As an old newspaper reporter, I know what you put in the lead of the story – the first few paragraphs – is critically important. In most cases, the reader will scan the first sentences of a story and move on to the next headline.

Leaving out one or two important words, readers may miss the whole point of a story. It’s the reporter’s responsibility to distill all the information to be presented and choose words carefully so the reader clearly understands the crux of any issue being covered.

That’s where I believe the writers of a recent Michigan State University study about pollution in that state’s waterways fell short … and did a disservice to onsite system users and the hard-earned reputation of the onsite industry. Simply put, the trumpeted conclusions – and the headlines in MSU and other media coverage of the findings – generalize by saying that septic systems aren’t keeping E. coli and the human fecal bacteria B-theta out of the state’s watersheds.

The study should have clarified that “failing, old and under-regulated’’ septic systems could be the cause of the pollution detected in October 2010 spot testing of 64 Michigan streams. The study authors indeed allude to this point after several pages of data:

“These results illustrate the importance and need for responsible development and septic system maintenance along lake and river riparian zones to protect water quality,” the report states.

MAKING DISTINCTIONS

That’s a far cry from the way the study is being sold by the university. This is the headline MSU Today ran to tout the study: “Septic Tanks Aren’t Keeping Poo Out of Rivers and Lakes.” So much for a serious and scientific analysis. Again, buried below the headline, study author Joan Rose states: “Better methods will improve management decisions for locating, constructing and maintaining onsite wastewater treatment systems. It’s financially imperative that we get it right.”

How is this any different from what onsite professionals have been saying for years? The onsite wastewater industry strongly advocates for routine inspection and maintenance of septic systems. Further, manufacturers have responded to the call for more advanced treatment and have introduced many technologies that – when implemented – serve to improve water quality.

If you read between the lines – and if the study authors would have chosen their words more carefully – this study is not a blanket indictment of decentralized wastewater treatment. It’s more of a validation, really, of the onsite industry’s call for better system maintenance and regulation. Designers and installers know that millions of onsite systems are old and obsolete, and require repair or replacement.

THE STUDY BASICS

MSU researchers drew grab samples from 64 streams in lower Michigan near where they empty into Great Lakes basins that surround the state. Samples from nine rivers (14 percent) exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggested levels for safe contact (swimming). Human fecal bacteria was found at some level in every sample, and watersheds that supported at least 1,621 septic systems showed higher levels.

The study further stated that multiple approaches were used to examine the impact of municipal wastewater treatment plants, and that “it was ultimately determined that WWTP were not a driving factor of microbial water quality in the studied watersheds.” So researchers placed the responsibility for pollution squarely on septic systems.

QUESTIONING THE RESULTS

Experts in onsite wastewater were not involved in the study. And that’s one reason it should be taken with a grain of salt, says Sara Heger, engineer in the Onsite Sewage Treatment Program of the Water Resources Center at the University of Minnesota. For a number of reasons, Heger questions the significance of the study findings:

• Heger says it appears the study involved taking a single water sample from each of the streams, at a convenient bridge crossing. Without multiple samples, she says one failing septic system near a test site could have caused the high levels of bacteria.
• The samples were purposely taken at a time of low flow in the waterways, which Heger says could have concentrated the bacteria. Had samples been taken during periods of both high and low flow, the bacteria may have been diluted to an insignificant level.
• The study did not look at the age, performance or type of septic systems in each watershed, or site and water table conditions, which could have explained higher levels of pollution. Heger says Michigan is one of two states without a statewide code for onsite systems, indicating a concern about consistent regulation.
• Anecdotal evidence was thin. Heger notes the study mentioned one local health department that claimed 26 percent septic system failure rate to criticize onsite systems in general. She saw no evidence to support the study’s claim that treatment plants were not a contributing factor to the pollution.
• While the study noted that 14 percent of the streams had bacteria levels too high for swimming, 86 percent would be fine for human contact. “It’s making it out to be a larger problem than it is,’’ Heger says. “We want (all streams) to be swimmable. We want that to be a goal, but it’s not as big of an issue as they’re making it out to be.”
• The study was written from the perspective of fisheries and wildlife researchers rather than wastewater engineers, Heger says, and deeper research is needed. “I would guess that everyone involved in writing this knows little about septic system design, installation and management,” she says.

THE REAL MESSAGE

The study takeaway for Heger: “More than anything, this means we need to improve septic systems in this area,” she says.

In my eyes, the research is more of an indictment of those who own septic systems than of the effectiveness of decentralized wastewater treatment in general.

Users who rely on onsite systems don’t always value the priceless service they provide. You can bet that folks who live on those tested waterways would rather spend their money on a new fishing boat than an effective wastewater system. But why?

Is there anything more important to the operation of a home than waste treatment? Without an onsite system, these folks would have no place to dock their new fishing boats. And without clean water, they’d have nothing to fish for and no place to swim.

If installers and designers bear any responsibility for the situation in Michigan or for failing systems anywhere else, it’s to put more effort into customer education. Somehow, septic system owners must be made to understand the importance of routine inspections and be willing to repair or replace systems that threaten health or cause pollution.