United States Municipal Environmental Research EPA 600 8-82-009
Environmental Protection Laboratory July 1982
Agency Cincinnati ©H 45268
Research and Development
Management of
On-Site and
Small Community
Wastewater Systems
-------
EPA 600/8-82-0U9
MANAGEMENT OF ON-SITE
AND
SMALL COMMUNITY WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
by
Peter A. Ciotoli
Kenneth C. Wiswall
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Weston Way
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
Contract No. 68-03-2753
Project Officer
James F. Kreissl
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because
of increasing public and government concern about the dangers of
pollution to the health and welfare of the American people.
Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony
to the deterioration of our natural environment. The complexity
of that environment and the interplay between its components re-
quire a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in
problem solution, and it involves defining the problem, measur-
ing its impact, and searching for solutions. The Municipal En-
vironmental Research Laboratory develops new and improved tech-
nology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the
adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pol-
lution. This publication is one of the products of that re-
search; a most vital communications link between the researcher
and the user community.
There is an increasing awareness for the need to properly
manage small wastewater system design, installation, and opera-
tion to assure adequate long-term system performance. The Clean
Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) recognized that on-site and small
community wastewater systems, which are properly designed, in-
stalled, and maintained (i.e., managed) could be the most cost-
effective and environmentally-acceptable wastewater approach for
small communities and urban fringe areas. While Federal and
state agencies are promoting the use of small wastewater systems
where they are cost-effective, several significant institution-
al, attitudinal, and technological barriers inhibit their wide-
spread application.
Providing guidance for developing the institutional frame-
work for a comprehensive, well-structured management program is
a major objective of this document.
Francis T. Mayo
Director, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The document represents a relatively simple, yet comprehen-
sive guide to small communities and their engineers to develop
an effective and, hopefully, optimal management program for
alternative technologies which are appropriate to solving their
wastewater pollution problems. Although it is prepared to
respond to the requirements of the U.S. EPA Construction Grants
Program, the text is applicable to all existing small communities
wishing to optimize the performance of existing or planned on-site
or small community wastewater treatment and disposal systems. By
presenting optimum management program selection in a simple step-
by-step fashion, this guide permits the user to design the
appropriate program based on technical processes and physical,
economic and administrative constraints extant in the service
area.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No.
68-03-2753 by Roy F. Weston, Inc., under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the
period December 1978 to July 1981, and work was completed as of
November 1981.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures viii
Tables ix
Definitions xiii
Acknowledgements xv
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL GUIDANCE
1. Introduction and Background 3
Purpose of the report 3
Background 4
Management program development 8
Institutional factors in wastewater
management 12
Technical/institutional interactions 14
Management dimensions 14
2. Management Program Development Example 24
Case study area background 24
Initiation phase 25
Planning phase 26
Preparation of an operations plan 35
Preparation of a financial plan 40
PART II: ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
3. Selection of the Management Agency 59
Guide for management agency selection 59
Institutional options 70
Federal agencies 71
State agencies 71
Counties 75
Incorporated municipalities 75
Special purpose agencies 75
Public authorities 76
Nonprofit corporations 77
Private (for profit) corporations 78
Institutional overview 79
4. Formulating an Operations Plan 80
Guide for operations plan formulation 81
Institutional options related to system design
and installation 95
v
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
Regulating the design and installation of
on-site systems 97
State administration 97
State-local administration 99
Local administration 103
Regulating the design and installation of
small community systems 107
State administration 107
State-local administration ill
Institutional options for operation and main-
tenance 113
Providing for the operation and maintenance
of on-site systems 116
Maintenance by private entity 116
Maintenance by local government 119
Maintenance by specialized management
agency 12 3
Providing for the operation and maintenance
of small community systems 12 6
Maintenance by local government 126
Maintenance by private companies or con-
tractors 128
Maintenance by special purpose agencies. 131
Maintenance by nonprofit organizations.. 133
Institutional options -- residuals disposal .. 136
Public ownership and operation 137
Special agency ownership and operation . 141
Private ownership and operation 143
5. Formulating a Financial Plan 145
Guide for financial plan formulation 146
Institutional options for financing on-site
systems
Institutional options for financing small
community systems : 169
Institutional options for financing residuals
disposal 172
vi
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
6. Formulating an Implementation Plan 177
Guide for implementation plan
formulation 178
Institutional options fbr plan
implementation 186
Statewide assistance programs 186
Local third-party advisory
agreements 191
PART III: APPENDIX
Appendix . 194
III-l Sample Enabling Legislation 195
III-2 Service Agreements 216
III-3 Bibliography 222
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Management program development process 10
2 Wastewater management planning process 13
3 Technical/institutional issues in small wastewater
systems management 16
4 Areawide technical support services for wastewater
management systems 18
5 Management functions 19
6 On-site/cluster system for Easttown and Westtown .. 34
7 Project implementation schedule 53
8 Management program development planning steps 58
9 Typical relationship between operating costs and
service area size for conventional on-site sys-
tems 157
10 Typical relationship between operating costs and
service area size for small community systems .... 158
11 Septage management system for Acton, Massachu-
setts 173
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Parameters for Selection of Management Entity
Responsibilities 15
2 Management Dimensions 17
3 Appropriate Technologies for Easttown and West-
town 2 8
4 Pertinent Characteristics of Candidate Management
Agencies 30
5 Management Requirements Assessment Matrix 31
6 Functional Responsibilities Matrix -- Existing
Arrangement 37
7 Institutional Options for Easttown/Westtown Waste-
water Management Plan 39
8 Functional Responsibilities Matrix -- Proposed
Arrangement 41
9 On-site/Cluster System Capital Costs (1980 $) 44
10 Calculation of Management Agency Staff 45
11 Calculation of Operating Costs (Easttown and West-
town Sewer Authority) 47
12 On-site/Cluster System Financing Arrangement
Assumptions 49
13 Estimated User Charges for Easttown/Westtown
On-Site/Cluster System (1980 $) 51
14 Powers and Authorities of Management Organiza-
tions 63
15 Management Dimensions 64
16 Agencies and Groups that May Participate in Manage-
ment Plan Development 65
ix
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Number Page
17 Pertinent Characteristics of Institutions Avail-
able for Wastewater Management 66
18 Management Requirements Assessment Matrix 67
19 Evaluation Criteria for Selection of Management
Agencies 68
20 Management Agency Ranking Matrix 69
21 Wastewater Management Capabilities 72
22 Functions and Responsibilities of Management
Organizations 86
23 Technology/Functional Requirements Matrix 88
24 Alternative Approaches to Small Systems Manage-
ment -- Building Blocks in Institutional Anal-
ysis 89
25 Data Needs for Institutional Analysis 90
26 Institutional Needs Assessment Issues 91
27 Enforcement Methods -- Operations Plan Activi-
ties 92
28 Functional Responsibilities Matrix 93
29 Evaluation Criteria for Operations Plan Formula-
tion 94
30 Description of Design-Installation Functions 96
31 State Administration -- On-Site Systems 98
32 State-Local Administration -- On-Site Systems 100
33 Local Administration -- On-Site Systems 105
34 State Administration — Small Community Systems ... 109
x
-------
(continued)
Number Page
35 State-Local Administration -- Small Community
Systems 112
36 Description of Operation and Maintenance Func-
tions 114
37 Homeowner Maintenance -- On-site Systems 117
38 Local Units of Government -- On-Site Systems 120
39 Total Management Concept -- On-site Systems 124
40 Local Units of Government -- Small Community
Systems 127
41 Private Companies -- Small Community Systems 12 9
42 Special Purpose Agency — Small Community
Systems 13 2
43 Nonprofit Corporation -- Small Community Systems .. 134
44 Description of Residuals Disposal Functions 138
45 Public Ownership and Operation -- Residuals Dis-
posal 139
46 Special Agency Ownership and Operation -- Residuals
Disposal 142
47 Private Ownership and Operation -- Residuals
Disposal 144
48 Procedure for Assessing Capital Cost Requirements
for Management Agencies 153
49 Procedure for Calculating Local Share of
Capital Costs 154
xi
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Number Page
50 Estimating Program Staff Requirements 155
51 Calculation of Operating Costs 156
52 Calculation of Average Annual Program Costs to
Users 159
53 Methods for Financing Local Share 160
54 Alternative Cost Allocation Techniques 161
55 Alternative User Cost Collection Methods 162
56 Evaluation of Criteria for Financial Plan Formula-
tion 163
57 Abbreviated Institutional Options for On-Site
Management 16 5
58 Summary of Management Program Entities and Responsi-
bilities 181
59 Potential State Roles in Management Plan Implemen-
tation and Program Formulation 182
60 Typical Implementation Activities 183
61 Program Performance Criteria 185
62 Statewide Assistance Program Alternatives 188
63 Local Third-Party Advisory Agreement Alterna-
tives 192
xii
-------
DEFINITIONS
Brief definitions of the common terms and phrases utilized
in this report are provided below:
1. Small Wastewater Systems/Small Flows System --
Small wastewater systems include a broad range of
technologies that provide for the collection,
treatment, and/or disposal of wastewater, including
on-site, individual, alternative, cluster, and
small community systems.
2. Management -- The act or process of controlling,
directing, and handling a resource, facility, or a
group of people. The management of small wastewa-
ter systems includes any actions taken to ensure the
proper design, installation, and operation of these
systems.
3. Management Program -- In the context of this report,
the organized provision of services related to the
collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater.
A management program is developed after a number of
technology and management options have been eval-
uated.
4. Management Plan -- A strategy for implementing a
management program emphasizing the geographical,
cultural, governmental, and physical setting of the
study area, as well as technology requirements. A
wastewater management plan has both technical (or
engineering) and institutional components.
5. Management Functions -- Basic elements of a waste-
water management plan. They essentially represent
a range of services and responsibilities related to
the implementation of technical methods of treating
and disposing of wastewater.
xiii
-------
6. Management Agency -- The lead or principal institu-
tional entity which is designated to carry out key
management functions. The management agency is es-
sentially the formal administrative entity which
will make decisions, handle financial matters, and
supervise operation and maintenance activities.
7. Institutions -- Organizations such as general pur-
pose governmental, or nongovernmental entities, and
private interests involved in wastewater management.
8. Institutional Arrangements -- Combinations of exist-
ing or new governmental, or nongovernmental utili-
ties required to implement wastewater management
functions.
xiv
-------
ACK NOWL EDG EM E NTS
This project was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's Small Flows Research Program of the Municipal En-
vironmental Research Laboratory (MERL) located in Cincinnati,
Ohio. Mr. Don Niehus (formerly with the Small Flows Program and
currently with the Facilities Requirements Division, Office of
Water Program Operations in Washington, DC) originally served as
Project Officer. Mr. James Kreissl, the Small Flows Research
Program Manager, has been a special project advisor from the be-
ginning of the study. Both Mr. Niehus and Mr. Kreissl have pro-
vided valuable assistance and guidance in the preparation of
this report.
Much of the information in this publication is based on ac-
tual field experience in small wastewater systems management.
The numerous people interviewed during the case study phase of
this project deserve special thanks for their time, interest,
and knowledge. Their help and advice is appreciated. We hope
that the information presented meets their expectations, and
more importantly, assists in the implementation of small waste-
water systems management programs.
This document was prepared by Mr. Peter A. Ciotoli, AICP,
principal investigator on this project. Mr. Kenneth C. Wiswall,
P.E., was a major contributor to the preparation of this report,
offering ideas, comments, and guidance along the way. Mr. Glenn
M. Johnson, P.E. was the Project Manager, and the late Dr.
Andrew Breidenbach was the Project Director. The following peo-
ple also provided technical advice on preparation of the docu-
ment: Dr. Thomas J. Tuffey (now Project Director) , Mr. Van Dyke
Polhemus, Mr. Thomas Cadwallader, P.E. , and Dr. Richard S.
Greeley. Ms. Pat Saia was the principal report editor. Mr.
Robert Dzedzy, Ms. Teresa Wischerath, and Mr. Dale Thompson pre-
pared the report graphics. Mr. Irv Taylor, Ms. Gail Wilmer, and
Ms. Mary Anne Miller provided the word processing services for
the document.
xv
-------
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL GUIDANCE
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 2: Management Program Development Process
This part of the report gives an overview of the basic ele-
ments of the management program formulation process and offers
some general observations and recommendations to persons inter-
ested in forming management programs. An example is utilized to
illustrate the steps and decisions normally made in developing
a management program.
PART II
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
(Technical Reference For Active Users)
PART III
APPENDIX
(Working Materials)
1
-------
OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
It is not expected that this document alone will provide all
the information which might be required to understand the insti-
tutional elements of small wastewater systems management. Other
sources of information are available and should be reviewed in
conjunction with this report in addressing these issues, within
the broader context of wastewater management. Sources of infor-
mation that supplement and complement the material presented
herein are referenced in a recently prepared EPA strategy paper,
"A Strategy for Small Alternative Wastewater Systems. " Copies
can be obtained from:
Office of Water Program Operations (WH-595)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Another source of information on the technical literature
and EPA publications, as well as data on actual projects being
implemented under the Construction Grants Program is:
EPA Small Wastewater Flows Clearinghouse
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
(800) 624-8301
The Clearinghouse was established by Congress as part of the
1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act, and is funded and di-
rected by EPA.
2
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
There has been a growing interest in the concept of small
wastewater systems management over recent years. Due to the in-
creasing costs of constructing and maintaining conventional sew-
erage systems, the use of the nonconventional forms of wastewa-
ter management is being promoted, particularly in small communi-
ties and rural areas.
In recognition of the growing interest in small wastewater
systems, the EPA and other Federal and state agencies have de-
voted much attention to developing and refining the state-of-
the-art in small systems technology. Considerable research ef-
fort has been devoted to the study of performance characteris-
tics and design criteria for various types of small wastewater
systems and for septage handling technologies. The scope of
these Federal and state research efforts has been expanded to
address the institutional and regulatory issues involved in
applying alternative wastewater technologies.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report is devoted to investigation of the institutional
aspects of small wastewater systems management. Its underlying
theme is that through proper management, small wastewater sys-
tems can provide cost-effective, permanent methods of wastewater
disposal in rural and developing areas. Institutions at the
Federal, state, and local level play a critical role in the man-
agement of these systems. Federal and state agencies provide a
wide variety of small systems regulatory and management activi-
ties, including technical and financial assistance, policy set-
ting, promulgation of rules, regulations and legislation, and
code enforcement. The direct responsibility for regulating and
managing small wastewater systems has traditionally been dele-
gated to local government units (e.g., counties, municipalities,
and special purpose agencies), property owners, and the private
sector (e.g., septic system installers, septage haulers, and de-
velopers) .
3
-------
Given this complex institutional framework and the multitude
of agencies at different levels of government involved, the top-
ic of institutional analysis is one that deserves special atten-
tion by planners, engineers, and others involved in developing
small flows wastewater programs. This report explains the le-
gal, financial, administrative, and regulatory capabilities of
these institutions, as well as describes their typical and po-
tential involvement in managing small wastewater systems. The
intent of the report is to assist participants in the EPA 201
Construction Grants Program and related Federal, state, and lo-
cal water quality wastewater and land use management programs in
developing effective institutional arrangements to manage small
wastewater systems.
This report provides information and guidance to persons interested in
developing and evaluating programs to manage small wastewater systems.
These management programs involve the application of various types of
institutional arrangements which specify who will design, build, operate,
maintain, and finance these small wastewater systems.
BACKGROUND
The impetus for this study resulted from a series of Fed-
eral statutes and policies addressing small flow systems, and
the related need to develop and refine the available informa-
tion base concerning the synthesis of institutional arrangements
for small wastewater systems management. Much of the informa-
tion presented in this document is a result of a series of case
studies prepared during the first phase of the study. The back-
ground discussion presents highlights of the appropriate Federal
guidance and case studies.
The subject of institutional arrangements for managing small wastewater
systems Is now recognized as a critical component in the process of
formulating and implementing a wastewater management plan for a
community.
4
-------
Until recently, conventional centralized sewerage facilities
were generally considered to be the most reliable and most log-
ical means of dealing with a community's wastewater services
needs. As centralized facilities were constructed and operated
over the years, it became apparent that large projects or tra-
ditional designs might not be the most cost-effective solution
in some cases. For many small rural and suburban communities,
the necessary capital and operating costs for conventional sys-
tems can create undue financial burdens on individual homeown-
ers, as well as the community at large.
This problem was recognized to some degree in the 1972
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL
92-500) which charged the EPA Administrator with investigating
appropriate rural wastewater management alternatives. Subse-
quent areawide water quality management planning efforts (spe-
cified in Section 208 of PL 92-500) clearly identified the need
for better managed individual on-site wastewater systems and
lower cost small community systems. Certain 208 studies speci-
fically proposed on-site and small community systems as alter-
natives, to centralized treatment facilities. EPA had already
expanded its studies of various aspects of on-site and small
community treatment technology to define the state-of-the-art
for different technologies related to this field.
The impact of conventional sewerage project costs on small
communities was first officially recognized by the EPA Construc-
tion Grants Program in 1976 througn a Program Requirements
Memorandum (PRM 76-3) which called for disclosure of individual
user costs. This issue was also addressed in several EPA memo-
randa dealing with the grant eligibility of individual systems,
and the encouragement of less costly treatment systems for small
communities.
Individual and alternative systems were given furtner atten-
tion by certain provisions of PL 95-217, the 1977 Clean Water
Act. Incentives for considering such systems were provided pri-
marily through funding individual systems, and the allocation
of state-level "set-aside" funds for innovative and alternative
wastewater system construction grants for small communities.
PRM 79-8 provided further clarification of PL 95-217 and the
EPA Construction Grants Program regulations pertaining to small
wastewater systems.
Given these incentives, many states are actively encouraging
the application of alternative wastewater management systems. A
number of states had established programs dealing with individ-
ual and/or small community systems prior to the Federal program
5
-------
incentive actions. However, even with these ongoing state pro-
grams, Federal incentives, and the currently changing attitude
toward alternative systems, the actual implementation of alter-
native wastewater management systems is occurring only grad-
ually.
Recent Federal guidance on small wastewater system manage-
ment issues is presented in two EPA strategy papers:
1. "1990 Preliminary Draft Strategy for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment," Office of Water and
Waste Management, Washington, D.C., January
1981.
2. "A Strategy for Small Alternative Wastewater
Systems," Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington, D.C., December 1980.
The objective of the 1990 strategy is to develop a manage-
ment and funding approach to the Construction Grants Program in
the 1980's, that would achieve state self-sufficiency in funding
and overall management capability, and maintain the national
perspective of the program among the states. This strategy is
based on the premise that small communities need guidance and
assistance from EPA and state agencies in wastewater facilities
planning, funding, and related management activities.
The Small Alternative Wastewater Systems (SAWS) Strategy
develops a comprehensive planning and management approach to
promote the implementation and improve the performance of small
flows systems.
Available Federal guidance and past experience in many communities
demonstrate the need to carefully design the process for wastewater
management planning to account for the special qualities, characteristics
and sensitivities of the local residents and agencies; i.e., institutional
concerns.
6
-------
Much of the information presented in this report is a result
of 18 case studies; nine community case studies and nine state
case studies, conducted by the authors.-'- Many of the manage-
ment experiences and planning approaches applied in these case
studies have been incorporated into this report.
The case studies included field visits to a range of state
and local management programs that were funded by the EPA Con-
struction Grants Program, as well as those that were funded lo-
cally, or by state or Federal agencies. The insights gained
through these case studies, and supplemental literature reviews
point out the necessity of clearly defining institutional and
organizational responsibilities in order to achieve successful
and viable wastewater management programs. A successful manage-
ment program is characterized by a combination of technical, in-
stitutional, and financial elements.
Key factors to success in formulating small community wastewater
management programs include:
1. Public acceptance and local political support.
2. Funding availability - reasonable costs.
3. Visibility and accountability of local leaders.
4. Capability and skills of technical/field staff.
5. Availability of creative, professional advisors.
6. Clear and concise legal authority, regulations, and
enforcement mechanisms.
Satisfying these key ingredients in a successful management
program can be a difficult and involved process. Many small
communities are unincorporated and have unpaid and part-time of-
ficials, who may not have strong technical knowledge in waste-
water management, nor adequate understanding and experience in
l-For state and local case study summaries, refer to the Interim
Study Report, Management of On-Site and Small Community Waste-
water Systems, U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Lab-
oratory, M687, by Roy F. Weston, Inc., November 1979.
7
-------
dealing with other levels of government. These factors and
others discussed in this report influence how the planning proc-
ess must be approached.
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
A program to manage small wastewater systems may be devel-
oped for many reasons. The program may be developed in response
to a specific water pollution condition, or prepared to avoid
such problems in the future. In either case, the community must
decide what wastewater services must be provided. It must then
develop a program that provides the institutional structure with
which to carry out these essential services. The institutional
structure (an arrangement of public and private organizations)
will constitute the mechanism for setting and enforcing regula-
tions, performing" system inspections and maintenance, and moni-
toring program performance.
Wastewater management services are provided through a program—a mix
of institutions and procedures, developed through a series of major
phases, i.e., initiation, planning, implementation, and facility start-up.
To develop a workable management program, it is essential
that rural wastewater facilities be simple in design, operation,
and maintenance, and that the management system also be simple.
Furthermore, the management system must:
1. Have sufficient local support and legal
authority.
2. Be flexible enough to adapt to changing
demands.
3. Have a reasonable homeowner cost structure.
4. Be effective in achieving the desired
objectives.
8
-------
Developing a management program to serve the requirements
described may not be a simple task. The program development
process can be described as four distinct phases of program
analysis and change. These phases represent different stages of
planning and implementation that apply in general to any man-
agement program. They are illustrated on Figure 1, and des-
cribed as follows:
1. Initiation Phase -- Actions and activities
leading to the preparation of a "Plan of Study"
which documents the wastewater management
needs of a community and presents a general
methodology for developing tecnnical and
management solutions. Specific activities
include:
a. Organizing a program development team.
b. Developing program goals and objectives.
c. Preliminary assessment of need; plan of
study.
d. Initiating public participation activities.
e. Acquisition of planning funds.
2. Planning Phase -- Detailed study of alternative
wastewater systems and institutional arrangements
(including legal, financial, and organizational
requirements), and development of recommended
management plan. This phase is synonymous with
Step 1 of the 201 facilities planning process,
whereby a recommended wastewater management
plan is prepared, and more importantly, an
institutional framework is established where
changes to the management system can evolve
to meet changing requirements as the waste-
water system is being designed, built, and
ultimately put into operation. The following
are typical planning phase activities:
a. Assessment of existing wastewater system
performance, physical area constraints,
and institutional/regulatory characteriza-
tion.
b. Identification and preliminary evaluation
of technical options.
9
-------
Facility Start-Up Phase
• Formulate Program Policies
• Carry-out Regulatory and
Operational Activities
• Program Administration
Initiation Phase
• Organize Program
Development Team
• Develop Study Goals
and Objectives
• Outline Scope of
Study and Participants
Implementation Phase
• Establish Management Agency
and Program Structure
• Obtain Official Approvals
• Secure Financing
• Design and Construct Facilities
• Problem Assessment
• Alternatives Analysis
• Evaluation and Recommendations
Planning Phase
Figure 1. Management program development process.
10
-------
c. Identification and preliminary evaluation
of institutional options.
d. Formulation and evaluation of wastewater
management alternatives.
- Operations plan.
- Financial plan.
e. Final plan recommendations.
- Implementation plan.
3. Implementation Pnase -- Design and construction
of wastewater facilities, securing financing,
and creation of new management entities as
required. These activities take place during
the Steps 2 and 3 design-construction phase of
the Construction Grants program. It is
important in this phase of program development
to refine the elements of the management
system as the following activities are
accomplished:
a. Establish the management program.
b. Obtain official approvals and legal
agreements.
c. Secure financing for design-construction.
d. Design and build the wastewater facilities.
4. Facility Start-Up Phase -- Day-to-day program
administration and system operations involved
in carrying out regulatory and operation and
maintenance functions. Typical activities
include:
a. Develop and refine operational, financial,
regulatory, and administrative policies.
b. Enforce regulations.
c. Implement policies.
d. Inspect, maintain, and repair wastewater
systems.
11
-------
e.
f.
Initiate capital improvement projects.
Finance system operations; collect user
charges.
The emphasis of this report is on the planning phase of program
development, i.e., all activities involved in preparing a management plan.
The focus of this report is to assist in the preparation of
a wastewater management plan, i.e., the planning phase. During
the preparation of the plan, various technical and institutional
issues will be evaluated in tandem. The sequence of planning
activities is displayed on Figure 2. The chapters in Part II of
this report provide guidance in formulating the institutional
arrangements necessary to perform the required activities in the
planning phase, particularly addressing:
1. Institutional/regulatory characterization
(i.e., a profile of existing agency respon-
sibilities, activities, and legal authority) .
2. Description of management functions.
3. Identification and description of alternative
institutional arrangements to perform
management functions.
4. Procedures for analyzing alternative
institutional arrangements.
5. Plan implementation requirements and mechanisms
for implementing plan recommendations.
These requirements are discussed in detail in Part II of
this report, in terms of the operations plan, the financial
plan, and the implementation plan. Illustrative examples of
these plans are developed for a hypothetical community in
Chapter 2.
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Developing a sound, comprehensive wastewater management pro-
gram involves consideration of applicable wastewater technolo-
gies and effective institutional arrangements. The analysis of
technical options and institutional arrangements is typically a
major part of the Step 1 facilities planning process. These
12
-------
1
r~
Technology Options
• Continued Use of Systems
• Alternative Systems
• Conventional Systems
Institutional Options
• Existing Agencies
• Modified Agency Structure
• New Agencies
Management Requirements
• Functions-Activities
• Approaches
• Structure
• System Ownership Status
Final Recommendations
• Select and Review Final Plan
• Define Implementation Steps:
- Program Administration
- Schedules and Responsibilities
Assess Existing Situation
• Wastewater Systems Performance
• Physical Area Characteristics
• Institutional-Regulatory Characterization
- Legal Authority
- Financial Capability
- Organizational Constraints
Alternatives Development and Evaluation
• Formulate Management Alternatives
- Technical Configurations
- Management Approaches
- Institutional Alternatives
- Financial Alternatives
• Evaluate Management Alternatives
- Technical Evaluation
- Institutional Evaluation
- Public Input and Comments
Figure 2. Wastewater management planning process.
13
-------
analyses form a major part of trie array of complete wastewater
management alternatives which are evaluated on the basis of
cost-effectiveness and environmental impact to select a rec-
ommended plan for the community. The organizational structure
developed in the process will form the basis of a wastewater
management program. This program will identify the methods for
operating, maintaining, and financing the chosen wastewater
facility.
An institutional analysis must define the appropriate dimensions of a
management program, given the technical requirements of a particular
wastewater system.
Several important factors must be analyzed when assessing
these technical and institutional considerations. They include
•service area characteristics, type of wastewater system applied,
scope of management functions, and alternative management ap-
proaches. These factors are listed in Table 1, as key param-
eters for determining appropriate management agency responsibil-
ities. The assessment of these critical factors will nelp to
define the dimensions and comprehensiveness of the management
prog ram.
Technical/Institutional Interactions
The successful management of on-site and small community
wastewater systems involves the interface of technical and in-
stitutional issues, requiring engineering, environmental, legis-
lative, socioeconomic, and administrative considerations. The
analysis and significance of these concerns will vary on a com-
munity basis. Each state and substate political unit (township,
county, village) may have unique institutional approaches for
managing small community wastewater systems based on needs, per-
ceptions, and circumstances. The formation of specific manage-
ment programs for a particular community will evolve as a com-
plex set of issues addressed by local public officials, citi-
zens, and state regulatory agency personnel. Figure 3 illus-
trates the critical relationships between these technical and
institutional issues which are commonly addressed in the plan-
ning process.
Management Dimensions
The initial assessment of institutional arrangements in se-
lecting a particular management approach is one of the critical
steps in formulating a program for managing small wastewater
14
-------
TABLE 1. PARAMETERS FOR SELECTION OF MANAGEMENT
ENTITY RESPONSIBILITIES
Service Area Characteristics
Multiple or single jurisdictional area.
Land use and population distribution.
Growth prospects.
Governmental structure and organizational arrangements.
Willingness of local agencies to accept new
responsibilities.
Willingness of private homeowners to assume certain
responsibilities.
i
Socioeconomic characteristics, of service area.
Performance of existing wastewater systems.
Type of Wastewater Technology
On-site or cluster versus community treatment and
disposal.
Surface versus subsurface disposal.
Level of operation/maintenance requirements.
Design and construction requirements.
Domestic waste flows versus industrial and
commercial wastewater generated.
Scope of Management Responsibility
Short-term or long-term responsibility.
Remedial versus preventive solutions.
System ownership/liability responsibilities.
Regulatory or advisory perspective by management entity.
Degree of public sector involvement in management.
15
-------
Environmental -Concerns
• Physical Conditions
• Climatic Conditions
• Water Quality
• Adequacy of Treatment
as
Engineering Concerns
• Suitable Design
• Appropriate Technology
• Operating Condition
• Performance/Reliability
• Residuals Volume/
Characteristics
Jl
^ I Technical 1
V Issues J
Legislative Concerns
• Adequacy of Existing
Institutional Arrangements
• Legal Requirements
(Federal/State)
• Relationships Among
Affected Agencies
• Planning/Enforcement/
Operating Capabilities
Maintenance Requirements
Improvements/Repairs
Surveillance Needs
Ownership Status
Operational Procedures
Regulatory Provisions
Financial Planning
Economic Concerns
• Fiscal Equity
• Ability to Pay
• Ability to Generate Necessary
Revenue
• Grant/Loan Availability
• Accountability
• Borrowing Capacity
• Future Growth Potential
Institutional
Issues
Administrative Concerns
• Record-keeping Practices
• Decision-making Process
• Staffing Capability
• Regulatory Requirements
• Formal and Informal
Interagency- Relationships
Social Concerns
• Willingness to Assume
Responsibility
• Public Support
• Educational Program
Figure 3. Technical/institutional issues in small wastewater
systems management.
-------
systems. The assessment of institutional arrangements should
define the various dimensions of the management program. The
dimensions to be defined are shown in the following table.
TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT DIMENSIONS
Dimensions
Range in
Concepts
Time Frame
Interim solutions
.. Long-term solutions
Size
Local jurisdiction ...
.. Regional jurisdiction
Purpose
Limited purpose
.. Broad-based/
comprehensive
purpose
Structure
Existing agency
.. New agencies
Authority/
Liability
Private sector/home- .
owner responsibilities
.. Public sector
responsibilities
Staging
Phased implementation
.. Immediate start-up
Ag reements
Service agreements - .
memoranda of under-
standing
.. Special legislation,
codes and regulations
The time frame dimension suggests that management programs
nave the flexibility to provide services on either a temporary
or permanent basis. Certain economic, political, and technical
decisions must be made in assessing the benefits of managing
wastewater systems to avoid system failures and prolong system
performance life, against the risk of recurring future failures
without such management. These decisions will determine when a
management program should be instituted, and establish the
short- and long-term objectives to be achieved.
Time Frame:
1. Will the management program be a permanent
solution or an interim measure?
2. Where in the process of plan development and
program formulation is the user situated?
17
-------
The type of management agency and tne geographical area
(i.e., size) to be served are not totally independent. Service
area size, together with the scope of services offered, will de-
termine management staff needs. This in turn affects the choice
of a management agency. Figure 4 illustrates the concern for
size, choice of management agency, and services provided. a
special district created by a rural community, for example, may
not be well suited to provide technical support services to a
county or watershed. At the same time, consolidation of respon-
sibilities in a single entity can offer a mechanism for provid-
ing expertise and skills (normally beyond the means of small
communities) to perform system design, installation, operations,
and financing duties for the entire region.
Size:
1. What is the geographic size of the area to be served?
2. is the area compatible with a local public jurisdiction?
3. Is sufficient manpower available within an institutional structure to service
the area under study?
4. Does service area size affect the type of institution required to manage the
wastewater systems?
5. Does service area size affect the type of technologies to be considered
(and, in turn, the needed management functions)?
Rural
Community
Regional Area
(Watershed, County or
Groups of Municipalities)
Urban
Area
Technical
Support
Services
Area for
Development
Rural
Community
Scattered
Development
Figure 4. Areawide tecnnical support services for wastewater
management systems.
18
-------
For these reasons, alternative approaches and policies re-
garding the size of the area to be served and the type of man-
agement agency to be formed should be evaluated together.
A management program can have a single or multiple purpose
related to providing wastewater, water supply, and septage man-
agement services. The program may be one of the general public
services a local government provides, or the program can be or-
iented solely for the purpose of wastewater management. Regard-
less of the objectives of the program, wastewater management
policies should at least be coordinated with the local public
service programs and land use policies.
Purpose:
1. Should the management program be limited to
wastewater management, or should other utilities
be included (e.g., water supply)?
2. What is the range of functions to be provided (i.e.,
a broad set of management functions or only a few
functions)?
The management program purpose also helps to define the
types of functions which constitute its administrative, regula-
tory, and operational components. (See Figure 5.) Basic
choices regarding the type of functions to be provided will
affect the responsibilities that management entities must accept.
System Design
Financial
and Legal
Planning
C
Operation and
Maintenance
Education
Management
Functions
Installation
or Construction
Supervision
Programa
Coordination
Inspection and
Monitoring
*
Figure 5. Management functions.
The structure of the organization will depend on pertinent
statutory authority and enabling legislation that define the
composition and responsibilities of various entities. The de-
19
-------
termination of structure will also depend on the capability and
willingness of existing agencies to perform management func-
tions. New organizations may be created or existing agency
functions can be reorganized in determining structural require-
ments.
Structure:
1.
Can new agencies be created to provide management
functions on a localized basis, or can existing ones
be modified?
2.
How will the agency be staffed; full-time employees,
part-time employees, volunteers, or contract to
private firms?
3.
What will be the organizational relationship between
the management agency and the participating
municipalities?
Local management approaches should explicitly identify
authorities and liabilities assumed by management agencies,
property owners, installers, septage haulers, consultants, etc.
The delegation of authority will affect many management func-
tions. Tne degree of public sector involvement and authority in
performing management functions is a key dimension that distin-
guishes various wastewater management approaches. The extent of
authority assigned the management agency will determine the
scope of its duties, the finances required for operation, and
the personnel necessary to perform its functions.
Authority/Liability:
1.
Will the wastewater systems be publicly or privately
owned?
2.
How will the wastewater systems be operated and
maintained?
3.
Who will bear the costs of future system repairs and
replacements?
4.
Will existing regulatory entities continue to exercise
regulatory authority over wastewater system
design and maintenance, or will new regulatory
entities be created?
5.
How will the necessity of replacing an existing on-site
system be determined?
6.
Will both existing and new on-site systems be included
in the management program or only new systems?
7.
What is the extent of authority to be provided; advisory,
managerial, or regulatory?
20
-------
Liability issues become pronounced when decisions are made
regarding local government involvement in wastewater management
responsibilities. Many times local governments appear to be re-
luctant to become directly involved in wastewater management ac-
tivities, even though they may already have the power to do so.
Inspecting both functioning and malfunctioning systems, for
example, places a certain degree of liability or risk on the in-
specting agency. Agency officials, for example, worry about
damaging the wastewater system during the inspection process.
They are also concerned that homeowners will blame the inspect-
ing agency for future problems with the system. These inspec-
tions can take place in the facilities planning and design proc-
ess, as well as during operational activities of a management
program.
Many technical decisions must be made before the management
design process is completed. Performing all functions related
to the implementation of technical plan recommendations, e.g.,
acquiring easements and land for cluster systems or septage dis-
posal sites, may affect the implementation of the management
program. Certain powers may need to be exercised (e.g., prop-
perty rights acquisitions, condemnation proceedings) before
others (e.g., system design and construction), which would af-
fect the management program design and implementation process.
Also, additional functions may be added after system construc-
tion. The point of intervention of these decisions and actions
in the planning process also affects management program design.
Assessing where you are in the program formulation process,
i.e., in initial planning phases, design-approval phases, or
post-construction/operational phases, is a critical concern in
influencing the staging of program powers and authority.
Staging:
1. How will future system extensions be determined?
2. When is public agency intervention in the planning process and program
formulation process required?
Assigning responsibilities for wastewater management to cer-
tain entities, necessitates the preparation of certain legal
agreements (e.g., codes and ordinances). This is a very im-
portant step in the management program formulation process, and
is one which is not to be taken lightly. Obtaining agreements
among agencies, between public and private entities, and adopt-
ing the necessary legislation and regulations must be accom-
plished before the overall composition and structure of the
management program can be finalized.
21
-------
Agreements:
1. Does adequate legal authority exist?
2. Do new or modified interagency arrangements, legislation,
or ordinances need to be established?
3. Do agreements with property owners need to be acquired?
This chapter has highlighted the major factors to be con-
sidered in developing institutional arrangements for a partic-
ular area. The discussion has pointed out several significant
institutional, attitudinal, and technological barriers that in-
hibit the widespread application of small wastewater systems
management programs.
Overcoming these institutional and attitudinal barriers ne-
cessitates the following actions:
1. The process of allocating grants for wastewater
facility planning, design, and construction from
numerous Federal agencies to state and local en-
tities should be simplified and publicized to fa-
cilitate participation of small communities in
wastewater management planning.
2. Educational and public awareness programs are neces-
sary to increase the visibility and applicability
of small flows management programs to both the pro-
fessional and nonprofessional community.
3. Institutional relationships, legislation, and regula-
tions pertaining to small flows systems should be
clear and effective.
4. Guidance concerning acceptable management approaches
and institutional arrangements should be made avail-
able to state and local planners and engineers.
22
-------
5. The special characteristics of small communities
need to be recognized and properly dealt with by
state officials and consultants in order to prepare
implementable plans.
Providing guidance for developing the institutional require-
ments for a comprehensive, well-structured management program is
a major objective of this document.
23
-------
CHAPTER 2
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLE
This chapter illustrates a procedure for developing institu-
tional arrangements for managing wastewater treatment and dis-
posal facilities for small communities, utilizing a hypothetical
community situation. The purpose of this hypothetical community
example is to identify the various institutional conflicts that
arise and related decisions that are made during the first two
phases of management program development; the initiation phase
and the planning phase. These activities are typically address-
ed in facilities planning, i.e., Step 1 of the Construction
Grants Program.
Suggestions on the type of information that should be devel-
oped at different points in the planning process and how the in-
formation should be applied is also described. The chapters in
Part II present more detailed information to support the anal-
ysis sequence used for the example presented here.
CASE STUDY BACKGROUND
Tne example used throughout this chapter will refer to a hy-
pothetical service area consisting of the corporate limits of
two neighboring rural communities, Easttown and Westtown. The
following are important community features:
1. There are about 450 homes in the two towns,
which are predominantly older homes on small
lots.
2. The towns are nearly completely built-up and
have no growth projected over the next 20 years.
3. On-site systems, including septic tank-soil
absorption systems, cesspools, and straight
pipe discharges to streams, are currently
employed. In Easttown and Westtown, about
20 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of
the homes, have failing on-site systems.
24
-------
4. The towns have a high proportion of households
with fixed incomes and limited ability to pay
for improved wastewater services.
Due to the perceived health and pollution problems associa-
ted with failing on-site systems, the enforcement section of the
state environmental protection agency threatened legal action
against the town residents whose systems were malfunctioning
(as evident through surface breakouts and straight-pipe dis-
charges to the surface water).
