Water and Sewer Service in Rural Baltimore County, Maryland

by

Jeanne E. Bilanin and

Victor K. Tervala

C-60

Institute for Governmental ServiceCenter for Applied Policy Studies

University of Maryland, College Park

September 1999

A report of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Division, Department of NaturalResources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationAward No. NA87OZ0236

i

Table of Contents

Table of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Organizing a Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Management of On-site Water and Sewer Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Examples of Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Evaluating an OSDS Management Program in Baltimore County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Proposed State Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Possible Management Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Operational Permit Approach in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Developing Rural Water and Sewer Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Existing Need for Rural Sewer Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Existing Need for Rural Water Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Water/Sewer Infrastructure for Rural Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Technical Alternatives for Rural Sewer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Technical Alternatives for Rural Water Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Legal, Organizational and Financial Issues of Individual Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Appendix A: Magnitude of OSDS Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: Magnitude of Water System Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C: Water/Sewer Needs Associated with New Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D: Water and Sewer System Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

ii

Table of Tables and Figures

Table 1: OSDS Problems and Potential Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 2: Water System Problem Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table A-1: Longstanding OSDS Problem Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

Table A-2: DEPRM Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

Table C-1: Rural Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2

Table C-2: Existing Rural Communities by Planning District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3

Table C-3: Water/Sewer Options for New Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6

Table D-1: Inflation Multipliers for Historical Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2

Table D-2: EPA Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

Table D-3: Capital Cost Estimates: DEPRM and EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

Table D-4: Capital Costs of Cluster Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5

Table D-5: Capital Costs of Community Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7

Table D-6: Water and Sewer Operating and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-9

Table D-7: Metropolitan District Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-12

Figure 1: Water Supply and Sewerage System, Baltimore County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2: Problem Areas for Sewage Disposal in Baltimore County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

iii

Preface

Over the last several years, Baltimore Countyofficials have been increasingly concerned aboutfailing septic systems and contaminated wells inrural Baltimore County. The boundaries of theMetropolitan District, the entity that serves thewater and sewer needs of county residents, doesnot extend much beyond urban areas. If publicwater and sewer services are needed in ruralBaltimore County, who can deliver services andhow can they do so?

This service question alone is significant butalso affects the county’s comprehensive plan.Two concepts included in the proposed plan--rural commercial centers and rural villages--probably cannot be implemented unlesscommunity water and sewer systems areavailable in areas beyond the MetropolitanDistrict.

While these concerns were being raisedamong local officials, state officials begandebating the need for tighter restrictions onindividually owned septic systems. Among otherthings, state officials were considering whether torequire septic systems to be inspectedperiodically to protect water resources. Most ofthese septic systems in Baltimore County lieoutside the boundaries of the MetropolitanDistrict. Consequently, if the county were maderesponsible for an inspection program, how couldit be conducted?

To study these questions, the BaltimoreCounty Department of Environmental Protectionand Resource Management (DEPRM) receiveda grant from the Maryland Department of NaturalResources’ Coastal Zone Management Program.DEPRM contracted with the Institute for

Governmental Service (IGS) at the University ofMaryland to do the work. Specifically, the studywas to focus on how water and sewer servicesmight be brought to rural Baltimore County; onhow the county might implement an inspectionprogram for septic systems, if the state requiredit; and on whether a sanitary district should beestablished for rural Baltimore County.

IGS started work in September 1998.

iv

Executive Summary

This study focuses on three questions. First,how can Baltimore County bring water andsewer capacity to areas that lie beyond theMetropolitan District and in so doing, allow twoconcepts in the county’s proposed master plan--rural commercial centers and rural villages--to beimplemented? Second, how can the countyperform inspections of on-site sewage disposalsystems (OSDS) should the state require it?Third, is a sanitary district necessary to performthese services?

The study shows that a sanitary district isunnecessary for fielding an inspection program.An OSDS inspection program may be requiredif proposed state regulations should be adopted.In this event, the study suggests that the newprogram operate as follows: the countygovernment would require OSDS owners toobtain a permit from the county that allowsowners to operate an OSDS for a period of threeto five years; the permit would be issued onlyafter the owner contracted with a private businessto perform the inspection and only after theinspection showed that the OSDS operatedproperly and in accordance with state standards;the Department of Environmental Protection andResource Management (DEPRM) and theDepartment of Permits and DevelopmentManagement would create and oversee theprogram; and any existing permit would expireafter three (or five) years, but could be renewedif an inspection showed the OSDS was operatingproperly.

The study shows that a sanitary district isunnecessary to bring community-based water andsewer services to rural Baltimore County.According to DEPRM, septic systems are failing

in certain geographic pockets in rural BaltimoreCounty and some wells are plagued bycontamination. Because of environmentalconstraints, these pockets will need community-based water and sewer systems in which multiplehouseholds or businesses are grouped in a systemfor disposing of wastewater or for receivingwater from a centralized source. The studyestimates that capital costs for installing thesesystems is less than $12 million.

The problem arises in the fact that thesegeographical pockets lie, for the most part,outside the boundaries of the MetropolitanDistrict. However, bringing community-basedservices to rural Baltimore County does notrequire a sanitary district. Several otheralternatives, such as creating a water and sewerauthority or even contracting with the MarylandEnvironmental Service to install, operate andmaintain these small systems, are as appealing intheir way as the creation of a rural sanitarydistrict. Yet, implementing any of thesealternatives does not appear as attractive assimply relying on the Department of PublicWorks (DPW) to do the job. DPW alreadyprovides water and sewer services in BaltimoreCounty through the Metropolitan District.

Beyond the question as to which entity shoulddeliver rural water and sewer services is thequestion of paying for these systems. Whencapital and operating costs of community systemsare added together, additional costs tohomeowners might run $300 per month. Thestudy finds that the county should, to the extentpossible, rely on private developers for installingcommunity systems in new developments.Nonetheless, for systems installed in existing

v

communities, costs can outstrip the ability ofsome homeowners to pay for them. In suchcases, the county government may be forced touse tax dollars to pay a portion of the capitaland/or operating costs.

1

Introduction

For most of this century the BaltimoreCounty Metropolitan District, an entity overwhich Baltimore County and Baltimore City shareresponsibility and governance, has been providingcounty residents centralized water and sewerservices. Nearly 87 percent of county households(11 out of 12 county residents) today receivewater and sewer service from the MetropolitanDistrict.1 Yet 13 percent of the households donot receive the services. Almost 93 thousandcounty residents get water from their own privatewells and dispose of sewage through their ownprivate septic systems. Some of these householdslie within the Metropolitan District in “no plannedservice areas,” but most are located outside thedistrict boundaries. (See Figure 1.) In terms ofwastewater alone, these systems account forapproximately 10 million gallons per day, or 3.5billion gallons per year 2 of wastewater flow intothe subsurface of Baltimore County. As long asthese private systems work well, as long as thesoils can absorb the wastewater, the steady flowpresents no real concern. Yet we know thesesystems do not always work well.

The federal government estimates that onaverage 10 percent of private septic systems fail

at least once during the year.3 The term failurehere means an overflow of sewage to the surfaceor direct discharge into a stream or storm drain.If Baltimore County is similar to the nationalaverage, then the county should expect roughly3,800 septic systems to fail at least once thisyear. The failures will cause nearly one milliongallons of sewage to flow freely in the county.

Furthermore, the Baltimore CountyDepartment of Environmental Protection andResource Management (DEPRM) estimates 750systems fail chronically. The chronic failurescollectively pump another 187,000 gallons ofsewage periodically onto county land and intocounty streams. This number, incidently, excludesthe 1,200 homes on failing systems on thecounty’s lower east side (Bowleys Quarters andBack River Neck peninsulas) that are beingbrought onto public water and sewer service.

The problem, of course, represents anenvironmental threat and a serious healthconcern. Waterborne disease outbreaks in theU.S. often are attributed to bacteria and virusespresent in domestic sewage, according to theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency.Septic system failures are the most frequentlyreported source of contamination in theseoutbreaks. Septic system failures also causeincreased levels of nitrates, heavy metals andsynthetic organic chemicals in ground water. Allof these things devastate water resources,degrade property values and erode human health.

1 Data provided by the Baltimore CountyDepartment of Environmental Protection andResource Management, using Year 2000estimates.

2 Estimate based on an average discharge of 250gallons per day per household. Data fromProblem Areas for On-Site Sewage DisposalSystems in Baltimore County, Baltimore CountyDepartment of Environmental Protection andResource Management (1998).

3 Septic Stats, An Overview, National On-siteDemonstration Project, Small FlowsClearinghouse, West Virginia University (1998).

3

On-site water and sewer systems areprivately owned and maintained. Yet because ofhealth and environmental issues, they present apublic concern. Recognizing this fact, theBaltimore County government has becomeinvolved. The county government prohibits thedischarge of sewage, except with a permit, intoany waters of the county or onto the groundsurface, streets or roads.4 The county activelyenforces the ordinance along with another countyordinance that requires abandoned well andseptic systems to be left in such a way as not toinjuriously affect the public health.5 The countyalso issues building permits for drilling wells andinstalling septic systems, and county personnelare engaged in site and design issues.Furthermore, the state requires countyinvolvement when nonconventional septic systemsare at issue.6 Specifically, state agencies andDEPRM receive proposals for the installation ofnonconventional septic systems, along with otherrelated reports required by the state. Along withstate officials, the county must approve the designand site of the installations. Local authorities alsoare required by the state regulation to monitor thenonconventional systems for several years.

Yet, this involvement to date may not beenough. The problems caused by failing septicsystems persist and federal and stategovernments are calling for more and more effort.Specifically, several years ago the federalgovernment established management measuresrequiring state governments to manage the siting,design, installation, and operation of on-site

sewage disposal systems (OSDS).7 Thosemeasures require the following:

• Development of setback guidelines andofficial maps showing where conditions aresuitable for conventional septic OSDSinstallations;

• Siting, design, and construction thatprovides sufficient separation between the soilabsorption field and the seasonal high watertables;

• Assessment of site suitability prior to issuingOSDS permits;

• Minimal densities of development in areasthat require the use of denitrification systems;

• Local plumbing codes that require practicesthat are compatible with OSDS use;

• Siting, design and construction that areappropriate for protecting surface water andground water;

• Site designs that provide for a possiblebackup soil absorption field in case of failure ofthe first field;

• Soils that are not compacted in the primaryor backup soil absorption field area;

• Post-construction inspections of OSDS.

4 Baltimore County Code, Section 35-74.

5 Id. Section 35-176.

6 See COMAR, 26.04.02.06.

7 See Guidance Specifying Management Measuresfor Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in CoastalWater, Environmental Protection Agency, Officeof Water, issued under the authority of Section6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act AuthorizationAmendments of 1990.

4

Through state regulations, Maryland hasadopted many of the federal managementguidelines.8 The regulations basically call forwork at the state level, rather than at the locallevel. Nonetheless, other state regulations arebeing drafted that appear to require local effort.Specifically, a proposed set of regulations wascirculated in the spring of 1999. They require,among other things, enforcing OSDSmaintenance standards, tracking the frequency ofmaintenance, and certifying persons engaged inOSDS inspections. According to DEPRM, theproposed regulations, if approved, will requireBaltimore County to hire more local staff to dothe work.9

Yet aside from state and federal mandatesand aside from persistent health andenvironmental threats from OSDS, anotherrelated issue reinforces the need for officialaction. According to DEPRM, conventionalcorrections of OSDS problems may beunavailable in some geographical pockets of thecounty.10 The problems arise from environmentalconstraints such as limited lot size, shallow watertables or impermeable soils. According toDEPRM, communities at risk today includePhoenix, Freeland, Baldwin, Monkton, Hereford,Jacksonville and Kingsville. Phoenix andKingsville appear in immediate need ofcorrection. The rest can wait, but not indefinitely.

Because these pockets are beyond theboundaries of the Metropolitan District or in “noplanned service areas” within the MetropolitanDistrict, no easy way exists to bring them waterand sewer services.11 OSDS failures in theseareas will require alternative, often moreexpensive, systems than in other, moreenvironmentally forgiving areas. The expense ofthese systems is an important issue. Wheneverthese alternative systems can be installed on-siteof the property being served, the cost may beprohibitively high for some property owners. Inthe face of these costs, what can propertyowners do? An equally pressing concern,however, was raised in the recent DEPRMreport on OSDS failures in Baltimore County.12

The report concluded that community based-systems are the most appropriate alternativecorrections in some areas of the county.

This conclusion opens up a range of issuesfor local policymakers. Community-basedsystems serve the sewage needs of multipleproperties in a specific geographical area. Yet inrural Baltimore County, how could these systemsbe funded, installed, operated and maintained?No entity like the Metropolitan District exists todo the work. Should Metropolitan Districtboundaries be expanded to permit operation inthese areas? If not, should the county governmentitself do the work? Perhaps the county would bebetter off setting up an entity like theMetropolitan District to provide water and sewerservices in rural parts of the county. Oralternatively, perhaps self help is the answer.

8 See COMAR, 26.04.02 and proposed revisions.

9 Letter to James Dieter, Maryland Department ofthe Environment, re: Review of proposed changesto 26.04.02 and 26.04.03, dated 3/24/99.

10 Baltimore County Department of EnvironmentalProtection and Resource Management. (1998).Problem Areas for On-site Sewage DisposalSystems in Baltimore County, Towson, MD.

11 Certain laws also prohibit the direct discharge intoreservoir watersheds and degrading waterways. These prohibitions add to the difficulty ofaddressing septic failures in the area.

12 See Note 10.

5

Government’s role could be confined merely toorganizing a private response to the problem,with affected property owners in the endacquiring, running and maintaining their owncommunity-based systems.

Whatever option ends up being chosen, thechoice must be made with due consideration to afourth issue: the need for community water andsewer systems to support the county’s growthplans. Two concepts included in the BaltimoreCounty master plan--rural commercial centersand rural villages--probably cannot beimplemented unless community water and sewersystems are available.

The concept of rural commercial centers ispresented in the proposed Master Plan 2010 asareas where retail and office service uses areconcentrated. It is essentially the same as therural center concept described in the 1989-2000Master Plan as “commercial areas whichfunction or should develop to function as thecommercial center for the surrounding resourceresidential area.”13 The 1989 descriptioncontinued, “Such a center should have a grocerystore, restaurant, pharmacy, bank, gas stationand other limited convenience retail and serviceestablishments. These areas may also beappropriate for office and community servicessuch as libraries and senior centers.”

Hereford and Jacksonville were identified asrural centers in the 1989-2000 plan. They areidentified as rural commercial centers in theproposed plan. Yet, the proposed Master Plan2010 acknowledges that Hereford andJacksonville are among the rural areas with

marginal soil conditions and small propertysizes.14 The impact these environmentalconstraints will have on development is notexplored in the proposed plan. Nonetheless,DEPRM identifies these environmental conditionsas being problematic for installing OSDScorrections in the Hereford and Jacksonvilleareas, as noted above. Residents of Hereford, infact, petitioned for annexation into theMetropolitan District to obtain centralized waterand sewer services.15 To the extent the proposedplan touches on the issue of water and sewerservices in these areas, it does so by stating thatthe county needs to “provide infrastructuresupport such as stormwater management.”16 Itfurther recommends evaluating a rural sanitarydistrict as a mechanism for addressing rural watersupply and sewage disposal problems.17

The concept of rural villages appears in the1989-2000 Master Plan. However, its meaninghas changed in the proposed Master Plan 2010.In the earlier plan, rural villages were describedas small rural crossroad commercial areasappropriate for a diversity of uses such as tack

13 Baltimore County. (1990). Baltimore County1989-2000 Master Plan, Towson, MD, p. 142.

14 Baltimore County. (May 1999). Master Plan 2010:Towson, MD, pp. 169-70.

15 The remote area of Sunnybrook was annexed intothe Metropolitan District in the 1960s. In the1990s, a similar arrangement was proposed for aPhoenix neighborhood to solve a groundwatercontamination problem. Baltimore City, whichshares governance of the Metropolitan District,opposed the action, questioning the district’sauthority to annex noncontiguous areas.Consequently, the Hereford petition forannexation into the Metropolitan District has notbeen considered.

16 Id. at 160.

17 Id. at 150.

6

shops, garden centers and convenience stores butnot intended to provide a complete range ofservices.18 Baldwin, Butler, Fork, Fowblesburg,Glen Arm, Kingsville, Maryland Line, Stevensonand White House were identified on the northernsector development policy plan map as ruralvillages.19 In the proposed Master Plan 2010,these communities (except Fowblesburg) areidentified simply as villages.20 Along with the tworural commercial centers, they are candidates fornew nonresidential development. In contrast, theproposed plan presents rural villages as aconcept for future residential development and apossible receiving area for a transfer ofdevelopment rights (TDR).21

According to the proposed plan, the ruralvillage concept “concentrates small pockets ofdevelopment, with a consistent rural scale andappearance, in specific locations so that largeragricultural or environmentally sensitive areas canbe preserved.22 A mix of housing types and lotsizes is provided with a maximum of 200-330dwelling units.” Preferred locations wouldminimize impact on agriculture and resourcepreservation and could include existing ruralcommercial centers, rural residential areas(Chestnut Ridge, Freeland, Hereford, Kingsville,Jacksonville and Patapsco) and certain fringeareas.

The plan recognizes that the rural villageconcept may involve development that is toodense to rely on well water and septic systems.Among other action items regarding rural villages,the proposed master plan recommendsdetermining the economic and environmentalfeasibility of providing water and sewagesystems.

Master Plan 2010 comments that reliance onindividual well and septic systems results in adevelopment pattern that takes on a haphazardappearance and consumes large quantities ofland.23 The concepts of rural commercial centersand rural villages are presented as desirablealternatives. However, the land use patterns anddevelopment densities of rural commercialcenters and rural villages are the same patternsand densities that have overtaxed OSDS in manyof the county’s existing rural communities.Alternatives to OSDS must be provided toimplement the rural commercial center and ruralvillage concepts. If OSDS is the only approachavailable, new development will continue torequire large quantities of land.

Organizing a Response

The discussion thus far identifies fourproblems that today confront policymakers inBaltimore County:

(A) the proper maintenance and operation ofOSDS, which have a critical impact on the healthof county residents and the environment;

(B) the federal government’s--but particularlythe state’s--more aggressive commitment to

18 Baltimore County. (1990). Baltimore County1989-2000 Master Plan, as adopted February 5,1990, p. 142.

19 Id. at 130-31.

20 Baltimore County. (May 1999). Master Plan 2010:Baltimore County, Maryland, Proposed, p. 182.

21 Id. at 180.

22 Id. 23 Id. at 179.

7

closer inspection and regulation of OSDS, whichwill potentially require county resources;

(C) the projected use of community-basedsystems in treating OSDS failures in ruralBaltimore County, as well as the expense ofalternative OSDS for certain property owners;and

(D) the need for community water and sewersystems to support the county’s growth plans.

None of these concerns can be tabled for anylength of time; all seem to require attention. Thequestion becomes how policymakers shouldrespond.

A closer look at the four issues shows theycan be divided into two categories. The first twoproblems deal with management of on-site waterand sewer systems. The proper siting, design,operation and maintenance of OSDS are centralto eliminating health and environmental threatsand are behind the bulk of federal and stateregulations. The third and fourth issues concerndeveloping the infrastructure needed to meet ruralwater and sewer needs, including correctingexisting problems and closing the gap betweenthe master plan and water and sewer capacity incertain areas. The following sections of the reportexplore these groupings of issues further.

8

Management of On-site Water and Sewer Systems

For most of the 20th century centralizedwater and sewer services were considered bymany as the only reliable, long-term solution forhandling these problems. Private wells andOSDS were viewed as temporary solutions or, atany rate, second-best alternatives. But theusefulness of centralized water and sewerservices over the years has been thrown intoquestion by rising costs, dwindling federal andstate grants, stricter treatment and dischargestandards, and higher per capita costs. Today,individual and community-based water and sewerservices are enjoying a renaissance of sortsamong residential and commercial users. OSDSand individual water supply systems are beingincreasingly recognized as long-term solutionswhen they are properly managed. Yet, here is aproblem: These systems are privately owned andoperated.24 To ensure the viability of theseprivate systems--and to protect the environmentand public health--local officials are challenged todevelop strategies to assure that private ownersproperly operate and maintain their systems.

A variety of management schemes can beused to deliver services. They range from havingthe property owner retain full responsibility for allmaintenance activities with little public oversightto having a public entity take responsibility foreverything. Advantages and disadvantages apply

to each approach. The following describes arange of approaches that might be used.25

Public Education Approach. The programgoal is to provide property owners theinformation they need to properly operate andmaintain their systems. Program activities includecreating and distributing packets of informationand community outreach programs that presenteducational material in public forums. Theprogram can be managed by DEPRM.

The advantages to the approach includekeeping property owners involved in caring fortheir systems and in keeping program costs low.Because the approach relies on voluntarycompliance, the disadvantages include thedifficulty of ensuring compliance with properoperating and maintenance standards. But a moreserious problem concerns compliance withproposed state regulations. They propose, amongother things, enforcement of OSDS maintenancestandards, tracking the frequency of maintenance,and certifying persons engaged in OSDSinspections. If county government is to beresponsible for those activities, as DEPRMsuggests it might, then a purely educationalapproach is insufficient. Nonetheless, it is easy tovalue the contribution education makes toresolving OSDS and water-related problems.

System Guarantee Approach. The goal ofthis approach is for designers and installers toguarantee the performance of new or modified

24 The Maryland Office of Planning also believesthat OSDS and community-based systemspromote sprawl development and thatconsequently, these technologies should not bepermitted. In effect, the position would eliminatedevelopment in rural areas. Memorandum fromRichard E. Hall, Maryland Office of Planning toLauren Wenzl, Department of Natural Resources,RE: Comments for the Septic System TaskforceFinal Report (July 1, 1999).

25 The schemata is taken from Guidance Handbookfor On-site Sewage System Monitoring Programsin Washington State, Washington StateDepartment of Health (1996).

