February/March 2010 - Vol. 24, Issue 2 THETHE LITTLE DIGGERmowa-mn.com/PDFs/LittleDigger/FebMar10.pdf · February/March 2010 - Vol. 24, Issue 2 MOWA 2010 Convention—A Wealth of

LITTLE DIGGERLITTLE DIGGER

THETHE

A bi-monthlypublication

February/March 2010 - Vol. 24, Issue 2

MOWA 2010 Convention—A Wealth of Information!by Lori Ende, MOWA Board of Directors

In this Little Digger:MOWA 2010 Convention ............... Pg. 1

MOWA Carnival Quiz .................... Pg. 2

From the Executive Director .......... Pg. 3

Calendar of Events ........................ Pg. 3

New MOWA Members ................... Pg. 4

Convention Wrap-Up ..................... Pg. 5

The Bulletin Board - Crane Safety Pg. 6

Legislative Update .......................... Pg. 7

MPCA SSTS Annual Report ........... Pg. 8

MPCA Enforcement Corner ............ Pg. 9

Case Study - Malibu Prohibition .... Pg.11

Continuing Education Schedule .... Pg.18

MOWA Membership Form ............. Pg.19

If you missed the 2010 MOWA Convention at Arrowwood Resort in Alexandria, it may have cost you. Those who attended the convention received a wealth of information on cost-savings that affect our businesses now and into the future.

Here are a few topics I enjoyed at the 2010 MOWA Con-vention. Thanks to Attorney Nicholas J. Heydt of the Pem-berton Law Firm in Alexandria, I learned the effectiveness and step-by-step procedures of mechanic’s liens, saving our business money on overdue and unpaid accounts. He also provided invaluable information regarding entity choices available to our companies that provide security and/or tax benefits, whether it be a partnership, a sole proprietorship, an LLC or S-Corp.

My business is a limited liability company, and I assumed our business was protected under the laws of an LLC

after Articles of Organization were filed and as long as I continued to renew our LLC annually with the Secretary of State.

What did I learn instead? You must have annual meetings

of the members of the LLC, even if it is only one member, and you must retain minutes of those yearly meetings.

You must also

have an Operating Agreement, Membership Certificates, and Membership Control Agreements. Without these, you leave your company wide open to legal loopholes that fail to provide you the protection of your assets outside of the company – your personal assets, home, automobiles and valuables.

Health care costs get-ting you down? With the help of Nate Over-land, Overland Insur-ance, we were able to hear from a represen-tative of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minne-sota, who provided us valuable information about the ins and outs of health care reform, health care issues af-fecting small business, and how we can improve our health care costs.

To help us better understand the new estate tax laws, At-torney Jeffrey O’Brien of the law firm Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen in Minneapolis, introduced us to estate planning and business succession planning. He informed us of the new tax laws going into effect regarding estates; how if you don’t create an estate plan, the State will do it for you, leading to probate, estate tax minimization and potential family disputes over your estate and your company. I learned that when a business is created it must simulta-neously establish an exit plan. O’Brien also discussed

how succession planning through an estate plan has substantial tax benefits – cost saving measures we need to do today in order to protect otherwise adverse consequences to our businesses and the

future of our businesses.

These are just a few topics you missed at the 2010 con-vention. Will you risk missing the 2011 convention? The cost is minimal compared to the wealth of information you receive. It was potentially a “million dollar” event!

Wayne James helps with the Scholarship Auction (left). For more photos, go to page 5.

Minnesota Onsite Wastewater Association

Page 2 Lit tle Digger

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Minnesota_1_2-Ad-black_white.pdf 1/15/2009 7:02:33 PM Carnival Quiz, Continued on Page 4

MOWA 2010 Convention Wrap-upMOWA 2010 Convention Wrap-up

1. How many people are there on the MOWA Board of Directors?

12

2. Name 4 current (2009) MOWA Board Members. Pete Schmitz, Eric Larson, Karen Borgeson, Rod

Morton, Rick Smith, Sara Heger, Lorianne Ende, Ron Jasperson, Kevin Kloeppner, Chris LeClair, Bernie Miller, Peter Miller

3. How many members are there in MOWA? 284

4. What does the acronym NOWRA stand for? National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association

5. How many NOWRA members are there? 4,000 individuals 20 affiliate groups

6. What state has the most members in NOWRA? Virginia – 512 MN - 208

7. What year was the first onsite Rules enacted? Minnesota Health Code 1969, 1971

How much do you know? MOWA Carnival Quiz - Q&A8. Who is the current President of NOWRA?

Tom Groves from Massachusetts

9. Who is the current (2009) President of MOWA?

Pete Schmitz

10. When was the law passed that established the mandatory code and ISTS licensing program?

1994

11. What year did the U of M first offer classes to SSTS professionals?

1974

12. Who was the first instructor at the first U of M class?

Roger Machmeier

13. How many kids does Dave Gustafson have?

6

February/March 2010

Professionals Enriching Minnesota’s Environment

Page 3

From the Executive Director’s OfficeFrom the Executive Director’s Office

Industry EventsMidwest Construction Expo – Originally scheduled for

March 18th & 19th, 2010 - postponed until Fall ’10 or Spring ’11

April 15, 2010 – Deadline for Abstract submittals for NOWRA Annual Technical Conference (see the NOWRA website at http://www.nowra.org/annual_conference.html/ or contact Sara Heger at [email protected])

June 6th – 9th, 2010 - National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) 74th Annual Educational Conference and Exhibition - Albuquerque, NM (Contact NEHA @ (866) 956-2258 or www.neha.org for details)

October 25th – 27th, 2010 - NOWRA 19th Annual Technical Education Conference Surface Discharge: Challenges and Solutions - St. Louis, MO (contact: (800) 966-2942 or www.nowra.org for more information)

by Pat Martyn, MOWA Executive Director Calendar of EventsDo yourself a favor next year and go to the 2011 Convention.

