An Inventory of Non-Point Pollution Sources on the Central South Branch of the Pawtuxet River

Water quality protection and preservation pave, within the last decade, become imperative functions of local, state and federal governments. This focus has brought to light, newly revealed forms of water pollution. Nonpoint source pollution has become one of the major sources of pollutants. Nonpoint source pollution is a generic term for pollutants that come from individual stormwater sewage runoff, disposal systems, erosion road deicing practices and and sediment, fertilizer and pesticide use, to name a few. The study area of this report consists of the portion of the south branch of the Pawtuxet River from South Main Street to Laurel Avenue and the surrounding sub-drainage basins. This is the section of the south branch if the River where the water quality classification changes from Class B to Class C. A great number of reports have been written about water quality throughout the state, nonpoint source poll~tion and the Pawtuxet River, but none them focus on this section of the river. This study focuses on a specific portion of the river where a worsening water quality problem exists. The report discusses facts and reasons for the water quality problem as it relates to the types nonpoint recommendations recommendations source pollution and offers for possibly alleviating the call for the development of practices or BMP' s to alleviate the nonpoint problem. Some of these BMP's include: solutions and problem. The best management source pollution o Establishing wastewater management districts throughout the Town of Coventry. o Establishing vegetative buffer strips along the banks of the River. o Creating retention, detention or infiltration basins to filter pollutants from storm runoff. o Establishing sewer lines throughout the eastern portion of the Town to alleviate the environmental strain caused by ISDS failure. o Establishing programs that inform and educate the public about the River and its problems. If implemented, these strategies would effectively reduce the amount of nonpoint source pollutants that enter the River, thereby improving its water quality. The process of achieving improved water quality on the Pawtuxet River involves not only the efforts of federal, state and local agencies but also the cooperation of private interest groups and the general public.

o Establishing programs that inform and educate the public about the River and its problems.
If implemented, these strategies would effectively reduce the amount of nonpoint source pollutants that enter the River, thereby improving its water quality. The process of achieving improved water quality on the Pawtuxet River involves not only the efforts of federal, state and local agencies but also the cooperation of private interest groups and the general public.  The Pawtuxet River basin is located entirely in Rhode Island." (Cromwell, 1990) The north branch of the Pawtuxet River is a 6. 2 mile segment that has its origin at the Scituate Reservoir and ends at the confluence. The south branch consists of an 8.

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
There are several surface water resources throughout the study area. Figure 1.4 depicts the study area, as well as the three reaches that are discussed in the study. Numerous wetlands, marshes, swamps and streams are located in each reach. Lake Tiogue is the largest body of water in the study area. it is connected to the Pawtuxet through a culvert that    two hydrologic groups if part of the acreage is artificially drained and part is undrained." (USDA, 1977) As can be seen on the following soils map (Figure 1.7) there are six types of soils that fall into the hydrologic soil type A. Five types of soil are classified as group B ~oils.
Four as hydrologic group C. One as hydrologic group D. And two have been assigned to an A/D mixture of hydrologic ~ groups.
Of the 18 different types of soils located in the study area, 10 have severe constraints to ISDS. The biggest drawback to these systems is that they can fail to operate properly, creating a health concern and a possible water quality contamination source.
There are four factors that govern the proper operation and life expectancy of a septic system: 1) location; 2) design; 3) installation; and 4) ~ maintenance. The first three are regulated by the Department of Environmental Management. Maintenance, since it is unregulated has been severely neglected by many homeowners."(Dept of Admin., Div. of Planning, 1987) One problem that is plaguing cities and towns in the State of Rhode Island is that there is a lack of organization involving information and records pertaining to individual sewage disposal systems. shows the path that domestic wastes travel through the process of the ISDS. "A septic system is comprised of the septic tank, distribution box , and leach field. Waste water enters the septic tank where solids settle to the bottom and e x cess liquid or effluent flows from the tank into a distribution box which evenly distributes the effluent into the leachfield.
The waste water then percolates downward through the soil.
Since most soil c an be a good purifying medium, it can efficiently remove bacteria and viruses from household waste water if travel time through unsaturated soil is sufficient . "(Dept. of Ad.min., Div. of Planning, 1987) The document in full is included in the Appendix A. The 13 problem areas are listed below in no particular priority order: Laurel Foster Nursing Home: Laurel Avenue and Center Street.

STORMWATER RUNOFF
Another major problem that has become an issue of concern in the study area is stormwater runoff. Figure 1   . .  -Albro Ln.
-Clear View Dr.
-Whipple Ct. From these estimates, it can be seen that the majority of these pollutants enter the river in sub-drainage basin 39.

ROAD SALT
Basin 39, as mentioned previously, extends from the river's juncture with Tiogue Lake to the confluence with the north 40 branch.
The boundary of this study includes only the small portion of this sub-drainage basin from the juncture with Tiogue lake to the Laurel Avenue darn.
There are also large amounts of these pollutants entering the river in sub-drainage basin 4 0, which encompasses the majority of the study area. This basin has the lowest total suspended solids, biological oxygen demand, copper, lead and zinc estimates of the three sub-drainage basins. But all of these estimates are in excess of the acceptable amount. Most of these practices involve extra detention, retention or infiltration of urban stormwater to enhance pollutant removal and provide additional stormwater management.

1987)
"(Schueler, The "Vegetated Buffer Strip Designated Guidance Manual" recently developed for RIDEM and the Narragansett Bay Project by IEP, Inc. has set out "to provide guidelines for the determination of vegetative buffer strip widths for pollutant attenuation on a case-by-case (site-specific) basis.
The purposed buffer designation (or sizing) method is aimed at mitigating stormwater quality impacts from urban and suburban developments." (Palstrom, 1991) Other vegetative best management practices include: grass swales, urban forestry, basin landscaping and shallow marsh creation. All of these methods are effective, simple ways to reduce particulate pollutant runoff in urban and suburban environments.

ROAD SALT
In order to assist in the reduction of sodium chloride that enters the river, the Town could attempt to adopt the road salt policy that is in effect in the Scituate Reservoir 55 Watershed.
It would only be necessary to implement this strategy along roads in which the runoff directly enters the river.

IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
In order to cut down on impervious surfaces the town can, in the zoning regulations, request that new developments in a determined area around the river use either porous pavement or gravel in their parking areas and driveways.

DEBRIS
The elimination of debris in and along the river can only be achieved if the general public is informed about the river.
Education is the strongest advocate working for this cause.
This step can begin in the school system for the children.

Agencies such as the Pawtuxet River Authority and River
Watchers can educate the adults in the community as to the impacts of debris within and surrounding the river.

SUMMARY
It is imperative that a combination of local, state and federal agencies as well as concerned public interest groups become involved to reclaim the water quality of the south branch of the Pawtux et River.
This study attempts to bring together a set of water quality degrading nonpoint sources of pollution for an area of the river that has not yet been specifically studied. The majority of the previous studies c o ncentrated on either the river as a whole or the area around the Scituate Reservoir

Watershed~
The studies that looked at the south branch were predominantly concerned with the areas to the east that deal with the sewage treatment plants and the confluence with the main stem of the river.
All of the nonpoint pollution sources mentioned in this study are present in some capacity in the areas surrounding the river. Individual sewage disposal systems "can fail to operate properly, creating a health concern and a possible water quality contamination source."(Dept. of Admin., Div. of Planning, 1987) Stormwater runoff, road salt and debris are also known nonpoint contaminants. If all of these agencies work together to initiate some of the recommendations listed in the previous chapter, there will be a noticeable improvement in water quality over time in the upper southern branch. All facets of nonpoint pollution must be addressed in 58 order for this to take place.
The recommendations that address these problems are common solutions that are readily used in other communities throughout the country. There are many examples available to determine the solution that fits the specific situation.
All of the previoulsy mentioned nonpoint source pollution problems that e x ist in the study area are important and need to be addressed, but there are two key areas that require more immediate attention. These are the areas of stormwater runoff and ISDS. The Town must work with the appropriate state and federal agencies to remedy these problems.
If an adequate storm drainage system and a sewer system is installed throughout the study area, the untreated pollutant load into the river will be greatly reduced.
It is up to the present generation to save the Pawtuxet for the future. The primary goals of the task force are threefold: 1.
Determine appropriate land uses, densities, and development controls necessary to protect drinking water quality from the effects of new growth.

2.
Develop means to mitigate existing water quality contamination sources, and 3. Devise a management/regulatory structure necessary to oversee the implementation of the watershed protection plan.
Additional reports will be published that will address key issues as determined by the Expand public information and education efforts to encourage proper homeowner care of ISDS.
To address the Task Force's ISDS maintenance recommendations, the Division of Planning, with assistance from the DEM, developed enabling legislation which allows municipal governments to establish maintenance programs. This legislation, which is contained in Appendix A, was approved in the 1987 General Assembly Session and signed into law by Governor DiPrete in June.
The purpose of this report is to explain how a community can initiate a municipal ~ septic system maintenance program including options for its administration, staff support, financing and enforcement. A model ordinance to assist with the implementation of a maintenance program has also been developed and is included in Appendix B. The intent is to provide a starting point, options for consideration, and a recommended program that a community can modify to suit their own needs.

Septic Systems
Septic Systems or individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are generally an inexpensive and acceptable means of household waste water disposal. The biggest drawback to these systems is that they can fail to operate properly, creating a health concern and a possible water quality contamination source.
There are four factors that govern the proper operation and life expectancy of a septic system: 1) location; 2) design; 3) installation; and 4) maintenance. The first three are regulated by the Department of Environmental M~nagement. (l) Maintenance, since it is unregulated, has been severely neglected by many homeowners.

