By Cindy Alia 10/01/24
The King County Department of Health has been drafting proposed ordinance for Septic Systems (OSS). CAPR has been following and evaluating the stated goals of the Department of Health in the proposed ordinance and has now had the opportunity to read the formal draft ordinance produced on September 17. The department is planning public meetings to gather comment in person and there are a few meetings that can be attended. The remaining meeting schedule follows, please make sure you attend a meeting and make your comments heard as to how the proposed regulations will impact you.
- October 3, 7 pm to 8:30 pm
Tahoma Elementary School (Gym), 24425 SE 216th St, Maple Valley, WA 98038 - October 7, 6 pm to 7:30pm
Tukwila Community Center (Banquet Hall), 12424 42nd Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98168 - October 8, 6 pm to 7:30pm
Carnation Elementary School, 4950 Tolt Ave, Carnation, WA 98014 - October 9, 5:30 pm to 7pm
Enumclaw Library, 1700 1st St, Enumclaw
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTED AT THESE EMAIL ADDRESSES: A formost concern with the process of the draft proposed OSS ordinance is the brief span of time allowed between the publication of the draft on the King County website and the closure of acceptance of public comment on October 10
Meagan Jackson, Environmental Health Services mejackson@kingcounty.gov and Lynn Schneider King County Department of Health Lynn.Schneider@kingcounty.gov
For your reference this link takes you to the draft ordinance language. It is important to read the draft as there are several changes to code that will impact you!
Please see these comments from CAPR. We are concerned about the ordinance costs, compliance with State Statute created in SB 5503, and the impact to current OSS owners future OSS on property, and the ability to develop a property.
CAPR Comments
Section 3 A reads " A. The owner or occupant of lands or premises located within the Urban Growth Area, as defined in the King County Comprehensive Plan, undertaking new residential or nonresidential construction, short subdivision or subdivision from which sewage will originate shall connect the construction to a public sewer if the sewer utility permits such connection. Within unincorporated King County such connection shall be in accordance with ((King County Code Section)) K.C.C. 13.24.136. Within incorporated cities such connection shall be in accordance with the policies of that city or the local sewer utility. The connection shall be made by connecting the building drain with an approved side sewer, and the side sewer to the public sewer."
CAPR Questions this language, why does this section read the owner or occupant of lands or premises. What authority does an occupant have to cause a connection to a sewer, is that not the sole authority of the property owner? Why is the occupant of lands mentioned is there not a need for a structure or a planned structure in order to connect to a sewer? The proposed language is odd and should be better and more clearly stated.
Section 3 B reads : B. For existing development located within ((or outside)) the Urban Growth Area and which is within two hundred feet of a public sewer, where an on-site sewage system is operating, the owner shall abandon the on-site sewage system in accordance with WAC 155 246-272A-0300 and connect the sanitary drainage system to the public sewer when the sewering authority permits such connection and when: 1. Repair, modification or replacement of the on-site sewage system is necessary, or the existing on-site sewage system has failed and an on-site sewage system fully conforming to this title cannot be designed and installed; or 2. Additional construction which in any way affects the on-site sewage system 161 is proposed"
CAPR Questions this language SB 5503 clearly states “ A new section is added to chapter 43.20 RCW to read as follows: (1) Rules adopted by the state board under RCW 43.20.050(3) regarding failures of on-site sewage systems must: (a) Give first priority to allowing repair and second priority to allowing replacement of an existing conventional on-site sewage system, consisting of a septic tank and drainfield, with a similar conventional system; in the county proposed ordinance, this section ignores the statute language requireing the right to first priority to repair or replace a system. If the county does not allow for that and instead requires sewer connection and that is contingent upon "when the sewaring authority permits such connection...and that permitting does not occur, what will the property owner encounter, will the property be devalued and lost because the county has not allowed in their code language the right to repair or replace rather than connect to a sewer system? What will be the costs incurred in a scenario such as set in this language? Why not allow for repair or replacement if the end goal is to properly manage septage or effluent? The county must take into consideration not only the State Health Department WAC, but also the RCW statute in law that enables the WACs and ordinance making. The county should be sure to follow statute in its ordinance making.
Under the scection titled Resident owner design, construction and monitoring. A. A resident owner may personally design a system for the resident owner's own single-family residence, but only if the site application submitted by the homeowner demonstrates that: 4. The property is not adjacent to a ((marine)) shoreline;
CAPR questions why marine shoreling in this draft has been converted in the draft to shoreline. In this phrase number 4, the word marine to describe type of shoreline has been striken, and so the phrase reads to include all shorelines. This change encompasses many more properties that are not near marine shorelines and will cause additional expenditures and obstacles for property owners that are not necessary to environmental concerns.
Additionally items 5 and 6 of this section read: "5. The system primary area and reserve area are not less than two hundred feet from surface water; 6. The design includes a soil evaluation performed by a state of Washington licensed on-site sewage system designer or professional engineer, or a soil scientist as defined under Chapter 246-272A WAC; and..."
CAPR Questions items 5 and 6 are concerning because the requirements consume a large portion of a building lot. The primary plus the reserve area in the draft require 200 foot separation from surface waters. The soil evaluation requirements are more costly. Owner repairs to an OSS are covered in this section, the difference being the health officer may waive some requirements for repairs it seems to gravity systems. One concern is what is required when achieving an waiver? Because shorelines is now not restricted to marine shorelines and a repair is attempted in an area where previously code required horizontal separation less than 200 feet, what will be the outcome for a repair. What is more important horizontal separation or affective management of septage and effluent?
This is the definition of surface water in the draft ordinance: Surface water. "Surface water" means any body of water, whether fresh or marine, which either flows or is contained in natural or artificial unlined depressions or drainage course and contains water for forty-eight (48) continuous hours during any of the months of May through October, or is identified by King County department of natural resources as a significant drainage feature. Such bodies include, but are not limited to, natural and artificial lakes, ponds, springs, rivers, streams, swamps, marshes, tidal water and wetlands.
CAPR Questions the broad use of the term surface waters when describing horizontal separation in a condition of a well functioning OSS. Especially the increase of horizontal separtion to 200 feet. Our concern is this requirement will unnecessarily eliminate the ability of a hownowner tos design, repair, or construct an OSS on their property.
Section 24, Item C reads: "C. The application for any development, including but not limited to subdivisions, short subdivisions, mobile home parks, multi-family housing, and commercial establishments, shall include evidence that suitable site and soil conditions as required by this title, to adequately treat and dispose of sewage on-site are present. The applicant for development in a critical aquifer recharge area shall include, in the application, evidence of compliance with K.C.C. 21A.24.316, as amended, including R&R DRAFT – BOH Title 13 – On-site Sewage Systems - 2024-09-17 37 777 evidence of compliance with the critical aquifer recharge area requirements. After review of the proposed development, the health officer shall either approve, deny, or hold the proposal pending submittal of additional information.
CAPR Questions the perhaps unintentional detriment to rural housing options in Section 24, Item C. Concerns related to adequate housing supply in an overly restrictive regulatory environment will eliminate options for appropriately planned development. CARAs or Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas have a nebulous meaning and impact on property owners as currently mapped. The accuracy of placing a property within a CARA must be accurately and well mapped to avoid harm to a property owners rights. Nexus and proportionality must be a major component of CARA mapping and property impact decisions.
We must be concerned the draft and final ordinance is meant to reasonably regulate OSS, and not become a costly magnifier or enabling factor in growth management.
October 1, 2024