The towns entered into a facilities planning process to de-
termine the most feasible, cost-effective method of wastewater
treatment and disposal. Several wastewater management options
were evaluated in the planning process. A combination of indi-
vidual and small community systems was determined to be the best
technical solution, and a management authority was formed to de-
sign, build, and administer the operation of the community sys-
tems and manage existing and future individual systems in the
service area.
INITIATION PHASE
Organizing a program development team was a key activity in
this initial phase of the planning process in Easttown and West-
town. Each town set up a sewer advisory committee made up of
elected officials and selected local residents. (Persons with
engineering, business finance, and law backgrounds were repre-
sented on the committee.) Neither town had a full-time profes-
sional staff to guide the facilities planning activities. The
water resource planning section of the state environmental pro-
tection agency (which is in cnarge of administering the Con-
struction Grants Program) offered assistance to the towns in
retaining a consultant and organizing the public participation
effort. A county-based cooperative extension service agent
served as a special advisor to the towns, and provided an
important liaison and coordination role between the towns, and
among the other participants -- the state, county, consultant,
general public, and news media.
The county agencies decided not to directly participate in
the initial planning phase, because of a lack of familiarity
with small community wastewater technology and initial reluc-
tance to become involved in performing any of the system manage-
ment activities. This situation illustrates some of the politi-
cal difficulties faced by small communities in dealing with
other levels of government.
25
-------
Information presented in Chapter 3, "Selecting a Management
Agency," and Chapter 6, "Formulating an Implementation Plan,"
will be helpful in identifying potential participants in the
program development team.
PLANNING PHASE
The principal analysis steps in the planning phase (and as-
sociated references to Part II of this report), as generally
described in the previous chapter, include:
Step
Reference
Step 1 -- An evaluation of
the physical characteristics
of the community and an
assessment of existing and
optional wastewater tech-
nology.
Step 2 -- An institutional
analysis of existing agen-
cies and an identification
and preliminary evaluation
of institutional options.
Step 3 -- The formulation
and evaluation of wastewater
management alternatives.
Step 4 -- Implementation
plan.
The technical evaluation
steps are conducted as
part of the technical
plan analysis.
These institutional
analysis steps are
conducted in Chapter 3
of this report, "Selec-
tion of the Management
Agency."
Information necessary
to formulate and evaluate
management alternatives
is available in Chapters
4 and 5 of this report;
"Formulating an Opera-
tions Plan," and "Formula-
ting a Financial Plan."
This final step is presented
in Chapter 6, "Formulating
an Implementation Plan."
26
-------
Step 1: Identification and preliminary evaluation of technical
options.
Based on an assessment of septic system operational perform-
ance, soil characteristics, and other physical study area char-
acteristics, technical alternatives are evaluated. In this case
the following general technical options were prepared for pre-
liminary consideration:
Option 1-- Correct Problems on an Individual Basis --
Tnis option requires the individual property owner to
make necessary repairs or improvements to his on-site
system at his own expense. There would be no Federal
or state funding, and in some cases an on-site solution
might not be possible due to physical constraints.
Option 2 -- On-Site/Cluster System -- Serve only problem
areas with centralized collection and treatment/disposal
facilities, creating "cluster" systems. Homes outside
these service areas would continue to rely on on-site
systems, but a publicly-operated maintenance program
would be required to ensure proper management of indi-
vidual systems.
Option 3 -- Communitywide Collection/Treatment System --
Each town would be connected to its own central treatment
facility. Some form of sewer collection system would serve
all residential and nonresidential units within each town's
limits.
Option 4 -- Joint Collection/Treatment System -- The
sewage from both towns would be collected and treated
at one central treatment facility. The economies of
scale should result in a relatively lower cost per
unit served.
The wastewater technologies determined to be most appropri-
ate in this case, under the various technical options consider-
ed, are given in Table 3.
27
-------
TABLE 3. APPROPRIATE
TECHNOLOGIES FOR EASTTOWNI AND WEST TOWN
Option
Type(s) of Wastewater Systems Involved
Correct problems on
an individual basis
Standard individual septic tank and
drainfield as allowed under existing
state regulations. Alternative on-site
systems (e.g., mound, pressure dosing,
etc.) as approved by state regulatory
agency.
On-site/cluster
system
Standard and alternative on-site sys-
tems as above. Small community collec-
tion and treatment/disposal systems
(e.g., small diameter gravity, vacuum,
or pressure sewers and dosing/mounds)
serving clusters of homes.
Separate communitywide
collection/treatment
systems
Septic tank effluent pump (STEP) pres-
sure sewer system with centralized
treatment facility (facultative lagoon
and spray irrigation).
Joint collection/
treatment system.
Same as for communitywide system.
Step 2: Institutional analysis of existing agencies and
identification and preliminary evaluation of institutional
options.
This step begins to address the selection of management
agencies. The purpose of this task is to identify and screen
likely candidates based on their legal and general administra-
tive capabilities to manage the wastewater technology under con-
sideration. The agencies selected to perform management func-
tions must be vested with the powers necessary to efficiently
manage the wastewater systems involved.
28
-------
Existing agencies and wastewater management responsibilities
in the study area include:
1. State Department of Health -- Enforcement of
state sanitary code governing on-site and
alternative wastewater systems (i.e., non-
surface water discharges) .
2. State Environmental Protection Agency -- Enforce-
ment of regulations governing surface-water dis-
charges, issuance of NPDES permits, and general
water quality protection responsibilities. Ad-
ministration of the EPA Construction Grants
Program.
3. County Departments of Health -- Authority to
implement the state sanitary code through per-
mitting on-site systems, inspecting and order-
ing repairs of failing systems.
Various legal and organizational characteristics of local
agencies which are authorized under state enabling legislation
to perform wastewater management functions (i.e., incorporated
towns, sewer utility districts, and sewer authorities), appear
in Tables 4 and 5. Limited interviews with existing wastewater
management agencies and a detailed review of enabling legisla-
tion, present operating powers, and ordinances will be neces-
sary to complete Tables 4 and 5.
As shown in the tables, each agency generally has suffi-
cient legal authority for providing management requirements.
In this example, the County Department of Health, however, is
more effective in providing regulatory functions rather than
financing functions for the locality. One potential statutory
drawback of the district and authority options is the lack of
clear legal capability to enter private property to perform
on-site system inspections and correct problems. The enabling
legislation does define the ability of a district and authority
to inspect and maintain sewerage systems (connecting more than
one home), but not individual systems. Depending on the legal
interpretation of state enabling legislation, the management
agencies being considered may not have the specific legal
authority to carry out certain necessary functions.
Two approaches to solving tnis problem are to petition the
legislature to either enact special legislation authorizing the
creation of entities with explicit on-site management responsi-
bilities, or to change state laws that define the powers of ex-
isting central wastewater system management entities (by allow-
ing them to manage on-site systems). If it appears unlikely
29
-------
TABLE 4. PERTINENT CHARACTERISTICS OF CANDIDATE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
Institution
Incorporated
Applicable
Statute
Citation
Town
charter
Jurisdiction
Service Area
Town limits
Formation
Existing
agency
Governing
Body
Town
council
County utility State
district code
Any contiguous
territory within
county
Petition by
voters or
resolution
by county
supervisors
County
supervisors
Water or sewer
authority
County health
department
State
code
State
code and
county
ord inance
County, city,
town, village,
or any
combination
County
Resolution
by govern-
ning body
authori zing
a local
referendum
Existing
agency
Board of
at least
five mem-
bers, ap-
pointed by
governing
body.
County
supervisors
Comments
Towns pro-
vide lim-
ited public
services.
Several
utility dis-
tricts al-
ready estab-
lished with-
in the
county.
A few
authorities
exist in
county.
Full range
of on-site
system en-
forcement
authority.
-------
u>
TABLE 5.
MANAGEMENT
REQUIREMENTS
ASSESSMENT
MATRIX
Institutions
Manaqement Requirements
Sewer Utility
County Health
Towns
Districts
Sewer Authority
Department
Administrative Requirements
Yes
No Partial
Yes
No
Part ial
Ye 8
No
Partial
Yes No
Partial
• System ownership capability
X
X
X
X
• Enter contracts
X
X
X
X
• Acquire property
X
X
X
X
• Sue or be sued
X
X
X
X
Requlatory Requirements
• Set rules and requlations
X
X
X
X
• Enforce rules and regulations
X
X
X
X
• License private contractors
X
X
X
X
• Require connection to facility
or
participation in management program X
X
X
X
Operation and Maintenance (OfcM) Requirements
• Access to private property
X
X
X
X
• Establish OfcM standards
X
X
X
X
• Perform periodic inspections
X
X
X
X
• Enforce repairs
X
X
X
X
• Compliance monitoring
X
X
X
X
Financinq Requirements
• Set user charges and fees
X
X
X
X
• Collect user charges and fees
X
X
X
X
• Accept grants
X
X
X
X
• Incur debt
X
X
X
X
• Issue revenue bonds
X
X
X
X
• Issue general obligation bonds
X
X
X
X
• Require performance bonds
X
X
X
X
• Assess property taxes
X
X
X
X
• Levy special assessments
X
X
X
X
• Establish reserve funds
X
X
X
X
-------
that necessary enabling legislation will be enacted, other man-
agement options must be considered. (These options are dis-
cussed in subsequent steps of the analysis.)
Other institutional issues identified through the institu-
tional analysis include:
1. The state agencies, and County Department
of Health staffs expressed concern over
reviewing and approving certain types of
innovative and alternative technology,
particularly those which were not currently
used in the state and were not explicitly
addressed in the state regulations.
2. The County Health Department staff suffered
from a lack of manpower and expertise in soils
science. The staff was also not familiar with
alternative wastewater system technology design,
installation, or operational requirements.
The existing county regulations were also
assessed as being in need of updating to
require more extensive site evaluations
and to provide alternative system designs,
particularly in marginal soils.
3. The County Health Department (i.e., County
Board of Health) also did not wish to become
directly involved in managing an on-site
wastewater program for the two communities
under study. Existing state legislation,
however, allowed the delegation of County
Health Department responsibilities to local
governments.
4. The County Engineering Department, an existing
wastewater management entity, owned and oper-
ated wastewater treatment and water supply
facilities in other parts of the county. This
agency (and county supervisors) did not appear
interested, at first, in becoming involved in
wastewater management activities in the service
area, unless conventional wastewater systems
would be used.
5. Neither town had a professional staff which
could perform maintenance activities. Easttown
had a central water system with one full-time
water operator. Westtown relied on individual
32
-------
private wells for its water supply, and had
one full-time town clerk as the only town
employee. Both towns had part-time road
maintenance employees.
These issues must be taken into account in the delegation
of agencies to participate in management program duties as ad-
dressed in the next analysis step. Based on the analysis of le-
gal and administrative capability accomplished in this step,
each of the four institutional options listed in Tables 4 and 5
would be considered a candidate for the management agency des-
criptions, subject to further analysis in the steps to follow.
Step 3: Formulation and evaluation of wastewater management
alternatives.
This step in the planning phase combines the results of the
previous two steps; preliminary technical analysis and prelim-
inary institutional analysis, to generate a number of wastewater
management alternatives for detailed consideration. Wastewater
management alternatives for a study area can be made up of var-
ious service area configurations, a mix of wastewater system
technologies, and different institutional arrangements for man-
aging these systems. The number of wastewater management alter-
natives to be evaluated in this step of the planning process
will depend on the various combinations of technology, service
area delineations, and institutional arrangements which appear
to be feasible.
To simplify this example, a single technical option is
assumed to be feasible after the preliminary technical evalua-
tions. The "on-site/cluster system" has been selected as the
preferred technical option. Figure 6 shows the general layout
of the on-site/cluster system option.
The assessment of the institutional components for the tech-
nical option is done through two activities:
1. The definition of institutional arrangements
for carrying out certain management functions
(operations plan preparation).
2. The determination of the system capital and
operating costs (financial plan preparation).
33
-------
Westtown
Cluster of 40 Homes
Served by "STEP"
Collection System: Remainder
of Easttown Served By
Individual On-Site Systems
y Community
Mound
Easttown
'JZ\ \yJ /.
it:]:-'
*/ /* Cluster of 25 Hom«
Homes
Served by "STEP"
Collection System: Remainder
of Westtown Served By
Individual On-Site Systems
Community
Mound
T reatment/Disposal
System
Figure 6. On-site/cluster system for Easttown and
Westtown.
-------
These two key institutional analysis activities commonly
addressed in evaluating wastewater management alternatives are
described in the following discussion of operations plan and
financial plan preparation.
Preparation of an Operations Plan
An operations plan describes how design-installation and
operation-maintenance functions will be carried out. The plan
specifies who will provide these functions, and how they will be
carried out. Guidance for preparing an operations plan is con-
tained in Chapter 4, "Formulating an Operations Plan." The pre-
paration of an operations plan involves the following activi-
ties :
1. Defining the required management functions.
2. Developing general approaches to system ownership
and operation.
3. Assessing administrative and legal capabilities of
existing and new agencies to provide management
functions.
4. Selecting and formulating institutional arrange-
ments.
The preparation of an operations plan is initiated by the
determination of functional requirements of the management pro-
gram. This is done by identifying specific management require-
ments for the on-site and small community system technologies.
Approaches to system management can then be developed in a
preliminary fashion. On-site and small community systems can
generally be owned and operated in the following ways:
1. Privately-owned and operated.
2. Privately-owned and operated within the guide-
lines of a public entity (e.g., through
maintenance permit provision).
3. Privately-owned and publicly-managed.
4. Publicly-owned and managed.
35
-------
The roles and responsibilities of various entities that cur-
rently provide on-site system management in Easttown and West-
town are displayed in Table 6. It basically shows the involve-
ment of the County Health Department in various phases of on-
site system-installation, while operation-maintenance remains
with the property owner. Follow-up discussions with County
Health Department staff and County officials helped to demon-
strate numerous logistical, manpower, and administrative con-
straints associated with regulating the maintenance of on-site
systems within the case study service area. For this reason,
the involvement of a local entity (e.g., town, sewer utility
district or sewer authority), particularly in operation and
maintenance responsibilities was evaluated in subsequent insti-
tutional analysis activities. Management functions that re-
quired the participation of local entities (or the property own-
er) are identified with an asterisk (*) in Table 6.
As noted earlier, explicit legislation creating on-site man-
agement districts and allowing a public entity to enter onto
private property to conduct on-site systems inspections was not
available for application. In lieu of such specific legisla-
tion, the following options were reviewed:
1. Obtain a service agreement with each resident
with an on-site system. The service agreement
would indicate the homeowner's and local
entity's responsibilities in system maintenance
and would allow the entity access to the on-
site system for inspection purposes.
2. Obtain easements to the on-site system.
3. Purchase the on-site system (i.e., public
ownership of the system).
4. Require property owners with on-site systems
to establish service contracts with private
firms. The firms would report results of
the inspections and any septage hauling to a
designated local entity.
Questions relating to the ownership and operation of the
cluster (i.e., community) systems were also key concerns. In
this case, it was assumed that the common collection lines would
be publicly-owned and operated, while the individual pump units
could be either privately-owned and operated, or publicly-owned
and operated. For purposes of the operations plan, it was de-
cided that a single agency would be assigned the responsibility
for operation and maintenance of the collection lines and efflu-
ent disposal sites. It was also necessary that the management
36
-------
TABLE 6. FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES MATRIX
EXISTING ARRANGEMENT
identify specific management agency lie special c*str»ct. municipal
authority, municipal government county agencies, regional agencies,
State agencies Federal agencies private organizations, and other groups)
and indicate responsibilities of each agency
Comments
Planning/Administration
Plan preparation
•
Plan review coordination
f
•
•
Research and development
Office and start management
+
Site Evaluation
Guidelines and criteria
•
Evaluation certification
•
Site suitability analysis
•
System Design
Standards and criteria
~
Designer certification
Not done
System design
*
* Design review
•
Permit issuance
1
Installation
* Construction supervision
•
Installer certification
Not done
* Record-keepmq
f
Permit issuance
•
Operation and Maintenance
* Procedures and regulations
Not done
Operator/inspector certification
Not done
# Routine inspections
Not done
* Emerqency inspections
•
# System repair/replacement
•
* Repair supervision
t
Performance certification
Mnt done
System ownership
•
Residuals Disposal
Disposal regulations
f
~ Hauler certification
2
Record-keepinq
•
Equipment inspections
ft
Facility inspections
ft
Facility operation
*
Financing
# Secure funding
Not applicable
# Set charqes
Not aopiicable
* Collect charges
Not applicable
Monitoring
* Reportmq system
Not applicable
Sampling
*
Public Education
Develop methods
(
* Disseminate information
•
1f Respond to complaints
•
* Management functions that require local agency input.
37
-------
agencies be public entities, since EPA Construction Grant rules
specify that property owner associations are private entities
and are ineligible for grant funds.
Institutional options for carrying out activities normally
defined through an operations plan are described in Table 7 and
as follows:
1. All on-site systems would remain under private
ownership. The cluster systems would be owned
and operated by each town. The County Health
Department would regulate system design-installa-
tion and operations-maintenance, with the towns
participating in some of the system inspection
and administrative activities. (Option 1.)
2. A sewer authority would be established to own
and operate the cluster systems. The on-site
systems would remain in private ownership.
The sewer authority could become involved in
on-site system regulation and maintenance
with the County Health Department. (Option 2.)
3. A county sewer utility district would be estab-
lished to own and operate the cluster systems.
The on-site systems would remain in private owner-
ship. The County utility district could become
involved in some on-site system regulation and
maintenance activities with the County Health
Department. (Option 3.)
The evaluation factors that were used to choose the pre-
ferred management arrangement include:
1. Legal authority to provide management functions.
2. Capability and willingness to perform administrative
duties.
3. Political acceptability and public support for the
arrangement.
After assessing the relative merits and drawbacks of these
institutional options, Option 2, the sewer authority arrange-
ment, was determined to be the most feasible.
38
-------
TABLE 7. INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR EASTTOWN/WESTTOWN
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Functions
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
On-site ownership
Homeowner
Homeowner
Homeowner
Cluster ownership
Towns
Sewer authority
County utility district
Design regulation
County Health Department
County Health Department
County Health Department
System inspections
County Health Department/
towns
County Health Department/
sewer authority
County Health Department/
county utility district
Routine mainte-
nance
County Health Department/
towns
County Health Department/
sewer authority
County Health Department/
county utility district
Collect fees
Towns
Sewer authority
County utility district
Advantages
1.
Involves a local en-
tity (town) in man-
aging wastewater
systems.
1. Provides a common
focus of local ac-
tivities via the
sewer authority.
2. Gives the towns equal
status in decision-
making (via Board of
Director s) .
1. County utility dis-
trict gives oppor-
tunity to expand
wastewater manage-
ment services to
other parts of the
county.
Disadvantages
1.
2.
Each town must provide
services, separately.
Towns have limited
capability to provide
services.
1. Involves the creation
of a new agency.
1. County elected
officials are re-
luctant to become
involved in small
wastewater systems
management.
-------
Recommended Operations Plan
On-Site Cluster System
A joint-sewer authority would be established to
serve as the principal administrative entity for manag-
ing both the on-site and cluster systems in the two
towns. The sewer authority would maintain a staff to
conduct system inspections, collect fees, and coordi-
nate with the county health department, state regula-
tory agencies, and local governments to enforce
program objectives.
The on-site systems would remain under private
ownership. A service agreement would be established
with each property owner with an on-site system to
enable the sewer authority to conduct its inspections.
The cluster system would be owned by the sewer author-
ity, and similar service agreements (and easements)
obtained.
The preferred institutional arrangements for managing the
on-site cluster system are summarized in Table 8.
Cost information developed in the financial plan will pro-
vide the essential information for preparing a final wastewater
management plan, and assigning institutional arrangements for
system financing.
Preparation of a Financial Plan
A financial plan is designed to provide a mechanism for de-
termining how system costs will be allocated to the service area
residents. Vital inputs to the process of developing a finan-
cial plan include the results of the operations plan, i.e., the
definition of organizational arrangements for system design-
installation and maintenance, and the technical plan (partic-
ularly for user cost calculations). The analysis conducted in
the financial plan refines the decisions made in the operations
plan to a certain extent, and develops cost estimates so that
system users will be better able to understand the financial im-
pacts of the wastewater management alternatives. It is often on
the basis of cost to the user (in addition to system effective-
ness and reliability) that certain wastewater management alter-
natives are ruled out from further consideration.
Tne activities involved in the preparation of a financial
plan include:
1. Calculation of the local share of capital costs.
40
-------
TABLE 8. FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES MATRIX
PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT
Identify specific management agency (i e special district, municipal
authority, municipal government, county agencies, regional
State agencies Federal agencies, private organizations
and indicate responsibilities of each agency
groups)
o®'
Comments
Planning/Administration
Plan preparation
•
ft
Plan review coordination
Research and development
•
Office and start management
ft
Sit* Evaluation
Guidelines and criteria
•
•
Evaluation certification
•
ft
Site suitability analysis
•
System Design
Standards and criteria
f
9
Designer certification
Not done
System design
ft
Design review
9
ft
Permit issuance
X
Installation
Construction supervision
•
Installer certification
Not done
Record-keepinq
A
Permit issuance
i
Operation and Maintenance
Procedures and regulations
«
+
Operator/inspector certification
*
Routine inspections
•
Emerqency inspections
•
1
System repair/replacement
ft
Repair supervision
1
Performance certification
1
System ownership
ft
1
Residuals Disposal
Disposal regulations
e
Hauler certification
ft
Recordkeeping
I
EauiDment inspections
t
Facility inspections
ft
Facility operation
ft
Financing
Secure fundinq
•
Set charges
•
Collect charges
I
Monitoring
Reporting system
•
9
Sampling
ft
Public Education
Develop methods
f
f
Disseminate information
ft
ft
Respond to complaints
•
41
-------
2. Estimation of annual operating costs and
associated manpower requirements.
3. Calculation of average annual user costs for
alternatives comparison, talcing into account
expected population changes in the service
area.
4. Determination of how costs will be allocated to
system users.
Procedures to carry out these activities are explained in
Chapter 5, "Formulating a Financial Plan."
Tne results of the first activity for the Easttown/Westtown
example, calculation of the local share of capital cost, are
summarized in Table 9.
In conducting the second activity, estimating operating
costs, it is necessary to know:
1. Tne functions which are to be provided, their
frequency of service, and number of applicable
users.
2. The manpower requirements and associated salaries
and fees to perform these functions.
3. The property owner versus management agency
responsibilities in carrying out functions (par-
ticularly system correction and replacement).
Table 10 presents a detailed procedure, using tnis example,
for calculating staff needs for the proposed wastewater manage-
ment option. The calculations on this table yield estimates of
total annual staff for the proposed sewer authority; specified
as technician/inspector, managerial, and clerical categories.
According to the calculation results, the management program
will require the services of a part-time inspector (for approx-
imately one-half of a person-year), and manager (serving about
one-half day per week). Part-time clerical support would be
necessary.
Workday estimates serve as input to another table, Table 11.
Annual operating expenses for the management program are also
presented in this second table.
Average annual user cost estimates derived from previous
calculations are presented on the following page.
42
-------
Annual User Costs
Annual local share
(Table 9, item 6)
$64,200
Operating costs
(Table 11)
21,120
Total annual costs
85,320
Total future users
(no growth projected)
450
Average annual cost
per user
190
Note: Average user cost
fleet actual user
estimates do not necessarily re-
charges (see Table 13).
The average user cost does not necessarily reflect the
amount a specific user will end up paying in user fees. It may
be desirable to convert the average user cost to an actual ex-
pected cost to specific users for more accurate assessments.
Alternative cost-sharing arrangements which should be investiga-
ted to prepare a more realistic representation of user costs in-
clude :
1. Service charges for specific services.
2. Fixed and variable charges (including assess-
ments, connection fees, and service fees) to
cover a full range of service and capital
costs.
3. Property tax assessments to augment or
substitute for service charges or user
charges.
Determining which financing method to apply depends not
only the technology requirements and management approach adopt-
ed, but on the extent to which the program costs can be equit-
ably shared among all users. The choice of a particular finan-
cing arrangement is, therefore, based on whether the com-
munity as a whole wishes to share the costs of program adminis-
tration, operating expenses, and debt service equally among all
users or whether individual users are to pay according to the
actual services rendered to their systems. The former approach
is one that equalizes the costs of system replacement and opera-
tion among all users over the life of the project. The latter
43
-------
TABLE 9. ON-SITE/CLUSTER SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS (1980 $)
Easttown
Westtown
Total
1.
Initial Capital Costs
1,194,000
528,000
1,722,000
2.
Future Capital Improvements
246,000
243,000
489,000
3.
Total Project Costs
1,440,000
771,000
2,211,000
4.
Grants
979,000
433,000
1,412,000
5.
Total Local Share
461,000
338,000
799,000
6.
Annual Local Share
37,000
27,200
64,200
Notes:
1.
2.
Total capital costs includes engineering fees, legal fees,
land costs, right-of-way costs, etc.
Represents the present value of future on-site system re-
habilitation and pump replacement over a 20-year planning
period.
3. Total project costs represent initial and future capital
costs over a 20-year planning period.
4. Grants from EPA and the state covering 85 percent and 10
percent of the eligible initial capital costs.
5. Total local share equals initial capital costs plus future
capital improvements (during 20-year planning period) minus
grants.
6. Annual local share financed through a bond of 7 percent at
30 years (capital recovery factor of 0.08059).
44
-------
TABLE 10. CALCULATION OF MANAGEMENT AGENCY STAFF
Management Activity
Descr ipt ion
New Installations
Site evaluations
Design review
Permit issuance
Installation
supervision
System Maintenance
Periodic inspec-
t ions
Service calls
Customer relations
Violation notices
Permit renewal
Record keeping
Implementinq Agency
County health department
to issue permits and
inspect installations.
Sewer authority staff
will assist in installa-
tion supervision. Pri-
vate contractor and
property owner conduct
site evaluation and
prepare designs.
Sewer authority will
maintain systems.
County health department
will issue violation no-
tice based on sewer
authority referral.
Mandatory maintenance
permit approach would
be used (with inspec-
tions) for on-site
systems.
Calculations and Assumptions
On-Site Systems
Four new septic systems built
each year for 20 years.
Four new systems x 1 day/
system = 4 working days/
year for the sewer authority.
Cluster System
No additional connections
assumed.
On-Site Systems
Inspect every three years.
Annual Workday
Requirement by
Staff Type
4 (1)
400
systems , _ ,
ygars— = 133 systems/year
3 ye
Assume inspection rate of three
systems per day to schedule,
inspect, and report findings.
133 systems ,. , .
- 45 days/year
Cluster System
Biennial inspections of pump
units.
45 (1)
13 (1)
System Maintenance
(cont inued)
System Repair/
Rehabilitation
Failed system
inspections
Repair supervision
Violation notices
50 units
2 years
= 25 units/year
Assume inspection rate of two
units per day to schedule, in-
pect, and report findings.
25 units
13 days/year
County health department
will regulate septic
system repairs with sewer
authority coordination
and supervision of in-
stallation.
Treatment and Disposal Systems
Routine visits, at least twice
a week per system (there are
two systems) . Assume 1 day/
week for routine visits and
in spect ion s.
On-Site Systems
Six failed systems/year. Each
system investigation and follow-
up will take one day.
Cluster System
Failing pump units and other
equipment are taken care of
as part of routine maintenance
activities.
52 (1)
6 (1)
45
-------
TABLE 10.
(CONTINUED)
Management Activity
Description
Residuals Disposal
Septage pumping
Septage disposal
Monitoring
Surface-water
quality
Groundwater quality
Special systems
monitoring
Administration
Financial manage-
ment
Office administra-
tion
Special consulting
Compliance reporting
Implementing Agency
Private haulers con-
tracted by property
owners for individual
systems and STEP units.
Sewer authority to con-
tract haulers for
cluster system (holding
tank) . Sewer authority
to administer and mani-
fest system for private
hauler s.
Sewer authority will
sample water quality and
state agency will ana-
lyze samples taken.
Sewer authority will
employ part-time admin-
istrator for at least
first 2 to 3 years of
of operation. Part-
time clerical assistance
is also necessary.
Calculations and Assumptions
Annual Workday
Requirement by
staff Type
Direct manpower limited to mani- IS (1)
fest system administration.
private haulers to pump holding
tanks. Assume cluster system
treatment units to be pumped once
every year at $100/eventi there-
fore, annual cost of $100 for
septage pumping for the cluster
unit (see Table 11) .
Quarterly saapling at 12 sam- 4 (1)
pling points.
Assume 1 day/quarter to
sample.
Assume 0.5 day/week for 26 (2)
manager. 104 (3)
Assume clerical assistance
at two days/week.
Total Workday Requirements:
(1) Technician/inspector
(2) Program administrator
(3) Clerical
Total Workdays/Year
- 139 workdays/year
- 26 workdays/year
- 104 workdays/year
- 2g9 (This represents slightly more than one work-year of effort)
46
-------
TABLE 11. CALCULATION OF OPERATING COSTS
(EASTTOWN AND WESTTOWN SEWER AUTHORITY)
Average Annual^ Adjusted^
Labor Items Salary Salary
Program manager $15,000 $ 1,500
Assistant manager
Professional staff
Field crews, technicians,
operators 10,000 5,350
Clerical/bookkeeping staff 7,500 3,000
Total salary costs (from column 2) 9,850
Insurance and benefits (at 20% of
total salary costs) 1,970
Total Labor Costs $11,820
Nonlabor Items
Treatment system utilities,
chemicals, etc.
Vehicle financing 2,000
Vehicle maintenance 1,000
Miscellaneous equipment, tools, etc. 400
Replacement parts, etc. 500
Treatment service charges
Residuals disposal charges 100
Septage hauling costs
Private contractor service charge
Testing equipment
Laboratory analysis 500
Office expenses (rent, postage, 3,000
supplies, utilities, etc.)
Staff training
Training courses, seminars, etc. 300
Consultant services
Legal/accountant services 1,000
Taxes 500
Insurance (on equipment) 500
Miscellaneous expenses 500
(e.g., mileage)
Total Nonlabor Costs $10,300
Total Operating Costs (labor plus nonlabor costs) $22,120
^-Total annual salaries for program staff personnel.
2Adjusted annual salaries based according to portion of work-
year effort devoted to the program (from Table 10) .
47
-------
imposes costs on almost a house-by-house basis, which recognizes
the different operation and maintenance needs of wastewater sys-
tems and different property owner attitudes toward system care
and maintenance witnin a service area. While satisfying house-
hold equity issues, administering a variable rate system could
become complicated. The major criteria to be applied in eval-
uating a specific financing arrangement include:
1. Ease of administration.
2. Equitability of cost sharing among users (i.e.,
incidence or burden of costs on users).
3. CJser ability to pay.
4. Effectiveness in raising sufficient revenue.
5. Secondary impacts (e.g., on sewer extension
notices, or on household attitudes toward
system maintenance).
In the Easttown/Westtown example, the following cost alloca-
tion issues were of primary concern to the local officials and
general public:
1. The allocation of costs between:
a. Existing and future residents.
b. Households on the cluster system and
households with on-site systems.
c. Households with fixed incomes and
active-income producing households.
2. The distribution of costs between the two towns.
(Should they be shared equally or apportioned
by town?)
3. The cost-sharing arrangements made between
households with failing on-site systems and
households whose systems were functioning
properly.
These issues reflect the real concerns of service area resi-
dents during the facility planning process, i.e., the allocation
of costs of program management and facility operation so that
users pay according to benefits received. These major cost con-
cerns are addressed in Table 12, which illustrates the cost al-
location method chosen for the towns.
48
-------
TABLE 12. ON-SITE/CLUSTER SYSTEM FINANCING
ARRANGEMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Major Cost Items
Proposed Financing Method
Alternative Methods Considered
Financing local
share of initial
capital costs
Financing of
future septic
system rehabili-
tation and STEP
system pump
replacement
Annual operating
costs
Permits
Septage pumping
House connections
to the STEP unit
Future septic
system installa-
tion^ (new
systems)
Electrical power
for STEP units
Initial assessment to property
owners who have had their
septic systems upgraded or have
connected to the cluster system;
supplemented with a revenue
bond to cover the remaining
costs.
Creation of a reserve fund,
financed by all users. An
initial assessment would also
be levied toward all users
whose systems failed. (User
would be charged for pump
replacement only in cases of
user negligence or misuse.)
Included as part of the user
charge levied to all house-
holds. Includes all costs
for inspections, service
calls, installation super-
vision, and program management.
Includes a fee for maintenance
permit renewal.
Permits for system repair/
replacement and for new
installations are paid for
separately and directly to the
state regulatory agency.
Not included in the user charge.
Property owners with septic
systems and STEP systems would
pay private haulers directly
for septage pumping and dis-
posal as determined through
the inspections.
Financed by the property owner.
Built and paid for by the prop-
erty owner.
Paid for by the STEP unit
property owner as part of
his/her monthly electric
bill.
Use of loans, bonds, property taxes
and other debt financing techniques
which spread these costs over a
larger base, and over a number of
years (i.e., no initial assess-
ments) .
These costs could be paid for by
the property owner when the system
needs replacement or major repair'
is required.
Can be charged on a service fee
basis reflecting the need for pro-
viding these services. Service
fee could be paid to the manage-
ment agency (i.e., sewer authority)
or to the private firm or other
entity actually performing the
service. Operating costs can be
raised through property taxes
or other special assessments.
Can be included as part of a user
charge.
Septage pumping and disposal fee
can be prorated and added to the
user charge. Sewer authority could
could also purchase a septage truck
and maintain a crew to operate it.
Could be done through a connection
fee if management agency hooked up
the system to the home.
No other alternative was consider-
ed.
Power costs could be paid directly
by the sewer authority, with reve-
nue raised through a special as-
sessment or service fee.
49
-------
As shown in Table 13 the local share of Easttown/Westtown
capital costs would be raised through assessments of property
owners whose on-site systems were upgraded or who connected to
a cluster system. A reserve fund would be established (via
sinking fund mechanism) to raise sufficient revenues for future
on-site system and pump replacement. All users in the service
area would contribute to the reserve fund, thereby assuring a
source of funds to support any rehabilitation or replacement
which might occur in any given ye^r. The cost of house connec-
tions to the STEP unit (for cluster system residents), and sep-
tage disposal and permit fees are not included in the user
charge. They are paid for separately by the property owner.
Translating these cost-sharing assumptions into estimates of
actual user charges for the Easttown and Westtown on-site/clus-
ter system is the purpose of Table 13.
The information presented in this table identifies the three
major components of the proposed charge system:
1. Local share of initial capital investment.
2. Future rehabilitation and replacement of pumps
and septic systems.
/
3. Operating costs of the program.
With an initial assessment of $500 for households connecting
to the cluster system or having their septic systems upgraded,
(in this example), the user charge per household is $146 per
year. Septage disposal costs would be paid separately by each
property owner (at approximately $50 per event). The costs of
permits, power,.and connections are also not included in the
user charge fee. It was also proposed that the towns adopt the
same user charge schedule. Each town, however, can develop its
own system to collect user charges from residents within its
town.
With the completion of the financial plan an implementation
plan can be developed.
50
-------
TABLE 13. ESTIMATED USER CHARGES FOR EASTTOWN/WESTTOWN
ON-SITE/CLUSTER SYSTEM (1980 $)
Cost Components
Net
Annual Cost
(after grants)
-------
Step 4: Implementation plan.
Using the extensive analysis performed on system costs, pro-
gram operational requirements, technical feasibility, and reli-
ability during the preparation of a Step 1 facilities plan, suf-
ficient information should be available to develop an implemen-
tation plan.
An implementation plan"outlines the actions that need to be
taken in carrying out the recommended management plan. The im-
plementation plan basically develops the framework from which a
management program can evolve. Specific elements of an imple-
mentation plan include:
1. Summary of agency roles, responsibilities, and
funding sources.
2. Description of the mechanism for plan implemen-
tation and a schedule for completion.
3. Development of procedures for providing short- and
long-term program evaluation.
A timetable for implementation of the Easttown-Westtown sew-
erage project is presented as Figure 7. Some of the major ac-
tivities that need to be addressed in the implementation plan
and carried out prior to system construction (i.e., the imple-
mentation phase) are identified in this example. The specific
actions recommended in the Easttown-Westtown implementation plan
example include:
1. Create the sewer authority.
2. Obtain the authorization to proceed into Steps 2/3
of the construction grant process and prepare an
application for an EPA Step 2/3 grant. Applica-
tions for the grants and loans from other agencies
would also be prepared and submitted. (The EPA
grant application can be made on behalf of the
newly created management authority or by one of
the towns, representing the two-town study area.
Specific requirements of other Federal agencies
and state agencies regarding the creation of a new
agency should be investigated.)
52
-------
Activity
Create Sewer
Authority
Obtain Step
2/3 Funds
Develop Charter
Agreement
Obtain Letters
of Agreement
Conduct Step 2
Design
Obtain Access
Agreements
Obtain
Easements
Develop
Ordinances
Prepare Cost
Estimates
Complete
Inventory
Bids for
Construction
Acquire
Land
Supervise
Construction
Facility
Start-Up
12
Month
18
24
30
Figure 7. Project implementation schedule.
53
-------
3. Prepare an operating charter for the joint sewer
authority with reviews by appropriate agencies
(e.g., EPA and the state environmental protection
agency).
4. Obtain appropriate letters of agreement between
the two towns.
5. Hire a consultant and initiate the Step 2 design
activities.
6. Secure options for purchase of land for the treat-
ment-disposal facility.
7. Obtain rights-of-way (easements) for sewer collec-
tion lines and STEP units. Formulate service
agreements with property owners using on-site
systems.
8. Develop a set of criteria and procedures for the
design and maintenance of new and replacement
on-site systems. Prepare ordinances and other
regulations that might be necessary (e.g., estab-
lishment of a maintenance permit requirement) .
9. Prepare (as a result of Step 2 design) detailed
cost estimates for the project. Hold meetings
with state and Federal agencies, town governing
bodies, and the general public to present the
updated cost estimates and report any modifications
to the operation plan and financial plan. Hold a
special election to reaffirm the intent to move to
Step 3,.construction.
10. Complete the inventory of existing on-site systems
noting size, location, and operating history of
each system.
11. Request bids for construction from contractors.
Make a selection and begin work to install the
recommended system.
12. Acquire all necessary property for treatment
facilities, sewer lines, etc.
13. Supervise construction of the project, review, and
authorize any modification to the design plans.
54
-------
14. Begin operation of the cluster system. (Operation
of the on-site system management activities can
start earlier, however.)
In the illustrative case presented in this chapter, a waste-
water system engineer from a nearby community sewer utility was
hired on a part-time basis to serve as the authority's waste-
water program manager. This individual helped the towns estab-
lish the implementation plan and enter into the final phases of
program management; implementation phase and facility start-up
phase. It is in these later steps of management program devel-
opment where elements of the wastewater management plan are
actually carried out.
As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, the remaining
text provides more specific guidance in developing institutional
arrangements for initiation and planning phase activities.
55
-------
PART II: ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Chapter 3: Selection of the Management Agency
Chapter 4: Formulating an Operations Plan
Chapter 5: Formulating a Financial Plan
Chapter 6: Formulating an Implementation Plan
This part of the document is a technical reference which
provides a detailed methodology for evaluating and selecting
institutional components of wastewater management programs.
The emphasis in the section is to describe and evaluate institu-
tional options for implementing management functions. It
should be used by persons actually involved in assessing
institutional arrangements and developing management programs.