Maintenance
It has been well documented that an ISDS requires maintenance to operate properly.
Maintenance means the cleaning or pumping out of an ISDS on a regular basis, approximately every three years. As can be seen in Figure  (1) It should be noted that the DEM ISDS regulations are minimum standards.
Municipalities can establish more stringent criteria, if deemed necessary. Refer to Appendix C for further details. _·=-·-:-An ISDS fails when the solids from the septic tank accumulate to a level where they spill out into the leaching field and reduce the percolation capacity. This condition clogs the leachfield and causes untreated waste water to break out onto the ground surface or back up into the plumbing. To prevent this type of failure the solids in the septic tank must be pumped out regularly. When a leachfield becomes clogged expensive repairs are necessary to repair or replace the system.

Water Quality Problems
Waste water that breaks out onto the surface not only poses a severe localized ~ health threat but can run off to contaminate adjacent surface waters. A less obvious but equally as serious form of failure occurs where there is an insufficient separation between the groundwater and the bottom of the leachfield. In this case, effluent may not rise to the surface but seep through the soil with little or no treatment, resulting in the discharge of bacteria, viruses, and high levels of nutrients in the form of nitrates to the groundwater. Homeowners who are served by private wells and septic systems may face the danger of having their drinking water contaminated without their knowledge.

Solutions
In the past, the standard solution to failing septic systems was to install public sewers. In large, densely populated communities, a municipal sewerage system may still be the most appropriate means for treating sewage.
However, public sewers are extremely costly to install and are often beyond the means of most small or rural communities. In addition, the introduction of sewers to an area can stimulate unwanted development. For those communities that are unable to afford sewers and unwilling to ignore the problems associated with failed septic systems, the establishment of Waste Water Management District programs, as well as hire the personnel necessary to support these structures.

4)
Establish a public education· program, which would precede the implementation of a WWMD, to make property owners aware of the proper maintenance and care of ISDS systems and the need for periodic pumping. After a WWMD has 3.1 7 6 been created, an education program could remain in place to educate new residents and update members of the district on new information or procedures.

5)
Receive grants and establish a revolving fund to make grants and low interest loans a~ailable to individual property owners for the improvement, correction, or replacement of failed septic systems.

6)
Authorize and contract with independent septage haulers.

7)
Contract with other cities or towns for septage disposal through sewage treatment plants.

8)
Designate proper collection and disposal sites for septage collected by authorized pumping and hauling agents.

9)
Levy fines for noncompliance. Such fines shall be no greater than $500 per violation. Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.
A WWMD can be established for all or portions of a community. In addition, two or more municipalities may wish to jointly adopt a regional WWMD. Any area that is not served by public sewers should be considered for a WWMD. However, some areas that should be given a high priority for a WWMD include:

1)
Homes served by on-site wells and septic systems; 2) Watersheds or aquifers that provide or have the potential to provide public drinking water; 3.2 77 3) Areas with a history or strong potential for failed septic systems, such as areas with poorly drained soils; and 4) Sites adjacent to high quality surface waters.
A WWMD can be adopted in the same manner as other municipal ordinances. The town solicitor should be consulted to determine the proper procedures.

Adm inistra ti on
There are a number of options for the administration of a WWMD. The following are ~ some alternatives for designating the responsibility for implementation.

1)
Existing Sewer Authorities -Since sewer authorities already govern public sewers within the town it might make sense to give them the power to oversee ISDS maintenance.

2)
Public Works Department ·-An existing public works agency or town engineer could have the necessary technical expertise and administrative framework already in place.

3)
New WWMD Commission -The town council could appoint a bi-partisan 5-7 member commission to implement the program. It would be helpful for commission members to have some knowledge in one or more of the following disciplines: engineering, soils, chemistry, biology, planning or education.

3) Office administration
There are several options on how to accomplish these three tasks. First, the district can hire either full or part-time staff to run the entire program. Second, the district can contract with a private contractor to assume all tasks. Finally, a combination of options one and two can be used. For example, the administrative and educational components could be performed by the town, with a private contractor hired to perform the inspections. Prior to making these decisions, the size of the WWMD should be considered, the frequency of inspections, the availability/experience of existing town personnel, and the availability and cost of private contractors. Caution should be exercised in assigning new duties to existing town staff that may already be overburdened.

Septic System Inspection
The inspection of an ISDS is the key component of a WWMD program. Whoever conducts the inspections must be adequately trained. The inspector must be able to recognize subtle, as well as flagrant signs of system failure. At a minimum, septic system inspections should include: 3.4 7 9

1)
Septic Tank Sludge Levels -the septic tank inspection port must be opened to examine the depth of sludge in the tank. When the sludge level accumulates to a depth of one third the distance to the leach field outlet or 16 inches in depth the tank should be pumped.
2) Surface Break Out -wastewater that "breaks out" onto the ground surface is an indication of failure.
3) Lush Plant Growth -Systems that have lush green grass growing over the tank or leachfield location are unlikely to be operating properly.

4)
Odor -Strong sewage odors are an obvious indication of a septic system malfunction.

5)
Trees or Shrubs -There should be no trees or shrubs growing over or within 10 feet of the leachfield.

6)
Impervious Area -There should not be any patios, driveways, swimming pools or other impervious surfaces over the leachfield without the approval of the DEM.
If the inspection reveals a malfunctioning system, the owner should be given a written notice indicating the probable cause and recommended corrective actions. The owner should be given a reasonable time frame (30 days) to contact the DEM and apply for the necessary permit to repair the system, if necessary. An additional time limit should be established, on a case by case basis, to complete all necessary repairs.
3.5 80 If a system has not failed, but requires pumping, the owner should be required to show proof that the ISDS has been pumped within thirty days of the inspection. A receipt from the pumper can be used as adequate proof.
ISDS owners should be cautioned about having their systems pumped during the wet season, (December-March) particularly in areas with seasonally high water tables. A concrete septic tank is water tight and can become buoyant after the solids are pumped out. A high water table could either push an empty tank out of the ground or tilt it in the ground so· that the waste water will not effectively flow into the leaching field.
Instead of an inspector measuring septic tank sludge levels, a district can automatically require that all tanks be pumped on a regular basis such as every three years. This requirement should be staggered through the district so that everyone does not need to have their system pumped in the same year. To encourage compliance, the district may wish to offer a rebate to subsidize some or all of the homeowner's pumping costs. An annual ISDS owner maintenance fee could be a source of funds for the rebate program.
Another option would be for the District to enter into a contractual agreement with a private firm to have all systems automatically pumped every three years, or as needed.
For example if an ISDS costs $75 to be pumped once every three years, a WWMD could assess an ISDS owner $25 per year plus an administrative charge to fund District operations. This option may prove to be the most desirable for the following reasons: 1.
Complete compliance with District pumping requirements would be assured. 2.
An efficient and orderly pumping schedule can be established to avoid over loading septage receiving facilities.
It will be easier to keep maintenance records.

4.
Septage can be more readily traced to insure proper disposal.

5.
ISDS owners could be eligible for a reduced group rate from private pumpers.
6. The District can be sure that ISDS pumpers are properly trained and licensed.
(NOTE: All septage haulers are required to maintain records indicating the source and estimated volume of septage picked up, the date of shipment, and the name of the facility where the septage was discharged.) The frequency of inspections should be determined by the nature of the WWMD. As a rule of thumb, an ISDS should be inspected on an annual basis. Inspections conducted at a rate less than this may not identify problems in a timely manner. Some systems, such as those located in areas prone to failures or vacation rental units will need more frequent inspections than once a year. This frequency can be established by the WWMD as needed.
Property owners should be notified of inspection schedules. This can be done by direct mailings, an advertisement in the local newspaper or a notice posted in the town hall and other municipal buildings. The mail is the best way to insure that homeowners have been notified but it is also the most costly. The newspaper could be a less expensive alternative, and a posted notice should only be used to supplement the first two options. Notes on the condition of the ISDS.

Education
Public education is a critical part of any waste water management program. The first thing that any potential district is going to confront is the "what-I-do-on-my-" property-is-my-business" attitude. People have to be convinced that the pollution caused by malfunctioning septic systems is not a problem that can be confined to a single property but, rather, is one that affects the entire community. It is much cheaper for a municipality to rely on septic systems than to install public sewers and assess homeowners for the expense. In addition, homeowners who are served by on-site wells and ISDS need to practice proper maintenance to safeguard their drinking water supplies.
Pamphlets, such as the one produced by Save the Bay, public information meetings, and newspaper articles are some of the means of reaching the community and explaining what a waste water management program is all about.
The district also needs to have an ongoing program to educate residents on the operation and maintenance of septic systems. For example, a simple fact about septic systems is that the less water going through a system the better it will operate. Devices that reduce water flow can be installed on faucets, showers, and toilets. The district should make residents aware of how these water restriction devices can improve the operation of their system. With an effective education program, the district can reduce the number of problems that residents encounter.

3.8
Financing As previously mentioned, the enabling legislation empowers municipalities to raise funds for the administration and operation of the district. There are a number of options that municipalities can consider to establish an operating budget. However, one simple and equitable means would be to assess each homeowner within the district an annual flat fee based on the number of dwelling units owned. Since commercial and industrial septic systems may need more time-consuming and frequent inspections, a higher fee could be assessed. In addition, any residential site requiring more than two inspections per year could also be assessed an extra fee for each subsequent ~isit.
There are several options for establishing the rate for the annual flat fee. It could either be based on what is neccessary to support the district yearly operating costs or, to develop a reserve fund which could be used to assist needy homeowners with repairs or pumping fees.

Financial Assistance
Some septic systems will be beyond the scope of maintenance and will need to be replaced. A situation that a WWMD is likely to encounter is when a homeowner with a failed ISDS cannot afford to repair it. In these situations, the district has the authority to issue bonds to obtain funds that can be allocated as either grants or low interest loans to assist qualified individuals.
It may be the case that an entire neighborhood needs ISDS repairs and the site is not suitable for conventional septic systems. In this case, it may be necessary to design an expensive community system to solve the problem. The WWMD may wish to offer financial aid to such a neighborhood to effectively mitigate the problem. 3.9

Enforcement
The effectiveness of any ordinance is only as good as its enforcement. A WWMD has the authority to take some strong enforcement measures if necessary. The district may levy fines for noncompliance, which can go as high as $500 per day.

