United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
EPA 904/9-85 137
OCTOBER 1985
<&EPA Mountain Communities
Wastewater Management
Guidance Handbook
TYPICAL MOUND SYSTEM
Straw. Hay or Fabric-
Topsoil ¦
-Distribution Lateral
- Absorption Bed
jSSS/ / / / f t t°* Top So'1
/-///////////////^
T7=^~^==,Rnck Strata or Impermeable Soil
Layer
(a) Cross Section of a Mound System for Slowly Permeable
Soil on a Sloping Site
Water Table or
Creviced Bedrock
Barrier
Material
-------
United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-85 137
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE October 1985
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365
Mountain Communities
Wastewater Management
GUIDANCE HANDBOOK
(Wiasci Street
39365
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV—ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Assisted by:
GANNETT FLEMING CORDDRY AND CARPENTER. INC.
APPLIED BIOLOGY, INC.
-------
MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
-------
Table of Contents
List of Preparers 7
User Summary 9
Background 11
Phase I: Procedures for Determining Community Needs 15
Phase II: Developing Wastewater Management Alternatives 21
Phase III: Evaluating the More Feasible Alternatives 31
Phase IV: Implementing the Preferred Alternative 43
Glossary 49
Bibliography 51
Appendices
Appendix A: Contact Persons A-1
Appendix B: Sample Sanitary Survey Form B-1
Appendix C: Information Sources C-1
Appendix D: Population Estimation and Projection Techniques D-1
Appendix E: Site Analysis Procedures and Siting Criteria for On-site Systems E-1
Appendix F: Regulatory Authorities of State Organizations F-1
Appendix G: Privatization Checklist G-1
Appendix H: Water Resources Assistance Corporation-Financial and
Field Management Contract H-1
Appendix I: State Permit Requirements 1-1
Appendix J: North Carolina On-site Sewage District Legislation J-1
Appendix K: Georgetown Divide Public Utility Management Program
and Ordinance K-1
5
-------
List of Tables
Table 1 Steps in Performing a Facility Inventory 17
Table 2 Common Types of On-site Wastewater System Renovations 24
Table 3 Basic On-site Wastewater Technologies 24
Table 4 Basic Community-wide Wastewater Technologies 25
Table 5 Screening Factors for Basic Types of Wastewater Systems 27
Table 6 Approximate Multiplication Factors for Converting Total Capital Costs
to Equivalent Annual Capital Costs 29
Table 7 Personnel Requirements for Management of Small-scale
Sewage Facilities 37
Table 8 Average Salaries for Typical Management Agency Personnel 48
List of Figures
Figure 1 Sequence of Problem Solving Phases 10
Figure 2 Study Area 13
Figure 3 Steps in Determining Community Needs 16
Figure 4 Steps in the Alternatives Development Process 22
Figure 5 The Six Basic Wastewater Engineering Options 23
Figure 6 Monthly Cost of Gravity Sewers 26
Figure 7 Steps in the Evaluation of Alternatives 32
Figure 8 Methods of Soil Absorption Field Rehabilitation 33
Figure 9 Steps in the Implementation Process 44
6
-------
List of Preparers
EPA, Region IV
Robert B. Howard
Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer
Louis A. Mancusco
Project Engineer, Water Management Division
Gannett Fleming Environmental Engineers
Thomas M. Rachford
Head, Gannett Fleming Environmental Planning &
Water Resources Section
Stuart L. Miner
Project Manager
John W. Jacobs
Soil Scientist
Lynette J. Rezac
Environmental Planner
David W. Babcock
Engineer
Richard N. Koch
Financial Analyst
Applied Biology, Inc.
Nancy W. Walls
President, Applied Biology, Inc.
David J. Herrama
Project Manager
William B. Rhodes, III
Project Manager
Steven C. Weidl
Technician III
Review Committee
Wally Carpenter
Tennessee Valley Authority
Stephanie Richardson
North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management
Steve Steinbeck
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
Frank Schutz
F. R. Schutz Engineers
Robert Rubin
North Carolina State University
Hal Churchwell
Tennessee Division of Environmental Sanitation
Anderson Jordan
University of Tennessee Municipal Technical
Advisory Service
Robert Freeman
East Tennessee Development District
Joe Kirk
South Carolina Appalachian Council of
Governments
Jim Stokoe
Land of Sky Regional Council
Mike Bradley
Madison County, North Carolina Health
Department
Susan Smith
Center for Improving Mountain Living,
Cullohwee, North Carolina
Robert Nicholas
Water Resources Assistance Council, Kentucky
Don Dixon
Sanitation Supervisor, Kentucky Department
for Health Services
Robert L. Sutton
Georgia Water Pollution Control Association
Sam F. Dayton
Georgia Chapter, American Planning Association
Robert W. Troxler
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Vincent Sikora
East Tennessee State University
Samuel J. Grant, Jr.
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Donna H. Roderick
Farmer's Home Administration
Wilton 0. Garrett
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Phillip Cooper
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
7
-------
8
-------
USER SUMMARY
Overview of the Handbook
This handbook is a problem-solving tool. It presents
step-by-step procedures for defining community waste-
water needs and developing appropriate solutions. This
process is based on the findings of previous study reports
which determined that low technology solutions, including
the familiar septic system, can meet wastewater needs in
rural areas.
If you are interested in finding solutions to wastewater
management problems in rural areas the handbook will be
helpful. The text is readable and "user friendly." Neces-
sary technical information is included or referenced, but
the handbook is not a technical study. Technical jargon is
kept to a minimum, and a glossary is provided.
The handbook is targeted at local agency officials, staff
and consulting engineers—people who either are respon-
sible for handling local wastewater problems or are called
upon to plan or design their solution. Beyond this imme-
diate audience, the secondary audience includes state
and federal officials as well as local citizens. The hand-
book may be particularly useful to both groups to illustrate
that alternatives to conventional approaches do exist. The
handbook also describes what needs to be done to carry
out these different approaches.
The following chapter presents background information
which describes the types of problems found in mountain
communities. Remaining chapters discuss separate
phases of the problem-solving process. As shown on
Figure 1, this process begins with the determination of
needs and proceeds through development, evaluation
and implementation of a solution. A series of steps is
described within each chapter. Each step is also listed as
a bulleted item within the four boxes on Figure 1. Each
chapter describes these steps in more detail and presents
techniques which may be used for completing the analy-
sis or evaluation. Some techniques are briefly described;
others are referenced. For example, in the needs determi-
nation phase, one of the key steps is the projection of
future population and wastewater flow. This section of the
handbook explains the population and flow projection pro-
cess, and refers you to sources for population data and
various projection techniques.
Community needs are determined in Chapter Three. In
other words, it addresses questions including, "Do-we
have a problem?," "Where is it?," "How bad is it?," and,
"How much worse or better will it be in the future?"
Chapter Four describes how to develop feasible ap-
proaches to deal with your community's wastewater prob-
lems. This chapter identifies workable, low technology
engineering approaches, and presents information on
how to narrow these alternative techniques to those which
are best for your community. A procedure is presented
which describes how to develop alternative techniques to
manage and finance the wastewater facilities.
Chapter Five covers the alternatives evaluation pro-
cess. Detailed information is presented on evaluating
reasonable engineering techniques, including how to
develop site-specific data and costs. Other sections deal
with management and financing techniques. These pages
9
-------
SEQUENCE OF
PROBLEM SOLVING PHASES
PHASE 1.
DETERMINE NEEDS
Document existing wastewater
facilities
Determine if there are water
quality or public health problems
Project future needs and potential
problems
PHASE 2.
DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES
• Identify reasonable technical
alternatives
• Screen feasibility of technical
alternatives
• Identify suitable management and
financing alternatives
PHASE 3.
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
• Evaluate engineering alternatives
in detail
• Identify preferred management
alternative
• Select best financing technique
• Assemble engineering/manage-
ment/financing package
PHASE 4.
IMPLEMENT PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
• Develop local support and public
acceptance
• Obtain financing assistance
• Secure permits and other
regulatory issues
• Design and construct facilities
• Facilities operation and other
ongoing responsibilities
outline procedures for detailed evaluation of alternatives;
the types of institutional and financial data required; and
how to select the management and financing approach
best suited to the community's needs and capabilites.
The handbook's final chapter deals with implementing
the selected alternative. It identifies key issues, outlines
procedures, and identifies the types of information needed
to implement the selected alternative. The issues ad-
dressed include public participation/education; permits
and other regulatory issues; assigning user charges;
agency staffing requirements; and design, construction
and operation of the selected wastewater facilities.
How to Use the Handbook
To benefit from this handbook, read it carefully and refer
to the additional sources listed. The introduction and this
user's guide should be thoroughly reviewed to understand
the document's objectives. We strongly encourage you to
refer to Figure 1, and the schematic diagrams introducing
each chapter. These diagrams summarize the key issues
in each step of the process.
As discussed earlier, this handbook is the final product
of a two-year study which has also produced four other
reports. The handbook is not a summary of these reports.
But it is a separate guidance document designed to give a
"big picture" of how to deal with wastewater problems. The
most important details are dealt with here, but for a more
in-depth discussion, refer to sources listed in the bibli-
ography. A particularly valuable document is the Final
Alternatives Development Report, completed as part of
this overall project in November, 1984. This report was
published in four separate volumes: Volume I, Introduc-
tion; Volume II, Technical Alternatives: Volume 111, Institu-
tional Management Alternatives: and Volume IV, Financial
Alternatives. These volumes were distributed extensively
throughout the study area. Additional copies are available
from Region IV EPA in Atlanta. These volumes are refer-
enced throughout the handbook. For example, this hand-
book does not present information and illustrations of
engineering techniques. For this, we refer you to Volume II
of the Alternatives Development Report. If you intend to
plan and implement wastewater facilities, we encourage
you to obtain these tour volumes as a valuable detailed
reference tothe h andbook. The majority of you who desire
an easily readable overview of how to solve rural waste-
water problems may find the guidance handbook
sufficient.
FIGURE 1
10
-------
BACKGROUND
Needs of the Study Area and Objectives pf the Project
The Appalachian area suffers from significant environ-
mental as well as economic problems. Many residents
use privies or dispose of domestic wastewater through
straight pipes to adjacent streams. Recent studies show
that as many as 19 percent of the households in eastern
Kentucky have no wastewater disposal system at all, Even
in the much less isolated mountainous region of South
Carolina, households with no approved disposal facilities
run as high as 36 percent in certain areas. Even in com-
munities that have public wastewater facilities, lack of
capacity and improper maintenance have often led to
discharge of low quality or even untreated effluent. Water
quality in rivers of all six states within the study area is
adversely affected by municipal discharges.
Extensive use of creeks, shallow wells and springs for
domestic water supply makes this lack of appropriate
wastewater disposal more significant. Most residents out-
side of small rural communities do not have a protected
public water supply source. Documented major public
health problems do exist in Appalachia. However, the con-
nection between improper wastewater disposal, use of
unprotected or untreated water supplies, and public health
problems has not been adequately researched.
In 1978, the Kentucky River District Health Department
conducted a survey of private drinking water supplies in
six southeastern Kentucky counties. The survey found
80% of the wells tested to be contaminated by coliform
organisms. Data from the Kentucky Cabinet for Human
Resources indicate that residents of southeastern Ken-
tucky are almost twice as likely to contract hepatitis A as
other state residents. Certain countie® within southeastern
Kentucky have rates of hepatitis infection as much as 20
times the national average. Hepatitis is not the only dis-
ease which can be spread by contaminated drinking
water. Southeastern Kentucky's rate of gastroenteritis is
almost twice that of the state. Other prevalent water-
borne diseases include ascariasis, strongyloidiasis, and
giardiasis.
These problems have been recognized and plans have
been proposed for new or renovated wastewater facilities
for Appalachian communities. However, this planning was
carried out before alternative or innovative treatment sys-
tems were considered. Also, it was assumed that federal
funding support would remain high. It is now recognized
that many of the plans for mountain communities are well
beyond the means of the communities unless extensive
federal assistance is available. In most cases, these plans
are also inappropriate to the area's physical, environmen-
tal and socio-economic conditions. For this reason,
Region IV EPA decided that a generic regional study
should be conducted to better define the unique needs
and particular problems in mountain communities and to
develop alternative approaches to these needs. This study
is designed to help implement more appropriate waste-
water facilities and create significant environmental and
public health benefits for the citizens of mountain
communities.
11
-------
Scope of the Project
Although the findings of this study are useful to any
small community, the analysis focused on a particular
geographic area and on specific technical issues.
The project study area is shown on Figure 2. The area
includes 82 counties in six states—Kentucky, Tennessee,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. Its
boundaries are based on the Appalachian Regional
Commission (ARC) highlands areas which includes the
most remote and rugged portion of Appalachia.
The scope of the project analysis addresses engineer-
ing, management and financial issues. The engineering
analysis focuses on wastewater technologies for small
mountain communities. The emphasis is on small scale,
alternative technologies such as on-site systems, cluster
systems, and alternative small community technologies.
Conventional gravity sewer collection systems are also
addressed.
Solving the region's wastewater problems begins with
selecting appropriate engineering techniques, but without
proper management and financing even the best engi-
neering solutions cannot be implemented. Therefore the
assessment emphasizes developing and evaluating alter-
native management and financing approaches.
Summary of Project Activities
The Mountain Communities Wastewater Management
Assessment began in March, 1983. After five work
phases, this guidance document has been produced.
Phase I developed the project Background and Orienta-
tion Report, July, 1983. This report indentifies the study
area, defines the setting and key issues, and sets forth a
study plan for the remainder of the project. Field meetings
were held with representatives of water quality and public
health agencies from all six states in the study area. A
project mailing list and a technical review committee was
developed. The review committee has 32 members who
represent state and federal agencies, local officials, envi-
ronmental groups, regional planning agencies, profes-
sional societies, and academia. Five committee meetings
were held at the end of each phase of work. The
committee members critiqued the work products, and
successfully guided the project toward a useful con-
clusion.
The second phase of the project describes the signifi-
cant man-made and natural environmental features that
influenced wastewater management activities in the study
area. The area's water quality and public health problems
were identified. Phase II produced the Survey of Existing
Conditions Report in December, 1983.
12
-------
Phase III of the project developed alternative engineer-
ing, management, and financing approaches. These
approaches meet the needs and accommodate the natu-
ral and man-made features identified in Phase II. Based on
this phase, the Draft Alternatives Report was presented to
the review committee in July, 1984. On the committee's
recommendation, a Final Alternatives Development Report
was printed and distributed. This report included the
committee's comments and revisions in four separate
volumes.
The fourth phase of the project completed three case
studies. The case study phase built on information devel-
oped in Phase 3, and applied engineering, management,
and financing alternatives within a "real world" setting. The
three case study communities represent a range of "typi-
cal" small mountain community conditions. Although each
area is unique and represents one specific problem and
need, together they reflect conditions that are found in
many other settings throughout the study area.
Based on work completed during these four project
phases certain significant conclusions were reached
regarding future approaches to wastewater management
in rural mountain areas.
• New or renovated on-site systems can be an accep-
table, cost-effective means for managing domestic
wastewater in many rural communities.
• On-site systems can be permanent solutions which
will protect water quality and public health. New
management controls may be required to ensure
proper systems operation and maintenance.
• Although most local residents can afford to fund
appropriate technologies, state loans or bond guaran-
tees would significantly aid in implementation.
The final project phase covered developing and produc-
ing this guidance handbook. The objective of this report is
to present "how to" information to local planners and
decision-makers to help them implement wastewater
management solutions. This guidance is based on con-
clusions reached in previous project reports, most notably
the Case Study Report conclusions listed above. The
report can help communities implement smaller-scale,
appropriate technology approaches which better suit their
needs and resources.
y.OJW *N -
N
' "*} s:v. (
. ¦
•n .w .
W V-
v t ., _ J ^
MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
ASSESSMENT
STUDY AREA
j ^ v k\, ¦ -
¦ m
SCALE IN MILES
EPA REGION TZ
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
FIGURE 2
13
-------
14
-------
Phase I
PROCEDURES FOR
DETERMINING COMMUNITY NEEDS
Overview of the Needs Assessment Process
Documenting your community's needs and conditions
is an essential first phase in making sound wastewater
management decisions. In general, this process consists
of: 1) gathering data on current wastewater practices;
2) defining water quality or public health problems which
have resulted from poor wastewater management practi-
ces; and, 3) projecting future needs and the factors which
may limit their solution. Figure 3 summarizes these three
steps and lists the activities necessary to complete each.
There are two objectives in this phase of the process.
One is to provide adequate data on the design and use of
existing treatment systems and their present effect on
water quality. Typically known as performance data, this
information is necessary to make sound, reasonable deci-
sions concerning wastewater management. Accurate
system performance data will direct you to locations
where problems may exist and surface or groundwater
monitoring should be carried out. Where water quality or
public health problems are then identified this will substan-
tiate the need for new system construction or system
renovations or changes. For instance, if sewers are pro-
posed for an area served by on-site systems, existing
systems must be clearly inadequate and found to be
contributing to water quality and public health problems.
The second objective is to thoroughly examine the nat-
ural and man-made conditions that influence the size, type
and siting of wastewater facilities. Man-made factors
include current population and economic conditions and
future trends; land use development patterns; wastewater
flows and regulatory controls. Natural factors to consider
include soil types, topography, geology and climate. Gen-
erally, this inventory and analysis is done by a sanitarian or
another local health department official. Other individuals
qualified to perform this work include the local public
works department, professional engineers or local re-
gional planning office personnel.
Documenting community needs is done by reviewing
existing records, maps and other data compiled by local
health departments, planning departments and other
agencies, and performing on-site visits and sanitary sur-
veys. Later sections of this chapter detail methods used in
gathering each type of data—who does it and how it is
done.
Documenting Existing Wastewater Facilities
Table 1 lists the steps required to perform a facility
inventory. The first step is to identify all existing treatment
facilities and on-site systems and to develop pertinent
descriptive information on each. Data which should be
gathered for centralized or package facilities include type
of process, present flow, reserve capacities, location, plant
condition, population served or service area boundaries,
and compliance with effluent permit limitations. Sources of
information on existing treatment plants include the listing
15
-------
PHASE I
STEPS IN DETERMINING
COMMUNITY NEEDS
of discharges and the associated NPDES permit main-
tained by the water quality agency in each state. Treat-
ment plants keep daily logs of their influent and effluent
quality and may also have records noting any plant mal-
functions. The state agency contacts listed in Appendix A
can help you obtain this information. Local or county
health departments keep records of on-site failures and
they may have performed some water quality sampling.
Personnel at the health department and the public works
agency may be familiar with the area's water quality prob-
lems including those which occurred because of a mal-
functioning treatment system. If existing treatment plants
are producing effluent quality equal to permit limitations, it
is unlikely that they could presently be causing a local
water quality or public health problems.
The type of data which should be gathered for on-site
systems include numbers of traditional septic tank soil-
absorption systems, numbers and types of alternative on-
site systems, locations, ages and conditions of each. This
data is also gathered through record reviews, although site
surveys may also be necessary. This inventory can be
performed by local sanitarians, part-time recently trained
individuals or volunteers. Health department records may
provide data on the number and types of on-site systems
in use in an area and the number of new installations
through their permit records; and failures, if reported. Also,
existing surveys or studies of area systems may be avail-
able for review. Other techniques useful in inventorying
existing systems include interviews with local septic tank
contractors, dye studies, remote sensing and aerial sur-
veys which can be used to detect surface malfunctions.
Detailed descriptions of inventory techniques are pro-
vided on pages 4-4 and 4-5 of Volume III of the Mountain
Communities Wastewater Management Report.
The way to obtain good detailed site information is a
sanitary survey. The survey is used to collect and analyze
data on the number and condition of existing on-site sys-
tems. This may indicate the need for improved wastewater
facilities in unsewered areas. Several specific objectives
can be achieved through the survey:
• identification of possible sources of water quality and
public health problems,
• evaluation of causes of system malfunction or poor
performance,
• assessment of the feasibility of the continued use of
on-site systems or of new systems,
• provision of information on types and frequency of
malfunctioning systems,
• collection of data on individual properties and their
on-site systems for future use.
The survey process should include preparation, on-site
inspection, homeowner interview or questionnaire and data
analysis.
STEP 1.
DOCUMENT EXISTING
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
• Types
• Locations
• Conditions
• Performance
• Other pertinent data
STEP 2.
DETERMINE IF THERE
ARE CURRENT WATER
QUALITY AND PUBLIC
HEALTH PROBLEMS
• Determine and document
existence of ground and surface
water quality problems related to
poor wastewater management
• Determine and document
existence of viral, bacterial or
parasitic diseases or infections
caused by contamination of water
supplies by sewage
STEP 3.
PROJECT FUTURE
NEEDS AND
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
• Assess land use development
trends
• Review population projections
• Assess soils, topography, climate
and geology; factors that may
affect siting, size and type of
future facility
FIGURE 3
16
-------
Before beginning a door-to-door survey, efforts should
be made to involve local citizens in the project. If not
already done, now is an appropriate time to develop a
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and a public partici-
pation program. Procedures for doing so are discussed in
the Implementation section of this handbook. Newspaper,
radio or television publicity can also be used to inform
residents of the program. Early contact and dissemination
of information to local citizens can help positively involve
homeowners and avoid misunderstandings later in the
project.
The sanitary survey can vary depending on its pur-
pose^), funds available, expertise of available personnel,
and the extent of existing information on the performance
of on-site systems in the area. If comprehensive, up-to-
date information on individual system performance is
available through health department permit records as
well as failure data and interviews with local sanitarians
and septic tank contractors, then only a partial sanitary
survey may be needed. A partial survey reaches a limited
number of residences for which there is no data on sys-
tems condition. If survey funds are limited or if the survey
area is relatively large, then local volunteers or low-cost
part-time imployees may be trained in a limited period of
time to locate obvious problem systems. Otherwise, full-
time health department sanitarians, soils scientists or
other experienced personnel are typically used. A stand-
ardized sanitary survey form developed and used by EPA
Region V is included in Appendix B. This form provides
spaces to answer questions, to take notes, and to record
observations during the homeowner interview and visual
site inspection. This survey form is sufficient to assist in the
inventory and description of existing systems. A more
detailed site analysis is required before carrying out sys-
tem renovation or replacement.
After the performance of existing systems has been
evaluated, you may determine that these facilites are per-
forming adequately. In this case, there is no need to
develop new facilities to serve the existing population.
TABLE 1
Steps in Performing A Facility Inventory
INVENTORY STEPS INVENTORY METHODS PERFORMED BY
a.
Numbers and types of centralized and
a.
-review state records
a. through e. Sanitarian or
package treatment plants
-contact local public works agency
other health department
employee; part-time per-
b.
Total treatment plant available and
b.
-review treatment plant
sonnel or volunteers; con-
reserve capacity at each facility
records
sulting engineer if already
-contact local public works agency
hired.
c.
Define facility service area boundar-
c.
-review state and treatment plant
ies and population served
records
-contact local public works agency
d.
Number of traditional septic tank-soil
d.
-review local or county health depart-
absorption field systems
ment records
-interview local septic tank con-
tractors
e.
Numbers and types of alternative on-
e.
-review local or county health depart-
site systems
ment records
-interview local septic tank con-
tractors and engineers
f.
Locations, conditions of and ages of
f.
-review local or county health depart-
f. and g. Sanitarian; soil
on-site systems
ment records
scientist; engineer, part-
-interview local septic tank contrac-
time employees; volun-
tors and engineers
teers; consultant staff.
-perform sanitary or site surveys
-perform aerial surveys
g-
Identify other methods of handling
9'
-contact local/county health depart-
wastewater In your community (e.g.
ment
straight pipes)
-contact local public works agency
-perform site-by-site survey
17
-------
Determine If There are Current Water Quality or
Public Health Problems
Based on the inventory of existing systems, you should
now have a good idea of where in the community public
health or water quality problems may occur. You must
now document that waters are contaminated resulting in
public health or environmental problems.
Surface and/or ground water quality sampling is one
primary method for documenting water quality problems.
Surface water quality sampling is used in communities
where a centralized system disposes to surface water and
also in the case of on-site systems with direct disposal to
surface water. Ground water quality sampling—wells and
springs—is generally used to confirm potential contamina-
tion from systems using land disposal. Water quality sam-
pling should be used in conjunction with other techniques,
like a sanitary survey, to confirm the existence of problems
related to wastewater management.
You may use the sanitary survey to detect water quality
problems as well as inventory systems. The surveyor can
inspect streams, drainage ditches, tile fields, and lakes
and ponds on or adjoining private property for signs of
illegal discharges, nutrient enrichment, and possible im-
pact on drinking supply. You can sample wells or springs
as part of a sanitary survey to detect or confirm water
quality problems from malfunctioning on-site systems.
You can inspect surface waters receiving centralized
plants discharge for signs of raw sewage discharge or
nutrient enrichment which may indicate problems at the
plant. Contamination from wastewater is generally indi-
cated by the presence of fecal coliform bacteria. Coliform
bacteria, however, are produced by other animals such as
dogs and cows, and are not a certain indicator of human
contamination.
Reviewing state and local agency records and contact-
ing the local public works agency are additional ways to
determine water quality problems. State records include
208 areawide waste treatment management plans, 303e
river basin plans and 305b water quality inventory reports.
Each report is prepared by the state according to the
Clean Water Act. Data required in these reports is found in
the appropriate sections of the Act.
Public health problems associated with water supply
contamination can be documented through the following
procedures:
Review of Local Hospital and Clinic Records. This
procedure involves contacting local hospitals and clin-
ics to review records and identify occurrence of dis-
eases or infections which indicate water supply con-
tamination. Such infections include ascariasis, strong-
yloidiasis, giardiasis, impetigo and hepatitis. These
problems are associated with improper human waste
disposal and inadequate sanitary practices.
Sanitary Survey. The most cost-effective way to detect
unreported illnesses is to include an illness survey
along with the sanitary survey described earlier. Other
ways include homeowner interviews, mailed question-
naires or a door-to-door survey.
Review of Local/County Health Department Records.
This procedure involves contacting local and/or coun-
try health departments to review records and identify
diseases as described above for hospital and clinic
records.
Project Future Needs and Potential Future Problems
The community's future needs can be estimated by
examining area population and economic projections,
land use and development trends, physical features and
institutional controls. The rate and type of land develop-
ment and expected population growth will determine the
size, type and placement of wastewater facilities needed
in the future. Economic conditions will determine the ability
to pay for facilities as well as the possible need for addi-
tional infrastructure to aid in economic development.
Although EPA will not provide financial assistance for
projects intended solely for economic development,
FmHA and other agencies will. Physical features will
impact the size, type and placement of facilities, and may
limit the growth that can take place without environmental
impact. Institutional controls, such as permits for on-site
systems and land use regulations will determine whether
growth projected for a community can be accommodated
within the environmental constraints without resulting in
water quality or public health problems.
Current population may be determined by reviewing
data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. See Appendix C for the source of census
data. Begin with the most recent decennial census. For
more current information, obtain copies of Current Popula -
tion Reports Series P-25, Population Estimates and Pro-
jections. This publication estimates population for coun-
ties, incorporated places and minor civil divisions (town-
ships and villages) by state. These estimates are dated
two years before the report date. Census publication, Ser-
ies P-26, Federal State Cooperative Program for Popula-
tion Estimates, is another good source. This report con-
tains population estimates for counties and metropolitan
areas by state and the estimates are dated one year
before the report date. Numerous public agencies will be
able to provide these documents or other population data
sources. Groups including state, regional and local plan-
ning agencies; health agencies or community develop-
ment agencies; or regional water quality management
agencies such as river authorities or basin commissions
can provide these projections directly. Municipal and
county planning departments or government offices may
also provide data on rural area populations from tax rolls,
utility connections, school censuses and building permits.