Each chapter begins with a user's guide which presents the
analysis steps in the methodology. The user's guide is accom-
panied in each chapter by sections addressing institutional
options for performing various management activities. Case
study experiences are included to illustrate and further define
the institutional options.
PART I
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL GUrAM/"c
(Overview For Interested Reade
PART III
APPENDIX
(Working Materials)
57
-------
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
The institutional components of a wastewater management plan
are derived through analysis of technical, economic, legal, and
political factors. The principal institutional components of
the wastewater management plan that will be derived through the
use of the methodology are:
• Operations Plan
• Financial Plan
• Implementation Plan
The following figure provides a schematic diagram of the
analysis approach to developing the three institutional compo-
nents of a management plan.
Define Management Constraints and
Identify Management Agency Candidates
(Chapter 3: Selection of Management Agency)
*
Develop a Plan for System Operation
(Chapter 4: Formulating an Operations Plan)
M-
Develop a Plan for System Financing
(Chapter 5: Formulating a Financial Plan)
*
Develop a Plan for Implementation
(Chapter 6: Formulating an Implementation Plan)
Figure 8. Management program development planning steps.
58
-------
CHAPTER 3
SELECTION OF THE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
The success or failure of a wastewater management program
will largely depend on the choice of a management agency. The
agency or agencies selected must have the institutional capa-
bility to carry out necessary management functions, the legal
authority to enforce appropriate regulations, and the financial
resources to support the program. This chapter discusses fac-
tors that must be considered in identifying legal, political,
and economic constraints to management, and in evaluating insti-
tutional options. It introduces the various institutional ar-
rangements that can be applied singly or collectively to manage
a small wastewater facility. Subsequent chapters (Chapters 4,
5, and 6) will utilize the results of this preliminary institu-
tional analysis to describe how the elements of a wastewater
plan can be constructed.
GUIDE FOR MANAGEMENT AGENCY SELECTION
The process of selecting a management agency should be coor-
dinated with the development of technical or engineering solu-
tions. The evaluation of technical and institutional considera-
tions is a parallel process, having numerous interactions. The
selection of a management agency begins with an assessment of
management needs.. This involves defining specific functions
necessary to support the operation of wastewater treatment and
disposal systems, and then identifying institutional entities
which have the statutory authority and resources to carry out
those functions.
The basic steps in selecting a management agency are:
Step 1 -- Define the capabilities and authorities re-
quired by a management agency.
Step 2 -- Identify potential management agencies and
contact appropriate public and private rep-
resentatives.
Step 3 -- Evaluate the authority and capabilities of
existing and potential agencies.
Step 4 -- Select candidate agencies.
59
-------
Step 1: Define the capabilities and authorities required by a
management agency.
This initial step basically determines what the community
wants and needs in the way of small wastewater systems manage-
ment. The powers and authorities of organizations and the scope
of responsibilities to effectively manage small wastewater sys-
tems should be defined at this time. These analysis decisions
require that the community develop goals for land use growth and
development, water quality protection, and wastewater system
performance. The integration of these community goals will
serve as a framework for developing a strategy for wastewater
system management, upon which subsequent institutional and tech-
nical decisions will be based. Tables 14 and 15 provide the
necessary information to develop a communitywide wastewater man-
agement strategy.
Table 14 summarizes the range of capabilities and powers a
management agency can possess. The extent to which specific
powers and capabilities must be satisfied will depend on the
scope of a particular management program. (Statutory require-
ments for establishing a management agency are included in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500) , Section 208(b) and (c), and the Code of Federal
Regulations, 40 CFR 131.11(n) and (o).)
Table 15 lists various dimensions of a management program
which will help to define the scope of management responsibili-
ties. The parameters embodied within the dimensions of a
program, e.g., purpose, structure, authority, etc., are the
basic characteristics that every management agency should
possess, and are the fundamental units (i.e., building blocks)
in formulating alternative management approaches.
Step 2: Identify potential management agencies and contact
appropriate public and private representatives.
The purpose of this task is to identify potential management
agencies, authorized by state legislation, which can fulfill de-
sired management functions, capabilities, and powers. Contact
should be made with existing agencies and related private inter-
ests which may also participate in developing and (eventually)
implementing the institutional plan.
State legislation defines the powers and capabilities of
various governmental entities (i.e., institutions) in performing
wastewater management-related functions. State governments com-
60
-------
monly delegate the authority to perform certain functions (in-
cluding wastewater management functions) to regional/local enti-
ties (regional agencies, counties, cities, towns, etc.)- At this
point in the planning process, it is necessary to identify which
governmental entities and private interests can generally pro-
vide the required management functions. Institutions to be con-
sidered as potential management agencies include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the following types of entities:
1. State agencies.
2. County government.
3. Municipalities.
4. Regional planning agencies.
5. Special purpose groups.
6. Nonprofit organizations.
7. Private enterprise.
Relevant private and public interests (listed in Table 16)
should be contacted and asked to become involved in the planning
process. Their participation will help to better define their
capability and willingness to provide management functions, and
at the same time ensure effective plan implementation.
Step 3: Evaluate the authority and capabilities of existing and
^ potential agencies.
The assessment of institutional capability should include
the evaluation of the legal basis, statutory authority, and
functional capability of existing institutions, as well as the
administrative and political feasibility of creating new agen-
cies. Local attitudes toward governmental intervention, owner-
ship of the wastewater system, local autonomy, availability of
grant assistance, program accountability, and consistency with
other plans, policies, and area objectives should also be con-
sidered in selecting the appropriate institutional arrangements
to fulfill required management program functions. Many of these
concerns are summarized in Tables 17 and 18 to serve as a guide
for conducting institutional analyses. (Subsequent assessments
of institutional and financial aspects of system operation and
financing are oriented toward providing the information listed
in these tables.)
Pertinent characteristics of institutions available for
wastewater management should first be listed for comparison, as
shown in Table 17. Table 18 represents a matrix of the managing
powers provided in the statutes (either expressly or implicitly.
Tables 17 and 18 are suggested formats for presentation pur-
poses; the user should review these displays and modify them
according to specific needs.
61
-------
Step 4: Select candidate management agencies.
The selection of the management agency, its responsibili-
ties, and supporting agencies and interests will be conducted
in concert with most of the technical analysis, and primarily
through preparation of the operation, financial, and implemen-
tation plans. Throughout the entire process of management plan
development, the evaluation criteria set forth in Table 19
should be used to assure:
1. That the institutional arrangements can be
implemented.
2. That these arrangements will be effective in
carrying out the prescribed management
functions.
3. That the costs incurred in the program are not
a burden to any single group.
These evaluation criteria can also be used early in the
planning process to screen potential management agencies. Those
agencies that receive poor ratings in this initial screening
should be eliminated from further consideration. The potential
capability and willingness of agencies to accept management re-
sponsibilities will be more specifically evaluated in developing
the operational, financial, and implementation elements of the
management plan.
Table 20 suggests a presentation format for assessing capa-
bilities of alternative management agencies. This presentation
can be used to evaluate legal, administrative, and economic fac-
tors associated with candidate management agencies.
The next section in this chapter, "Institutional Options,"
presents a more thorough discussion of possible management agen-
cies and their roles in fulfilling general management functions.
62
-------
TABLE 14. POWERS AND AUTHORITIES OF MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
• The power to issue and enforce regulations.
• The authority to own and operate wastewater facilities.
• The right of access to private property to inspect systems
and correct malfunctions.
• The ability to raise revenues by setting and collecting
user charges and fees, and levying assessments and taxes on
benefited properties.
• The authority to acquire by purchase, grant, and/or lease,
both real and personal property.
• The power to declare and abate nuisances, to require and
recommend correction procedures, and to perform corrections
and bill the property owner if he fails to repair the
system.
• The authority to plan and control how and when wastewater
services will be provided within the community.
• The ability to receive state a,nd Federal grants to build
wastewater facilities, to incur debt obligations by
borrowing or issuing bonds, and to sue and be sued.
• The ability to contract and delegate responsibilities to
qualified persons or firms for the performance of any or
all management functions.
• The ability to license, train, or certify persons involved
in system design, installation, maintenance, and residuals
disposal.
63
-------
TABLE 15. MANAGEMENT DIMENSIONS
Time Frame
Will the management program be a permanent solution or an interim measure?
Where in the process of plan development and program formulation is
the user situated?
Si ze
• What is the geographic size of the area to be served?
• Is it compatible with a local public jurisdiction?
• Is sufficient manpower available within an institutional structure to
service the area under study?
• Does service area size affect the type of institution required to manage
the wastewater systems?
Purpose
• Should the management program be limited to wastewater management or
should other utilities be included (e.g., water supply)?
• What is the range of functions to be provided (i.e., coverage of all
necessary management functions or only the required minimum functions)?
Structure
• Can new agencies be created to provide management functions on a localized
basis or can existing ones be modified?
• How will the agency be staffed; full-time employees, part-time employees,
volunteers, or by contract with a private firm?
• What will be the organizational relationship between the management agency
and the participating municipalities?
Authority/Liability
• Will the wastewater systems be publicly or privately owned?
• How will the wastewater systems be operated and maintained?
• Who will bear the costs of future system repairs and replacements?
• Will existing regulatory entities continue to exercise regulatory authority
over wastewater system design and maintenance or will new regulatory entities
be created?
• How will the necessity of replacing an existing on-site system be determined?
• Will both existing and new on-site systems be included in the management
program or only new systems?
• What is the extent of authority to be provided; advisory, managerial, or
regulatory?
Staging
• How will future system extensions be determined?
• When is public agency intervention in the planning process and program
formulation process required?
Agreements
• Does adequate legal authority exist?
• Do new or modified interagency arrangements, legislation or ordinances need
to be established?
Do agreements with property owners need to be acquired?
64
-------
TABLE 16. AGENCIES AND GROUPS THAT MAY PARTICIPATE
IN MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Federal Agencies
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• Economic Development Administration (EDA)
State Agencies
• Health departments
• Environmental protection agencies
Regional/Local Agencies
• Regional, county, and municipal government agencies
(planning, health, engineering, public works, etc.)
• Sewer and water authorities, utilities, or districts
• Soil and water conservation districts
• Association of local governments.
Private Interests
• Professionals (engineers, planners, lawyers,
bondsmen, soil scientists, etc.)
• Contractors (septic system installers and septage
haulers)
• Local home builders associations
• Organized private interest groups (homeowner
associations, nonprofit organizations, and other
environmental groups)
65
-------
TABLE 17. PERTINENT CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS AVAILABLE
FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Applicable
Statute Jurisdiction - Governing Operational
Institution*- Citation Service Area Formation Body Status^
SAMPLE FORMAT
^List appropriate agencies and institutions identified earlier in this column.
^Identify whether the agency is an existing operating entity or if a similar
entity has been established elsewhere in the region or state.
-------
TABLE 18. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Management Requirements
Institutions^
2
County
Township
Administrative Requirements
Yes No Part ial
Yes No Part ial
• System ownership capability
• Enter contracts
• Acquire property
• Sue or be sued
Regulatory Requirements
• Set rules and standards for system
design and operation
• Enforce rules and regulations
• License private contractors
• Require connection to facility or SAMPLE FORMAT
participation in management program
• Enforce system repairs
Operation and Maintenance (OfcM) Requirements
• Access to private property
• Establish 04M procedures
• Perform periodic inspections
• Perform maintenance
• Compliance monitoring
Financing Requirements
• Set user charges and fees
• Collect user charges and fees
• Accept grants
• Incur debt
• Issue revenue bonds
• Issue general obligation bonds
• Require performance bonds
• Assess property taxes
• Levy special assessments
• Establish reserve funds
Comments^
^List the institutions identified earlier across the top of the matrix.
^Indicate legal authority to provide management requirements for each identified
^Subjective comments on all of the above factors and any others which may affect
institution.
the choice of management agency.
-------
TABLE 19. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF MANAGEMENT
AGENCIES
Political and Public Acceptability
• Does the agency authority enable it to coordinate with
other management agencies through administrative,
regulatory, or policy channels? Have sufficient
coordinative mechanisms been provided?
• Does the agency provide for public participation
through representation on decision-making boards,
through public hearings or meetings, through
participation with professional or organized societies,
or through public disclosure?
• is the agency accountable to publicly-elected
officials, and to the affected area residents?
• Does the approach maintain local autonomy, or does it
shift responsibilities to higher levels of government?
• Is the program responsive to other areawide goals and
objectives? Is it compatible with the objectives and
capabilities of operating agencies within the area?
• Is there sufficient legal authority to implement
program elements? Is existing enabling authority
vague or uncertain as to its applicability to on-
site or small community systems management?
Institutional Feasibility
• Are existing institutions used to the fullest extent?
Ace adequate enforcement powers available?
• Does the program call for extensive changes to the
current institutional structure?
• Are extensive legislative changes required?
• Has the track record of the agency supported its
ability to organize an efficient and effective
management program?
Administrative Efficiency
• Does the management program have the potential for
voluntary compliance?
• Are the administrative procedures cumbersome or complex?
• Does the agency jurisdiction correspond to the geo-
graphic boundaries of the problem?
• Does the agency have the'technical expertise for
providing management functions?
- Can the agency contract directly to obtain
professional assistance?
- Does the agency have specific staff positions
with competitive salary structures for needed
technical expertise?
- Are technical manpower support services available
in the existing labor market?
• Are the agency's staff resources overloaded with other
assignments?
Economic Equity
• Is the program economically equitable? Is the incidence
of user costs a burden to any one group (rural or urban,
population groups, between municipa1ities)?
• is the program economically efficient? Does it take
full advantage of economies of scale, elimination of
duplicate services and unnecessary permit delays,
balancing of structural and nonstructural controls?
• Does it cause substantive changes in the land use or
neighborhood character of the area (i.e., secondary
socioeconomic effects)?
• What are the financial impacts on each participating
community?
-------
-------
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS
As noted in the previous discussion, there are several
institutional options for designating a management agency. This
section contains a description of the various types of insti-
tutions that can assume management responsibilities. The intent
here is to develop a understanding of the structure and poten-
tial authority various entities can assume. The public and pri-
vate organizations that participate in small wastewater manage-
ment include:
1. Federal agencies.
2. State agencies.
3. Local public entities
a. Counties.
b. Incorporated municipalities (cities, towns,
villages, etc.).
c. Sanitary or utility districts (special
purpose agencies, public authorities).
4. Nonprofit institutions.
5. Private firms.
These entities have a broad role to play in the planning,
administration, regulation, financing, and operation of wastewa-
ter programs. Several Federal agencies offer financial and
technical assistance to state and local management efforts.
States are responsible for the administration of funding, regu-
latory and technical assistance programs for local governments.
Local public bodies and private entities are responsible for
planning and operating wastewater facilities and enforcing ap-
plicable regulations.
The precise roles and responsibilities these entities will
assume in a wastewater program will depend on the preference,
capabilities, and circumstances found in a given community situ-
ation. Due to the variation in state enabling legislation and
organizational structure, the form, jurisdiction, and authority
of local public entities to manage small wastewater systems
varies from state-to-state.
70
-------
Each of the alternative organizations is described in the
subsections that follow. Table 21 displays several generic
characteristics of state, local, and private entities. This
information is presented in a manner which enables the compari-
son of attributes and capabilities among these institutional al-
ternatives.
Federal Agencies
Federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), and the De-
partment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offer technical
assistance and funding to states and local governments for
implementing wastewater management projects. The availability
of funds and staff from these agencies to provide assistance
changes frequently. Persons involved in the wastewater manage-
ment planning process should investigate all potential sources
of Federal funds and technical assistance by contacting regional
and national representatives of these agencies, or by consulting
the Federal Assistance Program Retrieval System (FAPRS) through
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Inquiries regarding
this system may be directed to OMB in Washington, DC or the
Agricultural Extension Service located at state land grant col-
leges.
State Agencies
State involvement in implementing on-site and small commun-
ity wastewater management programs to a large extent parallels
that of the Federal government by promulgating and enforcing
regulations, and providing financial and technical assistance
to individual communities. State agencies offer technical
assistance in evaluating and designing wastewater systems; ad-
minister financing programs to build new systems and replace
failing systems; set and enforce standards for system design,
installation, and maintenance; and conduct research on system
performance. Each state is organizationally different in regu-
lating small wastewater systems, and in offering technical
assistance and financing of these systems.
71
-------
TABLE 21. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES
Descrlption
State Agency
State agencies such as
environmental protection
agencies, health depart-
ments, and public utility
commissions are involved
in wastewater management
activitles.
A county is tne most basic
political suodivis ion
witnin a tate. It is
generally made up of in-
corporated (municipali-
ties) and unincorporated
areas.
Municipality
Municipalities are cities,
towns, villages, and town-
ships.
Service Area
State agency program
enforcement can be
hanaled on a substate
ireg lona 1) bas i s.
A county can provide serv-
ices throughout its jur-
isdiction, or to defined
areas via improvement dis-
t rict s.
A municipality can pro-
vide services throughout
its jurisdiction or to
defined areas via improve*
ment districts.
Governing Body
State legislature is
principal governing
body. State agencies can
report directly to the
governor, legislature, or
to an autonomous board of
d i rector s.
Depending on the state
statutes, county popula-
tion, and other local
circumstances, county
governments can take
several forms: commis-
sion, councl1-administra-
tor, or counc11-elected
executive. The elected
county board in each of
the three forms of gov-
ernment is tne principal
legislative branch of
government.
There is great diversity
in municipal organizatlon-
al structure. Basic forms
of municipal government
include mayor-counci1,
commission, and council-
manager. The council or
commission is usually an
elected body with primary
decision-making authority.
Respons ibi111les
Many states are directly
involved in code enforce-
ment of on-site and small
community wastewater
design, installation, and
operation standards.
States also provide spe-
cial technical and finan-
cial assistance to small
commun11le s.
Counties serve as coordi-
nators of municipalities
in its jurisdiction. They
can provide special serv-
ices to municipalities on
a contract basis. They
can serve as a fiscal
agent for the other local
units of government.
Municipalities provide a
wide range of services.
Financing
Capabilities
Broad-based financial
support to programs is
possible through Federal
grants and state general
revenues. States will
assume a major role in
administering the
construction grants
program.
A county can fix charges
for sewerage sources and
finance facility construc-
tion from taxation, gen-
eral funds, special as-
sessments, general obli-
gation bonds, revenue
bonds, and permit fees.
Improvement districts can
be used as the primary
mechanism of raising rev-
enues for wastewater man-
agement services.
Municipalities are vested
with a broad range of fis-
cal powers to finance pub-
lic improvements (similar
to counties).
Disadvantages
States have financial and
regulatory advantages
over local governments,
and are more aware of
local needs than Federal
agencies. States can
effectively coordinate
wastewater management
activities administered by
substate entities. State
enforcement of codes can
provide insulation from
local political pressures.
Through more specialized
staffing capabilities,
states can administer
training and certifica-
tion programs for persons
involved in wastewater
management activities.
Each state is organized
differently with respect
to small wastewater sys-
tem programs; the experi-
ences of one state are
sometimes difficult to
implement in another.
States may become too
distant from local needs
unless regional offices
or a specific state agency
group specializing in
small wastewater systems
activities is established.
Counties are in an advan-
tageous geographical posi-
tion to interact with
states and local govern-
ments on many issues.
Counties are sometimes
looked upon as adminis-
trative arms of state gov-
ernment. Counties pro-
vide an efficient resource
base for providing public
services.
Municipalities can better
react to local perceptions
and attitudes.
County governments are
sometimes not willing to
become involved in provid-
ing specialized public
services to a defined
service area. Local gov-
ernments are sometimes
also unwilling to allow
county government to pro-
vide services for them,
unless the localities are
assured some role in the
dec ision-making process.
Community debt ceilings
could restrict the use of
general obligation bonds.
Small towns and villages
may not have the adminis-
trative capability, staff,
or willingness to operate
small wastewater facili-
ties or regulate system
design and installation.
Financing opportunities
may be limited by small
resource base or municipal
debt limits.
72
-------
TABLE 21,
(CONTINUED)
Deacription
Service Area
Spec tal District
Special districts are
quasi-manicipa1 entities
haviny a wide r a nq e ot
functions prescnoed ny
state enabling legisla-
tion. Special districts
can provide single or mui
11pie ser vices.
The territory served by a
special district is tlexi-
ble.
Improvement District
A device used by counties
or municipalities to pro-
vide services to a part of
tne local government ju-
risdiction.
Usually part of a single
jurisdiction. Can have
several improvement dis-
tricts within a sinqle ju-
risdiction.
Pu hiic Au thority
A special purpose type of
government or corporation,
authorized to administer
a revenue-producinq public
enterprise (e.q., water
and sewerage services).
This type of organization
is similar in concept to a
special district.
A public authority's ju-
risdiction of coverage is
flexible; it can be com-
prised of a municipality,
group of municipalities,
county, or group of coun-
ties.
Governing Body
Tne governing body of a
special district is a
board of directors who can
be:
• Elected by voters
in the service area.
• Appointed by a gov-
ernment aqency.
• Composed ot memoers
of a government
aqency.
The governing body of the
creating unit of govern-
ment is the governing body
of the improvement dis-
trict.
The governing body of a
public authority is a
board of directors. The
board members can be:
• Elected by resi-
dents within the
service area.
• Made up of members
of the governing
body of the local
qover nment.
Responsibi1 itles
Special districts can per-
form all wastewater man-
agement functions, similar
to a local governmental
entity. State enabling
legislation defines the
function and scope of
special districts.
Starte statutes define the
extent of authority of im-
provement districts.
Their authority is usually
applied to finance public
service improvements.
A public authority can
provide a wide range of
functions. It is used
predominantly for its
f inane ing capabi 1 it ies.
Financing
Capabilit ies
Special districts can use
local taxation, special
assessments, service
charges, grants, loans,
general obligation, bonds,
and revenue bonds to fi-
nance projects, special
districts are sometimes
created to circumvent fi-
nancial restrictions
placed on local govern-
ments.
Can apply special property
assessments, user charges/
and other fees, and sell
bonds to finance improve-
ments. The principal use
of this mechanism is to
assess property owners for
benefits received. Shares
similar financing capabil-
ities as counties and mu-
nicipalities.
Its revenue-raising capa-
bility is limited to reve-
nue bonds, user charges,
and connection fees.
Advantages
A special district is a
flexible method of provid-
ing wastewater services.
There is equity of serv-
ices rendered; only those
persons receiving services
pay for them. Special
districts are simple, in-
dependent forms of govern-
ment that can provide spe-
cialized services.
Ability to extend public
services without major ex*
penditure of public funds.
Persons within the bene-
fitted area usually favor
the improvement.
Public authorities are
useful where local gov-
ernments cannot provide
public services because of
financial, administrative,
or political problems. A
public authority has a
certain degree of autonomy
and independence from mu-
nicipal budgetary and ad-
ministrative controls.
Special districts can pro-
mote a proliferation of
local government and dup-
lication and fragmentation
of public services. Fis-
cal problems could result
from overextended use of
special districts. some
problems with accounta-
bility to service area
residents may result.
Contributes to fragmenta-
tion of local government
services. There can be
significant administrative
delays in establishing the
district.
A public authority cannot
tax property; its financ-
ing ability is limited to
revenue bonds. Therefore,
it is difficult to assure
that debt obligations can
be met without a certain
deqree of local govern-
ment support. Public au-
thorities are frequently
criticized for lack of
public accountability and
a self-serving nature
(largely due to their de-
pendence on revenue bond
financing). The marketa-
bility of revenue bonds
depends on the confidence
of the bond market.
73
-------
TABLE 21. (CONTINUED)
Description
Public Nonprofit
Corporation
Tne purpose of a nonprofit
corporation is to provide
water or wastewater serv-
ices on behalf of local
government s.
Prlvate Nonprofit
Co rporat ion
A private nonprofit corpo-
ration can be established
by trie users of a facility
to assist in facility fi-
nancing and operation.
Private (For Profit)
Corporation
Private enterprises in the
form of small private
firms or private companies
and utilities can design,
run, operate, or maintain
sewerage facilities.
Service Area
Governing Body
The concept is tlexiole;
it can be applied to a
single community, group of
communities, or on a
statewide basis.
The directors of the cor-
poration are usually mu-
nicipal or state offi-
cials. The governing body
of the sponsoring govern-
ment must approve projects
and accept the corpora-
tion's assets after the
indebtedness has been am-
orti2ed and paid off.
The service area can in-
clude subdivisions, small
communities, and rural
areas.
The corporation is gov-
erned by a board of di-
rectors elected by stock-
holders or by property
owners in a property own-
ers' association. Stock
can be issued to the mem-
bers of the corporation at
a nominal fee.
The service area for a
private corporation is
flexible. It can range
from a single homeowner
to a small community.
Franchise riqhts and
licensinq requirements
can restrict service area
boundaries.
The single or sole propri-
etorship is the simplest
form of business organi-
zation. A single propri-
etor (or partnership) sim-
ply invests his capital
and begins to do business.
A private utility or
corporation has stockhold-
ers or investors as the
principal supporting
group.
Responsibl1 ities Nonprofit corporations
tend to serve strictly as
financing mechanisms for
sewerage and water facili-
ties. Local governments
provide the necessary reg-
ulatory activities, such
as acquisition of rights
of way. A nonprofit cor-
poration can also be used
to provide technical as-
sistance to small communi-
t ies.
The corporation can pro-
vide financing and opera-
tional functions.
The private sector has an
active and flexible role
to play in managing small
wastewater systems.
Financing
Capabilities
Revenues are derived from
user charges and service
fees and sales of stocks
and tax-exempt bonds. Can
accept some Federal grants
and loans.
Nonprofit corporations are
eligible for some Federal
grants and loans, and are
regulated by state public
utility commissions.
The state public utility
commission (PUC) has ju-
risdiction over private
companies providing sew-
eraqe secvices in most
states. The PUC exerts a
certain degree of control
over the adequacy of
service rates charged.
Advantages
A nonprofit corporation
offers a great deal of
flexibility in establish-
ing wastewater management
facilities, and financing
wastewater facilities by
state and local govern-
ments. Financing methods
do not affect local debt
limitations. Several
states have already estab-
lished nonprofit corpora-
tions to help finance lo-
cal water and sewer proj-
ects.
This approach is promoted
by the National Demonstra-
tion Water Project in ru-
ral areas as part of a
self-help program for man-
agement of water and sewer
facilities. It provides
public secvices where lo-
cal governments are un-
willing or unable to pro-
vide them.
The participation of the
private sector in various
aspects of waatewater man-
agement frees the local
public sector from provid-
ing these services. Com-
petition among firms will
help to ensure that ade-
quate services are pro-
vided and reasonable
prices are charged.
Local governments may be
reluctant to apply this
concept.
The major concern by regu-
latory agencies is that
services would be termi-
nated, or that services
would not be provided ef-
ficiently or satisfactori-
ly. Third party arrange-
ments can help avoid this
problem.
The biggest disadvantage
of this arrangement is the
threat that the private
entity will go out of
business. Private corpo-
rations are also not
eligible for most Federal
and state grants and loans
for wastewater projects.
74
-------
States are assuming more direct responsibility in admin-
istering EPA's construction grants program. Chapter 6 dis-
cusses some of the ways state programs can assist small
communities in facility planning and implementation acti-
vities.
Counties
The size, purpose, and authority of counties varies from
state-to-state according to each state's statutes and laws. The
role of county government in providing wastewater management
services is equally diverse. A county can provide certain func-
tions, such as on-site system regulation, within its geograph-
ical jurisdiction, or it can supplement and support existing
city, town, or village wastewater management programs, with
technical, financial, or administrative assistance.
Counties have at their disposal a wide range of financing
mechanisms to raise revenues for small wastewater system plan-
ning, regulatory and operational activities. In offering these
services, counties can simply provide the service to its consti-
tuents through its normal operational mechanisms (e.g., a county
department or agency), or it can create a special district
(sometimes referred to as an improvement district) to provide
specialized services to a defined service area. (See also the
discussion of improvement district capabilities.)
Incorporated Municipalities
Municipalities (generally including cities, towns, boroughs,
and villages) are an important general-purpose unit of local
governments. (Although townships are not considered incorporat-
ed municipalities in most states, they may possess authority
similar to small municipalities for providing wastewater serv-
ices.) As incorporated communities, municipalities operate
under local charters which are either set forth or approved by
state legislative action, or prepared under self-executing home
rule provisions. The municipal charter and state municipal
statutes generally outline the authority of these local govern-
ments in providing wastewater services. Similar to counties,
municipalities provide a wide variety of services, depending on
geographic size and resource base.
Special Purpose Agencies
Special purpose agencies are created to provide public serv-
ices which are not provided or cannot be provided by local gov-
ernment. There are two different forms of special purpose agen-
cies that can carry out wastewater management functions -- spec-
ial districts and improvement districts.
75
-------
A special district is an agency of government which operates
outside the regular government to perform single or multiple
services. The territory serviced by the district is flexible;
it may consist of a single community, a part of a single commu-
nity, a group of communities, or parts of several communities.
State enabling legislation outlines the major governmental char-
acteristics of the districts, such as service area function,
organizational structure and financial authority, as well as set
the conditions of their performance. The procedural steps re-
quired to create a special district are simple, although wide
variation exists among state enabling legislation. The basic
methods of forming a special district include:
1. The state legislature can pass a special act
for the formation of a special district in a
certain location, or generally permit such
districts with given powers under specified
conditions.
2. A local government (e.g., county) can create
a special district by resolution of the
governing body.
3. Service area property owners and residents,
or service area residents (without necessarily
being registered voters or property owners)
can petition (usually the governing body of a
public agency) to form a district. The
requirement for creating the district is
typically a simple majority of the votes cast.
An improvement district, on the other hand, is a mechanism
used by counties and municipalities to provide public services
which benefit only those residents residing within the defined
service area. Public improvements, such as providing wastewater
management services, are provided through the fiscal resources
of benefitted properties. The governing body of an improvement
district is the governing body of the local government which
created it. An improvement district can be created by the
local government by resolution of the governing body, at the
request of the local service area residents, or on the basis of
a perceived need by local decision-makers.
Public Authorities
A public authority is a corporate body, chartered by the
state legislature, with powers to own, finance, construct, and
operate revenue-producing public facilities. Public authori-
ties are also referred to as commissions, public benefit corpo-
rations, municipal authorities, and sewerage authorities.
76
-------
A public authority can be used in a variety of ways to
construct, finance, and operate a public facility. The
authority can:
1. Construct, own, operate, and finance improve-
ments to provide public sewers to a municipal-
ity, group of municipalities, a county, or
group of counties.
2. Finance and construct the public facility,
and turn it over to the appropriate unit of
government.
3. Offer financing for publicly-owned improvements.
Another significant feature of the public authority (in some
states) is that despite considerable freedom during the opera-
tional phase, the properties of the authority can revert to the
creating local government when their indebtedness is amortized
and paid. There is a tendency, however, for new obligations to
be incurred, and thus, termination under this provision seldom
occurs.
Nonprofit Corporations
Nonprofit corporations can be classified as public or pri-
vate entities; i.e.,the corporation can be formed by a state or
local government (public nonprofit corporation) or a developer
(private nonprofit corporation). Special districts and public
authorities can generally be classified as public nonprofit
corporations. The authority of this type of entity would be
contained in the applicable public utility law of that particu-
lar state, and in articles of incorporation approved by member
jurisdictions. The rules governing the formation and operation
of nonprofit corporations vary from state-to-state, however,
these corporations may be subject to state public utility com-
mission (or public service commission) regulations.
A public nonprofit corporation can be formed by cooperating
communities for the purpose of providing a public service, such
as wastewater disposal or water supply. The participating com-
munities hold stock and shareholder rights in the corporation,
and the entity functions autonomously. A private nonprofit
corporation can be established to perform the same functions.
However, the ownership is vested with the stockholders or prop-
erty owners forming the corporation. Typical private nonprofit
corporations include rural cooperatives and property owners
associations.
77
-------
In a property owners association, it is desirable to incor-
porate when the land is initially developed. This facilitates
the delineation of utility easements and deed restrictions which
provide continuous membership in the association in the event
the property is sold. This is usually accomplished by requiring
membership in the association to run with the land. Typically,
such convenants and utility easement locations are recorded at
the time of subdivision plat approval.
Private (For Profit) Corporations
The private sector has an active role to play in the manage-
ment of small wastewater systems. As noted in the preceding
discussion, private nonprofit corporations, made up of property
owners or community residents, can be set up to own, operate,
and maintain sewerage facilities. Likewise, private enterprise,
in the form of small private firms or private companies and
utilities, can design, install, own, operate, or maintain sewer-
age facilities. Septage haulers, plumbing contractors, septic
system installers, and private utilities are included in this
institutional category.
Private (for profit) corporations or utilities that own,
operate, and maintain sewerage facilities are regulated by a
state public utility commission.
Various legal mechanisms can be used to assure continued
acceptable service at reasonable rates for both private (for
profit) corporations and private (nonprofit) corporations.
While the Public Utility Commission does exert a certain degree
of control over the adequacy of service and rates charged,
other methods of protecting the consumer are usually applied to
private corporations (both profit and nonprofit). Among these
mechanisms are:
1. Trust deed.
2. Third party beneficiary contract.
3. Franchises from governmental authority.
A description of these mechanisms can be found in the appen-
dix to this report (see Service Agreements, Section III-2).
These mechanisms are required to ensure that private organiza-
tions will be:
1. Financially secure.
2. Provide continuous and permanent service.
3. Accountable to its customers.
78
-------
Despite the potential problems with private organizations,
the presence of a private utility or experienced private
controller relieves the burden of providing wastewater services
(such as septage disposal and facility operation) by local
governments. Competition and profits will help to assure that
adequate services are provided. Renewable competitive contracts
or franchises will help to guarantee quality service and control
costs.
Institutional Overview
The preceding discussion has outlined the roles, responsi-
bilities, and powers of various institutional options for man-
aging small wastewater systems. All levels of government,
Federal, state, county, and local, were highlighted. In many
cases it was difficult to precisely outline the powers of a
particular entity because of the wide variation in enabling
legislation and political organization from state-to-state.
The discussion that was presented, however, serves to introduce
these institutional concepts, which are applied to developing
operation, financial, and implementation plans (described in
the three chapters that follow).
79
-------
CHAPTER 4
FORMULATING AN OPERATIONS PLAN
An operations plan defines the specific program activities
to be performed by management agency personnel. This specifies
what functions (pertaining to design, installation, and main-
tenance of small wastewater systems) will be provided, how their
functions will be carried out, and by whom. Much of the infor-
mation presented in Chapter 3, "Selection of the Management
Agency," is applied in the formulation of an operations plan.
The institutional issues involved in preparing an operations
plan include:
1. Who will promulgate and enforce system design
regulations?
2. Who will conduct site evaluations, prepare system
designs, review design plans, and issue permits?
3. Who will ensure that systems are installed
according to design?
4. Who will inspect system operations?
5. Who will pump out and dispose of septage wastes?
6. Who confirms that a system has failed and requires
its repair?
7. Who performs continuing maintenance and repair?
Complementing technical issues which need to be addressed in
preparing an operations plan, which are inputs to the institu-
tional assessment, include:
1. What types of wastewater systems are to be applied?
2. What are the limits of the service area?
3. How will site evaluations be conducted?
80
-------
4. What should the inspector do in reviewing:
a. System design plans.
b. System installations.
c. Permit applications.
5. How often should septic systems and other types of
wastewater systems be inspected?
6. How should residual wastes (e.g., septage) be
disposed of, and where?
Moreover, the specific institutional requirements of a
wastewater management program will depend on the scope of the
program, as well as the applied technology. The level or scope
of wastewater management programs will be determined on the
basis of local needs, physical characteristics, and environmen-
tal sanitation and health objectives. The assessment of these
complementing, yet diverse, management requirements will help
prepare the framework for developing an operations plan.
GUIDE FOR OPERATIONS PLAN FORMULATION
This section of the chapter presents the major analysis
steps to be conducted in selecting institutional options to car-
ry out the system design, installation, and operation and main-
tenance functions, related to the operations plan. The discus-
sion of analysis steps that follow apply to the preparation of
an operations plan for both on-site and small community systems.
Subsequent sections of this chapter will separate the discus-
sion of management functions, i.e., design/installation and
operation maintenance for both on-site and small community
wastewater systems. In addition, the management of residual
wastes is also addressed in the final section of this chapter.
The analysis steps involved in operations plan preparation
include:
Step
Step
Step
1 -- Establish management requirements for proposed
wastewater technologies.
a. Design/installation.
b. Operation and maintenance.
c. Residuals disposal.
2 -- Develop management alternatives.
3 — Assess existing agency capabilities.
81
-------
Step 4 -- Review of institutional options and alter-
native management approaches.
Step 5 -- Develop methods to enforce operations plan
requirements.
Step 6 -- Recommend modifications to organizational
structure and/or administrative activities to
carry out operations plan activities.
These steps are described below.
Step 1: Establish management requirements for wastewater
technologies.
• Design/installation
• Operation and maintenance
• Residuals disposal
The level of effort required to perform system design, oper-
ation and maintenance, and residuals disposal depends to a large
extent on the complexity of the technology involved. Different
kinds of design, operation and maintenance, and residual dispos-
al activities are involved with different types of wastewater
technology. The structure and organization of the management
program should be sensitive to technological as well as politi-
cal and economic factors.
The first step in developing an operations plan is to define
the technical requirements of the wastewater systems under con-
sideration, and to translate those requirements into a set of
management functions. Tables 22 and 23 describe the functions
that are typically involved in managing small wastewater sys-
tems. Table 22 lists the major management functions related to
the preparation of an operations plan. The table should be
viewed as a checklist of tasks which need to be performed within
a management system. Table 23 displays broad categories of
functions along with specific technology in matrix form. The
user should first specify the form of technology being applied,
and then identify applicable functions that need to be provided.
Where additional detail in explaining functional requirements is
necessary, the user may indicate the technical practices that
define how the functions are to be carried out.
82
-------
Step 2: Develop management alternatives.
The purpose of this task is to aggregate the requirements
for wastewater system management into a set of management al-
ternatives for institutional analysis.
The user should recognize that a particular wastewater ap-
proach may consist of various forms of technology. (Refer to
the example analysis presented in Chapter 2.) The results of
the previous step will yield an array of technologies and man-
agement requirements. The purpose of this step is to assemble
the required management functions into a number of management
alternatives (one or more sets of management alternatives for
each technical alternative under consideration).
Table 24 offers several optional approaches for arranging
system design and maintenance programs. These approaches are
presented in a "building block" format, expressing a range of
possible management approaches within the two functional areas.
Therefore, it is possible to select one or more management ap-
proaches for further institutional analysis.
Step 3: Assess existing agency capabilities.
Once the management implications of various alternatives are
displayed (as a result of Step 2), it will be necessary to exam-
ine and evaluate the capabilities of existing regulations and
enforcement personnel in performing necessary functions. Modi-
fications to management procedures, activities, or responsibili-
ties can then be defined to accommodate technological require-
ments.
Coordination with the evaluation of technologies is impor-
tant to help define the level of emphasis required by the man-
agement program in providing technology needs and objectives.
Tables 25 and 26 present a generalized procedure for assess-
ing the adequacy of regulatory programs to fulfill management
requirements. Data needs for analysis and evaluation criteria
for determining the necessity for modifications to current in-
stitutional arrangements are shtown in these tables.
83
-------
Before conducting any detailed organizational and regulatory
analyses, the user should review steps 1 through 4 of the Users
Guide in Chapter 3, "Selection of Management Agencies."
