A schematic of a drainfield-based septic system, commonly used in southern Maryland.
Imagine if one of our major automakers proposed a model line of gas-wasting, air-fouling vehicles that used 60-year-old technology. Unthinkable of course; but it's little different than what homebuilders and developers propose when they plan most new rural subdivisions.
Their outdated model lineup combines sprawl development a hugely wasteful use of land with septic tanks, the highest polluting form of waste treatment largely unimproved for more than half a century.
Proposals to change this most lately Maryland Gov. Martin OMalleys attempt to ban most development on septic tanks are met with predictable cries from builders and land speculators. Housing will become unaffordable, the economy will crash, development will scream to a halt, they say. Their cries remind us of the auto industry-s doom-saying as it fought seat belts, airbags, higher mileage standards and pollution controls.
Were unused to thinking of development as a technology, but it is. Sprawl, the building on large lots outside areas planned for more compact growth, is bound to septic tanks. You dont have one without the other. Septic tanks wont work on small lots because they need space to filter sewage. Public sewer doesnt serve spread out development because it's too expensive to run lines.
A septic tank, a concrete tank buried somewhere in the yard, into which your toilets flush, is probably what you have if you arent hooked up to public sewage. Created to replace outhouses and cesspools, septic tanks remove bacteria from wastewater by settling out solids and percolating the water through underground drainage fields.
Unlike a modern sewage treatment plant, septic tanks were never designed to remove nitrogen, the Bays biggest pollutant. Indeed, they facilitate the water soluble nutrients passage into groundwater and thence into streams, rivers and the Chesapeake.
How much nitrogen a septic tank emits compared with a sewage treatment plant depends on its location; but it can be from four to 10 times as much according to water quality regulators. A newer, more expensive type of septic tank can cut nitrogen in half, but still cannot match what a treatment plant can remove. Only Maryland requires these new tanks, and then only within a thousand feet of tidal waters.
Septic tanks are the source of about 6 percent of the nitrogen that pollutes the estuary. This may not sound like a lot until you look at the huge pollution reductions every state in the Bay watershed must make.
But Governor OMalleys plan goes beyond controlling nitrogen.
The governor recognized that nearly a third of the quarter million or so new households projected for Maryland by 2020 is likely to be on septic tanks. His proposal no development of five or more homes that isnt hooked to a sewage treatment plant would push this growth toward planned areas. It would do more to rein in sprawl than decades of talking about Smart Growth.
The adverse impacts of sprawl go far beyond water quality. They include loss of farms, forests and wetlands; more air pollution from longer commutes; and higher taxes from added costs of school buses, utilities, fire, police and roads.
None of this has overcome development interests, which are sometimes augmented by farmers wishing to maximize their options to cash out. Perhaps OMalleys drawing a clear link between bad land use and bad waste management can succeed where reciting sprawls litany of problems has failed. Farmers and other landowners, who want to carve out a few lots for their children or for income, would still be allowed a few under the governors proposal.
There would be adjustments and short-term pain for developers, whose industry makes up about a fifth of Marylands economy; but think of the adjustments sprawl development and water pollution force on the fifth of Marylands economy that comes from farming and fishing.
Pennsylvania and Virginia have more rural poor than Maryland, whose poor are largely urban, so septic restrictions might be somewhat different there.
What the three major Bay states share, is a substantial shortfall in the plans they have submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reduce pollution from septic tanks.
One irony that should not derail the Maryland proposal, but must be dealt with, is that septic tanks do not let the polluting phosphorus in human waste enter the Bay, because it binds to soil in the ground. To the extent that development switches to sewer from septic, sewage treatment plants will have to remove more phosphorus, or reducing one Bay pollutant could increase another.
Marylands legislature will study the governors proposal this summer. We hope it comes back strong, because it provides a rare opportunity to improve two of the Bays most glaring problems at once, excessive nitrogen and sprawl development.
Tom Horton covered the bay for 33 years for The Sun in Baltimore, and is author of six books about the Chesapeake. He is currently a freelance writer. Distributed by Bay Journal News Service.