These sources can be used to determine the rate of
growth, permanent or seasonal composition of the
18
-------
population—a common characteristic of the population
make-up of many study area communities today—the
current number of dwelling unis and other characteristics
of a specific population. Local real-estate agents, home-
owner assocations, chambers of commerce, utilities,
other community groups and local or state universities
may also provide information to help predict growth trends.
This information can be used to project the area's growth.
(See population estimation techniques below.)
If a lack of usable published data on current population
and land use trends exists, you will need to estimate
population. First, establish well-defined study area boun-
daries. If the area is not a legal entity (i.e. county, township,
community) establish and map other boundaries possibly
with physical limits (i.e. river or stream, forest, mountain,
etc,). Then employ population estimation techniques.
Such techniques include:
• House Survey Method:This involves a comprehen-
sive housing unit inventory and personal interviews
with a sample or all of the households, to determine
the average household size in an area. This and other
estimation methods are described in Appendix D.
• Tax Roll Survey Method: This produces an accurate
count of permanent and seasonal housing units and
their locations.
• Aerial Photo Analysis Method: This can provide
accurate counts of housing units through examina-
tion of aerial photos. Information on the use of aerial
surveys for population estimates and projections is
provided in Appendix D.
• Dwelling Unit Review Method: This involves updating
census house counts by reviewing building permit
records..
A "windshield" survey of the community or area in
question can help determine current land use and identify
development areas. To carry out the survey you will need
a local map at a small enough scale—like a tax map—to
help identify land tracts. This survey identifies present
development and property that will be developed in the
near future. In addition, many of the population estimation
techniques described earlier, such as the house survey,
tax roll survey, aerial photo analysis and dwelling unit
review methods can assess land development trends.
To determine future needs for wastewater facilities,
population projections should now be developed. First,
contact local, regional and state planning agencies to see
if projections have already been made. If appropriate
projections are not available then use accurate current
population figures and trends to develop them. Population
projection techniques include mathematical models, eco-
nomic/employment models, cohort analysis, component
method, ratio-share method and land use models. Each
technique is described in planning and engineering texts
as well as other EPA publications.
Future land use can be determined by recent trends, for
example, if developable land exists in an area where steady
development occurred, assume that growth will probably
continue there or in areas where large tracts of developa-
ble land exist. Also, state or local planning agencies may
have developed an up-to-date comprehensive plan or
another document which includes future land use predic-
tions for the study area.
Land use development trends can also be determined
by reviewing Construction Reports—Housing Authorized
by Building Permits and Public Contracts, a monthly publi-
cation of the Census Bureau. Information in the report can
help rural areas assess the rate of growth of the housing
stock and development trends.
Flow projections should be made as part of the needs
assessment process. The projection of wastewater flows
for your community now will be a critical consideration in
developing appropriate engineeringlechniques in the next
phase. For instance, wastewater flow figures will help you
decide whether a centralized system is appropriate and if
so, what its capacity should be.
Two methods help estimate future residential commer-
cial and instiuttonal wastewater flows. Each method com-
bines the sources of wastewater flows artd«xpresses their
total contribution as gallons per capita (persons) per day
(gpcd). The first method involves estimating the existing
average daily flow based on reliable water supply records
adjusted for losses, or on records of wastewater flows for
extended dry periods minus estimated infiltration, and
flows from industrial and limited users.
The second method involves calculating future average
daily base flow (adbf) by multiplying the future population
projection by 60 to 70 gpcd. This is the maximum accep-
table gpcd amount if you are applying for EPA Construc-
tion Grants monies. If you propose a higher gpcd figure,
you must justify it to EPA and include the results of flow
reduction and, for sewered areas, infiltration/inflow (l/l)
analyses. U.S. EPA's Construction Grants, 1985 provides
details on performing both methods of flow projecting and
on doing flow reduction and l/l analyses. Construction
Grants, 1985 is available from the U.S. EPA or National
Technical Information Service (NTIS). Phone numbers
and addresses are listed in Appendix C.
You should develop basic data on natural features dur-
ing this project phase. Many problems with wastewater
facilities, particularly on-site systems, are due to inade-
quate consideration of soil and site characteristics—
particularly permeability—depth to bedrock and water
table and land slope. By thoroughly analyzing the com-
munity's general soil and geology characteristics before
planning on-site systems, you can eliminate inappropriate
alternatives. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS) publishes detailed county Soil
Surveys, Interim Soil Reports, and State General Soil
Maps. These surveys provide information on general
characteristics such as physiography, geology, relief and
drainage, climate, and water supply. Detailed descriptions
19
-------
of each soil series and soil associations are provided as
well as information on what to look for when doing a soil
field examination. Maps delineating distribution of soil
types within the county are included. Depths to bedrock,
depth to water table and land slope are also important in
siting of sewers and treatment plants. Planning information
on these factors is contained in the SCS soils survey.
Also obtain and review local regulations controlling land
development and installation of on-site systems. Where
stricter controls on septic systems have been put in place,
it may be possible for even large increases in population to
be accommodated in a community without any adverse
environmental impacts. Each component must be consi-
dered together—growth, natural conditions, and institu-
tional controls—before the precise nature of future prob-
lems can be defined.
20
-------
population—a common characteristic of the population
make-up of many study area communities today—the
current number of dwelling unis and other characteristics
of a specific population. Local real-estate agents, home-
owner assocations, chambers of commerce, utilities,
other community groups and local or state universities
may also provide information to help predict growth trends.
This information can be used to project the area's growth.
(See population estimation techniques below.)
If a lack of usable published data on current population
and land use trends exists, you will need to estimate
population. First, establish well-defined study area boun-
daries. If the area is not a legal entity (i.e. county, township,
community) establish and map other boundaries possibly
with physical limits (i.e. river or stream, forest, mountain,
etc.). Then employ population estimation techniques.
Such techniques include:
• House Survey Method: This involves a comprehen-
sive housing unit inventory and personal interviews
with a sample or all of the households, to determine
the average household size in an area. This and other
estimation methods are described in Appendix D.
• Tax Roll Survey Method: This produces an accurate
count of permanent and seasonal housing units and
their locations.
• Aerial Photo Analysis Method: This can provide
accurate counts of housing units through examina-
tion of aerial photos. Information on the use of aerial
surveys for population estimates and projections is
provided in Appendix D.
• Dwelling Unit Review Method: This involves updating
census house counts by reviewing building permit
records..
A "windshield" survey of the community or area in
question can help determine current land use and identify
development areas. To carry out the survey you will need
a local map at a small enough scale—like a tax map—to
help identify land tracts. This survey identifies present
development and property that will be developed in the
near future. In addition, many of the population estimation
techniques described earlier, such as the house survey,
tax roll survey, aerial photo analysis and dwelling unit
review methods can assess land development trends.
To determine future needs for wastewater facilities,
population projections should now be developed. First,
contact local, regional and state planning agencies to see
if projections have already been made. If appropriate
projections are not available then use accurate current
population figures and trends to develop them. Population
projection techniques include mathematical models, eco-
nomic/employment models, cohort analysis, component
method, ratio-share method and land use models. Each
technique is described in planning and engineering texts
as well as other EPA publications.
Future land use can be determined by recent trends, for
example, if developable land exists in an area where steady
development occurred, assume that growth will probably
continue there or in areas where large tracts of developa-
ble land exist. Also, state or local planning agencies may
have developed an up-to-date comprehensive plan or
another document which includes future land use predic-
tions for the study area.
Land use development trends can also be determined
by reviewing Construction Reports—Housing Authorized
by Building Permits and Public Contracts, a month ly publi-
cation of the Census Bureau. Information in the report can
help rural areas assess the rate of growth of the housing
stock and development trends.
Flow projections should be made as part of the needs
assessment process. The projection of wastewater flows
for your community now will be a critical consideration in
developing appropriate engineering techniques in the next
phase. For instance, wastewater flow figures will help you
decide whether a centralized system is appropriate and if
so, what its capacity should be.
Two methods help estimate future residential commer-
cial and institutional wastewater flows. Each method com-
bines the sources of wastewater flows and expresses Ifteir
total contribution as gallons per capita (persons) per day
(gpcd). The first method involves estimating the exijg&g
average daily flotfTbased on reliable water supply records
adjusted for losses, or on records of wastewater flows for
extended dry periods minus estimated infiltration, and
flows from industrial and limited users.
The second method involves calculating future average
daily base flow (adbf) by multiplying the future population
projection by 60 to 70 gpcd. This is the maximum accep-
table gpcd amount if you are applying for EPA Construc-
tion Grants monies. If you propose a higher gpcd figure,
you must justify it to EPA and include the results of flow
reduction and, for sewered areas, infiltration/inflow (I/I)
analyses. U.S. EPA's Construction Grants, 1985 provides
details on performing both methods of flow projecting and
on doing flow reduction and I/I analyses. Construction
Grants, 1985 is available from the U.S. EPA or National
Technical Information Service (NTIS). Phone numbers
and addresses are listed in Appendix C.
You should develop basic data on natural features dur-
ing this project phase. Many problems with wastewater
facilities, particularly on-site systems, are due to inade-
quate consideration of soil and site characteristics—
particularly permeability—depth to bedrock and water
table and land slope. By thoroughly analyzing the com-
munity's general soil and geology characteristics before
planning on-site systems, you can eliminate inappropriate
alternatives. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS) publishes detailed county Soil
Surveys, Interim Soil Reports, and State General Soil
Maps. These surveys provide information on general
characteristics such as physiography, geology, relief and
drainage, climate, and water supply. Detailed desqiiptions
19
-------
of each soil series and soil associations are provided as
well as information on what to look for when doing a soil
field examination. Maps delineating distribution of soil
types within the county are included, Depths to bedrock,
depth to water table and land slope are also important in
siting of sewers and treatment plants. Planning information
on these factors is contained in the SCS soils survey.
Also obtain and review local regulations controlling land
development and installation of on-site systems. Where
stricter controls on septic systems have been put in place,
it may be possible for even large increases in population to
be accommodated in a community without any adverse
environmental impacts. Each component must be consi-
dered together—growth, natural conditions, and institu-
tional controls—before the precise nature of future prob-
lems can be defined.
L
20
-------
Phase II*
DEVELOPING WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Overview of the Development Process
After you determine whether there is a need for
improved wastewater facilities you are ready to develop
reasonable solutions. The objective of this phase is not to
find the one best engineering, management or financial
alternative. It is to identify a range of reasonable alterna-
tives from which you can choose the best approaches
based on more detailed evaluation.
The steps in the development process are summarized
on Figure 4. As shown on this diagram, the first step is to
identify reasonable technical alternatives. This process
begins with the most basic technologies and works up to
more complex approaches where necessary. The second
step is to screen the feasibility of this preliminary group of
technical alternatives. Here, these alternatives are com-
pared to the community's general needs and characteris-
tics in order to screen out less feasible approaches. Then
compare preliminary cost estimates to local income levels
to gauge affordability. The final step is to identify manage-
ment and financial alternatives which work well with
remaining technical alternatives. The following sections of
this chapter discuss how to carry out these three steps.
Identifying Reasonable Engineering Approaches
The engineering alternatives discussed in this section
have a wide range of costs and effectiveness depending
on local conditions and the thoroughness of system
design, installation and operation. All of the technologies to
improve wastewater management can be categorized as
one of the six basic forms illustrated in Figure 5. The
choices for solving community problems include use of
existing systems; new on-site systems for individual estab-
lishments; cluster or small community systems serving
multiple establishments; and area-wide sewer systems. In
general, Alternative 1 in Figure 5 is less costly and less
complex than Alternative 2 which, in turn, is less costly and
less complex than Alternative 3 and so forth. We encour-
age you to evaluate the less-costly systems first.
It is only reasonable to use existing systems with no
changes (Alternative 1) when the costs or limitations of Jhe
other five alternatives in Figure 5 are greater than the
impacts of existing public health/water quality problems.
For example, if outbreaks of water-borne diseases are
attributed to failing wastewater systems, continued use
with no changes will jeopardize public health. However, if
the outbreaks are not associated with existing wastewater
systems, then renovations or new systems may be waste-
ful and unnecessary. Continued use of existing systems
with no changes should be evaluated wherever the exist-
ing problem cannot be defined or wherever wastewater
systems cannot be singled out as the source of the com-
munity's problems.
The second alternative—system renovations—can be
relatively inexpensive, but the effectiveness of reno^jtions
will vary widely. Renovations can include structural Ihodi-
21
-------
PHASE II
STEPS IN
THE ALTERNATIVES
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
FIGURE 4
fications, nonstructural measures, or revised operations
and maintenance (O&M) practices. Table 2 lists common
renovation techniques for various types of malfunctions
associated with on-site wastewater systems. Most of
these renovations are less costly than any type of new
wastewater system.
Techniques such as water-saving shower heads and
toilets can easily and inexpensively correct problems in
certain cases. System renovation or water conservation,
however, will not address all problems. For more informa-
tion about techniques for renovating on-site systems, use
U.S. EPA, Design Manual, On-Site Wastewater Treatment
and Disposal Systems, as well as written guidance from
the state agency responsible for on-site wastewater sys-
tems and your state land grant university. See Appendix C
for information sources.
If you cannot effectively utilize existing on-site systems,
new on-site systems should be considered (Alternative 3
in Figure 5). By replacing an old or excessively small
septic tank and absorption field, you can solve the problem
if site constraints such as soil characteristics, slope, and
lot size, do not prohibit using on-site systems. Your state
health department has established site limitations for
using on-site systems, such as minimum depths of soil
above the water table, minimum soil depths above bed-
rock, and maximum land slope. A number of site con-
straints can be overcome with recently developed waste-
water technologies as long as some basic requirements
are met. For example, use of low-pressure pipe or mound
systems can increase the soil depth to the water table or
bedrock. Some mountainous southeastern states allow
newer technologies more often than other states. Also, the
minimum site requirements for on-site systems vary from
state to state. Follow your state's requirements. All of the
basic on-site wastewater technologies are found in the
first 20 fact sheets of Volume II—Technical Engineering
Alternatives—prepared as part of this project and availa-
ble from EPA's Atlanta office. A list of these basic technol-
ogies appears here as Table 3.
Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 involve using sewers and a
common treatment facility to serve a number of estab-
lishments. Sewers and centralized treatment in combina-
tion are generally more costly for rural communities than
on-site systems. The collection system is chiefly respon-
sible for this higher cost. Typically, at least 80 percent of
the total capital cost of wastewater facilities for rural areas
is spent for sewers. Figure 6 shows how the cost for gravity
sewers increases as the population density declines.
Therefore, sewers-should be restricted to locations where
on-site systems are "not feasible" due to small lot size,
very shallow soils, very low permeabilities shallow depth to
water table or excessively steep slopes. Table 4 lists
wastewater technologies suitable for community-wide
application.
Alternative 4—Cluster or Small Community Systems-
will typically serve from 20 to 30 homes connected to one
wastewater treatment facility, usually by gravity sewers or
STEP 1.
IDENTIFY REASONABLE
TECHNICAL
ALTERNATIVES
• Consider lowest technology first
septic tank—soil absorption f
{other on-site or cluster technology
[small community systems}
expanded or new centralized system
STEP 2.
SCREEN FEASIBILITY
OF TECHNICAL
ALTERNATIVES
• Develop reasonable alternatives in
more detail
» Compare to community needs
and physical/environmental
limiting factors
» Develop preliminary costs
• Assess affordability
STEP 3.
IDENTIFY SUITABLE
MANAGEMENT AND
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
• Identify any management
requirements of engineering
alternatives
• Consider natural and manmade
features with significance for
management
• Consider all generic management
• Least public control
• Greatest public control
• Consider financial requirements of
feasible engineering alternatives
• Review financing options
• Greatest local financing
• Greatest state/federal
assistance
22
-------
pressure sewers. Of the technologies listed in Table 4, a
few are practical only for cluster or small community sys-
tems. These technologies include: septic tanks in series or
parallel; sand filter(s) as the only form of treatment at a
facility; and disposal via community trenches, beds or
mounds. All other technologies listed in Table 4 are practi-
cal for any community-wide wastewater system.
Alternatives 3 or 4 are also suitable for meeting indus-
trial and commercial wastewater disposal needs. Ground
absorption systems for these users have the same siting
requirements as residential units. However, where signifi-
cant volumes of wastewater are generated, large disposal
field areas will be required.
Alternative 5—New Area-wide Sewer System—is rela-
tively expensive due to capital expenditures required to
install sewer lines. As a result, the EPA Construction
Grants Program was developed in the early 1970's to
assist communities with these large, up-front capital
expenditures. Such grants are still available but to a lesser
extent than during the 1970's and only if smaller-scale
systems (Options 1 through 4) are not less cost-effective
or have greater impacts, operation and implementation
requirements. Any system discharging to surface waters
will require a discharge permit from the state. Some land
disposal systems will also require permits.
Alternative 6—Connect to Nearest Existing Sewer
System—requires developing a new collection system to
serve the community and constructing a major pipe con-
nection to an existing treatment facility. The collection
system can be the same as that developed under Alterna-
tive 5, but it could also vary depending on the the location
for the connection point to the adjacent system. Topog-
raphy determines whether the system interconnection
would use either large diameter gravity sewers or force
main and pump station.
Screen Feasibility of Technical Alternatives
Any number of basic engineering technologies may be
reasonable for your community. With 10-15 reasonable
choices, you may wonder which are most feasible. The
following sections describe how to develop more specific
alternatives, and then screen these to a manageable
number of feasible approaches.
First, develop more detailed technical descriptions of
each alternative. Begin with U.S. Geological Survey topo-
graphic maps. If more detailed local maps are available,
use them as well. Local maps may be obtained from state
or local highway or public works departments or tax
assessor's office. Appendix C lists sources for U.S.G.S.
maps.
Using the topographic maps, block out a service area.
This area should include portions of the community where
existing systems are providing inadequate treatment or
where water quality and public health problems have
occurred. If substantial growth is forecast for the commun-
ity, these areas should also be included.
THE SIX
BASIC WASTEWATER
ENGINEERING OPTIONS
I
EXISTING SYSTEMS WITH NO
CHANGES
EXISTING SYSTEMS WITH
RENOVATIONS
[
CLUSTER OR SMALL
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS {SEE
SCHEMATIC FROM CASE
STUDIES REPORT. FIG. 4-6)
NEW AREA-WIDE
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
CONNECT TO NEAREST
EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM
HOUSE
NEW
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
CONNECTION TO
EXISTING
SYSTEM
FIGURE 5
23
-------
TABLE 2
Common Types of On-site Wastewater System Renovations
Type of Malfunction PossiDie Henovaiions
Plumbing back-up
Inspect entire system from house to absorption area
After inspection, consider ways to unplug system
Avoid use of garbage disposals
Hydraulic overloading
Divert excess water away from system {e.g. roof drains, inflows from leaks)
Pump out septic tank'
Install curtain drains
Reduce water consumption (e.g. low-flow shower heads or toilets)
Evaluate ways to more evenly distribute wastewater over entire disposal
area (e.g. dosing, renovate distribution box)
Clean and back flush distribution network
Repair/replace/expand disposal area
Ground Water Pollution
rump out septic tank
Avoid disposal of toxic solvents to septic tank
Provide additional wastewater treatment (e.g. larger or two-compartment
septic tank)
Modify absorption area to provide a soil with less permeability and more
treatment potential
TABLE 3
Basic On-site Wastewater Technologies
Treatment at Individual Distribution at Individual Disposal at Individual
Homes or Businesses Homes or Businesses Homes or Businesses
•
Septic tank
• Distribution Box
• Trenches
•
Aerobic tank
• Drop box (or drop man-hole)
• Shallow trenches
•
Sand filter
• Conventional pipe (3 to 4 in.)
• Bed
•
Seepage pit
• Siphon
• Mound over trenches or bed
•
Holding tank
• Pumping tank
• Sand filter with or without
• Low-pressure pipe
underdrains
(1 1 /4 to 2 in.)
• Drip irrigation
• Sprinkle irrigation
• Evapotranspiration bed
• Leaching chamber
• Seepage pit
• Privy
• Composting toilet
(for toilet wastes only)
Note: For information about specific techhologies, see U.S. EPA, T984 document prepared as part of the Mountain Communities
Environmental Assessment.
24
-------
Next, determine the number of households within the
study area based on mapped information and population
data developed during the needs assessment. Then, for
on-site systems, estimate the number of renovations that
may be required, and what type of renovation techniques
will be used. At the same time, estimate the number of new
on-site systems needed and decide how many will be
traditional septic tank systems and how many alternative
or cluster systems will be required. At this point, base
these estimates on general familiarity with the service
area and the data gathered in the needs assessment
phase.
To develop small community system alternatives, delin-
eate groupings of homes which can be efficiently served
by one small system, The total number of homes should
be limited to about 300. Groups should be as dense as
possible to keep sewer cost per home at an acceptable
level. Groupings should consider topography so that a
reasonable arrangement of sewer lines can be developed.
Sewer lines are typically layed out on a watershed basis
with lines coming together like branches of a stream flow-
ing downhill. In steeper terrain, small diameter gravity
sewers may be feasible. In terrain with little slope, vacuum
sewers may be an attractive alternative to large diameter
gravity sewers. Pressure sewers using septic tank effluent
pumps or grinder pumps may be feasible in more average
terrain. Finally, discharge locations must be considered.
Each community service area will need a feasible land or
water discharge location and, perhaps, a discharge
permit.
To develop centralized systems in more detail, follow
much of the process described above for the small com-
munity alternative. In this case, however, define one large
service area. The guidelines regarding dwelling density,
topography and discharge locations still apply. If you are
considering connection to an existing treatment system
(Alternative 6), no treatment and discharge point will be
needed. The existing system provides treatment and dis-
charge. To develop this option more fully, you will need to
lay out and size an interceptor to connect with the existing
facility. You will also need to know the conveyance and
treatment capacity of the existing system and whether
additional capacity is required.
When you have developed the service areas, collector
lines, treatment and discharge points for each reasonable
alternative, these complete systems can then be com-
pared to the community's needs and the physical features
which may limit implementation. Table 5 presents factors
to consider in this screening process.
For example, renovation of on-site systems will not be
feasible if general soil, bedrock and water table conditions
throughout the areas planned for these systems are too
limited. New on-site systems would also be limited under
these conditicJhs unless alternative technologies such as
mounds or low pressure pipe systems were used.£>n-site
systems may not allow for substantial high density devel-
opment in the future and, therefore, may not be appro-
priate in communities with high growth projections. On-
site systems generally are not effective if lot sizes are less
than 1 / 4 acre.
Community Sewers
TABLE 4
Basic Community-wide Wastewater Technologies
(Alternatives 4, 5 and 6)
Community Treatment
Community Disposal
• Conventional gravity
• Small-diameter gravity
• Force main
• Septic tank effluenf
pump (STEP)-pressure
• Grinder pump-pressure
• Septic tanks in series or
parallel*
• Trash and grit removal
• Aerobic (biological) tank(s)
• Sand filter(s)*
• Trickling filter(s)
• Rotating biological contractor
• Lagoon(s)
• Disinfection (usually chlorine)
• Artificial (created) wetland
•
• Nutrient removal
• Discharge to stream, river
or lake
• Sprinkle irrigation (forest,
open or farm land)
• Trenches or beds (with or
without mounds)*
• Overland flow
• Discharge to wetland
* Only practical for Alternative 4—Cluster or Small Community Systems
Note: For information about specific technologies, see U.S. EPA, 1984 document prepared as part of the Mountain Communities
Environmental Assessment.
25
-------
MONTHLY COST OF GRAVITY SEWERS
POPULATION DENSITY (persons acre)
SOURCE DEARTH, 1977 FIGURE 6
The larger-scale alternatives such as small community
and centralized systems may not be applicable for other
reasons. Existing water quality standards may make
numerous small system discharges totally unfeasible or
may require very high levels of treatment. Particular con-
cerns might include ammonia, total nitrogen and residual
chlorine. Connection to another system may be ruled out
strictly on the basis of distance or the impacts of topog-
raphy on pump sizes and costs. By evaluating the
screening factors on Table 5 against local conditions in
this manner, you may rapidly cut back the number of
feasible alternatives.
Once the alternatives are developed and compared to
limiting physical features, a preliminary cost estimate
should be made so as to eliminate financially unfeasible
options as soon as possible. Costs can differ from location
to location even throughout the mountainous portion of the
southeastern U.S. The following steps are recommended
to estimate costs:
• For on-site systems
1. Obtain unit costs for an average-sized system
from local installers.
Average the costs from the various installers.
Add the unit costs based on technical require-
ments, for example, a specified septic tank size
and a specified amount of absorption area.
• For cluster or small-community systems
1. Use unit costs from local installers for septic tanks,
if needed, and trench placement of sewer lines.
2. Outline a typical system for your community
including number of homes/businesses, lengths
and diameters of sewer lines, method of treatment
and disposal.
3. Estimate a cost per household by combining unit
costs and a typical system configuration.
• For an area-wide sewer system
1. Estimate the location, pipe diameters, lengths and
installation depths for the sewers, and pump sta-
tions if utilized. Assume a certain length of lateral
sewer per household based on local lot and septic
tank configurations. Assess whether pavement
replacement is required.
2. Estimate treatment plant size, required treatment
processes and method for disposing treated waste-
water and sludge.
3. Develop unit costs based on values shown in Table
B-6 of the Case Study Report modified based on
updated, regional cost indices, available from EPA
Atlanta office and from Engineering News-Record
magazine, and based on verification from local
contractors.
4 Combine the efforts of steps 1 and 2 with the unit
costs developed in step 3 and estimate a total cost
per household.
For costs estimated for the three case studies, Mud
Creek, KY; Harrogate, TN; and Highlands, NC, refer to the
Mountain Communities Draft Case Study Report, issued
by Region IV in May, 1985.
L.
. _
-------
All cost estimates should include capital costs and
annual operation/maintenance/repair costs. The easiest
way to combine these costs is by converting the total
capital costs to equivalent annual capital costs and then
adding the two sets of annual costs to obtain total annual
costs. Annual capital costs + annual operation/mainte-
nance costs = total annual costs. Convert total capital
costs to equivalent annual capital costs through a multipli-
cation factor—usually a number between 0.05 and 0.2—
which is based on the length of the payback period—
presumably based on a bond or loan—the interest rate,
and the amount of insurance coverage. Commonly 10
percent coverage is assumed. Table 6 gives multiplication
factors for various interest rates assuming a 25-year pay-
back period and 10 percent coverage. To use Table 6,
consider an interest rate of 8.5 percent, a capital cost of
$800,000 and an annual operation/maintenance/repair
cost of $5,000. The total annual cost is estimated to be
TABLE 5
Screen Factors for Basic Types of Wastewater Systems
Renovation of On-Slte Systems
• Define site limitations (for example, lot size, open space available, soil depth to water table and bedrock,
soil permeability)
• Condition of existing systems (materials, dimensions, variability within study area)
• Compare potential methods of renovation with the site features and system conditions
New On-Slte Systems
• Define site limitation(s) (see above)
• Match site limitation(s) with problem(s) at hand and available on-site technologies
Cluster and Small Community Systems
• Use of conventional or small diameter gravity sewers vs. pressure sewers with vacuum sewers as a third,
less-utilized technology (topography, minimum sewer slopes, required excavation depths, right-of-way,
pavement replacement)
• Number of homes and businesses, average and maximum wastewater flows
• Average distances from building (or septic tank) to street and lengths of sewers along right-of-way
• Number and location of pump stations (if any)
• Number and length of stream, highway, and rail crossings
• Treatment process (plant) selection and location
• Need for chlorination or some other form of disinfection
• Method and location of wastewater disposal (Discharge to nearest body of water is usually the least
costly disposal method.)
Area-Wide Wastewater System
• Number of homes and businesses to be sewered, average and maximum wastewater flows
• Use of gravity sewers vs. force mains/pump stations
• (All other aspects listed above for cluster and small community systems apply to area-wide systems as
well).