We just wrapped up a terrific conven-tion in Alexandria, MN at the begin-

ning of February. Hope you attended this one as these get-togethers receive better and better evaluations from attendees each year. This was a great opportunity to renew old friendships, and make some new ones as well.

Featured as the most important part of the convention was the continuing education that was both extensive and useful. If you missed it this year, commit to doing yourself a favor next year when the Convention will be in Duluth.

Also this column could not be written without a big thank you to the many volunteers who made this such a success. They did a great job and made this event a happening. We also had a terrific speech by Mike Max of WCCO and a fun county fair that tested the gaming skills of the attendees.

At the annual meeting, a new board was elected to replace some departing members. Rick Smith and Rod Morton served with distinction and they should know how much we appreciate their service during their tenure. We hope they will continue to give input into the new group.

New board faces include Glen Schilling from St. Peter Well Drilling in Kasota, and Greg Halling of Halling Engineering in Webster. Greg is an experienced Board member hav-ing served in the past and Glen is new and we are looking forward to his input. New officers include Board President Bernie Miller of Miller’s Sewage Treatment Solutions and Treasurer Lori Ende of Ende Septic Service.

When you read this, the new board will have already com-pleted its strategic plan for 2010. Did you know that you

can make suggestions at any time about the direction the group should be taking? Mail any comments to me or any Board members. We answer all comments, so if you do not receive a response, keep after us by calling.

Lastly, as we are underway for a new year, we are looking for volunteers to help lend a hand. The benefits to you are enormous and the time commitment can be quite modest. Please let me know if that is something you are interested in doing.

Thanks to Frank Roering of Hensling Auctions, Inc. (shown left in left photo) for acting as the MOWA Youth Scholarship auctioneer.

The convention gave members a chance to make new and renew old relationships with fellow professionals.



14. Which County was the first to adopt the most cur-rent rules?

Koochiching

15. Which County was the first to implement a transfer of property program?

Cass

16. Which is the only County that never adopted the old rules or standards?

Koochiching

17. How many counties have adopted a new ordinance based on the 2008 code?

20

18. How many SSTS are in MN?

512,914

Carnival Quiz, Continued from Page 2

Jerry VanderVoort Meeker County

Hector, MN

Doug Green Nature’s Call Septic Service, Inc.

Fergus Falls, MN

Wayne Johnson Port-Able John Rental & Service, Inc.

Bemidji, MN

Jack Carder Carder’s Earthmoving, LLC

Hackensack, MN

Ritchie Petersen Clippers Septic, Inc.

Tyler, MN

Clayton Lunser C.W. Lunser Co., Inc.

St. Cloud, MN

Everett Garlisch Eiden Farm Drainage

St. James, MN

Duane Geib Geib Well & Water Services,

Arlington, MN

WELCOME NEW MEMBERS!

19. The “old” soil sizing factor of 1.2 is equivalent to what soil loading rate in the new rule?

.833333333

20. For technical assistance with the rule, you should contact _________

a. Dave Gustafson b. MPCA Regional Staff c. Mark Wespetal d. MOWA

21. Where is Gustafson County located?

a. South Dakota b. Alaska c. In Dave’s own mind d. The entire State of MN

22. How many licensed businesses in MN have the name Anderson in the business?

18

23. How many certified individuals in MN with the name Johnson?

63

MOWA 2010 EducationCommittee:Craig Gilbertson, Co-ChairBrent Rud, Co-ChairWilliam BuckleySara HegerChris LeClairDoug MalchowBarbara McCarthyPat ShelitoRick Smith

Outgoing President Pete Schmitz (left) and

Al Schmitz (right) with speaker Mike Max of WCCO (center)

February/March 2010


Page 5

MOWA 2010 Convention Wrap-upMOWA 2010 Convention Wrap-up

After a year that felt like “business as usual” had ceased to exist

and most everything was either going in blindly or taking a calculated risk,

the MOWA Convention was a chance to relax a little, learn a lot and

contemplate the next step!

Thanks to the 2010 Convention Committee for their hard work to organize

a worthwhile event!

MOWA 2010 ConventionCommittee:Andy Winkler, ChairLorianne EndeNicholas HaigJesse KloeppnerScott OttingJennifer Shinehouse-Ganser



The Bulletin Board—Information from members!The Bulletin Board—Information from members!

Crane Safetyby Robert A Bertera, CSP, ARM, Loss Control Technical Specialist - Construction, General Casualty Insurance

Crane accidents are the most deadly and costly of all construction accidents. Sur-prisingly, accidents involving both mobile and stationary cranes are not uncommon. Who gets hurt when a crane tips over or accidently drops its loads? You may be sur-prised to learn it is not just the crane operator. Anyone in the vicinity of a crane when it tips may be struck by the falling boom and killed. This could be the riggers, electricians, plumbers, car-penters, or anyone else on the job site. Cranes have a long reach when they tip!

Crane accidents contribute to the number two killer of construction workers, which is electrocution. When a crane boom makes contact with overhead power lines the entire crane may become ener-gized. Workers standing on the ground around the crane, or touching the crane or rigging, may be killed. Never touch or approach any piece of construction equipment that has made contact with overhead power lines.

The number one cause of crane accidents is operator er-ror. If you are working around a crane, or hire a crane and operator to perform a lift, ask the operator if he is licensed or certified through a crane operator certification organiza-tion such as the NCCCO (www.nccco.org). Verify that the crane operator is experienced with the type of crane and lift he is performing, and that the crane has had its required yearly inspection. Don’t assume the operator or the crane is safe. In many states crane operators are not required to be licensed. It is possible the operator may not even be able to read a load chart. If a load is accidently dropped a worker may be killed. It only takes 2 seconds for a load falling from 60 feet to reach the ground. It takes your brain about 1 second to realize it is falling. That leaves very little time to get out of the way.

