Protecting water quality and conserving a precious water resource are two topics that should be top-of-mind for everyone in the onsite system installation community. Effective wastewater treatment serves both of these goals, and installers are on the leading edge of using proven methods and new technologies to achieve the better results the world is counting on.
We know how important your work is. So we’re pleased any time we can bring industry advances into focus. We do that every month through our Installer profiles, System Profile features, updates from trade association members and our Basic Training team of Jim Anderson and Dave Gustafson.
But this month we’re giving even a greater emphasis to onsite industry research. In this issue, we’re running the first of a two-part series about important ongoing research being conducted at the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center on Cape Cod. Writer David Steinkraus visited with Brian Baumgaertel, the center’s director, to learn about how experiments with new techniques could enhance the value of recycled wastewater and help improve water quality across the nation.
Inside we learn about the center’s phosphorus removal project that aims to reduce runoff that feeds algae in sensitive bodies of water. Baumgaertel outlines how industry manufacturers Waterloo Biofilter, Geomatrix, Oakson, FujiClean and Norweco have donated $150,000 in equipment for tests and how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supporting the effort. Soon the researchers hope to install experimental systems at several homes to get a real-world picture.
In May we outline how the test center has launched the Waste No Water campaign, which experiments with wastewater recycling through hydroponics. Sand columns have been constructed in a greenhouse where treated wastewater is used to grow diverse plantings, including tomatoes, peas, cosmos and marigolds. While the produce items are not intended for human consumption at this time, officials hope states will eventually allow effluent to be used for agricultural purposes.
I hope you enjoy the back-to-back features out of Massachusetts. We’re open to more of this type of coverage in the future. If you have an onsite technology topic you would like us to delve into, please contact me at editor@onsiteinstaller.com. I’m anxious to hear your ideas.
In the category of other news and views, I’ll add my two cents on a few items that have crossed my desk in recent months:
Don’t make clean-water compromises in Indiana
In a recent letter to the editor in the Brown County Democrat in Indiana, Jerry Lee Pittman, a county commissioner, asked many questions about a proposed septic ordinance. “Brown County citizens have a right to clearly understand exactly how this ordinance differs from Indiana state law,” he wrote. “It is understood that Brown County must comply with state law, but it does not have to have a septic ordinance that is more rigid or demanding than state law.”
Pittman goes on to request the health department explain how each element will provide benefits or present hardships to (1) Existing residents of Brown County, (2) Prospective residents of Brown County and on (3) Economic development. As he put the question, “Will any of the proposed differences make living or providing employment in Brown County more difficult or less desirable than living or locating a business in a surrounding county?”
Pittman is making a valid point in one regard. The government should answer any and all questions from interested parties when it intends to make changes like instituting onsite regulations. We all want responsive local officials who take their duty to inform the public seriously.
However, I do take issue with Pittman in one area. His letter seems to imply that health department officials should consider the potential sacrifices of some groups over the optimal health and safety of the entire community. I’m sorry, but clean water is clean water, and ensuring a safe water supply and clean environment might have to come at a cost to all parties that benefit.
Whether you live in central Indiana or anywhere across North America, we should all strive to provide a cleaner environment for all of us and for future generations. Consider in this case that the local health department raising the community standard will make Brown County a more desirable place to live. In the future, you can bet that clean water supplies and cleaner recreational water bodies will improve quality of life and attract more people to want to live in the community.
The ability of our industry to play a vital role in a cleaner environment should be a source of pride for all installers.
How often must you warn the customer about an unsafe situation?
In 2013, an onsite service provider in Wisconsin warned a customer to address the safety of his rusting metal septic tank. Then, after the customer fell through the rusty lid in 2016, he sued the pumper for not continuing to notify him of the safety issue. Well, recently a three-judge appeals court panel upheld the decision of a lower-court judge to throw out the homeowner’s lawsuit.
So the question is, to what lengths should a septic service provider be required to go to warn a customer of an issue like this? In this case, homeowner David Steinke, of Hayward, Wisconsin, clearly thought the pumper, Scott Poppe, of Scott’s Septic Pumping, should have brought it up again. And the courts said Poppe was not responsible for medical bills and ongoing emotional distress Steinke suffered after he struggled five hours to get out of the tank.
The situation seems like it would not be uncommon to pumpers and maintenance providers. Poppe reported that he pumped the tank in 2013 and had a conversation with the homeowner, explaining the need for a new lid. Three years later, he pumped the system again, and went looking to tell the homeowner the lid was continuing to deteriorate. But nobody was home. He notified the county zoning and sanitary office, as usual, that he pumped the tank and there was no ponding on the ground.
The court determined that the pumper’s role was “to make sure that everything is done in a sanitary manner, that there is not any dangerous spills of the refuse that is in the septic tank, and to make sure that there is not any standing water on the drainfield, or anything like that.” The court further stated that Poppe’s first warning about the lid was “just good business practice” and that any warning fell outside of his responsibility as a pumper.
I find this really interesting for a few reasons. First of all, I’m sure all pumpers and installers have faced frustrating experiences trying to communicate with customers. Homeowners are often not on site during a service call, or don’t listen or fail to understand what they are being told about their system’s performance. Second, the court decided the pumper went above and beyond what was required of him and yet he still faced a lawsuit.
Have you had a similar experience? If so, I’d like to share it with our readers. Drop me a line at editor@onsiteinstaller.com and share the details.