9

systems. As long as owners care for their systemsin the proper manner, then designers andinstallers can correct any problems at no chargeduring a specified period (the guarantee period).DEPRM can oversee the program and evaluatethe work of designers and installers.

The advantages include providing a strongincentive for property owners to properly carefor their systems. Designers and installers aremotivated to do their best work and providegood instructions for the proper care andmaintenance of the system. The disadvantagesinclude the fact that existing systems areunaffected by the program, and those systems towhich the program does apply are only coveredduring the guarantee period. In either case,another monitoring strategy is needed. The act ofrequiring contractual guarantees for systeminstallation and modification also is likely torequire state approval: a disadvantage. Anotherproblem is the eruption of disputes over thecauses of system failures and the ability to verifythat property owners actually maintained theirsystems in the prescribed manner. Finally, byitself the program does not accomplishmaintenance tracking that proposed stateregulations require.

Loan Certification Approach. In thisapproach, the county requires an inspection ofeach system as properties are sold or refinanced.The purpose of the inspection is to assess thecondition of the system and to reviewmaintenance records. Furthermore, as a result ofthe inspection, the program places specificconditions on system operation and maintenanceand further serves to educate property ownersabout operation and maintenance issues. Underthis approach, staff from DEPRM or private firmsconduct the inspections.

We note that Baltimore County currentlyinspects well water for its bacteriological andchemical quality when real property isconveyed.26 The county code also calls for theperiodic yield-testing of wells, and the test resultsare valid for three years.27 No similar ordinanceor law requires an inspection of OSDS uponconveyance or at any other time.28

The advantage of a loan certificationapproach is that it provides an orderly way todeal with the majority of systems. It is a relativelysimple and low-cost alternative. Program costsare included in the loan certification process,which alleviates the needs for new fundingsources and for routine billing of fees. Also,access to properties to conduct the inspection,which can be an issue in some cases, is notsignificant under this approach, since thecertification--and the resulting inspection--wouldbe required by law and, presumably, by lendersas well. This approach also covers stateproposals calling for inspections, maintenancetracking and certification of inspectors.

The obvious disadvantage is that the programonly affects properties that are sold or refinanced.Many systems are inspected at irregular intervals,if at all. Enforcement of the specific conditionsplaced on system operation and maintenance isnot addressed in a loan certification program. Theprogram needs the cooperation of lenders andprivate businesses engaged with inspections.

26 Baltimore County Code, Sections 35-38 & 35-39.

27 Id. at Section 35-37.

28 Nonetheless, certain private lenders in BaltimoreCounty require OSDS inspections beforeapproving property transfers, according tocounty officials.

10

Operational Permit Approach. Thisapproach requires issuing permits for allindividual water supply systems and OSDS,which would be valid for a period of time. Whenthe permit expires or when systems are installed,repaired or modified, a new permit is issued. Thepermit provides specific instructions andschedules for operating and maintaining thesystem, recording maintenance and monitoringactivities, and reporting inspection andmaintenance activities to DEPRM on a regularbasis. The agency running the program chargesfees to cover program costs and collects themthrough a separate billing process or localproperty tax statements. The agency records theinformation generated by the program and issuesnotices and bills.

The advantages of the approach include itsability to apply uniformly to all systems. Itprovides a high level of assurance for systemscovered under the permit program. It provides ameans to collect good information on permittedsystems. Because requirements are stated in thepermit, enforcement is easier than if suchrequirements did not exist. Finally, the approachallows property owners to retain control andexercise responsibility for their systems. They cancontract with maintenance specialists to do thework and report the information, as required bya permit.

The disadvantages include the need foracceptance of a major changes in the regulationand management of OSDS and individual watersystems. The fact that additional staff may berequired to run the program, even if inspectionsare handled by system owners and private firms,also is a negative factor. The approach hinges onobtaining legal access to property if inspectionsare done by agency personnel. Access is less an

issue when private businesses inspect the systemsbecause access typically is a subject settled in thecontract that exists between the parties. Finally,a problem initially exists in requiring compliancefrom all system owners when information onexisting systems is incomplete.

Public Authority Inspection Approach.This approach uses a public authority, if oneexists [e.g., the Department of Public Works, theMetropolitan District or the MarylandEnvironmental Service (MES)], or one that isestablished if an appropriate public authority doesnot exist. In any event, system owners arerequired to contract with the public authority forperiodic inspections of their systems. The publicauthority maintains records of inspection. If thepublic authority is independent of the countygovernment (e.g., MES or a newly created entity)then the following occurs:

(1) The public authority forwards the recordsto DEPRM;

(2) When problems with a system areencountered as a result of an inspection, thepublic authority notifies the agency;

(3) The agency then enforces the standards ineffect.

If the public authority is already part of thecounty government (e.g., the Department ofPublic Works or the Metropolitan District), thenmost of the above activities are performed andcoordinated with DEPRM.

Advantages to this approach includeenhanced confidence by property owners in theobjectivity of the program because inspectionsand maintenance suggestions come from a partywithout a profit motive. Because the county,likely, will wield control over the broad policies

11

and practices of a public authority (the exceptionwould be MES), the county can be confident ofthe effectiveness of the public authority. A publicauthority allows DEPRM to concentrate onoversight responsibilities. Finally, access toproperty is not an issue under this approach dueto the contractual nature of the arrangement andthe statutory authority under which the publicauthority would operate.

Disadvantages include the possibility that inBaltimore County a public authority might need tobe created to perform these tasks. Privatebusinesses are affected by the opportunities lostwhen a public authority performs this type ofwork, unless the public authority itself contractswith private businesses to do the work. Lastly,the government may have difficulty enforcing therequirement that system owners contract with thepublic authority.

Public Authority Maintenance Approach.In this approach the public authority isresponsible for maintaining the systems. Thepublic authority conducts inspections andperforms all maintenance activities, such asreplacing pumps and system components. Theowner is relieved of maintenance responsibilitiesbut may be required to modify or change certainpractices (e.g., pouring chemicals down drains).The public authority charges an annual fee thatincorporates the cost of ongoing maintenance.The system owner pays additional amounts onlyfor repairs and for replacing parts.

The advantages of the approach are theassurances that the systems are properlymaintained. Complete information is available onall systems. Note too that this approach can stilluse the services of private businesses by placingthem under contract for inspection and repair

work. Alternatively, the authority can do thework itself. Through economies of scale, thepooling of maintenance costs should over thelong-term save owners money. The timing ofpayments for maintaining the systems ispredictable, if not the amount of the payments.

Disadvantages include the possibility thatowners, with little direct responsibility for theirsystems, may be less careful in using their system.If this possibility were to become fact, themaintenance costs are greater than wouldotherwise be the case. Access to property is alegal problem, although not insurmountable.Cooperation of owners cannot be assured. If thepublic authority performs the inspection andrepair work itself, employees must obtain thetechnical knowledge, skills and abilities to serviceand replace a system. Additional staff andresources may be necessary to implement theapproach.

Examples of Monitoring Programs

Perhaps because state law does not currentlyrequire inspections, no Maryland county hasestablished a program to inspect OSDS orindividual well systems, yet all perform inspectionand monitoring functions to some extent. Forexample, counties inspect wells when yieldproblems become apparent, when wells needreplacement or when new additions are built ontostructures that use well water. Similarly, countiesinspect OSDS when problems are brought totheir attention, as in the case of OSDS overflows,or when nonconventional systems operate in anarea. But no county in Maryland currently fieldsa program to inspects these systems periodicallyand routinely as a matter of course--for example,every three or four years.

12

Yet certain activities are being done in manycounties. The On-site Sewage Disposal TaskForce reports that all but three counties distributeat least some information about proper OSDSmaintenance and operation. A little more than halfthe counties maintain at least some data onOSDS, although no county collects informationabout maintenance and operation. The task forceconfirms, however, that no county in Marylandnotifies system owners that systems need periodicpumping.

While Maryland counties are mostly inactivein the area of regulating and tracking OSDS, twocounties (Anne Arundel and Howard) actuallyown septic tanks attached to private homes.These tanks are part of a community system, ora shared facility system, where individual tanksare linked together and where waste is collectedand then pumped to a common septic field or toa treatment plant. Because these tanks are part ofa communal system, they are somewhat outsidethe scope of this discussion of OSDS, as wehave defined the term. Nonetheless, resolvingseptic problems in Maryland through publicownership of (typically) private systems is aninnovative solution that is worthy of attention.

Without local programs as illustration, out-of-state OSDS programs for inspection andmonitoring must be used. Washington andCalifornia have been particularly active in thisarea, but several other states have as well.Though many states have not launched similarprograms, many have. The following are someinteresting examples.29

Allen County, Ohio. Since the mid-1970s,the local health department in Allen County,Ohio, as in many counties in the state, has issuedoperational permits for all newly installed OSDS.Department personnel inspect the systems.Certain systems (aerobic systems) are inspectedannually; all other systems are inspected for loancertifications or in response to complaints. Theinspections are focused on observable conditionsand observable system components. No labwork is done. The department also maintains filesof inspection results and schedules of inspections.

The program is funded through permit fees.The basic fee is $5 annually, but those systemsthat require annual inspection are charged $25annually. In addition, large systems are charged$25 to $150 annually, depending on the amountof water they use. System owners continue to beresponsible for all costs related to maintenance(including pumping), repair and replacement.

Cayuga County, New York. Over a seven-year period, this county is phasing in a programto permit and inspect OSDS, after a popular laketested at high coliform levels. The most sensitiveareas of the lakeshore were targeted first.

The program issues permits that specifyoperation and maintenance requirements. Thepermit expires on a specified date, and theOSDS owner must obtain a new permit uponexpiration of the old permit. The permit requiresperiodic inspections of the system, which areperformed by certified inspectors whose namesare given to system owners at the time theyreceive an OSDS permit. Property ownerscannot inspect their own systems. Inspectionrequirements depend on the class and location ofthe OSDS. Properties bordering the lake, forexample, are inspected once every two years;

29 The following examples are outlined in On-SiteSewage System Monitoring Programs inWashington State, Washington State Departmentof Health (April 1996) and in A Manual forManaging Septic Systems, National Small FlowsClearinghouse, West Virginia University (1994).

13

other properties are inspected less frequently.Systems that fail to meet standards but thatotherwise operate properly are granted a permitrequiring more frequent inspections. Systems thatfail altogether must be repaired or replacedbefore a permit is issued. Inspection is mandatoryat the time a property is sold. Inspections arelimited to observable features when no covers arelifted.

The initial program was grant funded. At thetime the authors of this report were gatheringinformation, no fees were being assessed. Butprogram funding is expected to evolve as grantsupport diminishes. Nonetheless, an initial fee of$300 is assessed to certify inspectors(certification is by the local health department).The certificate is valid for two years. Renewalscost $100 and are valid for two years.

Santa Cruz County, California. Thiscounty provides an inspection program thatbegins with classifying each system into one of sixcategories (standard system, alternative systems,low-flow system, etc.). The classificationdetermines operational requirements, feeschedules, inspection frequencies and propertyrestrictions. Standard systems are inspectedevery six years, while all other systems areinspected every one to three years, depending ontheir type and proximity to surface or drinkingwater. The local health department performs allinspections. No components are uncoveredduring inspections unless a problem is suspected.No permits are issued (the practice wasdiscontinued in 1993), but educational materialabout maintenance and operation are provided.The local health department also administers apublic information program that conducts publicoutreach programs and prepares and distributesbrochures.

The program is funded through two sets offees. All parcels served by OSDS are assessedan annual fee of $6.50 to pay for datamanagement, education, water quality monitoringand certain capital facility needs. However,properties located in a particular watershed areassessed another fee to pay for inspections,studies and other services. Depending on the typeof system, annual fees range from $21 forstandard OSDS to $958 for experimentalsystems. The fees used to be collected throughdirect billing, but the process was reportedlyineffective and expensive. Today the fees areincluded on property tax statements.

Stinson Beach, California. In this county,a water district administers a program that issuespermits for all OSDS, specifying the design flowfor each system, proper operation andmaintenance, and inspection schedules andresults. Holding tanks are inspected monthly orquarterly, while systems themselves are inspectedevery one to three years, depending on the typeand condition of the system and the sensitivity ofthe parcel. Inspections also are performed at thetime of property transactions. Inspections includeuncovering systems and dye checks, if necessary.The district maintains files of various informationon each system. It conducts an educationalprogram too, through written articles anddiscussion forums.

The program is funded by assessing propertyowners $53 every two months to pay forinspections, water quality monitoring, reporting,database management and other administrativeservices. Additional fees are charged formonitoring special systems and certain otherconditions.

14

Island County, Washington. This countyestablished a program run by the local healthdepartment based on voluntary participation bysystem owners. The program requires systems tobe inspected every three years. An owner caninspect the system herself or can contract with acertified professional for the service. Mobilehome parks, recreational vehicle parks andcommunities that own a system are required toreport inspection and maintenance results. Otherproperty owners are not required to reportresults, but professionals who perform the serviceare required to report results to the county. If thecounty has no record of inspection results forthree years, the county sends reminders to systemowners. The county department maintains a database of ownership, location, inspection andpumping results. No fees are attached to theprogram.

Clark, Klickitat, and Skamania counties,Washington. The Southwest Washington HealthDistrict adopted a monitoring program in theearly 1990s that issues permits for new systems.Existing systems are brought into the system onan ongoing basis. The permits specify operation,maintenance and monitoring requirements.Inspections usually are required every four yearsand property owners are notified when a systemis due for inspection. Property owners can do theinspections themselves or can contract for theservice. They have six months from the date ofnotification to complete the inspection and reportthe results to the district.

In 1995 the district budgeted $177,000 forthe program. It charges $10 to issue a permit. Itcharges a tipping fee of 3.5 cents per gallon forseptage disposal.

Sussex County, New Jersey. In responseto proposed state regulations in the early 1990sthat required counties to establish OSDSmanagement programs, Sussex County createdfour demonstration projects throughout thecounty, entirely funded by grant monies.

The demonstration project for the CulverLake area required the county government todistribute educational material and for all ownersof septic systems to submit a plot sketch of theirsystems. Furthermore, the owners of anyproperty that was being sold or transferred thatcontained an OSDS were required to have theirsystem inspected. The project found that asignificant number of systems needed to beupgraded to have a positive affect on waterquality. The plot sketches reportedly providedmuch needed information that was previouslyunavailable.

The Cranberry Lake demonstration projectrequired all homeowners to obtain a systemoperator’s permit that was to be valid for threeyears. Renewals were conditional on submittinga plot sketch of the septic system and providingproof that the system had been pumped out, awaiver had been granted by the local board ofhealth or a licensed professional certified thatpumping was not required. Educational materialswere distributed to property owners.

The Hopatcong Borough demonstrationproject required an operators license to be issuedto every system owner, after inspection by aprivate contractor. Licenses needed to bereissued prior to property being sold ortransferred or after three years. If inspectionfound that the system needed repair or pumping,a license would be issued when work wascompleted. A one-time fee was charged of $50.

15

The Sparta Township Germany Flatsdemonstration project excluded residential septicsystems but focused entirely on licensing allcommercial and industrial systems. Proof ofinspection and pumping were required everythree years for license renewal. Survey andinventory forms were required of system owners.Administration was performed by the local healthdepartment.

None of these demonstration projects wasactually implemented. The proposed stateregulations that put these projects in motion wererevised. The revision eliminated mandatoryinspections of maintenance standards. Therevised regulations required only that boards ofhealth notify homeowners every three years thatthey should have their septic systems inspected orpumped out. The Sussex County demonstrationprojects stand as a reminder that preparing alocal response to proposed state regulations canbe problematic.

Evaluating An OSDS ManagementProgram in Baltimore County

The need for an OSDS management programin Baltimore County is premised on severalfactors. First, more than 38,000 households inthe county are dependent on septic systems.DEPRM estimates that 750 systems failchronically in Baltimore County and 3,800systems may fail at least once in any given year,based on nationwide statistics. This wouldsuggest that over one million gallons ofwastewater each year reach the surface inBaltimore County and flow into yards, streets andstreams. Contact with this wastewater can posea significant health risk and contaminate wells,groundwater and drinking water sources and

pollute rivers, streams and the Chesapeake Bay.Furthermore, failed septic systems can causeproperty values to decline. Sometimes buildingpermits cannot be issued or their issuance can bedelayed until systems are repaired or replaced.

Despite these potential problems, OSDS areknown to provide reliable, long-term solutions forhandling wastewater, but OSDS must beproperly designed, sited, operated andmaintained. Since 1972 the state has regulatedthe design and siting of OSDS, but prior to 1972design and siting were loosely regulated.According to DEPRM, some OSDS are now in“areas where environmental conditions are lessthan adequate for current use.”30 As for operationand maintenance, these activities can be asimportant as siting and design to protect againstfailing septic systems. Improperly maintainedsystems, moreover, are expensive to replace,costing anywhere between $3,000 and $7,000,and preventive maintenance is comparativelycheap, costing perhaps $100 to inspect everyfew years and another $200 to pump.

To date, the state has not regulated operationand maintenance. It has proposed regulations,which are now being circulated. Consequently,two questions now present themselves. Howmight Baltimore County respond in the face ofproposed state regulations? How should thecounty respond if the state fails to act?

Proposed State Regulations

The Spring 1999 proposals for new stateregulations on sewage disposal that impact anOSDS management program are as follows:

30 DEPRM, 1998, p 1.

16

(A) Permits issued for the construction ofOSDS include a statement that septic tanksshould be pumped every three years or at afrequency adequate to ensure solids are notdischarged from the septic tank.31

(B) Sewage must be treated in a “sewagepretreatment unit” before the effluent isdischarged to an approved OSDS area. Theeffluent discharge must meet certain chemicalstandards, specified in the proposed regulations.The sewage pretreatment units must bemaintained to ensure the effluent discharge meetsthe proposed chemical standards. The“Approving Authority” (Baltimore County) mustadopt a system of tracking and enforcement toensure that maintenance is performed at theproper interval.32

(C) When “advanced pretreatment units”[emphasis added] are used in lieu of septic tanks,the county may require samples be drawn toensure that the total nitrogen discharge is withincertain specified tolerances.33

(D) High strength commercial waste must bepretreated to the equivalent of typical domesticsewage.34

(E) The maximum effluent loading rate formulti-use, community and private systems isreduced.35

(F) Those engaged in inspecting OSDS for atransfer of property must have completed acourse of instructions in proper inspectionprocedure.36

In reading through the proposed regulation,the state appears to be stopping short of requiringinspection of all OSDS. It is requiring that theowners of new systems be notified that periodicpumping is necessary, but does not require thestandard to be enforced. In contrast, enforcementappears necessary for the proposed standardsfor commercial waste and maximum effluentloading rates. Furthermore, the certification ofOSDS inspectors may require localrecordkeeping and enforcement action when anOSDS inspector violates the regulation. It is,however, the tracking and enforcementrequirement for advanced pretreatment units thatmay most alter county responsibility for OSDS.

The regulations that pertain to pretreatmentunits do three things: (1) They require an OSDSdesign that uses a pretreatment unit to receivesewage from all plumbing fixtures; (2) theyestablish operational standards for thepretreatment unit in regard to the discharge ofeffluents from the unit; and (3) they requiretracking and enforcing maintenance standards.While tracking is a matter of recordkeeping,enforcement in this instance requires aninspection in one form or another. Accordingly,

31 Proposed changes to COMAR, Section26.04.02.02.S.

32 Proposed changes to COMAR, Section26.04.02.02.U & 26.04.02.05.A

33 Proposed changes to COMAR, Section26.04.02.05.H.

34 Proposed changes to COMAR, Section26.04.02.05.J.

35 Proposed changes to COMAR, Section26.04.02.05.L.

36 Proposed changes to COMAR, Section 26.04.10.

17

the state is requiring counties to oversee orprovide, in one form or another, an inspectionprogram aimed at pretreatment units.

As written, these provisions suggest thatnitrogen pretreatment units are required for allOSDS in the state of Maryland; that is, nothing inthe language limits the application of theseregulations to only certain OSDS. Consequently,without any more guidance, the promulgation ofthese regulations could mean that BaltimoreCounty might need to establish an inspectionprogram aimed at all OSDS in the county.However, this interpretation may be incorrect.Reportedly, the state is drafting the OSDSregulations in three phases. Only the first set ofproposed regulations has circulated. When all theproposed regulations are available, thepretreatment units may only be required ofOSDS located in areas of special concern. Thedefinition of areas of special concern does notcurrently exist. It should appear in draft formsometime during of the summer of 1999.

Those involved in the drafting processsuggest (broadly) that the definition will focus onareas that are most sensitive to pollution and thathave the greatest impact on clean water. Areas ofspecial concern include some or all of thefollowing:37

! watersheds, where septic systems have beenidentified as significant contributors ofnutrients;

! buffers around reservoirs;

! wellhead protection areas;

! areas with concentrations of domestic wells;

! areas where septic failures cause a publichealth threat;

! areas where hydraulic or treatment failuresoccur because of high water tables or poorsoils;

! areas contained within the Chesapeake BayCritical Area.

Assuming the inspection program is aimedonly at areas of special concern, then the numberof properties so classified by state regulationwould drive the size of a county’s OSDSprogram. The more properties contained underthe definition, the larger the program. Moreover,some OSDS are included under a state-requiredcounty program. What might that program looklike?

Using the proposed regulations as a guide,the following activities would be minimallyrequired:

(A) Obtaining the location, names andaddresses of those properties contained in areasof special concern.

(B) Informing OSDS owners thatpretreatment units are required on their systemsand that the units must operate in conformancewith state standards.

(C) Ensuring that pretreatment units operatein compliance with state standards by requiringperiodic inspections.37 The following list is taken from the Preliminary

Report 5/24/99, Existing Systems Committee, StateTask Force on OSDS.