Two other major causes of cranes accidents are boom failure and inadequate supporting surfaces. Booms may fail from being overloaded, striking another object, or due

to poor maintenance. Cranes tip over when they are not adequately supported from below or are overloaded. When making stationary lifts, crane outriggers should be fully extended and adequately cribbed. When lifting, cranes must be perfectly level. If they are out of level by as little as 5 degrees, the load capacity could be reduced by up to 50%. Specifics for lifting capacity and outrigger use can be found in the crane’s load chart.

Crane Safety Tips

RNever work, walk, or stand under suspended loads.

RCrane load charts should be used to evaluate the ability of the crane to make a safe lift.

RVerify the crane operator is a trained professional and that the crane has been inspected.

RKeep your eyes open. If something about the crane or lift does not look right, say something before it is too late.

RStay clear of the crane’s rotating structure. If you get caught between it and a solid object you may be crushed.

RNever touch or approach a crane that has made contact with power lines.

February/March 2010


Page 7

Legislature to consider 7080 extension; rule revision

Capitol Connections: Legislative Report Capitol Connections: Legislative Report by Gary Botzek, Lobbyist, Capitol Connections, 651-293-9295 or [email protected]

March has finally arrived! Maybe Spring will arrive soon, as well!

One thing that has arrived for sure is the 2010 legislative session. Starting on February 4th both the House and the Senate began working long and hard through their com-mittees and floor action. They are hocked up in a tough battle with the Governor on the budget deficit, a bonding bill, and GAMC coverage.

MOWA was part of legislative hearing on February 23rd in the House Environment Committee regarding the PCA septic system (SSTS) rules. The Agency updated the committee on the process and end product of the two year process of revising and rewriting the old “7080” rules into 7080, 7081, 7082, and 7083. Just like the number of pages of state laws has grown over the years, the number of pages of rules it takes to interpret and administer those laws con-tinues to grow and expand, as well! It is in and through these rules that the full force of the law can be found.

After the PCA update, the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) testified before the same committee and raised a number of concerns regarding the new rules that should be in place on February 4, 2010. According to AMC, 21 counties have adopted ordinances incorporating the new rules. Over two-thirds of Minnesota counties have not yet adopted the new rules raising the issue of why not? The counties concerns, as presented by representatives of AMC, Polk, Aitkin, and Roseau Counties, range from staff needs, lack of funding to do all the new responsibilities, to training issues, and enforcement concerns. The Coun-ties asked for a two year extension of the current 7080 rules which the committee appeared to support. They are expected to have legislation introduced to do just that.

Eric Larson, Ron Jaspersen, and I also attended the hear-ing. Larson testified representing MOWA and limited his comments to the design guidance document that is already

in state law and would not be affected by the delay of the new rules. The design guidance language was added into law in 2008 and is being interpreted by the PCA to be a tool of impact as to whether a MS115 license is needed to design and install a system or whether an engineer is required to consult on the job. This would affect systems up to 10,000 gallons per day. Larson commented that this document was envisioned by MOWA and others to be a changing, living document to address changes in technol-ogy in systems—not a licensing tool! The MOWA Board and Legislative Committee, as this article is being written, is considering whether to pursue legislation to change the definition, meaning, and application of the design guidance document or to address the issue through a mediation

process with the PCA.

The 7080 rule revisions will have far reaching impacts on clean water, drinking water, local government, housing and commercial development, and the septic industry. We can under-stand why the PCA is so committed to pushing these new rules into place—they were given the job by the State Legislature. They have attempted to include

interested and affected parties—now called “sharehold-ers.” It is very difficult to appease everyone in a process and program this big. But the PCA needs partners, like the counties and the design and install industry, to do the job correctly and cost effectively. MOWA will continue to work with the Agency, the counties, and others in an effort to continue to have in place the better plans to address septic systems, clean water, and working relationships between the partners.

If you have any questions about your legislators, general questions surrounding the legislature or a policy issue, feel free to contact me directly at 651-293-9295 or [email protected].

According to the Association of Minnesota Counties, 21 counties have adopted ordinances... Over 2/3rds of

Minnesota counties have not yet adopted the new rules raising

the issue of why not?

The AMC is asking for a two year extension for the current 7080 rules!



MPCA SSTS Annual ReportMPCA SSTS Annual Report

The SSTS Annual Report - Data Summariesby Mary West, PSS, MPCA

Each year since 1996, Local Govern-ment Units (LGUs) have answered the SSTS Annual Report survey that MPCA has distributed.

The Annual Report data provides MPCA and the Minnesota Legislature with information on statewide trends in Minnesota’s SSTS industry. A few examples of analysis done on the data collected from the 500,000 SSTS in Minnesota are shown below.

MPCA has collected this data since 1996, however due to space limita-tions and ease of reading, information from the past fi ve years was selected for two of the following charts.

Statewide Reported SSTS ComplianceThe largest number of reported Immi-nent Public Health Threat (IPHT) SSTS occurred in 2006; this was the same year the Minnesota Legislature passed Chapter 224, The Straight Pipe Act, allowing penalty fees to be assessed to homeowners who do not correct identi-fi ed straight pipe discharges within 10 months. Since the Straight Pipe Act was passed, the reported number of IPHT systems has steadily decreased.

SSTS Permits IssuedSSTS permits can be grouped into two broad categories; permits for New Construction SSTS and permits for Repair or Replacement SSTS. The decreasing number of New SSTS over the past fi ve years mirrors the decline of the housing boom. The increasing number of Replacement/Repair SSTS can be attributed to enforcement of local

upgrade timeframe requirements for existing SSTS, as well as local inventory projects.

Statewide Reported SSTS Compliance 2005-2009

SSTS Permits Issued2005-2009

February/March 2010


Page 9

SSTS Installations from 2000-2009The Trenches/Bed data includes all rock, gravelless, and chamber media; Type II Systems are the old Alternative System category, which includes holding tanks; Type III Systems are the old Other System category; Type IV systems are the new Registered Product category added in 2009; Type V systems are the old Performance category.