• Types of treatment based on costs, water quality standards, susceptibility to upset due to flow variations or
toxic inputs and based on other factors such as operation requirements.
• Alternative locations for a treatment plant and for the wastewater discharge
Connect to Nearest Existing Sewer System
• Capacity of existing sewer lines and treatment facility
• Size and length of new sewer lines (including number of establishments to connect and flows)
• Use of gravity vs. force mains/pump stations
27
-------
[.($800,000) x (0.1)] + $5,000 or $85,000. If 500 establish-
ments were served—based on the number of households
projected to be sewered midway through the life of the
wastewater system—a uniform user charge is estimated
at $85,000 - 500 or approximately $170 per year or $14
per month.
You should compare the EPA financial affordability
criteria with the estimated monthly user charge to get a
preliminary assessment of the cost of the alternative
wastewater facilities. The affordability criteria used by EPA
are as follows for single family households, expressed as a
percentage of median household income.
• 1.0 percent if median income is less than $10,000
• 1.5 percent if median income is between $10,000 and
$17,000
• 1.75 percent if median income exceeds $17,000.
Since your state may have financial affordability criteria
that better match local economic conditions, you are
encouraged to check with state representatives as you
develop your wastewater facility planning effort. From the
previous example, a charge of $170 per year is consi-
dered affordable by EPA only if the median household
income for your community (based on census figures or
local planning department estimates) exceeds $11,000 to
$12,000. If you cannot afford a system you must reduce or
simplify its scale.
Often the biggest difficulty for any system is showing
that improved wastewater facilities will alleviate public
health/water quality problems. Without this assurance,
the need to spend money may not be recognized. For in
any community, the problems may be difficult to define,
and tracing the source of the problem to wastewater facili-
ties can be even more difficult.
Identifying Suitable Management and
Financing Approaches
The remainder of this chapter discusses suitable man-
agement and financing alternatives. First, five generic
management system models are described. Then, proce-
dures for matching suitable management approaches
with the engineering techniques just screened are put
forth. Financing options are reviewed and an approach to
identify the more suitable financing option is presented.
The five generic management alternatives differ primar-
ily in their degree of public involvement. The alternatives
range from very limited public management to total public
responsibility. Public involvement is described in terms of
seven management functions including:
• problem identification
• system planning and design
• construction and installation
• permitting
• operation and maintenance
• monitoring and compliance
• training and public education
The first management alternative is conventional
homeowner-centered management. Under this alterna-
tive, private homeowners or some other private entity are
responsible for system ownership, operation and mainte-
nance. Public agency functions are typically limited to
permitting and investigating complaints from local res-
idents.
The second alternative is the conventional approach
with public monitoring. It is similar to the homeowner-
centered approach; but here the public agency is respon-
sible for regular monitoring of wastewater systems. In-
stead of just responding to complaints, the public agency
monitors the system to assess the extent of proper
functioning.
Private ownership with required operation, maintenance
and monitoring is the third alternative. Here, a private
homeowner or other party still owns the wastewater sys-
tem. The management agency, in addition to its regular
monitoring function, ensures that proper O&M is carried
out.
Alternative four is private ownership with public opera-
tion and maintenance. Here, the public agency is respon-
sible for all system functions—except ownership. The
management agency directly operates and maintains the
system and also monitors, permits and ensures com-
pliance with pre-set performance standards.
The final management system alternative is full public
sector-oriented management. This involves complete
public responsibility for the wastewater system. The public
agency (e.g. a city or. county health or public works
department) owns, operates, maintains, and monitors all
systems. For more detailed descriptions of these five
alternatives, seethe fact sheets at the end of Volume III of
the Alternatives Development Report.
Two factors must be considered to determine which of
these approaches is most suitable for your community.
First, identify management requirements of the selected
engineering alternatives. Second, identify natural or man-
made features of the community which may impact
management options. Then review the management
alternatives individually. Select those approaches that
require the least public management activity, and yet meet
other community requirements.
The homeowner-centered management approach may
be adequate is rural-areas with soattered development,
farms and large-tract subdivisions and where physical
features allow traditional septic tank-soil absorption sys-
tems. Also the community should be one where little future
growth is projected and where physical features do not
limit the functioning of on-site systems. If your community
meets these requirements, you may wish to retain conven-
28
-------
tional homeowner management for further evaluation.
The conventional system with monitoring is most appli-
cable to conventional on-site and cluster systems in
communities with a higher number of failing systems,
greater growth rates and less suitable natural conditions.
Monitoring can greatly increase the performance and reli-
ability of all types of wastewater facilities. Regular monitor-
ing and maintenance of system performance helps
ensure that new systems are properly operated and main-
tained, and renovated systems continue to function prop-
erly in the future. With proper monitoring and maintenance,
systems will be more likely to function properly, and areas
with greater population densities and natural limitations
may be better served by on-site and cluster systems. This
alternative is not suggested for areas experiencing explo-
sive second home growth or recreational development.
Private ownership with monitoring, required operation
and maintenance builds upon the previous example and
adds required operation and maintenance to the other
management functions. Since systems are generally
owned by private entities, this alternative applies most in
communities where on-site systems are the prevalent
method of wastewater disposal. Because operation and
maintenance is ensured, this management approach is
more suitable to alternative and innovative on-site and
cluster systems as well as small, privately-owned small
community systems. With the addition of required O&M,
this management alternative is more applicable to com-
munities where extensive growth or physical limitations
present the potential for wastewater management
problems.
With private ownership with public operation and main-
tenance, operation and maintenance functions are per-
formed directly by the public management agency instead
of by the private system owners. This alternative applies to
communities similar to those suitable for the above alter-
native, however, the increased control provided by direct
public O&M can ensure adequate system performance
and wastewater treatment for all types of systems—even
where physical features or extensive future growth may
present significant problems in managing wastewater.
Under full public sector-oriented management, a public
agency assumes ownership of all wastewater facilities,
and either performs or has performed all of the necessary
management functions. This approach is typical in more
populous urban and suburban areas where conventional
centralized collection and treatment systems are preva-
lent. Although public ownership of facilities is usually ap-
plied to large-scale conventional treatment plants and
sewers, this approach may be applied to small community,
cluster, and on-site systems. Complete public responsibil-
ity may be the preferred approach for communities with
numerous wastewater problems, extensive growth and
natural or socio-economic limitations.
Now that you have determined the range of feasible
engineering alternatives and the likely management ap-
proaches, we will consider the facilities. To identify suita-
ble financing options you must consider any financial
requirements of engineering alternatives, the facilities'
cost and the suitable management techniques. Financing
alternatives include:
• major federal funding
• limited state or federal assistance
• local financing
• privatization
The fact sheets included in Volume IV of the Alterna-
tives Development Report describe specific financial pro-
grams at the federal, state and local levels; program objec-
tives; requirements; fund uses; and limiting factors. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been the prim-
ary source of major federal funding for wastewater pro-
jects through its Construction Grants program. The basic
grant allotment covers 55 percent of eligible project costs.
As much as 20 percent additional grant money is available
for utilizing innovative and alternative 1/A techniques. For
a thorough discussion of l/A technologies, you are
referred to EPA's Innovative and Alternative Technology
TABLE 6
Approximate Multiplication Factors for Converting
Total Capital Costs to Equivalent Annual Capital Costs
For 25-Year Payback Period and 10 Percent Ineurance Coverage
Interest Rate, % 4.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Multiplication
Factor 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.16
For Varying Payback Periods at 10% Interest Rate with Insurance
Payback Period 10 15 20 25 30
Multiplication
Factor 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12
29
-------
Assessment Manual. Volume IV of the Alternatives Devel-
opment Report provides more information on funding of
l/A technologies beginning on page 5-8. As part of this
program, rural states must reserve from 4.0 to 7.5 percent
of their construction grant money for l/A projects. The
Farmers Home Administration is the other major source of
federal assistance for wastewater facilities. The Appalach-
ian Regional Commission and the U.S. Economic Devel-
opment Administration also have federal funds for small
community wastewater projects but at lesser levels than
EPA and FmHA. These agencies, along with the various
state funding alternatives available, are the primary
sources for limited state and federal assistance. Persons
to contact regarding funding from each of the above
agencies are listed in Appendix C.
Local financing techniques include general obligation
bonds, revenue bonds, bond anticipation notes and short-
term bank loans. Private sources of funding include short-
term loans, private developers and partnerships, and pri-
vate ownership and operation (privatization). Descriptions
of each of these are in Volume IV of the Alternatives
Development Report.
To find the best financial alternative for your comm unity,
consider the requirements or limitations of the preferred
engineering and management alternatives. If the preferred
alternative involves renovation of on-site systems, a rela-
tively inexpensive alternative, then major federal funding,
state funding and even local funding would be feasible. If
the preferred technology is solely construction of a central-
ized system, then major federal funding is the most reaso-
nable financial alternative.
The selected management techniques may also im-
pact the preference of financing approaches. For in-
stance, EPA Construction Grants may only be awarded to
a privately-owned system which has existed since De-
cember 27,1977. Only government-owned (county, city or
authority) facilities are eligible for State of Georgia Emer-
gency Grants. In some states, certain local financing
mechanisms (i.e. issuance of general obligation bonds or
revenue bonds) may only be used by a municipality or
county agency. The fact sheets and text in Volume IV of
the Mountain Communities Wastewater Management
Alternatives Report present information on the special
requirements and limitations of each financing technique.
30
-------
Phase III:
EVALUATING THE
MORE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Overview of the Evaluation Process
Now you are ready to evaluate the alternatives. During
the development phase, you identified feasible engineer-
ing alternatives and discussed the most reasonable
approaches. Then suitable management and financing
alternatives were identified. Now the task is to narrow
down the engineering alternatives to the best one or two,
and match the engineering with preferred management
and financing alternatives.
Figure 7 is a diagram of the four separate steps involved
in the evaluation process. First, the engineering approach
is narrowed down based on more detailed site information
and cost estimates.
In step two, the final management alternative is
selected. Existing institutional structure within the com-
munity, detailed information on available authority of exist-
ing public agencies, expertise and availability of local
agency personnel and public concerns and preferences
are considered.
The best financing technique is selected in step three.
This decision-making is based on local financial condi-
tions, agency financial authority, and grant eligibility
requirements.
The final step is to put together the three selected
components and make sure they fit as a package. Then
this combined approach is implemented in the final phase.
Evaluating Reasonable Engineering
Alternatives in Detail
The first step in the evaluation process is to select the
preferred engineering alternative based on detailed site
assessments. If you are considering repair or renovation
of existing on-site systems, it is imperative that you first
determine the cause of failure or unsatisfactory perfor-
mance. The extent of field investigations depends on the
nature of the problem and the age and type of the sewage
system being studied. In particular, many problems center
around improper siting, installation, hydraulic overloading
and lack of maintenance.
When going into the field, determine the frequency of
the problem before pinpointing the cause. Problems may
be: continuous; increasing with time; or noticeable only
during wet weather periods. Problems of a continuous
nature are sometimes difficult to diagnose, and may need
a considerable amount of information from the field; For
these problems a site investigation and soil testing is
necessary to determine whether the problem is due to
improper siting, design or installation. If the system func-
tioned properly for a year or longer, check for hydraulic
overloading or maintenance-related problems. Problems
of a periodic nature are often easier to diagnose and repair
than continuous problems. Since the system works prop-
erly for periods of time, faulty design and installation are
31
-------
PHASE III
STEPS IN
EVALUATION
OF ALTERNATIVES
STEP 1.
EVALUATE
ENGINEERING
ALTERNATIVES
IN DETAIL
Conduct detailed site surveys
Develop site-specific costs for all
facilities
Apply affordability criteria
STEP 2.
IDENTIFY PREFERRED
MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE
• Review existing institutional
structure
• Define available authorities
• Evaluate staff expertise and
availability
• Address management
requirements of grants if used
• Receive input on public attitudes
STEP 3.
SELECT BEST
FINANCING TECHNIQUE
• Evaluate community/agency
financial condition
• Review financial authorities
• Evaluate grant eligibility and
feasibility
STEP 4.
ASSEMBLE
ENGINEERING/MANAGEMENT/
FINANCING PACKAGE
• Determine any managamcnt
requirements of selected
engineering alternative
• Consider financial requirements of
selected engineering alternative
FIGURE 7
not likely sources of the problem. Poor performance in
these situations is often due to poor siting, improper main-
tenance or excessive water use and/or groundwater
infiltration.
When troubleshooting problems in the field, you must
look at the absorption area to determine the surface and
subsurface drainage characteristics of the site as well as
that of the adjacent land. Initially, you must determine if the
surface drains or runoff from adjacent areas and rooftops
accumulate on or near the absorption area. Use a rule and
hand level to take spot elevations that will precisely deter-
mine flow paths and directions. Also check physical dam-
age. Driving heavy equipment, constructing paved areas,
or building over septic tanks and absorption areas can
collapse both tanks and laterals. This can cause partial or
complete failure of the sewage system.
Uneven wastewater distribution is another souce of
system failure. Therefore, you should evaluate the distribu-
tion system. In gravity systems, laterals and distribution
boxes may have settled thereby overloading a segment of
the system. Check septic tanks and cesspools for structur-
al integrity, tightness (i.e. waterproof), existence and con-
dition of baffles which frequently deteriorate and fall out of
their designed locations. Then you must use either hand
tools or a backhoe to determine the physical properties of
the soils (e.g. texture, structure, depth and permeability)
and to identify restrictive features such as high water
tables, excessive or fractured rock and clay pans.
Once these site analyses are completed, you need to
determine the best methods to renovate the system. Var-
ious techniques are listed on Figure 8. The overall feasibil-
ity of the renovation alternative is determined by listing the
number of systems involved, the source of problems
determined from the site work and the probable renovation
techniques. If most systems can be rehabilitated with fairly
basic procedures, renovation is a preferred alternative.
The field work required to evaluate new on-site systems
is outlined in the various state standards, rules and regula-
tions governing the use of sewage treatment and disposal
facilities. In siting future small-scale sewage facilities, you
should review the preliminary information gathered during
the needs assessment phase. Vou can then begin the
detailed field testing needed to describe and map the
characteristics of the site as well as to develop specific
information pertaining to the future design of the sewage
facilities. The site analysis procedures are similar to the
activities just described. A recommended step-by-step
procedure and site requirements for various on-site sys-
tems are included io- Appendix E.
For a larger system such as multi-family dwellings,
schools and small businesses, more detailed testing is
required to ensure proper treatment and disposal. Many
mountain region communities have shallow unsaturated
soil depths due to rock or high water table. Here subsequent
groundwater mounding may cause flooding when larger
sewage volumes are added to the soil. In aH cases, a study
of groundwater and geology should be conducted to:
32
-------
• Determine the wastewater characteristics
• Establish background ground/soil water character-
istics
• Define aquifer recharge characteristics
• Determine lithographic and fracturing features
• Establish aquifer permeabilities
• Establish groundwater flow patterns
• Identify possible monitoring locations
When considering clustering or grouping of sewage
facilities, perform a site investigation similar to that de-
scribed above for individual systems. Pay particular atten-
tion to the type and volume of wastewater generated.
Larger waste flows can be treated by septic tanks, sand
filters, lagoons and package plants. Based on the treat-
ment mechanism considered in the design proposal, field
testing is needed to confirm the validity of using such
techniques for the project. In all instances, determine the
characteristics of the site. Briefly, soil absorption systems
and lagoons may be land intensive. On the other hand,
sand filters may be buried and take up little surface area.
When considering grouping sewage facilities, determine
how the wastewater will be collected from individual sour-
ces and conveyed to the treatment facility. Field surveys
and soil borings will be needed to evaluate the potential
routes of wastewater conveyance. Where depths to rock
and groundwater are limited you may want to consider
shallow-placed pressure sewers that use STEP systems
or grinder pumps.
Information collected during the analysis will allow you
to determine the feasibility of on-site systems on a site-
specific basis, On-site systems may not be suitable for
many homes and businesses or many cluster or more
complex on-site systems may be required. In such com-
munities small community systems or a centralized facility
may be preferable.
If some form of on-site system appears feasible for your
community, you will also need to evaluate the feasibility of
septage disposal. Septage is the solid material which
accumulates in the septic tank. For the system to operate
properly, the septage must be pumped out every few
years. Without timely removal, the solids will flow into the
drainfield, clogging the holes in the distribution pipe. The
need for proper septage disposal will be particularly signif-
icant in communities where proper O&M of on-site sys-
tems is performed and the septic tanks are emptied in a
timely manner.
Septage can be properly disposed of in many ways. If
your community has a central treatment facility or is close
METHODS OF SOIL ABSORPTION FIELD REHABILITATION
FAILURE NOTED
DETERMINE FAILURE
FREQUENCY
SOURCE EPA DESIGN MANUAL ONSITE
WAMCWAIER IREAIMENT AND «
DISPOSAl SYSTEMS OC1 1980 FIGURE 8
33
-------
to one, the septage may be disposed there. Check with the
plant operator to make sure that the dosage of material will
not disrupt proper treatment functions at the plant.
Septage may also be applied directly to the surface or
just below the surface of farm and forest land. It is prefera-
ble to inactivate the septage before land application by
anaerobic digestion or stabilization with lime or other
amendments. The feasibility of land application is primarily
determined by the same soil, geology and climate factors
considered in evaluating on-site systems. Where these
systems are feasible, land application will generally also
be feasible.
Composting with woodchips, leaves, garbage or other
bulking agents is another approved disposal technique.
This process results in a dry, odor and pathogen-free
material which can be beneficially used as a soil amend-
ment. Septage can also be treated by anerobic digestion in
special biogas treatment facilities. Biogas digesters are
becoming more and more common in rural areas espe-
cially on dairy farms where livestock and household
wastes are used to produce biogas to heat homes, green-
houses and dairies. Biogas can also be compressed to
form methane for fueling equipment and powering electri-
cal generators. Large volumes of methane can produce
enough electricity for an entire small community with sur-
plus power being sold to 9 local power utility. The residual
product from this digestion process can then be land
applied and provide a source of plant nutrients. Septage
may also be applied directly to croplands, pastures, wood-
lands and disturbed lands such as unreclaimed strip
mines where the soil has lost valuable nutrient-rich topsoil.
Septage with its organic material and nutrient content can
restore or improve these lands and enrich plant growth.
When using septage in agricultural activities, liquid forms
can be directly injected into the plant root zone using
conventional liquid manure injections. Subsurface injec-
tion of septage adds valuable nutrients and water to sub-
surface soil horizons for subsequent plant root utilization.
Liquid or dewatered septage and sludge can be spread
directly on grasses and other forage crops after cutting
and harvesting. This topdressing of septage serves as a
source of nutrients, organic material and moisture for
supporting subsequent crop stands.
These disposal techniques are preferred, but they can
add to the cost of managing on-site systems. Stabilized
septage may also be disposed of in approved landfills.
With this technique, no beneficial reuse is obtained, but
costs are held down.
The evaluation of small community and centralized sys-
tems requires analysis of some of the same issues dis-
cussed above as well as a number of new considerations.
The primary issue here is the cost of the collection system.
This cost is influenced by the type of system selected and
its constructability. Carry out a windshield survey to evalu-
ate topographic details and to better determine excavation
depths required to provide adequate pipe slope through
undulating terrain. Soil borings along proposed sewer
alignments will reveal the type of material to be excavated
and tell whether rock needs to be removed. From this
information you can determine whether large gravity sew-
ers are necessary and feasible or if small diameter gravity
or pressure sewers are required.
Next consider the treatment plant location. Develop
rough size estimates and visit alternative land parcels of
adequate size. The best site is flat, fairly level, away from
homes and convenient to the point of discharge but pref-
erably out of the floodplain. Floodplain sites may be feasi-
ble if they can be'economically flood-proofed and if con-
struction is not prohibited by floodplain ordinances. Collect
information on land costs at this time. Remember, EPA
grants do not apply to land purchase.
You will also need to consider the feasibility of dis-
charge locations for small community and centralized
systems. The characteristics of the receiving stream and
the discharge limits specified by the state will have a major
impact on the feasibility of this approach. You may want to
check other discharges along the stream reach that would
receive your community's discharge. Also, you may want
to sample ambient water quality in the stream (particularly
during low flows) and review the existing water quality
classification and corresponding standards. With this
information you can meet with state water quality officials
to better define potential discharge limits. At the same
time, determine any state concerns regarding a discharge,
such as potential adverse effects of residual chlorine in
the discharge.
The last issue to evaluate is the feasibility of sludge
disposal. Sludge is the term applied to the more solid
residual material produced by a treatment plant. Sludge is
similar to septage which was discussed under Alterna-
tives 1 -4. Disposal techniques are similar to those for
septage. It is important to recognize that a solids disposal
plan is an integral component of management for both
on-site and centralized facilities.
Once the alternatives have been evaluated, you can
develop final, site-specific costs. You now know the actual
number of rehabilitations required and the remedial meas-
ures necessary for on-site alternatives. You also know the
number of new septic tank-soil absorption systems
needed and how many and what types of alternative
on-site systems are needed. The number of cluster or
small community systems are now defined along with the
number of homes served, the types of treatment technol-
ogy, and the method of effluent disposal. For centralized
systems, you now know the specifics of the collection and
treatment systems afrd the type and location of discharge.
For all systems, you can now estimate land costs.
With this more detailed cost data you should go back
and refine the original cost estimates. You may also need
to generate net present worth costs in addition to the total
annual costs developed in Phase 2. Present worth costs
alllow you to evenly compare the cost to your community
today of alternative systems which may have different
operating lives and different comparative levels of O&M
34
-------
and capital costs. If you anticipate EPA funding, present
worth costs will be required.
The final issue to consider is the relative impact of these
finalized costs and their affordability to the community. The
affordability criteria discussed in Phase 2 should be ap-
plied to the final cost estimates. If an EPA grant is utilized,
you need to select the engineering alternative with the
lowest present worth cost. If other financing techniques
are used, you may have a greater choice. In rural moun-
tain communities the best engineering approach is the
one which can adequately treat and dispose of the com-
munity's wastewater with the lowest possible charge to
local residents.
Identifying the Preferred Management Alternative
Selecting a preferred management alternative involves
making decisions on a wide variety of issues. First you
should consider the existing institutional structure within
the community. In other words, determine which public
management agencies currently serve the area. Then
develop a list of these agencies and their service area and
responsibilities. These agencies may include:
• city agency
• county agency
• interlocal agreement
• joint management agency
• county service district
• county water & sewer district
• sanitary district
• water & sewer authority
• metropolitan water district
• metropolitan sewerage district
• private corporation
• combination of above.
In general, each of these entities is some variation of a
municipal agency, public authority, special district, joint
management agency or private corporation. Their charac-
teristics are described in detail in Volume III ofthe/Wfema-
tives Development Report.
The local health department is one agency which exists
in all communities within the study area. It oversees state
regulations for ground absorption wastewater disposal
systems. Most counties have an individual health director
and supervising sanitarian. Others may be part of a health
district and share staff with one or more counties. Regard-
less of the arrangement, the supervising sanitarian will be
familiar with all aspects of on-site wastewater disposal.
Contact with the sanitarian, along with the county execu-
tive, town mayors and other government heads is the
fastest way to inventory existing managment agencies.
Once the inventory is complete, decide whether any one
of these existing agencies could adequately manage new
wastewater facilities. In some communities—particularly
where more than one incorporated jurisdiction is involved-
establishment of a new agency, such as a joint manage-
ment agency or special district, should be considered
Next, consider the authority available to these local
agencies. An agency cannot carry out management func-
tions unless it is permitted to by state laws and regulations.
Although it may be possible for new laws to be passed
authorizing additional management functions, it is better to
select a management alternative with adequate regulatory
authority.
The authorities all agencies need to properly manage
wastewater systems include:
• to own, purchase, lease and rent both real and per-
sonal property,
• to meet the eligibility requirements for loans and
grants for construction of wastewater—particularly
decentralized—systems from both federal and state
governments,
• to enter into contracts, undertake dept obligations
either by borrowing and/or by issuing stock shares or
bonds, and to sue and be sued,
• to fix and collect charges for sewerage usage, includ-
ing taxes for payment of construction of decentral-
ized systems and user charges,
• to operate and maintain installed units,
35
-------
• to plan and control how and at what time wastewater
facilities will be extended to property within the juris-
diction,
• to regulate the planning, design, construction and
operation, and maintenance of decentralized sys-
tems, and
• to have right of entry onto private property to inspect
for adequate performance in the operation and main-
tenance of wastewater facilties.
Direct discussions with local officials will help determine
which authorities are available to existing agencies. Con-
tact directors of the agencies identified above, the city or
county attorney, and if necessary, the state attorney gen-
eral s office. You can also review reports, law digests and
the state laws directly. Reference information for study
areas states include:
• Tennessee State Code, Chapters 13,16,34,81 and
82.
• Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapters 74 and 76.
• Wastewater Management in Coastal North Carolina.
• South Carolina Code of Laws. 1976 and 1984 Sup-
plements. Chapter 31, Section 10 and up.
• Constitution of Georgia. 1983. Article 9. Section 2,
Paragraph 3.
• Official Code of Georgia, annotated. Section 36-34-5.
• Code of Alabama. Title 11.
Volume III of the Alternatives Development Report devel-
oped a series of tables that identify the authorities for each
type of agency for all six states within the study area.
These tables are included in Appendix F.
Research and discussions with local officials will allow
you to list authorities available to all of the existing agen-
cies within the community. If none of the agencies have
adequate authority to carry out the necessary manage-
ment functions, decide whether you can put in place a
more broadly authorized public body. The county or state
attorney will be able to provide guidance regarding other
public bpdies that may be established and tell which
authorities are available.
Next, evaluate the availability of existing agency staff
and their expertise. In other words, how many staff
members are in the local management agencies arid what
are they trained to do? The objective is to determine
whether the existing agencies can provide properly skilled
manpower to carry out the desired management func-
tions.
Although a wide range of capabilities may be necessary
to properly manage wastewater facilities, many basic
functions can be performed by the present staff. Many
administrative functions can be handled by existing
aaency secretarial staff. Often one person can assume
numerous management functions. Sanitarians can be-
come planners, engineers and regulators. Management
alternatives which require greater supervision and regula-
tion of systems may need more staff time and specialized
expertise The information presented on Table 7 will help
you estimate the types of skills and the amount of staff time
required for particular management functions. Resource
requirements for different management alternatives are
discussed in Volume III of the Alternatives Development
Qpnort
Using Table 7 as a starting point, you should ask the
directors of existing management agencies about their
staff availability and expertise. If you are the county health
director or sanitarian, look first within your own agency.
Your staff will probably be sufficient to carry out most of the
necessary management functions. Existing county health
department or municipal public works department staff
may be able to perform all functions up to and including
supervision of required O&M procedures. Increased staff
will probably be necessary for public performance of O&M
or public ownership of systems.
Staff availability and expertise should be as extensive as
possible. Consider all sources of potential assistance,
including the staffs of county or municipal agencies, other
than water and wastewater departments, regional agen-
cies; U.S. Soil Conservation Service and Agriculture
Extension Service; as well as other state or federal agency
personnel.
II sufficient staff resources are not identified, you have
four options. First, select another alternative. Second, rec-
ognize that you may need to hire additional staff to imple-
ment a particular alternative. Third, contract with a private
firm to carry out certain management functions, Fourth,
recognize that an entirely new management agency with
new personnel will be required.
Next, management requirements of state or federal
agencies are addressed. If the project needs funding
assistance to be cost-effective you must provide the
management functions which the funding agency re-
quires. In the case of EPA, for example, if on-site or cluster
treatment systems are proposed, performance of the fol-
lowing management functions will be required:
• assuming responsibility for the systems including
proper installation, operation and maintenance
• assuring that systems will be constructed, operated
and maintained to protect underground potable
water sources
• developing a user charge system
• obtaining reasonable access to all systems
• establishing a comprehensive management and
periodic inspection program including water well
testing.