18

(D) Maintaining records of the maintenanceof pretreatment units and enforcement activities.

As possible additions to the program,Baltimore County could consider the following:

(E) Distributing educational material to OSDSowners.

(F) Tracking the frequency of pumping.

(G) Requiring periodic pumping of a systemat intervals county officials believe prudent.

(H) Requiring all OSDS in the county to besubject to inspection.

Possible Management Approaches

Under the proposed state regulations,Baltimore County could not use the PublicEducation Approach, described earlier. Thisapproach relies entirely on public education toensure OSDS are operating well and does notfulfill proposed state standards. Also problematicis the System Guarantee Approach, whichrequires designers and installers of new ormodified systems to guarantee their work for aperiod of time. This approach would seem tohold merit since the actions required by theproposed regulations involve modifying existingsystems. A problem arises, however, in thatBaltimore County does not have the authority torequire a set of contractual guarantees betweenprivate parties. The county would needauthorization from the General Assembly toexercise such power, or the General Assemblyitself might enact an appropriate law covering thistype of subject matter. The Loan CertificationApproach also has shortcomings. This approach

requires public or private entities to inspectOSDS when property is purchased ortransferred. The problem here is that theapproach cannot guarantee that all propertiesaffected by the proposed state regulations areinspected: only those that are sold or transferredare affected.

The Operational Permit Approach is bettersuited for the county government in this instance.This approach has Baltimore County issuingpermits for those systems covered by theproposed regulations (and all other systems thecounty wants to cover in an expanded program).The permits are valid for a period of time andexpire at the end of the period. An option is forthe permit to expire not only at the end of adesignated period but also after a triggeringevent, such as when a property is sold ortransferred or when a system is installed,modified or repaired.

Under the Operational Permit Approach,obtaining a permit is conditioned on a satisfactoryinspection, conducted by a state certifiedinspector from the private sector. A permit isissued when the applicant submits a copy of theinspection report that indicates the OSDS isoperating within state standards. Recordkeepingunder this approach would also indicate when anowner is operating without a valid permit. Thecounty in these cases begins enforcement action.The cost of the program is covered by the permitfees and fees charged for enforcement actions.

A Public Authority Inspection Approachcould also be used. This approach eliminatesservice activities by the private sector andrequires instead that a public entity performsinspections. In effect, the system owner isrequired to contract with a public authority to

19

conduct inspections. The public authority inquestion might be the Metropolitan District or acounty department such as DEPRM. MES alsomight do the work under contract to the county.Alternatively, the county could create a newpublic entity. State law allows the county tocreate a water and sewer authority to performservices such as those at issue.38

Aside from inspection work, this approachcan be crafted in different ways. One variation isfor the public entity to conduct all the tasksassociated with the OSDS management program:inspections, recordkeeping and enforcement.Perhaps for cost control purposes, anothervariation assigns inspection work to the publicauthority, but other entities are assigned the tasksof recordkeeping and enforcement. This lattervariation is suitable if a new public entity iscreated or MES is used to do the inspectionwork. An entity already engaged inrecordkeeping and enforcement, such asDEPRM, might be assigned those tasks regardingthis OSDS management program.

Finally, a Public Authority MaintenanceApproach also could be used in BaltimoreCounty. Under this approach the owner of asystem is totally relieved of the responsibility formaintenance but is required to operate the systemaccording to guidelines established by the publicauthority and pays for repairs on the system. Thepublic authority under this approach does all themaintenance work and, in one variation, actuallyacquires ownership of the systems under itscharge. The program is paid from annual fees thatcover the cost of ongoing maintenance.

The problem with the latter two options--thePublic Authority Inspection Approach and thePublic Authority Maintenance Approach--is thatthey cannot be justified when private businessescurrently exist to perform the work. Under eitherof the two options, government displaces privatebusiness. A glance through the local yellow pagesshows dozens of OSDS service providers inBaltimore County. Displacing private business isjustified when, for example, issues of health andsafety require quality assurances that privatebusinesses cannot provide. Certainly issues ofhealth and safety are at issue in an OSDSmanagement program. But no one has allegedthat private businesses have not or cannotprovide quality services. Moreover, to ensurethat no problem will arise in this area, stateofficials this year enacted into law a requirementthat anyone engaged in OSDS inspection pass acourse of instruction on proper OSDS inspectionprocedures. Courses began in the summer of1999. With this added protection in place,entertaining an action that would compromiseprivate inspection and maintenance services inthis area at this time is unsupportable. Thediscussion consequently turns to a detaileddescription of the best alternative available for anOSDS management program in BaltimoreCounty.

The Operational Permit Approach in Detail

Program Size . More than 38,000 OSDSoperate in Baltimore County. If each of these isinspected every three years, the potential size ofthe program involves 13,000 inspections annuallyor 50 each business day. However, the stateappears to be targeting only OSDS operatingwithin areas of special concern. This phrase isundefined to date. Nonetheless, if we estimate

38 MD. ENV. CODE ANN., Title 9, Subtitle 9 (1999).

20

conservatively that one-third of all OSDS in thecounty fall within the definition, the size of theOSDS program in the county consists of 17inspections each business day.

Who Performs Inspections . Under theprogram, OSDS inspectors who have passed thestate-approved course in OSDS inspectionprocedures contract with system owners toperform inspections.39 It is envisioned that thecounty provides the names of inspectors when itnotifies system owners about the new programand whenever it notifies an owner that a permitwas near expiration. It is the owner’sresponsibility to contract with an approvedservice provider.

Cost of Inspections and Pumping andImpact on Private Business and SystemOwners . The information available suggests thatinspections for conventional septic systemstypically cost about $200. If an inspection isrequired once every three years, the annual costto homeowners would be almost $70. At thisrate, the inspection business generates $910,000annually in Baltimore County, given a programsize of 13,000 systems. According to the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency, propermaintenance normally requires pumping everythree to five years. The available informationsuggests that pumping runs about $150,depending on system size and type. If everysystem in the program is pumped once every fouryears, the annual cost for a system owner is

about $35, bringing total annual maintenance costfor each system owner to $105.

Program Responsibilities. We anticipatethat both DEPRM and the Department of Permitsand Development Management (DPDM) areresponsible for the program. DEPRM essentiallydefines its needs for the program. DEPRMtogether with DPDM then designs the program indetail. DPDM administers the program as it doesthe other permit programs in the county. Thefollowing program activities are required:

1. Enact an ordinance creating the program.

2. Identify OSDS systems located in areasof special concern. Obtain names and addressesof OSDS owners. Obtain the names andaddresses of all inspectors who work or couldwork in Baltimore County.

3. Determine the type of informationDEPRM will collect and track. At a minimum thisshould include the type of system operated, theinspector’s conclusion that the system isoperating within established legal standards,whether or not the system is in need of pumpingand, if it is not in need of pumping currently, thedate on which pumping should be completed.

4. Create a form for inspectors to use torecord the desired information. Create aprototype permit that is issued upon compliancewith the program requirements that specifies thedate of issue, the date of expiration and astatement describing the significance of the permitand the conditions under which OSDS operationsare valid in the county.

5. Plan for a program that is phased-in overa three-year period, with one-third of the OSDS

39 At some point, the county may wish to certifyinspectors who operate in Baltimore County,rather than rely solely on the state program. Untilthe consequences of the new state program areclear, we cannot recommend a county certificationprogram at this time.

21

brought into the program each year. All OSDSinspectors and all affected OSDS owners arenotified of the program and notified of the ownerresponsibilities under the program. One-third ofthe owners are targeted for compliance within thefirst year by giving each a list of approved OSDSinspectors and the final date for filing the formthat indicates program compliance; one-third aretargeted in the second year; and the remainingone-third are targeted the third year.

6. Plan for a program that allows owners toforward compliance information and their feepayment to DPDM in person or by mail. Uponreceipt of the information and fee, DPDM issuesa permit allowing the owners to operate thesystem under the terms specified in the permit.

7. Clerking, cashiering and accountingfunctions are handled within the services andfacilities DPDM currently provides. If an averageof 17 permits is issued daily, the program is notexpected to increase the personnel needs ofDPDM. A DPDM clerk can handle the entireprocess of issuing a permit, and a professionalreviews the documentation before a permit isissued. The form on which the desiredinformation is displayed is crafted in a way that aclerk determines at a glance of thedocumentation whether or not an inspector hasapproved the system. If approved, the permit isissued. Data entry and database managementfunctions focusing on the second process only arenecessary from DPDM.

8. Data entry and database managementmight also be necessary. On a routine basis, thedatabase is reviewed to see if any owner isoperating without a valid permit. If an owner is inviolation of the OSDS ordinance, then DEPRMmails a notice to the owner that he or she is in

violation of the ordinance and that compliancemust be attained within a specified period or theowner will be subject to the penalties fornoncompliance specified in the law. If complianceis not obtained and valid permit issued within thespecified period, the matter is referred to thecounty attorney for further action.

Program Costs. Costs are expected to benominal for the county. Conversations withofficials in DPDM suggest that program costs canbe absorbed without much, if any, additionalresources being required. Costs associated withdata processing are involved, but they too areminimal. The study team attempted to locatespecific cost data on the proposed permitprogram but could not obtain it.

Required Ordinance. The county councilneeds to pass an ordinance, under the authorityof Article 25A, Section 5(S), the AnnotatedCode of Maryland (the general welfare clause ofthe Express Powers Act for charter counties),that provides the following: (1) An OSDSmanagement program exists; (2) under theprogram, system owners are required to havetheir system inspected at least once every threeyears by an approved inspector;40 (3) a permitallowing the OSDS to operate in the county isissued if the inspection shows that the system isoperating properly and meets the operatingstandards specified by the state of Maryland; (4)the system owner shall submit to the countydocumentation that an inspection was conducted,the date of the inspection, the results of the

40 The three year time period is often what is seen inthe literature describing inspection programs.DEPRM should study the issue and suggest thelength of the cycle between inspections. Forexample, instead of three years, a better interval inBaltimore County might be four or five years.

22

inspection, and a statement by (or otherwisesome indication of) the inspector that the systemoperates properly and in accordance with statelaw; (5) upon submission of the documentation,a permit is issued that is valid for three years; (6)the cost of the inspection is borne by the systemowner; (7) DEPRM creates and maintains adatabase of the information collected through theprogram; and (8) a violation of the ordinance is amunicipal infraction (or because a violation maycause a public health threat, a violation maybetter be declared a misdemeanor) andpunishable by whatever punishment the countybelieves is prudent.

23

Developing Rural Water and Sewer Infrastructure

The failure of some existing septic systemsand the desire for dense development patterns invillages and rural commercial centers create aneed for alternative on-site technologies as wellas community water and sewer systems, that is,systems connecting one or more properties. Thissection explores the extent of that need and thepossible approaches to developing infrastructurecapacity to meet this need.

Existing Need for Rural SewerInfrastructure

While all incidents of OSDS failures do notcome to the attention of government officials,county agencies often learn about individualsystems that experience continual or ongoingfailures and about communities in which systemfailures are widespread. Figure 2 shows a map ofthe problem areas for sewage disposal forBaltimore County. As required by stateregulations, each update to the countywater/sewer plan includes a Sewer ProblemAreas Inventory listing individual and communitysystems with active problems. The study teamreviewed several inventories from 1984 to 1997as well as a report published last year byDEPRM. The DEPRM report assigned prioritiesranging from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) in 16problem areas.

An assessment of the magnitude of thecounty’s OSDS problems is presented inAppendix A of this report. Based on thisassessment, the study team compiled a list ofOSDS problem areas and potential solutions thatare presented in Table 1.

The first six areas listed in Table 1 areidentified explicitly in the DEPRM report ascandidates for community systems. Two of theareas, northern Kingsville and downtownKingsville, are within the Metropolitan District.These s ix a reas compr i se 157households/businesses on OSDS of which 29have documented failures. Twenty-five of thedocumented failures are in the two areas giventhe highest priority for correction by DEPRM,northern Kingsville and Phoenix.

Nine other areas studied by DEPRM arepossible candidates for community systemsbecause individual corrections do not appear tobe feasible. Although the DEPRM report did notstate this explicitly, the report describedconditions such as poor soils and small lot sizesthat tend to preclude individual solutions. Thenine areas comprise 234 households/businesseson OSDS of which more than 17 havedocumented failures. Most (14) of thesedocumented failures are in Trenton where anumber of homes are discharging wastewater intostorm water drains that lead to streams. DEPRMassigned the next-to-highest priority forcorrection to Trenton. One of the areas in thisgroup, Chattolanee, is within the MetropolitanDistrict.

One area studied by DEPRM, easternKingsville, is listed in Table 1 as a potentialcandidate for alternative individual solutionsbecause lot sizes are large enough to allow on-site corrections. Eastern Kingsville, which hasseven failed systems among 24 OSDS users, wasassigned the highest priority for correction byDEPRM.

Table 1OSDS Problems and Potential Solutions

Properties DocumentedAreas explicitly identified by DEPRM Metropolitan on Systemas candidates for community systems: Priority District OSDS Failures

Kingsville-northern 5 X 13 8Phoenix 5 43 17Baldwin 3 10 1Kingsville-downtown 3 X 16 0Hereford 2 50 0Jacksonville 2 25 3

Total 157 29

Other possible candidates forcommunity systems:

Trenton 4 16 14Freeland 3 16 3White Hall 3 29 0Arcadia 2 27 0Chattolanee 2 X 15 0Parkton 2 36 0Butler 1 14 0Maryland Line 1 55 0Monkton 1 26 some

Total 234 17+

Possible candidate for alternativeon-site corrections:

Kingsville-eastern 5 X 24 7

Problem areas with unknown solutions:

Chase (Marshy Point Road) ? X ? 5Essex (Island Point Road and portion of Eastern Avenue)

? X ? 7

Loreley Beach ? X ? 21Perry Hall - New Forge Road ? X ? 6Perry Hall Manor ? X ? ?Riderwood ? X ? 11Riverview Park ? X ? 6White Marsh (Joppa and New Gerst Roads; Cowenton and Hornages Avenues; Holly and Snyder Lanes)

? X ? ?

Total ? 56+

Source: DEPRM, 1998; Baltimore County. (1997). 10-Year Baltimore County Water Supply andSewerage Plan 1990-2000: 1997 Triennial Review, Draft Report of the review as submitted to theBaltimore County Council, Towson, MD.

25

26

The possible solutions to problems in theremaining areas listed in Table 1 are unknown.These problem areas were identified over theyears in the county’s water/sewer plans. All arewithin the Metropolitan District and have notbeen studied by DEPRM.

Overall, the problem areas studied byDEPRM represent a potential need for 14 or 15community systems, depending on whethernorthern and eastern Kingsville are treated asseparate areas or combined. Additionalcommunity systems might be warranted to solvethe problems identified in the water/sewer plans,which were not studied in DEPRM.

Existing Need for Rural WaterInfrastructure

Both the county water/sewer plan and theDEPRM study of OSDS problem areas alsoprovide information on water system problems. Areview of this information is contained inAppendix B. Table 2 provides a summary of therural water system problems identified by thisreview. The 11 problem communities listedcontain a total of 285 properties.

In Hydes and Manor, where county facilitieswere responsible for ground water contamination,the county took corrective action. In Hydes, thecounty adapted an existing monitoring well toserve two homes with potential to connect anadditional three households in the future. InManor, the county drilled two separate wells toserve two households and acquired property fora third well to serve a local business. It is possiblethat in Manor, as in Hydes, contaminants alreadyin the ground may affect additional properties inthe future, requiring further action by the county.The third Manor well is capable of providing

water to 15 properties.

The problems in the other communities inTable 2 remain unsolved. Since well users withineach community are often drawing from the sameground water source, community solutions maybe necessary and appropriate.

Water/Sewer Infrastructure for RuralDevelopment

Every newly developed property requireswater service and a system for disposing ofwastewater. Consequently, the need for newwater and sewer infrastructure is directly relatedto the amount of development taking place.Appendix C contains information on expectedgrowth in the rural areas of the county and theresulting needs for water and sewer services.

Between 1997 and 2000, the nine regionalplanning districts that are almost entirely outsidethe URDL41 are expected to gain 815households. Because no mechanism exists forthese properties to be developed on communitywater and sewer systems, all these householdswill be served by individual wells and septicsystems.42

41 The county has established the Urban RuralDemarcation Line (URDL), a dividing line betweenareas designated for higher density urbandevelopment and areas designated for lowerdensity rural development.

42 The exception is development in the Lovetonurban area within the Sparks regional planningdistrict, which is served by the MetropolitanDistrict. The Sparks regional planning district isexpected to receive 105 of the 815 anticipated newrural households between 1997 and 2000. Thenumber that will be developed within the Lovetonarea is unknown.

Table 2Water System Problem Areas

Area PropertiesArea Problem Served by Wells

Arcadia Contamination from underground tanks at garage and from fire station floor drains; shared wells

27

Baldwin Suspected septic system failures to ground water

10

Chattolanee Contamination; well setback variances 15

Hereford Contamination due to road salting and septic system failures

50

Hydes Contamination due to improper road salt storage

5

Jacksonville Contamination from gasoline tanks; low well yields

25

Kingsville - downtown

Poor well yields 16

Kingsville - eastern

Poor well yields 24

Manor Contamination due to improper road salt storage

15

Maryland Line Contamination from underground storage tanks; well setback variances

55

Phoenix Bacterial contamination due to poor well construction

43

285

Source: DEPRM, 1998; Baltimore County, 1997.

27

28

During the period 2000 to 2010, anestimated 1,589 new rural households will bedeveloped in the county. Master Plan 2010proposes that some of this development beclustered in rural villages containing as many as200 to 330 households. The density ofdevelopment in these rural villages could precludereliance on individual wells and OSDS.Furthermore, because of the size and density ofdevelopment of these rural villages, communitywater and sewer systems may be cost-effectivealternatives to individual wells and OSDS.

The study team estimates that between threeand six large rural villages (200 to 330households) could be developed over the nextdecade to serve between 600 and 1,200 of the1,589 new rural households. The householdsprojected for the Sparks, Chestnut Ridge-Worthington and Harrisonville regional planningdistricts are possible candidates for rural villagesof this size. The new rural villages could belocated within these districts or directedelsewhere through transfer of development rights.Another possibility is development of more than100 small rural villages of 10 to 15 households.Nearly every rural planning district is a candidatefor development of this type. In either case, eachrural village would be served by communitywater and sewer systems.

Some of the new development in the nextdecade that is not directed to rural villages maybe located in proximity to rural commercialcenters, rural residential areas and existingvillages in which community water and sewersystems are needed to alleviate existing problems.Both rural commercial centers and existingvillages are identified by Master Plan 2010 (p.182) as recipients of any additional ruralcommercial development. Rural commercialcenters and existing rural residential areas are

identified as candidates for rural-village typedevelopment (p.180). Community water andsewer systems installed to correct existingproblems could also be designed to make thesecommunities more suitable for additionaldevelopment. In some cases, the addition ofhouseholds to these communities will reduce thecost per property of constructing and operatingthe community systems.

For example, some of the 29 new householdsprojected for the Hereford-Maryland lineplanning district could be served by communitysewer systems designed to correct problems infour existing communities: Freeland, Hereford,Maryland Line and Parkton, which currently havea total of 157 properties on OSDS. Similarly,some of the 150 households to be added in theFork planning district, 51 households to beadded in the Jacksonville district and 95households to be added in the Kingsville districtcan be directed to the communities of Baldwin,Jacksonville and Kingsville where they could beserved by community systems constructed tosolve problems for the existing 64 properties.

Not all new development will be located inrural villages or adjacent to other communitysystems. Probably no more than 100 newhouseholds can be directed to the seven existingcommunities that are identified for growth and arecandidates for community systems. Even withambitious plans for developing rural villages andcorrecting existing problems using communitysystems, many new households developed duringthe next decade will have to rely on individualwells and OSDS. In some cases, propertyowners may have to install innovative technicalsolutions to deal with unfavorable site conditions.

29

Technical Alternatives for Rural SewerService

The vast majority of existing OSDS inBaltimore County are ordinary septic tanksystems. In an ordinary septic tank system,wastewater from household drains (sinks,showers, bathtubs, washing machines and toilets)flows into the household sewer pipe that conveysit to the septic tank, typically a 1,500-gallon tankburied in the yard. The septic tank holds thewastewater for a day or more so that the solidsand liquids separate. This is the first step inwastewater treatment.

Ordinary septic tanks have baffles to allowheavy material to settle out separate from thelighter effluent. The solids that are heavier thanwater sink to the bottom of the tank forming alayer of sludge. The solids that are lighter thanwater (grease, oils, toilet paper) float to the topand form a layer of scum. The middle layer ofpartially clarified wastewater flows out of the tankthrough an outlet baffle to a drain field (alsocalled a soil absorption field).

Perforated pipes or drain tiles carry thewastewater through the drain field, which consistsof a series of trenches or a bed lined with gravelburied three feet or more below the groundsurface. The drain field treats the wastewater byallowing it to slowly trickle from the pipes into thegravel and down through the soil. The gravel andsoil filter the water; organisms in the ground helpto remove toxics, bacteria, viruses and otherpollutants so that nearby ground water is notcontaminated.

The layers of scum and sludge remain in theseptic tank where naturally occurring bacteriabreak them down. Any scum and sludge that

does not break down remains in the tank andmust be pumped out periodically.

According to Baltimore County officials,capital costs for ordinary septic systems average$4,000 in 1999 dollars, with a probable range of$3,000 to $7,000. According to EPA,maintenance costs of ordinary systems average$95 per household per year. (See Appendix Dfor cost information.)

The study team assumes that correctivemeasures using ordinary septic systems havebeen considered and rejected in the areas of thecounty with longstanding septic system problems.Solutions other than ordinary septic systems areneeded to address many existing septic systemfailures. Alternative systems also may be neededfor new development where site conditions arenot favorable for ordinary septic tanks.