Septage Disposal
A key factor to consider prior to implementing a septic system maintenance program is the proper disposal of septage, or the solid/liquid contents that are pumped out of the septic tank. Septage is required to be taken to a waste water treatment facility for treatment. However, municipal treatment facilities are limited in the amount of septage that they can adequately accomodate. In addition a community with a treatment facility is only obligated to accept septage from within its own service area. For example the city of Cranston may but is not required to accept septage from the town of Scituate, which is not served by municipal sewers.
It is extremely important for a municipality, that does not have public sewers to establish an agreement with a municipal waste. water treatment facility for septage disposal. Communities that have sewage treatment must exercise caution to prevent overloading the capacity of their treatment facilities. The failure to plan for septage disposal could encourage illegal septage dumping which could pose an even greater environmental threat than the problem of inadequate septic system maintenance.
Clearly the septage disposal problem is one that must be resolved before the adoption of large scale community maintenance programs. The Department of Environmental, with assistance from the Division of Planning, is currently working to assist municipalities with this issue.

Conclusion
Waste Water Management Districts are a realistic and affordable solution to the problems of failing septic systems. Proper maintenance benefits homeowners and the community both environmentally and economically. Although a WWMD may require some hard work to establish, the payoff benefits everyone.   regularly inspected, and routinely maintained to prevent malfunctioning systems and to operate as an alternative to municipal sewer systems.

Alteration
An alteration is any change in size or type of system, or installation of a replacement system.

Failed System
Any sewage disposal system that does not adequately treat and dispose of sewage so as to create a nuisance or threat to public health and/or environmental quality, as evidenced by, but not limited to, the following conditions:

Individual Sewage Disposal System (JSDS)
An individual sewage disposal system shall be a system installed to provide sanitary sewage disposal by means other than discharge into a public sewer system.

LeachCield
A subsurface area from which septic tank effluent or waste containing little or no solids is leached into the soil.

Maintenance
The inspection on a regular basis of the ISDS and as necessary the cleaning out or pumping of accumulated scum and sludge from any septic tank, building sewer, or any other component of an ISDS that can be cleaned or pumped.

Owner
Owner is any person who alone, or jointly, or severally with others (a) has a legal title to any premises, or (b) has control of any premises, such as agreement of purchase, agent, executor, executrix, administrator, administratrix, trustee, lessee or guardian of the estate of a holder of a legal title. Each such person is bound to comply with the pr.ovision of this ordinance.

Person
The term person shall include any individual, group of individuals, firm, corporation, association, partnership or private entity, including a district, city, town or other government unit or agent thereof, and in the case of a corporation, any individual having active and general supervision of the properties of such corpora ti on.

Repair
To mend, remedy, renovate, or restore to a sound state after injury, deterioration, partial destruction or, to replace a septic tank, distribution box, leachfields or pipes connecting any of these, with no change in type of material, location, or area of an ISDS. B.3

Sanitary Sewage
Any human or animal excremental liquid or substance, any putrescible animal or vegetable matter, garbage and filth, including the discharge of water closets, laundry tubs, washing machines, sinks, dishwashers and the contents of septic tanks, cesspools or privies.

Septage
Septage is the solid or liquid materials which~are pumped from an ISDS.

Septic System
For the purpose of this ordinance a septic system is analogous to an individual sewage disposal system. Refer to section 2.3

Septic Tank
A septic tank is a water tight receptacle which receives the discharge of sanitary sewage and is designed and constructed to permit the deposition of settled solids, the digestion of the matter deposited, and the discharge of the liquid portion into a leaching system.

Waste Water
Waste water is analogous to sanitary sewage. Refer to section 2.9.

Waste Water Management District
A Waste Water Management District (WWMD) is all or a portion of one or more cities or towns where the proper operation and maintenance of an ISDS will be required in accordance with the provisions of an adopted ordinance, which defines the district.

Section 3.0 Applicability
This ordinance shall be applicable to every owner of premises that has an Individual Sewage Disposal System located within the designated boundaries of the Waste Water Management District.

Section 4.0 Waste Water Management District Boundaries
The Waste Water Management District will regulate the operation and maintenance of all ISDS within -(specify the entire municipality, portion thereof, or a regional district including all or portions of two or more municipalities.)

Pumping of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
The contents of all ISDS within the WWMD shall be inspected and as necessary pumped out (within 2 years of the effective date of these regulations and every three years thereafter or as required.) Such pumping shall be performed by municipal employees or private operators duly authorized by the WWMD.

B.5 95
Additional pumpings may be required as deemed necessary by the WWMD for the proper operation of an ISDS.

Septage Disposal
Septage or contents pumped from an ISDS shall be discharged at a waste water treatment facility approved by the Department of Environmental Management for this purpose. (NOTE: A WWMD shall make arrangements for the proper disposal of septage at an approved waste water treatment facility.)

Improper Discharges to ISDS
The discharge of rain spouts, basement sumps, or any other drains to an ISDS, with the exception of washing machines, is prohibited.

Acid and Organic Chemical Septic Tank Additives
The use or disposal of acids or any organic chemical solvents in an ISDS is prohibited, unless these can be sufficiently demonstrated to have a beneficial effect on ISDS operation and no adverse impacts to the environment.

Impervious Surf aces
The location of swimming pools, patios, driveways or other impervious Garbage disposal discharges to an ISDS shall be discouraged, since they add unecessary solids to an ISDS, and installed in accordance with DEM ISDS regulations.

7 Trees and Shrubs
The owner shall keep trees and shrubs at a minimum of 10 feet from the leaching area to keep roots from clogging or disrupting the ISDS.

Accessibility
The owner shall maintain ISDS so that it is accessible for inspection and maintenance.

Section 6.0 ISDS Inspections
This ordinance authorizes the passage of City, Town or WWMD officials or their desig:nees and septage haulers onto private property when necessary for the periodic inspection, maintenance and repair of ISDS.

Inspection Frequency
All ISDS shall be subject to an on-site inspection by the WWMD or its designee on an annual basis. More frequent inspections may be conducted if deemed necessary by the WWMD. All ISDS owners shall be sent a written notice of inspection schedules. B.7 97

Inspection Records
The WWMD shall maintain a record of each ISDS inspected including: Owner's name Street address or utility pole number Telephone number ISDS locHtion (NOTE: A rough sketch map will assist in locating the system in subsequent years)

Date(s) of previous maintenance
Notes on ISDS condition

Inspection Reports
A written report detailing the results of the inspection shall be kept on file with the WWMD. If the inspection reveals a malfunctioning ISDS, the owner shall be given a written notice indicating the probable cause and recommended corrective actions. A copy of said report shall also be sent to the DEM Division of Land Resources. The owner shall be given (30 days) to contact the DEM and apply for a permit to repair or replace the system, if necessary. A time limit to complete any needed repairs shall be established on a case by case basis.
If a system has not failed but requires pumping, the owner shall be required to show proof that the ISDS has been pumped within (30) days of the inspection. A receipt from the pumper shall constitute. adequate proof. water failure fund program could serve as a guide.) Section 10.0 Enforcement

Enforcement Responsibility
The WWMD shall be responsible for enforcing the provisions of this ordinance.

Notice of Violations
Any owner of an ISDS determined to be in violation of these regulations will be issued a written notice explaining the nature of the violation, required actions, a reasonable time frame for compliance, and the possible consequences for noncompliance.

Hearing
Any owner receiving a written · notice of violation shall be given an opportunity, within a reasonable time frame, for a hearing before the WWMD to state their case. If the evidence indicates that a violation has not occurred, the WWMD shall revoke the notice of violation. 100 B.10

Penalties
Any person neglecting or refusing to comply with a written notice of violation issued under the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than $500 per violation. Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.
(NOTE: A WWMD could correct a serious violation of this ordinance and place a lien on the violators property to recover the costs for any necessary pumping, repairs, and/or the replacement of an ISDS determined fto be in violation following the procedures of Section 10.2 and 10.3.)

Section 11.0 Severability
If any 'Provision of this ordinance or any rule or determination made hereunder, or application hereof to any person, agency, or circumstances is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance and its application to any person, agency, or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. The invalidity of any section or sections of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance. The petitioner's reliance on Wood is misplaced. Regulation SD 2.16 merely sets forth "minimum" requirements for the construction of septic systems which are to be located on property adjacent to an intertidal waterway. Clearly the intent of chapter 131 was to grant municipalities the option of providing additional restrictions concerning the construction of individual waste-water facilities. It was, therefore, the perogative of the town of South Kingstown to create more restrictive requirements, such as the 150-foot setback regulation set forth in section 308. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the trial court upholding the validity of section 308.