SSTS Permits by Flow VolumeThis data was not requested prior to 2008.

Year

Residential and Other

Establishment Permits

1-4999 gpd

Residential and Other

Establishment Permits >5000

gpd

2008 6510 1

2009 8569 1

For further information about the SSTS Annual Report, please contact Mary West at the MPCA at 651-757-2818 or [email protected]

MPCA Enforcement CornerMPCA Enforcement Corner

Precast SystemsConc r e t e P r oduc t s

Septic TanksHolding TanksGrease Interceptors

Septic tanks are designedto exceed industrystandards.Guaranteed water tight.Vacuum testing available.Prompt Delivery.

Serving the area for over 35 years!

116 E. Hwy. 12 • Darwin, MN 55324Toll Free 888-693-8440320-693-8440 • Fax: 320-693-9593www.darwinconcrete.com

SSTS Installations

from 2000-2009

by Pat Shelito, MPCA

During the period October 2009 – December 2009, MPCA enforcement staff fi nalized four enforcement actions on companies or individuals, referred to as Responsible Parties in the enforcement world. These enforcement cases totaled 10 % of all MPCA enforcement actions reported during this period. A listing of MPCA enforcement actions is found at the MPCA website http://www.pca.state.mn.us/newscenter/enforcement.html.

Three Administrative Penalty Orders (APO) and one Stipula-tion Agreement were issued to the Responsible Parties. The

MPCA issues APOs and Stipulation Agreements to resolve compliance problems and ISTS licensure issues. The severity of the enforcement action depends on several factors, including the number of violations, environmental impact of the violation, whether it is a repeat offense, and how quickly the problem is corrected. The penalty mon-ies are deposited in the state government general fund. The Responsible Parties were Meyers Cozy Corner Campground, Inc. (Stearns County), American Septic Service (Pine County), Aaron Heyn (Blue Earth County), James Smith (Jackson County).



February/March 2010


Page 11

by Joshua D. Wheeler, who is enrolled in the Masters of Planning program at the University of Southern California’s School of Policy, Planning and Development

This case study from Malibu, CA offers timely insight into issues affecting our industry and the environment in other regions of the U.S.

INTRODUCTIONIn July of 2009, after years of encouraging the City of Malibu to mitigate the effects of local septic systems on pollution at Surfrider Beach and Malibu La-goon, the staff of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARQCWB) presented a proposal for Board passage. The resolution included a timeline for implementing a moratorium on septic discharges and established the geographic boundaries of a prohibition area. City of Malibu officials, business owners, residents and environmental stakeholders were invited to submit comments and suggestions to the Board prior to its November 5th meeting. After nearly 10 hours of testi-mony from those supporting and opposing the proposal, the Board adopted the resolution 5 to 2 (2 members un-appointed) in favor of enforcing a prohibition on septic sys-tems in the Malibu Civic Center and nearby neighborhoods. This case offers opportunities to examine how rationalism defines the process and methods of the participants, how incrementalism confines the City of Malibu, and the way in which attention shaping is being utilized by the environ-mental coalition to raise awareness of the septic problem.

BACKGROUND Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQB) - History & Interests

Under the direction of California’s Environmental Protec-tion Agency, the California State Water Resource Control Board maintains nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards with a mission to “preserve and enhance the qual-ity of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations.”(Cal/EPA Mission, 2009) The Los An-geles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) manages issues specific to watersheds within the greater Los Angeles area. Nine members are appointed to the Re-

Case Study - Malibu Septic ProhibitionCase Study - Malibu Septic Prohibition

gional Board by the Governor of California and confirmed by the state Senate. The Board normally holds public meetings 10 times per year to make decisions on specific water quality matters within their district. A staff of 120 to 150 engineers, geologists, biologists and administrators conduct the day-to-day tasks associated with water qual-ity management and formulate policy recommendations for the Board to vote on. Resolutions and policy changes passed by the Regional Board are subject to final approval by the controlling agency.

For many years LARWQCB has identified high fecal bac-teria counts and excessive nitrogen concentrations in the ocean water at Surfrider beach. They acknowledge this poses potential hazards for residents in the area, recre-ational beach goers, and the overall aquatic ecosystem of Santa Monica Bay. In recognition of continued problems in water quality and a general lack of enforcement by the City of Malibu, the Board directed its staff to conduct environmental assessments and suggest policy changes to be considered by the Board at its November 5th, 2009 meeting. The staff concluded that the shallow groundwater basin contains significant levels of contamination and that high bacteria counts plague Surfrider Beach even in dry (non-storm water) conditions. Based on their evidence, the staff of LARWQCB submitted recommendations to the

Case Study, Continued on Page 12



For more information or afree, no obligation quote, contact:

Overland Insurance218.346.6250Perham, Minn.

Your local independent General Casualtyagent

General Casualty Minneapolis Regional Office 800.862.7405

Our Contractors

Insurance Program is

tailored to fit the specific

needs of septic system

installers. Plus, we offer

competitive rates and a

Group Safety Dividend Plan

for eligible MOWA members.

Insurance for septic tank installers and pumpers.

Group SafetyDividend paid byGeneral Casualtyin 2008

10%

Recommended by theMinnesota Onsite Wastewater Association

Coverages underwritten byRegent Insurance Company.

Board that septic prohibition boundaries and timelines for alternatives be established in the City.

City of Malibu History & Interests

In 1991 the area of Malibu incorporated separately from Los Angeles, forming its own city. At the time, the Los Angeles officials intended to install a comprehensive sewer system in order to eliminate the need for on-site septic. Local residents felt that any expansion of wastewater capacity would encourage rampant overdevelopment and increased densities within the region, forever altering the character of the town. The lack of any centralized wastewater system has now become an environmental and economic chal-lenge for the young municipality.

