Many years ago, Piermont installed a communal septic system for a portion of its village where the lots were too small to support individual septic systems. Based on that experience, it won’t be easy politically to install a sewage treatment plant in Fairlee. Everyone with a currently working septic system will oppose the idea. Everyone outside the village will oppose it, because they don’t need it. Piermont got its system because there was a group of existing homes that needed it, a benefactor donated the required land, state grants were available, and operational costs are paid only by the users.
I agree it would be a tough sell politically, but there are numerous towns that have made it happen. It's not easy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to happen. Otherwise, we risk restricting growth to the point where what the community needs/wants can't be built. But again, funding it is a whole different story...
I would be really interested in understanding the business model for a public sewer system. Without a central system, this type of density, let alone development, does not make any sense.
Great post that succinctly identifies the problems of building in locations w/o sewer. Sadly the odds of getting fed $ are very low for 4 years. If you can build for only 100k it will be impressive- systems for single family often cost 25. One way for towns to pay for sewer construction would be high hook up fees. Denser development should make the economics feasible for builders
Super rough guess. Although the septic for our 9-unit mixed-use project was $30k. Most of the added cost for this system is going to be in the pre-treatment system and boring/trenching to the offsite location. I don't believe the cost difference of a leech field for 9 vs 26 units is that great (maybe another day's work with an excavator).
The comment from NH is spot on. In Moretown, where we used a CWSRF 0% loan to investigate creating a village in-ground waste water system, the feedback was similar. However, folks understood the reasoning and were reasonably supportive as far as we got anyway. Our biggest issue was finding a suitable disposal site. However, as we worked with our engineer and investigated possible sites, a very significant disposal requirement lurked. That being the distance to ground water. (And yes, of course this needs protecting)! There was a site where addition of material, to create sort of a "super mound" along with pre-treatment may have been a solution. However, EPA rules precluded this approach. I would propose that better engineering ideas and a change in rules are out there that would expand sites available to villages like Moretown and Fairlee. Direct discharge systems are never going to be build, just too expensive. This a huge nut to crack but is never mentioned in any discussion I've read are the siting rules. Let's really look at this! The current rules create a huge and largely impassable barrier to small village wastewater disposal options unless you're lucky enough to be near good soils.
Are there uses you can put on top of septic systems like this one? I don't know much about septic engineering, could a space like this support a playground, park, or community garden? Thanks!
From what I understand, you can walk/run/play on the leech field no problem. But structures and plantings are a no-go since they could interfere with the pipes.
Local leadership has been working on this! It’s just a slow, complex, and costly endeavor. It is much needed, though, to accommodate state housing needs!
Many years ago, Piermont installed a communal septic system for a portion of its village where the lots were too small to support individual septic systems. Based on that experience, it won’t be easy politically to install a sewage treatment plant in Fairlee. Everyone with a currently working septic system will oppose the idea. Everyone outside the village will oppose it, because they don’t need it. Piermont got its system because there was a group of existing homes that needed it, a benefactor donated the required land, state grants were available, and operational costs are paid only by the users.
I agree it would be a tough sell politically, but there are numerous towns that have made it happen. It's not easy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to happen. Otherwise, we risk restricting growth to the point where what the community needs/wants can't be built. But again, funding it is a whole different story...
I would be really interested in understanding the business model for a public sewer system. Without a central system, this type of density, let alone development, does not make any sense.
I would, too! Maybe a topic for a future article.
Great post that succinctly identifies the problems of building in locations w/o sewer. Sadly the odds of getting fed $ are very low for 4 years. If you can build for only 100k it will be impressive- systems for single family often cost 25. One way for towns to pay for sewer construction would be high hook up fees. Denser development should make the economics feasible for builders
Super rough guess. Although the septic for our 9-unit mixed-use project was $30k. Most of the added cost for this system is going to be in the pre-treatment system and boring/trenching to the offsite location. I don't believe the cost difference of a leech field for 9 vs 26 units is that great (maybe another day's work with an excavator).
The comment from NH is spot on. In Moretown, where we used a CWSRF 0% loan to investigate creating a village in-ground waste water system, the feedback was similar. However, folks understood the reasoning and were reasonably supportive as far as we got anyway. Our biggest issue was finding a suitable disposal site. However, as we worked with our engineer and investigated possible sites, a very significant disposal requirement lurked. That being the distance to ground water. (And yes, of course this needs protecting)! There was a site where addition of material, to create sort of a "super mound" along with pre-treatment may have been a solution. However, EPA rules precluded this approach. I would propose that better engineering ideas and a change in rules are out there that would expand sites available to villages like Moretown and Fairlee. Direct discharge systems are never going to be build, just too expensive. This a huge nut to crack but is never mentioned in any discussion I've read are the siting rules. Let's really look at this! The current rules create a huge and largely impassable barrier to small village wastewater disposal options unless you're lucky enough to be near good soils.
Yikes! Did you look at a treatment facility vs in-ground disposal?
Thankfully, Fairlee has very good soils for in-ground systems.
Are there uses you can put on top of septic systems like this one? I don't know much about septic engineering, could a space like this support a playground, park, or community garden? Thanks!
From what I understand, you can walk/run/play on the leech field no problem. But structures and plantings are a no-go since they could interfere with the pipes.
In Vermont’s small town reality, a Legislature that really wanted to facilitate new housing, would invest in infrastructure.
Local leadership has been working on this! It’s just a slow, complex, and costly endeavor. It is much needed, though, to accommodate state housing needs!