~
The petitioner next argues that the trial court erred in holding that it had the burden of proving "unnecessary hardship" in order to obtain the variance. We agree.
In order to determine whether petitioner sustained its burden of proof before the zoning review board, it is necessary to determine what is the appropriate standard of proof. The burden is dependent upon the nature of the relief sought. We have previously distinguished between three types . of relief which are commonly available in certain circumstances. They are a variance, a deviation, and an exception.
When a landowner seeks to use the land for a purpose not ordinarily permitted, a variance must first be obtained. To obtain a variance, one must satisfy the "unnecessary The type of relief sought in the case at bar is more akin to a deviation than to a true variance. This is because petitioner seeks relief from a setback requirement of a permitted use. The property is zoned for single-family dwellings. The petitioner seeks to build a single-family dwelling on the lot. Certainly the zoning board envisioned wastewater facilities as an accompanying permitted use on property zoned residential. Therefore, ()etitioner was not required to demonstrate total deprivation of all beneficial use of the land in order to obtain relief. Reynolds v. Zoning Board of Review of Lincoln, 96 R.I. 340, 191 A.2d 350 (1963). Rather, petitioner needed only to demonstrate "that the effect of such enforcement (would) amount to something more than a mere inconvenience." Rozes v. Smith, 120 R.I. at 519, 388 A.2d at 819.
Clearly petitioner has met its burden of proof. The construction of any singlefamily dwelling requires an accompanying means of sewage disposal. Because section 308 C.5 106 totally bars placement of such facilities on the premises at issue, enforcement of the ordinance effectively operates to preclude petitioner from building a house. We believe that this deprivation amounts to more than a mere inconvenience as a matter of law. We therefore believe that the trial court erred in denying petitioner relief. 1 For these reasons we need not address the other issues raised in the petitioner's brief.
The petition for certiorari is granted, the decision of the Superior Court is quashed, and the case is remanded with instructions to grant the petitioner's request for a variance. Inc. must be granted an exemption from the 150-foot setback since they were eligible for a "deviation" of the zoning setback requirement. As stated in the Supreme Court decision, a deviation can be granted to a property owner who is seeking "relief from zoning restrictions governing a permitted use, such as setback requirements." Since the town established the construction of a home and an ISDS as a permitted use, the plaintiff was eligible for a deviation when a "mere inconvience" (the preclusion of building a home) was demonstrated.
The key words in this decision are "permitted use." If, for example, the town had established the construction of an ISDS within a 150 foot setback from a waterbody as a prohibited use that would only be allowed. as a special exception, the court more than likely would have reached a different opinion.
A special exception is similar to a deviation in that it pertains to the relaxation of area and setback requirements. The major difference being that the granting of an exception requires one to prove that neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare, and morals. If Gara Realty Inc. were required to seek relief from the 150 foot setback requirement by means of an exception rather than a deviation, substantial docu~entention would have had to be provided to prove that the proposed ISDS would not be a public health or safety problem.
The burden of providing sucn evidence is clearly . more difficult than demonstrating a "mere inconvience" as is the only requirement to obtain a deviation.
The Town of Narragansett, recently adopted a new zoning ordinance which establishes more stringent criteria for the location and construction of an ISDS. This was accomplished by establishing different overlay districts that prohibit the use of an ISDS within 200 feet of certain coastal waters and in areas with a high watertable. An ISDS would only be permitted in these areas through a special exception.
A "High Watertable Limitations Overlay District" composed of areas in which the watertable,is within three feet below the surface 1 of the ground for significant periods of the year was established and identified by soil types that were mapped as part of a town 1 The DEM has this same requirement but will grant approval, via an applicant appeals procedure, if the watertable is within two feet below the ground surface.
C.7 108 environmental inventory. Within this overlay district ISDS are listed as prohibited uses that would be allowed only as a special exception pending a site plan review, an approved DEM ISDS permit and the conformance with designated town development standards.
A "Coastal Resources Overlay District" which encompasses an area within 200 feet of a coastal feature prohibits all uses and only allows certain uses as special exceptions providing compliance with town development standards. An ISDS is not permitted even as a special exception, within 200 feet of certain coastal waters. For more specific information regarding these overlay districts refer to the Town of Narragansett's Zoning Ordinance.
In conclusion, it is apparent that municipalities can require more stringent requirements than the DEM ISDS Regulations. However, specific procedures must be closely followed in doing so.        till a pn 111P11 tli ha ' i' fur i11it1 ;tl 4 )l';11 ' "' tiiL' 1 \ utht1ri t~ ;111d 11ritll'11 i11t n the h1111d i"uc· ;it X' ; per \c-; 1r l"• r 20 \l«lr' i lc-g ;d, ,ll'c'l 'llllilllt'.. 1\ uthlll'lly "" iCL'. a11J h1111J l'llUll'L' l i J.'\ PREF ACE Ou r soc iety has always prided itse lf on bei ng conce rned with c le anl iness and order. T his trad it ion has give n increased attent io n to the qu alit y of the environment durin g the past SO years . with the momentum in creasin g considerahly during the past 20 years.
State and nationa l legis lati on e nac ted durin g thi s period ha s stated the co lllmitllle nt to curtai ling the polluti on o f th e land, ai r. and wa ter. In add ition, State De partme nt s of En vi ro nme ntal Reso urces , such as the Pennsy lvania Departme nt of Environmental Reso urces. and the Federal Environmental Pro tec ti on Agency have been es tab li shed . Through legis latio n and these organizatio ns, state and federal govcrn lllcn ts ha ve increased th eir capahility to provide organization . guidance. and tech ni ca l and fina ncial assis tance to loca l gove rnments in th e effort to improve the quality of the e nviron me nt.
Local governme nts face a number of probkllls, sewage trea tmen t be in g a maj or one . in their attempts to cu rtai l pollution at the local level . The benefit to soc iety is en hanced by the acc umul ative correc ti ve steps taken by the I near people . A lllajor nee d of small pop ul ated colllmu nities is to iden tify and de ve lop tech· ni c:1ll y and financiall y fea >iblc sewage treatment systems.
l3 oth the puhli c and private sectors have hecn searching fo r ways to lllCe t this nee d .
This publica tio n foc u>es on >ome alternati ve se wage treatment sys te ms and di sc usses cos ts of different sys tClll > ha sed on size of population' served. The in tent is to provide ideas. approaches . and informati on that may be useful to loca l govern ments and th eir citizens in their effort s to establi sh approp ri ate sewage treatm ent systems . A glossa ry of terms precedes the tex t fo r the convenience of th e reader. GLOSS A RY ALTE RNAT IVE SE WA GE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS. These systems arc "a lternati ve to" sta nd ard co ll ect io n and tre atlllcn t sys tems whi ch work through gra vi ty fl ow sewers th roug hout the entire sys tems . with occasional lift-pump stati ons where gra vi ty flow is not pos>i hle . and treatment sys tem> invo lving hig hl y mechanized equipment wh ich arc generall y labor and energy intcn, ivc .
BOND DEBT SERV ICE. Bond debt se rvi ce is th at part o f the annu al indebtedness of a municipalit y or muni cipa l Authority which is the res ult of hav ing to pay off a bond iss ue . llOND ISSUE . A bo nd issue is o ne means o f horrow in g a large sum o f mone y to pa y fo r costs incu rred in produ cin g a facility and p aring uff that money over a long or ex tended peri od of time . There are two fo rms o f bond issue which are of interest in thi s publication. ( I ) Since the 1930s mu ni cipal bond issues ha ve fi rst hcc n rated hy two New York ha>cd firms. and then ha ve been so ld o n the open market by New Yor k ha sed bonding houses. Thell: arc tw o major rc,ul ts of this nati onwide lllude of di >tribu ti on. One re~ult is that th e denomin ations of th e bond~ ha ve to be at le as t $ 1.000 and the oth er is that in ord er to make the bond issues competitive with other fo rm s of large ca pital in ves tments . bo nds ha ve to pa y a rate o f int er-e> t competitive wi th those other fo rm s of large ca pital investment. (See puhlications cited in the reference sec ti on of thi s pape r .) ( 2) The seco nd form of bond issue is a " local" hond issue. iss ued hy the municipalit y or by th e muni cip al Authority in small de nominati ons. and offe rs interest rates competiti ve with what is avai lable at smaller le vels of in,e>tm en t. This means th at indi viduals . local ba nks. and savings and loa n orga ni zatio ns ca n buy th e>e types o r bo nd iS>UCS . Both t} pes of bond i~ sues share in common th e fact th at th e municipality or the municipal A uth ority. in ei th er case . becomes legally re> po n>ihle for levy in g rate s of use r charges which at th e v..:ry n1inimum cover the an nu al bond debt service .
BOND ISSUE COUNSEL. A bond issue counse l is a person who arranges for the bond iss ue . This person makes contact with bond ratin g firms and fi rms which fl oat bonds on the ope n market. It is important to no te that the bond rnunse l fee is ge nerall y step-wise . As of 1980 the range is a $3,000 charge fo r any bond iss ue up to $25 .000. and a charge of $15 ,000 to $17,000 fo r bond iss ues from $25,000 up to $7 million . CLEAN WATE R ACT OF 1977 (PL 95-217) . The Clean Water Act is that piece of Federal le gislati on which , among many other thin gs, throu gh financial incentives encourages the develop ment of alternative and innovative tec hnologies to impro ve the efficiency and lesse n th e costs of sewage collection and treatment fa cilities. 123 CO MBINED TEC HNO LOGY (CT). C ombined techno logy is the term coi ned in thi s paper fo r a strate gy bein g considered by the Departme nt of Environmental Re sources fo r putting toge th er different sewage faci lity t ec hn o l ogie~ or add ing a new ' ewage faci lit y tec hno logy in order tu meet th e se wa ge treatment needs of an area.
CO MM UNITY l>F.VEl.OP~lF.NT WORK . Communit y dc vcl op111c nt work in chi ' cont ex t mean > in vo lvin g ci ti1.ens fro m the ~tart in the pruce's of planning and producing a se wage faci lit y th at will meet their needs. Amo ng oth er outcomes , good community deve lopment work red uces the number o f legal battle s with the A uth orit y or municipality a nd hence may ultimate ly red uc e the cos t of the facili ty.
CONST RUCT ION COSTS . Co nstru cti on cos ts incl ude th e cos t of labor and materia l inv o lved in producing. in thi s case . a co ll ecti o n and/o r treatment sys tem. or more ge neral ly. a sewage facility techn o logy for a given area .
IJ El'i\R I Ml:N'I OF ENV IRO NM l· . N I Al. RESO URCl' S ( DER) . The Penn sy lva nia Department of E nvironmental Re so urc es i> a cat>ine t-le,·t' I age ncy wi th a hroad lcgi>lative mandate to deal wi th many of Pcn n,y lvania 's e nviro nmental pruhle llls. Among the ta >b of th i' Oepartme nt is carryi ng out nati onal clea n water goa ls wi th in Penns ylva nia . All ~cv.agc faci lit y moni es re lea >c d through OER and EP 1\ arc for e lim inatin g puhlic health prohlc111' a nd improvi ng the quality of water in Pcnn'.'' hania. not for hnus ing dcn:l11pment purpn>es . DES IGN COSTS . T hi > refers to th e CO\ [ en tai led in des ignin g a fa c ilit y to meet a rn n11nun it y'' needs. in partirn lar . ta iloring a tec hno logy to th e soil. slope . housin g. and rn nfigurati onal constraints. among man y other conside rati ons . l'NV IR ONM l:Nl ,\l. l'ROIH' ll () N A\ d:N( y CE l' i\) . The United Sta tes E nvironmental Protecti on Agency is th e fede ral or!!a ni7.ation which ha' heen empowe red hy Conµr e'' th rougli th e Ex· ..:cu ti ve Branch to r..: gulate l;1c l<>r'> whi ch l1a vc an impac t on th e human e nviro nment in the Uni ted State s . FA CTO RS AND COSTS. O ne way o f ana lyzi ng any orga ni 1.ation is to loo k at it in t e r m~ of th e facto rs in vo lved in producing >o me facility or se rvice. and th ese fa ctors have cos ts associated with th em .
FARMER'S HOME ADMINISTRATION (fMHA) . FmHA is part of the U .S . Department of Agri culture . Of intere st here is th e fact that FmHA has monies avai lab le on the state leve l to loan to muni cip alities interested in de ve lopin g se wage facilities.
FEAS IBILITY STUDY . A feasibility stud y is a means of ga ining a ballpark estim ate o f wha t a se wage fa cilit y might cost a mun icipa lit y. GRINDER PUMPS . A grinder pump is designed to grind up all of the solids suspe nded in liquid from a house hold. and under pressure, pump this Ouid into a collecting line .
LOW-COST TREAT MENT SYSTEM . A low-cost treatment system would be low-cost from th ree points of vie w: from the point of view of co nstructi on. from the point o f view of energy used in runnin g th e syste m, and from th e poi nt of view of fewer man-h ours required to run the system .
MUNtCIPAL AUTHOR IT Y. A municipal Authority is an orga nizatio n whose powers and responsibilities are clearl y stated below. It is important to note th at a muni cipal Authority's powers <lo not exceed th ose of the municipality which empowers it, but that once created th e municipal A uth orit y, while being re sponsive loca lly. is like all other forms of local gove rnme nt -a creature of the state subjec t to regulation by the state .
ON-LOT MANA<JEME NT SYSTEM (0 LMS ). Thi s i~ a type of technology whic h has as its genera l goal s creating sound on-lot sewage systems and ensuring th at a new ly created on -lot sewage system or existing systems are properly maintained. It of necessity in vo lves a me ans of enforcing standards of build ing and maintenance .
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . Generally referred to as 0 and M rnsts. these are the costs incurred by the muni cipali ty or municipal Authority rel ati ng to runn ing the fa c ilit y and keeping it running. These costs int.:lude the costs of a facili ty operati on. costs of service charges . and contin ge ncy costs co vering the breakdown of machinery . and so fo rth. PLANN ING COSTS . Planning costs in a narrow sense inc lude the costs of securing the financial package needed to finance a projected fac ilit y. as we ll as what arc termed preapp li cation costs.
PRE-Al'PLlcA·110 N. Most existing federa l and state age ncies require the municipalit y or Auth ori ty to file papers termed pre-application papers. Pre-application is a way of notifyin g an age nc y that a municipality is interested in sec urin g fundin g from that agency and that the municipality, in effect, is aware of the paperwork in vo lved in secu rin g that funding.
PRESSURE PUMPS. A press ure pump is a way of taking liquid runoff from a sep ti c tank or what is termed a primary se ttling tank and pumping th at Oui<l or liq uid , under press ure, into a co llec tor pipe.
PfUMARY Sl'TTLING TANKS. A prima ry settl ing I.ink (or a so lid retainer tank or a solid settl in g tank ) is a way of separating solid materials from li4uid materials co min g out of a residence . Ge nerall y. thi s type of tank ha' tu he pumped periodically to remove th e se ttled so lids.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY . This is a lega l term whi ch refer s. in th is case. to th e municipa lit y secu rin g a pa thw ay fo r layi ng the pipes it needs to create a co lle ctio n system for sewage. The'c righ ts-of-way ge nerall y in vo lve an case me nt (ri gh t of ' pecific use) on th e parL·e l of land from any househ older or property ow ner who i> in the pathway of the pipe>. SETS ll'Ct1No1.oc;v . /\ Sewage Efflu en t Technology Sy~tem <SETS) tech no logy is a genera l way of referring to th ose technologies whic h treat sewage efnuent somew here at or near the point of departure of the effluent from the resi de nce . as opposed to having processi ng or treatment occur onl y at >ome remote locati on. The three exa mple ' of SETS tec hn ologies considered here are the on-lot management syste m. the sewage efflue nt co lle ction and treatment system . and the combined techno logy system. The on-lot management sys tem treats the efflue nt nea r the residence. The Sewage Effluent Collection and Treatment Syste m. o r SECTS te chno logy, has an ini ti al processing and/or separation at the 'oun:c . /\ nd the Con~ine d Tec hnology i> merely taking one or the oth.:r in conj un ction and creating a combined tec hno log y .
SEWA GE EFFL UF.N r COL.l. EC I IO N ·\N il rREAT -Ml' NT svs·t l' M o R SECTS 1 FC1t N01.oc;y . Thi> technolog y is ;1 form of SETS T ech no logy in th at it in volves ei th er 'eparati ng the ~o l i d s from the wa,te wa ter at th.: >ourcc. or grinding the eflluent into a li4uid form at the source . The effluent can th en be pumped through sma ll er diameter pipes or run on a gra vit y Jlo w basis through >mailer diameter pipes to treatment sys tem s. which can he la ho r and e nerg y intensive because th ey arc de aling ju>t with the Jluid . STEP 1.
Step I refers to Step I monic' in th e E PA planning process . Thc ' c monic' arc plannin g mo nies which EP/\ makes av<1il ;1hli.: through D E R . rcimhu1» ing the municipality for 7 5 perce nt of th e planning co' t'-STE P 11.
Step II monie> arc 111oni c> made availab le again by EPA through DER to help cover th e costs of designing a >ystcm and wi ll he either 75 pe rcent. if a standard treatme nt sy> tem is designated. or c;m go as high as 85 percent. if alterna ti ve or inno vative >cwage facilit y tec hn o logies are dc >igncd . s rt'P 111.
Step 111 refers to nwnic' made a vai 1able for building a 'cwagc facili t) . EP/\ wi ll make available. through D ER . 75 perce nt fo r a standard co llection and treatmLnl facili ty or 85 percent fo r any pa rt or the "'hole of a system which is ei ther alt ernati ve 11r inno\·ative . US FR Cll ARc; 1-.s. /\ L"cr charge is the co' t tn the user of a service . /\ u'cr charge could he p:1id on a dail y. weekly . JJHHllhl y . nr a11nu a l basis ; hut is charged on the ha'i' nf u'c . With 'cwage faci liti es . user charges arc gcnc ral y fi gured o n a mo nthl y or a hi -monthl y basis . ha>cd upon the nwnie' needed by the /\ut lwn ty u1 meet it > total expcn' e'-WA SI l·WA I l·R. \.V a, tc w:1t cr i' the li4 ui d pa rl of the cl fluent from ;1 re'ldCJJCC . ~RODUCTION oes yo ur co mmunity have a residen-11 sewage disposal problem ' ? (Are onl systems failing? Is there any raw wage in road guners ? Has the De-1rtment of Environmental Resources )ER ) cited the community for pollutg the so i Is and waters ' 1 ) ·o yo u consider the soil characteris-: s of your comm unit y unsuitable for 1-lot sys tems '' 1 0 you consider yo ur commun ity too iiall to ha ve some form of conve nonal co llection and treatment system ir domestic sewage? re you looking fur a less expensive ay to expand sewage di~posal service meet ex istin g needs in yo ur co mmuity?
you answered yes to any of these questions. th en yo ur community is ng hundreds of small Penn sy lva nia munities that have inadequate sewage ment systems. Because standard ity tlow se wers with lift pump stas and co nve ntional treatment plants be yo nd the price range of most comities of 3.500 or under. many suc h nnunities ha ve not serio usl y orga ni zed ffo rt to so lve their sewage problems. ddi tion. some o f these commun ities not be familiar with the municipal hority. which is one orga nizational ns for planning . financing. designing, ding, and operating different sorts of lic facilities, including sewage facili-. ne of the 1977 Clean Water Act 's 95-217) major goa ls is providing ibility in hoth technology and funding elp deal with such problems . ln Pennania thi s goa l includes the developt of a Rural Wastewater Strategy.
th e promi se of affo rdabl e sewage fay techno logies for small commun i-. The cri tic al e lement in providing ern and other technologies to rural munities is .fi111111cia l feasibilit y: specally. the ability of a community to fice a new sewage disp o~a l sys tem through monthly ch arge s to the user of th e service.
These user charges are Jeri ve d from four factors: • planning costs • design costs • construction costs • ope ratio n and maintenance cost s The first three are generally written into a bond issue which is paid off bj' a part of the use r charges: the re111ai nder of the use r charges paying for ope rati on and maintenance of the facility over time.
The complexi ti es of the four factors have influence d the hi stori ca l evo lution of the municipal Au th ority. A municipal Au thority is created hy thc governi ng hody o f a municipalit y or municipalities . It pro vide s an organizational means of helping the municipality or muni cipalities handle the da y-by-da y . year-by-year practical detai ls of planning. prod ucing. financing. running. and maintaining sewage facilities. The cost as~o c i ate d with providing a facility wo uld he the ~a m e whether a municipalit y ( tow11~h ip or borough) or a municipal Auth orit y does the job. The Authority, ho we ve r. ha s the advantages of ( 1) impro ving chances of outside funding. (2) in sulatin g th e project from electo ral politics , and (3) protecting the municip alit y from leg;tl sui ts.
To berter undcrstand the entire process of developing a sewage treatment sys tem. and to be able to estimate roug hl y thc final co~ts that wou ld be reflected in user charges o f so me spec ifi c alternati ve sewage fa cilit y tec hno logie s. we pre sent in this publication th e following information : • Descriptions of three types o f sewagc facilit y tech no logies and th ei r es timated costs. which as of 1980 ma y he lega ll y and financially feasible fo r the small commu nit y. • Present factors and costs related to establi sh ing th e muni cipal sewa):!e Auth orit y for each of the thrce types of techn ology . • Provit.lc factors/costs halanu: ~heel fur the muni cipality that might wis h to 125 co nsider the alternatives we are prese nting .