Despite a long history of contamination in the area, many credit the City with being relatively progressive on clean water. With its recent commitment to construct the Legacy Park storm water treatment facility, the City is working toward reducing the negative effects of storm water run off in order to improve beach conditions. The city insists that the Legacy site is not unsuitable for both storm and waste water treatment facilities and that there is a lack of available locations appropriate for development of the lat-ter. Furthermore, the City contends that waste water isn’t

explicitly established as the primary cause of pollution at Surfrider Beach and scientists working on its behalf assert that the link between septic and the contamination at the beach is weak.

On November 2nd, 2009, in advance of the Board meeting three days later, the City released its Alternate Plan. Cit-ing concerns over feedback received from residents and businesses, the City of Malibu’s ‘phased’ proposal primarily sought to extend the timelines for prohibition of septic and reduce the numbers of affected parcels.

Environmental Coalition Background & Interests

Heal the Bay, Santa Monica Baykeeper, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Malibu Surfing Association have all been working both separately and in concert for more than 20 years to encourage cleaner water conditions in Santa Monica Bay. The coalition has been actively soliciting City and State officials to force Malibu to design alternatives for septic systems adjacent to Surfrider Beach. Heal the Bay and Santa Monica Baykeeper compile scientific data related to changes in ocean water bacteria counts and lobby for policy changes to water quality statutes. Heal the Bay is widely known by coastal residents for it’s weekly report card-style updates that score and publicize bacte-ria levels at more than 350 beaches along the California coastline. On a separate front, Santa Monica Baykeeper recently filed two lawsuits against the City of Malibu to prevent development of a wastewater site it declares to be poorly located and also to force the City into expanding the Legacy Park Storm Water Plant so that it can accommodate wastewater treatment. The Malibu Surfing Association and the Surfrider Foundation behave primarily as the outreach and mobilization arms of the coalition and were successful in producing a high turnout of activists at the November meeting of the Board.

In the lead up to the November 5th Board meeting, there was back-and-forth discussion between city officials and the leaders of the coalition about creation of a possible compromise solution. However, the coalition felt that the given the city’s track record on enforcement, without a firm commitment to a complete moratorium there would be no guaranteed end to septic use in the area within the timeframe recommended by the staff of LARWQCB. (James, 2009) The coalition agreed to rally it members for attendance at the November 5th meeting and to fully support the LARWQCB staff recommendations before the Board.

The Decision

After listening to substantial input from its staff, significant objections from the city, and impassioned appeals from the environmental representatives, the Board voted to accept most of the recommendations from LARWQCB staff. The

Case Study, Continued from Page 11


February/March 2010


Page 13

major points of the resolution included the following:

1) Establishment of a septic prohibition area within the city of Malibu. (Page 11)

2) An immediate moratorium on any new septic permits within the prohibition boundary.

3) A timeline for discontinuation of existing septic systems inside the prohibited area.

4) A requirement that the City “submit quarterly written reports to the Executive Officer, summarizing the strategy and progress toward meeting the 2015 prohibition dead-line” for existing systems. (Resolution R4-2009-007, 2009)

While the City and some of its residents appeared frus-trated by the costs they will be assuming as a result of the decision, members of the environmental coalition were extremely pleased as the vote represented the first time the Board had imposed a regulatory action on the city in order to reduce ground and beach water contamination. (Green, 2009)

Future Considerations

Although the Board’s decision may be considered a major milestone in the issue of septic prohibition, it is still subject to approval by the State Water Resource Control Board. Additionally, it remains to be seen if the City of Malibu will avoid enforcement of the prohibition by filing a lawsuit seek-ing an injunction against the decision. Also, because plans for new wastewater treatment facilities near the ocean must receive approvals from the California Coastal Commission, it’s difficult to anticipate a clear and conclusive end date for existing septic discharges in the area.

ISSUES IN CONFLICT

Wastewater vs. Storm Water

The City of Malibu contends that its primary effort should be focused on treatment of storm water runoff. At the meeting and in its proposal, the city repeatedly requested that the Board postpone any decisions on implementing wastewater prohibition until the results of 5 scientific stud-ies currently in progress more accurately identify the exact sources of beach pollution. The position of water quality experts speaking on behalf of the city is that septic has minimal, if any, impact on ocean water quality. Because of the current construction and costs of the Legacy Park storm water treatment facility, the City believes it is already taking action to remedy the problem.

In assembling substantial scientific data for their report, the staff of LARWQCB continues to affirm that septic systems in the area are causing groundwater and ocean water pollution in Malibu. The staff also directed attention to ad-

ditional studies conducted by Heal the Bay as corroborating evidence of a link between septic and the contamination. Both the environmental interests and the staff of the Board agree that additional studies are not likely to negate their conclusions.

Timelines for Establishing Prohibition

In its proposal to the Board, the LARWQCB staff designed a timeline for a prohibition on new septic systems begin-ning on November 5th, 2009 to be followed by discontinued use of all existing commercial and residential systems on November 5th, 2014.

The city of Malibu Alternate Plan countered with an agree-ment to discontinue permitting new systems on November 5th, 2009 but suggests a periodic phase out for residential properties in April, 2015 and commercial businesses some-time in 2018.

A compromise timeline was put forth in the resolution passed by the Board on November 5th, 2009 enforcing an immediate prohibition on permitting of new systems, fol-lowed by prohibition of discharges for residential parcels on November 5, 2015 and commercial parcels on November 5th, 2019.

Quality- engineered tanks providing: • Easy Installation • Superior Construction • Inlet & Outlet Fernco-style Gaskets

800-325-8456 Visit us on the Web:

www.wieserconcrete.com

40,000 Gallon Tank

•Septic, Holding, Grease •HS-20 Traffic Loading

Tanks Available •Latest Technologies •Guaranteed Water Tight •Vacuum Testing Available

Multiple Tank System

“Where Quality is a Standard Not an Extra”

PRECAST TANKS 750 Gallon to 40,000 Gallon

Distributor





Despite their preference for the original staff recommended timeline, the environmental stakeholders accepted the com-promise as necessary to achieving their overall objective.

