to change this,
they would
have wanted to learn more about this. UMM....
Janice Turek
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[Winona Online Democracy]
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected
officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