THE PENNSYL Y ANIA RURAL SEWAGE FACILITY STRATEGY
The Pennsy lva nia Rural Sewage Facilit y Strategy is an ap proac h to de ve lopi ng ant.I maintaining improvements in curren t and alternati ve sewage treatment sys tem s fl'r the lesse r populated rural communities of Penns ylva nia . Re siden tial sewage repre sen ts the major sewage di sposa l probl em in rural <ircas. The alternati ve technologic' in thi~ puhli c<ition all ce nter around v.hat i' cal led the Sewage Ef'tluent Treat111rnt Sys tem or SETS tec hno logies. A SETS tech nology separates the tre<itment of re-;idential sewage into two compo nent ' : first. into th e treatment or the slud ge which generall y accumulates in ~eptic tank s (cal led se ptagc). and second . th e trea tment of the wa -.1cw;1t er or dilu ent which is thc liquid run -oil rrom th e ' C!' tic tank . The grea test enviwnmerll :tl dan ge r co mes not from the sludge. hut from th e efflu ent. There arc three h:.' . . . . ic l) PC ' o r SETS technology. Th e fir~l i-, -. imply a mean s of upgrading ;ind mai ntainin g 011lot ~ew: 1 ge ')s tern s . We c tll thi ' the On-Lot Manag:: 111 e11t Sys te 111 tOLMSJ techno logy. The 'cco nd tech nology i-; a Sewage Eflluent Col lection and Treatment Sys tem o r SECTS tech nol ogy. and the third technolog y is a co mhination o f the two of th e111. or comhined tec hnol Dg) (CT).
The OL lS techno logy in \o l ve~ m:1k-i11 g su 1e th at the t.lrai11age fields arL' proper ly designed or redc-,i g ned, huilt. and maintained . Th e OLMS tcchnolon h:1' the pote ntial to he so in expen si,·e a way fpr a sma ll community to deal with ih Jpm c~ti e sewage problems th at deb t ma y be qui ckl y pail! off. mak in g it pm sihlc for the muni cipa lit y to handle the prohlc111 without foundin,l! an ;\uth ori ty . The cri tical i~s ue in any ca~e is the manage 111 enl llf th e OLMS techn o lngy and th e qu alit ) of its technology and tec hni ca l ass istan ce.
The SECTS tec hno logy is a co ll ec ti o n syste m of s mall di a me te r pipe s w hi c h tra ns mit the e fflu e nt fro m th e res ide nti a l sep ti c ta nks to o ne o r mo re low -cost trea tment systems suc h as the fo llowing: • community conve ntio na l subs urface drainage ficlu. • a recirculating sand filter, • a contrac ted co nnec ti o n with a no th e r munic ipality's sewage treatme nt syste m , • a lagoo n (w ith spray irrigation, s tream di scharge), • co mmunity elevated sa nd mounds, • intermittent sa nd filter.
The effluent can be conveyed to th ese systems by gravi ty flow , a grinde r pump , o r throu g h a low pressure pump syste m , know n as a STEP syste m fo r Se ptic Tank Effluent Pump .
The principl e adva ntages of the SECT sys te m, whether grav ity fl ow or gri nde r/press ure pump, a re that constructi o n costs may be cut dramaticall y because the co llec tion pipes may be placed in shallow excavations. Low pressure sewe rs can follow the contour of the la nd just below th e frost line. a nd can be constructed o f s ma ll dia meter plastic pipes.
The effluent treatment systems a re desig ned to be low cost, low energy use, and low labo r intensive. Th e municipality that uses the SECT tec hno log ie s, particularl y if it uses pressure pumps or g rinde r pumps, has to make sure that these pumps a re fun ctioning prope rl y. In s ho rt , o perati on a nd maintenance of th ese systems invo lves adequ a te ma nageme nt and technica l informatio n .
It is importa nt to note that both the OLMS anu the SECT tec hnolog ies ha ve to be carefully constru cted , operated, a nd ma inta ined . Bo th types of systems ha ve to ha ve th e septic ta nk s pumped out o n a re g ular bas is . In addition , the use of the CT (comb ina tion of OLMS and SECT technolog ies) may be the better system for the lesser popul ated areas with the ir combination of sparse a nd cluster developments.