36
-------
EPA also has specific management requirements for
grants covering conventional collection and treatment
systems. Refer to Construction Grants, 1985 and EPA
grants regulations: 40 CFR, Parts 30 and 35. Refer to
Appendix C for a list of data sources.
If FmHA grant or loan funds are being applied to the
project, follow that agency's management requirements.
FmHA requirements for loan and grant assistance are set
out in regulations contained in 7 CFR 1942 A and 1942 H.
Primary guidance in 1942 A addresses most issues of
concern including eligibility requirements, fundable pro-
jects and application procedures. These documents are
available from the local FmHA offices listed in Appendix A.
Other state and federal agencies may also have man-
agement requirements which you should consider. Refer
to the fact sheets on financing alternatives presented in
Volume IV of the Alternatives Development Report. The
agency contacts listed can provide further information on
management requirements.
The last issue to consider when evaluating manage-
ment alternatives is public attitudes. The citizens of the
community must accept the management alternative for it
to succeed.
To best gauge public response to various management
alternatives, seek input from a citizen advisory committee
(CAC) and hold public meetings or workshops. Input from
TABLE 7
Personnel Requirements for Management of Small-scale Sewage Facilities
Function
Person-days
Required
Personnel
Required1
Comments
Problem Identification ,1-.5/system
(Sanitary survey)
System Planning and Design
Planning .25-.5
Design Conventional Systems .25-1 /system
Design I/A Systems ,5-2/system
Construction/Installation
Inspection ,2/each
Installation 3-8/system
Permitting ,5/permit
Operation and Maintenance N.E.2
Monitoring and Compliance
Water Quality Monitoring
-Well .1 /well
-Surface water N.E.2
Enforcement 2/violation
Public Education .5/month
g,h,k,m,n Inspect site, drainfield and
wells; interview homeowner
c,f,k,m Preliminary site investigation,
site mapping, soil analysis
a,m Sewage facility design after
site analysis completed
a,m
d Number may vary dependent
g.h.i.o on type and size of system
b,c,f,k,m Involves time involved in permit
issuance only
d,f,g,j,l Dependent on level of involve-
ment and type of systems
d,j,k,o Sample collection and analysis
d.j.k.o Dependent on type and size of
water body and other factors
b,c,d,e Involves inspection and
court time
c,k Public meetings and
development of information
materials
'Personnel Required
a -Civil/Sanitary Engineers
b -Clerks
c -Administrators
d -Inspectors
2N.E. = Not Estimatable.
e -Attorney
f -Soil Scientist
g -Laborers
h -Equipment Operators
i -Plumbers
j - Laboratory Technicians
k -Environmental Planner
I -Wastewater System Operators
m -Sanitarian
n -Volunteers
Source: Adapted from Technical Reference Document, Final-generic Environmental Impact Statement, Wastewater Management
in Rural Lake Areas, Volume II, U.S. EPA Region V, 1983.
37
-------
a CAC throughout the development and evaluation pro-
cess can help ensure that the alternatives being consi-
dered are understood and generally accepted by the
community. Describe the different management alterna-
tives at a public meeting so citizens understand their
responsibilities. Citizens will better accept increased con-
trols over on-site systems when the existing problems and
needs are described and when the reason tor greater
control is understood. Local residents want assurance
that burdens and benefits fall evenly upon all.
The public is often particularly concerned about access
to private property or public ownership of on-site facilities.
You may decide to drop public ownership of individual
systems from further consideration based on input
received at public meetings. Perhaps even cluster sys-
tems would be better controlled by a homeowners organi-
zation than by a public agency. If there is substantial
citizen concern regarding public operation and mainte-
nance of on-site systems, it may be best to select a
management alterntive where O&M are supervised by the
public agency instead of directly performed by the agency.
Techniques such as a revocable operating license may
be feasible. Here, the owner must prove to the manage-
ment agency that proper O&M have been carried out. The
actual work itself can be performed by the homeowner or
certified septage hauler or installation contractor. Other
techniques include:
• maintenance permit forms
• permit to operate
• maintenance personnel certification.
These are described in Volume III of the Alternatives
Development Report.
During Phase 2 management alternatives were
screened based on compatibility with the feasible engi-
neering alternatives and suitability to the significant natural
and man-made features. At this point, the remaining alter-
natives can be evaluated based on available authority,
local expertise, and public acceptance.
Conventional homeowner-centered management
has no requirements for additional authority or expertise.
In most communities it should be highly acceptable to
local citizens. In communities where renovations or new
on-site systems are implemented with homeowner fund-
ing, homeowner management will probably be the pre-
ferred alternative. However, caution is raised. Where pub-
lic funds are used to develop on-site systems and the
costs are retired over time, homeowner-centered man-
agement may not provide sufficent assurance that the
systems will continue to function adequately throughout
the payback period. To protect the public investment, a
greater degree of management will be required. Some of
this approach's limitations may be overcome if the local
health department aggressivley enforces existing siting
and installation regulations. To choose a preferred man-
agement approach for on-site systems, we suggest that:
• homeowner-centered management may be approp-
riate for privately financed septic tank-soil absorption
systems in communities with suitable natural and
man-made conditions
• more extensive public responsibility may be neces-
sary where public funds are utilized or local condi-
tions require more complex engineering technolo-
gies
• in communities with lower levels of income and edu-
cation, proper management of on-site systems may
require greater levels of public involvement.
The conventional system with monitoring is the next
management system alternative. This approach provides
a slightly increased level of control over facilities. It also
requires more public agency involvement and perhaps an
increase in agency staff to carry out the regular monitoring
activities. In most states, public health departments can
perform system monitoring without increased authority.
Since the level of public activity remains low, this
approach should be acceptable to even skeptical citizens.
Where conventional management is not being considered
because of citizen concerns, engineering requirements or
local physical features, the conventional approach with
monitoring may be an acceptable alternative.
Private ownership with monitoring and required opera-
tion and maintenance is the next step in terms of public
control. As discussed above, the public monitoring func-
tion may be performed with little increase in agency staff.
Depending on the state, additional regulatory authority
may be needed before a public agency can require pre-
ventative maintenance or certain operating procedures.
Because agency personnel do not need to directly access
private property, required O&M may be a feasible man-
agement approach where citizens are concerned with
extensive government controls. Overall, this alternative
may be the most satisfactory middle-of-the-road ap-
proach for communities where natural and man-made
features limit conventional management.
Private ownership with public operation and mainte-
nance will require most local agencies to increase their staff
to perform the maintenance functions. Regulatory author-
ity over public operation and maintenance of systems on
private property is not clearly defined in each state. To
determine the need for additional authorities, refer to the
tables on agency authorities included in Appendix F for
preliminary guidance and follow-up with staff of the state
attorney's office. This management approach may not
work in communities where the public strongly opposes
increased government activities. Health-related compli-
ance activites may be required in these areas.
The final managment alternative is full public-sector
management. This approach is generally taken in com-
munities where a centralized collection and treatment
system is used. Full public management of small commun-
ity or centralized systems is quite typical and does not
38
-------
require increased authorities for most local agencies. Staff
increases, however, are likely to be significant. Full public
management of on-site systems is another matter. Author-
ity to publicly own on-site systems is not clear. Only North
Carolina expressly permits full public management. In
other states, authorities will need to be clarified and possi-
bly augmented before this alternative is viable. Significant
expansion of staff will probably be required as well. For all
these reasons, this alternative may not be the preferred
approach to managing on-site systems. Even in communi-
ties where local needs and physical limitations are great,
the previous two alternatives will probably provide ade-
quate management. To implement full public manage-
ment, even in communities such as these, a substantial
public education effort to overcome citizen concerns may
be needed.
Privatization is an alternative to public ownership of
centralized facilities which may be an attractive alternative
for many communities. It transfers the management and
other responsibilities to a private contractor who carries
out management functions for all types of facilities: on-site;
cluster; small community; or centralized. If your community
can afford reasonable user fees, you may want to request
privatization proposals from private firms.
Selecting the Best Financing Technique
The third step in the evaluation process is to select the
best financing technique for the community. To make the
proper selection, consider the following factors:
• the community's financial condition
• available financial authority
• eligibility for and availability of financial assistance.
Begin financial evaluation by developing a profile of the
community's financial condition. Volume IV of the Alterna-
tives Development Report presents a financial evaluation
worksheet on page 5-33. A reprint of EPA's financial plan-
ning checklist is also included in Appendix IV-B of that
report. These two reference sources provide an excellent
step-by-step procedure to use in evaluating your com-
munity's financial condition. EPA also has developed a
Wastewater Facilities Financial Information Sheet (Fed-
eral Register February 17, 1984) which is an approved
format for documenting financial capability of the com-
munity. See Appendix C for the source for this document.
The objective of this first step is to estimate how much
the community can afford to pay to build and maintain
wastewater facilities. Even if the community is counting on
state or federal financial assistance, it still must demon-
strate overall financial health, and be prepared to finance
the local share of the total project cost.
Examine information such as household income, prop-
erty values, community growth and development, public
revenues and expenditures, and total assets to gauge the
community's financial condition. Specific financial data
reviewed should include:
• state or local legal limitations on debt
• net direct and overlapping tax-supported debt per
capita,
• percentage of current property tax delinquency,
• percentage of debt service on tax-supported debt to
total revenues of the community's operating budget,
• average life of existing tax-supported debt in terms of
general obligation bonds,
• the ratio of projected revenues to the total annual
debt service, and
• the ratio of the depreciated value of the community's
revenue producing facilities to the outstanding (re-
maining) bonded indebtedness of the facilities.
The second issue concerns available financial authori-
ties. Here you need to determine whether the agency
which will carry out the project has the authority to issue
bonds and notes; impose assessments; levy taxes; set
fees, rates and charges; enter into contracts and hold
property. In most states, public agencies may set fees,
enter into contracts and hold property. Bonding Authority
and taxing power, however, are much more limited. Coun-
ties and municipalities generally have these authorities.
Health departments do not. For other management agen-
cies, the authority will vary from state-to-state. In some
states an agency may issue revenue bonds but, unless
the agency has taxing power, it does not have the authority
to issue general obligation bonds. The tables of agency
authorities in Appendix C provide a preliminary indication
of financing capabilities. Further information can be
obtained from the agency's attorney.
The final factor concerns the agency's eligibility to
receive grant or loan funds, and the feasibility or likelihood
of the funds being provided. Refer to the agency authority
tables in Appendix C for a presentation of grant-eligible
agencies. In general, funds from the u.s. Department of
Housing and Community Development under the Com-
munity Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) are
available only to county and municipal governments. EPA
funds are available to a wider range of agencies. FmHA
funds may be available to the greatest number of groups
including profit and non-profit community organizations
and developers. Further information on eligibility for EPA
construction grant funds is contained in the regulations for
the program published in the February 17, 1984 Federal
Register. (See Sections 35.2000a and 35.2005b[27].)
FmHA eligibility requirements are listed in 7 CFR, 1942
subparts A and H.
The second half of this issue of assistance availability is
the feasibility of receiving a grant and the timeframe
involved. Even if your community agency is eligible to
39
-------
receive financial assistance, it does not mean that its
application will be approved or that funds would be availa-
ble in a reasonable timeframe.
EPA grants are awarded to communities on the basis of
a state priority list procedure. States annually develop a
project priority list with one section indicating projects to
be funded from the current annual allotment and a second
portion listing other projects anticipated to be funded from
future fund allotments. Each state submits its priority list to
EPA by August 31 of each year to allow the Regional
Administrator sufficient time for review prior to the beginning
of the next fiscal year on October 1.
In most states similar priority rating schemes are used
for large and small communities. However, the rating
procedures are changing to better address those small
communities without any centralized collection and treat-
ment facilities. In Tennessee, for example, a greater
number of rating points are given to communities with
serious public health problems resulting from failing septic
systems.
Following the priority rating of a particular project, the
states then assemble a priority ranking list of all applicants
for construction grants under the Federal Construction
Grants Program. This listing is then used to allocate monies
available from each state's general grant fund. In many
states, only the top five or so projects are fundable in any
one fiscal year. Although some added preference in rating
is now being given to small community or I/A projects, as
the above example from Tennessee shows, in general,
state priority list procedures tend to favor large-scale waste-
water facility projects serving metropolitan areas, EPA
does require that certain amounts of state funds be
reserved for innovative or alternative projects and for small
community projects. Since most states establish separate
priority lists for these categories of projects, your communi-
ty's project would be more likely to receive funding if it is
eligible for small community or I/A set-aside funds. See
the state contacts listed in Appendix A for further advice
on the feasibility of your community's receiving EPA fund-
ing assistance.
Although FmHA loans are specifically targeted to rural
communities, the total amount of grant and loan funds
available is much less than from EPA, so the likelihood of
receiving assistance is only slightly better. For both the
grant and loan program, FmHA allocates money to each
individual state. The amount to each state varies, based on
population and number of households below the poverty
level. Each community must apply for a grant or loan at the
state level. (See Appendix A for a list of state FmHA
contacts.) The state FmHA office prioritizes applications
based on# ranking system set forth in federal guidelines.
The priority system has three major categories:
• population
• existence and extent of present health hazard
• income.
Points awarded vary within each category. For example,
the smaller the community, the greater the number of
points awarded. The same is true for communities with low
median family incomes.
Other factors for which points are awarded include.
• merging of two or more small facilities
• enlargement or extension of existing facility
• public body, Indian tribe or truly rural area
• private sector financing.
To look into funding assistance from other federal or state
programs refer to the contact persons indicated on fact
sheets following page 5-36 of Volume IV of the Alterna-
tives Development Report.
Based on the information gathered on the community's
financial condition, financial authorities and eligibility for
funding assistance, you can now decide which overall
financing approach offers the best potential. If the selected
management agency is not eligible for funding, select
another agency or recognize that major federal funding is
not a feasible financing alternative.
If your community is grant eligible, you should first evaluate
the major federal assistance and the limited state/federal
assistance alternatives. Major federal assistance up to
100 percent is available from FmHA, or as a 75 percent
grant from EPA. This represents a conventional 55 per-
cent grant plus 20 percent I/A add on
You should probably assume that a large FmHA grant is
not a likely financing alternative because of the very
limited total grant funds available. For smaller projects
though, FmHA may be available. A 75 percent grant from
EPA may be possible if l/A technology is part of your
engineering alternatives. The number of projects funded
each year is small, however, and it could be more than five
years before funding is available.
Limited state or federal funding is probably a more
realistic alternative for most small communities. All of the
study area states except Alabama have some form of
grant or loan program for wastewater facilities. The
amounts available are limited, however, and generally are
used to help match federal funds already secured. Clearly,
these state programs will not serve as an acceptable
financing approach on their own.
Smaller grants from EPA may actually be less likely than
larger ones. Unless a rural community is on the separate
l/A funding list, it"tfill have a very hard time competing
against major metropolitan areas for EPA funds. Limited
federal funding from other sources, however, such as a
small FmHA grant or CDBG funds on a yearly basis may
be a very realistic financing alternative for smalt rural
communities.
Even if some funding assistance is secured, the com-
munity will still need to raise a portion of the capital costs
itself and support the entire burden of O&M costs. General
Obligation (G.O.) bonds or revenue bonds are usually
used for local financing of capital costs.
40
-------
In general, it may be difficult for small rural communities
to issue bonds. Discussions with the county or city attor-
ney and the state public service commission may help
evaluate the feasibility. We also recommend consultation
with a bonding attorney. G.O. bonds are repaid from
general tax revenue, and are backed by the community's
full faith and credit (taxing power). To evaluate the feasibil-
ity of issuing a G.O. bond, you should examine the com-
munity's taxable base, debt ratio and level and reliability of
tax collections. If these conditions are favorable, a G.O.
bond may be feasible. Because General Obligation bonds
are more secure, they are more saleable. You should
recognize, however, that voter approval is generally
required to issue G.O. bonds. The public often responds
negatively to any action which may increase taxes. One
alternative—which has been used in Tennessee—is to
issue secure G.O. bonds, but to pay them off using
revenues. In this way property taxes are not affected. The
public may accept this approach more readily for local
financing.
Revenue bonds are paid for through user charges. They
are more risky and carry a higher interest rate because
they are solely backed by the revenue and solvency of the
selling agency. Based on the Case Study Report, we
detemrined that "appropriate technology" solutions are
inexpensive enough that most study area residents can
afford both O&M costs and retirement of capital costs.
Based on this analysis, a revenue bond may be a feasible
approach. However, small communities with a weak
financial picture probably cannot sell revenue bonds. If
they can, the interest rate will probably be quite high.
Privatization is the final alternative to evaluate. This is
the most applicable to communities in good financial con-
dition with reasonable household incomes. It has only
been applied to centralized or small community facilities,
although in theory, it could be applied to on-site systems
as well. Factors determining the feasibility of private-
sector funding are similar to the basic financial indicators
discussed above. Appendix G includes a checklist of the
factors you should evaluate.
The final step in the evaluation process is to assemble a
complete engineering/management/financing package.
This is where separate components of the solution are put
together to select the best alternative. In considering the
preferred engineering alternative, ask whether it can be
put in place using the best management and financing
techniques. Here, you must face the financial reality of
expensive engineering systems. A total package which
includes a centralized system and limited local financing
probably will not work. Likewise, a package providing for
numerous publicly financed, complex on-site systems will
not work in a community where homeowner management
is the only implementable alternative.
Guidance has been provided on this interrelationship of
alternatives throughout the preceding sections. Hopefully
you have found a feasible package. If the package you
assembled does not fit or if it is not feasible, try again. Go
back through the previous steps and reconsider the
impact of one alternative on the other, and then reevaluate
all feasible alternatives. Then put the three alternatives
together again. Once you have achieved a fit, you are
ready to implement the package.
41
-------
42
-------
Phase IV:
IMPLEMENTING THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Overview of the Implementation Process
The final phase in solving your community's wastewater
problems is implementing the preferred alternative. Steps
must now be taken to move the selected alternative from
the planning stage to reality. Figure 9 is a diagram which
shows the sequence of steps followed in this process. A
wide variety of activities are involved in the implementation
process. Each activity is extremely important and critical
to the success of the project. Improper implementation of
these steps will sabotage even a well-planned project.
Develop Local Support and Public Acceptance
Perhaps the most important step in the implementation
process is public involvement. Regardless of the commu-
nity's needs and validity of the selected alternative, plans
will not be implemented unless the citizens accept the
proposal, and are willing to pay for it. To ensure public
acceptance, we suggest you communicate with citizens
and make sure that they understand what you are doing.
You can do this by establishing a citizens' advisory com-
mittee (CAC) during the first phase of the planning pro-
cess. The CAC should be made up of recognized com-
munity leaders from local constituencies including church
and community organizations, environmental groups, and
business and development interests.
During each phase of the problem-solving process
there will be numerous critical points that must be
communicated to the CAC and other community resi-
dents. At each of these points you must adequately com-
municate with, and educate, the public regarding the pro-
ject response to these issues.
The first critical point is during the needs assessment
phase. Here, you must convince the public to do some-
thing to improve existing wastewater management practic-
es. The best way to achieve widespread recognition of
problems is to convincingly demonstrate the need. Pres-
enting results of a sanitary survey or water quality sam-
pling data are not techniques which will spur a community
to action. More successful approaches include designat-
ing certain citizens as "stream watchers" who monitor
specific stream reaches and report obvious water quality
or public health threats. North Carolina, for example, has
established a very successful state-wide stream watch
program to get the public directly involved in water quality
monitoring.
A field trip can also be useful in conveying needs. Show
the CAC members straight pipes and gray streams with
fecal material and toilet paper. Another alternative with
good potential is to distribute dye packets to school chil-
dren. As part of a class project on health or environmental
problems, ask the children to flush the dye down the toilet
at home. If dye blooms appear in backyards, ditches and
local streams, the public has proof of local problems.
The CAC may be called on to develop alternatives of its
own. Where on-site systems are feasible, property owners
43
-------
PHASE IV
STEPS IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
FACILITIES OPERATION
AND OTHER ONGOING
RESPONSIBILITIES
• Staff requirements
• O & M procedures
• Ongoing functions
FIGURE 9
will want to be involved in selecting the facilities required
on their property. Their first opportunity for this will likely be
public meetings during the alternatives development
phase. At this time, review technologies selected on a
tentative basis with interested owners. Maps indicating the
tentative selections should be posted at the meetings for
this purpose. Be prepared to explain the basis of selection
and to discuss additional steps that will confirm or modify
the selection. If on-site systems are feasible, the next step
is a detailed site analysis, This may require minor excava-
tion and other property disturbances. Therefore, property
owners should be notified so they may agree and be
present. Care in preserving the property's appearance at
this point as well as during construction will help preserve
the owner's cooperation.
When you evaluate the feasible alternatives, request the
CAC to recommend specific evaluation factors which best
reflect the values of the community. Ask what is most
important in your community: total costs; who pays; abso-
lute environmental quality; public health; or aesthetic
issues. Use all available lines of communication to convey
your understanding of community values and to solicit
further community response. Newspaper coverage of pro-
ject needs and alternative solutions can be extremely
helpful. Throughout this process, recognition and under-
standing of what the community values most is critical to
the project's success.
Obtaining Financing Assistance
Once you have selected the alternative and have
received a public vote of confidence, you can start putting
the plan into practice. Now you should apply for financial
assistance, and put together local financing packages and
user charge systems.
Application for grant or loan assistance should be
addressed first. If the preferred alternative requires major
federal funding or limited state or federal assistance, you
need formal grant applications. If the alternative needs
only local funds, you still may want to apply for funding
assistance because it could further lower the user
charges. Most communities must apply for EPA funds
when planning and design are complete, but small com-
munities that cannot afford planning and design fees may
apply earlier for An "allowance" to cover these costs. EPA
needs to know how you plan to fund the local share of
project costs as part of the application. For the purposes of
EPA funding, assume local funding will be required for
either 25 percent or 45 percent of project costs depending
upon whether you qualify for greater l/A funding. Chapter
13 of Construction Grants, 1985 provides detailed guid-
ance on the procedures required to apply for EPA funds.
This document identifies all the materials that must be
included with the application, and provides additional ref-
erences on EPA application procedures. Once you apply,
you will be placed on the state priority list. Projects are
STEP 1.
DEVELOP LOCAL
SUPPORT AND
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
• Developing an advisory committee
• Public participation/education
techniques
STEP 2.
OBTAIN FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE
Apply for grants/loans
Implement local financing
Establish user charge procedures
STEP 3.
SECURE PERMITS
Identify pertinent regulations
Implement new local ordinances
where required
Identify and acquire necessary
permits
STEP 4.
DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
• Obtaining design assistance
• Construction contracting
STEP 5.
44
-------
funded in the order in which they are ranked. In most
states, only projects in the top five to ten places are funded
each year.
You must also submit a grant application to receive a
grant or loan from the FmHA. Procedures for this applica-
tion are presented in 7 CFR 1942. We strongly advise you
to contact the regional FmHA representative for further
references and direct guidance. Contact persons for
FmHA are listed in Appendix A. Persons to contact for
information and applications for other loan and grant pro-
grams are also noted on the fact sheets.
If you attempt to issue a bond, we recommend that you
employ an experienced financial advisor, The community
attorney and chief financial officer will be involved in the
process. Also a recent audit of the community's financial
condition is required. If possible, retain an investment
banking firm to perform advisory services in planning the
financing as well as the marketing of the bonds. A bond-
counsel firm should be retained to provide a legal opinion
on the issuance, the security for the bonds, and the federal
tax exemption. In small communities, the bond-counsel
firm is especially important. If a rated bond is planned, a
rating agency such as Standard & Poor's or Moody's must
be called on to examine the community's finances, to
determine the strength of the specific issuance, and to
establish a rating.
The prepared bond is then offered for sale. In purchas-
ing the bonds, the investing community will consider the
rating and may directly examine the community's finan-
ces. Issues of interest to the investment community
include the existing debt burden, the make-up of the
community, whether there is a broad customer base or if it
is a single industry town. The Government Finance Offic-
ers Association (GFOA) is a valuable source for guidance
information regarding local financing options. Refer to
Appendix C for GFOA's address.
To develop an alternative using private financing, you
must hold discussions with the selected privatization firm.
This firm will be responsible for arranging financing,
designing, and constructing the selected facilities. To
implement a privatization approach the community must
draft a contract and negotiate an agreement with the
privatization contractor. A sample form used for contract
management of existing facilities is included in Appendix
H. Contracts for a totally private development project are
more extensive.
Once a final financing package is developed, you must
make decisions on allocation of charges to users of the
system. First, if EPA funds are used on the project, certain
requirements must be met. EPA's Construction Grants,
1985 discusses these requirements in section 12.2. Also
refer to EPA's A User Charge Guidance Manual.
The community and the system managers are more
concerned with how local costs are distributed among
users and how the fees are collected. These techniques
will have a significant impact on community acceptance,
as well as the long-term financial health of the program.
Local costs may be paid individually by each home-
owner or may accrue to the public at large. Which of these
two categories facility costs will fall into will depend on the
management and financing alternative chosen. Under
some alternatives, all capital and O&M costs for facilities
would be private costs to each homeowner. An example is
individually managed, homeowner-financed on-site sys-
tems. On the other hand, if total public ownership of on-site
systems is implemented, all capital and O&M charges
become public costs—even the capital cost for the septic
tank and drainfield.
Along with the question of allocating costs to public or
private accounts there is a question of how to distribute the
public costs among users. Costs may be averaged among
users or allocated based on certain user characteristics.
For example, the most typical method of assigning costs is
based on rates of water use and assumed sewage flow.
Those who use the most, pay the most. Users may also be
charged individually on the basis of their effluent char-
acteristics—strong, weak, toxic—or on the types of serv-
ice they require. One drawback to this approach occurs
with on-site system alternatives. Here, those users lucky
enough to have suitable sites for on-site disposal would be
charged very little. Homeowners whose site requires
mound or low pressure pipe systems could end up being
charged more than they could possibly afford. Under
these circumstances, it may be more equitable to average
the cost of both inexpensive and more costly systems so
that every community resident is provided some form of
adequate, affordable wastewater facilities.
Once you finalize the amount assessed to the users,
you still need to determine how to bill them. Generally,
capital costs and O&M costs are recovered from users in
different ways. Connect fees, tapping fees, and monthly
charges are typically used to cover O&M and administra-
tive costs of the system. Debt service on capital costs is
generally retired through general tax revenue or some
type of special assessment. Although debt retirement may
be included as part of the monthly fee, EPA does not allow
this on projects it supports.
The method of billing capital costs will depend on how
the capital was originally raised. If G.O. bonds were used,
tax assessments are the likely source of collection; for
revenue bonds, user charges. Costs which are assessed
as part of the community's taxing process may be easier
to collect. Few homeowners would risk a tax lien for non-
payment of sewer charges.
Securing Permits
The third step involves securing the permits and imple-
menting any new local ordinance which may be needed to
put the chosen facilties in place. First, identify regulations
that apply to your proposed facilities. There may be differ-
ent state, federal and local regulations which must be
complied with for each community before a project can
begin.
45
-------
You should be aware of the division of responsibilities
between state health departments and water quality
agencies. In South Carolina and Tennesee, these two
agencies are within the same larger department, but the
agencies themselves are separate. In the four other
study area states, health and water quality functions are
not even within the same department. This is important to
you because different types of facilities will be under two
totally different regulatory programs. Alternatives using
ground absorption are regulated by state health depart-
ments. Systems discharging to surface waters, whether
they are on-site, small community or centralized facilities
are regulated by state water quality agencies. This may
become an issue if you anticipate receiving EPA funds for
a project using ground absorption treatment. The EPA
construction grant program is administered through a divi-
sion of the state's water quality agency; however, you will
need to meet regulatory requirements of the state health
department. It benefits communities atempting to use EPA
funds for ground absorption systems where these sepa-
rate state activities are effectively coordinated. State con-
struction grant agencies could designate a staff or utilize
resources of the health department to provide more infor-
mation on ground absorption systems to small community
applicants.
