I live in Wisconsin and own a vacation home on a small lake. Our cottage and all of our neighbors’ homes utilize septic systems to treat our wastewater. Stringent statewide regulations monitor the maintenance we provide for our onsite systems next to the waterways we enjoy swimming in and fishing from. We are accustomed to fulfilling a mandate to inspect these systems every three years and take care of pumping and repairs as needed.

Several years ago, after my mother passed away but before her estate was settled, our family missed the deadline for a required inspection and pumping service. I was summoned to court and eventually had to pay a fine because we were tardy. I explained the estate was in flux at that point and a warning letter was not received by me, but that excuse didn’t fly.

We understood the reasons for a statewide septic code and the county enforcement of these rules because they are ultimately about protecting the environment so future generations can enjoy lake life the way we have for three generations.

So with that personal experience, I am mystified over what’s going on in neighboring Michigan, an hour from our vacation property, where elected leaders object to similar septic system monitoring. With an estimated 1.4 million private onsite systems, Michigan is the only state without a statewide septic code — despite a 2015 university study that determined failing systems are causing pollution in waterways.

EVERY FIVE YEARS

In the latest move to set minimum statewide onsite requirements, a bill was introduced in the state House and Senate which, among other measures, would require septic inspections every five years. Opponents have quickly sprung up to try and kill the bills. They say it is in part because of $1,000 fines for those who ignore the required inspections or necessary repair or replacement of failing systems. The law would also require a $3,000 fee to build a system for a new home or replace an existing one. 

Setting aside the fines and fees, the arguments against periodic inspections and maintenance mystify me from my home across the state border. Consider the knee-jerk reaction from Republican State Rep. Dave Pristin of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, as reported in the Menominee Eagle Herald.

“If this passes and is implemented in the way that I feel it’s going to be intended, it will be one of the largest depopulation events in rural Michigan. Up here in the U.P., we would be hit incredibly hard,” Prestin said. “There are a lot of statewide stakeholders that are against this as well. … This is a big old breach. This will devastate the U.P.”

I’m sitting on my dock enjoying a beer and scratching my head over Prestin’s reaction. How can routine septic inspections be a widely accepted reality over here in Wisconsin — and neighboring Minnesota, for that matter — and be considered the end of the world as they know it in Michigan?

Prestin and other opponents to a septic code argue that expenses for inspections (projected to cost $115 to $245), as well as repair and replacement of septic systems, would be onerous to property owners. They also argue that Michigan — with large swaths of rural areas — would not be equipped to perform the inspections.

Let’s unpack these two arguments.

First, we’ll assume an inspection is on the high end of the estimated cost. Conducted every three years, that’s $81 and change to professionally monitor a decentralized wastewater system. Weigh that against the cost of a potential repair or replacement which is a more likely result if system maintenance is ignored over many years.

By the opponents’ own loose estimates, a gravity system would cost less than $10,000 and a mound system more than $10,000. As a homeowner, wouldn’t you invest $245 every three years to ensure a system is working properly? I contend this is money well spent.

DO THE MATH

And what about rural areas not being able to support inspections? The two U.P. counties mentioned have about 12,000 septic systems, so something above 2,000 inspections a year. The county where our cottage is located has 21,000 homes served by septic systems, meaning there must be about 7,000 inspections conducted annually. When I do the simple math, I figure there has to be a practical way to conduct inspections in Michigan.

The issue was raised that there may not be enough qualified persons to meet demand created by the proposed Michigan regulations, which say the inspections must be performed by a local health department, state department or registered inspector. I invite the folks in Michigan to visit here in Wisconsin where this has not been an issue.

In the case of government inspectors, the fees should be designed to cover the cost of added personnel. Or as it seems to work where we live, inspection requirements encouraged the free enterprise system to kick in, with private qualified onsite inspectors emerging to handle the greater demand. In my case, my trusted local pumper is happy to come out every three years because, well, it provides a consistent revenue stream for him, and he knows regular inspections will help him avoid emergency calls due to overloaded tanks or failed systems.

Opponents to a Michigan septic code conveniently forget to mention two key benefits of strengthened onsite system regulations:

1. They protect homeowners.

The beauty of private wastewater systems is their value. As long as a septic system is maintained properly, it can provide a reliable and more economical solution over municipal sewer service. When I compare our family’s cost for installing and maintaining the cabin septic system against what I pay for municipal wastewater treatment at my year-round home, the septic wins hands-down. Our annual costs for inspections and pumping comes out to roughly $100 at the lake house and about $1,000 at our main residence.

The proposed Michigan code would ensure all septic systems are kept in good working order and pumped when necessary. This will extend the life of septic systems and save homeowners from the expense of early system failures. Opposing legislators are actually showing little regard for homeowners’ pocketbooks — all while they say they are fighting to cut taxpayer expenses.

2. They keep our recreational and drinking waters clean.

I look out from my dock and see the same clear, clean lake I visited with my parents long ago and my children in more recent years. I want my kids’ kids to have the same experience. And I recognize not everyone is so lucky — the incidence of pollution-caused blue-green algae and fish kills is common in many parts of the country that lack adequate onsite regulations, turning once-cherished waterways into unappealing environmental dead zones.

GET IT DONE

So I don’t see new onsite regulations as a dangerous government intrusion. I see these rules as a way to encourage personal responsibility for me and my neighbors on the lake. We all want a lake untainted by failing septic systems and the required periodic inspections simply hold us up to that ideal.

I think most regular folks in Michigan feel the same way I do. It’s just the legislators who should be ashamed of themselves for being the last state in the country with no statewide code of standards for decentralized wastewater treatment.