Alternatives to ordinary septic tank systemsfall into two main categories: (1) individual on-sitesystems and (2) community systems. Communitysystems can be either cluster systems that utilizeon-site technology to serve multiple properties orcommunity systems with small wastewatertreatment plants. Various technologies withineach of these categories of alternatives aredescribed below.

Alternative Individual Systems

The individual on-site alternatives to ordinaryseptic tank systems use alternative technologiesfor the pretreatment and disposal of wastewater.Pretreatment technologies that are alternatives toordinary septic tanks are septic tanks with greasetraps, aerobic treatment units and fixed film units.Each system is briefly described below.

30

A grease trap is a concrete tank usuallyinstalled ahead of a septic tank to separate greaseor cooking fats from the rest of the sewage.Grease traps are used primarily for restaurants orother businesses producing high-strength waste.They are relatively inexpensive, simple to installand require routine maintenance.

Aerobic treatment units (or aeration units)provide temporary storage similar to aconventional septic tank but have a mechanism toinject air into the tank. The aerobic environmentpromotes the growth of bacteria that degrade thewastewater contaminants. Aerobic treatmentunits can reduce nitrate levels by 90 percent ormore. Cost data were not available for aerobictreatment units.

Several alternative technologies involveadditional pretreatment of wastewater once it hasleft the septic tank but before disposal. Thesealternative technologies include recirculatingfilters, fixed film systems and constructedwetlands.

Recirculating filters consist of a bed of sandor shale through which effluent from a septic tankis recirculated several times before beingdischarged to a soil absorption system.Recirculating filters can reduce nitrate levels by80 percent or more. The system is useful in areasthat require very clean effluent, such as forultimate discharge to a body of water. DEPRMestimates the average capital cost of recirculatingsand filters as $8,000 per household. This costincludes the pump chamber, alarm, electricalwork and the filter itself, and is in addition to theother septic system components. According toEPA, annual maintenance costs average $195per household.

Fixed film systems, like aerobic treatmentunits, rely on bacteria to degrade contaminants inwastewater. Fixed film systems incorporatemedia that increase the surface area and contacttime for bacterial growth and degradation. Fixedfilm systems include trickling filters, upflow filtersand rotating biological filters. DEPRM estimatesthe capital cost for the fixed film unit, includingtank and compressor, at $8,000. Again, this costis in addition to the cost of the septic tank anddrain field.

Constructed wetlands require sizeable landareas. They involve excavating an area andcovering it with a waterproof synthetic or clayliner. The liner is filled with rock, gravel, sand andsoil and is planted with aquatic vegetation, suchas reeds. Wastewater flowing from a septic tankis treated by both the soil and the plants in thissmall natural wetlands. Often wastewater treatedby wetlands requires additional treatment, such asdisinfection or discharge to a drain field. DEPRMhas no experience with constructed wetlands toenable it to provide cost estimates. EPA reportsestimated average capital costs of $1,000 perhousehold, with a probable range of $1,300 to$4,000. Annual maintenance costs of $35 perhousehold are estimated.

Some common alternative technologies forindividual on-site disposal are low pressure pipe(LPP) systems, also known as low pressuredosing (LPD), serial distribution systems andmound systems.

LPD systems rely on a pump to distributewastewater uniformly in the drain field so as toprevent soil saturation. They are typically used inclay soils. The trenches are more shallow andnarrow than conventional drain field trenches.Perforated plastic drain field pipes are used.

31

According to DEPRM, estimated average capitalcosts for LPD systems are $8,000 perhousehold, with a range of $7,000 to $10,000.Annual maintenance costs, as reported by EPA,average $200 per household.

Serial distribution systems are appropriate forsloped sites. A series of trenches is dug acrossthe slope, with each trench higher than the next.Each trench fills completely with wastewater thenoverflows through outlets to the next lowertrench. No cost estimates could be found forserial distribution systems.

Mound systems are appropriate for sites withhigh water tables or shallow or tight soils that donot provide adequate treatment to thewastewater before it reaches ground water. Amound of sand is constructed above the plowednatural ground surface. The mound contains thegravel beds or trenches covered by a soil cap.Because the drain field is located within themound, a pump is required to move thewastewater from the septic tank. According toDEPRM, the estimated average capital cost of amound system is $12,000 per household, with aprobable range of $11,000 to $15,000. EPAdata show estimated annual maintenance costs of$240 per household.

A final individual alternative to an ordinaryseptic tank system is a sewage holding tank.These are concrete tanks designed to hold allsewage wastes generated by a facility. Sewage isperiodically pumped into a septic waste haulingtruck that transports it to a wastewater treatmentplant. Sewage holding tanks are appropriate onlyfor locations with low generation of wastewateror for temporary use while more permanentsolutions are arranged. DEPRM estimatesaverage capital costs of $5,200 per household

with a probable range of $4,000 to $7,000.Estimated annual maintenance costs are $2,860per household, based on pumping out every otherweek at $110 per load.

For failing systems that are far-removed fromthe Metropolitan District, replacement withordinary individual septic systems is usually thefirst solution considered because it is the mosteconomical alternative. In many cases in whichthis has not been a feasible solution, no action hasbeen taken: the problem has remained. In severecases, the property owner has been forced toinstall holding tanks, which must be pumped outfrequently at considerable expense to theproperty owner.

Alternative individual OSDS systems havebeen used in Baltimore County for newconstruction. The alternative individual systemsnow in use in the county include recirculatingfilters, LPD systems and mound systems.

Community Systems

Where neither ordinary septic tank systemsnor individual alternatives are feasible, systemsthat serve multiple properties are a possiblesolution. Generally, the terms community systemor community-based system are used todescribe a system serving multiple properties.The term community system nonetheless oftensignifies the existence of certain technicalcomponents in a system; specifically, a system inwhich untreated wastewater from multipleproperties is collected and conveyed to awastewater treatment plant. In contrast, the termcluster system often is used to describ e acommunity-based system that requirespretreatment of wastewater prior to conveyance

32

and uses OSDS technology, such as drain fields,for treatment and disposal of wastewater.However, some cluster systems conveypretreated wastewater to a sewer main thattransports it to a wastewater treatment plantrather than to a drainage field for disposal.

Cluster Community Systems

Cluster systems rely on a combination of on-site treatment and off-site treatment and disposalof wastewater. They typically employ alternativesto conventional gravity sewers to conveywastewater to the off-site treatment location.Cluster systems are appropriate where groups ofhomes and businesses exist on small lots or havepoor soil conditions. Three types of clustersystems are in most common use: (1) septic tankeffluent pumps (STEP); (2) grinder pumpsystems; and (3) small-diameter gravity sewers(SDGS). STEP and grinder pumps use pressuresewers, whereas SDGS does not. STEP andSDGS incorporate septic tanks, whereas grinderpump systems do not. A fourth type of clustersystem, vacuum sewers, is also described below.

The STEP system relies upon a septic tankon each property for initial wastewater treatment,after which a submersible, low-horsepower sumppump pushes the wastewater through thecollection system. Because the wastewater hasreceived initial treatment and solids are broken upfurther by the pump, plastic pipes that are assmall as one and one-half inches in diameter canbe used to collect and transport the wastewaterto final treatment.

Grinder pump systems eliminate the need fora septic tank on each property. Grinder pumpsare installed on each property, or one serves

several properties. The grinder pump works likea garbage disposal, cutting up and grinding solidmaterial in the wastewater into tiny pieces. Thewastewater is then pumped out into the collectionline.

In SDGS systems, like STEP systems, aseptic tank on each property provides initialtreatment. SDGS systems rely on gravity, ratherthan pumps or pressure, as the main force tocollect and transport wastewater for finaltreatment. SDGS systems use plastic pipes thatare three to four inches in diameter toaccommodate any stray solids in the septic tankeffluent. These pipes are still much smaller thanthe pipes used in conventional gravity sewers.

The relatively small plastic pipes used inSTEP, grinder pump and SDGS systems greatlyreduce the cost of the collection portion ofsystem construction compared to conventionalsewer systems. However, the pumps andpressurized pipes of the STEP and grinder pumpsystems do increase maintenance requirementscompared to conventional sewers.

Vacuum systems rely on the suction of avacuum, created by a central pumping station, todraw and transport wastewater through thesystem. Wastewater from a property enters anindividual holding tank. When the tank contains acertain level of wastewater (usually three to 10gallons) a valve opens, and the wastewater issucked into the sewer main by a vacuum that hasbeen created by pumps at a central pumpingstation. At the pumping station, the mains emptyinto a collection tank. The wastewater is thentreated nearby or pumped to another location fortreatment. Typically, pipes from the serviceconnection to the collection tank are three to fourinches in diameter, and sewer mains are four to

33

10 inches in diameter. Maintenance costs ofvacuum systems are relatively high.

According to the National Small FlowsClearinghouse (NSFC),43 “Alternative sewers[such as STEP, grinder pump, SDGS andvacuum systems] may be a good option if thefollowing factors exist:

C conventional gravity sewers and on-sitewastewater treatment technologies have beendetermined to be inappropriate or tooexpensive;

C the population in an unsewered area is suchthat there would be 50 to 100 homes or lessper mile of sewer line;

C homes are located in hilly, rocky, low-lyingor very flat areas, or areas with shallowbedrock, a high water table or other siteconditions that would make installing gravitysewers impractical; or

C areas are experiencing potentially costlyproblems with existing conventional sewersthat are leaking or otherwise deteriorating.”

Because STEP and SDGS systems areequipped with septic tanks for pretreatment,effluent can be discharged in a large, communitysubsurface soil absorption field similar to thesmaller ones used for individual properties withseptic systems. If site conditions are notconducive to a conventional drain field, moundsystems, sand filters or other alternatives can beused in combination with subsurface discharge.

Sewage from grinder pump or vacuum sewersystems can be directed to large septic tanksprior to subsurface discharge. Alternatively,wastewater from these systems can be treated inlagoons.

A final treatment alternative for all the clustersystems described above is a conventionalwastewater treatment plant. According to NSFC,“Many alternative sewer systems empty into aconventional sewer main that leads to acentralized treatment facility. This is sometimesthe most cost-effective plan for communities thathave this option.”

An advantage of cluster systems is theirflexibility in addressing spotty septic failures.Small cluster systems can be used for lotsunsuited for on-site systems when they areinterspersed with lots that have functioning on-sitesystems.44

Currently, no cluster systems are operating inBaltimore County. Several past studies haveproposed these systems, but the county hasrejected them.

Cluster systems were among the alternativesconsidered in a 1984 study of septic failures inBack River Neck. One alternative was toconnect Cedar Beach to Metropolitan Districtfacilities, but to serve seven other communitieswith systems that incorporated individual septictanks and a community sand filter. An alternativein which Cedar Beach and Holly Neck were tobe connected to the central system and fourcommunity treatment plants would have servedthe remainder of the Lower Neck also was

43 NSFC, Fall 1996, p. 2.44 E-mail correspondence from Mike Hoover, North

Carolina State University, July 15, 1999.

34

considered. Both alternatives were rejected infavor of connecting all the communities withfailures to Metropolitan District facilities, which iscurrently taking place.

In its 1992 study, MES concluded that themost cost-effective solution to 17 failing septicsystems in old town Phoenix was to install a smalldiameter force main to carry wastewater toMetropolitan District pipelines. The pipelinewould have transported the wastewater to acentralized treatment plant, with a single septictank located just prior to the pump station. Underthe MES design, each household would have hada septic tank. Wastewater would have flowedfrom the septic tanks to the collection system bygravity, although some of the households wouldhave required effluent pumps. There also wouldhave been a shared septic tank prior to the pumpstation to protect the system if property ownersfailed to pump their individual septic tanks.

The cost of the system proposed for oldtown Phoenix translates to $331,000 in 1999dollars, or roughly $19,500 for each of thehouseholds served. (See Appendix D for moredetailed cost data.) MES’ recommendation wasnot accepted, and no action has been taken tocorrect septic problems in old town Phoenix.

Cluster systems have been constructed inother Maryland counties and in other states toaddress septic system failures and to serve newdevelopment. For example, Anne ArundelCounty operates two cluster systems in whichindividual properties are equipped with septictanks. In one cluster system, septic tank effluentis collected for subsurface discharge in acommunity drain field. In the other cluster system,the effluent is transported to a central treatment

plant. Cost data were not available for the AnneArundel systems.

In Howard County, cluster systems servetwo new developments. The first system, whichwas constructed in 1994, serves 109 households.Each property is equipped with a septic tank. Apressure sewer system conveys septic tankeffluent to polishing tanks and a community drainfield located on preservation land. The systemwas installed by the property developer at a costof about $20,000 per household. Once thesystem was in place, the county took overownership and operation of the system, includingthe individual septic tanks. Prior to beginningoperation, Howard County conducted a study ofanticipated system operating costs and set anannual fee of $330 per household. Actualoperating costs have been about double thatamount, which Howard County officials attributein part to problems associated with constructionof the development and the learning curve foremployees.

The second Howard County developmentutilizing cluster systems comprises two clusters offive to six houses each. Rather than individualseptic tanks, these cluster systems use grinderpumps, one for every pair of households.Wastewater is pumped from each cluster ofhouses to a large septic tank, which empties to acommunity drain field. Final cost data are not yetavailable for these systems, which are underconstruction. According to Howard Countyofficials, two characteristics of the systems haveresulted in lower costs than the 1994 system.Savings have come from eliminating individualseptic tanks and from keeping the total effluentflow to less than 5,000 gallons per day (gpd).For systems that handle more than 5,000 gpd,the state requires various studies and permits that

35

add to the cost of the system. Systems thathandle less than 5,000 gpd do not incur thesecosts.

Both the proposed system for old townPhoenix and the first Howard County clustersystem involve costs of roughly $20,000 perhousehold. Examples of less expensive systemshave been reported in other locations. A clustersystem proposed for Deer Park, Maryland,would have cost about $12,000 per household in1999 dollars. The system costs in Deer Parkincluded purchasing capacity at a centralizedwastewater treatment plant to which effluentwould be conveyed by a three-mile long pipeline.

The only examples of cluster systems costingless than $10,000 per household are from outsideMaryland. Cuyler, New York installed a clustersystem serving 40 households at a cost of about$10,000 per household in 1999 dollars.45 Hume,Missouri installed a cluster system serving 100households at a cost of about $7,600 perhousehold.46

Norwood, Georgia constructed a clustersystem serving 125 households. The Norwoodsystem uses gravity sewers, treatment andstorage ponds, and drip soil absorption. Capitalcosts were less than $9,000 per household in1999 dollars. Operation and maintenance costsin Norwood were expected to be $164 to $218

per year per household, but have actually beenless.47

On Cape Cod, a cluster system that providesnutrient removal and conveys wastewater to acentral treatment facility was constructed in whatwas described as ideal conditions at a capitalcost of $7,000 per household for the 24 unitsserved. The system maintenance fee is $100 peryear per household. In this community, the costsof the cluster system are less than the costs for atypical conventional septic system.48

Applied Wastewater Technologies, a NewJersey company that designs cluster systems andserves as a utility to operate numerous systems,uses the following rule of thumb. For high quality(denitrified) effluent, the system must serve atleast 100 households to keep system operation,maintenance and replacement costs at $900 peryear per household. For lesser quality effluent,the same costs can be achieved with fewerhouseholds. For communities with fewer than 40homes, biofilter or lagoon systems are more cost-effective.49

The study team assumes that the costs ofcluster systems in Maryland will fall in the rangeof $10,000 to $20,000 per household. Tocorrect the 29 documented system failures in thesix areas identified by DEPRM as candidates forcluster systems will cost between $290,000 and$580,000. (See Table 1 for list of communities.)

45 Feuss, James V., R. Paul Farrell and Peter W.Rynkiewicz. 1994. “A Small Community SuccessStory,” The Small Flows Journal 1 (1):11-16.

46 Lee, Gary M. 1997. “Low -pressure collection,”Water Environment and Technology 9 (11):33-34.

47 Gover, Nancy. 1994. “Norwood is site of Georgia’sfirst municipal drip system,” Small Flows 8 (2):4-5.

48 Telephone conversation with Roger Stern, MarineStudies Consortium, July 15, 1999.

49 Telephone conversation with Ed Clerico, AppliedWastewater Technologies, July 19, 1999.

36

To construct cluster systems that serve all 157properties on OSDS in these communities willcost between $1.6 million and $3.2 million.

Another $200,000 to $400,000 will berequired for cluster systems to correct the 20 orso documented system failures in nine other areasstudied by DEPRM. (See Table 1 for list ofcommunities). To serve all 234 properties inthese nine areas with cluster systems, capitalcosts of $2.3 million to $4.7 million will beincurred.

Traditional Community Systems

In traditional community systems, wastewateris collected directly from a household or businessand flows by pipelines to a centralized plantwhere all treatment occurs. The individualproperties have no septic tanks or other means ofinitial treatment. Wastewater collection is usuallyhandled by gravity sewers with pipelines that areeight inches or more in diameter. Vacuumsewers are used sometimes. Where wastewatermust be transported uphill, force mains are used.The traditional community system has its ownsmall wastewater treatment plant using similartechnology to the large Metropolitan Districtplants.

In a few Baltimore County communities towhich eventual extension of Metropolitan Districtlines is planned, the Metropolitan District hasconstructed small wastewater treatment systemsas interim measures. Forge Heights and RichlynManor are examples of community wastewatersystems that have been constructed and operatedby the Metropolitan District in anticipation of theextension of trunk lines. Forge Heights was takenout of service when lines were extended. Richlyn

Manor will probably be operated by BaltimoreCounty for many more years until a trunk linereaches that community.

Several Maryland municipalities operatecommunity wastewater systems that serve 200 to350 households. Annual costs of these systems,including debt service, average about $300 peryear per household. (See Appendix D for moredetailed cost information.)

Most of the information obtained by the studyteam on capital costs of community wastewatersystems is for systems that were not constructed.The exception is the system operating in theTown of Grantsville. In 1990, Grantsvillerehabilitated sewer lines and constructed awastewater treatment plant with double thecapacity required by the 200 households in town.The capital cost per household in 1999 dollars isabout $23,000. Grantsville received grants fromthe Maryland Department of the Environment,Maryland Department of Housing andCommunity Development, and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency to offset a largeportion of these costs.50

Recently, the Town of Goldsboro in CarolineCounty considered installing sewer lines and awastewater treatment plant to serve 105households. MES estimated total capital costs ofmore than $7,600 per household for thetreatment plant alone. Collection system costswould be $22,000 per household if gravity sewerlines were constructed or $16,000 per householdif vacuum sewer lines were constructed. Totaloperating and maintenance costs, includingtreatment plant operation, was estimated at $623per household per year with the gravity system

50 Town of Grantsville. 1992.

37

and $804 per household per year with thevacuum system.51

Because of the high costs of a system toserve Goldsboro alone, MES also examined asystem that would serve 368 existing householdsin four small Caroline County towns, includingGoldsboro. The capital costs for the wastewatertreatment plant dropped to about $3,000 perhousehold under this approach. Collection systemcosts remained high because the towns wereabout 12 miles apart.52

The Town of Ridgely planned an upgrade ofthe wastewater treatment plant serving the town’s400 households at a capital cost per household ofabout $5,200 in 1999 dollars. Town officials alsoconsidered annexing 51 nearby properties andconnecting them to the system, but the costs forthe collection system were prohibitive, more than$28,000 per household in 1999 dollars.53

Based on the limited data available on capitalcosts for traditional community sewer systems,their costs compare to the high-end estimates forcluster systems. Traditional community systemsare not an appropriate option for solving septicproblems of a few properties within an area.They are designed to serve all properties,whether or not problems existed for some of theindividual properties. If traditional communitysystems are used to serve the 157 properties inthe six areas explicitly identified by DEPRM as

candidates for community systems, the total costis $3 million or more. In addition, if traditionalsystems are used to serve the 234 properties inthe nine other areas studied by DEPRM that arepossible candidates for community systems, thecost is in the neighborhood of $5 million.

Extension of Metropolitan District Lines

In addition to homeowners replacing failingsystems with new ordinary septic systems, theother solution to OSDS failures in BaltimoreCounty to date is extending Metropolitan Districtlines. This solution is restricted to areas withinthe Metropolitan District boundary. Similarly, fornew development on the urban fringe, owners ofproperties within or adjacent to the MetropolitanDistrict boundary are able to obtain sewerservice from the district, whether or not an on-site system is feasible, if the property is within theURDL.

From a technical standpoint, for propertieswithin or near the Metropolitan District boundary,extension of Metropolitan District lines may bethe most cost-effective solution to failing septicsystems. For example, lines are being extendedto solve problems in Bowleys Quarters andLower Back River Neck even though these areasare outside the URDL. When extension ofMetropolitan District services to propertiesoutside the URDL is contemplated, administrativecontrols on future hook-ups must be establishedto ensure that urbanized development does notoccur in these rural areas.

Having a cluster system convey wastewaterto Metropolitan District pipelines, as wasproposed for Phoenix, is another variation of theuse of Metropolitan District facilities to solveseptic system problems and provide service to

51 Telephone conversation with Ellen Frketic, MES,July 15, 1999.

52 Id.

53 Rohlfs, Joan. 1988. Fiscal Impact of Annexationfor the Town of Ridgely. College Park, MD:Institute for Governmental Service.

38

new rural development. In addition to requiringadministrative procedures to ensure that suchprojects do not promote unplanned development,any project connected with the MetropolitanDistrict has the added complexity of involvingBaltimore City in project decisions.

For purposes of comparison with the costdata for individual, cluster and community sewersystems, the study team made an examination ofMetropolitan District capital costs. The 1997Triennial Review reported $27 million inconstruction spending for subdivision sanitarysewer extensions for the five-year period FY 98through FY 02. Based on planning departmentprojections, the study team assumes the newsubdivisions being served by these extensionscomprise 12,120 new residents or 5,050 newhouseholds. (See Appendix D for computations.)The capital cost of the sewer extensions is$5,453 per household.