Number of Affected Parcels

Based on its studies, the LARWQCB staff recommended a prohibition boundary encompassing 45 business parcels and 425 residential parcels.

Due to concerns over monthly cost obligations to its resi-dents and business owners, the City of Malibu wishes to reduce the number of affected parcels to 25 commercial and 110 residential. As an alternative for the remaining par-cels, the City suggested disinfection systems be installed on existing septic dischargers in several of the neighborhoods.

The position of LARWQCB staff and environmental groups is that disinfection systems haven’t been proven to sig-nificantly decrease the impact of pollution and that full prohibition is necessary for the entire area. Refusing to concede on an eventual full prohibition within the bound-ary, the Board adopted staff recommendations regarding the number of affected parcels.

Wastewater Management Solutions

The City of Malibu, LARWQCB, and environmental co-alition disagree on alternative to septic systems for the area. As a sub-agency of the California EPA, the Water Board is solely authorized to establish water policy and enforce regulations. The Board cannot direct exact site locations or manage construction for wastewater facilities. Ultimately, the city is responsible for developing, financing, and supervising an appropriate wastewater facility. Still, the Board directed the City to communicate site plans to the Executive Officer and so LARWQCB will have de facto approval of the location. The City should also expect to receive substantial protest from the environmental interests if they craft a site plan that the groups feel is inadequate.

INTERPRETATION

A Rational Model at Work

Because the State Water Resource Control Board is em-powered to institute area- specific regulations and impose heavy fines when violations occur, all the participants in the issue operate under a framework whereby there is a clear and centralized authority. In this case, there is gen-eral agreement among the parties that cleaner water is a desirable target. Therefore the Board is able to focus the



February/March 2010


Page 15

255 3rd Ave SE P.O. Box 150 Perham, MN 56573

Phone: (888) 346-6250 Fax: (218) 346-9261 Website: http://www.overlandinsurance.com

Nate Overland

Having Bond Issues with

all the New Changes?

Contact our office as we

handle all bonds especially

SSTS & Plumber Bonds.

Overland Insurance Agency Inc.

We will simplify

your Bonding.

bulk of its attention on establishing an effective means for achieving that shared goal.

Another defining characteristic that demonstrates a rational model at work is the prominence of technical experts in diagnosing the problem and directing suitable options to correct it. Because it’s clear from the outset that decisions regarding septic prohibition will be made based on scientific expertise, this emphasis actually defines the approach of all the participants as they attempt to influence the pro-cess. The LARWQCB staff report contains substantial and specific data of elevated fecal bacteria and nitrogen levels in the local waters. The City feels obligated to position its own stance on technical grounds and therefore contracts experts to argue against septic as the most likely cause of the problem. Interestingly, even the environmental coali-tion engages the processes scientifically. The additional water quality studies accumulated by Heal the Bay and presented as concurring evidence, may have confirmed for the Board that the accuracy of the data submitted by its own staff. (Chou, 2009)

Of course, there still exists a risk that the City feels alienated and unconsidered enough to challenge the decision of the Board through the courts. If this happens, it may represent a flaw in the overall centralized rationalist approach in this case. Nevertheless, it can also be argued that the presence of an empowered State agency, with technical experts on staff, is likely to be very effective in persuading a court that the septic prohibition is necessary and legitimate. A clear, centralized authority may actually be quite useful in this case to counter the City’s natural tendency toward incrementalism and make progress on the details standing in the way of achieving the goal of cleaner water shared by all the parties.

Classic Incrementalism

That a municipality, especially a relatively small one, would respond to political and social pressures from its citizens is not surprising. It’s not unique to this case that leaders are inclined to resist pressure to reform in dramatic ways. From the perspective of the City leaders a less radical approach makes some sense, both economically and politically. However, as with all incrementalism, this risk of

long-term consequences often goes unrecognized in the name of expediency. A comparison of the timelines offers a lucid visual representation of incrementalism in action. That the Board altered the prohibition schedule for existing septic systems in response to citizen and city complaints illustrates that incrementalist pressures are persuasive and successful in slowing change.

While the City may believe that an incremental approach is a wise one considering the financial obligations at stake, a closer examination reveals the defects with that view. By contrasting the potential costs and wastewater capacities of the two proposals for a new facility, a standard incre-mentalist narrative is exhibited:

The City makes the case that it is attempting to reduce the monthly economic impact to its citizens by reducing the numbers of parcels which must comply with the prohibition. However, the cost to affected parcels remains the same in both plans. While the City suggests there may be an unde-termined feasibility limitation, it is also concerned with the substantial difference in the cost of construction between the larger and smaller treatment plants. The smaller facility is clearly less expensive while still allowing for a reduction in existing septic use. But looking beyond the high initial outlay for construction, the larger plant is obviously a better value on the dollars invested because while it costs 40% more, it accommodates 60% more capacity.

By imagining future possibilities and consequences, the wisdom of constructing the larger facility becomes even





more apparent. For instance, what would happen if later scientific studies prove septic to be even worse than origi-nally believed? This would likely obligate Malibu to initi-ate construction of additional facilities in order to quickly assume the capacity of all the remaining parcels. Future development in the City could also be a big problem and must be considered. While there is a general aversion to growth in the area, new projects are occasionally permit-ted and some existing buildings will seek expand. By ignoring the inevitable needs for additional wastewater capacity later on, the City reduces its flexibility to anticipate anything unforeseen. This lack of adaptability increases the likelihood of incurring wastewater construction costs again in the future, possibly much higher than the costs of investing in a larger treatment plant now. Excessively focusing on present conditions to the detriment of future prospects is the classic trap set up by the incrementalist approach. It functions almost automatically in response to the pressures of present orientation. Malibu is an example of well-intentioned representatives seeking to protect their constituents, but failing to recognize the sacrifice needed to ensure better long term outcomes for the community.