a. Cost Factors and Ranges for the On-Lot Management System (OLMS Technology)
The OLMS technology is part of a ma nage ment system to insure th a t on-lot syste ms a re properly ins talled, evaluated, permitted, a nd maintained . Such a techno logy could also include the capacity to help home owners purc hase/finan ce bo th individu al a nd community on-lot systems. An OLMS technology managed by 4 a muni c ipa l Authority whose powe rs were co nfe rred by the proper loc al o rdina nces co uld purchase a nd le ase bac k o nlot sys te ms to a home ow ner. * This approach has particular importance in low inco me rural areas. On -lo t sewage systems are th e most commo n method of di s po~ing and treating residential sewage in rural areas . financin g th ese is freque ntl y a problem for low inco me famili es.
Such a tec hno logy wo uld have minim al cons tru c ti o n cos ts. Its majo r costs could be in the fo rm of: • salaries for m a nage me nt and field s taff, • securing techni ca l in fo rmati o n abo ut so il type s a nd appropriate se wage syste ms for repl ac ing or improvin g existin g syste ms that were no t functi o ning properly . • th e initial planning and de sig n of the specific tech nical system . With any SECT tec hno logy. since prope rt y will be ow ned with so me le ve l of indebtedness, a nd easements will be needed for routing pipe s, a muni cipal Authority may be the first c ho ice of o rga ni zati o na l means for loca l gove rnment to deal with these impo rtant detail s (especia lly e minent domain and easements).
SECT systems use .a lternati ve collecti o n and tre a tment sys tems . The co llecti o n syste m takes the wastewater fro m primary se ttling ta nk s (generally septic tank s) o n residential lot s (see Fi g ure I) .
*The legal issues involved in the re latio nship be twe en the muni cipal Authority and the ownership o f the on-l ot sys tem are curre ntl y being studied and recommendat io ns are being considered .

126
That was tewate r trave ls throu g h s ma ll diameter plastic pi pes to plastic co ll ector pipes. ei ther by g ra vit y flow. o r unJc r pressure from a g rinde r o r pressure pu111p . Th e g rinder pump simpl y takes ho use ho lu sewage a nd grinds it to a liquid and pre ss ures it th ro ugh pipes . Wastewate r o r ground liquid sewage ca n flow throu j.! h th e~c pipes to any of a v;1ri c1y of Jil lcrc nl wastewater treatme nt systems (sec Fig ure   2) .
One treatme nt syste m is the u~e o f a sub-surface drainage fi e ld which coulu be located in suitab le soi ls o r o th er su itable material near a co mmunit y. A set of perforated pipes all ows the was tewate r to he treated by gro und filtration a nd bacterial ac ti o n, turning the so il s into a use ful treatme nt syste m (see Figure :1). A no the r trea tment syste m that coulu be used is th e reci rcu la tin g sa nd fil ter. Wa~tcwater is purified by being filt e red up to e ight ti mes throug h sand . a llow ing fo r natural bacterial action to clean the wastewater ~ufti cic ntl y to be discharged into a strea111 (sec Figure 4) . A n additi o na l al te rn ati ve treatment sys tem . ma rsh/po nu/ meado w treatment syste m ( Figure 5). ma y he the co mbination th at would be adap tab le to the condi ti o ns and needs o f some crn 11111unities. These are effecti ve and e . t re m cly inexpe nsive was tewa ter treatme nt syste111s requiring minimal la bor and elec tri c e ne rgy. Other syste ms may in c lude lagoo ning a nd land applicati o n th rough spray ing. or o ther syste ms of land app licati on.
The s ludge in th e sep ti c ta nk s will be pumped accord ing 10 a maintenance schedule as it wo uld in a ny on -lo t system . The SECT tec hno logy cos ts arc es timated on the ha~i ' of 75 10 200. 25(J to 450, a nd 500 to 1.000 r e~idence\. Th e collection sys te ms co uld flow into an alte rnative treatment syste111 per 75 to 200 residences . meaning an estima ted ave rage l . 3 . and 6 treatment syqem, . rough ly. pe r community cos tin g around $200 .000 . $500.000. and $ 1.000.000. respectively.

c. Cost Factors and Ranges for Combined Technology
A third alternati ve is simpl y an Authori ty whi c h combines both an O LM S a nd a SECT tec hno logy. Suc h a combi ned T ec hno logy (CT) cou ld be used hy a n Authority to so lve the rcsiuc ntial effluent prob le m . For e xa mple. so me areas of a township mi g ht be best se rved hy a s mal I di ame te r grav it y flow sys tem w hi c h i~ treated hy 111ea ns of. say. a re ci rc ulat ing sa nd filter, while o th e rs wo uld be he~t se rved by th e proper upg rading of a n o n- . :-;. ·~ _.,;._ .· .
.r: ~ ro lot system. Principally. thi s Combined Technology cou ld avoid miles and miles of intercepter and co llector sewers which would normally be constructed to join di spersed residential clusters. It is the cost of the collec ti on sys tem an<l not the treatment system that puts the price tag so high on se wage facilities . C o mbined Technology is almost.infinite in its possibilities. We will later use as an example 900 residences on a SECT system and I 00 residences di spersed enough to require an OLMS technology, or $ 1,000,000 in facility costs. Any township or borough or combination of to wnships and boroughs ma y by mutual agreement by law of the Commonwealth of Pennsy lva nia estab li sh a muni cipal Authority or a joint munic ipal Authority. Such an organization (referred to as the Authority) may ow n prope rt y and incur debt , and must do both to the end of being a "benefit to the people of the Commonwealth ."