Technical Alternatives for Rural WaterService

In theory, both surface water and groundwater are potential sources of water for ruralresidents. However, the potential surface watersources in Baltimore County are dedicated to theMetropolitan District. All rural inhabitants of thecounty must rely on ground water that isextracted via wells.

Wells can be constructed by digging, boring,driving, jetting or drilling down to the layer ofearth that contains the ground water source. Dugwells are shallow and difficult to protect fromcontamination. They are typically lined with brick,stone or concrete. Bored wells of two to 30inches in diameter can be constructed in suitable

material to depths up to 100 feet. Driven wellsare the simplest and least expensive. They aresuitable for areas containing highly permeablealluvial deposits. They are cased with vitrified tile,concrete pipe, wrought iron pipe or steel, andproduce small to moderate yields. Jetting involvesforcing water under pressure down the riser pipe.Material is loosened by the jetting action of thewater, allowing the well point and pipe to belowered. Wells can be drilled by percussion orrotary drilling methods. Percussion drilling allowsmore easy detection of water-bearing layers.Drilled wells are cased in steel pipe. In areas ofunconsolidated rock, screens or slotted casingsare placed in the portion of the well within thewater bearing layer to filter out ground particles.Ground water is drawn up through the well by apump.

The area of Baltimore County on which thisstudy focuses is underlain by fractured rockaquifers. Well construction regulations andtechnical considerations generally require wells tobe drilled using air percussion methods. Screensare not warranted in wells in this area of thecounty, except southeast of Interstate 95 whereunconsolidated rocks are present.

Well components are sized to provide thequantity of water required. This quantity dependson whether the well serves individual households,businesses or multiple users. The main issue iswhether the ground water aquifer can produce anadequate supply of water. Sometimes it isnecessary to drill very deep wells to tap anaquifer that fulfills this requirement. Over time,wells may fail to produce due to failure or wearof the pump, lower water levels, plugged screensor accumulation of sediments in the well.

39

A second technical issue is whether watertreatment is necessary. If the ground watercontains high concentrations of certain chemicalsor minerals it is not potable. The chemicals orminerals may be contaminants or naturallyoccurring. In either case, the water must betreated to serve as a potable supply. Ideally, theground water requires minimal or no treatment. Insome cases, however, water treatment processesthat require some level of technical sophisticationare necessary.

A variety of technical solutions have beenused to address well contamination problems inBaltimore County. In some cases, the county hasrecommended that property owners installcarbon filters to treat contaminated ground water.In two communities--Sunnybrook and Phoenix--community water systems with water treatmentplants were installed to address groundwatercontamination.54 In Manor, individual wells wereinstalled, and in Hydes, multiuse wells wereinstalled by the county. In areas within theMetropolitan District experiencing problems withprivate wells, the problems have been solved byextending Metropolitan District lines, often aspart of a project designed to address failingOSDS.

Almost all new development in rural areas ofthe county has had to rely on individual on-sitewells. Metropolitan District lines are sometimesextended to properties on the urban fringe, withinor adjacent to the Metropolitan District, if theseproperties are within the URDL. Currentenvironmental regulations for new development

are intended to ensure that each developed lotcan support the proposed usage with anadequate on-site well and septic system. Forproperties being developed remote from theMetropolitan District, the absence of a suitablewell site may prevent development.

One creative developer resorted to odd lotconfigurations upon encountering a problem ofground water contamination. Each lot containeda narrow strip of property extending to anindividual well among a cluster of wells in the onlysuitable well site in the subdivision. A communitywell at this location would have been a morestraightforward solution from a technicalstandpoint.

The costs of small community water systemsare generally higher than the costs of systemsserving large populations. The well, supply linesand treatment plant constructed for theSunnybrook community in 1965 had capital coststhat amounted to $4,700 per household in 1999dollars. More recent construction of a well, one-mile pipeline and water treatment plant serving200 households in Grantsville, Maryland costmore than $10,000 per household in 1999dollars. As with its sewer system project,Grantsville obtained outside funding to defray thecost of its water system, in this case acombination of grants and loans from the U.S.Department of Agriculture, Farmers HomeAdministration, and grants from MarylandDepartment of the Environment and MarylandDepartment of Housing and CommunityDevelopment. Costs for the system built in 1992to mitigate contamination problems for 11households in Phoenix were much higher. Theyamounted to more than $100,000 per householdin 1999 dollars.

54 Sunnybrook was annexed into the MetropolitanDistrict for purposes of financing construction ofits water system. The federal governmentfinanced the Phoenix system because a Nikemissile site created the problem.

40

Among several municipalities aroundMaryland that operate water systems serving 200to 350 households, annual costs (including debtservice) average more than $300 per householdper year. (See Appendix D for more detailedcost data.) No operating cost data were foundfor smaller water systems, with the exception ofthe Sunnybrook and Phoenix water systems inBaltimore County.

Operating costs of the Sunnybrook watersystem totaled $66,800 in calendar year 1998,which is more than $400 for each of the 160households served by the system. These costsresulted in a water rate for Sunnybrookcustomers of $4.45 per 1,000 gallons. This rateis equivalent to more than $33 per 1,000 cubicfeet, compared to the $7.54 per 1,000 cubic feetcharged to Metropolitan District customersserved by the district’s large water systems.

The costs of operating the Phoenix watersystem, which serves only 11 households, totaled$37,300 in calendar year 1998. This costrepresents roughly $3,400 per household. Thecosts of providing Phoenix residents with waterhave been subsidized by the federal governmentbecause a federal facility created the groundwater contamination that necessitated the system.Households connected to the Phoenix watersystem pay the same rate for water asMetropolitan District customers. It is not possibleto say whether the costs at Phoenix arerepresentative of systems serving this small acommunity because cost data were not availablefor comparably-sized systems.

The study team used $15,000 per householdas a rough estimate of the capital costs ofinstalling a community water system. The totalcost to construct facilities to serve the 270 or so

properties currently served by private wells inareas identified as having water problems is about$4 million.

Again, for comparison, the study teamlooked at expenditures for subdivision waterprojects in the Metropolitan District. The mostrecent data available were for the 10-year periodfrom 1991 through 2000. Water program costsfor subdivision projects totaled $88 million forthat period in 1991 dollars.55 The study teamestimates that during that time, 17,349households were added to the urban area of thecounty. Converted to 1999 dollars, the averagecost of subdivision projects per new household is$5,985. (See Appendix D for computations.)

Legal, Organizational and Financial Issuesof Individual Systems

For water and sewer systems that are solelycontained on an individual property, the simplestlegal and organizational arrangement is privateownership and maintenance of the system by theproperty owner. Because of the public healthimplications of failing septic systems, the potentialfor contamination of private wells by third partyactions and the demand for publicly financedcorrective action when problems occur,government typically sets standards for privatelyowned water and septic systems and has accessfor inspection and testing. As long as governmentoversight is possible where water and sewersystems are contained on individual properties,no need for government to organize or own thesystem exists.

55 Baltimore County. 1991. p. III-1.01.

41

A common role for government with respectto individual OSDS is to assist property ownerswith financing the upgrade and repair of thesesystems by making low-interest loans available.The State of Maryland operates a revolving loanfund from which it issues low-interest loans toproperty owners for purposes of replacing failingseptic systems.

Ordinary septic systems involve capital costsof roughly $4,000 per household. Capital costsfor alternative OSDS are closer to $12,000 perhousehold. Special site conditions inflate thesecosts. The monthly payment by the propertyowner on a 20-year loan of $12,000 at a marketrate of 8 percent is $100.44. If the propertyowner obtains a $12,000 loan through the staterevolving loan fund at 3 percent interest, theproperty owner’s monthly payment is reduced to$66.54. Property owners also incur annualmaintenance costs, which run approximately$100 per year if periodic system inspection andpumping are included.

Mike Cook, director of EPA’s Office ofWastewater Management, believes it isreasonable to expect households to devote up to2 percent of their income to sewer improvements.Other experts believe this level is unrealisticallyhigh.56 County planners estimated medianhousehold income in the county at $44,889 in1997.57 The estimated $66.54 per month incapital costs plus $100 per year for maintenanceof alternative OSDS would amount to $898,which is exactly 2 percent of the estimatedmedian household income. By definition, half of

county households have income below themedian. Many of the households experiencingseptic failures have incomes lower than themedian and therefore would be paying a higherpercentage of their income for sewer services.

DEPRM estimates 750 chronic septic systemfailures exist in the county. Assuming thesesystem failures must be corrected with alternativeon-site systems at an average cost of $12,000,the total capital requirement is $9.0 million.

Legal, Organizational, and Financial Issuesof Cluster and Community Systems

The move from individual to cluster systemsis very significant from a legal and organizationalstandpoint. Cluster systems require property andequipment that is used in common by multipleresidents and businesses. Collective action andpooled resources are required to acquire realproperty for a multiuser drain field or acommunity treatment plant. Similarly,arrangements must be made for financing andoverseeing construction of the facilities. Finally,the facilities involve some level of operation andmaintenance. Acquisition of capital and operationof facilities for multi-property use are bestaccomplished by a collective entity created underthe law, such as a homeowners’ association,corporation or government agency.

Community systems, like the in-commonportions of cluster systems, require that capital,property and equipment be acquired, operatedand maintained to serve multiple users. As with acluster system, a legally structured collectiveentity is best suited to develop and operate acommunity system.

56 Mealey, Misty (1999). “The CSO Controversy.”Civil Engineering 69(9), p.41.

57 Baltimore County (1999), p. 16.

42

Recovering the costs of cluster andcommunity systems is also much more complexthan individual systems. Total capital costs mustbe spread across current and future system usersin some equitable manner. Operating costs alsomust be allocated in an equitable manner; onlycurrent users bear these charges.

Discussion turns now to ways in whichBaltimore County can deliver community waterand sewer services to areas in need. Throughoutthis century Baltimore County has used an entityseparate from the county government to providepublic water and sewer services--namely, theMetropolitan District. Yet, this fact does notmean that the county must provide rural waterand sewer services through some sort of districtmechanism. The county is free to use whatevermechanism is most suitable for its purposes, aslong as state law permits it. Several alternativespresent themselves. These can be divided intotwo groups: those organizations already inexistence providing water and sewer services andthose that need to be created. The former groupincludes the Baltimore County Public WorksDepartment, the Metropolitan District and theMaryland Environmental Service. The lattergroup includes public authorities known assanitary districts, and water and sewerauthorities. It also includes private corporations.

Baltimore County Public WorksDepartment

The Baltimore County Department of PublicWorks (DPW) is a strong alternative fordelivering rural water and sewer services.Among other things, DPW designs, maintains andoperates the water and sewer services of theMetropolitan District. Consequently, DPW

personnel have the knowledge, abilities, skills andexperience necessary to serve the needs of ruralBaltimore County.58 Another advantage of usingthis alternative is the element of control. Thepolicies, practices and activities of DPW alwayswill be directly controllable by elected andappointed county officials, unlike other optionsdiscussed below. In fact, out of all the options forproviding rural water and sewer services, thisoption places in the hands of county officials themost control over the character of such services.

Although the county attorney should addressthis matter, the legal authority that could enablethe DPW to provide water and sewer servicesbeyond the Metropolitan District is not in muchdispute. Article 25A, Section 5(T) of theAnnotated Code of Maryland empowers thecounty council to enact ordinances that protectand promote public health regarding the disposalof waste. Furthermore, the general welfare clauseof Article 25A, Section 5 (S) empowers chartercounties to enact any ordinance “deemedexpedient in maintaining peace, goodgovernment, health, and welfare of the county.”The Maryland Court of Appeals has construedthis clause liberally over the years to permit homerule counties to legislate on matters notspecifically enumerated in the Annotated Code of

58 Note that DEPRM cannot be involved inmanaging and operating “community facilities” inBaltimore County, as that term is defined inCOMAR (a system in which two or more lots orusers are linked together). DEPRM is the“approving authority” for community facilities inBaltimore County and cannot also be the“controlling authority,” the governmental entitythat manages and operates community facilities.COMAR, 26.04.05.02.

43

Maryland.59 Moreover, counties throughoutMaryland, such as Anne Arundel, Carroll,Frederick, Howard, and Queen Anne create,operate and maintain water and sewer servicesusing nothing more than their public worksdepartments. This suggests that even if the countymust ask the General Assembly to approve DPWaction in this area, the request probably would beapproved.

Once DPW action in rural Baltimore Countyis authorized by ordinance, several otherpreliminary matters must be performed. First, thecounty’s water and sewer plan must be amendedto reflect the scope of projects needed in ruralBaltimore County.60 Second, plans forcommunity water systems and community sewersystems must be approved both by DEPRM andDepartment of the Environment.61 Both of theseactivities will be required regardless of whetherDPW or some other entity ultimately performsthe work. Finally, rural water and sewer projects

must be incorporated into the county’s capitalimprovement plan, and the financing must beobtained.

Once the work is underway, state lawexpressly allows the county to charge-backexpenses to owners of properties served bycounty water and sewer projects. Specifically, topay principal and interest on indebtedness, thecounty may establish connection charges and setan annual assessment on properties that abutstreets and roads served by a water main orsewer.62 Fees also can be collected formaintenance, repair and operation.63 Thecounty’s power to issue bonds for public worksprojects is unaffected by DPW involvement withwater and sewer projects. Nonetheless, it isnotable that capital costs of county water andsewer projects are eligible for state revolving loanfund interest rates, which today runapproximately 3 percent annually for a 20-yearloan.64 The rate is a floating rate, subject tochange.

The Metropolitan District

A second alternative for building water andsewer capacity in rural Baltimore County is the

59 See Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalgh,253 Md. 151 (1969); Stiemel v. Board of ElectionSupervisors, 278 Md. 1 (1976); Bradshaw v. PrinceGeorge’s County, 285 Md. 294 (1979); andSnowden v. Anne Arundel County, 295 Md. 429(1983). While a local ordinance would not,evidently, conflict with any state law, anoutstanding question may be whether the subjectmatter has been pre-empted by state law. If thestate has pre-empted this area of law, a localordinance would be barred, despite the generalwelfare clause discussed above. If this were true,then perhaps the only way to provide rural waterand sewer service in Baltimore County, without aspecial enactment for Baltimore County by theGeneral Assembly, would be through a water andsewer district or a water and sewer authority. Bothof these options are discussed below.

60 See generally, COMAR, 26.03.01.

61 COMAR, 26.04.03.04.

62 MD. Code Ann., Envir. Section 9-722 (1998).

63 Id. at Section 9-723.

64 Id. at Sections 9-1605 & 9-1505.1. According tosources at the state’s Water Quality FinancingAdministration, the bonds would be available ifthe county would pledge that (1) the bonds wouldbe backed by the county’s full faith and credit; (2)that the state could intercept their state-sharedrevenues in the event of a default; and (3) thatotherwise user fees generated from the project beused to pay-off the loans.

44

Metropolitan District. The use of theMetropolitan District offers several benefits, themost pronounced being that it already is doingwater and sewer work in Baltimore County usingthe DPW. Thus, the county has confidence in itsmanagement and capabilities. Furthermore, theMetropolitan District has adequate revenue-raising powers. For example, it is empowered toissue general obligation bonds to pay forinfrastructure cost and installation65 and cancollect monies through user fees for connection toand use of its water and sewer services.66 Thesemonies can be used to pay the costs of operatingand maintaining community-based systems.

However, several problems make thisalternative impractical. The boundaries of theMetropolitan District determine its primaryservice area. For the most part, only those areascontained within the its boundaries receive itsservices. However, the boundaries would need tobe expanded if it were to serve rural water andsewer needs. Yet changes in district boundariesare initiated by petition of the owners of propertyin the areas affected by a proposed change.67

Evidently, no other person or entity can initiate aboundary change. A methodical, systematicenlargement of district boundaries will be all butimpossible under these current provisions.

Moreover, the mayor and city council ofBaltimore City, along with the county council,must approve boundary changes.68 The city also

holds joint approval authority over the extensionof water lines and operating control over waterextensions as well.69 The conclusion to be drawnfrom these observations is that service extensionsinto rural areas are intergovernmental decisions.It adds a layer of complexity and underscores thedifficulty in making the district the instrument ofchoice for serving rural areas. In effect, becausethe county is not solely in charge of MetropolitanDistrict performance, reliable service in ruralareas cannot be guaranteed through this option.The significance of the entity’s name--theMetropolitan District--should not be lost either.The name has obvious geographical significancefor its intended service area.

Nonetheless, the Metropolitan District mightstill be considered a valid alternative foraddressing septic failures and water problems inareas within the current district boundary, such asKingsville and Chattolanee. The district’sexperience in funding and operating (throughDPW) community sewer systems in ForgeHeights and Richlyn Manor and a communitywater system in Sunnybrook provide someprecedent for district construction of self-contained systems for Kingsville and Chattolanee.

The estimated capital costs of a clustersystem to correct the eight documented systemfailures in northern Kingsville are $80,000 to$160,000. Alternatively, capital costs toconstruct cluster or community systems to serveall 29 properties on OSDS in northern anddowntown Kingsville and 15 properties inChattolanee are between $440,000 and$880,000. Community water systems fornorthern and eastern Kingsville and Chattolaneeare an estimated $825,000. Because all of these

65 Baltimore County Code of Ordinances, Section 35-251.

66 Id. at Sections 35-211, 35-214 & 35-215.

67 Id at Section 35-127.

68 Id. 69 Id. at Section 35-138 and 35-148.

45

construction costs total less than $2 million, thebenefit of having the Metropolitan District financeand administer these projects may not outweighthe burden of intergovernmental control ofprojects that physically are not connected toMetropolitan District facilities.

Maryland Environmental Service

Another alternative that relies on existinginstitutions is the Maryland EnvironmentalService. MES can contract with BaltimoreCounty to provide water and sewer services inareas outside of the Metropolitan District. Itwould operate like any other contractor,performing tasks according to the specificationsagreed upon by MES and the county.70 In thisoption, MES and the county become partners inserving rural Baltimore County. The twocollaborate on project planning, butimplementation falls to MES.

MES is allowed under state law to take aneven more active role in providing water andsewer services in Baltimore County. Specifically,at the county’s invitation, MES can establish andoperate one or more service districts in ruralBaltimore County. These districts operate inaccordance with state policies and the wishes ofthe local government involved.71 For example, atthe county’s request and with the permission ofthe secretary of natural resources, the secretaryof the environment, and the director of planning,MES will determine the boundaries of a givenservice district. After making various studies,MES then creates a five-year plan for the district,

which must be consistent with the county waterand sewer plan. Among other things, the five-year plan designates the construction projects,methods of operation, anticipated costs andsources of revenues.

The five-year plan can be adopted only if it isfirst approved by the county council or by theGeneral Assembly and after a public hearing inthe county. Once adopted, the plan is updatedbiennially. Projects may be added to the plan,with the consent of the county. Immediately afterthe plan’s adoption, MES must implement theplan and assume jurisdiction over and provide forthe maintenance and operation of the variousprojects. Any existing facilities and operations inthe district must be turned over to the soleownership of MES, as provided in the plan (withprovisions for compensation).

When MES is in charge of a district, it canissue bonds to help pay for projects.72 The bondswill be general obligations of MES, payable outof any MES revenues.73 MES is authorized tocharge persons, property or the county for itsservices. The charges must reflect the full cost ofthe projects.74

Consequently, MES can be used in a varietyof ways to help Baltimore County, and the countycan be more or less involved in projects inaccordance with its preferences. Yet in using anMES service district, the county would not be incontrol of district activities; it would have a voicein decision-making, but MES ultimately remainsin charge. Furthermore, the need for a district to

70 See MD Code Ann. Nat. Res., Section 3-104(1997).

71 Id. at 3-106.

72 Id. at 3-112.

73 Id. at 3-114.

74 Id. at 3-108.

46

install, operate and maintain water and sewerprojects is not at all obvious.

The water and sewer problems in ruralBaltimore County are scattered over the area andexist in geographical pockets. All things beingequal, one district for the entire area signals thatthe need for community water and sewer servicesis uniform in rural Baltimore County, which isfalse. Most households and businesses today areadequately supplied by their own private septicsystems and wells. These entities do not needcommunity water and sewer service.Nonetheless, a single district still may be justifiedif cost savings would be realized by having costsspread over all the projects within the district;that is, the various projects within the districtmight share overhead expenses and therebyrealize cost savings through the districtmechanism. This would be the recommendedapproach if no simpler option is available, one inwhich costs can be kept at a minimum and onethat is functionally tailored to the work at hand--specifically, capable of treating pockets of failingwells and septic systems without signaling that allof rural Baltimore County is problematic.

Instead of a single MES district, multipledistricts could be established, yet this too isproblematic. Under this scenario, the cost savingsare lost that might otherwise be realized under asingle district. The option does not allow thesharing of overhead expenses between districts.Consequently, functionality is gained under thisoption: The district would be functionally tailoredto meet water and sewer needs in pockets of thecounty. However, cost efficiency is lost incomparison to a single district mechanism. Withthese problems in mind, and the loss of somecontrol over projects, an MES service district,

however configured, may not be suitable forBaltimore County at this time.

However, rather than an MES servicedistrict, the option of having MES contract withthe county to provide rural water and sewerservices is still on the table. The advantage to thisoption is that MES services are highly regarded.Unlike some private contractors, confidence inthe quality of MES work is not be an issue.Moreover, suitable control of projectspecifications are exercised by county officialsunder this option, since all points of MES serviceare subject to contract negotiation.

However, two concerns exist in using thisoption. First, the county probably needs topurchase and own any capital facilities involvedin a project. While MES is empowered topurchase and own facilities, it does not have thepower to issue general obligation bonds.Consequently, capital costs for projects likely willbe higher if MES rather than the countypurchases and owns the facilities. In essence, useof this option likely splits operational control fromownership, which perhaps merely is aninconvenience rather than a serious impediment.Second, and more importantly, the need to useMES when DPW is perfectly capable ofinstalling, operating and maintaining water andsewer facilities is not at all clear.