Step 4: Review institutional options and management
approaches for:
• Design/installation
• Operation and maintenance
• Residuals disposal
The preceding evaluation should have pointed out strengths
and weaknesses of the existing institutional framework to per-
form various management functions. The sections of the chapter
that follow (i.e., Institutional Options) present descriptions
of alternative institutional arrangements for conducting system
designs, operation and maintenance, and residuals disposal.
These alternative institutional arrangements should be reviewed
and compared with the evaluation of the existing regulatory pro-
gram.
Step 5: Develop methods of enforcing operations plan
requirements.
Procedures for enforcing operations plan requirements are
generally specified in codes and ordinances administered by a
state or local agency. Fines, violation orders, permits, state-
ments of noncompliance and injunctions are commonly used judic-
ial and administrative techniques for complying with regula-
tions, correcting failing systems, or upgrading substandard sys-
tems. Table 27 identifies several important techniques used to
gain entry onto private property and to require periodic inspec-
tions and maintenance of wastewater systems. Obtaining this
authority may be a specified condition of a Federal construction
grant.
Step 6: Recommend modifications to organizational structure
and/or administrative activities to carry out functions
prescribed in the operations plan.
Table 28 is a checklist of management functions, with space
provided to identify the preferred institutional arrangements,
according to the operation plan analyses conducted in this chap-
ter .
84
-------
Any modifications to the existing institutional structure
should be evaluated subject to the criteria set forth in Table
29. (See Tables 19 and 20 for sample evaluation criteria and
rating formats.)
85
-------
TABLE 22. FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF
MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Planninq/Administrat ion
•
Plan preparation
- Wastewater facilities
- Water supply/residuals disposal
- Land use development
•
Plan review coordination
- Interagency coordination to facilitate plan review
- Integration of land use and wastewater management program needs
- Plan review and approval
and
objectives
•
Research and development
- Feasibility study of alternative institutional arrangements
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative wastewater treatment
technology
and
disposal
•
Office and staff management
- Establish office policies and procedures
- Maintain sufficient staff size to accommodate workload
Site Evaluation
•
Guidelines for performing site evaluation
- Procedures and data requirements
- Licensing, certification, and training of site evaluators
a
Determination of site limitations
- Site inspections
- Site testing and evaluations
- Review and acceptance of findings
System
Desiqn
•
Adopt system design standards
- Performance standards and construction specifications
- Licensing, certification, and training of system designers
•
Select and design system
- Design assistance
- Preparation of construction drawings and specifications
•
Design review and approval
- Issue permits for system construction
Installation
•
Establish procedures for system installation supervision
- License, certify, and train system installers
- Determine number of site visits and procedures
•
Final inspection and approval
- Issue occupancy permit
- Prepare as-built drawings
- Maintain records
Operation and Maintenance (OtM)
•
Establish OiM procedures and responsibilities
- Develop program for routine Osm
- Batablish Methods for conducting periodic inspections and evaluations of
¦ystra operation
86
-------
TABLE 22. (CONTINUED)
- Develop enforcement and regulation mechanisms as required to conduct inspec-
tions and repair failed systems
- Establish emergency maintenance procedures
- Define characteristics of failing systems
- License, train, and certify persons conducting inspections, making repairs,
and operating facilities
•
Operate and maintain facilities
- Conduct routine and emergency inspections
- Make repairs and replace defective systems and equipment
- Supervise major repair/replacement work
- Maintain records of inspections, maintenance, and repairs
- Issue permit renewals and system performance certifications
Residuals Disposal
•
Develop procedures for residuals treatment and disposal
- Determine acceptable residuals treatment and disposal locations
- License, certify, and train persons involved in residuals transport and
treatment facility operation
•
Operate and maintain residuals disposal facilities
- Develop reporting mechanism to identify origin, method and location of
disposal, and volume of residuals disposal
- Inspection of hauling equipment and treatment facilities
Financing
•
Determine available source of funding
- Apply for financial assistance
- Secure funds for system construction and initial upgrading
- Establish fee structure
•
Establish billing and collection mechanisms
- Charge fees for services rendered
- Levy assessments
- Monthly/annual billing and collection
•
Set and collect user charges and fees
- Finance debt service
- Raise revenue for 04M
Monitor inq
•
Establish monitoring methods and evaluation criteria
- Develop plans and specifications
- Develop compliance reporting system
•
Conduct environmental testing monitoring
- Monitor groundwater quality
- Monitor surface water quality
- Report monitoring results
Public
Education/Public Relations
•
Develop educational programs and information transfer methods
- Define audience of education program
- Determine most productive education methods
- Develop method of reporting system failures
•
Inform public and program participants
- Inform public of maintenance procedures, proper operation, and water conserva-
tion techniques
- Disseminate information to professionals and contractors
- Respond to inquiries, complaints, etc.
87
-------
TABLE 23. TECHNOLOGY/FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS MATRIX
Planning Site System Installa- Operation and Residuals Monitor- Public
Technical Component Admin. Evaluation Design tion Maintenance Disposal inq Relations Other
Standard Individual
subsurface Disposal
Alternative Individual
Subsurface Disposal
Individual Surface
Discharge
Individual Nondischarqe
System
Individual Mechanical
Treatment Units
Individual Pumping
Units
Recycle Systems
Water Conserving SAMPLE FORMAT
Systems
Holding Tank
Experimental
Individual Systems
Gravity Sewers
Low Pressure Sewers
Vacuum Sewers
Conventional Small
Community Treatment
Facility
Community Surface
Discharge
Innovative and
Alternative Small
Community Treatment
Facility
Community Subsurface
Disposal
Community Land
Application
-------
TABLE 24. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SMALL SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
-- BUILDING BLOCKS IN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
System Design--Installation
• Rely on existing state and local regulatory programs
to govern the design and installation of wastewater
systems.
• Supplement existing regulatory programs with
training and certification programs to ensure the
participation of qualified public and private
sector personnel and to standardize the design-in-
stallation process.
• Modify existing regulations to incorporate "best
management practice" design standards to provide
additional safeguards for system performance.
• Modify existing regulations to provide more thorough
site reviews of individual lots and proposed sub-
divisions, and restrict the use of standard waste-
water disposal systems to areas with optimum site
conditions.
System Operation--Maintenance
• Rely on the homeowner to provide sufficient main-
tenance of his/her wastewater system.
• Supplement homeowner arrangement with educational
programs to promote proper maintenance practices.
• Provide incentives for homeowner maintenance
(of on-site systems) through the provision of
accessible and inexpensive septage disposal facil-
ities.
• Conduct routine inspections of new and existing
wastewater systems as part of an areawide sanitary
survey or pre-sale inspection.
• Mandatory maintenance provisions for both new and
existing systems established by state or local
regulatory programs (e.g., through maintenance
permit provisions, certificates of compliance, or
service contracts).1
• Establish formal management programs governing the
design, installation, and maintenance of wastewater
systems. (Systems could be owned by the homeowner
or by a public entity.)
1-See Table 27 for further explanation of these mandatory main-
tenance enforcement techniques.
89
-------
TABLE 2 5. DATA NEEDS FOR INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
Organizational Analysis
1. Display the organizational structure of the regulatory program, noting
responsibilties and authorities.
2. Determine number of agency staff assigned to wastewater management activities.
3. List responsibilities and qualifications of staff.
4. Assess time devoted (by staff persons) in performing the following duties:
• Design/installation
Conducting site evaluations.
Reviewing permit applications.
- Permit recording.
Installation inspections.
Recordkeeping of permits issued, as-built drawings, etc.
Other design/installation activities.
• Operation and maintenance
Routine inspections.
- Complaint inspections.
Supervision of system repair/replacement.
- Other operation and maintenance activities.
• Residuals disposal
- Recordkeeping of septage pumpouts, failing systems, etc.
Regulation of septage haulers and disposal sites.
- Hater quality monitoring.
Other residuals disposal activities.
5. Assess other administrative/regulatory issues:
• Total permit activity (permit applications reviewed and issued)
- Daily average.
- Monthly average.
Yearly average.
Regulatory Analysis
1. Assess adequacy of regulations to handle current and future wastewater problems.
• Design standards, criteria, and general procedures.
• Operation and maintenance rules and regulations.
• Residuals disposal regulation.
2. Review procedures for modifying regulations.
• Legislative actions.
• Administrative actions.
90
-------
TABLE 26. INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT ISSUES
• Organizational Analysis
Are staff persons being utilized effectively?
Are staff qualifications compatible with duties?
Is sufficient time being spent on performing
management activities?
Can existing staff perform additional duties
(i.e., operation and maintenance) or spend
additional time on any single activity?
Are private sector entities utilized in the
current regulatory program?
Are records of system installations,
inspections, and septage pumping being
accurately kept? Has the data been evaluated in
an effort to improve the effectiveness of the
management program?
• Regulatory Analysis
Do the existing regulations and ordinances
contain sufficient emphasis on site evaluation,
system design, installation procedures,
operation and maintenance, and residuals
disposal?
Have attempts been made to modify or update
regulations in the past? What was the outcome?
Can local regulations be changed? What is the
state local arrangement for wastewater system
regulation?
91
-------
TABLE 27. ENFORCEMENT METHODS -- OPERATIONS PLAN ACTIVITIES
Method
Permissive
legislation
creating
water manage-
ment dis-
tr icts
Description
Special legislation establishing the
authority for managing wastewater
systems.
Advantages
Several states have adopted
special legislation. Lends sup-
port and "legitimacy" to the
concept of on-site wastewater
management.
Disadvantages
May be difficult to pass special
state legislation unless adequate
political and public support
exists.
Maintenance
permit
Ser vice
agreement or
service
contract
Method of defining homeowner responsi-
bilities of system maintenance. Can
be issued as a conditional provision
to install the system. Provisions
may specify frequency of inspections
or septage pumping.
Contracts with a management entity or
private firm which would outline the
specific requirements for service.
Effective tool for ensuring sys-
tem maintenance. Invalid permit
could prohibit sale of home
(if attached to the property
deed).
Simple to administer when number
of participants (i.e., agencies,
customers, and firms) is small.
May require special ordinance
to implement.
Could pose problems when large
numbers of homes are involved.
Certificate Property owner would retain mainte-
of compli- nance responsibility. System would
ance have to be inspected periodically and
its operating condition checked to
approve or disapprove the renewal
application.
Periodic inspections would be
used to determine performance
characteristics of the system.
Septage pumping would probably
not be sufficient proof of a
satisfactory system, therefore,
detailed inspection may be re-
quired .
Easement
Purchase of
the system
Presale in-
spection
Costs for
abatement
(violation
as encum-
brance)
Method for securing permanent legal
access to private property. Can be
obtained for a sewer line crossing
private property or a general ease-
ment tied to the location of the septic
system itself.
Management entity can purchase the
wastewater system (in addition to
the right of inspection), and possibly
lease back to homeowner. Also possible
to require dedication of facilities by
the developer.
Inspection by local regulatory agency
at the time of home sale to assure that
system is not failing, is structurally
sound, and has been properly maintain-
ed .
Where systems are failing, the manage-
ment agency can issue orders to repair.
If property owner does not respond,
agency can repair the system and bill
the property owner. Can also attach
the unpaid bill as a lien on the prop-
erty .
Easy to establish rights-of-way
at the time of subdivision
approval.
Clearly specifies responsibili-
ties for operation and mainte-
of the wastewater system.
Easy to implement. &3ded bene-
fits of informing new occupant
of location and proper mainte-
of the wastewater system.
Effective technique that can be
easy to administer.
In the case of existing devel-
opments, homeowner attitude and
number of homes are key factors
for determining ease of admin-
i str at ion.
Many problems posed with this
approach, such as public agen-
cy's reluctance to purchase or
assume ownership (via dedica-
tion), of a system that is old
or not in conformance with cur-
rent regulations.
Requires support and coordination
of realtors and mortgage lending
institutions.
Requires effective enforcement
support from local regulatory
agency.
-------
TABLE 28. FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES MATRIX
Identify specific management agency (> e special district, municipal
authority, municipal government, county agencies, regional agencies.
State agencies. Federal agenoes. private organizations, and ott>er groups)
and indicate responsibilities of each agency
Comments
Planning/Administration
Plan preparation
Plan review coordination
Research and development
•
Office and staff management
Sit* Evaluation
Guidelines and criteria
Evaluation certification
Site suitability analysis
System Design
Standards and criteria
Designer certification
System desiqn
Desiqn review
Permit issuance
Installation
Construction supervision
Installer certification
Record-keepinq
Permit issuance
Operation and Maintenance
Procedures and regulations
Operator/inspector certification
Routine inspections
Emerqency inspections
System repair/replacement
Repair supervision
Performance certification
System ownership
Rsslduals Disposal
Disposal regulations
Hauler certification
Record-keeping
Equipment inspections
Facility inspections
Facility operation
Financing
Secure funding
Set charges
Collect charges
Monitoring
Reporting system
Sampling
Public Education
Develop methods
Disseminate information
Respond to complaints
93
-------
TABLE 29. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR OPERATIONS PLAN
FORMULATION
Administrative/Legal Feasibility
• Does sufficient legal authority exist to perform
required operations plan activities?
• Are current staffing size and qualifications adequate?
• Are experienced private sector representatives being
utilized to their fullest extent?
• Can the existing or proposed management entity respond
to changing user needs? Is the entity able to cope
with potential adverse reactions to the use of small
wastewater systems?
Institutional Feasibility
• Does the management agency (either current or proposed)
have the capability to accommodate institutional change?
• Is there sufficient justification for expanded public
agency involvement in operation and maintenance
activities?
• Does the current state-local organizational structure
permit institutional modifications to regulatory
programs?
• Does a new agency need to be formed? Will this be
politically acceptable?
94
-------
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS RELATED TO SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
There are several types of institutions that carry out man-
agement activities for system design and installation. They
include:
1. States.
2. Counties.
3. Cities, towns, villages, and townships.
4. Special purpose agencies.
5. Private individuals and companies.
Either singly or in combination, these institutional ar-
rangements can be applied to carry out the following management
functions associated with system design and installation:
1. Establish sanitary codes.
2. Conduct site evaluations.
3. Design small wastewater systems.
4. Review design proposals.
5. Issue installation permits.
6. Inspect system installations.
7. Prepare as-built drawings.
8. Issue occupancy permits.
9. License or certify system designers and installers.
10. Require performance bonds for installers and systems.
Table 30 provides a description of management functions and
practices that are performed in designing and installing small
wastewater systems, and generally identifies institutional op-
tions for implementation.
These functions can be carried out through various institu-
tional arrangements. Functions associated with on-site system
design/installation can be implemented through three broad in-
stitutional classifications:
1. State administration.
2. State-local administration.
3. Local government administration.
Institutional options for small community systems design/
installation fall into two categories:
1. State administration.
2. State-local administration.
Several different approaches to implement these options are
presented. Each description includes a sample arrangement of
functional responsibilities and institutional options grouped
95
-------
V
TABLE 30. DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN--INSTALLATION FUNCTIONS
Implement inq Ent ity
Public Agencies
Es tabli sh
Sanitary Codes
Conduct Site
Evaluat ions
System Design
Design Review
Permit Issuance
Installation
Inspect ions
As-Bui It
Drawi nqs
Issue Occupancy
Pe rm i t
Licensinq and
Ce rt if icat ion
of Designers/
Installers
Bond inq of
Des igner 3/
Installers and
Systems
Desc r1pt ion
Codes contain minimum standards for
site evaluation, system design, con-
struction procedures and materials.
Assess site conditions via hydraulic
conductivity tests, soil borings, ob-
servation pits, and other tests to
determine site suitability and select
an applicable wastewater system.
Specify system type, location, and
size. Design is typically based on
criteria specified in sanitary codes.
Evaluate information about the site
and recommended desiqn, upon which
approval or disapproval can be made.
Procedures for design review vary
widely.
A fundamental regulatory procedure to
enforce sanitary code provisions.
Issuing a permit typically signifies
that all conditions of the sanitary
codes have been satisfied, and system
installation can begin.
Visit site to ensure that the system
is properly situated and si2ed, and
ultimately, properly installed.
Several visits may be necessary to
adequately inspect a system.
Prepared at the time of final instal-
lation inspection to document type,
location, and size of the installed
system, plus other pertinent data such
as site evaluation results. Copies
usually given to homeowner and filed
by the permitting agency.
Official final approval of system
installation; enables homeowner to
assure occupancy. Can be revoked if
system fails or if maintenance provi-
sions are not complied with (e.g.,
maintenance permit provision).
Require persons involved in system
design and installation to pass a
qualification exam, be registered to
perform these activities, and/or be
licensed. Certification and registra-
tion are typically voluntary mecha-
nisms. Licensing can be an effective
regjlatory tool, if licenses are
revoked if the performance of the
licensed individual is not satisfac-
tory.
Bonding can help protect the homeowner
from substandard installation. System
bonding can be required of the instal-
ler or manufacturer to reduce the bur-
den of the homeowner in the event of
system failure within a specified
period of time.
State County/Reg ional
• •
Special
Purpose Private
Municipal Agency Fi rms
• •
• •
• •
96
-------
according to the general categories listed. Supplemental infor-
mation in the form of "illustrations" are also included to high-
light different ways in which these institutional concepts have
been implemented in actual situations. The information contain-
ed in these illustrations was derived from the Interim Study Re-
port, "Management of On-Site and Small Community Systems," U.S.
EPA, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, M687, November
1979, prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. The interim report docu-
ments the results of the earlier phase of this project—conduct-
ing case studies of state and local wastewater management pro-
grams. Subsequent chapters of this report are organized in a
similar manner.
Regulating the Design and Installation of On-Site Systems
State Administration --
Under this arrangement, a state agency (e.g., a state health
department or environmental protection agency) would promulgate
and enforce statewide regulations governing individual systems.
State-employed sanitarians (and other professionals) would ad-
minister a state code (and perhaps locally-adopted modifica-
tions to that code) governing the installation of all on-site
systems within the state. The sanitarians would be stationed
at a centralized location and possibly at regional field offi-
ces. Their duties would include site inspections, system de-
sign, technical assistance/public information, plan reviews,
permit issuance, and installation supervision.
In order to improve system design and site evaluation ef-
forts, specialists in soils analysis and system design may be
required to provide technical assistance to persons contemplat-
ing the construction of on-site systems. Training, certifica^
tion and licensing of system designers, site evaluators, and
system installers by the state regulatory agency should also be
considered. Table 31 displays the various roles a state agency
can assume in on-site system design/installation. New Hampshire
is one example of a state that has adopted this approach.
STATE ADMINISTRATION -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
The State of New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Control Commission (WSPCC) is an example of a state
agency which has complete regulatory authority over the
design and installation of on-site systems within the
state. The state has prepared a detailed technical
97
-------
TABLE 31. STATE ADMINISTRATION -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Descr ipt ion: A state agency with staff at central and regional locations
would administer state sanitary code provisions, statewide.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1
Establish Codes
Site Evaluation
Soil testing
Site inspections
System Design
Design Review
Installation Permit
System Installation
Installation Supervision
As-Built Drawings
Occupancy Permit
License Designers/
Installers
State legislature
or health board
State sanitarian
State sanitarian
State sanitarian or^
engineer/spec ialist
State sanitarian
State sanitarian
Option 2
State legislature
or health board
Engineer/specialist?'
Engineer/specialist
Engineer specialist1
State sanitarian
State sanitarian
Property owner/developer Property owner/developer
State sanitarian State sanitarian
State sanitarian State sanitarian
State sanitarian State sanitarian
State agency
State agency
Performance Bonding
State agency
State agency
EVALUATION:
Responsivenes
Enforeement:
Sensitivity:
Staffing:
Coord ination:
May lack sufficient mobility and visibility to interact with
general public. Depends on orientation to field office staff-
ing .
Can overcome difficulties that localities often have in pro-
ing strict code enforcement due to political pressures.
Major constraint is lack of flexibility and sensitivity with
respect to local conditions and needs.
Has sufficient fiscal base and economies to provide qualified
specialists to assist in plan review and approval; again, de-
pends on field office orientation to become acquainted with
local needs.
Potential exists for local governments to be insensitive and
unresponsive toward public health and environmental concerns,
if burden of on-site system review and approval is left total-
ly with state agencies. Local land use plans and zoning ordi-
nances need to be sensitive to wastewater management require-
ments.
iHired by property owner or developer.
98
-------
STATE ADMINISTRATION — ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
manual that sets forth system design criteria, recom-
mends site evaluation procedures, and minimum lot
sizes, according to the type of soil and the proposed
system size.
Regulation of on-site systems is administered by
WSPCC at its central headquarters and four regional of-
fices. The central office staff is responsible for
reviewing plans, proposals, and system designs. The
regional staff assist in this review by visiting the
site before the system is installed, and then perform-
ing site inspections of precoverup installations, par-
ticularly at large subdivisions.
The WSPCC is currently considering the preparation
of a detailed soils manual and a training and certifi-
cation program for designers, and has initiated a ser-
ies of seminars and workshops to help train persons
performing soils evaluations and system designs. These
latter programs are being considered in conjunction
with a state exam and licensing program for soil eval-
uations.
State-Local Administration --
A variation of the previous approach is for the state regu-
latory agency to designate "agents" to administer state (or lo-
cally adopted) regulations. There are three basic ways the
state agents approach can be organized (refer to Table 32):
1. State-employed agents can be contracted by local
governments to administer locally-adopted on-site
regulations (option 1).
2. State-employed or certified agents, along with a
local representative (e.g., local health officer),
can administer on-site regulations (option 2).
3. Local health departments or health officers can
operate as "agents" of the state in enforcing state-
or locally-adopted rules and regulations. (In this
case all, part, or more of the local staff salaries
may be paid by the state) (option 3).
99
-------
TABLE 32.
STATE-LOCAL ADMINISTRATION -- ON-
SITE SYSTEMS
Descr iption:
"State agents" working in conjunction with local agencies would
provide the basis for a regulatory approach. There are three
basic organizational arrangements for achieving a state-local
cooperative approach.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS --
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Establish Codes
State
State or local
State or local
Site Evaluation
Soil testing
Agent or engi-
neer/specialist
Agent
Agent or engi-
neer specialist
Site inspections
Agent
Agent and local
officials
Agent
System Design
Agent or engi- ,
neer specialist
Agent or engi- .
neer specialist
Agent or engi-
neer specialist
Design Review
Agent
Local official
Agent
Installat ion
Permit
Agent
Local official
Agent or local
agency
System Installation
Property owner/
developer
Property owner/
developer
Property owner/
developer
Installat ion
Supervision
Agent
Agent or local
official
Agent
As-Built Drawings
Agent
Agent or local
official
Agent
Occupancy Permit
Agent
Local official
Agent or local
agency
License Designers/
Installers
State
State
State or local
Performance Bonding
State
State or local
State or local
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness: Has qreat flexibility for achieving close interaction wit-h
the general public. Option 2 is exemplary in this respect
due to the interaction with the local official.
Enforcement:
Capacity to enforce regulations will depend largely on local
support in all options, however, option 3 has some of the
same enforcement effectiveness advantages as state adminis-
tration. This option will help ensure uniform enforcement
throughout a state or region.
Sensitivity:
Through
assured
local involvement.
sensitivity to local needs can be
Staffing:
Has the ability to provide
ties without a major local
"specialists" services to :ocali-
cost burden.
Coord ination:
Has the same potential for land use/wastewater management
conflicts as the state administration approach, except for
option 3> which has more local regulatory support.
^Hired by property owner
or developer (may be state-certified or licensed).
100
-------
In option 1, state-certified agents would perform all nec-
essary design/installation activities (with the possible excep-
tion of system design). In the second option, a state-certi-
fied agent would concentrate on site evaluation and system de-
sign activities, while the local representative would review the
permit application, issue the permit, and inspect the system in-
stallation. Under option 3, local agents can be considered
state employees, however, they would work in local regulatory
agencies.-
The state agent approach offers an opportunity for local
governments to more actively participate in the on-site system
regulatory process, without creating a significant burden on
local fiscal resources. This approach is most applicable to
small rural communities that do not have the fiscal capacity to
support the services of a professional to administer locally
adopted or state minimum on-site regulations. State agencies
may also provide education, training, and licensing programs for
these agents which will help to ensure competent and qualified
technical assistance to local communities. (In some states
where this approach is practiced, an agent must either pass a
qualifying exam or be a professional in the field of soils sci-
ence, geology, or engineering.)
Another application of this approach is for the review of
subdivision plats proposing on-site systems. Even though a lo-
cal agency may issue a permit to install an individual septic
system, the state may reserve the right to review (and possibly
approve/disapprove) subdivision plats that propose on-site sys-
tems. The precise structure of the state-local arrangement in
reviewing subdivision plats and the permitting of individual on-
site systems will differ state-to-state. For example, one pos-
sible arrangement is to separate the review and approval of sub-
division plans from the review and approval of individual system
applications. The respective reviews and approvals, therefore,
would be conducted independently, possibly by different agen-
cies. An alternative approach is to condition the issuance of
an individual system permit with the approval of a subdivision
plan. Thus, the subdivision plan approvals and the issuance of
individual system permits could be done simultaneously.
Examples of states that have adopted "agent of the state"-
type programs follow.
101
-------
STATE-LOCAL ADMINISTRATION -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
In Pennsylvania, the State Department of Environ-
mental Resources (DER) has regulatory authority over
individual and small community wastewater systems, but
the on-site permitting program is administered by local
governments through state-certified sewage enforcement
officers (SEO). The approval authority for on-site sys-
tems rests totally with the SEO, whose salary is paid
jointly by the DER and local governments. (The local
share is raised partially through permit fees.) County
sanitarians coordinate and assist the SEO's on technical
matters.
The State of Maine Department of Human Services
(DHS) is responsible for setting the minimum codes for
small subsurface systems, which are enforced by certi-
fied and trained local agents (local plumbing inspectors
-- LPI) employed by cities and towns. LPI's review and
approve on-site system applications prepared by state-
certified site evaluators.
The On-Site Specialists Program in the State of Ver-
mont, initiated through the Vermont Association of Con-
servation Districts, represents a unique adaptation of
the "agent-of-the-state" approach. On-site special-
ists, employed by the conservation districts, work for
local health officers to administer locally adopted on-
site regulations. Site evaluation, system design, and
installation supervision are services offered by the
on-site specialists to developers and local health offi-
cers. The specialists currently work in about 60 of
the 2 50 towns in Vermont.
In Maryland and Virginia, county health agencies
are principally responsible for regulating on-site sys-
tems, through adoption of a state minimum code or modi-
fication of the state code. County agency staff, how-
ever, are employees of the state government. They are
responsible for enforcing locally-adopted codes, but
are considered state employees. The regulatory proce-
dures for administering design codes do, however, vary
on a county-by-county basis.
102
-------
Local Administration -
The third, and most popular, approach to administering
on-site design regulations is for a local unit of government
(county or township health department, regional health depart-
ments and special purpose agencies) to assume direct regulatory
control over on-site systems. In these instances, the local
government can prepare its own set of regulations or adopt (or
modify) the state minimum regulations (if available).
The role of state government in a locally-administered
program is variable. The state can:
1. Offer technical assistance to local regulatory
agencies in reviewing subdivision plans and
individual system applications.
2. Help to finance local programs through operating
grants.
3. Hold workshops, seminars, and other instructional
programs for system designers, site evaluators,
system installers, and local sanitarians.
4. License and certify system designers, site
evaluators, system installers, and local
sanitar ians.
5. Evaluate the performance of local regulatory
programs and offer guidance in program
administration.
6. Assume direct regulatory control for on-site
systems installation in localities that do not
have regulatory programs.
7. Supervise the administration of local regulatory
programs through local permit reviews.
8. Issue approvals and permits for "experimental" or
innovative on-site systems.
9. Assume responsibility for review of on-site system
applications in certain situations (with authority
to override local decisions).
103
-------
As displayed in Table 33, there are a variety of ways in
which local units of government can administer on-site regula-
tions. The local regulatory agency can be a county or township
agency (e.g., a health department), a special service district
or other local government entity. The size and qualifications
of the staff and the regulatory and administrative procedures
followed by the local regulatory agency can differ widely even
among agencies of similar institutional structure. The per-
formance, policies, and size of local regulatory agency staffs
will ultimately be affected by the fiscal and political support
given to local regulatory programs from both state and local
levels. Several examples of locally administered on-site man-
agement programs follow.
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
The state-local relationship for regulating on-site
system design in the State of Illinois illustrates the
typical organizational structure for this regulatory ac-
tivity in most states which share regulatory responsibi-
lities with local governments. The state minimum code
for designing and installing on-site systems is adminis-
tered by local (i.e., county and multicounty) health
agencies. The local health agencies have the authority
to adopt codes that are more stringent than the state
minimum (with state approval). Local health agency
procedures for conducting site evaluations and pre-
paring system designs vary. The state, however, does
license system installers. Some county health agen-
cies have established more rigid installer require-
ments which are administered locally. County health
departments are staffed to perform design reviews, pre-
coverup system inspections, and occasionally site eval-
uations (or reviews of reported site investigations).
The local programs are funded through locally-adminis-
tered special assessments and general funds, and state
transfer payments.
In parts of the state where county health depart-
ments do not exist (i.e., in sparsely-developed areas),
the State Health Department regulates on-site systems
installations, primarily through the licensing of sys-
tem installers. The state promotes the formation of
local regulatory programs, offers technical assistance
104
-------
TABLE 33. LOCAL ADMINISTRATION -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Descr ipt ion: A local agency, a county or township agency, a special service
agency, and multilocal or regional entities can become the prin-
cipal regulatory agency for on-site system design/installation.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Establish Codes
Site Evaluation
Option 1
State or local
Option 2
State or local
Soil testing
Site inspections
System Design
Design Review
Installation Permit
Issuance
System Installation
Installation Supervision
As-Built Drawings
Occupancy Permit
License Designers/
Installer s
Performance Bonding
Agency
Agency
Agency
Agency
Agency
Engineer/specialist
Engineer/specialist
Engineer specialist
Agency
Agency
Agency or property owner/ Agency or property owner/
developer developer
Agency
Agency
State sanitarian
Agency
Agency
Agency
Agency
State sanitarian
State or agency
State or agency
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness: Exhibits great deal of responsiveness to local needs.
Enforcement:
Sensit ivity:
Staffing:
Coord ination:
Potentially vulnerable to local political pressure. Regional
(multicounty or multimunicipal) regulatory agencies may pro-
vide sufficient protection from political influences. Subject
to wide variability in enforcement attitudes and effectiveness
within a state. Option 1 creates a management agency with
total responsibility for system design/installation.
Standards and procedures can be established according to local
physical and manmade conditions.
Subject to wide variability in staff size and qualifications
among local agencies.
Provides efficient means of integrating land use and other lo-
cal management objectives with wastewater management policies.
iRefers to local agency, local health department, regional health agency, or
special purpose agency.
2Hired by the developer (may be certified and/or bonded by state or local
agency).
105
-------
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
to preestablished local programs and sponsors statewide
seminars for local sanitarians, installers, and system
designers.
The State of California does not have a minimum
code, and local regulatory agencies (i.e., county, city,
and special districts) implement locally derived and
adopted codes. Each Regional Water Resources Control
Board must review and approve on-site disposal ordi-
nances for counties within its jurisdiction. The re-
gional basin plan specifies minimum requirements for
design of individual systems with which counties must
comply. These requirements vary among the Regional
Board, as well as among counties within a particular
region.
The variation in design requirements among counties
and regions reflects the state policy of establishing
regulations according to unique local conditions.
Local county health departments work with the Cali-
fornia State Health Department on some matters concern-
ing on-site disposal. The State Health Department acts
in an advisory capacity to those counties having a
health department (46 out of California's 58 counties).
For the 12 counties without health departments (rural
counties with relatively low populations), the counties
contract with the State Health Department to implement
county-adopted on-site disposal ordinances. Ten state
district health offices have environmental health units
which provide technical support to counties on request
or by contract.
I
In the State of Idaho, counties (in cooperation with
the state health agency) have formed regional health
agencies to provide some insulation for plan reviewers
from local political pressure and to establish design
criteria consistent with unique regional climatic and
physical conditions. This type of geographic arrange-
ment also allows for a larger financial base to support
agency efforts.
106
-------
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
States which have delegated regulatory authority to
local units of government may wish to reserve its
authority, when it is felt that a local entity is not
doing a satisfactory job. Regulations drafted (but not
yet effective) in Connecticut, for example, would allow
the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
to delegate authority over on-site wastewater disposal
on an almost case-by-case basis, depending on the ex-
pertise of the individual locality. According to
Connecticut regulations, candidates for state delega-
tion include other state agencies and municipal or dis-
trict health agencies.
It has been similarly proposed in the State of Wis-
consin that the State Department of Health and Social
Services evaluate each local (county) regulatory pro-
gram (on the basis of installation permits issued) to
check the effectiveness of local regulatory efforts.
The state agency can suspend the local agency's author-
ity to issue permits, if a local program is found to
be ineffective, according to state review guidelines.
(The State of Illinois Department of Health also con-
ducts program reviews of county health departments to
determine the amount of state aid for local regulatory
programs.)
Stinson Beach, California, is an example of a com-
munity which has organized a comprehensive on-site man-
agement program, through a special district. The dis-
trict has the authority to regulate new system installa-
tions (in conjunction with the Marin County Public
Works Department), to rehabilitate and repair failing
systems (through its own set of regulations), as well
as to inspect and maintain both existing and new sys-
tems. The district is staffed by one full-time and one
part-time technician. These persons are assisted by a
consultant who reviews plans for rehabilitated systems;
the county reviews plans for new installations.
Regulating the Design and Installation of Small Community Sys-
tems
State Administration --
States can delegate the authority for regulating individual
on-site systems (serving a single residence) to local units of
107
-------
government, but retain the responsibility for reviewing and
approving small community systems (serving more than a minimum
number of residences). Under this arrangement, the state agency
has the option of:
1. Issuing a permit to construct the small community
system (based on state review and approval) and
inspecting its installation.
2. Delegating the authority for permit issuance and
installation supervision to local units of
government upon state review and approval (see
Table 34) .
This latter arrangement can be advantageous from an effi-
ciency point of view (since local system inspectors may be able
to visit the construction site more frequently than state-em-
ployed counterparts). This approach, however, may be unrealis-
tic if the local inspectors have not been trained (and certi-
fied) or are not familiar with these types of systems. Exam-
ples of states taking this approach to small community system
management include Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hamp-
shire.
STATE ADMINISTRATION -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
The State of Maine offers an example of a regula-
tory program where small community systems are approved
by a state agency, with permit issuance authority re-
tained by a local agent (or representative) of the
state. According to the state plumbing code, all sys-
tems with wastewater flow greater than 3,000 gpd are
reviewed and approved by the State Department of Human
Services (Division of Health Engineering). Upon state
approval, permits are issued by local plumbing inspec-
tors (certified by the state agency), who are then
charged with supervising system installation (with
assistance from State Health Department staff). State-
certified site evaluators (who are typically soil scien-
tists and geologists) must perform site investiga-
tions, and a professional engineer must design the
systems.
108
-------
TABLE 3 4.
STATE ADMINISTRATION -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
Description: State aqencies can assume responsibility for reviewinq and ap-
proving small community wastewater system designs and issue
permits for construction.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Establish Codes
State
Site Evaluation
Soil testing Engineer/specialist1
Site inspections State
System Design
Engineer/specialist
Design Review
State
Installation Permit
Issuance State or local
System Installation Developer
Installation Supervision State or local
As-Built Drawings State or local
Occupancy Permit
State or local
Design/Installer
Licensing
State
Performance Bonding State
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness:
May inhibit interaction with developers and local decision-
makers on controversial projects.
Enforcement:
State has total authority to manage system design and instal-
lation.
Sensitivity:
State-developed design criteria could have sufficient flexi-
bility to address major common problems.
Staff inq:
Principal advantage of state approach is that experienced and
qualified specialists can be staffed on a statewide level.
Efficiencies can be derived by sharing review staff and com-
mon design criteria between the 201 Construction Grants Pro-
gram and land development review and approval programs.
Coordination:
By relinquishing plan review and approval authority to a state
agency (for new multilot developments), local governments
could partially lose control of the timing, location, and den-
sity of development within their jurisdiction.
^Qualifications of engineer/specialist would be defined in state regulations.
109
-------
STATE ADMINISTRATION -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
Pennsylvania's Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO)
operates in much the same way with respect to the issu-
ance of permits and plan reviews. In Pennsylvania, the
state reviews and approves plans for all systems greater
than 10,000 gpd (and for smaller systems upon request of
the SEO),, and the SEO then issues a permit for construc-
tion and inspects the installed system.
Pennsylvania also administers a subdivision evalua-
tion and review requirement to coordinate plan reviews
of major developments by state and local regulatory
agencies.
In Vermont, the state has adopted regulations which
require state review and approval for various types of
small community wastewater systems in subdivisions where
lots are less than 10 acres each. The state regulations
provide for the evaluation of hydrogeologic and ground-
water quality impacts (at the discretion of the state
agency) where significant water pollution problems are
suspected. The regulations also specify that a profes-
sional engineer must design small community systems,
and where projects propose wastewater volumes greater
than 10,000 gpd, a predesign conference between the
engineer and state agency personnel must take place to
discuss proposed design concepts.
New Hampshire's approach to the plan reviews of
small community systems is an excellent example of
state efforts to coordinate land development and 201
Facility Planning Program design review procedures. In
this state, the review and approval of small community
systems is the shared responsibility of the Small Sys-
tems Division (in charge of approving individual on-
site system applications) and the Design Review Divi-
sion (responsible for 201 plan review) within the New
Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commis-
sion. The Design Review Division is typically looked
upon as the specialists in small community systems,
while the Small Systems Division is in charge of the
wastewater plan review and permitting program for new
developments in the state.
110
-------
State-Local Administration --
As small community systems are more commonly proposed, local
regulatory agencies are becoming more sophisticated and capable
of handling the technical reviews. The regulation of small com-
munity systems design and installation has, therefore, shifted
somewhat to local governments. The distinction between state
and local responsibility is typically based on either the waste-
water volume of the proposed system, the number of lots within
the subdivision development, or whether the proposed system is a
surface or subsurface discharge system. The precise delinea-
tion of regulatory authority differs from state-to-state. As
shown in Table 35, large wastewater systems and subdivisions are
usually regulated by the state (option 1) while smaller systems
and developments remain with local governments (option 2) .
Some states have chosen to provide technical support to selected
local agencies (in addition to retaining regulatory authority in
others) by delegating regulatory authority for small community
systems to selected local governments on the basis of staff size
and capability.
Combinations of state- and locally-administered programs are
illustrated by the examples that follow.
STATE-LOCAL ADMINISTRATION -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
In the State of Washington, local health departments
regulate individual systems less than 3,500 gpd. Larger
systems (up to 14,500 gpd) with subsurface disposal can
also be regulated by the local health agencies or by the
state health, agency (depending on individual circum-
stances) . Another state agency, the Department of Ecology,
regulates all small community systems with flows greater
than 14,500 gpd and all small community systems with
surface-water discharge. The State Health Agency (De-
partment of Health and Social Services) offers tech-
nical assistance to local health departments in their
design review of small community systems.
In states like Maryland and Illinois, small com-
munity systems (with subsurface disposal) are regulated
by the county health departments, with state agencies
offering technical assistance or project reviews on a
request basis. Small community systems with surface-
water discharge, however, are regulated by the state.
Ill
-------
TABLE 35.