COST ESTIMATES FOR
Once created according to law by th e municipal governing body, the Authority is an autonomou s organization in its abilities to use eminent domain and to fix user charges, but it is still a creature of the municipalities and the Commonwealth . For example. the municipal Autho rit y can <lo onl y that whi ch the local muni c ipal creating ordinances allow it to do in terms of the type and kind of sewage disposa l facility. The state Supreme Court has ruled that a municipal Authority is an agent and in strumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsy lvania. as are all sub-state unit s of loca l government.
The following is a li sting of the po we rs and responsibilities of the municipal Authority in Pennsylvania:* (a) To have an exis tence for a term of 50 years or as qualified by law ; generally the period of time required to pay o ff the bonded indebtedness should the mandatory limit of 40 years on the bond iss ue be exceedt:d. (b l T o sue and to be sued. *The Pen11sylvw1ia M1111icipaliry A 111/iuriries Acr and R elllfed Laws, 1979 10 (c) To adopt. use, and alter al will. a corporate seal. (d) To acquire. purchase. hold. lease as lessee. and use any fran chi se. property. real. personal or mi xe d. tangihl e or intangih le. or any intere st therein. which is to say to be abl e to hold a va ri ety o f property. (e) Acquire by purchase. lea se . or otherwise to con tract. empower , maintain. repair. an<l operate a project. ( I) To make by-laws fo r the man age ment and regulati o n o f its operation. (g) To appoint office rs . agencies. employees. and servants: to presnihe their duties and to fix their co mpensati o n. (h) To fix, alter. or change . charge and collect rate s and other charge s in th e areas se rved by its facility in order to pa y for the operation of the facilit y . (i) To borrow mone y, make and iss ue nego tiab le notes an<l bonds. (n) To carry out activi ties whi ch will promote the b u~in ess and general we lfare of the Authority to ca rry out the po wers granted to it by acts of the General Asse mbl y of th e Co mmo nwealth .
(o) Contract with any muni cipalit y or any publi c Authority on the terms deemed proper by the Authori ty for the co nstru ction an<l ope rati on o f an y project which is partl y in this Conunonwealth and partly in an adjoining place or state. (p) To make contracts to furni~h projec t se rvices with non-memhe r muni cipalities . (q ) To make contracts of in,urance. (r) To charge the property benefiting from being impro ved by a sewage facility fo r the cost o f construction of any sey.·er m~11n.
(s) To charge fo r the cos t of any sewe r or co nstruction according to the front foot rule . (t) To charge a tapping on fee whe neve r the ow ner o f any property co nnects such propert y with a sewage sys tem or H'llll'I" 111C1i11 cons tru cted by the Authorit y. (u) Publi c Utility Commission approval is required before th e Authority ma y institute proper proceedings to co nstruct a facility.
(v) T o appo int po li ce o fficer s who shall ha ve the same rights as an y other po lice officers in the Commo nwealth with re spec t to the property of the Authorit y.
Such an Authority u~e<l as a m ea n~ o f implement ing a ~cwa~e L.1cilit y would 13'2 ha \e the lo ll owing lile C)C k : I . Founding o f Auth (1 rit y a' a re , ult o t co nductin g fca~i hilit y ' tud ) -lir, t year 2. Planning and oh1aining lundi11glir't tlinnr gh fl>Urth \L'ar .I . De,ig n -'cco n<l tlm>u gh lo11 rth ) L':1r 4 . Co n, truc1i on -th ird th roug h 'e\e llt h ye ar 5. O perati o n and 111aintenance o f faL·ili t) under Auth ori ty -firth through h>rtieth ye;1r 6. l'a y111 cnt of Jehl -filth throu gh fortieth year 7. Return lo 111uniL·ip;ilit) (i L· ,) (a llL' r the ca ncellati on o r h1111Je<l in<lehte<lne"l -fifth throu gh forti eth yea r 8. /\legal 50-ye;ir life c)clc i' pr1l\ i<lcd in c 1'e the A uth ority L ·annot retire it ' Jehl in -W )Car' So me Au th oriti es have go ne to th e planning and <le~i g n qage and ha~e ' pent upwards of $30 .000 to SSO .OUO . nr il ) to find that the y have a de , ign that i' ll>U expensive to build . or ha\e had to redesig n to obtain out , i<le fundin g . O th ers have gone to co nstru cti on (~t age four) on ly to have delays and inflation at lc;1,t doubl e their e~timat e<l co, ts . makin g u'e r charge~ totally unacceplahle to the c lient s . C lea rl y. the cri tical pl>int i~ the lir>t st;1gc. A gl10J fea,ihility stud y will g1\·e at least a hall park e' tim ate of the co,ts o f ce rt ai n type' o f potentiall y al rnrd~1 h l e 'ewage facility technul ogies for the '111all community.
Ho w 111u ch J oe~ it Cll'I to round an Authority'! How mu ch.,... ill the po tentiall y allordahlc and wurkahlc \e\qgc t aci I ity technologies co,t'! The an,\\ er to the fir't qu est ion indi ca te\ . . . . . . hat \O rt Of ri'k' the muni c ipalit y will ha ve to ta ke 11ntil th ey fin a ll y ob tain a fca~iblc Je,ign . Th e seco nd will pnwi<le so me infcmnat iP n as to what the tow I co't range mi ght he.
A n /\uthorit y mi ght he form ed he f11 re the design is J o ne . Founding of ;111 Autho rit y or establi,hing ano ther appro priate orga ni zational arran ge ment indi ca te s a Ce rtain degree Of ~e riOU \ ne \\ o n the 0 p:1rt of the municipalit y or municipa li.tie ,. This action should he helpful in ohtainin;.: Federal (EPA). Swte . and F111HA fun<lin !,! fnr plannin g and Je'i!,!n. ,\l ·m. once the <leci~i o n ha ' hee n reache d to so lve sewage facility prohle1m. th ece art: an ex traordinary number of da y-to-J ay type Jetaib that should he as,igne<l io a specifi c perso n . Thi s per\on ~h ou ld he an indi vidual from the area. a puhli c-,piritcd indi vi dual who would he willing tn work for small co mpe ns ati on with the idea th at once the Au thorit y i~ in full 'w 111 g. and the facility is created. this person"s position could improve 1n both respon,ibility and income . He or she will_ he learning on the job, and thi s is a way ot c11t1i11M costs . The cost of founding an Authority. regardless of the system used, would be about th e same for the three technolo!.!ies . The cost of the technolo!.!ics -them selves (hence design. would va ry according to the number of users. the terrain, the regional or local labor costs and a variety of oth er factors. But we present cost ranges according to a pre -se t number of users . Therefore, we first discuss the cost of fou nding an Authority. Then we will pre se nt examp le s of an OLMS technology, a SECT technology, and a Combined Technology by roughly estimated costs. We then present cos t balance sheets which could serve as models (guides indicatin!.! estimated costs incurred) for th e muni~ipality interested in founding an Authority ant.I using one or more of the se te<.:hnolo!.!ies. thus helping to determine at least th~ financial fea~ibili ty of the project.* *Gi , cn 1h at ;1n Authority has hccn formed. the information tha t has evolved rrom a di sc ussion i"ol lowin!.! lhC approach !hat WC have outlined rnuld b~ uscd as pan or lhc pre -app licati on process for Federal and Stale monies. The tluee techn nlog ics presen ted ;ihovc ;ire prohuh/1· 1he least cost alternatives for sma ll co r;rnwnit ies an d should he considered in ~my kind or pre -application for Federa l and Swtc monies .
b. Some Important Factors and Costs in Founding a Mun icipa l Authority There are two hasic requirements of an y municipal Authority : (I) a puhlic interest must he serveu: and (2) the facility must pay for itself. The latter means that the revenues from running the facility must be enoul.! h to cover all expenses, such as any ren~vations. maintenance. and t_he principal and interest on the uebt Incurred .** We noted above in the life cycle o f the Au th ority that the first stage inc ludes founding the Authority and the feasihility study . The second stage includes planning and ohtai nin g ou tside funding . It is generally within the first and second stage. and at the end of the second stage in particu lar. that the bond issue is under consideration. The third stage. the desi gn stage. gives information as to what the ultimate cos ts o f the fac ility would be. The cut off points hctwccn sta ges an: not clear. there is so me overlappi ng of each stage by successive stages in the process o f o rgani zing . planning, financing. and developing the facilit y. The cost of the first three ' tal!e' as well as the actual construction of the sy,tem are major factors which arc huilt into the cost of the hondcd indebtedness. So. under the general notion of cm.t' in founJing a municipal Authority for a sewage facility. we have th e fo ll owinl! fa<.:tors: • the cos t of incorporating th e authorit y. * * Th e P1· 1111 .1 r/l ·r111it1 M 1111ici{'t1!irr .·I 111!1"1"ifi<'s Acr untl Rt'i1;retl l .t1 11·s. 1979. pp . 2 -~ • th e cmt of the kasihility ' tud y and pre -app li ca ti o n. • co't of de sig n. • costs for ri ghts -of-way. • the cost of the hond i'sue cpunscl .
These key factors in fuunding an t\uth o rit y can be c ross-rcfcre nceu with key re,ourccs needed to carry out each o ne of those mentioned helow: • cos ts o f engineering. • costs of legal coun sd. • costs of accounting. • costs of management.
Tahle I graph ic all y displays the cro, ,referencinl.! o f the ke y tasks and the key resources ~hy costs incurred in the firq four years of the life of an Authority. It is important to reali ze that most of the ..:o,ts. if not all the costs reflected in Tahlc I. arc written into the bond issue . This means that th e 'um total of expen,es which precede th e actual construction and use of the facilit y arc an i1ttporL111t part uf thL' t1•l:tl cos ts of producing the facility . ,\ny saving in the first three yea rs ca n pos,ihly mean lower user fee ,, fo r until the Authorit y ca n generate re' enue. it oper:1te' on money horrr111·ed at i nterc st. and that sum plus the interest i' written into th e principal of the hond is,uc.
An efficient way tP di sc u'' the c1i-t factors from incorporation o f the 1\ uthorit y to the de,ign and hond i" ue * i' 10 • The co't factPr e'tim;1t c' arc deri ,-cd ln 1n1 case -iudies we n 111ducted or the I j, c 'L'" at!e t\uthoriiics i11corpPr;1tcJ in l' e nn '~ }\·;111i;1 duri nt: the peri od 19 72 t<> l<J 79 . neering per se does not enter as a in incorporating the Authority. But 1eering is clearly a factor in the featy study. pre-application, and deand in the initial stages of running \uthority organization . .I Authorities have a board of directand some have a professional engi-( PE) to take care of running th e Auty for up to a three year period until ctual facility is built. Other Authoribring in a manager at the beginning 1 pan-time basis and the manager ;s with the PE. learni ng on the joh. Jme eng in eers wil l do a feasibility y and pre-application proposal and to he reimbursed at a later point in . In other situa ti ons . the engineer exto be paid immediate ly for these tions. in which c; 1~c the /\uthority o takc out a loan to reimbursc thc enr. In most c;iscs . the engineer does easibili ty and/or pre-application work c ll as the de sign work. Engineering ges for design apparently v;iry from 3 percent of the total cos ts of a comfaci I ity. For example. the engineerhargcs . includ ing a feasibility stud y $1 .3 million facilit y were $60.000. cti ng a less than 7 percent ch;irge. e in another case a $ 15.5 million fahad a greater th;in 7 perce nt cngiing charge for design and all the preication re4uirements and feasibility . Some of the basic lessons here are the less expensive the technology . ral l y speaking. the lower should be ngineering costs. A rule of thumb is u re of 7 pcrcent of total facility costs esign, and I 0 percent for design wul pplication work. Another suggcs ti on at the Authority have at least a panmanager employed interacting with rofession;il engineer, which see ms to lower the 7 percent figure. These iderati ons ;ire summari zed in Table  ngineering Factors and Costs.