A Sanitary District

State law permits the creation of one or moresanitary districts in a county. Nothing in theMetropolitan Act or in any local ordinance orcharter provision seems to prohibit the creation ofanother sanitary district. Consequently, we canreview how a rural sanitary district might operate

47

in Baltimore County. In powers and abilities, itsactivities would look very similar to theMetropolitan District.

According to state law, a sanitary district iscreated by ordinance passed by the countycouncil that describes the geographic boundariesof the district and includes articles ofincorporation.75 Each district is run by a three-member sanitary commission, appointed by thecounty council, each of whom serves a six-yearstaggered term.76 The district is a corporatebody, with all the powers and privileges of acorporation.77 The sanitary commissiondetermines the number of officers, employees andagents of the district.

The general powers of the district includeacquiring, constructing, operating and maintainingprojects. However, the powers are limited. Theycannot be used to duplicate or compete with anyutility that runs similar projects in the district.78

Note that a district for solving rural sanitaryproblems would not compete with theMetropolitan District. The rural sanitary districtwould serve only areas not reached by theMetropolitan District.

A sanitary district issues tax-exempt, generalobligation bonds, pledging the full faith and creditof the district to pay the cost of projects.79 Thesanitary commission sets and collects benefit

assessments and connection charges to pay theprincipal and interest on bonds.80 For eachproject it operates, the district charges propertyowners served by the project a minimum chargeand a usage charge based on the use by theproperty. The charges are used to pay operatingexpenses and maintenance costs, among otherthings.81 Note also that until the district cancollect its own revenues, it is authorized toborrow from the county government, and thecounty government is authorized to makeadvances and loans to the district, withrepayment on terms set by the county.82

A useful power of a sanitary district is theability to create service areas within the district.These may be created either directly by thecounty and sanitary commission working togetheror they can be initiated by petition of propertyowners.83 Within a service area, the sanitarycommission may create water service subareasand sewage service subareas.84 A district isempowered to consolidate the operational,engineering and financial functions of the variousservice areas and to combine their funds.85

These are all useful features, but this optionhas some of the same problems inherent in anMES service district. A single districtencompassing the area outside the MetropolitanDistrict may be financially desirable, but it is

75 MD. Code Ann. Envir., Sections 9-611 & 9-612.

76 Id. at Sections 9-621 & 9-622.

77 Id. at Sections 9-607 & 9-627.

78 Id. at Sections 9-607 & 9-643.

79 Id. at Sections 9-682 & 9-689.

80 Id. at Section 9-657.

81 Id. at Section 9-662.

82 Id. at Sections 9-628, 9-640 & 9-641.

83 Id. at Sections 9-647, 9-648, & 9-649.

84 Id. at Section 9-652.

85 Id. at Section 9-651.

48

functionally inefficient as more territory iscontained in the district than needs to be served.Alternatively, establishing several districts isfunctionally efficient, but inefficient financiallybecause overhead costs are not shared orallocated among all the districts. Finally, a ruralsanitary district does not have flexibility to serveproperties within the “no planned service areas”of the Metropolitan District. Nonetheless, asanitary district in rural Baltimore County remainsa viable option, if no simpler options areavailable.

A Rural Water and Sewer Authority

In comparison with a sanitary district, a waterand sewer authority is a simpler option. It hasmany of the powers available to a sanitary districtbut is not defined by geography. Instead, theauthority is defined by the projects it manages,regardless of their locations. Consequently, weescape the problem inherent in drawing borders.

A public authority is created by the countycouncil and is a corporate entity.86 It is controlledby a board of directors, appointed by the countycouncil. The members of the board may bemembers of the county council or may beappointed by the county council to a five-memberboard, each member serving a five-year term.87

The law that creates the authority includes thearticles of incorporation.88

Like a sanitary district, an authority acquires,constructs, operates, repairs, and leases

projects.89 It cannot duplicate or compete withany existing private or public utility that servessubstantially the same purpose.90 This provisionprohibits the use of both a rural sanitary districtand a water and sewer authority in ruralBaltimore County. It might also preclude anauthority from undertaking projects in the “noplanned service areas” of the MetropolitanDistrict.

An authority can issue bonds to pay for anypart of a project’s cost.91 However, the bondscannot pledge the full faith and credit of the stateor county, and there is no obligation to levy a taxto pay back the bonds if project revenues fallshort.92 Instead, they pledge to be repaid solelyout of the revenue of the authority.93 An authoritymay set charges and collect fees to pay theexpenses of the authority, including the costsinvolving bond payments, construction, operation,maintenance and repair. Moreover, for purposesof operating and financing, an authority cancombine different water and sewer systems intoa single project.94

Without going further into the legal points ofthis option, we can conclude that it appearsstronger than the district option. A water andsewer authority is functionally efficient. Itsservices are directed solely at areas that requirewater and sewer projects. It also is financially

86 Id. at Sections 9-901 & 9-906.

87 Id at Section 9-914.

88 Id at Section 9-907.

89 Id at Section 9-905.

90 Id at Section 9-918.

91 Id at Section 9-928.

92 Id at Section 9-930.

93 Id at Section 9-932.

94 Id at Section 9-918.

49

efficient. Overhead costs such as the cost ofadministering operations, financial administration,legal costs and procurement costs can be sharedamong all the projects handled by the water andsewer authority. Yet, a problem arises in therestriction on issuing general obligation bonds. Ifthe authority cannot pledge the county’s full faithand credit toward repaying a debt, then theinterest rates on capital debt will be higher thanotherwise. Moreover, the restriction also meansthat favorable loans through the state revolvingloan fund also are unavailable. Ultimately, thecost of water and sewer projects are higher thanotherwise, and the charge back to customers ofcommunity water and sewer service are higherunder this option than under some others.

To resolve this problem the county mightpurchase and own the community water andsewer systems. The public authority installs,operates and maintains them. Using the county’sbonding authority, capital costs on these projectsthen are kept at a minimum. The relationshipbetween the county and the public authorityshould be described carefully in the foundingdocuments. The County Attorney needs tocarefully review these matters.

Private Corporations

Private construction of community-basedwater and sewer systems is an option to pursuewhenever possible. Currently, only a fewprivately-owned community water systems are inBaltimore County, and no privately-ownedcommunity sewer systems are in the county.95

The advantage to the county government ofprivate or homeowner association ownership ofcommunity systems is that the county is relievedof financing, constructing and operating thesystems. In the case of new development wherea developer wants to obtain site approval, countyrequirements induce private construction ofcommunity systems. These systems are thenmanaged through a private contractor or ahomeowners’ association. However, informaldiscussions with Carroll County officialssuggested that in time many of these privatecorporations can be expected to approach thecounty government about the county assumingownership and control over their systems.

In anticipation of eventual county involvementin operating community systems, another optionis for private developers to convey these facilitiesfor government operation after they have beenconstructed to county specifications. This is theapproach taken by Howard County with thecluster systems that have been constructed in twonew developments. The advantage of thisapproach is that developers (and, as a result,buyers) incur up front the capital costs of thefacility.

If rural villages were developed in BaltimoreCounty over the next decade, comprising a totalof 600 to 1,200 households, between $6 millionand $24 million in capital would be needed forcluster or community sewer systems and between

95 The 1997 Triennial Review of the county’swater/sewer listed four privately-ownedcommunity water systems, which served three

neighborhoods--Glen Arm (Valley Water Supply),Schmidt Properties (Elmo Road) and Stevensonand one school (Villa Julie). The report lists eightsmall sewage treatment plants serving non-industrial properties. Several of these smallsystems serve properties with multiple tenants asusers, but they are not considered communitysystems because they serve individual parcels.

50

$9 million and $18 million for community watersystems. The county is relieved of a substantialfinancing burden if these costs are incurred byprivate developers and passed directly to the newhomeowners. The systems are operated privatelyor by whatever entity is chosen by the county tooperate other rural water and sewer facilities.

For existing communities, the use of privatecorporations to meet water or sewer needs ismore problematic than with developingcommunities. Specifically, individual householdsand businesses must first believe they share acommon problem, believe that collective actionoffers advantages over other alternatives andthen, ultimately, hire a contractor to plan, installand operate the system. This is a process of self-organization, and the tasks are not simple toperform. The process may well challenge thetotal resources of some communities.Furthermore, in cases of existing ground watercontamination or septic system failures,government has an interest in taking action eitherbecause government activities created theproblem or because public health is at risk.

In effect, while private corporations can assistthe county in meeting rural water and sewerneeds, they probably are not a reliable solutionfor existing communities. Self-interest may urgepeople voluntarily to organize themselvescollectively to solve water and sewer problems,but nothing compels a response from them.Government exists for just this reason: to fill thevoid left when collective action is needed andpeople fail to act collectively. Consequently, if thecounty is to pursue this option for existingcommunities, the county likely needs to assist inorganizing the community to solve the problems.The county is needed as a source of reliableinformation as well. Finally, the county needs to

help these communities in obtaining loans forcapital financing.

The Choice Among Alternatives

When the above alternatives are viewedtogether, it is apparent that the option of relyingon self-help and private corporations for solvingexisting problems in rural Baltimore County is nota reliable solution by itself. Government needs toplay a significant role in bringing service to thesecommunities. Nonetheless, where it can work,self-help and private corporations should beencouraged and allowed. If the county wishes topursue this option, a separate study of theelements involved in this type of self-help effortshould be undertaken.

Private construction of community water andsewer systems to serve new development is arealistic option. This approach relieves the countyof the significant burden of financing constructionof rural water and sewer facilities. The facilitiesare operated privately under governmentoversight or government operates them usingwhatever entity the county chooses to deliverrural water and sewer services. The costs ofgovernment operation of these facilities arecharged back to the property owners.

The Metropolitan District is not a strongoption for providing rural water and sewercapacity. Here the problem is boundaryconstraints and the intergovernmental nature ofthis entity. As with the self-help option, reliabilityis in question. While reliability is not an issue withthe MES service district option or the option ofusing one or more sanitary districts, they sufferother limitations. Their problems relate tofunctional or financial inefficiencies. Neither

51

cannot be designed well enough to resolve bothof those problems simultaneously.

In comparison to the above options, a waterand sewer authority is a stronger solution. Yet ittoo has a problem: its inability to issue generalobligation bonds. The restriction requires thecounty to purchase and own water and sewerfacilities to keep capital costs at a minimum. Thisoption also requires shouldering the additionalburden of establishing, operating and funding anew corporate entity. In most instances, creatinga new entity can be recommended only when noexisting entity can do the job. Yet, MES andDPW already exist and can do the work. Thisfact undermines any preference for creating apublic authority and, for that matter, for creatinga sanitary district; simpler alternatives exist.

Between MES and DPW, DPW is the morereasonable choice. Under the MES option, thecounty contracts with MES to install, operate andmaintain community water and sewer services inthe county. Because of limitations on MES’sbonding authority (which is virtually the same inthis instance as a water and sewer authority) thecounty needs to purchase and own the water andsewer facilities operated under the MES contract.None of these elements--the split betweenownership and operation and the need formanaging a contract--would exist if DPW did thework rather than MES. Under the DPW option,the county would own and run the facilities.Moreover, a fundamental reason behindcontracting for services is that in-house expertisefor providing a service does not exist. Yet, thatjustification is absent in discussions about theDPW. That department currently installs,operates and maintains water and sewer systemsin Baltimore County. DPW is the reasonablechoice. It is the simplest option available and, all

things considered, perhaps the most reliable onetoo.

A Closer Look at DPW as Provider of RuralWater and Sewer Service

Aside from the wells installed in Hydes andManor to remedy ground water contamination,the county, as an entity, has not planned orconstructed any community water or wastewatersystems. Nonetheless, DPW, through itsrelationship to the Metropolitan District, hasmuch experience in planning and managingconstruction of water and sewer projects,including the Sunnybrook water system and theRichlyn Manor wastewater system. Similarly, thecounty has not financed any community water orwastewater systems, but DPW staff have beeninvolved in developing cost estimates and fundingrequests for Metropolitan District facilities. Thedepartment may need to develop additionalexpertise, through training, hiring additional staffor contracting with consultants, in on-sitetreatment technologies.

If DPW were to take on responsibility forrural systems, the department would includecommunity water and wastewater systems in itscapital improvement plan to be financed likeother county projects. Any costs incurred by thedepartment for planning or design of theseprojects, including the cost of acquiring specialexpertise, would be incorporated into the projectcosts and, ultimately, charged back to theproperties that benefit from the project.

In terms of actually operating small systems,the DPW has experience with the Phoenix andSunnybrook water treatment facilities and theForge Heights and Richlyn community sewer

52

systems. DPW has no experience operatingcluster wastewater treatment systems and needsto develop expertise in this area or contract outoperation of these systems.

Relying on small systems to provide waterand sewer service is more costly per householdthan relying on large facilities like those operatedby the Metropolitan District. Data obtained bythe study team suggest that the capital costs forsmall community systems are two to three timesas expensive per household as MetropolitanDistrict costs.

If a $20,000 capital cost per household forsewer infrastructure is charged back to aproperty owner over 20 years at an interest rateof only three percent, the property owner’smonthly payment is $111. If in addition, theproperty is served by a community water systemthat costs $15,000 per household to construct,the property owner would owe another $83 eachmonth. On top of these charges are operationand maintenance charges of perhaps $500 to$1,000 per year. For many rural propertyowners, these costs are unaffordable.

While the community systems needed in ruralBaltimore County are more costly on a perhousehold basis than Metropolitan Districtfacilities, the total financial demands of thesesystems are much less. Construction of cluster orcommunity sewer systems to serve all 391properties in 15 problem areas identified byDEPRM can probably be accomplished forunder $8 million, which is a small fraction of the10-year construction budget for the MetropolitanDistrict. Installing community water systems toserve the 285 properties in 11 water systemproblem areas identified by DEPRM and the

county water/sewer plan can probably beaccomplished for about $4 million.

If the county leaves financing of communitysystems for new rural development as theresponsibility of developers, the only futurecapital demands on the county are to installcommunity systems to correct problems as theyarise and to replace these community systems asthey age. Replacement costs should be factoredinto the operating charges to users.

Another option for reducing the costsincurred by individual property owners is to levya tax on all properties that, at some future time,may be served by community water or sewersystems. The tax can be justified by the publichealth benefits of correcting well and septicsystem problems. For example, the county candesignate all property outside the MetropolitanDistrict as potential recipients of communitywater or sewer service and beneficiaries of animproved level of health. The current assessablebase of property outside the Metropolitan Districtis about $829 million. A tax of $0.01 per $100valuation on this property would generate about$83,000.

Twelve of the areas identified by DEPRM ashaving septic problems and eight of the areas withwater problems are outside the MetropolitanDistrict. The 12 sewer-problem areas comprise347 properties; the eight water-problem areascomprise 230 properties. The total cost to installcluster or community sewer systems is probablyless than $7 million. The total cost to installcommunity water systems is probably less than$3.5 million. If these costs were spread over a10-year period, they would total a little more than$1 million per year. They could be funded by a$0.13 tax on the property outside the

53

Metropolitan District. For a $150,000 home,which according to state law is assessed at 40percent value, the annual tax bill to support ruralwater and sewer construction is $78.

A more radical option is to fund allcommunity water and sewer construction througha tax on all property within the county. The totalcost to install community water and sewersystems in current “no planned service” areaswithin and outside the Metropolitan District isestimated at $12 million or less. Spread over 10years, the cost would be $1.2 million per year.The total assessable base of the county is$15.556 billion. This base generates $1.56million for every $0.01 per $100 of property tax.Thus, the entire construction program to eliminateexisting rural water and sewer problems can beaccomplished over a 10-year period by raisingthe county property tax rate by $0.0069 per$100. For a $150,000 home, the annual tax billincreases by about $6 to support rural water andsewer construction that corrects existingproblems. While the option of an across-the-county tax makes solving rural water and sewerproblems seem very affordable, it is contrary tothe way governments have traditionally paid forwater and sewer service, which is that recipientsshould bear the cost.

54

Conclusion

Three questions drove this study. First, howcan Baltimore County bring water and sewercapacity to areas that lie beyond the MetropolitanDistrict and in so doing, allow two concepts inthe county’s proposed master plan–ruralcommunity centers and rural villages–to beimplemented? Second, how can the countyperform inspections of OSDS, should the staterequire it? Third, is a sanitary district necessary toperform these services? Taking the last questionfirst, clearly a sanitary district is not necessary. Asanitary district would be useful only if no otherentity now existed that could bring water andsewer capacity to rural Baltimore County and ifno other entity might do the work in a moreefficient way.

However, the study shows that a sanitarydistrict is unnecessary for fielding an inspectionprogram, should the state require one for OSDS.An inspection program can be created out of theresources now available in the county. Namely,it requires the coordination of DEPRM andDPDM to design and administer a program thatplaces responsibility for the proper operation andmaintenance of OSDS where it belongs: with theowners of these systems. Under the envisionedprogram, the owners of OSDS would berequired to contract with private businesses thatnow do inspection work in the county. In otherwords, the government would not take on thebusiness of conducting OSDS inspections. Whenan inspection finds a system operating properlyand in accordance with state standards, thecounty, upon receipt of proper documentation,would issue an operating permit to the systemowner. The permit would expire after three tofive years, depending on DEPRM’s needs. Anew permit would be issued only after a

system was reinspected and found to beoperating properly. In this way, OSDS is assuredto meet state standards, DEPRM will have adatabase to track these systems, andenforcement requires combing the databaseperiodically to determine who is operatingwithout a valid permit.

Additionally, a sanitary district is not requiredto bring water and sewer services to ruralBaltimore County. Water and sewer services inthis case means community-based systems inwhich multiple households or businesses aregrouped in a system that receives water from acentralized source or disposes of wastewater.Only certain geographical pockets of the countycurrently need community-based services. Theestimated capital costs of installing these systemsis less than $12 million.

With this information in mind, the study findsthat bringing community-based services to ruralBaltimore County does not require a sanitarydistrict. Several other alternatives such ascreating a water and sewer authority or evencontracting with the Maryland EnvironmentalService to install, operate and maintain thesesmall systems are as appealing in their way as thecreation of a rural sanitary district. Yet,implementing any of these alternatives does notappear as attractive as simply relying on theDepartment of Public Works to do the job.DPW already provides water and sewer servicesin the county through the Metropolitan Districtand, in few locations, operates community waterand sewer systems. No reason justifiescontracting with MES if DPW can do the work.Given DPW’s current role, no substantialjustification exists to create any new entity like a

55

rural sanitary district or a water and sewerauthority to provide services already beingdelivered elsewhere in the county by DPW.

While the county attorney should commenton the matter, there seems to be no legal reasonbarring the use of DPW for these purposes.Granted, the county council should enact relevantordinances, but nothing seems to prohibit thecounty from enacting those ordinances. Even ifstate law required Baltimore County to first seekstate approval for DPW action in rural BaltimoreCounty, counties throughout Maryland now usetheir public works departments to bring waterand sewer services to county residents. In fact,Howard County, like Baltimore County, uses ametropolitan district to bring water and sewerservices to many of its residents, but those areasoutside the metropolitan district receive servicefrom the Howard County Bureau of Utilities,which is part of the county’s DPW.Consequently, even if the state required thecounty to obtain approval for DPW action inrural Baltimore County, the state is unlikely todeny the request.

Funding these projects is made simpler byuse of the DPW also, rather than some othervehicle. If MES or a water and sewer authoritywere used, for example, Baltimore County stillwould need to purchase and own the community-based water and sewer facilities. This is becauseof restrictions placed on MES or a water andsewer authority on issuing general obligationbonds, a restriction that does not exist forBaltimore County. In effect, the restriction meansthat, if MES or a water and sewer authority wereused, control over community-based facilitieswould be split from ownership. This split wouldraise liability issues for the county and morefundamentally, would create a need for

continually managing the relationship between thecounty and the service agency (MES or a waterand sewer authority). No similar problems occurif DPW were the service agency.

However, we note that a rural sanitary districthas essentially the same capacity to issue bondsas does the county and, like the county, canassess charges and require fees be paid by thosebenefitting from a service. Consequently, on theissue of finance, a rural sanitary district is nearlyas strong as the DPW alternative. The essentialdifference between the two is that the countywields the power to tax, whereas a sanitarydistrict does not.

Taxing power may become important to theextent that the installation or operation costs ofcommunity-based systems outstrip the ability ofhomeowners to pay. If grants and low-cost loansare inadequate to reduce capital costs toaffordable levels or if operating costs areinordinately high, the county may decide to usetax dollars to partially offset the costs associatedwith community-based systems, as WashingtonCounty does. Tax dollars might be moreequitably raised from the area that can potentiallyreceive service from community-based systems:namely, the area outside the MetropolitanDistrict. The justification for the tax probablywould focus on the choice people make in livingin areas of low population density and the burdenthey place on areas that are alreadyenvironmentally stressed (as evidenced bypockets of failing wells and septic systems). Inany event, the county may wish to use its powerto establish one or more special tax districts forwater and sewer services in rural BaltimoreCounty, a power totally unavailable to a sanitarydistrict or to any other alternative examined inthis study, except for the county alternative.

A-1

Appendix AMagnitude of OSDS Problems

The November 1984 inventory contained inthe county water/sewer plan identified 2,300failing septic systems in 25 communities plus anundetermined number of failing systems in threecommunities. All of the communities listed werewithin the Metropolitan District boundary. Sevenyears later in 1991, the water/sewer plan listed1,945 failing systems in 19 communities plus anundetermined number in four communities. Onecommunity added to the list was Phoenix (oldtown), which was the only community identifiedoutside the Metropolitan District boundary. Themost recent water/sewer plan update, the 1997Triennial Review, identified 1,755 failing systemsin 12 communities plus an undetermined numberof failing systems in four communities. Onceagain, all the communities identified, exceptPhoenix, were within the Metropolitan Districtboundary.