STATE-LOCAL ADMINISTRATION --
SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
Description: The regulation of small community
between state and local agencies
process.
system designs can be shared
through a threshold screening
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS --
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1
Option 2
Establish Codes
State
State
Site Evaluation
Soil testing
Site inspections
Eng ineer/specialist
State or local
Eng ineer/specialist
Local
System Design
Eng ineer/specialist
Engineer/specialist
Design Review
State
Local
Installation Permit
Issuance
State or local
Local
System Installation
Developer
Developer
Installation Supervision State or local
Local
As-Built Drawings
State or local
Local
Occupancy Permit
State or local
Local
Designer/Installer
Licensing
State or local
State or local
Performance Bonding
State or local
State or local
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness: Close working relationship between state aqencies and local
governments will help resolve and avoid any potential problems
in dealing with the general public.
Enforcement: Adequate enforcement authority would exist for either state or
local government agencies. A common problem with this ap-
proach is that a developer can choose which jurisdiction
(state or local) he wishes to have review development propos-
als by simply adjusting the size of the development or waste-
water system accordingly. Sometimes difficult to precisely
define the capacity of some of the treatment units proposed.
Sensitivity: Standards and procedures could
cult problems.
be flexible to handle diffi-
Staffing: Efficiencies can be achieved at state level, but some overlaD
exists.
Coordination: For new developments, many small scattered subdivisions could
result if "Enforcement" problem above is applicable.
112
-------
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The performance of any wastewater system is greatly affected
by the attention given to the day-to-day operation and mainte-
nance of the system. This is as true for an individual septic
tank system in someone's backyard as it is for a large, expen-
sive centralized collection and treatment system.
The activities involved in maintenance range from relatively
simple routine maintenance tasks to the fairly complicated oper-
ation of treatment facilities requiring special experience and
training. Many well-designed and well-constructed wastewater
systems have failed because of improper operation and mainte-
nance .
Table 36 displays the management functions and typical
activities involved in system operation and maintenance. The
list includes:
1. Establish operational performance standards.
2. Define system ownership.
3. Conduct routine maintenance.
4. Correct failing systems.
5. Educate homeowners in proper maintenance
practices.
6. Monitor system performance via water quality
sampling.
As shown in the table, these activities can be provided by
a wide variety of institutional options. They can be admini-
stered by a public agency, a private contractor in conjunction
with a public agency, a separate unit of government (a special
purpose agency), or can be left to the homeowner. Selecting
the appropriate agency or organization to provide maintenance
services depends on the capabilities and the willingness of
existing public agencies to provide such services and the
availability of qualified private contractors. Moreover, the
selection of the appropriate management agency is also influ-
enced by the level or scope of maintenance services required
for the specific situation. The level of desired management
depends on the density of population, size of the development,
physical characteristics at the development site, status of
system ownership (i.e., whether the system is privately or
113
-------
TABLE 36. DESCRIPTION
OF OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
FUNCTIONS
Implementing Entitv
Public Agencies
Special
Purpose
Private
Function
Description State
County/Reqional Municipal
Aqencv
Firms
Establish
Providing guidance on main- •
• •
•
Performance
tenance and performance
Standards
criteria. Can involve re-
quirement for periodic in-
spections and maintenance.
System
Establishing fiscal and le-
• •
•
•
Ownership
gal responsibility for sys-
tem maintenance and repair.
Routine
Conductinq periodic inspec-
• •
•
•
Maintenance
tions of on-site and
small community systems,
and septaae pumping. In-
spection treauencv can be
fixed at a defined time in-
terval (e.g., 1 to 3 years)
or limited to the time of
home sale (e.g., presale in-
spections). Inspection
provisions can also be tied
to maintenance permit pro-
visions. Septage pumping
can be done based on the sys-
tem inspection, or required
at a defined time interval
(e.g., 3 to 5 years) . Sep-
tage haulers may be required
to inform regulatory agen-
cies of pumping events and
disposal sites.
Correction of
Correcting a problem system •
• •
•
•
Failing Systems
involves:
1. Conducting inspections
to determine the cause
of failure and remedial
action required.
2. Issuing a permit for
system repair or re-
placement.
3. Performing the repair
and replacement work.
Enforcement methods to re-
quire system corrections
include violation orders,
citations for repair, and
abatement charges.
Homeowner
Informing the homeowner of
Education
suggested or required main-
tenance practices.
Monitoring
Water quality sampling and
analysis to identify major
quality problem areas where
sanitary surveys may be
necessary.
114
-------
publicly owned), and administrative requirements (e.g., EPA
construction grants require management responsibility by the
grantee) .
Certain levels of management exist for providing operation
and maintenance of individual systems, depending on the local
situation and the involvement of existing regulatory agencies.
These include programs which require inspections of individual
systems, programs which provide specialized maintenance services
to individual systems (such as septage pumping), and programs
which provide system maintenance in addition to design and
installation services.
There are three basic programmatic approaches to providing
operation and maintenance services to individual on-site sys-
tems. These three management schemes illustrate the variety of
institutional arrangements that can be applied to the operation
and maintenance function:
1. Maintenance by private (for profit and nonprofit)
entities (subject to public agency rules).
2. Maintenance by a local unit of government.
3. Maintenance by a specialized management entity.
The operation and maintenance of small community systems
can be provided through the following institutional options:
1. Maintenance by local units of government.
2. Maintenance by private utilities or companies.
3. Maintenance by specialized management entities.
4. Maintenance by nonprofit corporations (e.g.,
property owners' association).
Alternative institutional approaches to the operation and
maintenance of on-site and small community systems are
discussed on the pages that follow.
115
-------
Providing for the Operation and Maintenance of On-Site Systems
Maintenance by Private Entity --
The traditional approach to on-site maintenance is to leave
the operation and maintenance responsibilities to the homeowner,
with public agency intervention where a problem is identified or
suspected. Depending on local circumstances and the need for
formal maintenance services, the homeowner can provide various
system maintenance activities. For example, educational materi-
als can be made available to homeowners to inform them of re-
quired system maintenance practices. Also, local septage dis-
posal firms who perform this service in an acceptable manner
could be managed by the public agency to assure pumping and safe
disposal of septage at specified intervals, with a means of
tracking and enforcement. Presale inspections and frequent san-
itary surveys may also serve as preventive maintenance mecha-
nisms where on-site systems are applied.
Table 37 displays two institutional options for homeowner
maintenance. Option 1 places the responsibility for providing
maintenance on the homeowner or family that uses the system.
In option 2, a private hauler contracts with the homeowner (di-
rectly) or a property owners' association (as a group) for peri-
odic maintenance services. In this latter case, the property
owners' association would assess each homeowner a fee to cover
the costs for periodic inspections and bill the homeowner sep-
arately for tank pumping.
A less direct method of assuring proper operation of on-site
systems which should also be considered, involves enforcement
of conservative, less operation and maintenance intensive, sys-
tem design criteria. Thus, the management program, where formal
maintenance provisions are difficult to enforce, would trade off
increased capital costs due to conservative system design for
reduced operation and maintenance costs. (It is assumed that
even in these instances some form of maintenance, such as
periodic septage pumping, would be necessary.)
An alternative method of ensuring proper maintenance would
be for the regulatory agency to place the responsibility for
system operation and performance on the builder (or installer)
of the system in the form of a mandatory guarantee for a desig-
nated number of years. (Such a guarantee provision would be in-
cluded in the sanitary code or ordinance.) The installer would
have to repair malfunctioning systems free of charge during the
guarantee period. Private homeowners would then be more inter-
ested in inspecting their systems periodically (or contracting
116
-------
TABLE 37.
HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Descr ipt ion: In certain instances/ the homeowner may provide system operation
and maintenance. This approach, however, would not satisfy the
management agency requirement for Construction Grants Program
eligibility, without enforceable provisions for compliance by
the grantee.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1
Option 2
Establish Codes
System Ownership
Routine Maintenance
State or local
Homeowner
State or local
Homeowner
Inspect ions
Septage pumping
Homeowner
Private hauler
Private hauler"
Private hauler
Correction of Failing
Systems
Inspect ions
Permit issuance
System repair/
replacement
Homeowner Education
Monitor i ng
State or local
State or local
Homeowner
State or local
State or local
State or local
State or local
Homeowner
State or local
State or local
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness:
En fore ement:
Sensitivity:
Staffing:
Coord ination:
The homeowner would be able to take immediate measures to cor-
rect a problem if aware of the consequences of no action.
Indirect enforcement of operation and maintenance is needed,
since this approach relies on voluntary compliance. The ex-
isting regulatory agency would assure that failing systems
are corrected and that the homeowners comply.
A program like this can be beneficial in sparsely developed
areas, or in developing areas as a preventive measure.
Additional staffing requirements of the responsible public
agency is minimal.
Program implementation rests predominantly with the homeowner
and the willingness of state and local government and private
haulers to make information available and assure adequate sep-
tage disposal sites.
lAppropriate state or local regulatory agency.
^Routine inspections are not mandatory. The homeowner can inspect the system
himself, or a presale inspection by a local agency can be performed as a serv-
ice to a mortgage-lending institution.
3private hauler would contract with the homeowner directly or with a homeown-
ers' association.
117
-------
with a private firm to inspect the system), and a penalty would
be assessed the builder if the design and construction of the
system was not satisfactorily performed. Possibly, a perform-
ance bond would be useful in this approach.
p- Many layman-oriented manuals explaining proper maintenance
! practices have been prepared for state and local agencies
throughout the country. Copies of such documents are usually
made available through various public agencies to successful
permit applicants or by the contractor at the time on-site sys-
tems are installed. Other types of programs which complement
the homeowner maintenance approach are illustrated in the exam-
ples that follow.
HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS ILLUSTRATION
Presale inspections of on-site systems are con-
ducted in Fairfax County, Virginia, at the request of
the lending institution. The cost to the homeowner for
such services is $25. The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency has been working with the Federal Housing Admin-
istration and the Veterans Administration to base mort-
gage approvals for existing homes on a certified on-site
disposal system (through presale inspection).
Sanitary surveys are a means of identifying problem
septic systems to complement homeowner maintenance acti-
vities. The surveys are performed by a variety of agen-
cies, including state and local regulatory agencies, and
property owners' associations. The State of Vermont
Agency of Environmental Conservation conducts statewide
sanitary surveys to identify failing on-site systems or
inadequately designed on-site systems (e.g., straight-
pipe discharges) near surface-water bodies. The annual
surveys are conducted with state-employed water resource
investigators. Many lake property associations and
other watershed management entities have also taken on
the responsibility of conducting sanitary surveys, us-
ing volunteers or students (during summer months).
Methods of organizing lake property associations to
perform problem detection activities and other duties
have been developed in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Cali-
fornia. In Maine, the Cobassee Watershed District
conducted a detailed sanitary survey of lakefront sep-
tic systems to detect system failures. Similar sani-
tary surveys are being organized through the Maine
Congress of Lake Associations.
118
-------
HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
The septic system management programs of Acton,
Massachusetts, and Fairfax County, Virginia, highlight
the potential role of public entities in providing sep-
tage treatment and disposal facilities, supplemented
with public education efforts, to encourage homeowners
to voluntarily maintain their septic systems. The
Fairfax County Health Department also mails out re-
minders to homeowners to turn the diversion valves on
their alternating drainfields. Similarly, in Stinson
Beach, California, risers for all on-site systems (both
new and existing).in the community must be installed to
facilitate inspection and pumping. Detailed drawings
noting the location, dimensions, and condition of all
on-site systems are also left with the property owner
to facilitate maintenance and promote property owner
awareness.
Maintenance by Local Government --
Counties, towns, and multilocal agencies can provide on-site
system operation and maintenance. These services would be pro-
vided through a statutory requirement for periodic inspections
or septage pumping. The mandatory inspections could be per-
formed by a public agency or a private firm contracted by the
public agency or the homeowner. Similarly, periodic pumping
could be performed by a public agency or a private firm. In
either case, the homeowner would be responsible for making
system repairs and paying for the maintenance services provided.
If mandatory inspections are performed by a public agency
(option 1 in Tarole 38), the inspection workload can be shared
by the entire agency staff, or a separate inspection unit can
be established within the agency, depending on the agency
organizational structure and manpower commitments. The former
method offers an opportunity to coordinate individual system
inspections with other complementary agency duties, and offers
staff persons a means of monitoring the effectiveness of the
regulatory program. A separate inspection unit would be able
to staff on-site maintenance specialists and afford greater
control over the inspection procedures. At the time of system
inspection, the public agency representative can determine if
tank pumping or other maintenance or repair activity is neces-
sary. The agency could perform the tank pumping or make repairs
119
-------
TABLE 38. LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Description: State or local ordinances can require periodic inspection or
pumping of septic systems. Local units of government can
provide these services. The private sector also has a potential
role.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Performance Standards
System Ownership
Routine Maintenance
Option 1
State or local
Homeowner
Option 2
State or local
Homeowner
Option 3
State or local
Homeowner
Inspections
Septage pumping
Correction of Failing
Systems
Inspections
Permit issuance
System repair/
replacement
Homeowner Education
Monitoring
Local
Local
Local
Local
Homeowner
State or local
State or local
Private hauler
Private hauler
Local
Local
Homeowner
State or local
State or local
N. A.
Local or private
Local
Local
Homeowner
State or local
State or local
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness:
Enforcement:
Sensitivity:
Staffing:
Coord ination:
A private hauler contracted by a homeowner would probably be
the most responsive to the homeowner's needs and problems.
By requiring inspections (done by either a public or private
entity) the homeowner's concerns about system performance can
be dealt with at fixed intervals.
The local agency must have legal access to private property
for inspection purposes for option 1. The local agency must
also be able to require system corrections on the basis of
periodic inspections or homeowner complaints.
These different arrangements allow flexibility for management
depending on need, as well as available resources.
Options 1 and 2 (or to a lesser extent, option 3) require ad-
ditions to public agency staff, depending on the number of
systems to be served and the frequency of inspections.
Public and private sector representatives need to develop ef-
fective cooperative mechanisms to assure successful applica-
tion of most of the options presented.
Iprivate hauler contracted by either local agency or homeowner to perform
periodic inspections,
inspections are not explicitly required; only the pumping of septage at a
prescribed frequency.
120
-------
itself (and bill the homeowner accordingly), or require the
homeowner to contract with a private septage hauler or septic
system cleaner.
If mandatory inspections or periodic pumping were performed
by a private company (options 2 and 3 in Table 3 8), a proof of
inspection and required service statement would be forwarded to
the regulatory agency. Should repair or replacement of the sys-
tem be required, a regulatory agent should be notified to per-
form an inspection and recommend repair procedures. Where main-
tenance contracts with private companies are required, as is the
case with proprietary mechanical on-site systems, the regulatory
agency can check whether required maintenance contracts are
being renewed by having the maintenance companies send the pub-
lic agency notices of nonrenewals.
When involving the private sector in a mandatory maintenance
program as just outlined, certain precautions should be taken:
1. Some assurances should be made (by the local
agency) that only competent firms are involved
in the program, and that a fair and equitable
price is charged for inspections and pumping
services performed. (Issuing franchise privi-
leges or contracting directly with private firms
will enable the local agency to ensure uniform
service and prices.) Other possible approaches
the public agency can take in protecting the
homeowner from poorly qualified or overpriced
contractors, would be to periodically publish
the average quoted prices of the contractors
serving the area, or to create a grievance
board comprised of public officials, agency
directors, and contractors to hear homeowner
complaints.
2. There may be a tendency (on the part of private
haulers) to perform unnecessary pumping or system
repairs. Close monitoring of the competence of
the service companies (through licensing, etc.),
coupled with an educational program for homeowners
(to inform them of proper maintenance practices)
will help avoid problems such as this.
The participation of private septage haulers in a mandatory
public maintenance program does, however, have the distinct
advantage of alleviating legal and fiscal burdens on the local
121
-------
governing agency. Private sector participation in an on-site
system maintenance program should, therefore, be given serious
consideration by maintenance program designers.
Several local governments in the State of California have
instituted different approaches to providing on-site operation
and maintenance.
LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
Several California counties have instituted septic
system inspection and maintenance programs. The Marin
County Health Department has established an on-site sys-
tem maintenance requirement through the use of an occu-
pancy permit. The permit is effective for two years
from the time of installation, and must be renewed at
two-year intervals. The cost of the inspection and re-
newal is $40 (or $20 per year) .
The procedure for performing the inspection (in
Marin County) is straightforward. A county health agent
mails a letter to the homeowner reminding him to have
his tank inspected. An inspection is scheduled and per-
formed by the county agent in the presence of the home-
owner (or representative). If the system is operating
satisfactorily, the permit is renewed. Should repair
or pumping be required, the homeowner must submit proof
of repair or pumping before the permit is renewed (pump-
ing would be performed by a private septage hauler).
The inspection program applies only to on-site systems
installed pursuant to the county sanitary code, adopted
in 1971.
In Kern County, California several county service
areas have been established where special on-site sys-
tem maintenance procedures are required. In these
county service areas, the County Department of Public
Works conducts the system inspections and pumps the
tanks, if necessary.
Santa Cruz County, California, is an example of a
county regulatory program that requires periodic inspec-
tions as a provision of its sanitary code. County
Health Department maintenance permit provisions at two
county service areas are implemented largely through
the efforts of an independent contractor certified by
122
-------
LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
the County Health Department and hired by the County
Board of Supervisors. According to regulations adopted
by the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, subdi-
vision developers must dedicate easements to each lot
for inspection, maintenance, and expansion, and septic
tanks must be pumped out once every three years.
Maintenance by Specialized Management Agency --
Much of the literature on the topic of on-site system main-
tenance discusses the viability of a "total management concept."
Experts in the field of wastewater management have suggested
that on-site systems be maintained by a centralized management
entity, similar to a sewer utility. This management entity
could be responsible for providing all major functions related
to wastewater management, including system design, installation,
and operation and maintenance. Expanded approaches to the total
management concept would involve actual ownership of the indi-
vidual septic systems by the management entity. The service
area of the entity would also be flexible and subject to the
enabling legislation of the particular state.
The management entity could be formed through special pur-
pose agency legislation, or a local government entity (e.g., a
local improvement district or department of a local government
agency). Special purpose agencies generally have been viewed
as the primary means of establishing a "total management" pro-
gram. While the institutional approach has its advantages, an
often cited disadvantage of the special purpose agency (and of
"total management" programs) is that it promotes the prolifera-
tion of local government and the fragmentation of public serv-
ices. Total management is not necessarily the most feasible or
necessary approach in all situations. It does have numerous
advantages, which have to be weighed with the need for such a
formalized approach.
Table 39 presents the institutional options available to
implement the "total management" concept. The basic difference
among the three options listed is the system ownership arrange-
ment -- either public or private ownership. Several examples of
such programs follow.
123
-------
TABLE 39. TOTAL MANAGEMENT CONCEPT -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Description: An appealing approach to providing on-site systems management is
through the creation of a single, comprehensive management pro-
gram do design, install, operate, inspect, and maintain on-site
wastewater systems.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Performance Standards
System Ownership
Routine Maintenance
Inspections
Septage pumping
Correction of Failing
Systems
Inspections
Permit issuance
System repair/
replacement
Homeowner Education
Monitoring
Option 1
State or agency'
Agency
Agency
Agency
Agency
Agency
Agency
Agency
State or agency
Option 2
State or agency
Homeowner
Agency
Agency or
private hauler
Agency
Agency
Homeowner
Agency
State or agency
Option 3
State or agency
Agency or homeowner
Homeowner or
private hauler
Private hauler
Agency
Agency
Agency or homeowner
Agency
State or agency
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness:
Enforcement:
Sensitivity:
Staffing:
Coord ination:
Local agency would be concerned with providing rapid service
to investigate homeowner complaints, particularly if the agen-
cy owned the individual system. Homeowners, however, may be
less likely to become concerned with proper system operation,
since the local agency owns and operates the individual sys-
tem.
A total management agency would need sufficient capability to
enter onto private property, perform maintenance, and require
system repair or replacement. Special enabling legislation
may be necessary to create management entities of this type.
The total management concept is flexible enough to meet local
needs.
The use of private sector representatives could help reduce
the staffing burden to public agencies. Can share management
authority with existing regulatory agencies to avoid duplica-
tion of staff.
Proper coordination with planning and zoning entities would
be necessary to assure that the continued use of individual
on-site systems would not pose serious water quality problems.
^•Refers to a specialized local management agency.
124
-------
TOTAL MANAGEMENT CONCEPT -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
The Stinson Beach County Water District (SBCWD) and
the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (GDPUD)
are two California on-site wastewater management dis-
tricts organized as special purpose agencies. The SBCWD
district was designed to provide maintenance services
for existing and newly constructed on-site systems
since January 1978. The GDPUD is also responsible for
maintaining on-site systems; however, this management
program started at the initial stages of a large resi-
dential subdivision, thus, few preexisting on-site sys-
tems came under its jurisdiction. Both the SBCWD and
GDPUD provide for site design, installation, financing,
and other supportive management activities in addition
to operation and maintenance.
Another interesting feature of these management pro-
grams is the method used to enforce maintenance require-
ments. The SBCWD applies a maintenance permit-type ap-
proach, with inspection and renewal provisions. The
GDPUD utilizes the service agreement concept, whereby a
home buyer signs an agreement giving the district the
authority to perform all necessary operation and mainte-
nance duties. The nuisance abatement provisions of the
appropriate county health agencies, supplemented by
fines, liens, and injunctions provide these districts
with the necessary enforcement tools.
Neither agency owns the individual on-site sys-
tems; system ownership remains with the homeowner in
both cases. Therefore, where an inspection reveals a
failed system or pumping requirement, a violation notice
is issued and put on record (making it difficult to
sell the home). The homeowner is liable for all costs
of repair or pumping. If the homeowner does not per-
form the required repairs or pumping, the district
(SBCWD or GDPUD) will undertake the work for him and
bill the homeowner accordingly. Statutory provision
in both cases has been made which requires the amount
owed the agency to become a lien on the property.
The State of Washington has a requirement for per-
manent maintenance of on-site systems in certain sub-
divisions by an approved management entity. Accord-
ing to the state regulations, when subdivisions or
125
-------
TOTAL MANAGEMENT CONCEPT -- ON-SITE SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
multiple housing units have gross densities exceeding
3.5 housing units or 12 people per acre, or waste flows
of 1,200 gallons per acre per day, on-site systems will
not be permitted unless permanent maintenance is pro-
vided. Eligible management entities include public
agencies such as county agencies, as well as special
service agencies such as sewer and water utilities
and special districts. If no public agency is able or
willing to operate a management program of this type,
a special management corporation may be organized to
serve as the management agency. A third party agree-
ment with a public agency is necessary, if a private
management entity is to provide maintenance services.
The states of California and Illinois, along with
others, have recognized potential problems associated
with the use of special purpose agencies (as manage-
ment entities) and have incorporated explicit require-
ments within current enabling legislation to avoid
the problem of proliferation of local government or
promotion of suburban sprawl. In order for an on-site
wastewater disposal zone (a special purpose district)
to be formed in California, the County Environmental
Health Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board must determine the maximum number, type, volume,
and location of on-site systems to be used within the
zone without threatening health or water quality.
According to Illinois enabling legislation, an on-site
wastewater management zone can only be formed within
the limits of an incorporated area or municipality.
Several other states have also passed similar enabling
legislation.
Providing for the Operation and Maintenance of Small Community
Systems
Maintenance by Local Governments --
Small community systems can be owned, operated, and main-
tained by local units of government -- counties, towns, vil-
lages, etc. Table 40 shows the various options available in
system ownership, maintenance, and operation. As presented in
the table, the municipality can provide maintenance services on
a contract basis to developers or property owners' associations,
126
-------
TABLE 40.
LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT --
SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
Description: A municipality can assume ownership and/or
community systems within its jurisdiction.
operation of small
management functions --
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1 Option 2
Option 3
Performance Standards
State or local State or local
State or local
System Ownership
Local Private*
Local or private^
Routine Maintenance
Inspections
Septage pumping
Local Local
Local Local
Private contractor
Private contractor
Correction of Failing
Systems
Inspections
Permit issuance
System repair/
replacement
Local Local
Local Local
Local Local
Private contractor
Local
Private contractor
Homeowner Education
Local Local
Local
Monitoring
State or local State or local
State or local
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness: Provides opportunity for immediate attention bv local govern-
ment, especially if system is publicly owned.
Enforcement: Most state enabling legislation authorizes counties and munic-
ipalities to own, operate, and maintain small community sew-
erage systems.
Sensitivity: A public agency (such as a county) can provide operation and
maintenance services to several systems within its jurisdic-
tion.
Staffing: Public
nance-
agencies can utilize other personnel to provide mainte-
related services to area sewerage systems.
Coordination: Integration of land use and wastewater manaaement obiectives
can be achieved.
1-Private ownership can
be through a developer or property owners' association.
127
-------
or can own and operate the system itself. Many municipalities
have imposed special design and performance requirements on
systems it intends to own or operate. As an example:
LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
In the State of Washington, departments of public
works in several counties are providing operation and
maintenance services for community septic tank-drain
fields at subdivision developments. Maintenance (in
the form of periodic pumping, drain field inspections
and repair) is provided on a contract basis to home-
owner associations, and developers as a part of munic-
ipally-operated maintenance services for systems dedi-
cated to the municipality. One of the Washington
counties (Kitsap County) which provides maintenance to
community systems has established specific design cri-
teria and construction specifications which must be
adhered to before it assumes ownership or maintenance
of these systems.
The state is currently promoting the use of munici-
pal agencies to manage these small community systems,
and is pursuing the concept of "satellite support sys-
tems" to provide maintenance to these scattered com-
munity systems. In a technical assistance role, the
State of Washington Department of Social and Health
Services has also been involved in conducting research
on performance characteristics of community septic sys-
tems as a means of updating system design requirements
and maintenance procedures.
Maintenance by Private Companies or Contractors --
Private utility companies can own and operate small commu-
nity systems. Private contractors (e.g., plumbers, septic tank
pumpers, etc.) could also become involved in providing operation
and maintenance services on a contractual basis with developers,
homeowners' associations, and public agencies (see Table 41).
Private contractors and utilities can service a large area, and
are not limited by political boundaries (except for the fulfill-
ment of licensing, registration, or franchise service require-
ments by state and local regulatory agencies). This approach to
small community system operation and maintenance is illustrated
by the examples that follow.
128
-------
TABLE 41. PRIVATE COMPANIES -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
Description: Privately-owned utilities or contractors could own and operate
small community systems.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS;
Option- 1
Performance Standards
System Ownership
Routine Maintenance
Inspections
Septage pumping
Correction of Failing
Systems
Inspections
Permit issuance
System repair/
replacement
Homeowner Education
Monitor ing
State or local
Private company
Private company
Private company
Private company
State or local
Private company
Private company
Private company
Option 2
State or local
Local or homeowners' association
Private company
Private company
Private company
State or local
Private company
Private company
State or local
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness;
Enforcement:
Sensitivity;
Staffing;
Coordination:
Private companies would generally be very responsive to cus-
tomer needs and problems.
Local governments may need to provide supporting legal and en-
forcement assistance to require connections to the sewerage
system and to assist in fee collection. State public service
commissions may be involved in approving rate changes.
The local governing agency should be primarily responsible for
delineating franchise areas.
Private companies would relieve the burden on public agencies
of providing qualified technical staff.
This is primarily a function of local governing bodies.
129
-------
PRIVATE COMPANIES -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
Most manufacturers of sewerage devices (e.g.,
grinder and effluent pumps, package treatment plants,
etc.) offer maintenance contracts or guaranteed main-
tenance services to consumers. One large private
development near Schenectady, New York (which'has a
pressure sewer collection system) uses the services of
a grinder pump manufacturer located nearby to repair or
replace pumping units. Another small town near Kansas
City, Missouri (Weatherby Lake) employs technicians
(from a nearby airplane manufacturing plant) to serv-
ice pump units on a part-time basis. These two exam-
ples illustrate not only the role of the private con-
tractor to perform services on an "as needed" basis,
but point out the importance of the availability of
experienced maintenance personnel to ensure long-term
systems operation.
In southern Florida, the General Development Utili-
ties, Inc. (GDU) owns and operates conventional waste-
water treatment facilities and water supply systems
serving communities built by the General Development
Corporation (GDC), a large land development corporation.
Since 1971, GDU has been serving parts of two GDC-devel-
oped communities with septic tank-effluent pump (STEP)
systems. Maintenance and administrative personnel are
(to some extent) involved in both the management of the
pressure sewer system and conventional wastewater facili-
ties.
Many regulatory agencies are reluctant to rely on private
utilities or private contractors to maintain wastewater systems
because of concerns over the financial stability of the private
firms. Local governments are particularly worried that they
will have to take over the ownership and maintenance of waste-
water systems abandoned by bankrupt companies. The public agen-
cy should require some assurances that the private company can
financially provide the needed service or own and operate the
wastewater system on a permanent basis. Regulatory agencies
should, therefore, be concerned with the following items before
allowing a private company to own and operate a small community
wastewater system:
130
-------
1. Corporate structure and by-laws.
2. Financial solvency (a state public utility com-
mission should audit the firm) .
3. Sponsorship (or trusteeship) by a public agency
or recognized private corporation in the event a
transfer of ownership is necessary.
4. Performance bonding for a time period adequate
to begin system operation.
Enforcement of maintenance and reporting requirements by
regulatory agencies is also important to assure satisfactory
long-term system operation.
Maintenance by Special Purpose Agencies --
Maintenance of small wastewater systems by special purpose
agencies (e.g., sanitary districts, sewer authorities, sewer
districts, etc.) is a widely-used institutional approach, be-
cause of the flexibility of this type of arrangement. Special
purpose agencies can be established by a municipality or by
resolution of residents within the service area (depending on
state enabling legislation). Generally, special purpose agen-
cies have the powers to own, operate, and maintain wastewater
facilities, and to finance their construction and operation.
Table 42 displays three options for providing operation and
maintenance of small community systems. Two examples of special
purpose agencies follow.
SPECIAL PURPOSE AGENCY -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
Lake Meade, Pennsylvania is one of many examples
of lakefront communities across the country that have
installed grinder pump/pressure sewer systems for waste-
water collection. The lake community (which is situated
in part of two municipalities) consists of about 300
homes. The Lake Meade Municipal Authority (IMMA) owns
and maintains the pressure sewer system and treatment
plant, and installs all grinder pumping units.
The LMMA and a utility easement were created by
the developer and sponsoring municipalities in the late
1960's. The initial planning for sewerage service for
131
-------
TABLE 4 2. SPECIAL PURPOSE AGENCY -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
Description: Special purpose agencies offer a convenient means of managing
small community systems.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -
- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1 Option 2
Option 3
Performance Standards
State or local State or local
State or local
System Ownership
Agency1 Homeowner
Homeowner
Routine Maintenance
Inspections
Agency Agency
Pr ivate
contractor 2
Septage pumping
Agency Agency
Private
contractor 2
Correction of Failing
Systems
Inspections
Agency Agency
Pr ivate
contractor
Permit issuance
State or local State/local/agency
Agency
System repair/
replacement
Agency Agency
Pr ivate
contractor
Homeowner Education
Agency Agency
Agency
Monitoring
Agency Agency
Agency
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness: The responsiveness of this institutional arrangement will de-
pend on the representativeness and access of the agency's gov-
erning board to the general public.
Enforcement: Generally special purpose agencies have the necessary powers
to operate and maintain small wastewater systems.
Sensitivity: Special purpose aqencies can be created to serve broad areas.
e.g., individual municipalities, groups of municipalities, or
parts of municipalities, thereby serving only the areas of
greatest need.
Staffinq: Technical staff can be made available through
local governments or with private contractors
agreements with
.
Coordination: Local
with
governments should provide the necessary coordination
other on-going public service programs.
ISpecial purpose agency.
2Private contractor hired by the homeowner or the special purpose agency.
13 2
-------
SPECIAL PURPOSE AGENCY -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
the lake'community began in the mid-1970's, and opera-
tion of the treatment plant and collection system start-
ed in 1977.
The LMMA employs one full-time and one part-time
treatment plant operator-technician to manage the sewer-
age system (i.e., pump and collection system mainte-
nance, and plant operation).
In Westboro, Wisconsin, a septic tank/small diameter
gravity sewer system and community drain field were in-
stalled in the mid 1970's as a result of widespread sep-
tic system failures in this small town. A sanitary dis-
trict was formed to inspect and maintain the septic sys-
tems and drain fields and to regulate the design of indi-
vidual septic tanks required at each home. The district
now owns the individual septic tanks, gravity sewer lines,
and community drain fields. Ownership of the existing
septic tanks was acquired through an easement (i.e., a
transfer of ownership from the homeowner to the district
at a nominal fee) .
Maintenance by Nonprofit Organizations --
A homeowners' association or some form of resident coopera-
tive may be the only organization available to assume operation
and maintenance responsibilities for small community systems.
(This may be particularly true in rural areas.) With a suffi-
cient legal framework (see the Chapter 3 discussion on nonprofit
corporations), these organizations can provide an adequate me-
chanism for system ownership, user fee assessment and collec-
tion, and system maintenance, where allowable.
Table 43 displays two options for providing operation and
maintenance through nonprofit organizations. These options are:
1. By contract to outside firms.
2. By hiring a staff or by the members themselves.
An example of a nonprofit private management program is
Otter Tail County, Minnesota.
13 3
-------
TABLE 43. NONPROFIT CORPORATION -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
Descr iption: A rural cooperative, homeowners' association, or other nonprofit
organization could own, operate, and maintain small community sys-
tems.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1 Option 2
Performance Standards State or local State or local
System Ownership Nonprofit group1 Nonprofit group
Routine Maintenance
Inspections
Septage pumping
Correction of Failing
Systems
Inspections
Permit issuance
System repair/
replacement
Homeowner Education
Monitoring
Private contractor Nonprofit group or homeowners'
association
Private contractor Nonprofit group or private
contractor
Private contractor Nonprofit group or homeowners'
association
State or local
State or local
Private contractor Nonprofit group or private
contractor
Nonprofit group Nonprofit group
Private contractor Nonprofit group
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness:
Enforcement:
Sensitivity:
Staffing:
Coordination:
The nonprofit corporation concept is an attractive alternative
for small community systems management since the wastewater
system is owned by the residents themselves.
Regulatory agencies in most states have not approved small
wastewater system management programs administered by home-
owners' associations because of the lack of confidence in this
form of management entity. The reluctance to use homeowners'
associations (and other nonprofit organizations) stems fro*
the concern that members of these groups cannot devote ade-
quate attention to wastewater system maintenance because of
their part-time status or widespread responsibilities to other
association functions. Regulatory agencies may wish to con-
sider the creation of third-party trusts or agreements to help
ensure some degree of control over the quality and permanency
of management services.
A nonprofit corporation may be the only available option in
some areas, in underdeveloped areas, or where local govern-
ments are unwilling to provide maintenance sources.
Larger associations may be able to hire staff to perform all
necessary administrative and maintenance duties, as well as
contract with private firms or management companies for such
services.
Nonprofit corporations can originate from national organiza-
tions such as the National Demonstration Hater Project or the
Appalachian Regional Commission.
1a rural cooperative, homeowners' association, or other form of nonprofit
corporation with its own staff.
2Private firm hired by the nonprofit organization.
134
-------
NONPROFIT CORPORATION -- SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
ILLUSTRATION
Small community wastewater systems installed to up-
grade failing and substandard on-site septic systems in
Otter Tail County, Minnesota, are operated and maintained
by homeowners' associations. Members of these groups
(group membership typically varies from 10 to 30 famil-
ies) are responsible for checking pump operation and
liquid depths in individual and community septic tanks.
The typical wastewater system serving these small com-
munities consists of individual system tanks connected
to small diameter gravity sewers with wastewater dis-
posal at a community drain field. The homeowners share
the cost of electricity (about $4.00 per home per year)
and service calls to a pump distributor, septic tank
installer, or septage hauler when needed. The members
of these groups are concerned with water quality pro-
tection because of the recreational value of the lakes,
and along with technical assistance services (such as
system design and maintenance recommendations) from the
county regulatory agency, devote sufficient attention
to system performance and operational requirements. '
135
-------
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS -- RESIDUALS DISPOSAL
A major component of the operation and maintenance function
is the regulation of the disposal of residuals, i.e., septage
from septic tanks and sludge from treatment facilities. A com-
prehensive regulatory program should be designed to assure that
septage pumped from on-site systems and sludge accumulated at
treatment facilities would be safely and properly disposed of at
an approved facility. To accomplish these objectives, state
and/or local regulatory programs should address the following
major residuals disposal issues:
1. Disposal facility siting, design, design review,
and construction approval.
2. Licensing and certification of individuals
involved in the cleaning or repairing of septic
systems and small community systems.
3. Licensing and certification of individuals involved
in the transport of septage and sludge for treat-
ment.
4. Recording septage pumping events, volume of resi-
duals transported and location of disposal.
5. Periodic inspection and certification of all
vehicles used to transport residuals.
6. Limiting the disposal of residuals to approved
sites.
7. Regulating the method of disposal at those sites
(i.e., establishing performance standards for
facility operation residuals disposal).
8. Operating and maintaining residual disposal facil-
ities in accordance with prescribed performance
standards.
9. Inspection of treatment and disposal facility
construction and operation.
These activities can be provided by several types of
agencies, as well as the private sector:
1. State agencies.
2. County (or multicounty) agencies.
3. Municipal (or multimunicipal) agencies.
4. Special purpose agencies and public authorities.
5. Private companies (e.g., private septage haulers).
136
-------
Table 44 illustrates a matrix of institutional options for
various residuals management responsibilities. As shown, state
and local agencies and private interests are involved in various
aspects of residuals management. In most instances, state
agencies are involved in setting criteria and establishing li-
censing programs, while local governments assume responsibility
for the surveillance of hauler activities and the inspection of
equipment and disposal facilities.
The determination of institutional arrangements for various
residual management activities such as hauler registration, li-
censing, vehicle inspection, disposal facility design, etc. can
be accomplished in conjunction with related wastewater system
design and operation and maintenance institutional analyses.
The selection of institutional arrangements for disposal facil-
ity ownership and operation, however, could require a separate
institutional assessment. A discussion of alternative arrange-
ments for septage disposal follows.
Public Ownership and Operation
Towns, counties, cities, or states can own and operate resi-
duals treatment and disposal facilities. The facilities can be
located in conjunction with a wastewater treatment facility,
solid or hazardous waste disposal facilities, or consist of a
separate treatment and disposal facility. In states where en-
abling legislation allows establishment of multigovernment own-
ership arrangements, such treatment and disposal facilities can
serve a large geographic area. Because this arrangement relies
on the participation of two or more units of government, certain
legal measures may be necessary to protect the integrity of the
arrangement from a withdrawal of one of its members. A multi-
year membership requirement, with periodic extensions, may add
stability to such an arrangement.
Both public and private haulers may be able to use the
facility. For the single local unit of government (such as a
county or municipality), the use of the facility could be re-
stricted to haulers servicing residences within that jurisdic-
tion (see Table 45, option 1). One variation could be that the
facility is owned and operated by a single local unit of govern-
ment, but accessible to persons residing outside its political
boundaries (option 3). State agencies responsible for allocat-
ing construction grant funds for treatment facilities should
consider a mandatory regional service area arrangement for newly
constructed treatment facilities. These mandatory service re-
quirements should be reflected in wastewater facilities plans
and areawide water quality management plans.
137
-------
TABLE 44. DESCRIPTION OF RESIDUALS DISPOSAL FUNCTIONS
Funct ion
Establlsh
Criteria for
Residuals
Descr iption
Criteria for disposal fa-
cility siting, design,
and operation.
