[Winona Online Democracy] This study does not replicate conditions in most of Winona County and I would question why Baxter did not require holding tanks because of it. "The septic systems studied did not meet the 3-foot vertical separation distance from the bottom of the drain field 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."
Paul Double -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Olson's Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 8:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Winona] FW: waste planning [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='MPC A%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 _______________________________________________ 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
