Environmental Health Director Ray Ruminski gave the board the update.
The state's proposed regulations arise from AB 885, passed by the state Legislature around 10 years ago, Ruminski explained.
They would require inspection of septic tanks once every five years, as well as inspections of water wells on properties where septic tanks also are present, he said.
The county's septic tank program goes back to around 1960, said Ruminski. In 1985, local regulations were revised and updated.
The State Water Resources Control Board's proposals include legitimate suggestions, such as having an effluent filter on a septic tank, which the county's program already requires, Ruminski said.
There are other proposals that are easy to adjust to, including a different formula for sizing a leach line trench, said Ruminski.
However, some things are “deal breakers,” said Ruminski.
For example, there is no consideration for existing residential lots that aren't yet developed, he said. The new regulations have a sizing criteria based on a square footage formula which would result in making small lots undevelopable or requiring expensive supplemental systems.
Most of the regulations, he noted, are for construction of new systems.
The tests of existing septic systems once every five years, as well as the new tests for water wells on properties where septic tanks are located, would be retroactive for existing systems. “We think those two things are unworkable and unnecessary,” Ruminski said.
The good thing is that since the regulations have been out for public comment the water board has indicated the proposed regulations are under revision.
“They're willing to change direction and come back with something that is workable and lines up more with the real world,” said Ruminski, adding that he's planning to write a letter to the board pointing out the unworkable and unnecessary aspects of the proposed regulations.
Ruminski said there is interest in introducing a bill in the state Legislature this year to repeal AB 885 or give specific directions to the State Water Resources Control Board about the septic tank issue.
Board Chair Denise Rushing said that, in looking at the rules, it appears that someone involved in building engineered septic systems was somehow involved in writing the rules. She said she doesn't know if that's actually the case, but she hopes the state board is listening to everyday people and their concerns.
Supervisor Jim Comstock said he attended a recent meeting in Santa Rosa where public input was taken on the regulations. He estimated about 1,200 people were present at that meeting.
He said he supports legislation to repeat the proposed regulations “100 percent.”
“It's time we say no, very emphatically,” he said.
Ruminski said his department has been following the development of the proposed regulations for 10 years.
He's a member of a group of environmental health directors from around the state. Ruminski said the group was very disappointed at how they were treated by the water board's staff.
Some of the water board staff are convinced that septic tanks automatically pollute groundwater to a degree.
“These people are nuts,” Supervisor Rob Brown said of the water board. “They're totally out of touch with reality.”
He asked if a handout of questions gathered at public hearings around the state – which the water board provided a the Santa Rosa hearing – was real or “canned” questions. Ruminski said he accepted that the questions were real because he considered Water Board Chair Tam Dudoc to be credible.
“The state board sees this as a water quality issue,” said Ruminski.
While that view is perfectly legitimate, the people on the receiving end see it as a land use and planning issue, Ruminski said.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington said he believed the board and staff were on the same page on the issue, and all wanted more local control.
He said the state's estimates for enforcement costs are zero, but the Regional Council of Rural Counties estimates $1.4 billion statewide to enforce the rules.
Farrington said there is really no way to enforce the rules or to know who has both wells and septic tanks, and collecting the information would be a nightmare.
Rushing added that the regulations also don't address parcel sizes when requiring tests for water wells that are on the same property as a septic tank. She said some parcels could be hundreds of acres in size.
Ruminski said that the proposed rules also don't consider how close a septic tank is to a neighbor's property, the depth of the tank or soil types.
“This would be a big collection of bad data at some expense,” he said.
Supervisor Jeff Smith agreed that the proposed rules are “totally ridiculous.” He suggested they need to continue hammering on the proposal in order to make sure it dies.
Rushing asked how much the tests for septic tanks, that must take place once every five years, costs. Ruminski said a draft environmental impact report on the regulations estimated $325 per test. Rushing pointed out that the number didn't include many other costs.
Rushing asked about how much “good” – or accurate – data was being collected by Environmental Health. Ruminski said after issuing permits, Environmental Health doesn't have ongoing contacts with property owners. The data they have is that there is a permit, the size of the structure that the septic tanks serves and the location.
Kelseyville resident Anna Ravenwoode said she thinks everyone is concerned about the regulations.
Ravenwoode, who has interacted with the board, said she perceives them as open to the public.
She said she supported local implementation of the rules. The state's Region 5, which includes Lake County, stretches across 50 percent of the state. “It's obvious they won't be tailored to Lake County in particular.”
Ravenwoode said she supports people maintaining septic tanks for the purposes of maintaining property values and to keep groundwater clean. She added that she thinks the issue is ultimately a water quality issue, pointing to wells in San Joaquin County that have had to be closed due to pollution.
Ruminski noted that present rules require a vertical separation of 5 feet between a septic system and the water table, while mechanical treatment plants have a requirement for 2 feet of separation.
Spring Valley resident Monte Winters said the proposed rules are a concern in his area.
“We have nothing but septic tanks in Spring Valley, and we have no choice,” he said, noting the parcel density in the area allows six septic tanks within an acre.
Winter said they're concerned about the effect of septic systems on surface water. “As Spring Valley fills out, we may have a problem we can't afford to fix.”
The board thanked Ruminski for staying on top of the issue. Rushing asked him to let the board know about any dramatic changes to the proposed regulations.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:3}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
