Resident appeals health department cease-and-desist over alleged septic or water-treatment discharge

A hearing officer on March 31, 2025 heard an administrative appeal by Crystal Stacy of a Northeast District Department of Health order requiring her to stop surface discharge from her property at or near 38 Turcotte Avenue while the department investigates whether sewage or other organic filth is reaching neighboring yards and the street.

Hearing Officer Ryan Burns opened the session by reminding the parties that the department bears the burden to prove the lawfulness of its order and that the cease-and-desist remains in effect while his decision is pending. "The cease and desist order remains in effect while I'm considering my decision," Burns told the participants.

The nut of the dispute is whether the visible discharge documented by the department is sewage or organic filth from a failing septic system, or whether it is nonsewage wastewater from a home water-treatment system and a sump (sub) pump. Amanda Gonzalez of the Northeast District Department of Health described the department's timeline: a neighbor filed a complaint on Jan. 2, staff conducted a site visit Jan. 16 and, after contractor interviews indicating the water-treatment system at one time had been plumbed into the septic, the department issued a cease-and-desist on Feb. 4 and had the order served March 17.

"We sent a cease and desist to stop the immediate discharge, whether it was septum or whatever it was," Gonzalez said. She and other department staff told the hearing they saw surface discharge at the front of the property in the area that corresponds to the end of the septic trench and that contractor notes suggested the water-treatment system had at one time discharged into the septic tank, which could overload the system.

Stacy denied the discharge was sewage and said much of the visible flow had been groundwater handled by a temporary hose connected to a sump pump. "It's not septic. It's not hazardous waste," Stacy said, adding the temporary hose was used for about two days when an underground discharge line froze and that her family relies on the well and treatment system for drinking and bathing water.

Department witnesses described follow-up calls the agency made to two contractors. Drainage Experts reported no water-treatment system, sump or sub pump at the May 2, 2019 inspection noted in their records; Connecticut Water Pump, LLC (which serviced the property in 2022) told the department that at the time it found the water-treatment discharge had been connected to the septic and that it later reconfigured piping to run into the sump pump. The department reported it could not verify installation permits with the Town of Plainfield.

Maureen Marcoux, a registered sanitarian with the department, summarized the agency's concern: "We verified the conditions outside of the property that it was discharged on ground, and that's why the order reflects that language." Luigi Sartori, who also identified himself as a registered sanitarian in the hearing, told the officer the department relied on visual signs and contractor reports to justify the order when property access for interior forensic plumbing inspection was not granted.

At the hearing, the department said the steps it would accept for compliance are (1) disconnecting or bypassing the water-treatment discharge until it is permitted and installed in a code-compliant manner so it does not discharge to surface, and (2) having a licensed septic installer diagnose and confirm the septic system is operating as designed. The department admitted its evidence (exhibits 1–7 and photos) and the hearing record shows the agency did not complete an interior inspection or forensic dye test.

Burns closed the record without issuing a final ruling and encouraged the parties to pursue a negotiated solution. "If you do and you do not wish me to issue an order I would ask the parties to please reach out to me through Miss Walker," he said, referencing the PHHO appeal inbox. Burns warned that until he issues a decision, the department's cease-and-desist remains in force: "If you are discharging, water out the front of your house right now, you are in violation."

The hearing record lists the timeline of relevant dates: complaint intake Jan. 2, site visit Jan. 16, department cease-and-desist issued Feb. 4, follow-up inspection March 7, certified service by state marshal on March 17, and the appeal hearing March 31.

The hearing officer said he would issue a written decision in due course; in the meantime, both the department and the appellant were directed to continue communications aimed at achieving a remediation plan that could make a formal order unnecessary.