The reduction in the number of failing systemsreported in the water/sewer plan, from 2,300 in1984 to 1,755 in 1997, demonstrates slow butsteady progress in correcting existing problems.By 1997, construction had begun onMetropolitan District facility extensions thatwould replace 1,343 failing systems in BowleysQuarters/Seneca Avenue and Back River Neck.When completed, these corrections will reducethe overall number of failing systems identified inthe water/sewer plan to 412 in 10 communitiesplus an undetermined number in fourcommunities.

Despite the reduction in the reported numberof failing systems over the past 15 years, little orno progress has been made for nine communitiesidentified in the water/sewer plan as having

OSDS problems. Table A-1 lists communitieswith longstanding problems and describes theproblems and planned correction dates asreported in the water/sewer plans. Six of thecommunities with longstanding problems (LoreleyBeach, White Marsh, Perry Hall Manor, Essex,Riderwood, and Riverview Park) are locatedwithin Metropolitan District service areas. Two ofthe communities, Chase and Kingsville, arelocated within the Metropolitan Districtboundary, but in areas designated for no plannedservice. The ninth community, Phoenix, is locatedoutside the Metropolitan District boundary.

The septic system failures documented in thewater/sewer plan are not a complete inventory.DEPRM estimates that 750 chronic septic systemfailures are in the county, not counting the failuresnow being corrected in BowleysQuarters/Seneca Avenue and Back RiverNeck.96

DEPRM recently published the study,Problem Areas for On-site Sewage DisposalSystems in Baltimore County, which identifiesand prioritizes 16 areas of the county with currentor potential septic system failures. Table A-2 liststhe study areas, the number of properties in eacharea and the priority assigned by DEPRM. Notall the properties in each area have documentedsystem failures. However, site conditions such asa poor soils and a high water table led DEPRMto conclude that failures are likely.

96 E-mail correspondence from Nancy Pentz to VictorTervala, April 28, 1999.

Table A-1Longstanding OSDS Problem Areas

Planned Correction DateLocation Problem Description as reported in 1984 as reported in 1991 and 1997

Loreley Beach 21 failing systems Pending facilities study Pending facilities study

White Marsh (Joppa and New Gerst Roads; Cowenton and Hornages Avenues; Holly and Snyder Lanes)

Part of large survey; number of failing systems could not be determined

Pending facilities study Pending major facilities

Perry Hall Manor Blank Pending facilities study Original Survey 1966, to be resurveyed by DEPRM.

Essex (Island Point Road and portion of Eastern Avenue)

7 failing systems To be resurveyed by Health Dept. Original Survey 1977, to be resurveyed by DEPRM.

Riderwood 11 failing systems Bid and rejected Bid and rejected, to be resurveyed by DEPRM

Riverview Park 6 failing systems Bid and rejected Original Survey 1975, Bid and Rejected, to be resurveyed by DEPRM

Chase (Marshy Point Road) 5 failing systems Bid and rejected Bid and rejected, to be resurveyed by DEPRM

Kingsville 94 failing systems Pending conflict resolution 1969

Phoenix (Old Town) Blank not listed Being surveyed by DEPRM. 201 facilities study proposed.

Source: Baltimore County 1984, 1991, and 1997.

A-2

Table A-2DEPRM Study Areas

Number of PropertiesArea Name Residential Commercial Total Priority

Arcadia 24 3 27 2Baldwin 3 7 10 3Butler 12 2 14 1Chattolanee 13 2 15 2Freeland 16 0 16 3Hereford 24 26 50 2Jacksonville 0 25 25 2Kingsville-downtown 7 9 16 3Kingsville-eastern 23 1 24 5Kingsville-northern 4 9 13 5Maryland Line 50 5 55 1Monkton 22 4 26 1Parkton 30 6 36 2Phoenix 43 0 43 5Trenton 16 0 16 4White Hall 24 5 29 3

Note: Priorities correspond to potential impact of OSDS problems on human health and the environment with 1 signifying the lowest priority and 5 signifying the highest priority.

Source: DEPRM, 1998.

A-3

A-4

The DEPRM study included two areasidentified as problems in the water/sewer plan:Kingsville and Phoenix. In addition, the reportexamined one area within the MetropolitanDistrict boundary--Chattolanee–and 12 areasoutside the Metropolitan District boundary thatare not among the problem communities listed inthe water/sewer plan.

DEPRM explicitly identified six of thecommunities in the study--Baldwin, Hereford,Jacksonville, downtown and northern Kingsville,and Phoenix--as likely candidates for communitysewer systems. Kingsville and Phoenix aredescribed as “in immediate need of a communitycorrection.” In the case of Baldwin, which hasexisting failures, the identification of a communitysystem as the appropriate solution is based onsoil conditions, small lot sizes and proximity todomestic wells. Although septic system failuresare not presently evident in Hereford, downtownKingsville or Jacksonville, due to the limited areafor repair and/or poor soil conditions, DEPRMidentified these areas as candidates forcommunity systems when septic failures dooccur.

In the community of Trenton, DEPRM notedthat 14 properties in need of septic system repaircannot employ conventional methods due to smalllot sizes and steep slopes. This situation suggeststhe need for a cluster or community system, butthe DEPRM report did not explicitly make thisrecommendation.

According to DEPRM, eastern Kingsville,which has a number of known septic systemfailures, has adequate area for repairs, but soilconditions are not conducive to conventional on-site repairs. The DEPRM report did not suggestit, but properties in eastern Kingsville may be

candidates for on-site corrections usingalternatives to ordinary septic systems.

DEPRM reported an absence of currentseptic failures in Arcadia. However, Arcadia hasseveral existing shared wells and septic systemsthat were built when multiple residences wereowned by the same family. Small lot sizes, soilcontamination problems and the existing sharedfacilities all suggest that community septic (andwater) systems may be appropriate for thiscommunity. Perhaps because of Arcadia’s lowpriority rating, DEPRM did not go so far as torecommend a solution to future problems.

For the other areas included in the study,DEPRM documented past septic system failuresand conditions that make future failures likely.Because all these communities have small lotsizes, community sewer systems may be the onlyoption for correcting failures. The DEPRM reportdid not discuss possible corrections for theproblems in these communities.

Based on information in the water/sewer planand the DEPRM report, the Institute study teamhas grouped areas of the county with OSDSproblems according to the potential solution. Theareas include the communities that have appearedcontinually in the water/sewer plan and areassumed to have longstanding problems as wellas the additional problem areas identified in theDEPRM report. These groupings are presentedin Table 1 of the text. The documented systemfailures shown in this table comprise only about100 of the 750 chronic failures estimated byDEPRM.

B-1

Appendix BMagnitude of Water System Problems

As with failing septic systems, most of thewater system problems reported in thewater/sewer plans over the years have beenwithin Metropolitan District boundaries. The1984 water/sewer plan identified 273 deficientwater systems in seven communities plus fourcommunities with unspecified numbers ofdeficient systems. All the deficient water systemswere within the Metropolitan District boundary,and many coincided with failing septic systems.

By 1991, most of the problems identified in1984 had been solved. The December 1991problem inventory listed 122 water systemproblems in five communities. Ninety of thedeficient systems were in Kingsville. Of theremaining 32 deficient systems, eight systems inthe vicinity of Phoenix97 were experiencingchemical contamination from an old Nike missilebase. The problem in Phoenix was ultimatelyaddressed by construction of a community watersystem paid for by federal funds and operated bythe county public works department.

Although the 1991 sewer problem inventorycontinued to identify septic system failures in theIsland Point Road area of Essex and the MarshyPoint area of Chase, these communities no longerappeared on the water problem areas inventory.Apparently the water problems in these areaswere solved even though the septic problemswere not.

The 1997 Triennial Review of thewater/sewer plan listed only problems affectingMetropolitan District facilities (e.g., algae growthin Loch Raven Reservoir; deficient water mains)in the table of problem areas. The list did notinclude deficient water systems in Kingsville,although there was no indication that the 1991problems had been corrected. The only mentionof problems with individual water systems was inthe text of the report, which described rural waterproblems in Hereford, Jacksonville, Manor andHydes, all of which are outside the MetropolitanDistrict boundary.

The 1997 Triennial Review cited 1989 testingof domestic wells in Hereford that found elevatedlevels of nitrates, sodium and chlorides. On-sitesewage disposal systems and application of roadsalts were the suspected sources of thecontaminants. No corrective action wasdescribed in the 1997 Triennial Review.However, maps W10-B and S10-B at the backof the report show that the Hereford communityhas applied for annexation to the MetropolitanDistrict. Baltimore City has concluded thatnoncontiguous areas are not eligible forannexation into the Metropolitan District.98

Consequently, the Hereford application will notbe approved. Some other approach tocorrecting the problems is required.

97 The Phoenix properties with well contaminationare not in the old town of Phoenix where septicfailures have been identified.

98 The noncontiguous area of Sunnybrook wasannexed into the Metropolitan District in the1960s. However, in the 1990s when countyofficials proposed annexing the Nike-contaminated Phoenix area into the MetropolitanDistrict, Baltimore City refused because the site isnoncontiguous.

B-2

The 1997 Triennial Review also noted pastcontamination of ground water from local gasstations in Jacksonville. In this case, the reportnoted that contaminated water had beenremediated, but warned of the potential for futureproblems due to small lot sizes, the highpercentage of paved surfaces and a limited-yieldaquifer system. The report also described casesin Manor and Hydes where replacement wellswere installed by the county after improperstorage of road salts had created elevated levelsof chlorides in ground water. Additionalproperties in these areas were expected to beaffected in the future.

The recent DEPRM study of problem areasfor sewage disposal also identifies properties withwater system problems. The DEPRM reportcites a 1984 study of old town Phoenix, whichfound water from three wells to havebacteriological contamination because of poorwell construction. DEPRM also cites theproblems in Hereford and Jacksonville noted inthe water/sewer plan. The DEPRM report notesfurther that ground water contamination has beena problem in Arcadia, requiring relocation ofwells and carbon filtration. Several wells inChattolanee do not meet minimum setbackrequirements. Chattolanee also has experiencedground water contamination.

C-1

Appendix CWater/Sewer Needs Associated with New Development

Since 1990, Baltimore County has issuedannually an average of 443 residential occupancypermits.99 However, a slower rate of ruralpopulation growth is now taking place and isexpected to continue after the turn of the century.

County planners estimate an increase of1,957 residents between the years 1997 and2000 in the nine regional planning districts thatroughly define the rural portion of the county.(See Table C-1.) Given an average householdsize of 2.4 people, this population increasecorresponds to 815 new households over thethree-year period or 272 households per year.The same nine districts will gain an estimated3,814 residents between 2000 and 2010,representing 1,589 additional households overthe decade or 159 new households per year.

The proposed Master Plan 2010 identifiesrural villages as the potential recipient of newresidential development. These denselydeveloped areas would contain a maximum of200 to 330 households.

Residential growth almost inevitablygenerates some commercial development. Theproposed master plan does not estimate themagnitude of rural commercial development, butthe plan proposes channeling this development toHereford, Jacksonville, and the existing villages ofBaldwin, Butler, Fork, Fowblesburg, Glen Arm,Kingsville, Maryland Line, Parkton, Stevensonand White House.

All nine planning areas examined here, exceptthe Loveton area of Sparks, are outside theURDL and the Metropolitan District. Newdevelopment in these areas cannot rely onMetropolitan District services. During the period1997 to 2000, no mechanism will be available todevelop properties on community water andsewer systems. Consequently, the householdsand businesses developed in rural areas duringthe period 1997 to 2000 will be served byOSDS and individual wells.

For the period 2000 to 2010, if all 1,589new households anticipated in rural areas arebuilt with individual wells and septic systems, anaverage of 159 new on-site systems will berequired in the county each year. Alternatively, ifall the new development is to occur in ruralvillages of 200 to 330 households, five to eightcommunity systems are needed over the ten-yearperiod. The more likely scenario is for some ofthe new households to be developed withindividual on-site systems and others in ruralvillages served by cluster or community systems.The rural villages may be as small as 10households or as large as 330.

The proposed Master Plan 2010 states thatthe two rural commercial centers and existingrural residential areas should be considered aspotential locations for rural villages. Table C-2lists each of these types of communities for thenine rural planning districts. Although theproposed master plan does not designate existingvillages as potential rural villages, it doesdesignate them as appropriate locations foradditional commercial development. Existingvillages also are listed in Table C-2.

99 Baltimore County. (1999). Master Plan 2010:Baltimore County, Maryland, Proposed May 1999,p. 161.

Table C-1Rural Population Projections

Regional Planning Districts 1997 Estimated Increase 2000 Estimated Increase 2010Number Name Population Population Households* Population Population Households* Population

301 Hereford-Maryland Line 12,576 64 27 12,640 69 29 12,709 302 Prettyboy 4,482 3 1 4,485 (31) (13) 4,454 303 Fowblesburg 3,980 131 55 4,111 44 18 4,155 304 Sparks 6,429 251 105 6,680 689 287 7,369 305 Jacksonville 10,094 41 17 10,135 122 51 10,257 307 Chestnut Ridge-Worthington 11,962 1,040 433 13,002 1,951 813 14,953 310 Fork 7,003 103 43 7,106 359 150 7,465 311 Harrisonville 4,517 244 102 4,761 382 159 5,143 318 Kingsville 5,142 80 33 5,222 229 95 5,451

Total rural districts 66,185 1,957 815 68,142 3,814 1,589 71,956 Total urban districts 656,135 8,423 3,510 664,558 18,486 7,703 683,044

Total county 722,320 10,380 4,325 732,700 22,300 9,292 755,000

Rural districts as percent of total 9% 19% 19% 9% 17% 17% 10%

*Number of households based on 2.4 persons per householdSource for population: Baltimore County Master Plan 2010, p. 9.

C-2

` Table C-2Existing Rural Communities by Planning District

Rural RuralUrban Commercial Residential Existing

Regional Planning District Center Centers Areas Villages

Hereford-Maryland Line Hereford*** Freeland* Hereford***

Maryland Line*** Parkton*

Prettyboy White HouseFowblesburg FowblesburgSparks Loveton Butler*Jacksonville Jacksonville*** Jacksonville*** Chestnut Ridge-Worthington Chestnut Ridge Fork Baldwin***

Fork Glen Arm

Harrisonville Patapsco Kingsville Kingsville*** Kingsville***

* OSDS problem area** Water problem area*** OSDS and water problem area

C-3

C-4

As noted in Table C-2, most of the ruralcommunities listed have OSDS or water systemproblems. One approach would be to direct newdevelopment to these existing communities and todesign community water and sewer systems thatsolve the existing problems as well as serve thenew development. Locating additionalhouseholds in each community that needs acommunity system would serve to make thesystem more affordable.

Some of the 29 new households in theHereford-Maryland Line planning district couldbe directed to the Hereford rural commercialcenter/rural residential area, the Freeland ruralresidential area or the existing villages ofMaryland Line and Parkton. All four communitiesare likely or possible candidates for communitysystems to serve their existing populations.Hereford currently has 50 properties on OSDS,Freeland has 16, Maryland Line has 55, andParkton has 36.

The Prettyboy district is expected to have anet loss of households, so new water/sewercapacity is not an issue. The Fowblesburg districtwill gain only 18 households over the 10-yearperiod. Given that Fowblesburg has not beenidentified as a problem area, these 18 householdsprobably can be served by individual wells andOSDS. Alternatively, a small rural village may beappropriate from a land use standpoint.

Some of the 287 new households projectedfor the Sparks planning district will probably bedeveloped within the Loveton urban area, whichis served by the Metropolitan District. Theremaining development can be directed to theexisting village of Butler and, perhaps, additionalrural villages to be developed. Butler is a possible

candidate for a community system to serve itscurrent 14 properties.

Some of the 51 new households projectedfor the Jacksonville planning district can belocated in proximity to the Jacksonvillecommercial center and served by communitywater and sewer systems constructed to solve theproblems of existing and future businesses.Remaining development could be clustered in asmall rural village. Currently, 25 properties inJacksonville are on OSDS.

Three or four maximum-size rural villages canbe developed to accommodate new developmentof 813 households in the Chestnut Ridge-Worthington district. Alternatively, many smallrural villages are theoretically possible. TheHarrisonville district also is a candidate for one ormany rural villages to accommodate 159 newhouseholds. Since no areas in the ChestnutRidge-Worthington or Harrisonville planningdistricts are identified as having OSDS or watersystem problems, development of rural villages inthese districts, with associated community waterand sewer systems, are likely to be driven byland use planning goals rather than existing waterand sewer needs.

Development of 150 new households in theFork regional planning district can be directed inpart to the existing villages of Baldwin, Fork andGlen Arm. Of these villages, only Baldwin, with10 properties on OSDS, is identified as acandidate for a community sewer system. The households developed in Fork and Glen Arm, aswell as in the outskirts of this district, possibly,can rely on individual wells and septic systems.Alternatively, 10 new rural villages served bycommunity systems could accommodate thedevelopment.

C-5

A portion of the 95 new households in theKingsville district can be accommodated by thecommunity system(s) anticipated for downtownand northern Kingsville.100 Currently, 29properties are served by OSDS in Kingsville,including 13 in northern Kingsville and 16 indowntown Kingsville. Development not directedto downtown or northern Kingsville could beclustered in a few small rural villages served bycommunity water and sewer systems.

Table C-3 summarizes the community waterand sewer service options that are available ineach rural planning district. The options forproviding community water service can beapplied in endless combinations. More than 100new rural villages of 10 to 15 households and theseven or eight existing problem areas could beserved by relatively small community systems. Ifdevelopment is concentrated in larger ruralvillages, perhaps 12 to 14 larger communitysystems could serve the new development plusproblem areas.

100 It is not clear whether one community systemcould serve both downtown and northernKingsville, or whether each area will require itsown system.

` Table C-3Community Water/Sewer Service Options for New Households

EstimatedNew Households Metropolitan Existing

Regional Planning District 2000-2010 District Minimum Size Maximum Size Problem AreasHereford-Maryland Line 29 0 0 4Prettyboy (13) 0 0 0Fowblesburg 18 1 0 0Sparks 287 X 20+/- 1 0Jacksonville 51 1 0 1Chestnut Ridge-Worthington 813 60+/- 3-4 0Fork 150 10+/- 0 1Harrisonville 159 10+/- 1 0Kingsville 95 5+/- 0 1-2

Total 1,589 110+/- 5-6 7-8

*Note: Minimum size rural villages contain 10 to 15 households. Maximum size rural villages contain 200 to 330 households.

New Rural Villages*

C-6

D-1

Appendix DWater and Sewer System Costs

The study team had to rely primarily on datafrom outside Baltimore County to estimate thecosts of providing water and sewer service inrural areas of the county. Much of that data ishistorical. To present the information in terms ofcurrent dollars, the study team obtainedinformation on changes in the Consumer PriceIndex for all urban consumers (CPI-U) over thepast 35 years. That information is presented inTable D-1. For the years 1964 to 1983, the onlyindex available is the average for all U.S. cities.From 1984 through 1997, an index specific toBaltimore was published. However, beginning in1997, the Baltimore index was replaced by ajoint Washington, D.C.-Baltimore index. Thestudy team used these three indexes to arrive ata multiplier for each year that was used toconvert costs for that year into costs in 1999dollars. The multiplier for each year is shown inthe last column of Table D-1.

Costs for OSDS Technologies

The study team’s first use of the multiplierwas in converting costs presented by EPA from1988 dollars to 1999 dollars. These costs,related to ordinary and alternative OSDStechnologies, are presented in Table D-2. Thecosts provided by EPA are based on valuesreported in other published works. In severalcases, the reported average is lower than theprobable range, reflecting the fact that these datacame from a variety of sources. They areprovided to give a ballpark idea of the costs thatmight be expected if these technologies are used.It should also be noted that, for a particular site,some of the costs may be additive. For example,a site may have the components of a conventional

septic tank system plus constructed wetlands.For some sites, it would be possible to have alow pressure pipe (LPP) system alone.Alternatively, a site may require an LPP systemwith a recirculating sand filter.

DEPRM also provided the study team withcapital cost data for some of the OSDStechnologies. These costs are presented in TableD-3 juxtaposed with the EPA data. For ordinaryseptic systems and holding tanks, capital costestimates provided by DEPRM tend to be lowerthan the corresponding EPA estimates. For othertechnologies, however, the capital costsestimated by DEPRM for Baltimore County aregenerally higher than the costs reported fromEPA’s national data.

Capital Costs of Cluster Systems

Cluster systems serve multiple propertiesusing OSDS technology. They are a subset ofcommunity systems. The study team obtaineddata from a number of sources on the capitalcosts of cluster systems, which are presented inTable D-4. The projects are ordered from mostrecent to oldest. The sources listed reported totalcosts for the specified project year. The studyteam converted these costs to 1999 dollars andcomputed the cost per connection. (A connectionis equivalent to one property served.) As noted inthe table, some of the reported costs do notinclude the engineering cost of designing thesystem. Typically, engineering costs add another10 percent to project costs.