All states within the study area have now received
authority to administer National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permits. Therefore, federal
agency involvement will probably be limited to compliance
with grant regulations. It should be pointed out, however,
that the construction grant program is covered by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore, it
may be necessary to develop an environmental impact
statement (EIS) on projects using federal funds. Small-
scale projects in small communities will generally not have
this additional requirement to meet. !f you are applying for
EPA funds, the state representative will advise you as to
the environmental assessment procedures required. (See
the list of state contacts in Appendix A.)
Agencies with regulatory authority at the local level
include the health department, planning department, and
building inspector.
Request permit applications from the agencies with reg-
ulatory authority at each governmental level. In general,
the permits required will include: an NPDES permit for
surface water discharge; state health department permits
for ground absorption systems; and various local zoning
and construction permits. Appendix I includes a list of
some of the applicable permits and contact points with the
regulatory agencies.
The final item in this step concerns the need for new
local ordinances or other implementation authorities.
Depending on the type of management and financing
alternative selected you may need more local authority
than is presently available. Based on the evaluation of
local authorities completed in Phase 3, you should know
what additional authorities are needed.
To develop new authorities, you must recognize that the
state delegates all local authority, for both county and
municipal governments. Therefore, unless the state has
delegated general authority to begin with, you may not
establish additional specific authorities by passing local
ordinances. If an authority does not exit under the present
municipal charter and state legislation, a new state law—
not a new. local ordinance—must be passed.
Of the six states in the study area, only North Carolina
has passed state legislation explicitly permitting on-site
wastewater management districts. The North Carolina
statute is included in Appendix J. In other states, the
necessary authorities may still be available to local agen-
cies, but they have not, as a defined group, been explicitly
delegated. Depending on state statute, municipal and
local public health agencies may have the right to abate or
prevent nuisances and to require permits and licenses for
various activities. These general grants may provide the
authority to require renewable operating permits for on-
site systems and to allow public access for either monitor-
ing or direct public O&M. Specific management ordinan-
ces will need to be adopted to implement these authorities.
An example of a local agency management ordinance is
included in Appendix K. If adequate authority does not
exist, public access rights can be obtained through an
easement grant with individual owners without requiring
new statutory authority from the state. EPA requires an
easement agreement or direct statutory authority that
grants access rights to any on-site system for which it
funds. Where access authority is not available and ease-
ments cannot be obtained, you will need to seek new state
legislation.
You may also need to rate other actions locally to aid in
implementing the facilities. For example, if you want to
establish a joint management agency inter-agency
agreements will need to be negotiated. If you need to
create a new special district agency you will need a local
referendum, particularly if this agency has taxing powers.
You will also need a local vote of approval if general
obligation bonds are funding the facilities.
Design and Construction
The fourth step in the implementation phase is design
and constructigp of the facilities. After all the planning,
financial and regulatory analysis, public participation, and
permitting, you are finally ready to put something in the
ground.
If a community agency plans to carry out this work itself,
a good place to being is with the series of design manuals
which EPA has produced for all forms of wastewater
treatment facilities. The Design Manual, On Site Waste-
water Treatment and Disposal Systems will be most help-
ful to small communities.
Where small scale, on-site facilities are being used,
local agency staff may also carry out the facility construc-
46
-------
tion. You will need to contract some heavy equipment
work and to procure materials from outside suppliers.
Chapter 16 of Construction Grants, 1985 can guide you on
procurement procedures.
For large-scale projects, you will probably need a
design consultant and construction contractor. You can
find out how to prepare an RFP and how to evaluate
proposals from various professional organizations as well
as state and federal agencies. The contacts with FmHA
and EPA will help you obtain design and construction
assistance.
Facilities Operation and Other
On-Going Requirements
The final step in the problem-solving process deals with
on-going responsibilities. These are the activities neces-
sary to perform once the facilities are in place. Unless the
facilities are managed properly, your entire investment in
improved water quality and public health may be useless
in only a few years.
First, provide adequate staff to manage the system.
Personnel requirements were determined in Phase 3 and
compared to existing resources. If a management alterna-
tive requires additional personnel, hire them as soon as
possible. Staff members who will implement the project
should be on board during the planning process. Table 8
presents a list of average salaries for some staff capabili-
ties which you may need to add to the management
agency. The expense of additional staff may be quite a
burden in smaller rural towns. Additional staff and adminis-
trative costs should be added to other charges already
computed for the system. Total costs may then be more
than users can afford. One solution is to share specialized
staff with other local communities, or to establish a formal
circuit-rider program. Under such a program, specialized
personnel would spend one day a week in each of five
communities or some other rotation schedule. A regional
planning agency or council of governments can often help
implement a circuit-rider program. This agency may also
help put the program in place for you.
Alternative means of augmenting your staff include
part-time employees, contract services, volunteer or
intern staff, and obtaining grant assistance to cover staff
salaries. The management contract form included in
Appendix H provides an example of how certain staff
services may be contracted. State and local volunteer
bureaus may help find volunteers. Local community col-
leges and universities are often ready sources of tempor-
ary intern assistance. Whatever the source of staff assist-
ance, you should also put in place a training program to
ensure that new personnel have the knowledge and skills
to properly operate and maintain the community's waste-
water facilities.
The most important on-going responsibility is to ensure
that proper operation and maintenance are carried out. If
-------
the homeowner is the party primarily responsible for O&M
functions, the management agency must see that sys-
tems are designed and installed properly, and that the
homeowner receives all the technical assistance neces-
sary to know how and when to maintain his facilities.
If O&M is required of the homeowner by the manage-
ment agency, techniques must be developed for adminis-
tering operating permits or licenses and certification of
private firms which may be retained to carry out O&M
functions. Some form of feasible enforcement technique
to ensure compliance with the program is a key require-
ment. If the agency fails to keep track of what O&M has
been done, and fails to require compliance where proper
O&M procedures have not been followed, then the sys-
tems will not function properly. Enforcement techniques
include:
• violation orders
• injunctions
• deed attachments
• termination of water/electricity
• condemnation
These are discussed on pages 4-22 through 4-25 of
Volume III of the Alternatives Development Report.
The preferred enforcement procedures are those which
are effective but not too onerous. For example, in many
counties the only way to enforce proper maintenance of
TABLE 8
Average Salaries for Typical Managment
Agency Personnel
Average
Personnel Annual 8alsrle»($)
Soil Scientist 2
20,000
Laborer
9,500
Equipment Operator
13,500
PlumBer 1
12,000
Plumber 2
18,000
Small Waste Flows Contractor
20,000
Laboratory Technician 1
9,500
Laboratory Technician 2
14,000
Water Resource Scientist
25,000
Environmental Planner
15,000
Wastewater System Operator 1
9,500
Wastewater System Operator 2
15,000
Source: Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Wastewater
Management In Rural Lakes Areas, Technical Reference
Document, Volume II.
on-site systems is by threatening condemnation. Most
rural community judges are reluctant to impose such a
santion, however, For this reason, many local health
department officials feel that they have no realistic method
of enforcement. Shutting off water where a public supply is
provided may be a solution. In many cases, though,
homeowners may return to unsanitary wells or springs for
water supply, and then a new public health problem will
exist. Cutting electrical service is probably the most satis-
factory approach. For very poor residents, there may be no
way to force adequate O&M if they simply cannot afford
the proper procedures. In this case, consider public O&M.
It is difficult to enforce publicly performed O&M. Where
the facility put in place is a centralized system employing
surface discharge, then the NPDES permit specifies dis-
charge limits which are enforced. Proper O&M cannot be
directly required, but lax procedures may eventually result
in violations of discharge limits. Such violations are subject
to various fines and other enforcement procedures by the
state and by EPA. Where public management of on-site
systems is carried out local performance standards will
probably exceed those of the state health department or
other regulatory agency. Therefore, if the local agency
does not perform proper procedures, no one else will.
Beyond the issue of compliance procedures, many
other activities must be considered important on-going
functions. Agency administration is one of these. Proper
stuff organization, record keeping and accounting proce-
dures will help to ensure that the management agency,
itself, continues to function properly. Many of the EPA
publications previously cited provide guidance on recom-
mended administrative procedures. Proper accounting is
one of the key considerations. An adequate reserve
account is required where revenue bond financing is
used. Any well-run management should develop account-
ing and budgeting practices to ensure an adequate capital
reserve. FmHA has very strict administrative procedures
which grantees must follow. As a result, the delinquency
rate is less than 1.5 percent on all FmHA projects, includ-
ing those using more "creative" financing. FmHA instruc-
tions for grantees and Accounting for Rural Water Sys-
tems, developed by the National Rural Water Association
provide further guidance on effective management and
accounting procedures. Local FmHA contacts can pro-
vide you with this-information.
Two management functions most often overlooked are
planning and public education. Yet these are perhaps the
most important to the long-term success of any waste-
water management program. You must keep citizens
informed of progress toward water quality and public
health goals. At the same time, continuing planning activi-
ties will make certain to ensure that future needs are met. If
a proper alternative for the community's needs has been
established, proper management that provides for long-
term planning and involvement by the public should
ensure a permanent solution to the community's waste-
water problems.
-------
GLOSSARY
Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC)—a group of rec-
ognized community leaders from local constituencies
including church and community organizations, envi-
ronmental groups and business and development inter-
ests, concerned with representing the feelings and
interests of the community or service area as a whole in
solving wastewater problems.
Clean Water Act—formerly the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972. Objective is to "restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the nation's waters."
Comprehensive Plan—document developed by a plan-
ning agency for a specific community or region. Gen-
erally contains a statement of community development
goals and objectives, a land use plan, a transportation
plan, a community facilities plan and a statement of the
relationship of the community's future development to
adjacent areas.
Engineering Alternative—method used for properly col-
lecting, treating and disposing of wastewater. Range
from centralized system to traditional septic tank-soil
absorption system.
EPA affordability cHteria—an applicant for EPA funds
must be eligible based on criteria primarily concerned
with income levels.
Financial Alternative—method of financing the preferred
engineering alternative. Range from major federal fund-
ing (e.g. EPA) to local financing (e.g. General Obligation
Bond) or any combination.
Homeowner's organization—a non-profit group com-
prised of property owners. In many states a home-
owner's organization can finance and manage a waste-
water system.
Innovative and Alternative (l/A)—U.S. EPA classifica-
tion of wastewater projects based on technology.
According to the Clean Water Act, these technologies
are primarily supposed to conserve, reclaim or reuse
water, recover energy, recycle resources or reduce
costs. "Alternative" technologies are those which have
been proven or used in practice, while "innovative"
ones are not fully proven under the circumstances of
their planned use. Additional construction grant monies
are set-aside for eligible I / A projects.
Management Alternative—method for institutional man-
agement of an engineering alternative. Consists primar-
ily of system ownership, O/M and monitoring by a
public entity or private individual or group.
Management Function—seven activities a manage-
ment system should perform to maintain adequate pub-
lic service and to guarantee long-term performance of
wastewater systems. Functions are problem identifica-
tion, system planning and design, construction and
installation, permitting, operation and maintenance,
monitoring and compliance and training and public
education.
49
-------
Management System—overall approach taken to man-
aging wastewater. Ranges from total private (home-
owner) to total public management with various combi-
nations of the two in between. Five generalized models
of management systems were developed for the Alter-
natives Report and are discussed in the Development
and Evaluation sections of this handbook.
Needs assessment—process of determining wastewater
needs of an area by examining the condition of present
facilities and limitations posed by natural and man-
made features.
Non-structural method—methods or devices used to
improve the performance of an on-site system without
major structural modification. Methods include, but are
not limited to, use of watersaving devices, discontinued
use of garbage disposals, and use of grease traps.
Performance data—data in the design and use of exist-
ing wastewater systems and their present effect on
water quality, gathered as part of a needs assessment.
This data helps document how well a system is working
and substantiates the need for improved facilities.
Priority Ust—system used by several federal and state
funding sources to rank grant applicants. Rankings
may be based on 'population, existence of a health
hazard, income or a number of other categories
depending upon the funding source. Funding expe-
diency is based on priority list ranking.
Privatization—private ownership and operation of waste-
water treatment facilities. May involve private sector
investment in construction and operation of facilities,
operation of existing facilities or in the repair, expansion
or rehabilitation of older sewage systems.
Regulatory authority—legal authority to manage a
wastewater facility. May include issuing bonds, collect-
ing taxes, entering private property, etc.
Service area—physical area which will be served by a
given wastewater system. Includes current area served
by either on-site systems or a centralized system and
any areas having a high development potential.
Septage—solids which settle to the bottom of the septic
tank.
Study area (relative to the Mountain Communities
project)—original project study area included 82 coun-
ties in 6 states (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) identified by
the Appalachian Regional Commission as the high-
lands portion of southeastern Appalachia. Case study
areas included Harrogate, TN; Highlands, NC and Mud
Creek, KY.
Tax maps—maps available, usually at a cost, from a tax
assessors office which show parcel location and sizes.
Waterborne diseases—diseases classified by the Center
for Disease Control as being carried by water and
generally caused by unsanitary practices.
Windshield survey—a field survey of land use. May also
be used to note areas with standing sewage or other
indications of malfunctioning systems.
50
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Code of Alabama. Title II.
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 7. Part 1942, Subparts A and F.
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Parts 30 and 35.
Constitution of Georgia. 1983. Article 9. Section 2. Paragraph 3.
"Engineering News-Record." The McGraw-Hill Construction
Weekly. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Federal Register, February 17, 1984. Sections 35.2000a and
35.2005b[27],
Kentucky Revised Statutes. Chapters 74 and 76.
National Rural Water Association. Accounting for Rural Water
Systems.
Official Code of Georgia, Annotated. Section 36-34-5.
South Carolina, Code of Laws. 1976 and 1984 Supplements.
Chapter 31, Sections 10 and up.
Tennessee State Code, Chapters 13,16,34, 81 and 82.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
County Soil Surveys.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census
of Population; Current Population Reports Series p-25. Popu-
lation Estimates and Projections and Series P-26. Federal
State Cooperative Program for Population Estimates.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Construc-
tion Reports—Housing Authorized by Building Permits and
Public Contracts.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey. 7.5 Minute
Series Topographic Maps.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A User Charge Guidance
Manual. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1983. Mountain
Communities Assessment. Background and Orientation
Report. Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1985. Mountain
Communities Wastewater Management Assessment. Case
Study Report. Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1984. Construction
Grants 1985 (CG-85). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1980. Design
Manual, On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Sys-
tems. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1982. [Strait
Environmental Impact Statement, Blount County, Tennessee
Wastewater Facilities. Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1983. Technical
Reference Document. Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement, Wastewater Management in Rural Lake Areas.
Volume II, Part 2-3-4. Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 1984. Moun-
tain Communities Wastewater Management Alternatives
Report. Volume I—Introduction. Volume II—Technical Engi-
neering Alternatives. Volume III—Institutional Management
Alternatives. Volume IV—Financial Alternatives. Region IV,
Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1983. Moun-
tain Communities Wastewater Management Assessment.
Survey of Existing Conditions Report. Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
Wastewater Management in Coastal North Carolina.
Water Pollution Control Federation. The Clean Water Act.
Showing Changes Made by the 1977 Amendments and the
1978 Amendments to Sections 104 and 311. Washington,
D.C.
51
-------
Bibliography
-------
Appendices
-------
APPENDIX A
CONTACT PERSONS
State 201 Construction Grant Contacts:
Mr. William Manasco
Chief, Municipal Waste Control Section
Department of Environmental Management
Water Division
State Capital
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205)271-7700
Mr. Robert W. Troxler
program Manager
Municipal Compliance and Technical Support Program
Environmental Protection Division
State of Georgia
3420 Norman Berry Drive
7th Floor
Hapeville, GA 30354
(404)656-7400
Mr. Judson Cramer
Construction Grants Branch
Bureau of Environmental Protection
18 Re illy Road
Fort Boone Plaza
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410 x520
Mr. T. Allen Wahab
Environmental Engineer
Construction Grants Program
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919)733-6900
Mr. Samuel J. Grant, Jr.
Domestic Wastewater Division
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Aycock Building
Columbia, SC 29201
(803)758-5067
Mr. Robert G. Threadgill, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Division of Construction Grants and Loans
150 9th Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
(615)741-0638
A-l
-------
State Farmers Home Administration Loan/Grant Contacts:
Mr. Bill Somerall
Community Program Chief
474 South Court Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
(205)832-7067
Mr. Jim Thigpen
Community Program Chief
355 East Hancock Avenue
Athens, GA 30601
(404)546-2162
Mr . Bob Letton
Community Program Chief
333 Waller Avenue
Lexington, KY 40504
(606)233-2733
Mr. Carson Brinkley
Community Program Chief
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
(919)755-4640
Mr. Elwood Gerald
Community Program Chief
8135 Assembly Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803)765-5163
Mr. Jim McCroy
Community Program Chief
U.S. Courthouse Building
801 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203
(615)251-7341
Appalachian Regional Commission Contacts:
Mr. Dean Y. Matthews
Top of Alabama Regional
Council of Governments
115 Washington Street, S.E.
Huntsville, Alabama 35801
(205) 533-3330
Counties Included: DeKalb, Jackson, Marshall
A-2
-------
Mr. James W. Curtis (Bill)
East Alabama Regional Planning
and Development Commission
P.O. Box 2186
(1001 Leighton Avenue)
Anniston, Alabama 36202
(205) 237-6741
County Included: Cherokee
Mr. Sam Dayton
Georgia Mountains Planning and
Development Commission
P.O. Box 1720
(1010 Ridge Road)
Gainesville, Georgia 30503
(404) 536-3431
Counties Included: Banks, Dawson, Forsyth, Franklin,
Habersham, Hall, Lumpkin, Rabun, Stephens, Towns,
Union, White
Mr. George W. Sutherland
North Georgia Area Planning and
Development Commission
503 W. Waugh Street
Dalton, Georgia 30720
(404) 272-2300
Counties Included: Cherokee, Fannin, Gilmer, Murray,
Pickens, Whitfield
Mr. Joseph L. McCauley
Big Sandy Area Development
District, inc.
2nd Floor, Municipal Building
Prestonsburg, Kentucky 41653
(606) 886-2374
Counties Included: Floyd, Martin, Pike
Mr. Gatliff Craig
Cumberland Valley Area
Development District, Inc.
ADD Office Building
London, Kentucky 40741
(606) 864-7391
Counties Included: Bell, Clay, Harlan, Knox, Whitley
Mr. John Phelps
Lake Cumberland Area Development
District, Inc.
(Hudson Hotel Building)
P.O. Box 377
Jamestown, Kentucky 42629
(502) 343-3154
County Included: McCreary
A-3
-------
Mr. R. Percy Elkins
Kentucky River Area Development
District, Inc.
381 Perry County Park Road
Hazard, Kentucky 41701
(606) 436-3158
Counties Included: Knott, Leslie, Letcher, Perry
Mr. Bill Gibson
Southwestern North Carolina
Planning and Economic
Development Commission
(Main Street) P.O. Drawer 850
Bryson City, North Carolina 28713
(704) 488-9211
Counties Included: Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood,
Jackson, Macon, Swain
Mr. Paul D. Hughes
Isothermal Planning and
Development Commission
(101 West Court Street)
P.O. Box 841
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
(704) 287-2281
County Included: McDowell
Mr. Robert E. Shepherd
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
25 Heritage Drive
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
(704) 254-8131
Counties Included: Buncombe, Henderson, Madison, Transylvania
Mr. Richard A. Fender
Region D Council of Governments
(Furman Road)
P.O. Box 1820
Boone, North Carolina 28607
(704) 264-5558
Counties Included: Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell,
Watauga, Wilkes, Yancey
Mr. R. Douglas Taylor
Western Piedmont Council
of Governments
30 - Third Street, N.W.
Hickory, North Carolina 28601
(704) 322-9191
Counties Included: Alexander, Burke, Cladwell
A-4
-------
Mr. Douglas Phillips
South Carolina Appalachian Council
of Governments
(Piedmont East, Suite 500)
P.O. Drawer 6668
Greenville, South Carolina 29606
(803) 242-9733
Counties Included: Greenville, Oconee, Pickens
Mr. Ed Brooks
Upper Cumberland Development
District
1225 Burgess Falls Road
Cookeville, Tennessee 38501
(615) 432-4111
Counties Included: Cumberland, Van Buren
Mr. Charles L. Harwood
First Tennessee-Virginia
Development District
207 N. Boone Street, Suite 800
Johnson City, Tennessee 37601
(615) 928-0224
County Included: Hancock
Mr. Allen W. Neel
East Tennessee Development District
(5616 Kingston Pike)
P.O. Box 19806
Knoxville, Tennessee 37919
(615) 584-8553
Counties Included: Anderson, Blount, Campbell, Claiborne,
Cocke, Monroe, Morgan, Roane, Scott, Sevier, Union
Mr. Joe Max Williams
South Central Tennessee Development
Distr ict
P.O. Box 1346
Columbia, Tennessee 38401
(615) 381-2040
County Included: Franklin
Mr. Charles Thrailkill
Southeast Tennessee Development
Distr ict
413 James Building
735 Broad Street
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
(615) 266-5781
Counties Included: Bledsoe, Grundy, Meigs, Polk, Rhea,
Sequatchie
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE SANITARY SURVEY FORM
Resident: Study Area:
Owner: Surveyor/Date:
Address of Weather:
Property:
Lot Location: Approximate Lot Dimensions!
Tax Map Designation: feet by __feet
preliminary Resident Interview
Age of Dwelling: years Age of sewage disposal system: years
Type of Sewage Disposal System:
Maintenance: years since septic tank pumped. Reason for pumping:
jyears since sewage system repairs (Describe below)
Accessibility of septic tank manholes (Describe below)
Dwelling Use: Number of Bedrooms: actual, potential, Planned
Permanent Residents: adults, children
Seasonal Residents: , length of stay
Typical Number of Guests: , length of stay
If seasonal only, plan to become permanent residents: In how many years?
Water Using Fixtures (Note "w.c." if designed to conserve water):
Shower Heads Kitchen Lavoratories Clothes Washing Machine
Bathtubs Garbage Grinder Water Softener
Bathroom Lavoratories Dishwasher utility Sink
Toilets Other Kitchen Other Utilities
Plans for Changes:
Problems Recognized by Resident:
Resident Will Allow Follow-Up Engineering Studies: Soil Borings Groundwater
Well Water Sample
B-l
-------
SAMPLE SANITARY SURVEY FORM
Surveyor's visual Observations of Effluent Disposal Site:
Drainage Facilities and Discharge Location:
Basement Sump
Footing Drains
Roof Drains
Driveway Runoff
Other
Property and Facility Sketch
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
INFORMATION SOURCES
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703)487-4650
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202)783-3238
U.S. EPA
Office of Water Program Operations (WH-546)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)382-7370
U.S. Geological Survey
Eastern Distribution Branch
1200 South Eaks Street
Arlington, VA 22202
(703)557-2751
Tennessee Valley Authority
National Cartographic Information Center
200 Havey Building
311 Broad Street
Chattanooga, TN 37401
(615)751-6277
Data User Services Division
Customer Services - Publications
Bureau of the Census
Washington, D.C. 20233
(301)763-7662
Government Finance Research Center
1750 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202)466-2014
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
POPULATION ESTIMATION AND PROJECTION TECHNIQUES
1. Estimation Techniques
a. House Survey Method. Small area population estimates may be developed by
housing survey methods. This method consists of a comprehensive housing unit
inventory and personal interviews with a sample or all of the households. The
housing unit inventory should result in the number, location, and occupancy
status of all the existing housing units in the planning area. The personal
interviews conducted in conjunction with the inventory will result in either an
average household size based on a partial sample of households or a complete
population enumeration based on all households. This method will not
distinguish permanent and seasonal populations unless the survey and inter-
views are conducted when seasonal residents are present.
The housing survey method produces a very accurate estimate of existing
population levels as well as a complete housing inventory. The information
developed is detailed and void of assumptions. However, the time and resources
involved in field work may make this method impractical for all but extremely
small planning areas.
b. Tax Roll Survey Method. Land population is estimated using tax rolls by
first identifying the land parcels on lots that occur within the area to be
studied and then determining the number of housing units that occur on these
parcels through the tax records. The seasonal or permanent occupancy can be
determined by the address of the land owner. It can be assumed that if the
owner's place of residence is not within the general study area, the house is
probably a seasonally occupied dwelling. This assumption, if made, .should be
supported by local knowledge that the number of absentee landlords renting to
year-round residents is low.
This method alone does not supply all of the information required to
develop an estimate of population. It only produces an accurate count of the
number of permanent and seasonal housing units. The other data required to
D-l
-------
^ c ,-ka 3„oranp ci ze of households in the area and the
make the estimate consist of the average size 01 nu
current housing vacancy rate. The average household size can be determined
through a limited sample of households, census figures updated to reflect
current household trends, and estimates from Knowledgeable local ofnoals.
i. ut,,noj fhrnnah interviews with local real estate
Housing vacancy rates may be obtained througn
agents, knowledgeable local officials, or homeowner groups.
This method provides a relatively simple and efficient means of esti-
mating population for small rural areas. The major drawback lies in the need
for additional data beyond those that can be found in the tax rolls. Although
these other data are available from other sources, they are somewhat
subjective.
c. Aerial Photo Analysis Method. Small area population estimates can be
developed through the use of current aerial photographs of the area. This
method is similar to the tax roll survey described above except that the total
number of housing units is determined by examination of aerial photographs. The
aerial photo analysis will yield an accurate count of total housing units,
provided that the analyst can distinguish between multiple and single-family
structures. The number of seasonal and permanent housing units, however,
cannot be determined through the photo analysis. This information and data on
the housing vacancy rates and household size must be obtained through other
sources. The main advantage of the aerial photo analysis method is that it is
less time consuming than other methods primarily because it does not require
extensive field work.
The major drawback of this method lies in the need to distinguish
multiple-family from single-family dwelling units and to obtain additional
information regarding seasonal-permanent population breakdown, vacancy rates,
and average household size from other sources. However, used in combination
with other data sources, the aerial photo analysis method provides perhaps the
most efficient means of developing reliable population estimates.
d. Dwelling Unit Review Method. Instead of using surveys or other methods to
obtain a housing count, the most recent census data regarding housing stocks
D-2
-------
can be updated by studying building permit records. The local permitting
agency or census publications can be used to determine the housing units built
in the planning area since the date of the most recent housing count. This
would result in a total dwelling unit count for the planning area broken down
into single and multiple units.
Like many of the other methods, data would still need to be obtained
regarding vacancy rates, household size, and permanent-seasonal population
breakdown. This information can be obtained from other sources, however, and
should result in a reliable population estimate.
Each of the population estimation techniques described has certain
advantages and disadvantages regarding cost, reliability, and additional data
needs. No single method can be considered superior since each method yields a
certain piece of the required information. Normally, a combination of these
estimation techniques is required to produce accurate results in a cost-
effective manner. During the preparation of the Seven Rural Lake EIS, a
combination of these techniques was utilized to best fit the needs of a
particular planning area. In some cases, the resultant estimates were utilized
to disaggregate larger area population estimates while other rural planning
areas required original estimates for baseline population data.
2. Description of Population Projection Technique Used in Blount County,
Tennessee EIS
Future populations in each district were projected by 5 year increments to
the year 2000 using a comparative forecasting technique. This methodology
assumed that future population in an area can be estimated by applying a growth
rate identified in another area with similar characteristics. In this case
future growth rates for the population districts were established based on
growth rates for other similar areas in Blount County. For example, it was
assumed that a population district which was distant from Maryville/Alcoa and
Knoxville: with no water or sewer availability, poor accessibility, little
buildable land and poor internal circulation: would grow in the future at the
same rate as a sample area which was chosen with the same characteristics. In
D-3
-------
each case, growth rates were expressed in terms of population density so it was
possible to compare areas of similar density but varying total populations.