Implementing Entity
Special
_ Purpose Private
State County/Regional Municipal Agency Firms
Public Agencies
Design
Disposal
Fac i1i ty
Design Review/
Permit Issuance
Facility
Construction
Inspect ions
Facility
Ownership
Select type, location and
size of treatment and dis-
posal facility.
Evaluate site information
and proposed design.
Approve/disapprove rec-
commended design. Issue
permit to build facility.
Visit site to ensure fa-
cility is properly sit-
uated, sized, and in-
stalled. Several visits
may be necessary.
Establish fiscal and legal
requirements for mainte-
nance and repair.
Facility
Maintenance
Conduct periodic inspec-
tion of facility opera-
tion. Inspection fre-
quency is variable.
Perform maintenance ac-
tivities.
Regulation of
Haulers and
Hauling
Equ ipment
Residuals
Pumping and
Transport
Inspect pumping and trans-
port vehicles. License
pumpers. Approve pumpers
utilizing disposal facil-
ity. Monitor hauler ac-
t ivities.
Pump residual waste and
transport to disposal
site. Could involve re-
porting of origin and
destination of wastes*
138
-------
TABLE 45. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION --
RESIDUALS DISPOSAL
Description; States, counties and municipalities can own and
treatment and disposal facilities for single or
use.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1 Option 2
operate residuals
mult igover nmental
Operational
Performance Standards
Facility Ownership
Facility Service Area
Facility Operation
Residuals Transport
State
Single governr
mental entity
Single govern-
mental entity
Single govern-
mental entity^
State
Multigovern- .
mental entity4
Multigovern-
mental entity
Multigovern-
mental entity
Option 3
State
Single govern-
mental entity
Multigovern-
mental entity
Single govern-
mental entity
Public/private^ Public/private Public/private
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness:
Enforcement:
Sensitivity:
Staffing:
Coordination:
Local governments (counties and municipalities) are able to
provide services for residents within their jurisdiction, and
respond well to homeowner needs. Problems may appear in mul-
tilocal service arrangements.
Option 1 allows better coordination between small systems
design and operation programs and residuals management.
Option 2 can accomplish the same coordination if the regula-
tory structure for small systems design and maintenance fits
one of these strategies.
Local government operations of sewage treatment and solid/
hazardous waste disposal facilities can create opportunities
to combine these activities with residuals treatment and dis-
posal.
All options create the need for staffing to deal with
facility maintenance and recordkeeping. Option 3 allows the
staffing burden to fall on a single entity.
Effective coordination of residuals management with other
waste management activities can be accomplished through
public ownership and operation. Wie precise strategy to
follow will depend on local circumstances.
J-Single governmental entity is ^ county or municipality.
^Multigovernmental entity is a group of counties or municipalities.
3ln this case, the single governmental entity can be a county, municipal,
or state agency.
^Public refers to septage haulers employed by governmental agencies. Private
refers to private haulers.
139
-------
A frequently cited problem with the use of publicly-owned
wastewater treatment plants which also handle septage and sludge
wastes, is that the plant operator for local jurisdiction can,
without warning, refuse to accept septage from a private hauler.
Many plant operators are given the discretion (by the local gov-
erning body) to deny a hauler the right to dispose of septage
because of the potential harm the septage load may have on the
treatment plant. Municipal treatment plants, because of their
size or treatment processes, sometimes cannot handle large vol-
umes of septage, and septage handling facilities are not always
available at the treatment plant site for the storage or pre-
treatment of the residual waste. State or regional (multi-
county) ownership and management of residuals disposal facili-
ties (options 2 and 3) may help to avoid potential intermunici-
pal conflicts, and further promote the monitoring of residual
waste disposal activities within a large service area.
There are many localities that own and operate treatment
plants and land disposal sites for the disposal of septage from
on-site systems, while other municipalities administer hauling
services. The following examples illustrate alternative
arrangements.
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION -- RESIDUAIS DISPOSAL
ILLUSTRATION
The Town of Acton, Massachusetts and Fairfax County,
Virginia own and operate septage treatment facilities.
Acton operates a lagoon which receives only septage, and
Fairfax County operates two wastewater treatment plants
that receive septage. In both cases, the use of the
treatment facilities is restricted to the use of pri-
vate haulers servicing residences within the town or
county, respectively. In Acton, the hauler must pur-
chase a coupon from the Town Clerk and present the cou-
pon to the attendant at the treatment facility before
he is allowed to dispose of the septage. In Fairfax
County, color-coded decals are placed on the windshield
of the hauler vehicles as proof of payment of an annual
license fee which covers the costs of septage treatment.
Septage hauling and treatment services for community
septic tank drain field systems in several counties in
the State of Washington are provided by county depart-
ments of public works. Septage pumping is provided,
along with system inspections and general maintenance
services.
140
-------
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION -- RESIDUALS DISPOSAL
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
Statewide participation in residuals disposal is
found in Connecticut where facilities for materials recov-
ery, conservation, and disposal are being established on
a regional basis. Septage disposal is not currently
being handled, but the state regional arrangement does
offer promising opportunities.
Special Agency Ownership and Operation
A special single- or multipurpose agency can be created to
provide residuals treatment and disposal facilities (see Table
46). Special purpose agencies can assume a variety of forms,
including special districts, public authorities, or utilities.
The service area of a special purpose agency for residuals
management purposes can consist of contiguous or noncontiguous
communities or parts of communities.
Many sewer authorities provide special septage handling fa-
cilities at their conventional wastewater treatment facilities.
One such agency is the Seattle, Washington METRO agency.
SPECIAL AGENCY OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION -- RESIDUALS DISPOSAL
ILLUSTRATION
The Seattle METRO (a public authority) has installed
a controlled access disposal site at its wastewater
treatment facility which automatically records the
amount of septage being discharged. The driver of the
incoming septage truck inserts a special magnetic card
into the gate control and recording device. The card
contains a vehicle identification number, and the volume
of septage disposed of at the facility, as well as the
time of disposal, is made available to the plant opera-
tor .
Through its areawide water quality management pro-
gram, the Seattle METRO is currently studying the feasi-
bility of establishing on-site/septage management pro-
grams for its member counties.
141
-------
TABLE 46. SPECIAL AGENCY OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION --
RES IDUALS DISPOSAL
Descr ipt ion: Special agencies are autonomous units of local government that
can own and operate residuals disposal facilities.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1
Operat ional
Performance Standards
Facility Ownership
Facility Service Area
Facility Operation
Residuals Transport
State or local
Special purpose agency
Single governmental area
Special purpose agency
Public/private
Option 2
State
Special purpose agency
Multigovernmental area
Special purpose agency
Public/pr ivate
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness: Agency board of directors is the governing body. Members can
be elected by service area residents or appointed by the local
governing body.
Enforcement:
Sensit ivity:
Staffing:
Coord ination:
Special purpose agencies have flexible and broad regulatory
powers.
Economies of scale can be achieved through regional service
areas made up of groups of local municipalities.
Special purpose agencies can maintain their own staff in
performing maintenance duties.
Integration between wastewater, solid waste, and hazardous
waste management and residuals disposal can be achieved
through multipurpose special agencies.
14 2
-------
Private Ownership and Operation
Private companies also own and manage septage and sludge
disposal facilities for use by public and private haulers (see
Table 47). Typically, privately-owned facilities are land dis-
posal sites owned or leased from a private landowner, for the
use of a single private hauler or hauling company. The loca-
tion of the disposal site, therefore, depends on the availabil-
ity of land to the private company or the willingness of a pri-
vate landowner to allow land disposal (in areas where regula-
tions allow land disposal).
Private ownership and management can be an attractive alter-
native, especially when a group of localities fail to cooperate
in residuals management activities. Privately-owned disposal
sites can be established for the use of private haulers in serv-
icing individual residences on an as needed basis or by communi-
ties (or on-site management programs) on a contract basis. For
example, a single community or group of communities can contract
with a private company for residuals disposal services. The
private company could contract directly with the community (or
on-site management program) for a specified period of time.
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION -- RESIDUAI5 DISPOSAL
Residuals disposal at privately-owned sites is com-
mon in almost every state. Because of the shortage of
accessible and reliable public treatment facilities in
most areas, private haulers are left with the responsi-
bility of finding adequate disposal sites. Many haulers
find this to be a frustrating burden and often refuse
to handle wastes in localities that do not provide sep-
tage disposal sites. Septage management studies per-
formed in New Hampshire and Vermont, for example, point
out that many towns do not meet state legislation that
requires each town to make arrangements for adequate
septage disposal.
Private company-owned and operated residuals dis-
posal facilities could be as small as a farmland parcel
used by a single hauler, a treatment plant for septage
treatment, or combined wastewater/septage treatment.
General Development Utilities in South Florida is an
example of a private utility that owns and operates
several wastewater treatment plants and also has sev-
eral hauling vehicles to pump septic tanks for their
septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system.
143
-------
TABLE 47. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION --
RESIDUALS DISPOSAL
Descr ipt ion:
The private ownership of residuals waste facilities is a common
strategy for dealing with the disposal of septage.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Option 1 Option 2
Operational
Performance Standards State or local State or local
Facility Ownership Private Private
Facility Service Area Contract or
franchise area
Facility Operation Private Private
Residuals Transport Private Private
EVALUATION:
Responsiveness
: Private firms tend to be responsive to customer needs.
Enforcement:
State and/or local agencies are typically charged with in-
specting and approving disposal sites owned and operated by
private haulers.
Sens it ivi ty:
Private firms tend to locate disposal sites to serve the dis-
posal needs of their individual firm. The location of dis-
posal sites generally has little relation to septage genera-
tion rates, other than through the minimization of transporta-
tion costs.
Staf f inq:
Private firms usually are more efficient in terms of staffing
size and efficiency.
Coord inat ion:
Local governments can set up franchise areas or contract re-
sidual waste handling and disposal services with private
firms. Contracting with private companies reduces the burden
on local government to acquire disposal sites or transporta-
tion equipment.
^Service area
hauler s.
consists of individual homeowners who contract with private
144
-------
CHAPTER 5
FORMULATING A FINANCIAL PLAN
Financing a wastewater system involves securing grants and
loans to cover capital expenditures, and collecting revenues to
support annual debt service and operating costs. Although it
has historically been very difficult to obtain Federal construc-
tion grant funding for projects serving small communities, re-
cent legislation (PL 95-217) has made more funding available.
It is important to recognize that the community must be able to
support its local share of the costs, which include nonfundable
capital expenditures, and annual operating costs. This cannot
be overemphasized in planning wastewater systems, especially
for rural small communities with limited financial resources.
Generating sufficient revenues to cover debt service and
operating costs is essential for any management program to
remain viable. This can be done through many different mech-
anisms ranging from permit fees to service charges. The method
of collecting revenues will largely depend on the type of waste-
water system being managed, although any number of methods might
be employed to finance the various elements of a management pro-
gram. No matter what kind of wastewater facilities are in-
volved, it can be difficult to equitably allocate the cost of a
system among individual users.
This chapter discusses various methods of financing capital
costs and generating revenues as they apply in developing a fi-
nancial plan. The discussion will emphasize the importance of
proper financial planning, and will illustrate different insti-
tutional arrangements for implementing such plans. Key finan-
cial management topics are addressed in this chapter, including:
1. Ownership - maintenance liability of wastewater
systems.
2. Distribution of costs among user classifications.
3. Methods of collecting user fees.
145
-------
4. Procedures for estimating manpower requirements
and costs associated with technical plan rec-
ommendations.
The financial plan addresses who will pay for new wastewater
management services, how much they will pay, and when. These
financing issues are discussed in later sections of the chapter
with regard to:
1. On-site systems.
2. Small community systems.
3. Septage disposal.
Associated institutional and technical considerations that
local agencies and service area residents should address prior
to (and in conjunction with) formulating a financial plan
include:
1. What types of wastewater systems are to be applied,
and what areas will they serve?
2. Who will design and install new wastewater systems?
3. Who will operate and maintain these facilities?
4. Who will repair and replace failing equipment?
The financial plan will identify the roles and responsibil-
ities of participating entities in carrying out management func-
tions, as determined in the operations plan (Chapter 4). More
importantly, the financial plan specifies how the financing of
the project will be handled.
Users of this report should review EPA reports developed
through the Financial Management Assistance Program (FMAP) for
additional guidance on financial issues and financing strate-
gies. These reports are available from EPA regional offices and
from the Water Planning Division of the Office of Water Program
Operations in Washington, D.C.
GUIDE FOR FINANCIAL PLAN FORMULATION
A major concern in preparing a financial plan is defining
the manner in which the local share of the total project costs
is to be allocated among potential users. This section of the
chapter outlines a series of analysis steps to be followed in
developing an equitable financing approach. After initial cost
146
-------
estimates are made for comparing technical alternatives and
overall financial impact of the project, the subsequent finan-
cial analysis of the selected plan should include the following
steps:
Step 1 -- Determine capital cost requirements and fund-
ing availability.
Step 2 -- Estimate future annual operating costs.
Step 3 -- Calculate average user costs and review cost
allocation methods.
Step 4 -- Develop user cost collection mechanisms.
Step 5 -- Assess economic impacts of the financial
plan on service area residents.
As listed above, the process of formulating a financial plan
involves the estimation of capital costs, manpower requirements,
labor and nonlabor costs, and finally, cost allocation mecha-
nisms. This process can be a difficult and time-consuming en-
deavor, however, the acceptance of a wastewater management plan
by a community can depend on the reasonableness of out-of-pocket
costs. Creative financing is often necessary to address the
complex equity issues that typically arise in planning for small
wastewater systems.
Step 1: Determine capital cost requirements and funding availability.
The construction and upgrading of wastewater systems will
involve an outlay of capital expenditures. Technical planning
activities will define the technology to be applied and the
associated capital cost requirements. In order to undertake
such capital improvements, a management agency should be able to
accept and utilize grants from various sources, incur debt, and
raise revenue to cover the balance of costs not paid from grant
funds (i.e., the local share of capital costs).
Table 48 lists the major issues associated with financing
capital costs for small wastewater facilities. These issues
include:
1. Assessing funding availability and eligibility
rules.
147
-------
2. Determination of local share of capital costs and
debt service estimates.
3. Evaluation of management agency capabilities to
finance wastewater system capital costs.
Table 49 lists the major wastewater system cost items and
presents a method for calculating the local share of capital
costs. Information prepared in this table will be used with
subsequent calculations in deriving an estimate of annual costs
to users.
A discussion on financing the local share of capital costs
is contained in Step 3.
Step 2: Estimate future annual operating costs for the project.
Generally, Federal and state sources of grants for waste-
water treatment facilities will not pay for operating expenses.
These costs are reserved for the residents being served by the
project. Estimating the annual operating costs for the project
involves:
1. Assessing the administrative and maintenance
requirements for the chosen wastewater technology
(from the operations plan).
2. Calculating manpower requirements for system
operation and maintenance and program admin-
istration based on the number of systems to be
served, the frequency of service, and the serv-
ices to be performed by the managing entity.
3. Calculating other costs supporting direct manpower
activities.
4. Translating manpower requirements into salaries
and estimated total annual costs.
Most of the information required for these calculations is
available from the operation plan (Chapter 4).
Table 50 provides a format for identifying program staff re-
quirements as a first step in calculating annual operating
costs. The user can apply this table in estimating staff needs
for a particular management approach. The outputs of this table
148
-------
(staff size and responsibilities) are used in calculating total,
operating expenses, as shown in Table 51. This table lists the
major components of operating costs in a format that can be
readily applied to cost estimating.
Figures 9 and 10 present approximations of total program
costs for on-site and small community system management pro-
grams. The graphics display program costs according to service
area size (as measured by the number of dwelling units served).
These costs do not reflect annual debt service, septage pumping,
or capital improvements, and reflect only the costs of program
operation (as calculated in Table 51).
Impacts of economies of scale, as reflected through the use
of a full-time or part-time staff, are also taken into account
in these graphics. A more specific analysis of possible econo-
mies of scale in management approaches can be accomplished
through the detailed manpower/functional analysis shown in Ta-
bles 50 and 51. By utilizing these tables, a closer approxima-
tion of the actual staff requirements (i.e., full-time or part-
time staff) can be derived. Figures 9 and 10, on the other
hand, have manpower assumptions incorporated into the derivation
of the service area size/operating costs relationships. Costs
for labor, however, were estimated on the basis of manpower re-
quirements per system, not on actual staff requirements (which
might result in less than full-time utilization of manpower).
For illustrative purposes, the threshold levels for one full-
time staff-person (to cover technical and administrative duties,
other than clerical) are identified in these graphics.
The cost data that appear on Figures 9 and 10 are approxima-
tions, and are included to serve as a general guide for compar-
ing gross program costs. The user should review the assumptions
contained in the cost curves before applying them to a specific
situation. Therefore, it is recommended that the procedure
presented in Tables 50 and 51 should be utilized in preparing
program cost estimates for facility planning purposes. (Figures
9 and 10 can be used to calculate preliminary estimates of pro-
gram operating costs.)
149
-------
Step 3: Calculate average user costs to cover local share of
capital costs and annual operating costs. Identify funding
allocation methods to be used to generate revenue.
Developing a financial plan for small wastewater systems
management involves packaging a number of different financing
techniques to suit the fiscal requirements and administrative
capability of the local management entity.
The previous steps have generated the necessary information
to begin developing an overall strategy for financing the waste-
water management plan. This financial strategy should be flex-
ible 'enough to adapt to rising costs, future system needs, and
potential new funding opportunities. In addition, the strategy
should be equitable to all users and generate sufficient revenue
to cover annual costs. Data generated in this step can also be
used to compare the financial impacts of management plan alter-
natives.
The calculation of an annual average user cost is a key step
in the process of developing a financial plan. Table 52 pres-
ents a sample format for calculating total annual costs, utiliz-
ing the results of the calculations from Tables 49 and 51. The
final calculation yields an estimate of the average user cost
(i.e., the total cost of the management program divided by the
total number of homes or properties served). This average cost
does not necessarily represent the actual annual cost to the
user, and it is not necessarily the most equitable means of al-
locating costs. It does, however, serve as an effective measure
of the fiscal impact of alternative management plans on existing
and future users.
Revenues to cover total program costs calculated in Table
52 can be generated through a variety of mechanisms described
in Tables 53 and 54. The methods relate to the allocation of
costs to users through service charges, property taxes, or user
charges, and to different methods for financing the local share
of capital expenditures. A more detailed discussion of these
methods as they apply to financing on-site, small community, and
residuals management programs can be found in the following sec-
tions in this chapter: "Institutional Options — On-Site Sys-
tems," "Institutional Options -- Small Community Systems," and
"Institutional Options -- Residuals Disposal."
150
-------
Step 4: Develop mechanisms to collect user costs from service
area residents.
An important concern in formulating a financial plan is for
the management entity to assure that service charges and other
fees assessed to the service area resident will be paid. The
ability to collect user fees, however, is tied directly to
several legal issues which must be addressed, such as:
1. Compelling the formation of a management agency
by state or local governments.
2. Compelling individuals to participate in the
management program, and connect to an off-site
treatment and disposal system.
3. Gaining authority to enter onto private property
to maintain these sytems.
It is necessary for a potential management entity to assure
that it possesses sufficient authority to set and collect user
costs to cover the program's annual operating and debt service
expenses.
Table 55 presents several options that may be used to en-
force the collection of user charges and compliance with manage-
ment requirements. The management entity may be reluctant to
impose some of these enforcement methods where the resident
simply cannot afford the cost of system repair or replacement.
It is, therefore, necessary that along with the power to incur
debt, receive grants, and impose liens on property, the manage-
ment entity should have the authority to issue low-interest
loans for system replacement, to charge for work on an install-
ment basis, or to accumulate a capital fund for future equipment
replacement or repairs.
151
-------
Step 5: Assess impacts of the financial plan and project on
service area residents.
A final step in developing a financial plan is the assess-
ment of fiscal impacts on the community residents; that is, can
the community afford the project? The evaluation criteria to
perform this assessment are shown in Table 56.
In some instances it may be necessary to perform a burden
analysis of projected costs. This procedure will generate an
estimate of the cost burden on the average household in the
future under various assumptions about pricing policies, growth
in new users, and inflation in operations and maintenance costs.
For a complete discussion of the burden analysis methodology,
see "Worksheets and Instructions for a Screening Procedure for
Water Pollution Control Projects," Government Finance Research
Center, Municipal Finance Officials Association (MFOA) and Peat,
Marwick, Mitchell and Company, Washington, D.C., February 1979.
This document and others addressing similar financial management
issues have been developed by the Financial Management Assist-
ance Program (FMAP). Information is available from EPA regional
office and the Facilities Requirements Division of the Office
of Water Program Operations in Washington, D.C.
152
-------
TABLE 48. PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING CAPITAL COST
REQUIREMENTS FOR MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
Assessment of Funding Availability and Eligibility Rules
• Identify Federal and state funding programs (grants
and loans) which may be applicable. (A brief
discussion of Federal funding programs for waste-
water treatment facilities appears in Chapter 3,
in the subsection "Institutional Options.")
• Contact Federal and state agency personnel respon-
sible for applicable Construction Grant Programs
to assess funding availability, eligibility re-
quirements, and application procedures.
• List available sources of grants and loans and
compile eligibility rules to fund various
capital cost components.
Determine Local Share of Capital Costs
• Obtain cost estimates for wastewater collection
and treatment facility construction costs, plus
costs for land, easements, engineering fees,
legal fees, etc. (Include estimates of initial
capital costs, facility expansion and replace-
ment costs.)
• Calculate local share by subtracting grants
from total capital costs, based on eligibility
rules. (See Table 49 for sample calculation
procedure.)
• Check enabling legislation and charters to
determine whether management agencies can accept
grants from Federal and state agencies. (See
Table 18.)
• Check enabling legislation and charters to
determine methods of financing the local share
of capital costs of different institutional
arrangements (see Table 18) .
15 3
-------
TABLE 4 9. PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING
LOCAL SHARE OF CAPITAL COSTS
EPA Grant Shares-
System
Components Total Cost Eligible Ineligible
1. Total Construction Cost of Proposed Facilities
Initial capital investment
a.
Collection lines
b.
Interceptor (trunk) lines
c.
Residuals treatment/disposal facility
d.
On-site treatment/disposal facilities
e.
Pumping units and pump stations
f.
House connections
g-
Land purchase + options
h.
Riahts-of-wav acouisition
i.
Residuals hauling vehicles and
eauioment
Construction Cost Summary
j.
Total cost (la through li)
k.
Total eligible cost
1.
Total ineligible cost
2. Engineering and Legal Fees
a.
Engineering costs (for system design)
b.
Legal fees (for rights-of-way acqui-
sition, developing charters and
ordinances, etc.)
c.
Total cost (2a + 2b)
3. Expenditures Anticipated During Planning Period
a.
Equipment replacement
b.
Cluster system upgrading/expansion
c.
Rehabilitation of individual
systems
d.
Purchase of miscellaneous equipment
e.
Total expenditures
4. Capital
Cost Analysis for Proposed Project
a.
Total construction cost of proposed
facilities (li)
b.
Total engineering and leqal fees (2c)
c.
Costs eligible for EPA Construction
Grant funds (4a+4b)
d.
EPA share (at %)
e.
State share (at %) (if applicable)
f.
Local share of costs i4a + 4b-4d-4e)
g-
Local share of costs (ll + 3e)
k.
Total local share (4f+4g)
1.
Total annual local share of capital
costs.J
1-Calculate
eligible costs based on EPA Construction Grants and state matching share. Indi-
cate grant
share as a percent of eligible costs.
identify other Federal or state funding programs and check for eligibility rules.
3Use a 20-year planning period for a loan or bond maturity at the estimated rate of in-
terest for
this initial calculation. The precise method of financing the local share
is discussed in Step 3.
154
-------
TABLE 50. ESTIMATING PROGRAM
STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Implementing
Function Entity!
Assumptions Annual
and Work Day
Calculations^ Requirements^
New Installations
• Site evaluation
• Design review
• Installation supervision
• Permit issuance
System Maintenance
• Routine maintenance
(inspections)
• Emergency maintenance
(service calls)
• Customer relations
• Permit renewals
SAMPLE FORMAT
System Repair/Replacement
• Failed system inspection
• Installation supervision/
performance
• Violation notices
• Permit renewals
Residuals Disposal
• Pumping
• Treatment and disposal
Monitorinq
• Surface-water quality
• Groundwater quality
• Wastewater discharge
• Special systems monitoring
Administration/Planninq/Financinq
• Office administration
• Compliance reporting
• Financial management
• Bookkeeping
• Billing and accounting
• Public relations/education
• Program coordination
• Maintenance recordkeeping
J-As identified in the operations plan.
2Determine frequency and number of visits and time involved in performing
various functions.
3indicate staff category, e.g., managerial, technical, clerical (see Table
51) .
155
-------
TABLE 51. CALCULATION OF OPERATING COSTS
(A)
Annual Salary
(B) 1
Admsted Salary
Labor
Program manager $
Assistant manager $
Professional staff $
Field crews, technicians, operators $
Clerical/bookkeeping staff $
Total salary costs (from column B)
Insurance and benefits ( % of total salary costs)
Total labor costs
3
$"
Nonlabor
Treatment system
Utilities, chemicals, etc.
Vehicle maintenance
Miscellaneous equipment, tools, etc.
Replacement parts, etc.
Treatment service charges
Residuals disposal charges
Private contractor service charges
Testing equipment
Laboratory analysis
Office expenses (rent, postage,
supplies, utilities, etc.)
Staff training
Training courses, seminars, etc.
Consultant services
Lega1/accountant services
Taxes
Insurance (on equipment)
Miscellaneous expense (e.g., mileage)
$
$
$
$
$
$
3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
SAMPLE FORMAT
Total nonlabor costs
Total operating costs
$
$
^-Adjusted salary (column B) = average annual salary (column A)
total man-days required (Table 50)
x total man-days in one man-year
156
-------
1000
900
800
700
5 500
< Q
400
200
100
50
10
20
40
60
30
70
80
90
100
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST ($1,000)
•Number of full-time staffpersons to cover technical and admin-
istrative duties (except clerical) .
ASSUMPTIONS
Assuming individual standard septic systems on a regular maintenance program with home-
owner responsible for system repairs and septic tank pumping.
1. New installations -- Slow growth rate (1% annual growth) with time devoted to design
review, inspection, and permit administration.
2. Operation and maintenance -- Septic systems inspected once every three years at one-
half workday per inspection. Two percent annual failure rate assumed. Time for
design review, inspection, and permit administration for repair systems is included.
3. Septaqe disposal -- Average tank pumping frequency is once every five years. Pumping
costs are not incorporated into the estimates. Administration of recordkeeping pro-
gram is included.
4. Monitoring -- Quarterly sampling program is assumed for surface and groundwater qual-
ity analysis.
5. Staffing -- Technician salary is $45/workday ($12,000/work year), manager's salary is
$70/workday ($18,000/work year) , clerical salary is $35/workday ($9,000/work year) .
All salaries include fringe benefits.
6. Nonlabor costs -- Total nonlabor cost (e.g., office space, utilities, vehicle costs,
supplies, etc.) is equal to labor costs.
7. Operating cost -- This does not include debt service for initial system rehabilita-
tion, or the cost of future system repairs.
The cost curve is intended to illustrate the general relationship between operating
costs and service area size. The information derived can be used to calculate order of
magnitude preliminary operating cost estimates. This information, however, is not in-
tended to serve as a substitute for the more detailed cost-estimating procedure
presented in Tables 49, 50, and 51.
Figure 9. Typical relationship between operating cost
and service area size for conventional
on-site systems.
157
-------
2000
1400
N IT
CJ Q)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150 160 180 200 220
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST ($1,000)
•Number of tall-time staffpersons to cover technical and admin-
istrative duties (except clerical).
ASSUMPTIONS
Assuming small diameter pressure sewer system with individual grinder pumps (one pumping
unit per household), and aerated lagoon treatment facility with surface discharge.
1. New installations -- Slow-moderate growth rate (3% annual) for future connections.
2. Operation/maintenance -- Each pump unit inspected once every two years for preventive
maintenance and service at one-half workday per inspection. Collection line and
treatment facility maintenance also included. Maintenance costs were adjusted by fa-
cility and service area size.
3. Staffinq -- Technician (plant operator/inspector) salary of $55/workday ($14,400/work
year), manager a.t $70/workday ($18,000/wor k year), and clerical at $35/workday
($9, 000/wor k yea'r), including fringe benefits.
4. Nonlabor costs -- Costs for office expenses, vehicle costs, and equipment are one
and one-half times the labor costs.
5. Operating costs -- This does not include debt service for initial capital improve-
ments, pump replacement costs, and cost of purchasing and installing pump units for
future connections.
The cost curve is intended to illustrate the general relationship between operat-
ing costs and service area size. The information derived can be used to calculate order
of magnitude preliminary operating cost estimates. This information, however, is not
intended to serve as a substitute for the more detailed cost-estimating procedure pres-
ented in Tables 49, 50, and 51.
Figure 10. Typical relationship between operating
costs and service area size for small
community systems
158
-------
TABLE 52. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL PROGRAM
COSTS TO USERS
Total Local Share of Capital Costs (Table 49)
(Excluding all grants)
Total Labor and Nonlabor Operating Costs (Table 51) ....
Total Annual Costs
(Local share,plus operating costs)
Total Number of Users
(Specify number of existing homes or developable
properties to be served)
Average Annual User Cost* _
(Divide total annual cost by number of users)
^The calculation of this cost assures that the final user cost
includes all direct and indirect costs of supporting the waste-
water management program. Thus, the program is self-sustaining
on the basis of annual revenues genetated. The average annual
user cost can then be translated into an actual annual charge
through the application of the alternative financing and cost
allocation methods presented in Tables 53 and 54.
159
-------
TABLE 53. METHODS FOR FINANCING LOCAL SHARE
Mechanism
Descr ipt ion
Advantages
Loans
Loans can be obtained from Federal
and state sources for system construc-
tion. Loans are also available from
commercial lending institutions.
Loan programs can be established by
states or local governments to assist
homeowners in repairing failing sys-
tems.
Generally, state and Federal
agencies can issue low interest
loans with long-term paybacks.
General Bonds backed by the full faith and
Obligation credit of the issuing entity. Secured
Bonds by the taxing powers of the issuing
entity.
Commonly used by local govern-
ments. Interest rates are
usually lower than other bonds.
Offers considerable flexibility
to local governments.
Revenue Bonds
Bonds retired by the revenue of the
fac ility.
Can be used to circumvent local
debt limitations. Popular
alternative to G.O. bonds.
Special Bonds payable only from collection of
Assessment special assessments (e.g., front foot-
Bond age assessment); not from property
taxes.
Removes financial burden from
local government. Useful when
direct benefits are easily
identified.
Special Direct fees or taxes on the property.
Benefit Sometimes referred to as an improve-
Assessment ment fee.
Useful where benefits to prop-
erties from capital improvements
are identifiable. Can be used
to reduce local share debt re-
quirements for financing. Also
can be used to establish a fund
for future capital investments.
Connect ion
Fee
Reserve Fund
Ad Valorem
Levied at the time a user connects to
the wastewater system (not considered
a tax or benefit assessment).
Can be divided into two or more one-
time payments to reduce initial burden
on homeowner.
A part of utility revenue is placed in
a separate fund each year, and invested
in order to accumulate adequate funds
to finance capital improvements.
Tax computed on the assessed valuation
of all property within the jurisdiction
of the issuing entity.
Often used to recover actual
costs for connection to the
system. A unique application
is in raising the local capi-
tal share of system upgrading
and replacement often found in
on-site management programs.
Avoids the expense of borrowing.
Can be used to finance future
system repairs that are not
eligible for initial grants.
Spreads the costs of the project
to all taxpayers on a uniform
basis. Administrative cost to
collect taxes can be low, if
taxes are low. Eligible tax
deduction for the homeowner.
Disadvantages
Lending agency may require certain
provisions (e.g., power to levy
taxes) to assure managing agency
ability to retire the debt. Com-
mercial loans will generally be
available at a higher interest
rate.
Community debt limitations may
restrict their use. If property
taxes are used to retire debt,
costs may not necessarily be paid
for solely by the project benefi-
ciaries.
Do not have the full faith and
credit of local government.
Typically higher interest rate
than G.0» bonds.
Can be costly to individual
landowners (especially large
lots). May be inappropriate in
several areas due to nonuniform
lot sizes. May have higher
interest rate.
Initial lump sum payment of
assessment may be a significant
burden on individual residents.
Initial lump sum payment of
assessment may be a signifi-
cant burden on individual res-
idents.
Account is based solely on system
revenues. Poor management of the
fund can lead to default.
Has potential to spread costs to
properties not benefitting from
the project. Review Federal reg-
ulations before using property
tax financing methods when Federal
grants are involved. (CFR 40,
Part 55, Subpart E, 1 October
1978) .
-------
TABLE 54. ALTERNATIVE COST ALLOCATION TECHNIQUES
Mechanism
Service Fee
Property Taxes
User Charge
Description
Charges levied at the time a specific
service is performed. Commonly used to
cover administrative costs of design/in-
stallation, operation and maintenance,
and residuals disposal. It is a flexible
tool, with both uniform and variable
rate structures.
Financing total management program cost
through general property tax rates.
Eliminates the need for separate service
charges.
Monthly or annual fee set to cover
amortization costs, operation and
maintenance costs, equipment repair or
replacement. The fee structure could
consist of an annual service fee (for
O&M expenses), special assessments and
connection charges for recovering capital
costs (See Table 52). Can be a fixed
or variable rate depending on the
precise cost-sharing mechanism chosen
(see Remarks) .
Remarks
Can be levied as a uniform rate for:
• Inspections
• Septage pumping
• System repairs or replacement
(e.g., for pumping units)
• Visits for site evaluation or
problem diagnosis
• Design reviews, recordkeeping,
and permit issuance
Variable rates with each activity
could be levied to account for:
• Monitoring/inspection require-
ments for wastewater systems.
• Travel time for visitation
• Length of service time
• Type of wastewater system
• Other user classifications
(See User Charge remarks)
Can be calculated as average
increase in property tax millage
rate by dividing annual program
costs by average tax assessment
value per property.
Alternative allocation methods
include uniform rates or variable
rates, based on:
• Residential/commercial/
industrial users
• Permanent residents/seasonal
residents
• Existing residents/future
residents
• Low or fixed-income residents
• Active income producers
• Users with conventional sys-
tems/users with experimental
or nonconventional systems
• Age or operating condition of
the system (when existing sep-
tic systems are involved).
161
-------
TABLE 55. ALTERNATIVE USER COST COLLECTION METHODS
o\
to
Collection
Method
Liens on
Property
Record inq
Violations on
Property Deed
Pre sale
Inspections
Termination
of Public
Services
Fines
Description
Local governing entity (with taxing
powers) may add the costs of perform-
ing a service or past unpaid bills as
a tax on the property.
Copies of violations, can, through
administrative or legislature require-
ment, be attached to the property
title (via registrar of deeds).
Conducting inspections of on-site
wastewater system equipment prior to
transfer of property ownership.
A customer's water, electric, or gas
service may be terminated.
Monetary penalties for each day of
violation, or as a surcharge on unpaid
bills.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Has serious enforcement ram- Local government may be reluctant
ification and in worst instances, to apply this approach, unless
is enforceable.
Relatively simple procedure.
Can effectively limit transfer
of property ownership.
As a variation of above proce-
dure, notice of violation may
be given to potential buyer at
the time of systems inspection.
Effective procedure, especially
if management entity is respon-
sible for water supply.
Fines can be levied through
local judicial system as a
result of enforcement of vio-
lations.
the amount owed is substantial.
Can be applied to enforce san-
itary code violations; may be
difficult to apply in col-
lecting unpaid bills.
May be difficult to implement
due to legal restrictions.
Difficulty rests with the
possible health impacts in ter-
minating public services, and
with the logistics of terminating
water supply where private wells
are used.
Effectiveness will depend on
the authority vested in the
entity issuing the fine.
-------
TABLE 56. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR FINANCIAL PLAN
FORMULATION
Administrative/Legal Feasibility
• Availability of grant assistance.
• Ability to obtain maximum grant assistance.
• Ability of management agency to act independent
of budget constraints.
• Ability of management agency to attract and maintain
professional and nonprofessional staffing.
• Ability of management agency to raise revenue,
through various sources:
Assessments.
Permit fees.
User charges.
Inspection fees.
Connection fees.
Other methods.
Fiscal Feasibility
• Ability of users to pay for system capital debt
service, operation and maintenance, rehabilitation,
or replacement.
• Relative cost of alternative management programs
(type of agency, public/private relationships,
scope of service).
• Distribution of costs to various user groups (exist-
ing vs. future users, permanent vs. seasonal resi-
dents, etc.).
• Impact of management programs on:
- present and future local community budgets.
- Provision of other public services.
163
-------
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR FINANCING ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Financing the various aspects of an on-site management
program (i.e., system design, inspection, operation and
maintenance) can be handled in several different ways. Three
basic approaches, as shown in Table 54, include:
1. Service fees paid by the property owner to the
managing entity for specific services related
to regulating the design, installation, and
maintenance of individual systems.
2. Property taxes levied on all property owners
within the management entity's jurisdiction.
3. Monthly or annual user charges billed to property
owners to cover the costs of the management
program.
As noted in the introduction to this chapter, developing a
financial plan for a wastewater management program will require
inputs from other phases of the planning process, particularly
the preparation of the operations plan, to address the
following issues:
1. Who is the management agency?
2. Which residents are benefitting from management
services?
3. How often will management services be required?
4. What is the structure of the management program;
what functions will it provide?
Table 57 presents a set of generic institutional options
for carrying out various on-site management functions. More
precise definitions of institutional arrangements would be de-
veloped in the operations plan. The generic institutional op-
tions here serve to illustrate various management agency/home-
owner relationships that affect the structure of the financing
system. As shown in the table, an agency can assume some or
all functions associated with on-site systems management.
In option 1, the selected management agency assumes limited
system design and maintenance functions. A financing strategy
would therefore be relatively simple to develop and administer,
since the management agency would only have to be compensated
164
-------
TABLE 57. ABBREVIATED INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR ON
-SITE MANAGEMENT
Function
Option 1
Option 2
Desiqn/Installation
Site evaluation
Property owner/contractor
Management agency
System design
Property owner/contractor
Property owner or
management agency1
Design review
Management agency
Management agency
Permit issuance
Management agency
Management agency
System installation
Property owner/contractor
Property owner or
management agency1
Recordkeeping
Management agency
Management agency
Operation and Maintenance
Routine maintenance
Property owner/contractor
Property owner or
management agency1
Correction of fail-
ing systems
Property owner/contractor
Property owner or
management agency1
Monitoring
Management agency
Management agency1
System ownership
Property owner
Property owner or
management agency1
1-The management agency can provide these services through
private contractor or through its own staff.
an agreement with a
-------
for the costs involved in reviewing system designs, issuing per-
mits, and monitoring compliance with permit conditions. Program
costs are typically raised through the general fund, permit
fees, or other types of special assessments.
For option 2, on the other hand, a financing mechanism would
be established to provide a method of raising revenues to cover
system maintenance activities such as inspections and correction
of failing systems. The system inspections could be provided by
the management entity and paid by the property owner on a serv-
ice fee basis, or the inspection service could be included
(along with other management activities) as part of an annual
payment to the management'agency.