The projects listed in Table D-4 servebetween seven and 199 properties. Costs perconnection range from about $5,000 to more

Table D-1Inflation Multipliers for Historical Project Costs

Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) Multiplier to

Year* U.S. Cities Baltimore D.C.-Baltimore May-991964 31.1 5.101965 31.6 5.021966 32.5 4.881967 33.4 4.741968 34.9 4.541969 36.8 4.311970 39.0 4.061971 40.7 3.891972 41.9 3.781973 44.3 3.581974 49.4 3.211975 54.2 2.921976 57.1 2.781977 61.0 2.601978 65.7 2.411979 73.1 2.171980 82.7 1.921981 91.6 1.731982 97.5 1.631983 99.9 1.591984 103.2 104.7 1.541985 108.3 1.481986 110.4 1.461987 115.0 1.401988 119.9 1.341989 124.9 1.291990 130.2 1.231991 136.5 1.181992 140.6 1.141993 143.7 1.121994 148.2 1.081995 151.5 1.061996 155.7 1.031997 156.9 101.1 1.021998 102.8 1.011999 103.6 1.00

* CPI-U is provided for July of each year, except 1999, which reflects May.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

D-2

Table D-2EPA Cost Estimates

Capital Costs Per Household (1988 dollars)*

Capital Costs Per Household (1999 dollars)

Average Annual Maintenance Costs

Probable Range Probable Range Per HouseholdTechnology Average Low High Average Low High 1988 $'s* 1999 $'s

Ordinary septic system 4,500$ 2,000$ 8,000$ 6,000$ 2,700$ 10,700$ 70$ 95$

Alternative technologies:

Constructed wetlands 710$ 1,000$ 3,000$ 1,000$ 1,300$ 4,000$ 25$ 35$

Holding tanks 3,900$ 4,000$ 6,000$ 5,200$ 5,400$ 8,000$ 1,300$ 1,745$

Low pressure pipe (LPP) 5,100$ 4,000$ 6,000$ 6,800$ 5,400$ 8,000$ 150$ 200$

Mound systems 8,300$ 7,000$ 10,000$ 11,100$ 9,400$ 13,400$ 180$ 240$

Recirculating sand filters 3,900$ 5,000$ 8,000$ 5,200$ 6,700$ 10,700$ 145$ 195$

Note: Costs in 1999 dollars reflect a multiplier of 1.34 applied to costs in 1988 dollars. 1999 capital costs are rounded to the nearest $100; 1999 maintenance costs are rounded to the nearest $5.

*Source: U.S. EPA, 1993, pp.4-104 to 4-106..

D-3

Table D-3Capital Cost Estimates: DEPRM and EPA

Average Per Household Low End High EndTechnology DEPRM EPA DEPRM EPA DEPRM EPA

Ordinary septic system 4,000$ 6,000$ 3,000$ 2,700$ 7,000$ 10,700$

Alternative technologies:

Constructed wetlands N.A. 1,000$ N.A. 1,300$ N.A. 4,000$

Holding tanks 5,200$ 5,200$ 4,000$ 5,400$ 7,000$ 8,000$

Low pressure pipe/Low pressure dosing 8,000$ 6,800$ 7,000$ 5,400$ 10,000$ 8,000$

Mound systems 12,000$ 11,100$ 11,000$ 9,400$ 15,000$ 13,400$

Recirculating sand filters 8,000$ 5,200$ N.A. 6,700$ N.A. 10,700$

Fixed film 8,000$ N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

Note: N.A. = not available

Range

D-4

Table D-4Capital Costs of Cluster Systems

Year of 1999 1999 CapitalProject Number of Capital Cost CPI-U Capital Cost per

Location Technology connections Cost Estimate Multiplier Cost Connection Source

Warwick, RI* STEP/RSF 7 59,000$ ** 1997 1.02 60,180$ 8,597$ ** (1)Ariton, AL STEP/lagoon 198 1,750,000$ ** 1996 1.03 1,802,500$ 9,104$ ** (1)Browns, IL STEP/RSF 101 945,000$ ** 1996 1.03 973,350$ 9,637$ ** (1)Howard County, MD septic tanks/pressure

sewers/common septic tank/soil absorption

109 2,000,000$ 1994 1.08 2,160,000$ 19,817$

(2)Deer Park, MD septic tanks/SDGS/POTW 150 1,601,780$ 1993 1.12 1,793,994$ 11,960$ (3)Hume, MO grinder pumps/LPP/ package

plant100 678,000$ 1993 1.12 759,360$ 7,594$ (4)

Norwood, GA gravity/pond/soil absorption 125 950,190$ 1992 1.14 1,083,217$ 8,666$ (5)Phoenix, MD septic tanks/small diameter

force main/common septic tank/POTW

17 290,400$ 1992 1.14 331,056$ 19,474$

(6)Brooks, OR STEP/lagoon 199 1,700,000$ ** 1991 1.18 2,006,000$ 10,080$ ** (1)Elkton, OR STEP and STEG/RSF 135 897,800$ 1989 1.29 1,158,162$ 8,579$ (7)Union Gap, OR STEP and STEG/POTW*** 70 262,000$ ** 1989 1.29 337,980$ 4,828$ ** (1)Back River, MD septic tanks/RSF/surface

water discharge32 446,300$ 1984 1.54 687,302$ 21,478$ (8)

Cuyler, NY grinder pumps/pressure sewer/common septic tanks/soil absorption

40 166,100$ 1978 2.41 400,301$ 10,008$ (9)

Notes:* Costs per connection based on approximate total costs when system has all 7 homes on line; costs to date are $45,000 for 3 homes.** Capital cost does not include engineering cost.*** Capital cost is for collection system only; treatment by existing plant.Legend:LPP = low pressure pipe system SDGS = small diameter gravity systemPOTW = collection system discharges into existing gravity sewer line STEP = septic tank effluent pump systemRSF = recirculating sand filter STEG = septic tank effluent gravity systemSources:(1) Correspondence from Eric Ball, Orenco Systems, July 21, 1999. (6) MES, 1992, p. 12(2) Presentation by Jeff Welty, Howard County, July 16, 1999. (7) Orenco Systems, 1998.(3) Garrett County Sanitary District, 1992, pp. 1-2. (8) Anonymous comments concerning Draft Preliminary Study -(4) Lee, 1997. Back River Neck, March 1, 1984.(5) Gover, 1994. (9) Feuss et al., 1994.

D-5

D-6

than $20,000. The smallest systems do notalways have the highest cost per connection.Interestingly, the four highest costs perconnection are for projects in Maryland. TheMaryland costs range from just under $12,000per connection for a cluster system in Deer Parkto an estimated cost of over $21,000 perconnection for a cluster system that wasproposed but not constructed on Back RiverNeck. The other two Maryland projects havevery similar costs, about $19,000 for the clustersystem that was rejected for old town Phoenixand $20,000 for a cluster system constructed ina new development in Howard County.

Cost data are not yet available for a secondnew development in Howard County in whichcluster systems were used. According to HowardCounty officials, eliminating individual septictanks in this second development and keepingflows under 5,000 gallons per day have reducedthe costs per household compared to the firstdevelopment.

Capital costs per connection in numerouslocations outside Maryland, as well as in DeerPark, are in the $10,000-to-$12,000 range, andcluster systems are being constructed in HowardCounty for less than $20,000 per connection.Based on this information, the study teamconcluded that a range of $10,000 to $20,000per connection for cluster systems is appropriatefor obtaining ballpark estimates of the capitalcosts of systems to serve Baltimore Countycommunities. Obviously, $10,000 to $20,000 isa wide range. However, with no actual examplesof cluster systems in Baltimore County and withthe wide variety of site conditions that can beencountered, the study team believes this is asprecise an estimate as can be made at this time.

Costs of Traditional Community SewerSystems

Traditional community sewer systemscomprise a collection system that receivesuntreated wastewater from each property andconveys it to a centralized wastewater treatmentplant. Costs of small community systems, likecosts of cluster systems, are difficult to estimate.The study team obtained capital cost data forseveral Maryland projects, most of which havenot actually been built. These data are presentedin Table D-5.

The one sewer project listed in Table D-5that was completely built is a system inGrantsville. That project involved extensiverehabilitation of sewer lines and construction of awastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at a cost ofalmost $23,000 per connection. The plant issized to handle twice the wastewater nowgenerated by the town’s 201 households.

Only costs for the WWTP were obtained fora project designed to serve four communities inCaroline County. The estimated cost of the plantis about $3,000 per household. Costs perconnection for the collection system are likely tobe much higher than the WWTP costs becausethe towns are 12 miles apart.

The four-town project in Caroline isproposed as an alternative to constructing asystem for the Town of Goldsboro alone. Thecapital cost estimates for the complete Goldsborosystem are almost $30,000 per household ifgravity collection lines are used and over$24,000 per household if vacuum lines are used.Both estimates include $7,600 for a wastewatertreatment plant.

Table D-5Capital Costs of Community Systems

Project Year ofProject Number of Capital Cost CPI-U 1999 Capital Costs

Location Components connections Cost Estimate Multiplier Project Per Household SourceTraditional sewer systems:Caroline County, MD WWTP 368 1,100,000$ 1999 1.00 1,100,000$ 2,989$ (1)Goldsboro, MD gravity lines/WWTP 105 3,100,000$ 1999 1.00 3,100,000$ 29,524$ (1)Goldsboro, MD vacuum lines/WWTP 105 2,500,000$ 1999 1.00 2,500,000$ 23,810$ (1)Grantsville, MD sewer lines/WWTP 201 3,725,000$ 1990 1.23 4,581,750$ 22,795$ (2)Ridgely, MD WWTP 457 1,760,400$ 1988 1.34 2,358,936$ 5,162$ (3)

sewer lines 51 1,075,500$ 1988 1.34 1,441,170$ 28,258$ (3)

Water systems:Phoenix, MD well, supply lines,

treatment plant11 1,000,000$ 1992 1.14 1,140,000$ 103,636$ (4)

Grantsville, MD well, supply lines, treatment plant

201 1,623,790$ 1989 1.29 2,094,689$ 10,421$ (2)

Sunnybrook, MD well, supply lines,treatment plant

160 150,000$ 1965 5.02 753,000$ 4,706$ (4)

Legend:WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

Sources:(1) Telephone conversation with Ellen Frketic, MES, July 15, 1999.(2) Town of Grantsville, 1992, pp. 20-23.(3) Rohlfs, 1988, p.14(4) Telephone conversation with Bruce Keller, Baltimore County Department of Public Works, August 3, 1999.

D-7

D-8

The estimated costs for the Goldsborosystem, which includes a WWTP, arecomparable to the estimate of more than $28,000per connection for extension of sewer lines to 51households outside the Town of Ridgely.WWTP costs of more than $5,000 perhousehold in Ridgely would be added to thisamount.

The information presented here on capitalcosts of community sewer systems suggests thatthese systems are very extensive. With noexamples of more affordable systems, forpurposes of making ballpark estimates, the studyteam assumes that capital costs of communitysystems are at least $20,000 per household.

Capital Costs of Community WaterSystems

The study team was able to obtain capitalcost information for only one community watersystem. The Town of Grantsville drilled a newwell and constructed a two-mile long supply lineand a water treatment plant about 10 years ago.The capital costs for this project were slightlyover $10,000 per connection, when converted to1999 dollars.

Operating and Maintenance Costs

The study team uses several sources of dataon operation and maintenance costs ofcommunity water and sewer systems. The firstsource is financial information published by thestate for each municipality.

Many municipalities in Maryland operatewater and sewer systems. Often financialaccounting for these systems is accomplishedthrough use of an enterprise fund that isolates theexpenditures and revenues for the water and

sewer operations from other municipal finances.Table D-6 lists municipalities in Maryland that(A) operate water and sewer systems that servefewer than 350 households and (B) maintainenterprise funds that reflect the entire cost of theirwater/sewer systems. Expenditures from theenterprise fund are presented in Table D-6 forthree recent fiscal years. These expendituresinclude any debt service paid by the municipalityfor these systems.

For six of the municipalities, the data reflectboth water and sewer operations. Systemexpenditures for these municipalities range from$450 per household per year in Betterton to$755 per household per year in Secretary.Average operating costs for the combination ofwater and sewer systems is $615 per householdper year. Two of the municipalities operate sewersystems only. Average expenditures areessentially the same for both sewer systems,$300 per household per year. This informationled the study team to conclude that expendituresin the six municipalities for which data reflect bothwater and sewer systems are probably split fairlyevenly between the two types of systems.

Keedysville, the one municipality in this groupthat operates only a water system, has averageannual expenditures per household of $200 forwater service. This expenditure level is somewhatlower than was anticipated from the deductivereasoning used above.

The article that provided data on capital costsof the Norwood cluster wastewater system alsodiscussed operating costs. Total operating costsof $1,500 to $2,000 per month (1994 dollars)had been projected, but reportedly actual costs

Table D-6Water and Sewer Operating and Maintenance Costs

FY'95 Expenditures FY'96 Expenditures FY'97 Expenditures Three-Year Average

Number of Households Total

Per Household Total

Per Household Total

Per Household Total

Per Household

Water and Sewer:Woodsboro 350 241,419$ 690$ 259,162$ 740$ 236,048$ 674$ 245,543$ 702$ Preston 300 156,974 523 162,871 543 159,328 531 159,724 532 Betterton 265 117,451 443 124,654 470 115,383 435 119,163 450 Queenstown 265 187,232 707 176,892 668 178,603 674 180,909 683 Secretary 234 131,159 561 168,156 719 230,727 986 176,681 755 Galena 225 120,353 535 128,859 573 129,337 575 126,183 561

Total 1,639 954,588$ 582$ 1,020,594$ 623$ 1,049,426$ 640$ 1,008,203$ 615$

Sewer only:Millington 225 58,084$ 258$ 63,704$ 283$ 81,191$ 361$ 67,660$ 301$ Church Hill 267 80,839 303 78,774 295 80,360 301 79,991 300

Total 492 138,923$ 282$ 142,478$ 290$ 161,551$ 328$ 147,651$ 300$

Water only:Keedysville 214 38,623 180$ 34,552$ 161$ 41,476$ 194$ 38,217 179$

Sources of expenditure data:Department of Fiscal Services, 1996, pp. 203-290 and 1997. pp. 167-254.Department of Legislative Services, 1998, pp. 167-254.

Source of information on services provided and households served:Institute for Governmental Service telephone survey, July 1999

D-9

D-10

were less.101 The predicted costs represent $144to $192 (1994 dollars) per year for each of the125 households or $164 to $218 (1999 dollars)per year per household. These costs are less thanthe sewer system operating costs reported ordeduced for Maryland municipalities.

MES reported estimated operating costs of$55,400 per year for the WWTP to serveGoldsboro plus $10,000 per year for gravitysewers or $29,000 per year for vacuum sewers.These costs represent $623 per household peryear under the gravity sewer option and $804 perhousehold per year under the vacuum seweroption.102

A final source of operating cost data was theBaltimore County Department of Public Works.The department provided the study team withcapital costs for the Sunnybrook and Phoenixcommunity water systems103 and with operatingcost data for these systems for calendar year1998.104 The Sunnybrook system wasconstructed in 1965 at a cost of $150,000. In1999 dollars, that translates to $4,700 perhousehold. Sunnybrook serves 160 householdsat a total operating cost of $66,800, which is anannual cost per household of $417.50. To

recover these costs, the Metropolitan Districtcharges Sunnybrook residents $4.45 per 1,000gallons of water used. In contrast, otherMetropolitan District customers pay $7.54 per1,000 cubic feet of water used. Since each cubicfoot contains more than 7.4 gallons, Sunnybrookresidents pay a rate that is equal to $4.45 times7.4, or more than $33 per 1,000 cubic feet. Thisrate is more than four times the standardMetropolitan District rate.

The Phoenix water system was constructedin 1992 at a cost of $1,000,000. This translatesto a staggering $104,000 per household in 1999dollars. Costs per household to operate thePhoenix water system, which serves only 11households, are also very high. The total cost tooperate Phoenix for the year is $37,300. Thisrepresents $3,391 per household. (The Phoenixsystem is designed to serve 14 households. If allhouseholds were connected, the costs perhousehold would drop to $2,664, assuming totaloperating costs did not change.) Fortunately forPhoenix residents, they are not expected to paythe full cost for their water service. The systemwas constructed as a solution to ground watercontamination caused by an old Nike missile site.The federal government covered the cost ofconstructing the system and subsidizes itsoperation. Phoenix residents pay for water use atthe same rate as typical Metropolitan Districtcustomers, even though the system is not part ofthe Metropolitan District.

The costs of operating Sunnybrook appear tobe somewhat higher than the costs reported ordeduced for the municipal water systems listed inTable D-6, which all have at least one-third morecustomer connections. The costs of operatingPhoenix are higher by an order of magnitude,reflecting the fact that Phoenix’s customer base is

101 Gover, Nancy. 1994. “Norwood is site ofGeorgia’s first municipal drip system,” SmallFlows 8 (2):4-5.

102 Telephone conversation with Ellen Frketic,MES, July 15, 1999.

103 Telephone conversation with Bruce Keller,Baltimore County Department of PublicWorks, August 3, 1999.

104 Telephone conversation with Bill Frankenfield,Baltimore County Department of PublicWorks, July 19, 1999.

D-11

an order of magnitude smaller than the municipalcustomer bases.

Based on these data, the study team decidedto use a range of $500 to $1,000 per year perhousehold as a ballpark estimate of the cost ofproviding both water and sewer service fromcommunity systems.

Metropolitan District Costs

A final cost analysis performed by the studyteam was to estimate the capital cost perhousehold of Metropolitan District facilities. Thestudy team assumed that there is a roughcorrespondence between the county’s gain inpopulation and the construction of newsubdivisions. That is, roughly the same number ofpeople are occupying homes in new subdivisionsas are being added to the county’s population.More precisely, the number of households addedto the county during a given period is roughlyequal to the number of households in newsubdivisions. Relying on this assumption, thestudy team obtained the average MetropolitanDistrict capital costs per household by dividingthe total cost on subdivision projects by thechange in number of households. Thecomputations are presented in Table D-7.

The 1997 Triennial Review of thewater/sewer plan reported planned MetropolitanDistrict expenditures of $27 million (1997dollars) on sewer projects in new subdivisionsduring the five-year period FY98 to FY02.During the first three years of that period, thecounty’s urban population was expected toincrease by 8,423 people. (See Table C-1.)During the fourth and fifth years, the urbanpopulation was expected to increase by 1,849people per year or 3,697 people for the twoyears. A total population increase for the five-

year period of 12,120 was expected. At a rate of2.4 persons per household, the populationincrease represents 5,050 new households. The$27 million sewer project expenditure over these5,050 households represents $5,346 (1997dollars) per household or $5,453 (1999 dollars)per household.

The 1997 Triennial Review did not presentaggregate data for water project expenditures innew subdivisions, so the study team relied ondata in the 1991 update of the water/sewer plan.That document reported planned expenditures of$88 million on subdivision water projects for1991 to 2000. The study team had no data onthe county’s urban population at the start of theperiod, so it made the assumption that 90 percentof the county’s population (622,921 people) livein the urban area. The study team had alreadycomputed the county’s urban population for theyear 2000 as 664,558. (See Table C-1.) The netgain in urban population from 1990 to 2000 is41,637 people or 17,349 households. The $88million water project expenditure over thesehouseholds represents $5,072 (1991 dollars) perhousehold or $5,985 (1999 dollars) perhousehold.

Table D-7Metropolitan District Capital Expenditures

Sewer expenditures for new development (FY98-FY02)* 27,000,000$

Population increase in urban area of county (1997-2000)** 8,423 Population increase in urban area of county (2000-2010):**

Total 18,486 Average annual 1,849

Estimated population increase in urban area of county (2000-2002)

3,697 Estimated population increase in urban area of county (1997-2002)

12,120 Estimated increase in urban households (based on 2.4 persons per household) 5,050

Sewer project costs per new household

1997 dollars 5,346$ 1999 dollars 5,453$

Capital costs for subdivision water projects (1991-2000)*** 88,000,000$

1990 County Population 692,134 1990 urban population (assuming 90% of total) 622,921

2000 urban population** 664,558

Estimated increase in urban population (1990-2000) 41,637 Estimated increase in urban households (based on 2.4 persons per household) 17,349

Water project costs per new household

1991 dollars 5,072$ 1999 dollars 5,985$

* Baltimore County, 1997, p. 93** See Table C-1.*** Baltimore County, 1991, p. III-1.01

D-12

References

Baltimore County. (1990). Baltimore County 1989-2000 Master Plan, as adopted February 5, 1990.

Baltimore County. (1991). Water Supply and Sewerage Plan 1990-2000, as amended by BaltimoreCounty Council Resolution 88-92.

Baltimore County. (1997). 10-Year Baltimore County Water Supply and Sewerage Plan 1990-2000:1997 Triennial Review, Draft Report of the Review as submitted to the Baltimore County Council.

Baltimore County. (1999). Master Plan 2010: Baltimore County, Maryland, Proposed May 1999.

Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management (DEPRM). (1998).Problem Areas for On-site Sewage Disposal Systems in Baltimore County. (December)

Dix, S.P. (1986). Case study no. 4 Crystal Lakes, Colorado. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,National Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

Feuss, James V., R. Paul Farrell and Peter W. Rynkiewicz. (1994). “A Small Community Success Story,”The Small Flows Journal 1 (1): 11-16.

Gover, Nancy. (1994). “Norwood is site of Georgia’s first municipal drip system,” Small Flows 8 (2):4-5.

Lee, Gary M. (1997). “Low-pressure collection,” Water Environment and Technology 9 (11):33-34.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (1995). “Septic systems -- a practical alternative for smallcommunities.” Pipeline 6 (3): 1-2.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (1995). “How septic systems work.” Pipeline 6 (3): 3-4.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (1995). “Alternative septic system designs.” Pipeline 6 (3): 6-7.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (1996). “Alternative sewers: a good option for many communities.”Pipeline 7 (4): 1-2.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (1996). “Pressure sewer systems defy gravity.” Pipeline 7 (4): 3-4.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (1996). “Options for final treatment.” Pipeline 7 (4): 4.

Orenco Systems. (1998). “Elkton, Oregon: Effluent Sewer Provides Superior Treatment at Low Cost”Orenco Case Study.

Rohlfs, Joan. (1988). Fiscal Impact of Annexation for the Town of Ridgely. College Park, MD: Institutefor Governmental Service.

Town of Grantsville. (1993). Town of Grantsville Comprehensive Plan.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1993). Guidance specifying management measures forsources of nonpoint pollution in coastal water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,DC.