Ideally, the comparison of growth rates established future growth in pop-
ulation districts based on historical rates in the sample areas. In some
cases, however, it was necessary to extrapolate sample area growth rates and
base a portion of the population district forecast on that extrapolated rate of
growth.
Each sample area was a five square mile circle, chosen to be as
representative of different growth-controlling parameters as possible: exist-
ing level of development; infrastructure availability; location; accessi-
bility; and buildability. Population in each sample area was determined using
house counts from historical aerial photography and applying persons per
household rates. Because of limited aerial photo availability, only five
sample areas could be chosen which were both adequately diverse and for which
aerial photos were available for enough previous dates. They include the
Laurel Lake area near Townsend; a rural area near Priendsville centered on Big
Springs; a highly suburbanized area just outside Alcoa/Maryville along Route
411; a less developed suburban area southeast of Maryville; a very isolated
rural area along Route 411; a less developed suburban area southeast of
Maryville; and a very isolated rural area along the National Park boundary near
Townsend. in each of these sample areas, house counts were made from aerial
photos taken in 1953, 1967, 1973 and 1980 and converted to population based on
an average persons per household rate determined from 1950-1980 Census data.
This data was graphed in terms of persons per square mile and then historical
growth rates from 1953 to 1980 were established. The rates were determined
using different techniques depending on what was most applicable to the given
data—linear regression; nonlinear regression; and, in one case, a series of
different linear rates. These rates were then projected backward and forward
to provide an adequate range to match with the 1980 population densities in
each population district.
The actual projection for each district was then developed using the
following series of steps:
D-4
-------
1. Determine growth-controlling characteristics for population district
2. Match with most appropriate sample area;
3. Determine 23 year growth rate for sample area beginning with year when
density matched that of population district;
4. Apply this rate to population district.
In most cases, a clear match was possible between sample area and population
district but in some cases sample growth rates were averaged between two sample
areas to provide a best match.
The output of this process resulted in raw population totals which were
then corrected based on a control total for the EIS study area. This figure,
35,780 was arrived at by assuming that the EIS study area will grow from 1980
to 2000 at the same rate as the county as a whole. Given the county population
projection for the year 2000 of 92,900 developed by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, this 20-year rate is 19.5 percent.
Correction of the raw numbers to agree with this control total was
achieved by modifying each district's rate of growth proportionally by the
amount which the total rate of growth had to be decreased to meet the control.
That is, if the rate of growth for the total study area had to be decreased by
5 percent to meet the control, then each district's rate of growth was
decreased by 5 percent. Intermediate year populations within each district
were then corrected to match the 2000 figure by assuming the same proportion of
growth during each 5 year period as had been true with the raw total. For
example, if the corrected 1980-1985 growth in a district represented 40 percent
of the 1980-2000 growth with the raw total, this period was assumed to
represent 40 percent of the lower 1980-2000 growth based on the controlled
2000 number.
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
SITE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES AND SITING CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE SYSTEMS
A. Field Testing
Field testing begins with a visual survey of the parcel to locate
potential sites for subsurface soil absorption. Detailed soils investigations
are made at these sites. If no sites can be found from either the visual survey
or detailed investigation, site suitability for evaporation or surface water
discharge should be evaluated.
Visual Survey
A visual survey (preferably with a hand auger or soil probe) is made to
locate the areas on the lot with the greatest potential for subsurface soil
absorption. The following should be noted and narked on the plot plan:
• General site features
The location of any depressions, gullies, steep slopes, rocks or
rock outcrops, surface waters, roads, buildings and other obvious land
and surface features should be noted and marked on the plot plan. Hell
travelled or compacted areas should be avoided.
• Landscape position
Noting the landscape position and land form at the site is useful in
estimating surface and subsurface drainage patterns. For example,
ridge lines, hill tops and side slopes can be expected to have good
surface and subsurface drainage, while depressions and foot slopes are
more likely to be poorly drained. Figure E-l can be used as a guide for
identifying landscape positions.
• Flooding hazards
Areas of obvious flood hazard should be avoided. (If necessary, soil
absorption systems may be installed in flood fringe out of the flood
way).
E-l
-------
RIDGE LINE
HILL TOP
CONVEX SLOPE
CONCAVE SLOPE
LANDSCAPE POSITIONS
-------
• Vegetation
The type and size of the existing vegetation should be noted. The
depth and drainage characteristics of the soil can be indicated from
the type of vegetation. Large trees that must be removed or are to be
saved may alter the design of the system.
• Slope
The type and degree of slope indicates surface drainage problems and
areas to avoid because of construction problems. Concave slopes cause
surface runoff to converge while convex slopes disperse the runoff.
Slopes greater than 20 to 25 percent present difficulties to ex-
cavating equipment and some absorption system designs. Abney or hand
levels may be sufficient for simple slopes or small systems but a
topographic survey is necessary for all larger systems.
• Horizontal setbacks
Setbacks from wells, surface waters, buildings, property lines,
etc., should be maintained on the parcel and between neighboring
parcels to minimize the threat to public health if a failure should
occur. The setbacks required are usually detailed in local codes.
Soil Borings
Detailed evaluation of soil characteristics is done in the areas selected
during the visual survey. This can be done best from a pit excavated large
enough to enter. However, an experienced soil tester can do a satisfactory job
by using a hand auger or probe. Both methods are suggested. Hand tools can be
used to determine soil variability over the area and pits used to describe in
detail the various soils found. Power augers should not be used because the
soil characteristics can be altered markedly.
• Location, depth and number
Pits should be dug around the perimeter of the area. Pits dug within
the absorption area often settle after the system is installed,
disrupting the system. Hand augers can be used within the area. Pits
E-3
-------
should be oriented such that the sun hits one face directly for good
color observation. The borings should be deep enough to insure that a
sufficient depth of unsaturated soil exists.
Sufficient borings should be made to describe adequately the soils
and their variability. Each should be carefully located in relation to
a permanent bench mark. The ground surface elevation at each pit
relative to the bench mark is also desirable.
• Soil horizons
Any obvious soil horizons are tentatively identified from differ-
ences in color, texture or structure.
• Soil texture
Beginning at the top or bottom of the pit sidewall, the texture of
each identified horizon is identified. Hand texturing can be done by
moistening a sample and working it until it has the consistancy of
putty, using Table E-l, the texture can be described quickly. When the
textures have been determined for each layer, the depth, thickness and
texture of each layer is recorded.
• Soil structure
The sidewall of the pit is carefully examined, using a pick, knife or
similar device to expose the natural cleavages and planes of weakness.
The durability of each structural unit is estimated by noting whether
it withstands handling. If no cracks are Risible, a sample of the soil
is picked out and carefully separated into structural units by hand
until any further breakdown can be achieved only by fracturing.
• Soil color
It is important to have good sunlight and moist soils to observe the
color, if the ped faces are dry, a mist bottle can be used to moisten
the soil. Color may be described by estimating the true color or by
comparing the color to the colors in a soil color book. In either case,
it is particularly important to observe the colors and color patterns.
E-4
-------
Soil
Class
Sand
Sandy Loam
Loam
Silt Loam
Clay Lo^m
Clay
TABLE E-l
TEXTURAL PROPERTIES OF MINERAL SOILS
Feeling and Appearance
Dry Soil
Loose, single grains which
feel gritty. Squeezed in
the hand, the soil mass
falls apart when the
pressure is released.
Aggregates easily crushed
very faint velvety feeling
initially but with continued
rubbing the gritty feeling
of sand soon dominates.
Aggregates are crushed under
moderate pressure; clods can
be quite firm. When pulver-
ized, loam has velvety feel
that becomes gritty with
continued rubbing. Casts
bear careful handling.
Aggregates are firm but may
be crushed under moderate
pressure. Clods are firm to
hard. Smooth, flour-like
feel dominates when soil is
pulverized.
Very firm aggregates and
hard clods that strongly
resist crushing by hand.
When pulverized, the soil
takes on a somewhat gritty
feeling due to the harshness
of the very small aggregates
which persist.
Aggregates are hard; clods
are extremely hard and
strongly resist crushing by
hand. When pulverized, it
has a grit-like texture due
to the harshness of numerous
very small aggregates which
persist.
Moist Soil
Squeezed in the hand, it
forms a cast which crumbles
when touched. Does not form
a ribbon between thumb and
forefinger.
Forms a cast which bears
careful handling without
breaking. Does not form a
ribbon between thumb and
forefinger.
Cast can be handled quite
freely without breaking.
Very slight tendency to
ribbon between thumb and
forefinger. Rubbed surface
is rough.
Cast can be freely handled
without breaking. Slight
tendency to ribbon between
thumb and forefinger. Rubbed
surface has a broken or
rippled appearance.
Cast can bear much handling
without breaking. Pinched
between the thumb and
forefinger, it forms a ribbon
whose surface tends to feel
slightly gritty when dampened
and rubbed. Soil is plastic,
sticky and puddles easily.
Casts can bear considerable
handling without breaking.
Forms a flexible ribbon
between thumb and forefinger
and retains its plasticity
when elongated. Rubbed
surface has a very smooth,
satin feeling. Sticky when
wet and easily puddled.
E-5
-------
• Seasonally saturated soils
Seasonally saturated soils can usually be detected by soil borings
made during the wet season or by the presence of mottled soils.
Observation wells may also be used. The well is placed in but not
extended through the horizon to be monitored. The well is grouted at
the surface and capped. If water is noted in the well over several
days, the water level elevation is assumed to be the elevation of the
saturated soil horizon. The monitoring is most accurate in the spring
with normal precipitation.
• Bedrock
Bedrock may be in such a state of decay that it is difficult to
determine where the true bedrock surface lies. It may be defined as
that point where less than 50 percent of the excavated material is
unconsolidated. The surface of sandstone bedrock can be defined as the
point where resistance to penetration with a knife is encountered.
• Bulk density
Relative bulk densities of each horizon can be detected by pushing a
knife or other instrument into the soil. if one horizon offers
considerably more resistance to penetration than others, its bulk
density is probably higher. However, in some cases, cementing agents
between soil grains or peds may be the cause of resistance.
• Swelling clays
Swelling clays tend to be more ^ticky and plastic when wet.
Hydraulic Conductivity
In the areas where the soil borings indicate suitable soil for subsurface
disposal, hydraulic conductivity testing follows. Several methods of measur-
ing the soil's ability to transmit water have been developed. The "percolation
test" is the most commonly used. When run properly, it can give an approximate
measure of the soil's saturated hydraulic conductivity. The most common test
procedure used is described in Table E-2. Common errors made in running the
E-6
-------
test are poor hole preparation, inadequate soaking and inaccurate measure-
ments.
Though percolation tests are highly variable and often criticized for
inaccuracy, they can be useful if used together with the soil boring data. If
results from properly run tests do not seem to agree with the texture of the
soil, as shown in Table E-2, then structure or minerology may be significant.
Further investigations may be warranted.
Table E-2
Estimated Hydraulic Characteristics of Soil (Bouma, 1975)
Soil Texture Permeability Percolation
m./hr nun./in
Sand 6.0 10
Sandy loams
Porous silt loams 0.2-6.0 10 - 45
Silty clay loams
Clays, compact
Silt loams 0.2 4 5
Silty clay loams
Hydrogeologic Investigations
If the soil is to be used to dispose of large volumes of wastewater daily,
then hydrogeologic investigations are necessary to determine if the soils have
the capacity to conduct the liquid away from the infiltration area without
becoming saturated to within 2 to 3 feet of the infiltration surface.
• Groundwater elevation
The groundwater elevation and seasonal variations must be determined
by monitoring wells and soil patterns in the soil profile. Soils with
perched water table conditions should be avoided.
E-7
-------
• Groundwater gradient
Horizontal gradients are determined by measuring the water elevation
in wells just penetrating the phreatic surface. Vertical gradients
are determined from two or more wells at the same location but at
different depths within the water hole.
Siting Criteria for On-Site Systems
Tables E-3 and E-4 present siting criteria for trench and bed and for
mound on-site systems, respectively. Site criteria are given for the landscape
position, slope, typical horizontal separation distances from various lot
features, and for soil parameters.
E-8
-------
TABLE E-3
SITE CRITERIA FOR TRENCH AND BED SYSTEMS
Item
Landscape Position3
Slope3
Typical Horizontal Separation
Distances'5
Water Supply Wells
Surface Waters, Springs
Escarpments, Manmade Cuts
Boundary of Property
Building Foundations
Soil
Texture
Structure
Color
Layer mg
Cr iter la
Level, well-drained areas, crests of
slopes* convex slopes most desirable.
Avoid depressions, bases of slopes and
concave slopes unless suitable surface
drainage is provided.
0 to 25%. Slopes in excess of 25% can
be utilized but the use of construction
machinery may be limited. Bed
systems are limited to 0 to 5%.
50 - 100 ft
50 - 100 ft
10 - 20 ft
5 - 10 ft
10 - 20 ft
Soils with sandy or loamy textures are
best suited. Gravelly and cobbley
soils with open pores and slowly
permeable clay soils are less
desirable.
Strong granular, blocky or prismatic
structures are desirable. Platy or
unstructured massive soils should be
avoided.
Bright uniform colors indicate
well-drained, well-aerated soils.
Dull, gray or mottled soils indicate
continuous or seasonal saturation and
are unsuitable.
Soils exhibiting layers with distinct
textural or structural changes should
be carefully evaluated to insure water
movement will not be severely
restricted.
-------
TABLE E-3 (continued)
Item
Unsaturated Depth
Percolation Rate
Cr iter ia
2 to 4 ft of unsaturated soil should
exist between the bottom of the system
and the seasonally high water table or
bedrock .
1-60 nun/in. (average of at least 3
percolation tests).c Systems can be
constructed in soils with slower
percolation rates, but soil damage
during construction must be avoided.
a Landscape position and slope are more restrictive for beds because
of the depths of cut on the upslope side.
b intended only as a guide. Safe distance varies from site to site,
based upon topography, soil permeability, ground water gradients,
geology, etc.
c Soils with percolation rates 1 min/in. can be used for trenches and
beds if the soil is replaced with a suitably thick (> 2 ft) layer of
loamy sand or sand.
E-10
-------
TABLE E-4
SITE CRITERIA FOR MOUND SYSTEMS
Item
Landscape Position
Slope
Typical Horizontal Separation
Distances from Edge of Basal Area
Water Supply Wells
Surface Waters, Springs
Escarpments
Boundary of Property
Building Foundations
Soil
Profile Description
Unsaturated Depth
Criteria
Well-drained areas, level or
sloping. Crests of slopes or
convex slopes most desirable.
Avoid depressions, bases of slopes
and concave slopes unless suitable
drainage is provided.
0 to 6% for soils with percolation
rates slower than 60 min/in.a
0 to 12% for soils with percolation
rates faster than 60 min/in.a
50 to 100 ft
50 to 100 ft
10 to 20 ft
5 to 10 ft
10 to 20 ft
(30 ft when located upslope from a
building in slowly permeable
soils).
Soils with a well developed and
relatively undisturbed A horizon
(topsoil) are preferable. Old
filled areas should be carefully
investigated for abrupt textural
changes that would affect water
movement. Newly filled areas
should be avoided until proper
settlement occurs.
20 to 24 in. of unsaturated soil
should exist between the original
soil surface and seasonally
saturated horizons or pervious or
creviced bedrock.
E-ll
-------
TABLE E-4 (continued)
Item
Depth to Impermeable Barrier
Percolation Rate
Cr1teria
3 to 5 ftb
0 to 120 min/in. measured at 12 to
20 in.c
a These are present limits used in Wisconsin established to coincide
with slope classes used by the Soil Conservation Service in soil
mapping. Mounds have been sited on slopes greater than these, but
experience is limited.
k Acceptable depth is site-dependent.
c Tests are run at 20 in. unless water table is at 20 in., in which
case test is run at 16 in. In shallow soils over pervious or creviced
bedrock, tests are run at 12 in.
E-12
-------
APPENDIX F
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
OF STATE ORGANIZATIONS
Tables F-l thru F-6
F-l
-------
TABLE F-l
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OF STATE ORGANIZATIONS
NORTH CAROLINA
County
Joint County Water &
Interlocal Management Service Sewer
Sanitary Sewer
Prlvate
Power
Surveys of Sanitary
problems/needs
X
X
1—1—
X
X
X
x
Issue general
obligation bonds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issue revenue bonds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
Impose Assessments
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
Levy taxes
X
X
X
X
X
X
Set fees, rates or
charges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Receive grants/
loans
* „
X
X
X
X
X
X
X2
Hold title to all real
property of the systen
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Operate System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enter into contracts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Install/operate/
maintain systems on
private property
X
X
X
X
X
X
xl
X
1 Sanitary district cannot require installation of sewer lines in new subdivisions or adopt
subdivision regulations.
2 Sewer authority cannot receive federal revenue-sharing funds or community development grants.
Source: Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina.
-------
TABLE F-2
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OF STATE ORGANIZATIONS
KENTUCKY
County
Joint County Water &
Interlocal Management Service Sewer
Sanitary Sewer
Power
Private
Corporation-
Surveys of Sanitary
problems/needs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issue general
obligation bonds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issue revenue bonds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impose Assessments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I x
Levy taxes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Set fees, rates or
charges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Receive grants/
loans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hold title to all real
property of the systen
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Operate System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enter into contracts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Install/operate/
maintain systems on
private property
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 Only public body can issue general obligation bonds, issue revenue bonds and levy taxes.
2 A sanitation district is considered a "quasi-public body", but after June 1984 will be subject
to Fiscal Court control (legislative body of counties).
3 Kentucky also provides for a Metropolitan Sewer District with similar authorities.
Source: Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet.
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-------
TABLE F-3
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OF STATE ORGANIZATIONS
GEORGIA
County
Joint County Water &
Interlocal Management Service Sewer
Sanitary Sewer
Private
Power
Surveys of Sanitary
problems/needs
X
¦'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issue general
obligation bonds
X
X
Issue revenue bonds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impose Assessments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Levy taxes
X
X
Set fees, rates or
charges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Receive grants/
loans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
Hold title to all real
property of the systen
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Operate System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enter into contracts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Install/operate/
maintain systems on
private property
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 Private groups can provide wastewater management services through contractural arrangements.
2 Only public entities can receive grants or loans.
Source: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division.
-------
TABLE F-4
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OF STATE ORGANIZATIONS
SOUTH CAROLINA
County
Joint County Water s,
Interlocal Management Service Sewer
Sanitary Sewer
Private
Power
Surveys of Sanitary
problems/needs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issue general
obligation bonds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issue revenue bonds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impose Assessments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Levy taxes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Set fees, rates or
charges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Receive grants/
loans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hold title to all real
property of the systen
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Operate System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enter into contracts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Install/operate/
maintain systems on
private property
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 Private utilities may provide wastewater services, although they may not exercise all the powers
of public bodies (including management/planning powers).
Source: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
-------
TABLE F-5
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OF STATE ORGANIZATIONS
TENNESSEE
County
Joint County Water &
Interlocal Management Service Sewer
Sanitary Sewer
Private
Power
Surveys of Sanitary
problems/needs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issue general
obligation bonds
X
X
X
X
Issue revenue bonds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impose Assessments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Levy taxes2
X
X
X
X
Set fees, rates or
charges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Receive grants/
loans1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hold title to all real
property o£ the systen
X
—>— ¦¦
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Operate Systea
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enter into contracts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Install/operate/
maintain systems on
private property^
1 limited to municipalities receiving state-shared taxes
2 any county; metropolitan gov't; incorporated town or city
3 powers are not covered in laws.
Sources: Tennessee Department of Health and Environment.
1983 Tennessee State Code
-------
Power
TABLE F-6
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OF STATE ORGANIZATIONS
ALABAMA
County
Joint County Water &
Interlocal Management Service Sewer Sanitary Sewer
Agency District District District Authority
City County Agreement
Private
Corporation
Surveys of Sanitary
problems/needs
Issue general
obligation bonds
Issue revenue bonds
Impose Assessments
Levy taxes
Set fees, rates or
charges
Receive grants/
loans
Hold title to all real
property of the systen
Operate System
Enter into contracts
Install/operate/
maintain systems on
private property
Note: Sewer authorities in resort areas have the same regulatory powers as cities/counties.
Source: Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1984.
-------
APPENDIX G
PRIVATIZATION CHECKLIST
There are many approaches to privatization of wastewater facilities: with
or without equity; lease or direct ownership; industrial development revenue
or pollution control bonds, etc. Although each of these approaches has
individual characteristics, they all have one common feature—reliance on the
tax-exempt revenue bond market to raise the debt necessary for construction,
(from 75% to 100% of project costs, depending upon whether equity investment is
a part of the transaction.)
Wastewater privatization projects can be financed if: 1) they are
economically viable on their own merits; and 2) they incorporate acceptable and
adequate security mechanisms. Water and wastewater bond issues are especially
attractive to bond buyers because with the systems literally being "in the
ground", the users are dependent on their continued performance for the
maintenance of public health. In other words, bond buyers presume that in the
event of technical or financial problems, all necessary actions will be taken
to keep the system operating, regardless of cost.
The Financial Checklist
A number of issues and concerns must be considered by the investment banker
in the development of a privatization transaction. These include:
The Project
. The project must be truly needed.
• A financial feasibility study must document that the project is
economically viable without resorting to extreme financial machin-
at ions.
. The current and projected economic health of the service area must be
adequate to support the project.
G-l
-------
• Promises of goods from related parties (for example, to supply bulk
water) must be strong and enforceable.
Financial Structure (Equ1ty)
• The local government must decide in the beginning whether it will require
an initial cash investment.
• If equity investment is required, the choice usually will be between
using a lease or a limited partnership arrangement.
• If equity is infused during construction or at start up, rather than in
full upfront, it must be fully committed and irrevocably secured by the
time of bond closing.
• The financial arrangement must meet provisions of Section 103 of the
Internal Revenue Service Code.
• The arrangement must also effectively shelter the equity owner(s) from
actual constructlon/O&M burdens, otherwise investors will not be secur-
ed.
Financial Structure _(Deb t)_
• The issuer must be an Industrial Development Agency or other agency which
can issue bonds on behalf of private partes.
• Generally, the issue should be conventionally structured: capitalized
interest; funds trusteed under an indenture; unqualified approving
opinion of bond counsel.
• The term of the financing should be 20-30 years, to realize affordable
annual debt service coverage.
G-2
-------
• Generally, the issue should be designed for public distribution, unless
institutional market-oriented devises such as low, variable-rate bonds
are used.
• There should be "additional bonds" provisions to accommodate expansion.
Principal Contractors
• Construction. The builder must have the demonstrated technical capa-
bility to build the project on time and within budget, and the financial
resources (including insurance) to pay potentially substantial damages
for partial or complete non-performance.
• 04 M. The operator must have the demonstrated capability to operate the
project according to set standards and the financial resources to pay
damages and/or State-imposed fines for partial or complete non-per-
formance.
• Ideally, the operator should be sufficiently substantial to convenant to
remain in business for the duration of its service agreement.
• If the operating company is a subsidiary of a larger firm, its
performance should be guaranteed by that parent.
Contractual Basis
• The procurement of construction and/or operating services must strictly
adhere to state law to protect the financing from legal challenges.
• The supply of "raw material" (water or wastewater) must be guaranteed for
the life of the bonds.
• There should be provisions for the builder to pay damages or "buy down"
bonds for non-delivery of the project or if guaranteed design (pro-
cessing) capacity cannot be attained.
G-3
-------
• There must be adequate provisions for adjusting service prices to
reflect inflation, expansion and other significant events.
t The operator should be subject to damages and/or fines for substandard
performance, as well as subject to requirements to correct self-created
problems at its own cost. The removal of the operator for default should
be enabled.
Financing Security
• The financing must be adequately secured, using mechanisms such as:
• debt service reserve fund
• other reserves (such as repair and replacement)
• municipal rate covenant
• municipal collection or municipal guarantee of collections
from individual system users
• enforceable contractor guarantees
• municipal bond insurance or letter of credit.
Regulatory Basis
• If the project is subject to rate regulation by a State utilities
commission, the effect of this on the marketability of both the debt and
equity will need to be assessed.
• Because of the essential public health and welfare nature of water and
wastewater systems, it is unlikely >that a Public Utility Commission
would allow a project to financially default by not enabling rate
increases. Therefore, rate regulation should not fatally affect bond
marketability.
• Regulation will affect the tax credits and benefits available to equity
investors, which in turn will affect the amount of equity invested. This
will have an impact on the amount of debt required, and, thus, annual
debt service levels.
G-4
-------
Corc^I us i on
Water and wastewater privatization projects have access to the equity
market that is tapped for other tax-exempt utility financing. The same debt
market used for other privatization financings is also available to water and
wastewater transactions, requiring the same types of security mechanisms.
Because privatization is keyed to equity investment, whether direct as
cash or indirect as long-term O&M subsidies (or, service cost reductions), the
ability to attract private capital is essential. As much as this involves the
structure of the transaction, it also involves the technical and financial
strength and capabilities of the contractors and vendors participating in a
project. Strict security and financial measures are necessary to attract both
debt and equity. If a project can be so structured to attract the equity, a
community can be confident of the ability to also sell the debt.
Source: Adapted from David Mackenzie. "A Financial Checklist for
Privatization". Clean Water Finance 1985. Copyright, the
American Clean Water Association, edited by Larry Silverman
and Bernard C. Nagelvoort.
G-5
-------
APPENDIX H
WATER RESOURCES ASSISTANCE CORPORATION -
FINANCIAL AND FIELD MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
1. Water Resources Assistance Corporation, hereafter WRAC, is a non-
profit corporation established to provide various services to water districts,
municipal water systems and related entities.
2. _ _ , hereafter Water System, is a Water
District providing water service in County,
Kentucky.
3. Water System has determined that it is in the best interest of its
consumers to have WRAC provide exclusive financial and field management
services to the System. These services are to consist of operating the
system, connecting customers, reading the meters, preparing and sending
bills, collecting revenues, making repairs, water sampling, keeping financial
records, making reports to regulatory and funding agencies, and other related
financial and field management services as are set out below.
4. WRAC does not assume responsibility for any existing contractual
or financial obligations of the Water System, but will collect the bills,
keep the financial records and recommend action on financial obligations to
the Water System. WRAC will maintain Water System inventory of materials
and supplies pursuant to the execution of this contract. WRAC will also
oversee for the Water System any special contract services, i.e., line
extension contracts, etc., to the same extent that the District would so
function exclusive of professional service contracts. In instances where
it is necessary to obtain extraordinary services or supplies from an outside
source, WRAC will not obligate Water System for any such obligations without
prior approval of the Water System except in the case of emergencies, and
will in those instances make every attempt to obtain prior approval from an
authorized agent of the Water System.
5. WRAC's policy requires that WRAC treat each Water System with
which it contracts as a separate and distinct entity. WRAC will therefore
maintain separate records and bank accounts enabling it to do so. The
Water System shall designate an FDIC insured bank to be used as a depository
for funds received on its behalf by WRAC, and all such funds will be maintained
in a separate account in Water System's name in that bank.
H-l
-------
6. WRAC will maintain office hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays
(excepting legal holidays). WRAC will arrange for staff to attend the
monthly meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Water System. WRAC
will assign personnel to respond to emergency problems outside of normal
working hours (see Section 14 below). It is understood that all other
services will be performed during normal working hours.
7. BILLING: WRAC agrees to read the customers meters, prepare and
send monthly bills, including delinquent and disconnect notices, to receive
payment and deposit them to Water System credit in the designated bank, and
to prepare and maintain appropriate billing records including:
a. A customer profile card for each customer.
b. A customer folder for each rental unit.
c. A monthly billing register containing information
on all accounts billed.
d. A monthly billing journal
e. A monthly consumption report
8. ACCOUNTING: WRAC will maintain Water System's accounts in a form
where all separate accounts required by the Kentucky Public Service Commission,
bond ordinances, or sound management practice can be readily ascertained.