The management agency in option 2 could also assume respon-
sibility for repairing or replacing septic systems. The manage-
ment agency can set up a reserve fund that each property owner
would pay into. If a wastewater system fails, the costs to re-
pair or replace it is paid from the reserve fund. (This is
similar in concept to an insurance program.) The reserve fund
can be a completely separate fund or included as part of an an-
nual payment that is designed to cover other management program
costs.
The concept of a reserve fund to repair or replace failing
septic systems has the distinct advantage of protecting the
property owner from high, unplanned expenses for septic system
replacement. This provision also gives the property owner an
incentive to correct septic system problems without delay or
financial worry.
The disadvantages of this concept rest with the potential
for removing property owner incentives to properly care for the
septic system. The likely attitude of the property owner may
be to shift complete responsibility for septic system mainte-
nance and performance to the management agency, which is col-
lecting an annual payment for septic system services. The
property owner, therefore, assumes no responsibility or liabili-
ty for system performance. Another problem with the reserve
fund approach is the difficulty of administering it in an area
with existing septic systems. Inspections would be required to
determine the operating condition of each septic system before
a property owner to determine eligibility in the program.
Issues such as property owner attitude and equity in user
rates should be evaluated before a financing mechanism is
selected. Several examples of financing approaches applied in
various on-site system management programs follow.
166
-------
ON-SITE SYSTEMS FINANCING
ILLUSTRATION
A typical fee for processing an on-site system per-
mit application ranges from less than $50 to over $200.
The on-site specialists in Vermont, for example, charge
$50 per lot to perform site evaluations, prepare system
designs, and supervise system installation. In Marin
County, California, the County Public Works Department
has a $200 per lot permit application fee which covers
the cost of plan review and installation supervision.
(The county does not perform extensive site evaluations
in each lot application.)
Vermont appropriations to the on-site specialists
program have helped keep the costs to a reasonable lev-
el and attractive to home builders in this rural state.
Program directors estimate that the $50 permit fee only
covers half the cost of the program administration.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
sources supports half the costs of the Sewage Enforce-
ment Officer (SEO), a certified representative of the
state who administers the state code. The other half
of the SEO's salary is provided by a local unit of gov-
ernment (primarily townships), which uses permit ap-
plication fees as a means of raising the local matching
share.
Hie financial structure of the Fairfax County,
Virginia, Health Department illustrates an alternative
financing arrangement for local regulatory programs.
The State Health Department pays the salaries of the
county sanitarians, plan reviewers, and field person-
nel, which support about half of the county budget for
this program. The remainder of the costs are covered
by the County General Fund, and permit fees are collect-
ed to raise part of the county's revenue share. (The
permit fee for an on-site system in the county is $65
per lot.)
The financing methods used in the Georgetown Di-
vide Public Utility District (GDPUD) in El Dorado
County, California, and the Stinson Beach County Water
District (SBCWD) in Marin County, California, illus-
trate the use of user charges to support on-site sys-
tems management programs. Both programs provide for
the review of proposed new system design and the in-
spection of operating systems.
167
-------
ON-SITE SYSTEMS FINANCING ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
In the GDPUD, an annual service charge of about
$15 is assessed toward every lot in the service area.
The service charge is collected bi-monthly with the
water bills. A special assessment of $50 is paid by
the developer once a home is sold. This fee is used
to conduct wastewater facility studies within the
service area. A $10 permit fee is charged to each
on-site system applicant. The developer is also
assisting the GDPUD by a special site evaluation study
(conducted with CETA help) .
The Stinson Beach County Water District (SBCWD)
charges a permit fee of $104 per year. The permit fee
is levied only to developed lots within the service
area (unlike the GDPUD approach). Billings are done
on a quarterly basis in conjunction with water bills.
Water service termination can be used by the SBCWD to
enforce its regulations.
The SBCWD has received a two-year demonstration
grant from the State Water Resources Control Board to
subsidize a portion of the operation and maintenance
expense. The state has also provided SBCWD with funds
for a $100,000 revolving loan account for homeowners
(with low income) whose systems need repair or replace-
ment .
In recognition of the problems regulatory agencies
face in requiring a homeowner to repair or replace a
failing on-site system, the State of Wisconsin has set
up a special revolving loan fund (of $1 million) to pro-
vide funds to residents (via county regulatory agencies)
for individual system repair and replacement. This
program, in addition to the SBCWD revolving fund, is one
of the few examples of financing incentives for individ-
ual system rehabilitation and repair.
168
-------
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR FINANCING SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
There are various approaches to financing the capital
expenses and operating costs for small community systems, as
presented in Tables 53 and 54. They are:
1. Service fees and charges to raise funds for
capital and operation cost recovery.
2. Special benefit assessment's or connection charges
to cover initial capital expenses.
3. Reserve funds (such as a sinking fund) for future
capital improvements.
4. Debt financing through loans and the issuance
of bonds for capital cost recovery.
The choice of the precise financing arrangement will again
depend on the management agency structure, and the assignment
of ownership-operational responsibility. As described in
Chapter 4, "Formulating an Operations Plan," there are several
options available for owning and operating the collection and
treatment systems. These systems can be owned, built, and
operated by a single management entity, or by different
entities. For gravity sewers, the ownership of the collector
lines has traditionally extended to the private property line,
and the cost of connecting to the street collector line was the
responsibility of the property owner. For some forms of small
community systems, particularly where STEP, grinder pump, vacuum
or other pumping units are connected to a common pressure line,
a wide variety of ownership/maintenance responsibilities can be
established.
These alternative arrangements, with their associated
financing implications, are outlined as follows:
1. The management entity would design, build, and
operate the entire collection system (including
the individual units) and treatment-disposal
facilities. A financing mechanism would be
established to cover amortization and operating
costs.
2. The management agency would design and maintain
the system. The property owner would purchase
the unit from the management agency (via con-
nection fees), and install it to agency specifica-
tions. The management agency would establish a
169
-------
financing strategy that would cover debt service
and operation and maintenance (including equip-
ment replacement) for the entire system.
3. The unit would be designed and purchased by the
management agency, then repurchased by the prop-
erty owner. The property owner would then
install and maintain the unit through special
service contracts with private firms. Costs for
system repair and replacement would also rest
with the property owner.
4. The unit would be designed and built by the
management agency, but maintenance and repair of
the unit would rest with the property owner.
5. The unit may be owned, installed, and operated
by the management agency, but would be purchased
by the property owner (via connection fees).
Each option treats the individual residences equally.
Together they offer considerable flexibility in allocating
costs to individual homeowners. They also provide methods for
reducing the local share of capital costs and operating
expenses to the management agency. In the first two options,
for example, the management agency can establish a uniform
annual payment to cover its program commitments, or it may
utilize an annual charge plus a service fee for mandatory
inspections.
The socioeconomic characteristics of users should be
considered in establishing a financing mechanism to reduce
potential adverse economic impacts among various classes of
users (see Table 54). Two examples of small community system
financing programs are given here.
SMALL COMMUNITY FINANCING
ILLUSTRATION
The Lake Meade Municipal Authority (IMMA) , Lake
Meade, Pennsylvania, has instituted a typical user
charge system which relies on an annual service charge,
connection charges, and special assessments to finance
their small community system. The local share of the
construction funds (about $600,000) for the grinder
pump/pressure sewer system and treatment plant were
170
-------
SMALL COMMUNITY FINANCING
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
raised by issuing a special assessment ($950 per home)
and a connection charge ($1,750 per home). The assess-
ment was designed to reflect the improvement in prop-
erty values in the community due to the provision of
a sewerage system. The connection fee represents the
cost of installing the grinder pump/pressure sewer
connection to the individual home. A $268 sewer rent-
al fee (service fee) to cover operation and mainte-
nance is charged each homeowner connected to the sys-
tem. The LMMA has the power to terminate wastewater
service if homeowners are delinquent in making pay-
ments. The IMMA also owns the pumps, pressure lines,
and the treatment plant.
The General Development Utilities (GDU) owns and
operates a septic tank effluent pump (STEP) pressure
sewer system serving a small portion of its service
area in southern Florida. The monthly charge (of
about $8.00) and connection charge ($700 per home) is
the same for residents in the STEP system as it is for
residents served by conventional gravity sewer systems.
This method of assessing charges facilitates the bill-
ing procedures, but does not reflect the actual cost
of servicing the residence or the pressure sewer sys-
tem. GPU personnel are currently evaluating this serv-
ice charge method and are considering a separate bill-
ing schedule for residents on the STEP system.
171
-------
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR FINANCING RESIDUALS DISPOSAL
The costs for transporting, treating, and disposing of
residual wastes (e.g., septage) can be raised through service
charges (corresponding to a pumping and treatment event),
general property tax revenues, or annual payments (on a
pro-rated basis). The selection of the appropriate financing
arrangement will depend on:
1. Who owns and operates the transport vehicles.
2. Who owns and operates the treatment and disposal
facility.
3. Whether septage pumping is mandatory (i.e., within
a formalized on-site system management program)
or voluntary (i.e., at the homeowner's discretion).
As discussed in Chapter 4 ("Institutional Options --
Residuals Disposal" section), septage transport vehicles can be
owned and operated by either a public management entity or a
private contractor. Septage treatment and disposal facilities
can be similarly owned and operated by a public management
entity or private contractor.
Financing arrangements for privately-owned transport and
treatment facilities are relatively straightforward; costs for
disposal site operation and residuals transport are funded
through fees paid by those contracting for the services. These
service fees, paid at the time of septage pumping, are normally
set by the private contractor to cover capital investment and
operating costs, and provide a profit.
Financing the costs of a publicly-owned septage facility and
transport vehicles can be done in a number of ways. Special
septage disposal facilities designed to treat or stabilize sep-
tage (so that it can be safely disposed of in a landfill) are
eligible for EPA construction grants, as are septage hauling
trucks. Financing the local share and operating costs of such
facilities can be accomplished by using service fees, property
taxes, and annual payments.
Several alternative financing scenarios for residual
disposal transport and treatment facilities follow. Some of
the alternatives involve the use of a manifest system (i.e.,
trip ticket arrangement), as illustrated in Figure 11. The
first six scenarios describe situations where the treatment
facility is publicly-owned; the final two scenarios involve the
172
-------
Septage
Hauler
Property
Owner
Disposal
Site
Attendant
Town Offices
(Health Dept.)
NOTES:
1. Haulers purchase coupons (usually coupon booklets) from town
offices (one coupon for each 500 gallons pumped). This en-
titles the hauler to dispose of septage at the town-owned
disposal site at no extra cost.
2. Haulers pump septage from property owner on request. (The
town's biennial pumping requirement is not actively en-
forced.) Property owner pays the hauler for pumping.
3. A trip ticket is filled out by the hauler in triplicate.
Hauler gives one copy of the ticket to the disposal
facility operator. The ticket shows the name of the
pumper, the location of the septic tank pumped, the quan-
tity pumped, and the date of pumping. One copy remains
with the hauler, and the third with the property owner.
4. The disposal facility attendant submits daily receipts
to the town offices, where daily and monthly log sum-
maries are tabulated.
5. A copy of the trip ticket is placed in a file kept for
each system installed or repaired in the town. This file
contains: a copy of the original percolation tests re-
sults, the installation permit, copies of the system de-
sign drawings, an as-built drawing, any repair permits,
correspondence concerning the system, and any septage
pumping trip tickets. Files which collect a large number
of trip tickets within a short period of time are noted
as potential problems and visited by a Town Health Depart-
ment Officer.
Figure 11. Septage management system for Acton,
Massachusett s.
173
-------
use of privately-owned and operated treatment facilities. In
most of these scenarios, the hauler vehicle would be
privately-owned and operated.
1. The costs of septage treatment are paid through
the general fund (i.e., property tax revenues)
of the management agency. Septage pumping is
provided by public as well as private haulers.
Every property owner within the jurisdiction would
be offered one free or nominally-priced pumping
during each specified period (e.g., 2 to 4 years).
2. The management agehcy would charge an annual fee
to each homeowner with an on-site system to cover
the costs of septage treatment (and possibly pump-
ing if septage vehicles were publicly-owned or if
a contractual agreement were established with a
private hauler). The annual fee would be pro-rated
on the basis of an average interval between pumping
(e.g., every three years).
3. A manifest system is established to identify the
origin of the waste and disposal site utilized. The
property owner would purchase a ticket or coupon
from the management agency to cover the costs of
septage treatment at publicly-owned treatment facil-
ities. The property owner would pay a hauler for
the pumping and transport costs. The hauler could
present the ticket at the disposal site.
4. Using a manifest system, the property owner would
pay a hauler for pumping and transport. The
management agency (i.e., owner and operator of the
treatment facility) would bill the homeowner directly
to finance the costs of septage treatment.
A copy of a completed ticket will be left by the
hauler with the treatment facility attendant to
serve as proof of a pumping event.
5. The property owner would pay the hauler for service
and treatment. The hauler would be allowed to
utilize a publicly-owned treatment facility by
presenting a prepaid ticket (purchased from the
management agency) to the treatment facility
attendant.
6. Same as above, except the hauler would be billed
directly by the management entity, thereby elim-
inating the need for a prepaid ticket.
174
-------
7. The hauler vehicles and treatment facilities would
be privately-owned and operated. A single
fee would serve to pay for pumping, transport,
and disposal costs at the time of pumping.
8. Same as above, except that private haulers could
contract with individual property owners (or
with a sponsoring entity, e.g., on-site manage-
ment district or property owners' association),
and charge an annual fee for system inspections,
septage pumping (and possibly system repairs)
on a pro-rated basis.
Of the choices presented, there is no single "best option"
that a community can adopt. Each scenario has its unique
advantages and disadvantages. It is necessary to evaluate the
relative merits and drawbacks of each scenario as they apply to
a particular situation. Evaluation criteria that should be
considered include:
1. Costs of administering the approach (including cost
of public sector involvement in pumping and haul-
ing activities) .
2. Willingness of available private haulers to
participate in a septage management program
(especially one utilizing a manifest system).
3. Incidence of cost among users (e.g., are all
residents contributing the same toward financing
septage treatment facilities, or are only those
utilizing the facility paying).
4. Need for a manifest system as part of an overall
on-site system management program.
5. Ability of the management entity to adequately
collect user fees.
6. Impact on regulatory program caused by frequent
pumping, rather than repair of marginal systems.
Most importantly, the specific financing and organizational
arrangement for septage transport and disposal should be
consistent and compatible with related wastewater management
objectives.
Several examples of financing arrangements applied in
residuals management programs follow.
175
-------
RESIDUAL DISPOSAL FINANCING
ILLUSTRATION
Financing costs for residuals disposal can be ac-
complished in a number of ways. The most popular
fee structure is a flat fee or a per gallon fee set
to cover the costs of pumping, transport treatment, and
disposal. The Town of Acton, Massachusetts, utilizes
a prepaid coupon method of collecting fees for septage
treatment. This is a common method used by public agen-
cies to recover septage treatment costs for wastes
hauled by private contractors. A single coupon, pur-
chased by the hauler for $5, covers the cost of treating
1,000 gallons of septage (or an amount of wastes pumped
from a single residential unit). Haulers purchase the
coupons from the Town Clerk and present them to the
treatment facility attendant (along with information
specifying the origin of the wastes). The hauler then
charges the homeowner an amount sufficient to cover
the costs of pumping, transport, and the fixed fee paid
for septage treatment. The average cost for septage
hauling in Acton is about $50 to $60 per pumping.
The Fairfax County, Virginia, Department of Public
Works currently charges an annual license fee of $400
per hauling company. The license fee entitles the haul-
er to dispose of septage wastes at one of two county-
owned and operated wastewater treatment facilities.
The revenue derived from the license fees is applied to
financing the costs for treatment facility operation
and maintenance.
Santa Ctuz County, California, has instituted a
user charge system which provides periodic system in-
spection and septic tank pumping. The County Health
Department administers the program for two separate
on-site management districts in the county. The serv-
ice charge of $25 per year levied by the Health De-
partment covers the costs of periodic inspections
(performed by a private contractor), plus septic tank
pumping. Because of the difficulty of finding access-
ible septage disposal sites and the rising costs of
septage treatment in that region, the county is con-
sidering a modification to its service charge by re-
moving the pro-rated charge for tank pumping.
176
-------
CHAPTER 6
FORMULATING AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The implementation plan defines a strategy for moving the
program from the planning phase to the operating phase. The
information developed in the operations plan and financial plan
defines how the program will be funded and who will design,
build, and operate the facilities. The implementation plan spe-
cifies when these actions will occur and what additional tasks
need to be accomplished to construct the facility and establish
a workable management program. These additional tasks are like-
ly to include:
1. Developing new legislation, ordinances, and
regulations.
2. Negotiating and preparing operating agreements and
procedures.
3. Reorganizing or modifying existing agencies; estab-
lishing a new agency.
4. Obtaining easements.
5. Staffing and training (or contracting).
6. Public education.
7. Building the facility.
The implementation plan utilizes information prepared in the
financial and operations plan to develop a strategy for success-
ful program operation.
The first section of this chapter describes the appropriate
steps to be taken in preparing an implementation plan. The sec-
ond section of this chapter, "Institutional Options for Plan
Implementation," offers several institutional options for devel-
oping and carrying out the implementation plan. The institu-
tional alternatives are intended to provide a mechanism to over-
177
-------
come some of the common administrative and political obstacles
faced by small communities in implementing wastewater management
projects. These options should be considered in the initial
phases of facility planning as a means of coordinating and di-
recting various planning activities.
GUIDE TO IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FORMULATION
The process of preparing an implementation plan originates
early in facility planning. Plan implementation starts with the
task of involving appropriate public officials and private in-
terests in the process of defining wastewater management prob-
lems and evaluating alternative solutions. It continues through
to the formulation of the management plan, refinement of insti-
tutional plan recommendations, and construction of the waste-
water facility and organization of the management program
itself.
The steps involved in preparing an implementation plan, as
expressed in this section, are listed below:
Step 1 -- Define management agency roles and responsi-
bilities.
Step 2 -- Develop a mechanism to carry out assigned re-
sponsibilities. Prepare a timetable for com-
pletion of tasks.
Step 3 -- Establish procedures for providing short-
and long-term program evaluations.
A discussion of these steps follows.
Step 1: Define the roles and responsibilities of all participating
entities in performing management functions.
The roles and responsibilities of various public and private
entities to carry out wastewater system design, construction,
operation, and financing activities have been defined in the
operations and financial plans. The first activity in implemen-
tation plan formulation is to identify all major program partic-
ipants and their responsibilities in a single framework.
178
-------
As noted in Step 3 of Chapter 3, in order to expedite pro-
gram implementation, it is important that local government,
state and local regulatory agencies, funding agencies, and the
general public participate in the planning process, and are all
in agreement with program objectives.
Table 58 presents a format for displaying roles and respon-
sibilities of participating entities, along with initial finan-
cial requirements, for a prescribed planning period. Entries
along the side of the table identify participating entities in
the management program. Column entities specify their respon-
sibilities, applicable funding sources, and allocation of future
costs on an annual basis. Table 59, on the other hand, lists
potential roles of state agencies to support and complement
local management efforts.
Step 2: Develop a mechanism to carry out assigned management
responsibilities. Prepare a timetable for the completion of
tasks.
There are many activities that must be accomplished in
carrying out the recommendations of the operations and financial
plans. While these responsibilities are assigned to one or more
entities (as shown in Table 58), a method for carrying out these
responsibilities should be developed in the implementation plan.
Essentially, there are three basic tasks to be performed, for
which an institutional arrangement must be developed to ensure
their proper implementation:
1. Setting up the management program framework and
structure (i.e., designating management agencies).
2. Obtaining legal approvals and agreements.
3. Designing and constructing wastewater facilities
and developing administrative policies for system
operations.
Table 60 presents a description of some of the major ele-
ments of the three implementation tasks. It is important that
the timetable prepared in this phase of the planning process
accurately reflect these implementation tasks and prerequisite
activities in the proper sequence.
179
-------
Alternative institutional arrangements for assisting commun-
ities in developing implementation mechanisms are described in
the section in this chapter, "Institutional Options for Plan
Implementation."
Step 3: Establish procedures for providing short- and long-term
program evaluations.
The management agency should be cognizant of the need to
periodically reevaluate its program activities and respond to
changing demands and service requirements. The effectiveness
of a management program will be ultimately determined by the
ability of participating agencies to enforce regulations and to
carry out field inspections and system maintenance activities.
A formal system of conducting periodic reviews and evaluations
of field personnel performance, wastewater facility performance,
and water quality changes should be prepared and utilized by the
program managers at both the state and local levels. Table 61
proposes a set of performance criteria which can be applied by
program managers and directors to evaluate progress through the
operational phase.
A work plan for continuing evaluation should be prepared to
support the management agency designations and objectives of the
prog ram.
180
-------
TABLE 58. SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENTITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Description of Management Source of Years^
Managing Entity1 Responsibilities2 Functions^ Funding 4 1 2 3 4 5... 20
SAMPLE FORMAT
1Identify participating entities.
^Describe (generally) the roles and responsibilities of managing entities, and their
jurisdictions.
^List applicable specific management functions (e.g., administration, system construction,
system inspections, system repairs, planning, operation and maintenance, etc.)
^Identify sources of funding (e.j., service fees, user charges, local taxes, Federal
grants, etc.). Annual budgets, grant and loan amounts, etc. could also be included,
if desired.
^Identify planning period. Years can be specified on an annual basis or at intervals
(e.g., 3 to 5 years) .
-------
TABLE 59. POTENTIAL STATE ROLES IN MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM FORMULATION
1. Establish regulations regarding approval, design, and in-
stallation of conventional and alternative small flows
systems.
a. Clarify state/local reponsibilities for review
and approval of plans and standards setting and
streamline review procedures where possible.
b. Improve criteria for site suitability determina-
tions and design methods to facilitate optimal
systems.
c. Make regulations performance-oriented; promote and
expedite the utilization of appropriate treatment,
collection, and disposal methods by elimination
of arbitrary and restrictive standards and codes.
2. Coordinate with areawide and state nondesignated water
quality management planning efforts regarding on-site
problem analysis and policy recommendations.
3. Adopt state enabling legislation and propose amendments as
necessary to facilitate alternative local management
arrangements.
4. Provide technical and institutional assistance and guid-
ance as appropriate to engineering consultants and local
officials regarding consideration of small flow systems
and institutional alternatives (through state policy,
model ordinances, assistance in preparing grant applica-
tions, participation in management entity organizational
meetings, and preparation of planning guidelines and
model approaches).
5. Conduct training sessions for private sector representatives
involved in wastewater system design, installation, and
maintenance. License and certify private contractors as
required.
6. Support demonstration projects, research and development
studies, and field testing of technology to promote the
implementation of improved small system technologies.
7. Provide financial assistance in the form of monetary
support for capital construction and operational costs
and/or in the form of administrative assistance in de-
velopment of the financial plan, bond marketing, or grant
priority alteration.
182
-------
TABLE 60. TYPICAL IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Major Task
Establish Management
Program Framework and
Structure
Task Activities
Adopt charters, by-laws, and rules and
regulations, including those governing
wastewater system design, installation
and operation.
Designate management agencies and
coordinate with state utility
commission.
Comments
Depending on the institutional approach selected,
new or modified state legislation, local ordi-
nances, and regulations may be necessary to imple-
ment the management program. Where appropriate,
the community may wish to enlist the assistance of
other agencies in drafting or obtaining support for
necessary legislation.
3. Set up a board of directors or iden-
tify an existing entity as a govern-
ing body to establish program
policies and to serve as the principal
decision-making authority for the
management agency.
4. Select corporate officers or program
managers to supervise day-to-day
activities.
5. Hold public meetings and referenda as
required by state law in order to adopt
the recommended organizational structure.
6. Develop regulatory, billing, and moni-
toring program methods in concert with
state utility commission.
7. Define organizational interrelationships.
Obtain Legal
Approvals
and Agreements
1. Permits for surface-water discharge,
system operation, and construction.
2. Access easements.
3. Service agreements for facilities
construction.
4. Operational arrangements.
5. Letters of intent and interlocal
agreements from designated agencies.
Obtaining permits for the construction and operation
of wastewater systems should be done in conjunction
with the system design process. If proper consider-
ation of applicable state and local laws and regula-
tions is made early in the planning phase, securing
these permits should be fairly straightforward. If
questions of regulatory compliance remain unresolved
at this point, considerable delays can result.
6. Operational performance requirements.
7. Property owner/management agency
responsibility and liability.
-------
00
•Ch
TABLE 60. (CONTINUED)
Major Task
Task Activities
Comments
Design and Construction
1.
Coordination with engineer on the
Problems which occur during the construction phase
of Wastewater
preparation of engineering plans
of a project are of particular concern because it
Facilities/Developing
and specifications.
is the most expensive phase of the plan implemen-
Administration
tation process. It is crucial that the lead man-
Policies For System
2.
Review and approve design drawings.
agement agency closely monitor progress throughout
Operation
the facility design and construction process,
3.
Secure construction funds
especially during the construction phase, to assure
(grants, loans, bonds, etc.) .
budgetary and quality control. Since the lead agency
in most cases will be responsible for system opera-
4.
Inspect materials and equipment
tion, its operating staff should be well acquainted
supplied by contractors and
with the physical layout and overall design of the
manufacturers for compliance
the system. This requires maintaining day-to-day
with specifications.
contact with the engineer and contractor during the
entire construction stage.
5.
Prepare bid package.
6.
Review contractor bids.
7.
Contract negotiations with
contractors during contract procure-
ment, and throughout construction
period.
B.
Review and approve payment requests
from contractors and subcontractors.
9.
Perform periodic site inspection.
10.
Hire and train staff.
11.
Acquire office space and equipment.
12.
Finalize system operation and main-
tenance arrangements, including
construction of new and rehabilitation
of failing systems during the opera-
tions period.
13.
Finalize organizational interrelation-
ships, roles, and responsibilities.
14.
Conduct final system inspection.
15.
Start up system and program.
-------
TABLE 61. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The following are general performance criteria that can be applied to
evaluate short- and long-term program efficiency, productivity, and re-
sponse to program objectives.
Has the attitude of the management agency and its governing body
towards enforcement of health/environmental regulations enhanced
program operations and wastewater system performance?
Do the legislation and regulations being applied adequately ad-
dress health and environmental needs?
Has the legal basis or statutory authority of participating agen-
cies been altered? Does it need clarification or improvement?
Has the management program become overly complex? Are profes-
sional managers necessary?
Are the activities of participating entities being adequately
coordinated?
Can the participating entities adapt to political and economic
changes?
Does the public have an opportunity to comment on program accom-
plishments? Has the public been made aware of program activities
and budgets during the operational phase?
Are the program directors sufficiently familiar with program ac-
tivities, accomplishments, and responsibilities?
Are the field personnel adequately addressing problems, concerns,
or questions from the service area residents?
Is the staff qualified to handle the work activities? Is job sat-
isfaction provided by the position? Is the level of compensation
consistent with prevailing wages? Is personnel advancement possi-
ble within the organizational structure?
Is the wastewater management program consistent with other plans,
policies, and objectives of the area?
Are users able and willing to pay for program sources? Are addi-
tional funding mechanisms needed?
What has the impact of the management program been on community
and program budgets?
Has the public health or water quality been protected or enhanced
by the program? Are there other sources of health problems or
water pollution problems that need to be addressed?
185
-------
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Performing the outlined implementation tasks and understand-
ing the various aspects of the planning and implementation proc-
ess may be difficult for many small communities, especially
those that do not maintain a professional staff. Assistance to
local entities early in the planning process will help ensure
that sound and conscious decisions are made regarding the selec-
tion of wastewater system technology, the assessment of institu-
tional and financial requirements and capabilities, and adoption
of proper system operation and maintenance practices.
In addition to available information transfer and grant pre-
application meetings that are offered to small communities from
Federal and state agencies, it may be necessary in some instanc-
es to designate an independent third-party advisor to assist
small communities in facility planning and implementation acti-
vities. These third-party advisors could help small communities
manage their grants, provide consultation during plan develop-
ment, and train staff to perform system operation and mainte-
nance activities.
Third-party advisors can be made available to small communi-
ties through the following state and local institutional ar-
rangements:
1. Statewide assistance programs.
2. Local third-party advisory agreements.
Descriptions of these options are provided in this section.
Because of the variations among states and local circumstances,
the choice of how to provide third-party assistance will depend
on the technical and fiscal resources available to states and
small communities, and the abilities and preferences of persons
involved in the facility planning and implementation process.
The intent here is to make states and small communities aware
of the institutional options available to them in assisting
facility planners in the critical phases of plan preparation and
implementation.
Statewide Assistance Programs
States will continue to assume an increasingly important
role in allocating construction grants to substate entities in
the future. As part of this role, states can offer technical
and administrative assistance to small communities by:
1. Applying for financial assistance.
2. Preparing wastewater facility plans.
3. Implementing plan recommendations.
186
-------
States can also offer assistance to small communities through:
1. State-employed specialists.
2. Private firms (contracted by a state agency).
3. A special agency to provide public service
assistance throughout a state.
Table 62 outlines alternatives available to states to assist
small communities that are having difficulty understanding and
meeting the administrative and financial requirements of the
construction grants program. It is expected that these options
will be applied differently in each state, depending on the in-
dividual state's abilities, preferences, and organizational
structure. Table 62 describes these alternatives in detail, and
displays the advantages and disadvantages of each. Regardless
of the precise option selected in any single situation, preap-
plication conferences with small community officials and special
intermediate progress reviews by an appropriate state entity
will help streamline the construction grants allocation process
and ensure that communities apply functional technology suited
to their needs and circumstances. Several examples of statewide
assistance programs follow.
STATEWIDE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE
ILLUSTRATION
Several states have adopted different organization-
al approaches to providing assistance to small communi-
ties. The activities of the States of New Hampshire,
California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illi-
nois offer examples of different small community assis-
tance techniques.
The state advisory assistance alternative is essen-
tially modelled after New Hampshire's approach to small
community assistance. New Hampshire's program is based
on a state law which authorizes the state Water Supply
and Pollution Control Commission to negotiate engineer-
ing and construction contracts for all grantees within
the state. This state agency has a group of profes-
sionals performing contract negotiations on behalf of
small communities. The state's interest in construc-
tion grants administration, particularly to small com-
munities, is reinforced by its 20 percent state share
and the recent creation of the Division of Small Com-
munity Assistance, which assists small communities
with financial and administrative aspects of the con-
struction grants program.
187
-------
TABLE 62. STATEWIDE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
State Advisory
Assistance
00
oo
Corporate and
Other Advisors
A state agency would have a
central staff to assist grant-
ees. A state would negotiate
contracts with private engi-
neering/planning firms for
all or certain specified
small communities. States
would prepare a "prequalifled"
list of consultants for small
communities to review and
screen. A state agency would
negotiate with a few "screened"
firms, and take an active
role in Step 1 planning. A
state agency would monitor
progress during Steps 2 and 3.
A nonprofit corporation or
similar statewide authority
would be established to pro-
vide a wide range of services
communities, including plan
reviews, securing financial
assistance, and monitoring
the design, construction,
and operation of the facil-
ities.
The corporation or authority
could act as the community's
agent in all matters, includ-
ing applying for grants.
Simple process that is
transferable to many
states.
Addresses a difficult
problem faced by small
communities -- contract
negotiations.
Central staff could be
focal point of small com-
munity planning assistance
for wastewater and other
resource management
activities.
Corporation would have
considerable flexibility
in staffing and other
administrative procedures.
Corporation should be
sensitive and responsive
to local needs since
its business depends
on client requests.
The experience of the
corporation will help
many communities.
Effectiveness will depend on
sensitivity of state/local
political relations.
Hay pose difficulty for con-
tractors with both state and
small communities in overseer
role.
Concept is most applicable to
small states where close
state/local relations could be
maintained. (May be necessary to
involve county or regional sub-
state entities in coordinating
or liaison role between state and
small community.)
Initial start-up might be
slow. (Nay begin with providing
services for state-owned facili-
ties at the beginning.)
May require state subsidy to
finance operations of the
corporation.
-------
TABLE 62. (CONTINUED)
Alternative
Circuit Riders
State-Contracted
Advisors
Description
Specialists hired directly by 1.
state or under contract to
state to assist in various
aspects of wastewater facility
planning, design, construe- 2.
tion and operation^
Specialists can be assigned
to a fixed group of communi-
ties or be responsible for a 3.
specific area of the state.
They could operate from
regional offices or possibly
from other substate agencies
(e.g., regional or county
planning agencies). The state
could establish this concept
under either a direct hiring
or contract mechanism.
Private contractors hired by 1.
state could conduct site visits
to small communities to assess
community needs and provide
appropriate assistance. The
state would not directly 2.
assist small communities.
"Level-of-effort' contracts
could be established between
state and the contractor.
State could hire a single 3.
contractor to serve the
state, or a group of con-
tractors allocated to
different areas of the 4.
state.
Advantages
Easy to implement in 1.
states with regional
offices.
2.
Provides greater potential
for direct, regular, and
personal contact with ap- 3.
propriate local officials.
Opportunity exists for
providing state assistance
to localities on a wide
variety of environmental
and resource management
issues.
Provides greater flex- 1.
ibility in hiring and
travel funding through
the use of contractors.
2.
Assistance could be pro-
vided on an "as-needed"
basis to specific com-
munities and for specific
needs. 3.
Part of the costs could
be grant-eligible under
Step 1.
Numerous contractors with
small community assistance
exist.
Disadvantages
Could be costly in a large,
sparsely populated state.
Problem of coordination
between circuits.
Decentralizes state exper-
tise. Periodic central
coordination is necessary.
Could cause conflicts be-
tween state-contractor and
community-consultant.
Issues regarding "who pays"
and "how much" need to be
worked out before community
accepts assistance.
Burden on state for contrac-
tor monitoring and coordina-
tion.
Source: Adapted from "Options for Third-Party Management of Construction Grants for Small Communities,"
Preliminary Concept Paper, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 September 1980. (Part of
the 1990 Construction Grants Strategy background papers.)
-------
STATEWIDE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
The State of California has also accomplished a
great deal in the area of small community assistance.
The state Water Resources Control Board has establish-
ed an "alternative systems unit" within the grants pro-
gram to offer advice on facility plans and to identify
research needs for small wastewater systems. This unit
has also helped to sponsor demonstration and research
projects on various wastewater management approaches
in the state.
The corporate and other advisors alternative is
modelled after the Maryland Environmental Service (MES)
a statewide public utility corporation which can enter
into agreements with communities to design, construct,
and operate water and wastewater treatment projects in
Maryland. MES is just now beginning to assist small
communities with planning and design of treatment proj-
ects, through a recent agreement with the State Depart-
ment of Health. New York State has a similar nonprofit
corporation with similar authority -- the Environmental
Facilities Corporation.
The circuit rider alternative is being attempted in
the State of Pennsylvania. For this state, seven re-
gional offices provide the primary state assistance to
local communities on all matters concerning wastewater
management. The role of the regional offices is being
intensified to create greater state sensitivity and re-
sponsiveness to local problems.
The State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agen
cy has adopted a unique approach to facility plan re-
view to provide more consistent decision-making within
the state, and to eliminate "red-tape" and confusion
concerning state policies by local governments. The
Illinois EPA has created an "Innovative and Alternative
Technology Design Standards and Review Panel" to devel-
op design standards for small wastewater systems, and
review facility plans where innovative and alternative
technology are appropriate.
190
-------
Local Third-Party Advisory Agreements
Local communities can initiate agreements with private or
public entities on their own for assistance in wastewater facil-
ity planning, design, construction, and operations monitoring
activities. Small communities generally do not have the nec-
essary funds to hire specialized management consultants, how-
ever, certain alternatives are available to most small communi-
ties to obtain proper assistance and guidance in facilities
planning and plan implementation tasks. These alternatives in-
clude:
1. Locally-contracted advisors (e.g., private
consultants).
2. Substate agency advisors (e.g., regional and
county agencies, cooperative extension services,
etc.).
Table 63 presents some of these alternatives, with their ma-
jor advantages and disadvantages. As shown in the table, with
certain modifications to the basic concepts, the local third-
party agreements could be implemented statewide. Examples of
third party agreements include the following:
LOCAL THIRD-PARTY ADVISORY AGREEMENT
ILLUSTRATION
The community of Stinson Beach, California, had
followed an approach similar to the locally contracted
advisors alternative in preparing and implementing its
on-site management plan. A professor at a state univer-
sity was contracted by the Stinson Beach County Water
District (the management agency for the on-site waste-
water program) to serve as an advisor throughout the
long planning, evaluation, and plan implementation
period. This consultant assisted in the plan of study
preparation, consultant selection for the facility
planning work, and work progress reporting. He re-
mains a consultant to the local management agency,
and provides expertise in program evaluation and oper-
ation.
Many small communities have used the services of
county and regional planning to provide assistance on
wastewater management concerns, primarily through the
191
-------
TABLE 63. LOCAL THIRD-PARTY ADVISORY AGREEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Local-Contracted
Advisors
Substate Agency
Advi sors
Similar to state-contracted
advisors alternative in Table
62. In this instance, a
community would retain a
consultant directly to pro-
vide overall contract man-
agement assistance. Local
contractor could prepare a
plan of study, provide advice
on contracting other private
firms and establish imple-
mentation mechanisms.
Substate agencies (e.g.,
regional or county planning
agencies, or county exten-
sion service or soil con-
servation service personnel)
could provide assistance to
small communities on an
"as-needed" basis. Assist-
ance can be provided for a
wide variety of activities
depending on need and avail-
able agency expertise.
Concept is similar to
circuit-riders (Table 62).
Therefore, it could be
implemented and funded on
a statewide basis.
1. Offers community flex-
ibility in selecting
consultant and managing
consultant activities.
2. Provide opportunity for
assuring sensitivity
and responsibility to
local needs.
3. Cost-sharing under Step
1 may be possible.
4. Brings expertise directly
to community officials.
1. Utilize available expertise
at the substate level
without creating larger
"state" role.
2. These substate entities
are currently involved in
small community assist-
ance. Sensitivity exists
for coordination with
other small community
planning activities.
3. Agency personnel may be
better able to relate
to small community needs.
Since they are not state
employees, sensitive state/
local relations would not
be exacerbated.
1. Potential for conflict of
interest if contractor also
becomes directly involved
in performing facility plan-
ning and design studies.
(A clear understanding of
roles and responsibilities
is necessary at the outset.)
2. Specialized assistance to
small communities may be
expensive. Large private
firms may not be interested
in providing management
assistance without limited
financial opportunities (i.e.
limited direct work in plan-
ning and design).
1. Possible fiscal and manpower
limitations exist for these
substate entities to assume
additional responsibilities.
2. Level of expertise in waste-
water management may be
limited. (Training and infor
mation transfer for Federal
and state agencies can help
to alleviate this problem.)
-------
LOCAL THIRD-PARTY ADVISORY AGREEMENT
ILLUSTRATION (CONTINUED)
areawide water quality management planning process.
Both designated and nondesignated areawide agencies have
assumed direct and indirect roles in preparing facility
plans, conducting training and information transfer
programs, and implementing wastewater management pro-
grams for a variety of community needs.
A recent pilot wastewater management study complet-
ed by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC) and its consultant (Roy F.
Weston, Inc.) for two small towns (approximately 5 00
homes) in southern Delaware has demonstrated the criti-
cal role a County Extension Service agent can play in
the facility planning process. In this instance, the
Extension Service agent, at the request of the two
towns, served as a liaison to the state agency and con-
sultant, and as a spokesman for the communities involved
in the facility planning process. The Extension Serv-
ice agent gave the communities a sense of assurance
that the planning process was sensitive to local needs
and resident capabilities.