Immediate and Sustained Attention Shaping

Many of the member organizations in the environmental coalition have been working to eradicate septic in the area for more than 25 years. To accomplish that goal, the groups attempt to redirect public focus and persuade government officials about the need to address the problem. The ap-proaches used to generate increased interest in the issue represent a versatile style of attention shaping. Described as actions that “shape other’ expectations, beliefs, hopes, and understanding even though the planners do not control any of these outcomes” (Forester, 1993), attention shaping is employed by the coalition as both a long-term strategy and also in direct, immediate ways.

Heal the Bay’s Beach Report card has developed into a simple way for the public to interpret water quality at lo-cal beaches. By using an easily identified A to F grading system, the people gains insight into water safety and may quickly compare various locations along the coast. The measuring system serves a practical function but is also highly communicative on a broader level because it draws attention to problem locations, such as Surfrider Beach. By effectively defining the scope of the problem in each locale, the organization enhances public awareness in a way that encourages questions as to why one beach turns out to be significantly more polluted than another. Defining the issue in this way creates an expectation among the public that all beaches should be A-rated, leads to greater calls for inquiry into the sources of pollution at specific beaches, and collective actions to remedy the problem.

Attention shaping also occurs in the case in a more direct and immediate way. At the November 5th, 2009 Board meeting, Ken Sieno, a member of the Malibu Surfing As-sociation removed his shirt to display a pacemaker scar and related in graphic detail an incident in which he was directly exposed to raw sewage at Surfrider beach. He as-serted to the Board that the his reliance on a pacemaker is a direct result of contracting viral myocarditis after years of surfing in the area.(Groves, 2009) Dramatic moments like these contain the power to alter peoples’ perception by directing awareness towards the immediacy of the problem. In the face of such a display, the septic issue is no longer just defined by technical descriptions of bacteria counts; rather it gets reframed as an actual threat to human health. While there is no way to quantify the impact this may have had on the Board’s decision, it’s undeniable that such actions humanizes the subject in ways that promote deeper consideration.

By using both long-range tools and specific actions for directing attention on this issue, the environmental coali-tion is managing to persuade increasing numbers of the public and officials, that solutions for reducing beach water pollution must be found.

CONCLUSIONThe manner in which the issue of Malibu’s septic prohibi-tion is defined, communicated, and resolved presents an interesting interplay of planning styles and approaches. While each of the major participating groups rely primarily on some a default style appropriate to their own particular goals, they work with and react to each others own plan-ning tendencies in a way that provides hope an eventual solution to the problem can be reached.

Without abandoning their specific interests, all parties gen-erally accept the more rationalist framework of the process and choose to work within it to achieve the greater goal. At the same time, the Board accommodates for some of the incrementalist pressures from the City by accepting changes to its timeline. The environmental groups and their work in generating high-levels of interest and concern about water quality cannot be underestimated. Given their extensive history in creating awareness of the issue, they must be credited with sufficiently shaping attention to the point at which the Board felt a need to act, and the City recognized the need to participate.

While the ultimate outcome of septic prohibition remains unresolved until an alternative is developed, the process of planning and engagement of the parties shows promise for an eventual end to septic use in the area resulting in cleaner water for Santa Monica Bay.

Works Cited

Cal/EPA.gov ( 2009, December). Cal/EPA Mission. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.calepa.ca.gov/About/mission.htm



February/March 2010


Page 17

Chou, R. (2009, December 1) Ground Water Permitting Director, LA Regional Water Quality Control Board. Telephone interview.

Forester, J. (1993). Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism (Albany: State University of New York Press. p. 25.

Gold, M. (2009, November 6). Victory at Sea. Spouting Off Blog. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://spoutingoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/victory-at-sea/

Groves, M. Septic tanks on their way out in Malibu. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 21, 2009 from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-malibu-septic6-2009nov06,0,6007608.story?track=rss

Kirsten J. (2009, December 4) Water Quality Director, Heal The Bay. Telephone interview.

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Presentation. (2009, November). Retrieved November 30, 2009 from http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/press_room/announcements/Public-Hearing-Malibu/Malibu_Final_Resolution_Docs/2.%20STAFF%20PRESENTATION.pdf p.54

Resolution No. R4-2009-007 from California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. (2009, November) Retrieved November 7, 2009 from ww.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/press_room/announcements/Public-Hearing- Retrieved Malibu/Malibu_Final_Resolution_Docs/3.%20RESOLUTION.pdf p. 7.

Additional Works ConsultedCity of Malibu Alternate Wastewater Treatment Plan For Regional Water Quality Control Board Consideration. (2009, November). Retrieved

December 1, 2009 from http://www.ci.malibu.ca.us/download/index.cfm/fuseaction/download/cid/14662/

Cote, J. (2009, November 6). Surfrider Foundation Wins Victory At Malibu. TransworldSurf.com. Retrieved December 1, 2009 from http://surf.transworld.net/news/surfrider-foundation-wins-victory-at-malibu

Damavandi, O. (2009, November 3). City offers smaller sewer plan. Malibu Times. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2009/11/06/news/news1.txt

Friedman, J. (2009, October 7). Water board official accuses the city of distorting study. Malibu Times. Retrived December 3, 2009 from. http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2009/10/07/news/news1.txt Groves, M. (2009, January 7). Surf and sewage form A combustible mix. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-malibu7-2009jan07,0,6899598.story

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Presentation. (2009, November). Retrieved November 30, 2009 from http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/press_room/announcements/Public-Hearing-Malibu/Malibu_Fi-nal_Resolution_Docs/2.%20STAFF%20PRESENTATION.pdf

York, A. (2009, November 4). Sewer fight déjà vu. Malibu Times. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2009/11/06/editorial/opinion/opinion1.txt




The LITTLE DIGGER is a bi-monthly publication of the Minnesota Onsite Wastewater Association.