WRAC will prepare monthly statement of accounts, will balance the accounts
and do reconciliations, and will also prepare projections of income and
expenses where appropriate.
9. REPORTS: WRAC will prepare and file all periodic reports required
by state and federal funding and regulatory agencies and will in addition
provide routine data to support rate increase applications.
10. PAYMENT OF BILLS: WRAC shall at the monthly meeting of the Board
of Directors of the Water System report on Revenues, showing sources, funds
available, and obligations. WRAC will make recommendations to the board as
to obligations requiring payment. Upon authorization by the Water System,
WRAC shall prepare checks for signature by the Chairperson or other designated
member of the Water System Board of Commissioners.
11. OPERATIONS: WRAC will perform all routine operating functions
including:
a. New residential connections to existing system
b. Reconnect ions
c. Disconnects
H-2
-------
d. Meter changes
e. Water sampling and records
f. Water testing and records
g. Chemical treatment and records
h. Master meter reading and records
i. Visual inspection of facilities
j. Flushing lines as required
k. Maintaining system maps
12. MAINTENANCE: WRAC will perform all routine maintenance functions
including repairing water leaks not requiring replacement or renewal of
conduit or appurtenances and routine maintenance of all facilities owned by
the Water System not requiring replacement or renewal of facilities, but
specifically excluding repainting of water towers and pump houses.
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement shall apply only to
routine operations and maintenance necessary to provide service to customers
of the Water System, and shall be limited to normal repairs and scheduled
maintenance.
Repairs to the system shall be deemed normal maintenance if such repairs
do not require complete replacement of a major component, i.e., section of
piping, major control mechanism, pump, water meter, electric motor, etc.
The Corporation shall exchange from the inventory customer meters as required
to maintain continuity of service and billing for the consumer, but is not
responsible for repairs to such meters.
13. NON-EMERGENCY RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT AND SYSTEM EXTENSIONS: WRAC
agrees to make non-emergency renewal and replacements, extensions of the
system, and new commercial-industrial connections, if it has personnel and
facilities available for such services, at its cost. Such services shall
be performed only after a cost estimate has been made by WRAC and approved
by the Water System. In addition, it is understood that no line extensions
shall be made unless same is subject to the standard Water Extension Contract
as approved by the Board of Commissioners and no new commercial-industrial
connections shall be made unless in accordance with the rules and regulations
of the Water System. All such services are in addition to the services
under the basic contract and are not covered by the basic contract charge.
H-3
-------
14. EMERGENCY RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT: In the case of an emergency
situation, WRAC shall attempt to contact the appropriate agent of the Water
System to obtain approval of immediately required renewal and replacement.
However, it is understood that if no such contact can be made, WRAC is
authorized to make those repairs necessary under the circumstances, and to
be compensated for the actual cost of the repairs including time and one-
half the normal salary rate of employees, as required by law, in addition
to the basic contract charge.
15. INVENTORY: WRAC agrees to maintain a complete inventory of materials
and supplies as required for the routine operation and maintenance of the
Water System. The Water System will be invoiced for supplies and materials
as same are acquired and/or placed in service.
16. COMPENSATION: WRAC shall commence to perform all of the above
described services on for a charge to the Water System of
$ per month per residential equivalent customer billed.* Water System
agrees to pay WRAC a sum equal to the number of residential equivalent
customers billed the prior month times the monthly rate each month beginning
one month after service is commenced. Water System also agrees to pay WRAC
for all other services rendered under this contract or which may be agreed
to in addition to the contract thirty (30) days after such services are
rendered.
17. RENEGOTIATION OF AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION: WRAC shall at the close
of the second quarter review all services performed under the contract and
tabulate the total receipts under this contract and provide such information
to the Water System. If the amount of revenue received is greater than the
actual costs of providing these services by more than 10%, the charge pet-
month per customer billed shall be adjusted proportionately for the remaining
two quarters of the contract year.
18. COSTS: For the purpose of computing cost under this contract,
WRAC shall maintain records of materials and supplies and employee and
equipment time utilized in performing services under this contract. Employee
time shall include employee benefits, employer taxes and other costs directly
related to the payment of wages. Equipment time shall include operating
* Calculated on the basis of customers.
H-4
-------
and maintenance costs, depreciation, finance charges and other charges
directly related to the utilization of the equipment. Administrative overheads
including supervisory salaries, rents, utilities, interest cost on inventory,
office equipment, and related charges may be allocated directly, as a percentage
of other charges, or on a per customer basis, using generally acceptable
principles of cost accounting.
19. POWERS: The Water System hereby authorizes the Corporation to
act as agent for the Water System in carrying out the functions that WRAC
has agreed to perform. WRAC agrees to obtain insurance to protect itself
and the Water System against any error or omissions by itself or its employees
as available and to inform the Water System of the limits and coverage of
the insurance that has been obtained. WRAC shall also provide fidelity
bond coverage by an insurance company on all WRAC employees handling Water
System funds.
20. DURATION: The contract shall become effective and shall remain
in effect for a period of one year from effective date given above, provided
however, that the charge for succeeding years will be established as set
out in Sections 17 and 18 above. An executed copy of this contract shall
be submitted to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) as per direction
of that Agency. Notice of termination of contractual arrangement may be
given by either party for cause upon 30 day written notice to the other
party, upon written approval of the EDA and/or its successors.
21. Authorized agent(s) of the Water System pursuant to Sections 4
10, and 14 above is/are:
Chairman and/or Commissioner(s)
22. Depository Bank for Water System pursuant to Section 5 above is
H-5
-------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Water Resources Assistance Corporation, a non-
profit Corporation, and the ________ > a Water
System, have caused their corporate name to be signed hereto, attested by
their duly authorized officers, on respective dates as hereinafter set
forth:
ATTEST: Water Resources Assistance Corporation
BY: BY:
Date:
ATTEST:
Water System
BY: BY:
Title Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
H-6
-------
APPENDIX I
STATE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Tables 1-1 thru 1-6
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1
ALABAMA
PERMITS
Permit
Issuing Agency
Limi tat ion s/Except1ons
Notes
NPDES
Department of Environmental
Management
State Indirect
Department of Environmental
Issued to any person who
Discharge (SID)
Management
is a non-municipal, non-
permi t
domestic discharger and
who discharges or pro-
poses to discharge pollu
tants from any source in
to a publicly-owned
treatment works.
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-2
GEORGIA
PERMITS
Permit
Issuing Agency
Limitations/Exceptions/
Notes
NPDES
Pre-treatment
Permit
Permit to operate
a land disposal
system
Land-Disturbing
Activities Permits
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Divi-
sion
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Divi-
sion
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Divi-
sion
Not applicable to indi-
vidual domestic dis-
chargers.
Department of
Environmental
sion
Natural Resources
Protection Divi-
Exemptions:
1. projects involving 5
acres or less when
such activities are
more than 200 feet
from the bank of any
state waters which
drain land area of at
least 100 square miles.
2. any public utility
under the regulatory
jurisdiction of the
public service commis-
sion.
1-3
-------
TABLE 1-3
KENTUCKY
PERMITS
Permit
NPDES
Issuing Agency
Plumbing
Installation
Permit
On-site sub-
surface Sewage
Disposal Permit
Construct ion
Permit
Construct ion
Permi t
Limitat ions/Except ions/
Notes
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection,
Division of Water Quality
Local Boards of Health
Local Boards of Health
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection,
Division of Water Quality.
Issued only to licensed
master plumbers, except
in specified conditions
where homeowners desire
to install plumbing in
homes actually occupied
by them.
Upon permit approval
and issuance, a plumbing
installation permit is
granted.
Upon permit approval and
issuance, a plumbing in-
stallation permit is
granted.
Applicable to an on-site
system if it will dis-
charge to surface waters
or onto the land (e.g.
spray 1rrigation).
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-4
NORTH CAROLINA
PERMITS*
Permit
NPDES
Issuing Agency
Improvements
Permit
Certificate of
Complet ion
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development,
Environmental Operations
Section,
Division of Environmental
Management
Local Health Departments
Local Health Departments
Limitat ions/Except ions/
Notes
Must be obtained before
a sewage disposal system
or privy is installed,
repaired or renovated.
Issued after a post-
construction inspection
is performed to ascertain
whether all specifications
of system design and lo-
cation have been followed.
Applies to on-site system.
Office of Regulatory Relations (DNRCD) is responsible for providing
permit information and assistance. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Director: Anne Taylor (919)733-6376.
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-5
SOUTH CAROLINA
PERMITS
Permits
Issuing Agency
"T.
Limitat ions/Except ions/
iNotes
NPDES
State
Construct ion
Department of Health & Environ-jAny system discharging to
mental Control (DHEC), Indus- ia surface water body,
trial and Agricultural Waste- !
water Division & the Domestic !
Wastewater and Municipal Grants
Administration Division
Same as above
jAllows for regulatory re-
|view of treatment plant
jdesign. Has been effec-
tive in controlling no-
jdischarge systems (e.g.
spray irrigation, evapo-
jtranspirat ion, etc.) and
pretreatment plants. Re-
quires prior submission
of "as-built" plans and
specif1 cat ions.
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-6
TENNESSEE
PERMITS
Permits
Issuing Agency
Limitations/Exceptions/
Notes
NPDES
Department of Public Health,
Division of Water Quality
Control
Building Permits
Local Health Departments
Approves building per-
mits for lots planning
on-site disposal.
Tennessee local govern-
ments have the authority
and responsibility for
controlling on-site
| domestic waste disposal
j (as a non-point source)
j in their enabling legis-
| lation. No statewide
j coordinated policy.
i
i
i
i
1-7
-------
APPENDIX J
NORTH CAROLINA ON-SITE
SEWAGE DISTRICT LEGISLATION
The following are pages from the North Carolina State Code dealing
with the authorities of counties, cities, towns and water and sewer
authorities (last page). As can be noted, each of these governmental
entities or organizations has the authority to operate sewage collection
and disposal systems of all types, including on-site systems, Other
chapters of the Code not included here which deal with additional
organizations also provide this authority.
J-l
-------
( 153A-272 CH. 153A. COUNTIES § 153A-275
§§ 153A-272, 153A-273: Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 15.
Public Enterprises.
Part 1. General Provisions
§ 153A-274. Public enterprise defined.
As used in this Article, "public enterprise" includes:
(1) Water supply and distribution systems,
(2) Sewage collection and disposal systems of all types, including septic
tank systems or other on-site collection or disposal facilities or sys-
tems,
(3) Solid waste collection and disposal systems and facilities,
(4) Airports,
(5) OfT-street parking facilities,
(6) Public transportation systems. (1965, c. 370; 1957, c. 266, s. 3; 1961, c.
514, s. 1; c. 1001, s. 1; 1971, c. 568; 1973, c. 822, s. 1; c. 1214; 1977, c.
514, s. 1; 1979, c. 619, s. 1.)
ft 153A-275. Authority to operate public enterprises.
A county may acquire, lease as lessor or lessee, construct, establish, enlarge,
improve, extend, maintain, own, operate, and contract for the operation of
public enterprises in order to furnish services to the county and its citizens. A
county may acquire, construct, establish, enlarge, improve, maintain, own, and
operate outside its borders any public enterprise.
A county mny by ordinance or resolution, adopt adequate and reasonable
rules and regulations to protect and regulate a public enterprise belonging to
or operated bv it. (1955, c. 370; 1957, c. 266, s. 3; 1961, c. 514, s. 1; c. 1001, s.
1; 1967. c. 462; 1971, c. 568; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.)
CASE NOTES
Constitutionality of Former Statute. —
Former it was constitutional, vio-
lating neither !! 5 nnr 4 17 of Art. I of the Con-
stitution of 1808. Ramsey v. Rollins. 246 N.C.
647. 100 S.E.2d 55 (1957).
The limitation upon the counties contained in
Art. VII, $ 7 of the Constitution of 1868.
requiring that bonds for the construction of
water and sewer »yntoms be approved by the
voter* in such county, did not impair the
constitutionality of the grant of the power to
construct such systems in any respect. Ramsey
v. Rollins. 246 N.C. 647, 100 S.E.2d 55 <1957).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
A* to authority for county to appropriate
nontax funds for water and sewer system.
see opinion of Attorney General to Mr M.
Alexander Biggs. Special Counsel. Nash
County Board of Commissioners, 40 N.C.A.G.
92(1970)
92
J-2
-------
§ 160A-311 CH. 160A. CITIES AND TOWNS § 160A-312
Article 16.
Public Enterprises.
Part 1. General Provisions.
§ 160A-311. Public enterprise defined.
As used in this Article, the term "public enterprise" includes:
(1) Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution systems;
(2) Water supply and distribution systems;
(3) Sewage collection and disposal systems of all types, including septic
tank systems or other on-site collection or disposal facilities or sys-
tems;
(4) Gas production, storage, transmission, and distribution systems,
where systems shall also include the purchase and/or lease of natural
gas fields and natural gas reserves, the purchase of natural gas
supplies, and the surveying, drilling and any other activities related
to the exploration for natural gas, whether within the State or
without;
(5) Public transportation systems;
(6) Solid waste collection and disposal systems and facilities;
(7) Cable television systems;
(8) Off-street parking facilities and systems;
(9) Airports. (1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1975, c. 549, s. 2; c. 821, s. 3; 1977, c. 514,
s. 2; 1979, c. 619, s. 2.)
CASE NOTES
Applied in Dize Awning & Tent Co. v. City Big Bear of N.C., Inc. v. City of High Point, 294
of Winston-Salem, 29 N.C. App. 297, 224 S.E 2d N.C. 262. 240 S.E.2d 422 (1978); Advance
257 (1976). Publications, Inc. v. City of Elizabeth City, 53
Cited in Duke Power Co. v. City of High N.C. App. 504, 281 S.E.2d 69 (1981).
Point, 22 N.C. App. 91, 205 S.E.2d 774 (1974);
§ 160A-312. Authority to operate public enterprises.
A city shall have authority to acquire, construct, establish, enlarge, improve,
maintain, own, operate, and contract for the operation of any or all of the public
enterprises as defined in this Article to furnish services to the city and its
citizens. Subject to Part 2 of this Article, a city may acquire, construct, estab-
lish, enlarge, improve, maintain, own, and operate any public enterprise
outside its corporate limits, within reasonable limitations, but in no case shall
a city be held liable for damages to those outside the corporate limits for failure
to furnish any public enterprise service.
A city shall have full authority to protect and regulate any public enterprise
system belonging to it by adequate and reasonable rules ana regulations.
A city may operate that part of a gas system involving the purchase and/or
lease of natural gas fields, natural gas reserves and natural gas supplies and
the surveying, drilling or any other activities related to the exploration for
natural gas, in a partnership or joint venture arrangement with natural gas
utilities and private enterprise. (1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1973, c. 426, s. 51; 1975, c.
821, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1247, s. 29.)
378
J-3
-------
§ 162A-3
CM 1(>2A WATER AND SEWBR SYSTEMS
§ 162A-3
(9) The term "sewage disposal system" shall mean and shall include any
plant, system, facility, or property used or useful or having the present
capacity for future use in connection with the collection, treatment,
purification or disposal of sewage (including industrial wastes
resulting from any processes of industry, manufacture, trade or busi-
ness or from the development of any natural resources), or any inte-
gral part thereof, including but not limited to septic tank systems or
other on-site collection or disposal facilities or systems, treatpiejit
plants, pumping stations, intercepting sewers, trunk sewers, pressufe
lines, mains and all necessary appurtenances and equipment, and all
property, rights, easements and franchises relating thereto and
deemed necessary or convenient by the authority for the operation
thereof.
(10) The word "sewers" shall include mains, pipes and laterals for the
reception of sewage and carrying such sewage to an outfall or some
part of a sewage disposal system, including pumping stations where
deemed necessary by the authority.
(11) The term "sewer system" shall embrace both sewers and sewage
disposal systems and all property, rights, easements and franchises
relating thereto.
(12) The term "water system" shall mean and include all plants, systems,
facilities or properties used or useful or having the present capacity for
future use in connection with the supply or distribution of water, and
any integral part thereof, including but not limited to water supply
systems, water distribution systems, sources of water supply includ-
ing lakes, reservoirs and wells, intakes, mains, laterals, aqueducts,
umping stations, standpipes, filtration plants, purification plants,
ydrants, meters, valves, and all necessary appurtenances and equip-
ment and all properties, rights, easements and franchises relating
thereto and deemed necessary or convenient by the authority for the
operation thereof. (1955, c. 1195, s. 2; 1969, c. 850; 1971, c. 892, s. 1;
1979, c. 619, s. 8.)
§ 162A-3. Procedure for creation; certificate of incor-
poration; certification of principal office and
officers.
(a) The governing bodies of any two or more political subdivisions may by
resolution signify their determination to organize an authority under the pro-
visions of this Article. Each of such resolutions shall be adopted after a public
hearing thereon, notice of which hearing shall be given by publication at least
once, not less than 10 days prior to the date fixed for such hearing, in a
newspaper having a general circulation in the political subdivision. Such
notice snail contain a brief statement of the substance of the proposed resolu-
tion, shall set forth the proposed articles of incorporation of the authority and
shall state the time and place of the public hearing to be held thereof. No such
political subdivision shall be required to make any other publication of such
resolution under the provisions of any other law.
(b) Each such resolution shall include articles of incorporation which shall
set forth:
(1) The name of the authority;
(2) A statement that such authority is organized under this Article;
(3) The names of the organizing political subdivisions; and
(4) The names and addresses of the first members of the authority
appointed by the organizing political subdivisions.
50
J-4
-------
APPENDIX K
GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC
UTILITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND ORDINANCE
K-l
-------
ORDINANCE NO. 71-3
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES AND CHARGES
FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE AND PROVIDING
PROCEDURES FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT
AUBURN LAKE TRAILS AREA
BE IT ENACTED by the Board of Directors of the Georgetown Divide
Public Utility District, El Dorado County, California, as follows:
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1 Short Title. This ordinance may be cited as "Georgetown
Divide Public Utility District Sewage Disposal Service Charge Ordinance."
1.2 Definitions. Unless the context otherwise indicates, terms
used herein have the following meanings:
a) "District" means the Georgetown Divide Public Utility
District.
b) "Board" means the board of directors of the District.
c) "Sewage disposal charges" means fees, tolls, rates, rent-
als or other charges for services and facilities furnished by
District in connection with sanitation or sewage systems.
d) "Report" means the report referred to in §5^73 of the
Health and Safety Code of the State of California.
e) "Sewage disposal system" means a Eeptic tank or any
other facility designed and constructed for the purpose of receiving
and disposing of sewage.
f) "Sewage" means any combination of water-carried wastes
discharged from buildings in the District.
1.3 Need for Regulation. The District has heretofore formed
Improvement Districts A and B of the Georgetown Divide Public Utility
District, Auburn Lake Trails Area, pursuant to Resolutions Numbers 70-U
and 71-7, adopted by the Board of Directors on February 2, 1970, and
January 13> 1971, respectively, for the purposes, among others, of plan-
ning and designing and operating and maintaining works necessary to
K-2
-------
provide sanitary sewage and sewage disposal service to the areas within
said improvement districts. By reason of the geology of said areas and
the Intensity of the subdivision development thereof the disposition of
sewage into private sewage disposal systerns within said areas without
District regulation and control will create a hazard to health and water
quality and the danger of contamination of the water supply of the
District.
1.4 Separability. Ihe Board hereby declares that it would have
passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of the
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared uncon-
stitutional.
1.5 Posting. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after its passage. At least one week before the expiration of the said
thirty (30) days, copies of the ordinance shall be posted at three (3)
public places in the District, and published once in the Town Crier.
ARTICLE 2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
2.1 Sewer Hot Available. Where a public sewer is not available
within either of said Improvement Districts A and B the building sewer
shall be connected to a sewage disposal system to be constructed on the
site pursuant to this ordinance, and complying with all rules, regula-
tions and ordinances of the District.
2.2 Permit Required. Before commencement of construction of a
sewage disposal system, the owner shall first obtain a written permit
signed by the District Manager or his authorised representative. The
application for such permit shall be made on a form furnished by the
District, which shall request the District to provide plans, specifica-
tions and other Information as deemed necessary by the District. A
permit fee in the amount of Five Dollars ($5*00) shall be paid to the
District at the time application is filed. The form of application for
permit shall include a grant to the District of the right to maintain,
K-3
-------
satisfaction, and an agreement to observe all District rules, regula-
tions and ordinances and to pay all District charges.
2.3 Wo Building Permit. Subject to the approval by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado, no building permit for a
building within either of said Improvement Districts A and B shall be
issued by the County Building Inspector until the District has issued a
permit for a sewage disposal facility as required herein.
2.4 Inspection Required. A permit for a sewage disposal system
shall not become effective until the installation is completed to the
satisfaction of the District Manager or his authorized representative.
He shall be allowed to inspect the work at any stage of construction and,
in any event, the applicant for the;permit shall notify the District
Manager or his authorized representative when the work is ready for
final inspection, and before any underground portions are covered. The
inspection shall be made within forty-eight (48) hours, Sundays and
holidays excluded, of the receipt of the notice. Installation shall
conform to the plans and specifications furnished by District pursuant
to the permit application.
2.5 Design Requirements. The type, capacities, locations and
layout of a sewage disposal system shall comply with all recommendations
of the El Dorado County Health Department. No permit shall be issued
for any sewage disposal system employing subsurface soil absorption fa-
cilities where the area of the lot is determined to be Inadequate by
the Board of District. No septic tank or cesspool shall be permitted
to discharge to any public sewer or directly to any stream of water
course.
2.6 Abandonment of Facilities. At such time as a public sewer
becomes available to a property served by a sewage disposal system, a
direct connection shall.be made to the public sewer in compliance with
the ordinances, rules and regulations of District, and any septic tanks,
cesspools, and similar private sewage disposal facilities shall be
abandoned and filled with suitable material as determined bv the
K-4
-------
District Manager or his authorized representative.
2.7 Maintenance and Monitoring by District. The District shall
operate and maintain the Bewage disposal facilities constructed pursu-
ant to this ordinance in a sanitary manner at all times. To assure
protection of surface and subsurface waters the District will maintain
a watershed monitoring program throughout said areas of said Improve-
ment Districts A and B, such program to be in conformance with stand-
ards determined in conjunction with the El Dorado County Health
Department, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Bureau of
Reclamation. The District Manager shall prepare, and from time to time
as necessary amend, rules and regulations governing said operation and
maintenance of sewage disposal facilities and said monitoring program,
subject to approval thereof by resolution of the Board.
2.8 Additional Requirements. No statement contained in this
Article shall be construed to interfere with any additional require-
ments that may be imposed by any law, ordinance, rule or regulation or
by the Health Officer of the County. In the event any sewage disposal
system installed pursuant to this ordinance requires modification by
reason of conditions below ground level which were not apparent on the
surface, and which become apparent during construction of said system
or as a result of the monitoring program specified in Section 2.7 of
this ordinance, the owner of the lot shall make such modification at
his expense. In the event of failure of such owner to do so, within
thirty (30) days after written notice, mailed to his address as shown
on the last county equalized assessment roll or as filed with the Clerk
of District, then District shall make such modification and the lot
shall be subject to a service charge therefor pursuant to Section 3.1(c)
of this ordinance.
ARTICLE 3. RATES AND CHARGES
3.1 Charges. Charges for the services of the District rendered
pursuant to this ordinance are hereby established as follows:
#/otz o
a) $6r©©. per R-l residential lot per year (payable bv an
K-5
-------
b) $12.00 per commercial lot per year (payable by all
commercial lota within said Improvement Districts A and B);
c) An amount equal to the actual cost to the District of
performing any extraordinary maintenance or repair of a sewage dis-
posal system, including pumping of a septic tank., or making any
replacement or modification of a sewage disposal system, or portion
thereof (any such charge to be applicable only to the particular lot
for which such service is rendered).
3.2 Effective Date. Said charges shall become effective as to
all properties within said Improvement Districts A and B on the first
day of the month next succeeding the effective date of this ordinance.
3.3 Amendment. Any or all of the rates and charges established
by this Article may be amended by resolution of the Board duly adopted
and filed in the office of the Secretary, copies of which shall be
available on request.
ARTICLE 4. BILLING AND COLLECTING
4.1 Billing. The regular billing period will be for each calen-
dar month, or such other period as may be determined by the Board.
Schools and other public institutions shall pay semiannually on bills
rendered on the first days of January and July of each year for the
next preceding semiannual period.
U.2 Opening and Closing Bills. Opening and closing bills for
less than the normal billing period shall be for not less than one
month.
4.3 Billing Time. Bills for sewer service shall be rendered at
the beginning of each billing period and are payable upon presentation
except as otherwise provided.
Penalties and Interest. All bills not provided prior to
delinquency to be collected on the tax rolls on which general district
taxes are collected, that are not paid on or before the 20th of the
month in which said bill was rendered, shall be delinquent and a pen-
alty of 10# of the bill or amount due, plus 1/2 of 1% per month from
the first day of said month. s»™n ¦*-¦» -¦*
K-6
-------
nonpayment and be collected as a part of the principal amount thereof.
^•5- Collection by Suit. As an alternative to any of the other
procedures herein provided, the District may collect said unpaid charges
by suit, in which event it shall have Judgment for the cost of suit and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
ARTICLE 5. COLLECTION WITH OTHER UTILITY CHARGES
5-1 Other Utility Charges. Itie Board of District may provide by
contract for the collection of its sewer service charges with the rates
for the services, facilities and water of the water system or other
utility service funished by it or the owner of such system. The sewer
service charges shall be itemized, billed upon the sane bill, and col-
lected as one item, together with and not separately from such utility
service charge.
5.2 Discontinuing Service. If all or any part of the bill of
any privately-owned public utility or public entity on which any sewer
service charge is collected is not paid, the privately-owned public
utility or public entity may discontinue its utility service until such
bill Is paid.
5.3 Compensation. The District may provide in the contract with
the privately-owned public utility or public entity on which sewer ser-
vice charges are collected, the compensation for making such collec-
tions .
5.4 Other Remedies. The District may provide otherwise for the
collection of such delinquent charges. All remedies herein provided
for their enforcement and collection are cumulative and may be pursued
alternatively or collectively as the District determines.
ARTICLE 6. USE OF TAX ROLL
6.1 Billing and Collecting on Tax Roll. District may provide
for the collection of current jind/or delinquent charges upon the tax
roll upon which District taxes are collected, in the manner provided by
law therefor,
K-7
-------
6.2 Procedure. When the District elects to use the tax roil on
which general District taxes are collected for the collection of cur-
rent and/or delinquent sewer service charges, proceedings therefor fthall
be had as now or hereafter provided therefor in Article U (commencing
with §5^70), Chapter 6, Part 3» Division 5 of the Health and Safety
Code.
6.3 Report. A written report shall be prepared and filed with
the Secretary, which shall contain a description of each parcel of real
property receiving such services and facilities and the amount of the
charge for each parcel for the forthcoming year, computed in conformity
with the charges prescribed by this ordinance.
6.4 Notices. The Secretary shall cause notice of the filing of
the report and of the time and place of hearing thereon to be published
once a week for two successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing,
in the Town Crier, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub-
lished in the District. Prior to such election for the first time, the
Secretary shall mail a notice in writing of the filing of said first
report proposing to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year
collected on the tax roll, and of the time and place of hearing
thereon, to be mailed to each person to whom any part or parcel of real
property described in the report is assessed in the last equalised as-
sessment roll on which general district taxes are collected, at the
address shown on said roll or as known to the Secretary.
6.5 Hearing. At the time of said hearing, the Board shall hear
and consider all objections or protests, if any, to said report re-
ferred to in said notice and may continue the hearing from time to time.
