| 
|
Smart growth has many definitions. In a broad sense, most would agree that growing smart involves land development that strengthens our economy, our environment, and our communities. Smart growth protects open space, minimizes infrastructure needs, makes housing more affordable, and creates highly sustainable communities with protected environments. Cluster treatment systems, which typically serve up to 100 or more homes on land parcels of 40 to 120 acres, are a major tool behind the smart-growth strategy. Waste flow is collected from the group of homes and pretreated before discharge into the ground. Cluster systems allow efficient land use while preserving the natural beauty and open space desired by a majority of homeowners. Combined with the proper management model and backed by proven longevity, cluster treatment systems are one of today’s hottest trends in decentralized wastewater treatment.
What’s behind the growing popularity of cluster treatment systems? Who and what are paving the way? We talked with a few of the nation’s leading experts in decentralized wastewater treatment to get an overview.
It’s the Economics, Stupid
No different than what political strategists told Bill Clinton during his first presidential election, economic factors are driving the trend. “No matter why one wishes to promote a new option, if at the end of the day it doesn’t withstand the economic rule of ‘the lowest cost wins,’ it’s never going to come to fruition,” says Dennis Hallahan, technical director of Infiltrator Systems Inc., a company that manufactures plastic leachfield drainage chambers for environmental onsite wastewater solutions. Hallahan points to the fact that Clean Water Act funds (which led the industry into big treatment and sewer works) have been dramatically cut. Monies which can still be squeezed from that program must now be paid back. The incentive behind “the big pipe” is waning. Plus, new technologies are allowing the formation of small-scale treatment facilities that produce a high-quality effluent at a lower cost. (Hallahan details the latter in an article that appeared in the September 2005 issue of Onsite Water Treatment.)
 |
| An infiltrator chamber bed is installed in Whistling Valley housing development in Lake Elmo, MN. |
“In the past, when an engineer would do a cost estimate of options for a developer, onsite was not seen as feasible or cost-effective. Now, engineers are forced to give onsite a true light-of-day review. They are seeing its economics and benefits. They see that wastewater districts are monopolies that hold the developer hostage by saying that systems must be built to their specifications—with everything being designed to the extreme—because there is no competition. Furthermore, a municipality may not be providing sewer to an area as it may not be part of their five-year plan—but the developer may want to develop a property in two years and is thinking time is money. It all comes back to economics,”
says Hallahan.
Wide-Open Spaces
“The big pipe is so expensive that it prohibits open space and drives too much density,” says Curtis Sparks, president of North American Wetland Engineering (NAWE), a company that was formed in 1997 to provide small communities with high-quality yet affordable wastewater solutions. NAWE was the first company to create a cluster treatment system in its home state of Minnesota. Since then its engineers have installed over 200 treatment systems. “We’re growing outside the centralized sewer systems, so now there is this huge demand for these small wastewater treatment systems—ones on which we had never spent money before. In the 1980s we weren’t ready for clustered developments because we hadn’t developed the technology options yet. But when you spend money, it drives innovations. In the last 10 years there has been a renaissance of new technologies that foster cluster treatment and a smart-growth approach,” says Sparks, who stresses that clustered developments give people the top things they want—parks, ponds, trails, and recreation areas near their homes.”
There are progressive developers who are clearly looking for creative, more environmentally conscious ways to develop land. And they are being driven by equally progressive planners—a new wave of younger planners who may be inspired by site designers such as Randall Arendt.
Arendt is a proponent of open space zoning. Open space zoning allows the same overall amount of development that is already permitted, writes Arendt; however, the key difference is that this technique requires new construction to be located on only a portion (typically half) of the parcel.
The remaining open space is permanently protected under a conservation easement. He defines cluster development as grouping new homes onto part of the development parcel so that the remainder can be preserved as open space.
Typically, most rural township plans call for a minimum of 2-acre, 5-acre, or 10-acre lots providing room to separate septic tanks from wells. First, this creates “sprawl,” which is defined as a poorly planned, low-density land-use pattern that is automobile dependent, land-consumptive, and requires a very high ratio of road surface to development served. Second, it also means that townships are presented with hundreds of individual onsite systems that are rarely inspected or regularly maintained versus one cluster system that can be effectively managed to serve a hundred homes.
“Look at the costs of developing communities with 5–10-acre minimum plots. These communities can’t generate enough income to pay for the roads, let alone effectively manage numerous onsite systems. This sprawl creates an end to available development and a loss of tax revenues,” says Sparks, who created the first cluster system ordinance in Minnesota. The ordinance, like others of its kind, allows houses to be clustered on a portion of the parcel, leaving the remainder for recreation, wildlife, and beauty. In short, it’s easier and cheaper to service the development with roads, power lines, and water systems, and the open land raises the value of the homes.