Editor: Carla Tourin E-mail: [email protected]

The articles printed in the publication do not necessarily reflect the opinion of this organization. Readers are encouraged to respond to the articles with their own points-of-view. We welcome industry-related comments or articles. Information or inquires should be sent to any of the following:

MN Onsite Wastewater Association, 5200 Willson Road, Suite 300, Edina, MN 55424 Phone: (952) 345-1141 Toll Free: 888-810-4178, Website: www.mowa-mn.com

February/March 2010


Page 19

Publications: Would y ou prefer receiving ‘Little Digger’ newsletters via ... Regular Mail ElectronicallyWe currently send one publication per address to business/government groups. Contact the MOWA office if you’d like additional copies.

• 1st Member _______________________________________________ Company Name __________________________________________________________________

Address __________________________________________________ City/State/Zip ______________________________________________________________________

Title ________________________________ Phone _________________________ Mobile/800# _______________________________ Fax ________________________

Email __________________________________________ Website ___________________________________________ County _________________________________

Additional Business/Government Members:• 2nd Member ____________________________________________________ Title ________________________________________ County _________________________

Address ____________________________________________________ City/State/Zip_____________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________ Mobile/800# _________________________ Fax _________________________ Email ___________________________________

• 3rd Member ____________________________________________________ Title ________________________________________ County _________________________

Address ____________________________________________________ City/State/Zip_____________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________ Mobile/800# _________________________ Fax _________________________ Email ___________________________________

Note: Dues payable to MOWA are not deductible as a charitable contribution but may be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. 24% ofdConsult your tax advisor conserning this informatin.ues paid for fiscal ye

Information: (Check all that apply) Installer Pumper Designer Inspector Gov’t Regulator Educator Student Soil Scientist Professional Engineer Manufacturer Operator/Maintenance Supplier Other: _____________

Membership: Renewal New Member

Individual Member Business Group /Government Unit Student Life-time$240 (1 person) $340 (up to 5 people; $100 /person after 5) $140 (1 person) Honorary

Note: Your MOWA Membership includes one NOWRA membership Memberships are based on calendar year - After July 1st, new members pay $140-individual / $190-business or gov’t groups for remainder of 2010

Return to: MOWA • 52988 250th Ave • Pine Island, MN 55963 • Phone: 888-810-4178 • Fax: 507-356-8963

Statewide .................... 88Aitkin..................................1Anoka ...............................2Becker ..............................3Beltrami ............................4Benton ..............................5Big Stone ..........................6Blue Earth .........................7Brown ...............................8Carlton ..............................9Carver .............................10Cass ............................... 11Chippewa ........................12Chisago ..........................13

Clay ................................14Clearwater ......................15Cook ...............................16Cottonwood ....................17Crow Wing ......................18Dakota ............................19Dodge .............................20Douglas ..........................21Faribault ..........................22Fillmore ...........................23Freeborn .........................24Goodhue .........................25Grant ...............................26Hennepin ........................27Houston ..........................28

Hubbard ..........................29Isanti ...............................30Itasca ..............................31Jackson ..........................32Kanabec .........................33Kandiyohi ........................34Kittson .............................35Koochiching ....................36Lac qui Parle Lake...........37Lake.................................38Lake of the Woods ..........39Le Sueur .........................40Lincoln ............................41Lyon ................................42Mahnomen ......................43

Marshall ..........................44Martin ..............................45McLeod ...........................46Meeker ............................47Mille Lacs ........................48Morrison ..........................49Mower .............................50Murray ............................51Nicollet ............................52Nobles ............................53Norman ...........................54Olmsted ..........................55Otter Tail .........................56Pennington .....................57Pine ................................58

Pipestone ........................59Polk .................................60Pope ...............................61Ramsey ..........................62Red Lake ........................63Redwood ........................64Renville ...........................65Rice ................................66Rock ...............................67Roseau ...........................68Scott ...............................69Sherburne .......................70Sibley ..............................71St. Louis ..........................72Stearns ...........................73

Steele .............................74Stevens ...........................75Swift ................................76Todd ................................77Traverse .........................78Wabasha ........................79Wadena ..........................80Waseca ...........................81Washington......................82Watonwan .......................83Wilkin ..............................84Winona ...........................85Wright .............................86Yellow Medicine ..............87

Circle the counties you work in: Needed for Directory and Website.

Check enclosed (Payable to MOWA) VISA MasterCard Card Number: ______________________________ Expiration Date: _________ Cardholder Name: ____________________________________________

Signature: ________________________________________________________________ Date_____________________________

(Please print)Payment: Amount: $ ___________

2010 MOWA MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

(Please list additional business/government group members on separate sheet with complete contact information.)

Individual/Group Contact: This person will be listed as the NOWRA member on the Septic Locator website. They will be listed first in all MOWA publications. Please print clearly.

Additional NOWRA Memberships: MOWA membership fees include one NOWRA membership per company/organization. List names of members who want additional NOWRA memberships here: Cost - $40 per person.

2)________________________________ 3)_________________________________ 4)________________________________ 5)________________________________

MOWA Membership $______________ + Add’l NOWRA Memberships =

MOWA, 5200 Willson Road, Suite 300, Edina, MN 55424 Phone: 952.345.1141 Fax: 952.920.1533Note: Dues payable to MOWA are not deductible as a charitable contribution but may be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense.

Service Provider

MOWA 5200 Willson Road, Suite 300 Edina, MN 55424 (952) 345-1141 (888) 810-4178

PresortedStandard

U.S. PostagePAID

Rochester, MNPermit No. 289

www.mowa-mn.com

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Documents

February/March 2010 - Vol. 24, Issue 2 THETHE LITTLE DIGGERmowa-mn.com/PDFs/LittleDigger/FebMar10.pdf · February/March 2010 - Vol. 24, Issue 2 MOWA 2010 Convention—A Wealth of