6.6 Final Determination of Charges. Upon the conclusion of the
hearing on the report, the Board will adopt, revise, change, reduce or
modify any charge or overrule any or all objections and shall make its
determination upon each charge as described in said report, which de-
termination shall be final.
K-8
-------
6.7 Filing of Report With County Auditor. On or before the 10th
day of August In each year following the final determination of the
Board, the Secretary shall file with the Auditor a copy of said report
with a statement endorsed thereon over his signature, that it has been
finally adopted by the Board of District, and the Auditor shall enter
the amounts of the charges against the respective lots or parcels of
land as they appear on the current assessment roll.
6.8 Parcels Outside the District. Where any such parcels are
outside the boundaries of the District, they shall be added to the as-
sessment roll of the District for the purpose of collecting such charges.
6.9 Parcels Not on Roll. If the property is not described on
the roll, the Auditor shall enter the description thereon together with
the amounts of the charges as shown on the report.
6.10 Lien. The amount of the charges shall constitute a lien
against the lot or parcel of land against which the charge has been Im-
posed as of noon on the first Monday in March of each year. The Tax
Collector shall include the amount of the charges on bills for taxes
levied against the respective lots and parcels of land.
6.11 Tax Bill, thereafter, the amount of the charges shall be
collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the sane per-
sons as, together with and not separately from the general taxes for
the District, and shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter
be subject to the same penalties for delinquency.
6.12 Collection. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and
enforcement of general taxes of the District, including but not limited
to those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancel-
lation, refund and redemption, are applicable to such charges.
6.13 Compensation of County. Hie Tax Collector may, in his dis-
cretion, issue separate bills for such charges and separate receipts
for collection on account of such charges. The County shall be compen-
sated for services rendered in connection with the levy, collection and
enforcement of such charges for the District in an amount to be fixed by
K-9
-------
agreement between the Board of Supervleor/s and the of DiBt.rl.ct.
The compensation shall not exceed one percent (1%) of all money col-
lected. The compensation shall be paid into the County salary fund.
6.14 Alternative. The powers authorized by this Article shall be
alternative to all other powers of the Dietrict, including addition of
delinquent charges to the annual assessment levied upon the land as now
or hereafter provided in Article 3 (commencing with §16*169), Chapter U,
Division 7 of the Public Utilities Code, and alternative to any other
procedures adopted by the Board for the collection of such charges.
7.1 Use of Revenues. Revenues derived under this ordinance
shall be used only to defray the costs and expenses of performing the
services to be provided by District pursuant to this ordinance.
8.1 Belief on Application. When any person by reason of special
circumstances, is of the opinion that any provision of this ordinance
is unjust or inequitable as applied to his premises, he may make writ-
ten application to the Board, stating the special circumstances, citing
the provision complained of, and requesting suspension or modification
of that provision as applied to his premises.
tion, suspend or modify the provision complained of, as applied to such
premises, to be effective as of the date of the application and contin-
uing during the period of the special circumstances.
8.2 Relief on Own Motion. The Board may, on its own motion, find
that by reason of special circumstances any provision of this regula-
tion and ordinance should be suspended or modified as applied to a
particular premise and may, by resolution, order such suspension or mod-
ification for such premises during the period of such special circum-
stances, or any part thereof.
ARTICLE 7- USE OF REVENUES
ARTICLE 8. RELIEF FROM INEQUITY
If such application be approved, the Board may, by resolu-
Tit 1 -fir TH +
K-10
-------
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 7iiJ
duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Georgetown Divide Public
Utility District, El Dorado County, at a meeting thereof duly held on
the day of » 1971, by the -foliating vote:
ATOS, and in favor thereof, Directors: Nmi, Wte*. *yms mi
NOES, Directors:!
ABSENT, Directors: A»rt#r
CHMLES r, CIERAO
K-ll
-------
GRANT AND AGREEMENT
I/We hereby pant to GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT tl»c 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, >t Page
El 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 I/We fail to make as so required.
I/We further agree that this grant and agreement shall be binding upon all of my/our successors and assigns
of said lot.
1/We further agree that this grant and agreement shall not obligate said District in itself to maintenance,
operation or repair of said sewage disposal system.
DATED: SIGNED:
Signatures of the oyrncn 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 said 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
thry executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR TH{ COUNTY Of
STATE Of CALIFORNIA.
K-12
-------
RESOLUTION NO. 84-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN
DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT DECLARING INTENT
TO FORM AN ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ZONE IN A
PORTION OF GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
AUBURN LAKE TRAILS SUBDIVISION
ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ZONE
GEORGETOWN DIVIDIE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors (BOARD) of
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (DISTRICT), El Dorado
County, California:
WHEREAS, the BOARD of DISTRICT has been requested by
representatives of Transamerica Development Company (TADCO) and the
Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association (ASSOCIATION) to form
an On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zone for Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision,
which comprises a portion of DISTRICT territory, a copy of said
request, marked Exhibit B, is attached hereto, incorporated herein,
and made a part hereof; and,
WHEREAS, TADCO and ASSOCIATION have further requested the
BOARD to discontinue the proceedings of Sewer Assessment District No.
1, which would provide for the construction of a sanitary sewage
system for all of the lots and properties within the boundaries of
the Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision, as more particularly set forth
in said Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, A Summary Report of On-Site Disposal Suitability
for Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision has been prepared dated May, 1984,
revised June and July, 1984, marked Exhibit C, attached hereto, made
a part hereof, and incorporated herein by reference, which finds,
subject to conditions and limitations stated therein, that
approximately 1105 but not exceeding 1110 loflfc have been judged
K-13
-------
i ft i ,,„ taVo Trails# subject to tho
suitable for on-cito disposal in Auburn
. m^TRlCT permit and El Dorado
final design approval and issuance of DI
County Health Department approval; and,
n «.« form Sewer Assessment District No.
WHEREAS, the proposal to form uew
a .yetpm has met with opposition of
1 to construct a sanitary sewage system
t ^1,0 Trails Subdivision,
many landowners within the Auburn LaKe
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DISTRICT finds and orders
follows:
1. The Board of Directors deems it necessary to form an On-
Site Wastewater Disposal Zone for Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision,
which comprises a portion of DISTRICT territory.
2. The Board of Directors hereby declares its intent to
form an On-site Wastewater Disposal Zone in a portion of DISTRICT,
known as the Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision.
3. A description of the boundaries of the territory proposed
to be included in the Zone is attached^hereto, marked Exhibit A, made
a part hereof, and incorporated herein by reference.
4. A map showing the boundaries of said Auburn Lake Trails
Subdivision and the On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zone is on file at
the office of DISTRICT, Main Street, Georgetown, California.
5. The public benefit to be derived from the establishment
of an On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zone in the Auburn Lake Trails
Subdivision is to protect existing and future water uses, protect
public health, prevent and abate nuisances, promote water quality,
prevent the pollution, waste, and contamination of water and to allow
most property owners, including TADCO, to develop their property in
the Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision, which would otherwise not occur
without the construction of subdivision community-wide sewers or
K-14
-------
sewage systems, which subdivision community-wide sewers or sewagc
systems may not be financially feasible.
6. A description of the proposed type of On-Site
Wastewater Disposal Zone systems is attached hereto, ma
Exhibit D, made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference
7. The proposed plan for wastewater disposal is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit E, made a part hereof, and incorp-
orated herein by reference. The individual lots within the Zone,
except as hereinafter noted shall utilize a system based upon an
on-site investigation which includes, but is not limited
Soils analysis, (b) Depth to groundwater, (c) Depth to impermeable
barrier, (d) Percolation characteristics, (e) Topographic analysis
and (f) Legislated setbacks. The DISTRICT shall investigate, test,
design, operate, monitor, inspect, and if necessary, maintain and
repair the On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems within the Zone at
the individual homeowner's expense. A limited number of lots
within an area known as the Community Disposal System (CDS)
been investigated, tested, and designed and shall be operat
monitored, inspected, and, if necessary, maintained and repa
at the individual homeowner's expense. CDS lots shall inco p
individual <3n-site primary wastewater treatment systems with
connection to common sub-surface and/or mound disposal syste
The DISTRICT shall assume jurisdiction over maintenance and opera
tion functions, and if necessary construct additions to existing
said common sub-surface disposal systems and common mound disposal
systems, investigate, test, design, operate, monitor, inspect an
if necessary maintain and operate said common sub-surface disp
systems and common mound disposal systems.
K -15
-------
The DISTRICT will issue a permit for each on-site system,
subject to final design approval by the DISTRICT and El Dorado County
Health Department.
8. The number of residential units and commercial units in
the proposed Zone which the DISTRICT proposes to serve is.
A. Approximately 1105, but not to exceed 1110 single family
residential units, and one residential unit connected to a clubhouse
on-site disposal system;
Not more than 12 other on-site disposal system units for
equestrian center users, office complex users, clubhouse users,
swimming pool users, tennis court users, campground users, and a small
building now used by a private day school, all of which are, or shall
be facilities owned or controlled by the ASSOCIATION.
9, The proposed means of financing the operation of the
Zone are service charges for maintenance and operation, connection
charges and transfer of ASSOCIATION funds for capital improvements
and replacements of the Community Disposal System. Extraordinary
expenses incurred by the DISTRICT for maintenance operation, testing,
monitoring, surveillance, repairs or replacement of individual on-
site wastewater disposal systems or community disposal systems shall
be assessed solely to the benefitting property owners as provided for
under Section 6978, et sec. of Health and Safety Code of the State
of California. The proposed budget at today's costs for the first
year's operation of said On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zone is attached
hereto, marked Exhibit F, made a part hereof, and incorporated herein
by reference.
10. The time and place for hearing by the Board for the
proposed On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zone on the question of formation
K-16
-------
of the proposed Zone,and on the type of residential and commercial
users that the DISTRICT proposes to serve in the proposed Zone is
October # 1984 at P.M. at the Northside School Auditorium,
Highway 49, Cool, California. At such time and place,* any interested
persons will be heard by the Board.
11. A certified copy of this Resolution of Intention shall
be filed and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of El
Dorado County, in which all of the land in the proposed Zone is situated.
12. Notice of said hearing shall be given pursuant to Section
6958 of the Health and Safety Code of California.
13. The local Health Officer it requested to review and
report his findings in writing to the Board pursuant to Section 6960
of the Health and Safety Code of California,
14. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region, is requested to review the proposed formation
and report its findings in writing to the Board pursuant to Section
6960.1 of the Health and Safety Code of California.
15. The formation of the On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zone
shall be effective but shall not become operative until the following
conditions have been met:
A. There is Finality of Judgment in Class Action, Case
Number 34594, Superior Court of the State of California, in and for
the County of El Dorado, as a result of the Agreement of Compromise
and Settlement of Class Action executed by TADCO and ASSOCIATION.
Finality of Judgment will occur on the date which is 20 days after
the date the time for appeal shall expire as to any judgment approving
the ASSOCIATION and TADCO Settlement is made by the Superior Court
K-17
-------
or, if an appeal is taken, the date of final judgment on appeal
approving the Settlement.
B. TADCO shall agree to retire, pay off, or amortize all
obligations for water bonds with respect to lots deeded by TADCO to
ASSOCIATION as open space. If TADCO elects to amortize payment of
these water bonds, TADCO agrees to indemnify the ASSOCIATION from and
against any loss from water bonds attributable to lots and other TADCO
properties so deeded to ASSOCIATION as common area. With respect to
restricted and easement lots defined in said Agreement of Compromise
and Settlement of Class Action, TADCO shall agree to pay off or
amortize the water bonds for the period in which it owns said restricted
and easement lots reservina the right to sell these lots subject to
purchasers' assumption of water bond obligations, providing any water
bond obligation thereon is a legally chargeable obligation against
any purchaser thereof, and if not, s-eserving the right to sell these
lots and retire, pay off,, or amortize all obligations for water bonds
with respect to these lots.
C. El Dorado County shall adopt an Ordinance substantially
in the form of Exhibit G, attached hereto, incorporated herein and
made a part hereof applicable only to Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision.
D. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Valley Region, shall accept the variances from the State Water
Resources Control Board, Guidelines for Mound Systems, January, 1980,
set forth in said Exhibit D.
K-18
-------
E. TADCO shall make the contributions set forth in Baid
Exhibit F to be made on behalf of TADCO and convey any easements owned
by TADCO required for disposal sites for the CDS and MCDS as referred
to in Exhibit F.
F. POA shall make the contributions set forth in Exhibit F
to be made on behalf of POA, shall execute an agreement to collect
fees as provided in said Exhibit F, shall convey any easements owned
by POA required for disposal sites for the CDS and MCDS as referred to
in Exhibit F, and shall amend its by-laws for DISTRICT participation
in its Design Committee as set forth in said Exhibit E.
G. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Valley Region, shall issue its Waste Discharge Requirements
required for said On-site Wastewater Disposal Zone and providing for
the removal of TADCO and POA from any obligation under said Waste
Discharge Requirements, unless TADCO and/or POA waive such removal.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Georgetown
Divide Public Utility District this 8thday of August r 1984, at
a duly called regular meeting by the following vote:
AYES: Directors John C. Lampson, Fred G. DeBerry,
Wade B. Milner, Arthur E. Smoot and Robert E. Flynn
NOES: None.
ATTEST:
ABSENT: None.
hn C. Lampson, President
Board of Directors
GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Charles F. Gierau, Clerk and ex officio
Secretary, Board of Directors, GDPUD
K-19
-------
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution 34-6, duly and regularly adopted by
the Board of Directors of the GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT, El Dorado County, State of California.
ex officio Secretary, Board of
Directors, GEORGETOWN DIVIDE
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
K-20
-------
SUMMARY OF ON-SITE DISPOSAL SUITABILITY
AUBURN LAKE TRAILS SUBDIVISION
MAY, 1984
REVISED JUNE, 1984
REVISED JULY 6, 1984
At the request of Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners
Association (ALT POA) and Transamerica Development -Company (TADCO),
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (GDPUD) hereby presents
a compilation of lots in Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision which have
been found suitable for on-site waste disposal.
Suitability has been assessed via five avenues. These
are:
1. Approval of El Dorado County Health Department,
Division of Environmental Health (EDCHD) prior to and during the
inception of the existing On-Site Waste Management District. This
category pertains primarily to a few lots with homes built before
and during 1971.
2. Lots tested and found suitable by consulting sani-
tarians, geologists, or engineers employed privately by ltoc owners,
and reviewed and accepted by GDPUD.
3. Lots tested by GDPUD on an individual basis at the
request of the lot owner and found suitable.
4. Lots tested and found suitable under the auspices
of the "Auburn Lake Trails Suitability Study for On-Site Waste
Disposal, April, 1980" conducted by GDPUD.
5. Lots "tested and found suitable as a result of the
"Assimilation Study," conducted by Larry Walker Associates, Inc.
(LWA), by joint agreement of ALT POA, TADCO, and GDPUD. Findings
were reviewed and accepted by GDPUD.
Details of the evolution of the Assimilation Study are
presented in "Auburn Lake Trails Assimilation Alternative; Preli-
minary Report on Technical Feasibility, April 1983." Under the
auspices of that report, technical decisions regarding which lots
or lot combinations merited further investigation and for which
type systems were made jointly by ALT POA and GDPUD. TADCO
provided administrative input for proposed lot combinations and
easements.
Criteria, methodology, and personnel employed by Larry
Walker Associates are presented in "Analysis of On-Site Disposal
Suitability; Phase I and Community Disposal Systems, August, 1983
published by LWA.
TADCO functioned as coordinator of the Assimilation Stud}
provided clerical services but did not provide technical input. GDPUD
K-21
-------
provided technical input and reviewed all phases of the study. After
soils and engineering work were completed by LWA in February, 1984,
GDPUD staff reviewed the technical data in the context of lots accepted
and rejected throughout the subdivision. At that time proposed
combinations were reassessed on the basis of disposal potential, and,
with TADCO, new combinations or easement options were defined.
Prior to the Assimilation Study, 618 lots were judged
suitable for on-site disposal on the basis of mechanisms 1 through 4
outlined above, including existing homes and lots served by the
Community Disposal System. An additional 485 lots have been judged
suitable as a result of the Assimilation Study, potentially defining
a subdivision of 1103 buildable lots. State and County acceptance
of the subdivision on a long term on-site disposal basis is predicated
on the existence of systems management and water quality monitoring
programs. GDPUD intends to administer these programs via an On-Site
Wastewater Disposal Zone (OSWDZ).
Suitability of the lots has been judged on the basis of
existing soils and engineering data. Suitability is subject to
affirmation at the time a system design is formally submitted by or
to GDPUD, whereupon GDPUD will have the authority to issue an OSWDZ
permit for on-site disposal to a lot with a properly designed system on
a suitable site. Final approval of design and suitability rests with
El Dorado County Health Department, to be rendered at the time a
system design is formally submitted to the County as part of an
application for a building permit.
Because of acceptable advances in waste disposal technology
and/or creation of adequate waste disposal area by means of lot
combinations, boundary adjustments, or granting of disposal easement
rights, lots deemed unsuitable prior to the Assimilation Study may
have been reassessed during the ^Study and judged suitable.
Determinations of the Assimilation Study supersede previous
determinations.
Each of the undeveloped lots judged suitable for on-site
disposal has been accepted on the basis of a specific system type and,
in most cases, a specific site on the lot to be reserved for disposal
and replacement area. On some smaller lots, it has been necessary to
fix the site of the future residence in order to ensure sufficient
reserved area for sewage disposal. Alteration of the fixed disposal
site during grading or construction may render the lot unbuildable.
The 1103 lots judged suitable for on-site disposal in Auburn
Lake Trails are broken down into the following categories:
A) 338 homes existing at the time of this writing.
B) 337 existing lots have been found suitable for
conventional type on-site disposal systems.
C) 62 lots have been found suitable for conventional type
systems on the basis of combination with an adjacent lot(s).
EXHIBIT C
K-22
-------
D) 73 lots have been found suitable for conventional type
systems on the basis of an easement for disposal on an adjacent or
nearby lot or POA Common Area.
The entire category of conventional type disposal systems
in Auburn Lake Trails is considered on a "Special Design" basis by
El Dorado County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health.
The specific parameters of the special design vary from lot to lot.
For most lots, special design designation implies standard systems
with rigorous construction inspection requirements. For approximately
10% of lots approved for conventional type systems, special designs
may also include trenches of non-standard depth, pumps, elevated fill,
pressure dosing manifolds, sand-lined trenches, and/or other
mechanisms accepted by EDCHD as special design modifications of
conventional type systems.
E) 106 existing lots have been found suitable for mound
type systems.
F) 24 lots have been found suitable for mound type systems
on the basis of combination with an adjacent lot(s).
G) 62 lots have been found suitable for mound type systems
on the basis of an easement for disposal on an adjacent or nearby lot
or POA Common Area. Six of these lots are to be served by a common
mound on POA Common Area immediately adjacent to the lots.
The large scale use of mound type systems in Auburn Lake
Trails is predicated on the existence of a management district, and
subject to final approval by EDCHD and Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
H) 101 existing unimproved lots are designated for Community
Disposal System (CDS) service. Of these, 45 lots were so designated
before 1983; 56 lots have been added during the Assimilation Study
by virtue of a proposal to expand CDS capacity with a modular mound
system. Detailed analysis of the CDS is presented in "Report on the
Community Disposal System, Auburn Lake Trails, May 1979," by GDPUD,
and "Analysis of Onsite Disposal Suitability? Phase I and Community
Disposal System, August 1983," by Larry Walker Associates, Inc. 33
homes are currently served by the CDS.
Table 1 enumerates the lots in Categories A through H. A
summary of the number of lots in each category is presented in Table 2.
All proposed lot combinations and easements are subject to
compliance with County parcel map requirements.
Reports referenced in this summary, other technical reports
pertaining to Auburn Lake Trails, and technical information on
individual lots are available for examination at the office of
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District.
EXHIBIT C
K-23
-------
TABLE 2
NUMBERS OF LOTS IN EACH CATEGORY
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Special
Design
Conventional
Systems
292
338
62
73
Mound
Systems
106
23
62
Other
Alternative
Systems
SI/T1
CDS
Connections
33
Total
338
45
orginally designated
56
additional
Totals
765
195
134
1,103
K-24
-------
EXHIBIT 0
PROPOSED TYPES OF SYSTEMS
A. Conventional subsurface disposal systems utilizing alternating
fields.
B. Conventional subsurface disposal systems utilizing pressurized
dosing techniques.
C. Select fill subsurface disposal systems utilizing pressure
dosing techniques.
D. Elevated fill subsurface disposal systems utilizing alter-
nating fields and/or pressurized dosing.
E. Elevated fill (mound) systems.
F. Individual on-site primary wastewater treatment systems with
connection to a common subsurface disposal system.
6. Individual on-site primary wastewater treatment systems with
connection to common mound systems.
It is proposed that the foregoing types shall JJ0* be considered
exclusive in that advances in technology may provide future alternatives
which are cost effective and enhance the achievement of water quality
and public health objectives.
The following variances (underlined) are required from El Dorado
County Ordinance Code, Chapter 15-33*020:
C. Disposal systems shall be designed to utilize the ™st perme-
able or absorptive portions of the soil formation as JjJ**
percolation test and soil profile analyses. The!:*
of five feet of permeable soil below the bottom of the P^PQsed copven
tional sewage disposal system. There shall he a miniffKimoffour^feet
of soil below the distribution manifold in a prQpQsed pressure do^ed
special design system.- The five Veet o* soi) beiow tne pww» »
conventionaI sewage~~disposa 1 system, and the four ^ f -¦
bution manifold of a pressure dosed special des^n llui
from thp offarts nf groundwater and MSSeSS apprftprT«|f uLteiJfltCI
structural characteristics to efWlve renovaxion of wastewater.
E No property shall be improved In excess of Its
absorb sewage effluent 1n the quantities and taken
this code unless aoproprl*** m^ures ii.e. easpments) have been taKen
to provide sufficient suitable lands tor this purpo—«
K-25
-------
PROPOSED PLAN FOR WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
The proposed plan for wastewater disposal; individual
lots within the Zone, except as hereinafter noted shall utilize
a system based upon an on-site investigation which includes, but
is not limited to, (a) Soils analysis, (b) Depth to groundwater,
(c) Depth to impermeable barrier, (d) Percolation characteristics,
(e) Topographic analysis, and (f) Legislated setbacks. The District
shall investigate, test, design, operate, monitor, inspect, and
if necessary, maintain and repair the On-Site Wastewater Disposal
Systems within the Zone. A limited number of lots within an area
known as the Community Disposal System (CDS) have been investi-
gated, tested, and designed and shall be operated, monitored,
inspected, and, if necessary, maintained and repaired. CDS lots
shall incorporate individual on-site primary wastewater treatment
systems with connection to common sub-surface and/or mound dis-
posal systems. The District shall assume jurisdiction over main-
tenance and operation functions, and if necessary construct additions
to existing said common sub—surface disposal systems and common
mound disposal systems, investigate, test, design, operate, monitor,
inspect and if necessary maintain and operate said common sub—surface
disposal systems and common mound disposal systems.
The DISTRICT will issue a permit for each on-site system,
subject to final design approval by the DISTRICT and El Dorado
County Health Department.
The DISTRICT on behalf of the Zone will assume management,
jurisdiction and control of. the CDS, including the disposal site and
EXHIBIT E
K-26
-------
collection system currently In place and additional collection
system to be installed at the subdivision, and the MCDS including
the disposal site and collection system scheduled to be constructed
at the subdivision and to collect connection charges from lot
owners connecting to them.
The DISTRICT on behalf of the Zone will accept ownership
of easements for the disposal sites of the CDS and any Mini
Community Disposal System (MCDS), and easements for the collection
lines, transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances for
the CDS and MCDS.
The DISTRICT on behalf of the Zone shall pay for, from
funds collected by it for connection charges and funds transferred
to it by POA above for the CDS, shall make future modifications
and/or expansion of the CDS and MCDS as may be requirerd as addi-
tional homes are connected , also paid from said fwndfl and charges.
It is presently contemplated that 80 homes may be served
in the existing CDS on-site disposal area after modifications to
said CDS System and an additional 58 homes ta&y be served by expan-
sion of the CDS System.
It is presently estimated that 6 homes may be served on
the MCDS to be constructed.
A staff person of DISTRICT (one responsible for design)
on behalf of the Zone shall participate on POA's Design Committee
as a non-voting member and for purposes of Zone input only.
The DISTRICT on behalf of the Zone may exercise all
powers authorized by Sections 6975 through 6979 of the Health
and Safety Code of California in the conduct of said Zone ,
in addition to any other DISTRICT powers provided by law.
EXHIBIT E
K-27
-------
TENTATIVE BUDGET
AUBURN LAKE TRAILS
OH-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ZONE
FISCAL YEAR 1984-85
LABOR $ 69,630
ADMINISTRATION $ 5,739
TECHNICAL 23,608
PROFESSIONAL 31,949
CLERICAL 8,334
ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT 1,200
EQUIPMENT M & 0 - GENERAL 250
equipment h & o - c.d.s. 1,500
OFFICE SUPPLIES 750
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 1,500
UTILITIES, GENERAL 2,750
UTILITIES, C.D.S. 1,000
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 250
VEHICLE OPERATION 1,000
COMPUTER BILLING 500
DEPRECIATION 1,500
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, GENERAL 3,000
CAPITAL REPLACEMENT, C.D.S. 4,800
U.S.G.S. CONTRACT 4,500
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 500
ENGINEERING CONSULTATION A,000
LEGAL CONSULTATION 3,000
INSURANCE 1,000
COMPUTER INPUT 10 000
SUB TOTAL $"112 ,'630
CONTINGENCIES 107. 11,263
TOTAL $ 123,893
EXHIBIT F
K-28
-------
CHARGES
$11.25 per month per homesite except Community Disposal System (CDS)
$21.55 per month per homesite in CDS
$ 5.75 per month per vacant lot, except in CDS
$ 8.75 per month per vacant lot in CDS
$415.00 Design arid inspection fee
$265.00 Design review if design done by private consultant and
inspection fee.
$1,365.00 Design, inspection and connection fee in CDS
CONTRIBUTIONS
A sum not to exceed $20,000.00 to be paid to DISTRICT
from Transanerica Development Company (TADCO) representing any
and all monies required by DISTRICT for acquisition of computer
software ana hardware in connection with the set up and opera-
tion of said Zone.
A sum not to exceed $7,50C.00 to be paid to DISTRICT by
TADCO to be expended by DISTRICT for a Report and Design Costs as
estimated by Larry Walker & Associates in connection with the
CDS and the Mini Community Disposal System (MCDS) now planned for
said Zone.
The cost of installation of pipe to the community leach
field system which is required in order to connect the additional
58 lot3 to be connected to said system pursuant to the summary
report referenced in Paragraph 2 hereof to be paid by TADCO.
EXHIBIT P
K-29
-------
Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association (POA)
shall transfer to DISTRICT Its remaining accounts of three Time
Deposit funds In the amount of approximately $31,^07.04 plus any
Interest which has accrued. Said funds will be held by DISTRICT
for the following purposes: approximately $14,427.00, capital
reserve for CDS leach field expansion; approximately $8,840.00
for capital replacement and improvement to CDS collection system,
and approximately $8,140.00 for CDS operation and maintenance fund.
If the DISTRICT on behalf of the Zone is precluded for
collecting connection fees from owners connecting to the CDS or
Mini Community Disposal System (MCDS), the POA will collect*, such
fees from connecting owners and pay such amounts to the DISTRICT.
The DISTRICT on behalf of the Zone may exercise all
financial powers authorized by Sections 6975 through 6981 of the
Health and Safety Code of California in the conduct of said Zone,
in addition to any other DISTRICT powers provided by law.
POA and TADCO shall convey any easements owned by them
required for disposal sites for CDS and MCDS, and required for
CDS and MCDS collection line, pumping station and transmission
line easements.
EXHIBIT F
K-30
------- |