193
-------
PART ill: APPENDIX
The appendix is a compendium of usolul iut'ohjt; rvi<>jcYemenia f< / management
agency/homf-ownc"r arrnng7»ments.
3 . Hint . oqi >phy .
These m.'itMt ialc ar<-• piovid^d to ;i st in addr t .11 ty an im-
portant issue lor i,fiia I J wastewater systems planning, that »>t re-
lying on f.tcilitic-s (pumps or fifptif t/} si'kb) UMt are located on
pt tv~< t.o propei \ y
-------
SECTION II1-1
SAMPLE ENABLING LEGISLATION
Several states have developed and adopted special lecjicJa-
tion to create local »;ntiti«s to manage small wastewater sys-
tems, The following list is a sample of the range of legisla-
tion prepared to date:
1. State Jeqislation expanding the authority of
certain public entities to assume on-site
management responsibilities, (State of California
Senate Bill No. 430, On-Site Wastewater Disposal
Zones.)
2. Model ordinance for establishing county Manage-
ment programs. (On-site wastewater management
districts in Iowa.)
3. Guidelines for establishing on-site management
programs pursuant to special state legislation.
(State of Washington, Depart merit of Health
and Social Services, Guidelines for the Formation
and Operation of On-Site Waste Management Systems.)
Existing state legislation should be closely examined to d
termine whether sufficient legal authority already exists to
provide the management functions defined by the sample leg i
tion.
195
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SENATE BILL NO. 430
ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ZONES
Senate Bill No. 430
CHAPTER 1125
An act to add Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 6960) to Part
2 of Division 6 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to on-site
wastewater disposal zones.
(Approved by Governor September 28. I9T7 Filed with
Secretary of State September 28. 1977 ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL * DIGEST
SB 430, Behr. On-site wastewater disposal zones
Existing law empowers certain public entities to acquire, con-
struct. maintain, and operate sanitary sewers and sewerage systems
Such powers do not include the power to manage and control septic
tank and septic systems and otherwise perform on-site wastewater
disposal functions
This bill would empower a public agency, as specified, and upon
notice and hearing, and if such public agency ts empowered to ac-
quire. construct, maintain, and operate sanitary sewers and sewage
systems, to form on-site wastewater disposal zones pursuant to the
provisions of the bill, to collect, treat, reclaim, and dispose of waste
water without the use of sanitary sewers or sewage systems. speo
Red. and to adopt and enforce rules and regulations for the purpose,
of such zones, to abate violations of such rules and regulations, and
to charge for such abatement, as specified
The bill would authorize an assessment for benefit upon the real
property in the zone, as determined by the board and hv an election
of the voters in the zone, for the purposes of the zone. Such assess-
ment would be in addition to any other charges, assessments or taxes
levied on property in the zone by the public agency
This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 223) of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, there shall be no reimbursement pursu
ant to that section nor appropriation made by this act for a specified
reason
The people of the State of California do enact as follows
SECTION 1. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 69501 is
added to Part 2 of Division 6 at the Health and Safety Code, to read-
Chapter 3 On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zones
Article, 1. Definitions
6950. "Board" or "board of directors" means the governing
authority of a public agency.
Ch 1125 — 2 —
6951. "Public agency** means a city or any diitnet or other
political subdivision of the state which is otherwise authorised to
acquire, construct, maintain, or operate sanitary sewers or sewage
systems
"Public agency" does not mean an improvement district
organized pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7
'commencing with Section 5000), Streets and Highways Code), or
the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Division 12 (commencing
with Section 10000), Streets and Highways Code) or the
Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with
Section 8500 ). Streets and Highways Code), or a county maintenance
district
"On-site wastewater disposal system'* any of several
works, facilities, devices, or other mechanisims used to collect, treat,
reclaim, or dispose of waste water without the use of
community-wide sanitary sewers or sewage systems.
6953 "Zone" means an on-site wastewater disposal zone formed
pursuant to this chapter.
6954 "Real property" means both land and improvements to
l.md which benefit, directly or indirectly from, or on behalf of. the
.«<-ti\ ities of the zone
Article 2 Formation
6955 Whenever the board of directors of a public agency deems
it nec< ssarv to form an on-site wastewater disposal zone in ail or a
portion of the public agency's jurisdiction, the board shall by
resolution declare that It intends to form such a zone
6W.V5 The resolution of intention shall also state.
< a '< A description of the boundaries of the territory proposed to be
included within the zone The description may be accompanied by
a map showing such boundaries
(hi The public benefit to be derived from the establishment of
Mich a /one
it i A description of the proposed types of on-site wastewater
disposal systems and a proposed plan for wastewater disposal.
The proposed means of financing the operations of the zone
(ft The time and place for a hearing by the board on the question
of the formation and extent of the proposed zone, and the question
of the number and type of the residential units and commercial units
that the public agency proposes to serve in the proposed zone.
(g) That at such time and place any interested persons will be
heard.
6956.5. The resolution of intention shall be Bled for record in the
office of the county recorder of the county in which all or the greater
portion of the land in the proposed zone is situated.
t 430 m S3
2 430 40 4H
-------
— 3— Ch. 1125
6967. (a) A proposal to form a zone within a public agency may
also be initiated by filing a petition with the board. Such a petition
shall contain all the matters specified in subdivisions (a), (b), (c),
and (d) of Section 6956. Such a petition shall be signed as provided
in either of the following:
(1) By not less than 10 percent of the voters who reside within the
territory proposed to be included within the zone.
(2) By not less than 10 percent of the number of owners of real
property, including both land and improvements to land, within the
territory proposed to be included within the zone who also own not
less than 10 percent of the assessed value of the real property within
such territory.
(b) Each signer of a petition shall add to his or her signature, the
date of signing. If the signer is signing the petition as a voter, he or
she shall add to his or her signature his or her place of residence,
giving street and number, or a designation sufficient to enable the
place of residence to be readily ascertained. If the signer is signing
the petition as an owner of real property, he or she shall add to his
or her signature a description of the real property owned by him or
her sufficient to identify the real property.
(c) Following certification of the petition, the board shall set the
time and place of the hearing on the question of the formation of the
proposed zone.
6958. (a) Notice of the hearing shall be given by publishing a
copy of the resolution of intention or the petition, pursuant to Section
6066 of the Government Code, prior to the time fixed for the hearing
in a newspaper circulated in the public agency.
(b) Notice of the hearing shall also be given to the local health
officer, the board of supervisors, the governing body of any other
public agency within the boundaries of the proposed zone, the
governing body of any public agency whose sphere of influence, as
determined pursuant to the provisions of Section 54774 of the
Government Code, includes the proposed zone, the affected local
agency formation commission, and the regional water quality control
board in whose jurisdiction the proposed zone lies.
6999. The hearing by the board on the question of the formation
of the proposed zone shall be no less than 45 days nor more than 60
days from adoption of a resolution of intention or the receipt of a
petition containing a sufficient number of signatures.
6960. After receiving notice pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 6956, a local health officer shall review the proposed
formation and report his or her findings in writing to the board of
directors of the public agency. The report shall specify the maximum
number, type, volume, and location of on-site wastewater disposal
systems which could be operated within the proposed zone without
individually or collectively, directly or indirectly, resulting in a
nuisance or hazard to public health. The iocal health officer may
require from the public agency such information as may be
l 430 » 99
Ch 1125
— 4 —
reasonably necessary to make the findings required in this section
6960.1. After receiving notice pursuant to subdivision 46l At the time and place fixed hi the resolution of intention or
th< petition, or at any time or place to which the hearing is
adiourned. any interested person may appear and present anv
matters material to the questions set forth in the resolution of
intention or the petition At the hearing the board shall also hear the
reports of any local health officer, and any public agency with
statutory responsibilities for setting water quality standards,
leg.irding anv matters material to the questions >et torth in the
resolution of intention or the [K'tition
6962 At the hearing the board shall also hear and receive any oral
or written protests, objections, or evidence which shall be made,
presented, or filed. Any person who shall have filed a w ritten protest
tnav withd raw the same at any tune prior to the conclusion of the
hearing The board shall have the following powers and duties
2 4.30 I r> w
-------
— 5 —
Ch 1125
(a) To exclude any territory proposed to be included in a zone
when the board finds that such territory will not be benefited by
becoming a part of such zone.
(b) To include any additional territory in a proposed zone when
the board finds that such territory will be benefited by becoming a
part erf such zone.
6963. At the close of the hearing the board shall find and declare
by resolution that written protests, filed and not withdrawn prior to
the conclusion of the hearing, represent one of the following:
(a) Less than 35 percent of either of the following:
(1) The number of voters who reside in the proposed zone
(2) The number of owners of real property in the proposed zone
who also own not less than 35 percent of the assessed value of the real
property within the proposed zone.
fb) Not less than 35 percent but less than 50 percent of either of
the following.
(1) The number of voters who reside in the proposed zone
(2) The number of owners of real property in the proposed zone
who alw own not less than 35 percent but less than 50 percent of the
assessed value of the real property within the proposed zone
(c) Not less than 50 percent of either of the following
(1) The number of voters who reside in the proposed zone
(2) The number of owners of real property in the proposed zone
who also own not less than 50 percent of the assessed value of the real
property within the proposed zone.
6964 If the number of written protests filed and not withdrawn
is the number described in subdivision Not less than 35 percent of the number of owners of real
pruj>cr!% within the territory pro|>ovd to he included within the
/one who a!s<< own not less than -V j**rcent of the assessed value of
the real property within such territorv
Any election conducted pursuant to the provisions of this
rh.iptrr sh.ilt be eondncted pursuant to the prov isions of the Uniform
District hlection l-iw 'Part 1 Miinmencing with Section 235011.
Division 12. Klections (lode)
WW After the cans ass of returns of any election on the question
<>l forming a promised /one. the l>oard shall adopt a resolution
ordering the formation of th'* /one if a majority of votes cast at such
election are in favor of such formation
W70 No public agency shall form a /one whieh includes am
terntorv alreadv included within another zone
W71 No public agency shall lorin a /one if such formation will
IM'rinit other land uses which are not consistent with the general
plans, /omng ordinances, or other land use regulations of am counts
¦ >r cits within which the proposed /one is located
W72 After the formation of the /one pursuant to this article dl
t.ues levied to carrv out the purj>oses ol the zone shall be levied
i vclusiveiy upon the proj>ertv taxable in the zone bv the pul»li<
hM73 If the l>oard d<**s not form a /one after the close of a hearing
mi accordance with Section 6967 and no petition is filed piirsiunl to
Section 6967. or if the t>oard abandons proceedings on the proposal
to lor in a /.one, or if the formation of a /one is not confirmed l>\ t h«
\ olers. no further proceeding shall be taken thereon No application
lor a subsequent pro|K>sal involving any of the same territory and
undertaken pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be
considered or acted ufx>n bv the public agency for at least one v, ir
after the date of disapproval of. abandonment of, or election on th<
proeei -dings
Article 3. Powers
f*975 An on-site wastewater disposal rone rnav l>e formed to
achieve water quality objectives set by regional water quality control
fxuirds. to protect existing and future beneficial water uses, protect
public health, and to prevent and abate nuisances Whenever .»n
on-site wastewater disposal zone has been formed pursuant to this
ehapter. the public agency shall have the powers set forth in this
article, which powers shall be in addition to any other powers
provided by law A public agency shall exercise its powers on l>ehaH
of a /one
W76 An on-site waste water disposal zone shall have th«-
2 430 I7«> 7S
-------
— 7 —
Ch 1125
following powers
(a) To collect, treat, reclaim, or dispose of waste water without
the use of sanitary sewers or community sewage systems and without
degrading water quality within or outside the zone.
(b) To acquire, design, own. construct, install, operate, monitor,
inspect, and maintain on-site wastewater disposal systems, not to
exceed the number of systems specified pursuant to either Section
6960 or Section 69601, within the zone in a manner which will
promote water quality, prevent the pollution, waste, and
contamination of water, and abate nuisances.
(c) To conduct investigations, make analyses, and monitor
' onditions with regard to water quality within the zone.
(d) To adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations
m-cessarv to implement the purposes of the zone. Such rules and
regulations may be adopted only after the board conducts a public
hearing after giving public notice pursuant to Section 6066 of the
(fovcrnmcnt Q)de
HI/77. The district shall immediately do all such acts as are
reasonably necessary to secure compliance with any federal, state,
regional, or local law. order, regulation, or rule relating to water
(dilution or the discharge of pollutants, waste, or any other material
within the area of the district. For such purpose, any authorized
representative of the district, upon presentation of his credentials, or.
if necessary under the circumstances, aftei obtaining an inspection
warrant pursuant to Title 13 (commencing with Section 1822.50) ol
Part 3 of the tkxle of I "ml I'roccdurc, shall have the right of cntrs
to any premises on which a water pollution, waste, or contamination
source, including, but not limited to. septic tanks, is located for the
purpose of inspecting such source, including securing samples of
discharges therefrom, or any records required to be maintained in
connection therewith by federal, state, or local law. order, regulation,
or rule.
6978 (a) Violation of any of the provisions of a rule or regulation
adopted pursuant to subdivision c abated
.ts a public nuisance bv the board The lx>ard may by regulation
establish a procedure for the abatement of such a nuisance and to
assess the cost of such abatement to the violator If the violator
maintains the nuisance upon real pro|M*rly in which he has a fee title
interest, the assessment shall constitute a lien ti|x>n such real
property in the manner provided in stilHlivision erty Mibject to abatement and
shall constitute a lien upon that real propert) us of the same time and
in the same manner as does the tax lien securing such annual taxes
All laws applicable to the collection and enforcement of county ad
valorem taxes shall be applicable to such assessment, except that if
2 43() 8J0 *1
Ch 1125
— 8 —
any real property to which such lien would attach has been
transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaserfor value, or if a lien
of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attached
thereon, prior to the date on which such delinquent charges appear
on the assessment roll, then a lien which would otherwise be imposed
by this section shall not attach to such real property and the
delinquent and unpaid charges relating to such property shall be
transferred to the unsecured roll for collection Any amounts of such
assessments collected are to be credited to the funds of the zone from
which the costs of abatement were expended.
6979 The owner of any real property upon which is located
an on-site wastewater disposal system, which system is subject to
abatement as a public nuisance by the zone, may request the zone
to replace or repair, as necessary, such system. If replacement or
repair is feasible, the board may provide for the necessary
replacement or repair work.
d>) The person or persons employed by the board to do the work
shall have a lien, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) of
Section 6978, for work done and materials furnished, and the work
done and materials furnished shall be deemed to have been done and
furnished at the request of the owner. The zone, in the discretion of
the l>oard. may pay all, or any part, of the cost or price of the work
done and materials furnished; and, to the extent that the zone pays
the cost or price of the work done and materials furnished, the zone
shall succeed to and have all the rights, including, but not limited to.
the hen, of such person or persons employed to do the work against
the real property and the owner.
fWHD. A lx>ard may exercise all of the public agency's existing
financial jx>wers on behalf of a zone, excepting that any assessment
or tax levied upon the real property of a zone shall be subject to the
provisions of Sections 6978 and 6981.
6981 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public
agency may levy an assessment reasonably proportional to the
l>enefits derived from the zone, as determined by the board, and the
voters pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 (commencing with
Section 22851 of (chapter 3 of Part 4 of Division 1 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code. Such benefit assessment shall i>e in addition to any
other charges, assessments, or taxes otherwise levied by the public
agency ti|K>n the property in the zone.
SKC 2 \o appropriation is made by this act, nor is any
obligation c reated thereby under Section 2231 of the Revenue and
Taxation (lode, for the reimbursement of any local agency lor any
costs that may be incurred by it in carrying on any program or
l>erforming any service required to be carried on or performed by
it by this act because this act will be applied under limited
circumstances and when so applied the requirements of the act will
not result in significant identifiable increased costs.
O
2 430 220
-------
ON-SITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICTS -- IOWA
Section 2. Application of Ordinance
The procedures in this ordinance shall be used by the Board of Super -
visors of county, Iowa, for the establishment and
operation of on-site wastewater management districts in this county.
Section 3. Purpose
The purposes of this ordinance are:
A. To Insure the proper operation of the on-site wastewater treatment
systems in order to protect the public health, water quality and the environ-
ment.
B. To allow for the use of the more high maintenance, innovative or
alternative on-site wastewater treatment systems where "conventional" on-site
systems are not appropriate.
Section 4. Definitions
"On-site wastewater treatment system" means any works or facilities used
to collect, treat, reclaim or dispose of domestic wastewater on-site from
individual dwellings or buildings or a cluster of two or more dwellings or
buildings.
A "conventional wastewater treatment system" means any septic tank with
a non-pressurized subsurface soil absorption field or bed.
Section 5. District Boundaries
The on-site wastewater management district will be responsible for the
design, construction, repair, operation and maintenance of all on-site waste-
water treatment systems within (specify all or a portion of county).
200
-------
Section 6. Extension of District Boundaries
The boundaries of any on-site wastewater management district established
on passage of this ordinance may be extended by amending Section 5. An
extension need not be contiguous to the existing district.
Section 7. Administration
Upon establishment of a district, the county board of health (or county
engineer, or specified board of trustees) shall assume the powers and duties
provided under this ordinance.
Section 8. Management Program
A. The administration shall develop a detailed management program
for the district.
B. The administration shall also develop reasonable rules and
regulations necessary to Implement the purposes of this ordinance.
C. The adoption of the management program and the rules and
regulations shall be by resolution of the county board of supervisors.
Section 9. Powers and Duties
The administration may:
A. Collect, treat, reclaim and dispose of wastewater without degrad-
ing the water quality within or outside of the district.
B. Acquire, design, own,construct, install, operate, monitor,
inspect and maintain on-site wastewater treatment systems within the district
in a manner which will protect public health, promote water quality, prevent
pollution and abate nuisances.
201
-------
C. Employ and terminate the employment of those employees necessary
to operate and maintain the detailed management plan, and contract with any
firm or agency to perform necessary services.
D. Incur indebtedness, and Impose and collect assessments for
Improvements where appropriate, as provided by state lav, to Implement
the purposes of this ordinance.
Section 10. Inspections
The administration's authorized representative may, with the consent
of the owner or occupant, enter any premises in the district on which a
wastewater treatment system 1s located for the purpose of inspecting the
system, securing samples or records, or making repairs. If the owner or
occupant refuses admittance there to, or if prior to such refusal, the
authorized representative demonstrates the necessity- for a warrant, the
authorized representative may make application under oath or affirmation,
to the district court for issuance of a search warrant.
Section 11. Cos ts
The administration shall establish a service fee schedule to recover
the operating and administration costs of the district. The costs of serving
particular properties shall be paid by the owners of those properties
benefitted. Failure to pay a service fee when due shall create a lien
against the property as provided by state law.
Section 12. Enforcement
A violation of a rule adopted pursuant to Section 8 of this ordinance
•hall constitute a simple misdemeanor.
202
-------
Section 13. Severability Clause
If any section, provision or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity
of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not
adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 14. When Effective
This ordinance shall be effective after its final passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
203
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE FORMATION AND OPERATION
OF ON-SITE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
In accordance with the provisions of WAC 248-96-070(A) the following Guidelines
sec forth the minimum provisions Co be incorporaCed inco any On-sice Waste
Management System established in satisfaction of Che requirements of WAC 248-96-
070(3). Unless authorized by Che Washington Scace Department of Ecology, Cheae
guidelines shall noc apply to facilities constructed or operaced in accordance
with a waste discharge permic Issued by chat Deparcmeac.
A. DefIniCions: In addicion co chose definicions sec forch in WAC 248-96-020,
and by chis reference made a pare hereof, Che following cerms shall have
the meaning indicated:
(1) "Developer" - Any person, or Che heirs, successors, or assigns of such
person, who owns and/or proposes or inCends co develop a subdivision
or multiple housing unit project designed to exceed the unit or popula-
tion densities or flows sec forth in WAC 248-96-070(1).
(2) "Purchaser" - Any person, or Che heirs, successors or assigns of such
person, who purchases and/or leases one or more units In • subdivision
or multiple housing unit project from developer as herein defined.
(3) "Management" - Any person who forms and operates an on-site waste
management system for che purposes of and under Che provisions of
these guidelines, or che heirs successors or assigns of such person.
204
-------
B. Management - Eligible Persons: Management systems may be formed by a
metropolitan municipal corporation operating a sewage utility; by an incor-
porated city or town operating a sewage utility; by a county government
through the County Area Services Act (Chapter 36.94 RCW) or through any
appropriate agency or department of county government; by a sewer district;
or by a water or public utility district operating a sewer district. If no
municipal agency is able or willing to operate such a management corporation,
a special management corporation may be organized to serve as a management
system subject to the special provisions of these guidelines.
C. Continuity: Once established, the management system must continue to
function until all on-site sewage systems under its management have been
abandoned and the dwelling units or other buildings served by such on-site
systems have been connected to an approved sewerage system.
D. Existing Statutes, Rules and Regulations, etc. - Conflicts: The waste
management system must be set up in conformance with existing statutes
and the rules and regulations of any applicable regulatory agencies. Any
portions of these guidelines in conflict with statutes Limiting the authority
of any management will not be applicable; however, management may be required
CO find a substitute for the non-applicable requirement.
E. Management System Contract; The management system shall operate through
a contract between management and developer. The contract oust contain,
but need not be limited to, a complete description of all rights, duties,
obligations, and commitments of management, developer, and purchaser; a
description of all maintenance and operations requirements; and, otherwise,
all of the elements set forth In these guidelines.
205
-------
The contract must provide:
(1) Agreement by management to provide maintenance and operation of on-site
sewerage systems, provide surveillance of functioning of on-site sewer-
age systems, keep records, collect fees, disburse funds, and perform all
other duties set forth In these guidelines as are assigned to management.
(2) Agreement by developer that, when selling or leasing property, as
a condition of sale or lease he vlll require the contract of sale,
property deed or lease to include a clause vherela the purchaser agrees
to conform to the provisions of Che management system concract.
(3) That developer shall agree to provide each purchaser a full aad com-
plete copy of the management system contract prior to purchaser's
signing of purchase contract.
(4) That, in the event the developer retains possession of individual lots
which contribute sewage to an on-site sewerage system, the developer's
obligations vlll include those of a purchaser with respect to chose
individual lots.
(5) Means of making amendments, additions, or deletions by mutual agreement
of management, developer, and purchaser, and as approved by the local
health officer and other applicable regulatory agencies.
(6) The right of management to contract vlch public or private agencies for
labor and other services.
206
-------
<7) That management shall employ competent personnel, as determined by the
local health officer and other applicable regulatory agencies, familiar
with the maintenance and operation of the types of on-site sewerage systems
under its management.
C8> An identification of the portion of the sewerage system for which manage-
ment shall exercise responsibility (e.g., "commencing at the first
point of connection to a treatment device,"or','at a point two feet out-
side the structure being served").
{9) A complete identification and definition of all rights of purchaser,
management, and developer; and compliance with regulations of applicable
regulatory agencies.
(ID) Establish a method for the transfer of authority to another entity.
acceptable to the regulatory agencies in the event that such transfer
Is necessary.
^j,l) provision for allocation of restoration costs as required in
Section I, Restoration.
^^2) Provision for purchaser's right to perform work, if such work is per-
mitted by management.
^j_3) The contract shall clearly state that in the event the properties
are connected to an alternate sewage disposal system, the costs of
such connection, if any, shall be the obligation of the property
owner.
207
-------
F. Financial Solvency: Management shall assure financial solvency of lcs
management responsibilities. Financial arrangements shall include, but
not be limited to the following considerations:
(1) An accounting and audit system in accordance with any applicable statutes.
(2) A standard maintenance and operation fee.
(3) Fees for Initial installation of on-site sewerage systems.
(4) Establishment of an emergency fund.
(5) Preparation of a rate structure for various services that may be
entailed beyond routine operation and maintenance due to variations
in on-site sewerage systems being serviced.
(6) Permit billing purchaser for any routine repair work, replacement,
emergency work or modifications undertaken on behalf of purchaser's
installation to cover costs of materials and labor, and other valid
associated costs.
(7) Establishment of a method of rate adjustment to maintain adequate funds.
Rates shall be reviewed annually and adjusted accordingly.
(8) Provide for the collection of delinquent payments through property Hen
or other acceptable method.
(9) Establishment of a method of final disburseraeat of funds on hand and
collectable at such time as the management system is dissolved.
208
-------
(10) Establishment of a method of transfer of funds at such time as the
management responsibilities are transferred.
(11) Assurance that adequate operation and maintenance funds are available
from the initiation of sewage system operation.
G. Maintenance and Operation - Management- and Purchaser: A maintenance and
operation manual, specifically suited to the nature of the on-site sewerage
system for which management will be responsible, shall be prepared. A copy
of the manual shall be submitted to the local health officer and other appli-
cable regulatory agencies. The manual shall include, but need not be limited
to, schedules and/or procedures for the following items.
(1) Periodic inspection of facilities to ascertain efficiency of operation
and general condition of equipment.
(2) Record keeping of inspections, monitoring, work done, conditions found,
etc. Records shall be available for lnspectionby the regulatory agencies.
(3) Periodic pumping of septic tanks or other storage tanks by licensed
septic tank pumpers.
(4) Periodic maintenance of motors, pumps, etc.
(5) Replacement or repair of worn or damaged equipment.
(6) Responding to emergencies. Emergency procedures shall include pro-
visions for:
209
-------
(a) Notifying users arid applicable regulatory agencies of the emergency.
(b) Determining cause of any major breakdown or of any essentially
complete failure of any oo-slte sewerage system to function
as designed. The findings shall be submitted In writing to the
applicable regulatory agencies.
(c) Making repairs or replacements or modifications of design as
required to restore functioning of system.
(d) Working with purchaser and regulatory agency to prepare and Install
substitute system. In the event of irreparable failure of system
to meet design requirements.
(7) Annual reporting of system maintenance and operation to applicable
regulatory agencies.
H. Right to Enter on Purchaser's Property: Management shall have the right
to enter upon purchaser's property to perform routine inspections or work
and to respond Co emergency conditions.
I. Restoration: Whenever work is performed by management on purchaser's pro-
perty, management shall restore all paving, planting, and other features
of purchaser's property to its original condition as nearly as possible.
Provision for allocation of restoration costs shall be Included in the
management contract.
210
-------
Purchaser's Right Co Perform Work; Except in Che event of an energency
that demands immediate action, upon notification Co Che management by Che
puchaser, management may permit purchaser to perform repairs, replacements,
and other work other than routine maintenance and operation on those portions
of Che sewerage system locaced on purchaser's propercy. If management permits
such work by purchaser, it shall be provided for in the management contract,
and shall be performed under .the following conditions:
(1) Design, macerials, work Co be performed, and ciae for completion shall
be as directed by management, and shall comply with local health depart-
ment and other applicable local regulations.
(2) Cost of labor and materials shall be borne by purchaser.
(3) Completed work shall be inspected and approved in writing by
management before being placed in service.
(4) Management may correct any improper construction performed by purchaser
or require purchaser to make such corrections, and may complete any work
not finished by purchaser within Che else limit set by management, and
may bill purchaser for all labor and macerials.
(5) Management shall enter such work into the maintenance and operation
record.
Special Management Corporation: In the event no municipal corporation, as
Identified in Section B., is able or willing Co serve in a management capacity
and has indicated this decision in writing, a special private corporation
may be established to serve this purpose.
211
-------
Structure and Criteria - In addition to meeting the foregoing criteria
and requirements, such a corporation must meet the following conditions:
(a) It must be incorporated.
(b) It must have elected officers.
(c) It must have a constitution and by-laws.
(d) There must be financial solvency on a continuous basis through
a method of financing construction, maintenance, operation and
emergency work related to the sewerage system to the exclusion
or whatever other obligations the corporation may assume in
other fields. Rates must be set at a level which will provide
ample funds for all sewerage operation and maintenance costs
and cover emergencies as they occur.
(e) There must be permanency; i.e., the corporation must be continu-
ously in operation with regard to its sewerage activities so
long as there is a need for such management service. There
must be built into the organization a provision to eventually
transfer its sewerage responsibilities to a municipal corporation,
as identified In Section B, should such a transfer become feasible.
(f) There must be a municipal corporation, as identified la Section B.,
to whom control and operation of the management corporation will
pass in trusteeship in the event that no persons are willing
to serve as officers of the corporation. In the event that no
municipal corporation is able or willing to serve as a trustee,
212
-------
a private organization, acceptable Co Che regulatory agencies,
may serve Id chis capacity. The municipal corporation or che
prlvace organization shall have the opportunity to review and
comment on plans and specifications and perform Inspections
during construction. They shall also be notified of any future
construction or major repairs.
(g) Funds collected for sewerage purposes must be kept in an account
Co be used for Che sole purpose of carrying out Che functions
of Che sewerage management system.
(h) There shall be lien powers Co assure che collecclon of delinquent
sewerage debts, and provisions for adjustment of rates from tiae
Co cime Co oeec the costs of operation.
(1) In Che event the corporation is Initially run by a board of trustees,
provision should be made for an elecclon of corporate officers
at the first annual 'meeting and cransfer of concrol from che
Initial Cruscees Co Che newly elecced board of Crustee3 or
corporace officers. Membership of chese groups shall be from
among che resldencs of Che comounlcy served.
(1) Elections may be delayed beyond che flrsc annual meeting
until at least some stated number of voters are actually
resident In Che comounlcy.
(2) The lncenc of chls subsecdon is Co assure concrol of che
management system passing to che resldencs of Che communlcy
as soon as possible.
213
-------
(j) There oust be assurance of good communication between the corporate
leadership and the resident population. There oust be adequate
notice of meetings, positive service of such notice, and meetings
must be held at times and places convenient to the residents
and adequate space provided.
(k) A review board shall be established. The responsibilities of the
review board shall include mediation and review of appeals re-
garding disputes arising on any matter relating to the relationship
between purchaser and management. Decisions of Che review board
shall be final and binding on all parties involved.
Implementation - The implementation of the special management corporation
shall include, but need not be limited to, the following considerations.
(a) The developer shall assume complete responsibility for financing
and managing the operation of the on-site sewage disposal systems
during the period of development prior to transfer of the manage-
ment responsibilities to the special management corporation.
(b) During the period of developer involvement with the on-site sewage
disposal systems, there shall be an entity, as defined in subsection
l.f above, to whom control and operation of th* systems will pass
in trusteeship in the event that th* developer becomes unable to
meet his responsibilities.
(c) A two year performance bond, of an amount adequate t» provide
operation and management for that period, and in favor of the
214
-------
entity identified in (b) above or another entity acceptable to
the regulatory agencies, shall be pasted by the developer.
(d) A method o£ transfer of the management functions from Che developer
to the special management corporation shall be provided. Transfer
of the management functions shall be completed within two years,
unless otherwise authorized by the approval authority.
Approval of Management Systems: All management systems that are proposed
for specific developments must be reviewed and approved by the health
officer and where necessary, by the Department of Ecology and/or the Depart-
ment of Social and Health Services. If special services, such as financial
review by a Certified Public Accountant, are required in the review of a
management system by the health officer* Che cost of such services shall
be borne by the developer. Approval will take into, consideration the size
of the development and the extent to which Che management system conforms
co Che requlremencs of any existing comprehensive land use plan for the
Jurisdictional area involved.
215
-------
SECTION 111-2
SERVICE AGREEMENTS
The U.S. EPA would prefer that a community applying for a
construction grant for a small wastewater system project obtain
ownership of the system prior to applying for Step 2 funds.
EPA's regulations allow life-of-project easements or convenants
as an alternative to actual public ownership to qualify systems
for construction grant funding. Easements and service agree-
ments offer an attractive means of providing clearer access to
the wastewater system to ensure necessary inspection, mainte-
nance, and -repair activities. Service agreements and easements
also provide a convenant method for providing management func-
tions where full public ownership or special state enabling
legislation is not feasible or available.
Two basic types of service agreements are provided:
1. Homeowner (property owner or customer) agreement
with the management agency for services.
2. Management agency agreement with a local government.
Readers are encouraged to review the handbook prepared by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Central
Water and Sewage Systems (Ownership and Organization), 4075.12
revised August 197 6. This handbook provides sample ordinances
and agreements for preparing third party agreements, trust
deeds, and beneficiary contracts for management of publicly- and
privately-owned wastewater systems. Brief descriptions of these
legal mechanisms are also included.
216
-------
PROPERTY OWNER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY AGREEMENT
GRANT AND AGREEMENT
J.Wc hereby grant to GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT the right to maintain,
operate and repair the sewage disposal facility situate upon Lot * , Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision, Unit No.
, El Dorado County, California as shown on that map recorded in Book of Maps, at Page
EI Dorado County Records, upon its completion to the satisfaction of said District.
I/We agree to observe all of said Districts rules, regulations, and ordinances heretofore and hereinafter en-
acted, and pay all of said Districts charges including, but not limited to. charges incurred by the District for modi-
fications required by said rules, regulations, and ordinances, which 1/We fail 10 make as so required.
I/We further agree ihat this grant and agreement shall be binding upon all of my/our successors and aisigm
of said lot.
I/We further agree that this grant and agreement shall not obligate said District id itself lo maintenance,
operation or repair of said sewage disposal system.
DATED: SIGNED:
Signatures of the owners of the lot, trustees or beneficiaries under any deed of trust are required.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
On before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for tiid county and
state, personally appeared
known to me to be the person whose name is'are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he'
they executed the same
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
217
-------
MANAGEMENT AGENCY/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGREEMENT
SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
AND THE TOWN 07 .
This agreement itemizes the responsibilities of ti>e Town and of the
Natural Resources Conservation District in carrying Out the On-Site Sewage
Disposal Program. This program formulated to give tftwns and individuals
technical assistance on on-site sewage installation.
Town Responsibilities
1. The Town shall establish a Health Rogulation and/or an
ordinance to require inspection of each proposed on-site
sewage disposal system prior to issuance of a (droit. The
Health Regulations must conform to the minimun recommended
Health Regulations, sub chapter 10, Part II, Waste Water
Treatment and Disposal - Individual On-Site Systems as adopted
July 29, 1977. A town may wish to modify thi* proposed regulation
for their own particular needs before final approval by the
State Health Board and adopt this under Title 18, VSA, Sec. 613
or adopt e local bylaw which in most cases nay be adopted under
Chapter 9, Title 24 of Vermont Statutes Annotated. An acceptable
amended copy is attached.
2. The Town shall request the services of the Distriet Sanitary
Specialist and participation in the program.
3. The Town shall receive all applications for permits and
collect any fees that may be assessed. The Town will pay $50.00
per job upon receipt of initial application.
4. The Town notifies the District of services needed by
individuals.
5. The local Board of Health or its duly appointed agent shall
review applications and notify Distriet, the Specialist and the
individual of action taken.
6. The looal Board of Health or its duly appointed agent shall
review installation reports from the Specialist and notify District
and individual of certification of installation or corrective
measures needed.
7. The Town shall be responsible for all enforcement and legal
actions.
218
-------
Natural Resources Conservation District Responsibilities
1. Furnish a trained Specialist to assist individuals
in towns that are participating in the On-Site Sewage
Disposal Program.
2. The Sanitary Specialist will inspect and report on
each individual site application submitted to the District
by town officials, prior to issuance of a Town Permit,
3. The Sanitary Specialist provides planning assistance
to individuals including soils and site information and
engineering design criteria or specific site design based
on prearranged work schedules with the Applicant or hiB
agent.
4. The Sanitary Specialist conducts on-site checks of
installation before covered with earth fill and prepares
and submits written report on each installation to the
local Board of Health or its duly appointed agent, the
District and the Applicant.
5. The Sanitary Specialist will conduct maintenance or
operational checks of existing septic systems that are
exposed and accessible as workload permits.
6. The Sanitary Specialist will assist with general
education workshops for contractors, health officers,
municipal officials, agency representatives and individuals
as workload and time permits.
Other
Neither the district nor the landowner nor the town nor
the specialist will be liable for damage to the other's
property or personal injury resulting from the carrying
out of this agreement.
This agreement will remain in effect until terminated in
writing by either party.
Town Officials District Officials
Date Date
219
-------
LEGAL MECHANISMS TO GUARANTEE PERMANENT MANAGEMENT OF
PRIVATELY-OWNED COMMUNITY WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
TRUST DEED
The trust deed is an instrument by which the owner legally
conveys the system to a third party (the trustee), who, on be-
half of the consumers, has the authority to take possession in
the event the corporation fails to operate the system in accord-
ance with the provisions of the trust deed regarding reasonable
rates and continued satisfactory service.
The trustee should preferably be a governmental authority.
An established community utility, approved mortgagee, or a title
company would also be acceptable. If a trustee other than a
unit of local government or an approved mortgagee is proposed,
it will be necessary to determine that there is no identity-of-
interest between the owners of the system and the trustee.
The trust deed also contains a provision for arbitration in
the event differences of opinion arise over a need for changes
in the service charges. This provision also includes an equita-
ble method for determining the amount of a rate increase or de-
crease where such change is found to be justified.
THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT
The basic difference between the trust deed and the third
party beneficiary contract is that the former conveys legal
title of the system to the trustee, whereas the latter creates a
covenant running with the land giving each homeowner and the re-
presentative the right to commence suit for defaults in opera-
tion or unreasonably increased rates. The owner corporation
agrees to perform satisfactory service at reasonable rates. The
instrument provides that any person whom the agreement benefits
may petition a court of competent jurisdiction to appoint a re-
ceiver for the purpose of operating the system in the event the
owner does not provide service. The instrument also includes an
arbitration clause similar to that in the trust deed for the
adjustment of service rates.
220
-------
FRANCHISES FROM GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES
Privately-owned water and sewage systems can be operated
under a franchise from a unit of government having franchising
powers granted by state statutes.
The provisions of any franchise will have to assume control
by the franchising authority of the quality of service as long
as the use of the utility is necessary. If the initial term of
the franchise is considered too short, it will have to be cou-
pled with options to extend the term.
It is also necessary to include in the franchise a provision
for controlling the service charges, and a provision for contin-
ued operation in the event service is unsatisfactory.
Note: For additional information on these topics (including
sample deeds and contracts), see the HUD publication (re-
ference No. 8) listed in the bibliography (Section
III-3) .
221
-------
SECTION III-3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Listed in the bibliography are several key documents that
contain valuable information on institutional and management
issues for small wastewater systems.
222
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Interim Study Report, Management of On-Site and Small Commu-
nity Wastewater Systems, EPA/M687, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania,
November 197 9.
2. A Strategy for Small Alternative Wastewater Systems, EPA Of-
fice of Water Program Operations, December 1980.
3. Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small Communi-
ties , EPA/600-80-030, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Prepared by
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Cambridge, Massachu-
setts, August 1980.
4. Small Wastewater Systems: Alternative Systems for Small
Communities and Rural Areas, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, January 1980.
5. Community-Managed Septic Systems - A Viable Alternative to
Sewage Treatment Plants, Report to the Congress by the Comp-
troller General of the United States, United States General
Accounting Office, 3 November 19 78.
6. ^Design Manual -- On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Systems, EPA 625/1-80-012, EPA Office of Water Program Oper-
ations, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office
of Research and Development, October 19 80.
7. Individual On-Site Wastewater Systems, Volumes 1 through 7,
Edited by Nina J. McClelland, National Sanitation Founda-
tion, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
8. Central Water and Sewage Systems (Ownership and Organiza-
tion, 4075.12 Revised, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Washington, DC, August 1976.
a U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982-*>59-092/0412
223
------- |