Septic ordinance defeated

Thanks to conscientious JPs representing rural residents

If you don't take the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette or missed an article concerning the proposed septic system ordinance in the Tuesday, Nov. 10, edition, this article may be of interest to you. The proposed ordinance would have pertained to septic tanks in rural Benton County only because the Quorum Court does not have authority to impose regulations inside a city's jurisdiction. That factor alone is enough to attract the attention of observant homeowners. Many cities have annexed areas which were not on municipal sewer systems and terrain issues have made it too expensive to run sewer lines into some of those areas. Though they are now exempt from county regulations like this proposed ordinance, they have the same potential issues as the rural systems. In the ordinance, septic tanks are referred to as "on-site wastewater treatment systems."

The headline on the article covering the Quorum Court meeting said only "Septic System Ordinance Axed." The topic of the proposed ordinance has been covered in this column previously, but after having attended the meeting of the Legislative Committee on the evening of Nov. 9, there are some details that need to be addressed. The writer of the newspaper report was limited by time constraints and space, so some details could not be included in his report. They are important to readers of this newspaper because they help explain our system of government. We need to understand our process of government and make sure we elect trustworthy representatives and accept our responsibilities to communicate with them in our system of elected representation. We need to thank the Quorum Court members of this paper's primary coverage area -- Ron Easley, District 1, and Pat Adams, District 6, for their efforts in defeating the ordinance.

The vote was unanimous in rejecting the proposal, but our area representatives and Brent Meyers, District 13 (Lowell area), were the most vocal in voicing their concerns. Randall Ward of Garfield and I attended the meeting as did numerous others. We spoke in opposition to the proposal as did several others including a representative of Farm Bureau, and several spoke in favor of the ordinance. The freedom to express support for, or opposition to, a proposal is what makes our system work. The individuals proposing the ordinance made a very impressive presentation. Among other misconceptions it demonstrated that they don't realize not every rural home fits into the $150,000 category.

Even though Randall Ward and I have tried to follow previous attempts to cover this proposal in newspaper articles, we missed a lot. Numerous revisions have been made since the original was submitted to the Committee of the Whole. Apparently there were around a dozen updates or revisions by the time we met on Nov. 9. The way this ordinance was written, it pushed all inspection efforts and training on the Health Department. This would add to their existing responsibilities which already provide for their enforcement of septic tank design and their proper function by state authority. The "guidelines for inspection" provided to the Quorum Court extended from a cursory walk-over for a new system to complete replacement of a defective system. The cost factor between four classes of inspection was enormous -- from a few hundred dollars to many thousands for the latter. The Quorum Court recognized the potential for excessive cost for work on even a functioning system if the inspector's judgement required it.

Data supplied by the creators of the ordinance came from the Beaver Lake Watershed Protection Strategy report of 2009 and revised in 2012. The primary products the Strategy was working to control were sediment borne nitrogen and phosphorus. Septic systems were shown as the least significant contributor of nitrogen with pasture/agriculture contributing over half of the amount reported. The report listed septic tanks as fourth in the list of nine sources of phosphorus with channel erosion and waste water treatment plants being the largest contributors. It is interesting that these elements contribute to the quality of the lake and its use as a source for drinking water but the study did not cover e-coli contamination which is a health risk.

The ordinance actually went against two of the primary goals of the Strategy report. The report called for "utilizing watershed protection strategies that were voluntary and/or did not impose additional regulations on land owners or municipalities."

The ordinance violated both of these goals.

There is no question water quality is an important issue to all of us and whether we rely on a well or the lake for our supply we want healthy, odor free water. When septic tank issues come up however, education of the homeowner or a potential homeowner must be our primary means of control. The sales agent must bear part of the responsibility for informing potential buyers of the source of waste water disposal -- whether on-site septic tank or municipal treatment plant.

It is possible for an issue like this to be proposed sometime in the future, so as home owners we need to be aware of what issues our local legislators are dealing with. And, we need to know our Quorum Court representatives and thank them for their time and contribution. Pat Adams actually attended this meeting even though he is not a member of the Legislative committee. So, a special "thank you" is in order to Pat and Ron Easley, along with other members of the Legislative Committee for their efforts.

•••

Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. He is a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Editorial on 11/18/2015