After some additional public input and comments from the Brown County Commissioners a new septic ordinance was approved last week.
The commissioners approved the ordinance with a 2-1 vote with President Jerry Pittman voting against the ordinance at the May 5 meeting. The ordinance had been revised over the past three years by a volunteer citizen committee.
This ordinance replaces one that has been in place since 1997. Most Brown County residents are affected by the ordinance because most homes in Brown County use septic systems to dispose of waste. Only three areas have sewers: Nashville, Gnaw Bone and Helmsburg.
“I have never had a problem with having a code in Brown County that allows for permitting and licensing the installers or with the enforcement provisions and fines to put teeth in it. I’ve been in favor of that all along,” Pittman said.
“What I have a problem with is all of the unnecessary elements that were put in this document that were already covered by the state.”
Commissioner Diana Biddle voted in favor of the new ordinance. She said this ordinance allows the health department more alternatives when installing new technology that was developed since 1997.
The most important part of the new ordinance is that it outlines an administrative appeals process, she said.
“I believe that particular section should help with some of the individuals that have some animosity towards individuals in health department,” Biddle said.
Commissioner Chuck Braden said several of the comments against the ordinance that he had received had little to deal with the ordinance itself, but about health department employees. The health department would be responsible for enforcing this ordinance.
Braden said he read this ordinance, the 1997 ordinance and Indiana Code ahead of the vote. He said the new ordinance is “user friendly.”
“I think it’s something the public can latch onto and understand a little bit better than the existing one and it is easier to read than the 53 page of unenforceable administrative code,” Braden said before seconding Biddle’s motion to approve the ordinance.
On April 21, the commissioners approved the ordinance on first reading with a 2-1 vote and Pittman voting against.
A public hearing took place April 26 on Zoom and comments for or against continued to be accepted until May 3.
Pittman said he wanted to delay a vote until the next commissioners meeting on May 19 to give him more time to read submitted public comments on the ordinance.
Around 25 people attended the April 26 hearing on Zoom. Before the meeting the commissioners received four written comments with two for and two against the ordinance.
A total of 19 comments had been received by May 3 with 10 comments in support of the ordinance and nine against with some supportive comments coming from the ordinance committee members and septic system installers.
At the May 5 meeting, Biddle said she was “quite satisfied” that those who wanted to participate or give input had the opportunity to do so before the final vote was taken.
She said she had received comments from people who did not like that the public hearing was held on Zoom, but she said Zoom meetings have resulted in more people participating than ever before when meetings were in-person.
“When we were having in-person commissioner meetings we would have 10 to 15 people in the audience. We have 62 online right now. That is more than we normally ever have,” she said.
“That would be almost a standing room only crowd if we had it in the commissioners meeting room right now, which that happens maybe once a year.”
The state already has a lengthy set of rules, known as Rule 410, which are the minimum standards with which all county health departments must comply. But counties are allowed to make their own rules for waste disposal and septic system installation and use as long as counties’ standards are not less strict than the state’s.
The proposed ordinance has 13 different articles: permits; installation; repair or replacement of systems; technology; installation inspections; registration for septic contractors; inspections related to change of use; tourist homes and bed and breakfasts; possible violation notices; penalties; administrative appeal; validity and ordinance in force.
Members of the rewrite committee — which is separate from the county’s board of health — have said that there are soil types, land topography, water movement and other factors in Brown, Monroe and Bartholomew counties that are not found anywhere else in the state, so it can’t be assumed that the basic state rules will work to keep septic systems working here and protecting the county’s natural environment. Changes also were made to help make it easier for homeowners and installers to understand what is required if they need to put in a new septic system.
The entire ordinance can be read in the legal notices on bcdemocrat.com.
Enforcing code
A local ordinance needs to be adopted to allow for the local health department to enforce Rule 410 of the Indiana administrative code, Biddle said.
“The county has no teeth to make anyone comply because there’s no enforcement component in the administrative code,” she said.
“If somebody’s septic failed the health department could write them a letter, but there’s really no teeth in enforcing the administrative code without local ordinance language.”
Biddle said that, for example, the county has an ordinance that establishes the speed limit on all county roads.
“There is an Indiana administrative code under highways that gives recommendations for what speeds should be, but without the local ordinance the county sheriff could not enforce the speed limits on those roads,” she said.
She added that the requirements of Rule 410 are referenced in this ordinance.
“My concern is without a local ordinance for enforcement for people who have failing septic systems the impact is not just Brown County, the impact is farther reaching because over 75 percent of Brown County is in the Monroe County Lake Monroe watershed,” Biddle said.
“Where is your affluent going to go? It’s going to go downstream. … Protecting our environment and protecting our waterways from disease and affluent that is paramount and critical to our health and safety.”
Pittman said as a farmer whose family has owned land for generations in Brown County he knows the impact such pollution can have.
“I’m just as concerned about the environment as anybody,” he said.
But he reiterated that adopting an ordinance that closely follows Rule 410 should be enough with allowances for permitting and licensing the installers or fines for those who violate the ordinance should be enough.
Resident Tim Clark submitted 14 pages of comments and analyses of the ordinance. He said no one is objecting to an ordinance that allows the county to enforce Rule 410.
“My specific question is where do we deviate from what is required in the code and what is the cost benefit and risk of that deviation,” he asked the commissioners on May 5.
“If you have solutions in this ordinance I want to know what the problem was.”
Residents Kevin Fleming and Paul Navarro also questioned the need for an ordinance that goes above state standards at the May meeting.
Biddle said the ordinance solves the problem of the county not previously having an appeals process if a resident objects a health department decision along with allowing for newer septic technology to be used here.
“Where does it deviate? I don’t think it deviates all that much from the administrative state code,” she said.
The commissioners also worked with the volunteer committee to change language in the ordinance to be less restrictive, like using “recommended distance” instead of “maximum distance” when talking about the distance a septic tank should be from a structure.
Biddle said that the ordinance also allows the health department to work with residents on solving septic system issues, including a health department employee who worked with the South Central Community Action Program (SCCAP) to get grants to help residents fix septic problems.
“I think I can probably name at least five families that I know were assisted in getting grant funding from the SCCAP program to fix their septic systems,” she said.
Helmsburg resident Erika Bryenton said she supports the ordinance, but had issues with section 202 that states septic systems must be installed or upgraded then approved by the health department before any construction can begin above a foundation floor level of a home or before a mobile home can be brought onto the property.
Health department employee John Kennard said a waiver for that requirement is available and was also included in the 1997 ordinance. He added that Rule 410 requires a written septic construction permit be issued before building can begin while that site is protected with yellow tape.
Septic ordinance committee members Rich Hall and Clint Studabaker both spoke before a vote was taken on May 5.
Hall said the committee was aware of residents wanting to know why specific changes from the state rule were in the ordinance for Brown County. He said that is why preambles were included before each article explaining the reasoning.
“We have done a good deal of gathering information about the quality of water and about the condition of various septics around the county,” Studabaker said of the data backing the need for an ordinance.
“It’s not just opinions that have been thrown out, it’s actual information that has been gathered and put in one place. It’s been included in the different public sessions we’ve had as we developed this particular ordinance.”
