The Truth About Septic Systems

By Lloyd Kahn
Published on February 1, 2008
1 / 5

A conventional gravity septic system used on level ground.
A conventional gravity septic system used on level ground.
2 / 5

Sand mound septic systems create an unattractive landscape.
Sand mound septic systems create an unattractive landscape.
3 / 5

Typical mound system. Effluent is pumped to the mound, which functions as a drainfield.
Typical mound system. Effluent is pumped to the mound, which functions as a drainfield.
4 / 5

Cross-section of a typical drainfield pipe.
Cross-section of a typical drainfield pipe.
5 / 5

A healthy septic tank with scum on the top (A), liquids flowing to the drainfield (B) and sludge on the bottom (C). Right: A tank that was not pumped out, causing it to clog
A healthy septic tank with scum on the top (A), liquids flowing to the drainfield (B) and sludge on the bottom (C). Right: A tank that was not pumped out, causing it to clog

It came to my attention on a quiet summer day in 1989 — heavy trucks were rolling down the dirt road. Trees were being cut down; stumps, bulldozed. Twenty truckloads of sand and gravel were brought in. My neighbor was adding a small addition to his house, and because of local building codes, he had to install a “mound” septic system. The landscape-disrupting mound, along with pumps and complex plumbing, cost more than $40,000! In contrast, my conventional gravity-powered septic system, built for less than $3,000 in 1971 on land with the same soil profile, has worked reliably for 36 years.

Homeowners across the United States are being confronted by regulators and engineers decreeing that their septic systems are failing and must be replaced by complex and expensive alternatives. It’s a trend that’s been gaining momentum over the past decade for both single-family homes and community sewer systems. Many of these expensive wastewater disposal systems are unnecessary and being forced on homeowners under false pretenses in order to generate maximum income — often federal “Clean Water” grant funding. For several years I have been working with science researcher John Hulls, attempting to educate homeowners about septic systems so they can deal intelligently with officials when confronted with expensive upgrades; this article summarizes our advice.

The push for expensive wastewater disposal is not a movement; there is no central headquarters. Rather, it’s a recurring theme. Why is there virtually no media attention about this phenomenon? Well, septic systems are underground — out of sight, out of mind — and they tend to work so well (and silently) that people are scarcely aware of their function. Then there’s the “eeeeyu” factor: Feces is not a subject for polite conversation or one that inspires rational discussion.

Yes, there are some failing septic systems that need fixing, and there are soils unsuitable and lots too small for conventional systems. Certainly, septic systems that leak into wells should be condemned. There also are areas where soil characteristics and population densities are leading to problems with nitrates in groundwater. But I think  many, if not most, of the “upgrades” now being required are not necessary for either environmental or health reasons.

There’s Money in Sewage

There’s always been money to be made in sewage and garbage — stuff people don’t want to mess with — and the sums presently generated in the U.S. on-site wastewater disposal industry are enormous. For example, if a bill that’s in the California legislature (AB 885) as of this printing mandates statewide septic requirements as restrictive as those in affluent California counties, the cost could be as much as $30 billion in mandatory home septic upgrades in California alone (not counting new systems) — if only one-third of the systems were targeted for replacement.

Comments (0) Join others in the discussion!
    Online Store Logo
    Need Help? Call 1-800-234-3368