osts of Legul Counsel
important to reali ze that municipal citors arc usually held on a retainer 111 1rni/11hle for le ga l needs. and that thi s incr does not generally include costs performing legal services suc h as in- Thc ba~ic costs of incorporatin g an 1\uthority in terms of a law yer <loing the papcrwork are aroun<l $200. If the potential boar<l happens to includc a laW)Cr. she/he might <lo it free of chargc. In thc ca~c~ we examined. costs varic<l from no charge to ;is high as $750 .
It is possible that there coul<l hc a law sui t filc<l imme<liatcl y hy a citi l cn challengin g the formation of a ~C\\Cr 1\uthority. The~c suits have hccn J.-1ww11 to run as high as $6.000 . Abo . an 1\ uthurit y can be forme<l under pres~urc from the state and the municipal Authorit y might co n~i<l cr this unjust ;inti choo'c to 'ue the stalc. Thcsc suits have hcen known to run as high a~ $35.000 to $-W.000 in lq:al cmts. Though suits arc not a co n1 mon practice with the cstahli~h111ent of evcry /\uthority. neverthclc's they do occur on occasion .
Legal co~ts genera ll y do not figure int o the fca,ibility stu<ly. pre -application. or the design co~ts . However. whe n th e dcign has been crcatc<l ;inti righh -of-way havc hccn <lcclarc<l. it is possible that suits ma y he brought hy ci ti 1.cns agai n~t th e Aut hority wit h rcgar<l to the right-ofway . These. hy la w. l'an co~t a ma xi111u111 of $500 per suit. A ci ti ze n could abo c laim an e4uity suit against the Authority. fo r the citizen might claim that she/he is 134 ------ In aJ<lition. if a new or<linanc e ha' to he written to empower tht' Autlwrit~ ll1 c111rloy a ,·crtain typc nr tel· i111l 1 log~. th e or<linance can run around S.175 .

. Cos1 . 1 · of M1 111age1111•111
There 'ce m s to be a cri ti cal di vidin g poin t in th e l ife of an Authori ty. That i .... the tim e from th e pcri oJ whe n th e A uth orit y is first fo nneJ until the facility is n111 -' truct cJ. anJ from its first hcing u ... eJ tn ge nerat e inco m e to pa y off the dcht. The fir't pha'e ha\ the Authorit y in a po,i t ion whe re it canno t genera te revenue' from the facility hecau ... e the facilit y doe sn ' t ex ist. Therefore. the Au th ori ty i' opera ting o n borrowe d mone y. At thi s point. th ere are two basic optio ns. Runn i ng the Au th ori ty t:a n essentiall y he turneJ c"c r to a professional engi nee r until the faci lit y is cons tructed (an d income generated l or th e Au thorit y hoarJ ca n hire a m anager either part -o r full-time to c1\·cr ... ce all phases o f th e de velop ment of th e faci l i ty . Most Au th ori t ies ha ve opted for a parttim e m anage r until the facility i' co nstru cte J anJ th ere is an office budge t reflecting m anageme nt co, ts . r\ ' amp le prefacilit y hud!,!et is g i ven in T:1hle 11 i n Appcndix A. ·1 hc C"-Cnti al differen ce hetween th e hudge t re fkc t i ng the fir ' t 1'h~1 ,c (pre -fa c i lit y) anJ the huJ!,! Cl refleuin g th e ' ec o nd phase (after facili ty i' co nstru t: teJl i' that th e second pha'c reflec t\ all of the fac to r s whic h :.ire i n volve J in running an Aut hori ty. which includes the cn;, t... of c harg in g the user . Suc h a bud ge t is reflected in Tahlc 14 in Appen d i x A a' a samp le hudgct of a con ventional sewage facilit y se r v ing 1-Hl re siJence s ( note the annual electric hill anJ the hornugh ... ubsid y 1) .
It i' important to po int o ut that th e hu nd cou n~el fee is gene rall y qep-wi,e . That i s. we fo und a $3.000 c harge for an y hond iss ue up to $25 .000 and a c harge of $ 15 .000 to $ 17 .000 for ho nd i" UC\ •if $25 .000 up to $7 mi II icH1 .
Managc 111 enl n rn si deration' arc ' u111-111arize d i n Tahlc 5: Co'h of Management. Figure 6 di ,p lay ' 111a11;1!:!c1111.: nt costs (the factors being legal, accounting. authority office, and bond counsel) in terms of these costs be ing paid as part of the bond iss ue .

User Charges
The user charges are made up of three components: ( l) The bond issue payment must be made by the Au thori ty on an annual basis anJ is therefore Jiv ided up under use r charges in that year. These arc calculated here on the basis of facility design and construction costs and first 4 years of Authority start-up costs. (2) The costs of the ope ration and mai ntenance of the facility. (3) The costs of the operation of the Authority offices. Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 present the bond issue aspect of user charges in terms of the firs t phase Authority cost (lega l work, accounting, and management). bond counse l, and enginering costs written into the bond issue. We present these in the context of faci lities costing $ 100.000. $250,000, $500.000, and $ 1 .000.000 . Table 6 wou ld encompass the OLMS system serving users, Tables 7 and 8 a SECT technology, and Table l 0 a Combined Technology .
The costs of operation and maintenance of the facilities disc ussed in Tab les 14 6. 7, 8, and 9 ca n only be roughly estimated on the basis of their low labor and energy uses. Once an OLMS technology is in place, it would require annual inspection and appropriate equipment maintenance. The SECT technol ogy requires in spection of pumps and periodic cleanout of the septic tanks and pipes, as we ll as some inspec tion and maintenance work on the waste water treatment sy~ tem(s) used .
Given the relativel y small number of residences involved in all but the 1.000 res idence Combined Technology. we recommend that the municipality consider that one person be hired to run the office and carry out the inspection work. It is possible to form a cooperative arrangement with the local municipal Sewage Enforcement Officer. Repairs can he done by that person anJ/or on contrac t. A sample budget is provided in Tab le 10 for the system presented in Tables 6. 7. and 8 and one for Tab le 9 in Table 11 .
The strateg y we employ in this publication to minimize user charges. while at the same time providing appropriate sewage treatment and environmental protection, is to hold down the overall costs 13 6 which will ultimately be retl ec.:ted 111 lower user charges by means o f: • Lowerin g the overa ll amount of money that has to he horrowcJ. hence the ove rall amount of money on which interest ha s to he paid. by lowering design and construction L 'O't'. • Lowering the overall opcr;1ti11 g a nd 111ai 11 tc11 ;111cc cosh of tlt c hc il it y. • Seeking 111a xi111um outside Fedcr;tl and/or State funding .
.e .: a. On-lot 111anagemc111 sy, tcm s (0LMSJ. h. Sewage ellluen l co llection and tre atment system (SECTS) . c . A combination of the technol ogies u,ed in the two sy-;iems (CT\. D etermine and establish the org aniza ti onal .rrangement that wi II meet the need: i.e .: a. A department within the local gove rnment. b. 1\ 111uni cipa l Au th ori ty. c. ;;... joint muni cipa l Au1hc>ri1 y that i ncl udes the participating muni cipaliti es. d. u,c the material in thi s publication a' a guide in c'tabli,hing the 'ystem and organ -i1.a1ional arrangement to provide the ";rv-