A Philosophy of Permanence
“We have proven that a properly managed cluster treatment system is permanent infrastructure. It’s not a development that’s waiting for a central sewer to show up. This is a permanent sewer. To me that is a major, major statement as far as the infrastructure world goes,” says Charles Pickney, president of Tennessee Wastewater Systems, a company that is operating over 70 decentralized systems, at least 50 of them being cluster systems. “Many people do not see onsite as permanent infrastructure. It’s the single largest barrier we face. People are afraid that these systems are just another septic-tank-and-leachfield system that’s been jazzed up—and that they are doomed to fail because nobody is going to keep them going.
“With ongoing management, we’re looking out over a 40- to 50-year period in everything we do. When we select a pump or a filter we’re asking how is that component going to be functioning 10, 20, 30, or 40 years from now. That overrides any initial cost considerations. We’re looking for long-term maintainability in plastic and stainless steel components that will last, and those that will not last must be easy to replace,” says Pickney. “The onsite industry is often labeled as ‘temporary.’ That is something that the industry has to work hard to change. We have to demonstrate the viability of these systems year after year by the way they function—then when we’ve reached 20 years and beyond, opinions will shift.” He adds that many of the systems his company has installed and maintained are at the 13-year mark and are functioning as planned.
 |
| A drainfield utilizing Quick4 Standard chambers is used in an onsite wastewater treatment cluster system installed for homesbordering a golf course. |
Who’s Minding the System?
Everyone agrees that effective management is the key to successful clustered developments. While some of the smaller micro-communities may form homeowner associations or subordinate service districts to manage their wastewater systems, it’s the higher levels of management—outsourced management or rural utility models—that have proved to be most successful.
“You have to run these systems like a business. You have to collect money and maintain reserves. Higher levels of management are needed to protect everybody,” says Sparks.
For that reason, Sparks says that NAWE has expanded its services to include the management and operation of wastewater and water systems. Its services are provided to public and private wastewater and water systems through a sister company, EcoCheck Inc. System owners can contract with the company for the operation and maintenance of the systems. EcoCheck is also working with private utility companies, such as Connexus Energy in Minnesota, in the development of wastewater systems to be owned and operated by the utility. EcoCheck has found that the concept of utility management is desirable to developers, regulators, and homeowners. Developers see the benefit of limiting long-term liability by transferring wastewater assets to the ownership of the utility. Regulators like an entity that they know is accountable. And since homeowners are familiar with the utility model for electric and gas service, there is a comfort level for them.
Pickney of Tennessee Wastewater Systems also chose the public utility model. In fact, along with his brothers, Pickney was the first to create an onsite-wastewater public utility company in the state of Tennessee. While the business of the public utility company is regulated by the state, the stock of the corporation is owned by the Pickney brothers.
Pickney says that it really all comes down to control. “If you’re in the role of the maintenance contractor, your job is only going to last as long as the owners want you to be there. At some point these owners may decide to cut costs by eliminating the maintenance contract, and no one will hear from them until the day that they start having a problem with the system. So we have decided to establish ownership of the system. As long as waste is flowing from that home the user is required to pay to maintain it,” he says. Homeowners receive a monthly bill (around $35) just as they would if they were connected to a larger centralized sewer system. Approximately $3 of each monthly bill is profit. A portion of the rate structure is set aside to cover scheduled maintenance and future improvements.
Pickney stresses that his company seeks out public regulations as that creates a feeling of confidence. “The customers know that the fee they pay each month is reasonable and has been looked at by impartial authorities. There is also a large public record of how we perform. If we have complaints or noncompliance issues, there is a record of that. It’s very easy to check up on us. So if developers want to verify that we are fair, or that our system will perform reliably, they will find that we’re publicly regulated, that we are not selling a product, and that it’s real easy to see that we are what we say we are,” he says.
Pickney also has state wastewater companies in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, and Mississippi. Each is affiliated with and operated under the umbrella company of Adenus Solutions. “This is so that we can maintain a standard of performance and accountability across the board. We want the same high-quality results from all locations. We do that by analyzing the conditions at each site and creating a system that is designed to protect the environment at each specific site. We’re not tied to one particular technology. Everything we install is based on soil and suitability. This determines how collection, treatment, and dispersal systems are designed and how maintenance will be performed,” says Pickney.
Barriers and Benefits
Since budgetary and practical constraints limit the reach of municipal sewer networks, decentralized cluster systems have become a viable alternative. However, there are still barriers to their acceptance—the biggest being a resistance to change. Many engineers are slow to embrace new concepts and alternative technologies. Also, many states do not possess the regulatory guidelines and administrative framework for the design, permitting, and operation of cluster systems—particularly those with onsite discharge.
On the other hand, the benefits are many. Obviously, cluster systems afford flexibility to developments that cannot be served by centralized sewers or traditional onsite septic systems. In other words, they fill a very important gap.
New technologies allow their installation even on sites with soil-based limitations. With effective design and management, cluster systems are a turnkey solution for all concerned—developers, regulators, and homeowners. Everybody wins. Surely that is a solid foundation for smart growth.
Construction-industry writer Carol Wasson owns JCL Marketing & Communications Inc.
OW - September/October 2006 |
