Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the On Site Wastewater Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs amended resolution asking state to review 3-year septic maintenance requirement; debate continues over sale of county maintenance lists
Summary
After discussion of the county's maintenance lists and how they are sold and used by private pumpers, the committee approved an amended resolution urging the state to reassess the required three‑year maintenance schedule for private wastewater systems; staff described program details and fees and fielded open-records questions.
The Washington County Land Use and Planning Committee voted May 15 to approve an amended resolution asking the state to review the three‑year maintenance requirement for on‑site wastewater systems and related state rules.
The discussion followed a staff presentation that described the county's maintenance-tracking program and the two lists the county generates for market customers: a monthly maintenance list (sold for $100 per year) and a new-permit list (sold for $35). Staff said Washington County's database contains more than 21,000 on‑site systems — including holding tanks, mounds, conventional septic systems and ATUs — that the county monitors for maintenance and reporting under state statute.
The amended resolution, authored by Supervisor Krebs and presented to the committee as a revision of a previously postponed item, was clarified during discussion and framed as “an encouragement to the state to just put eyes back on their requirements,” not as a repeal of maintenance obligations, according to Supervisor Krebs. Maggie Pridemore moved the resolution; it was seconded and adopted by voice vote.
County staff explained how the maintenance mailing and enforcement process works: the department sends an initial 30‑day notice to property owners, then additional reminders and, if necessary, citations. Staff also said the maintenance lists are used primarily by private pumpers and maintainer companies; larger firms told staff they purchase the lists to reach customers, while smaller firms find the lists more burdensome because they lack marketing resources.
Committee members asked whether the sold lists would become available via open‑records requests. County staff and legal counsel explained the distinction between the fee for generating a custom monthly report (a service the county charges for) and the static reports the county is already required to submit quarterly to the state. Staff said an open‑records requester could obtain the county's statutorily required quarterly report, which would be provided at cost (time and materials) and likely cost under $10 if emailed. The county is not required to create or reformat reports solely to satisfy an open‑records request.
The committee's resolution asks the legislature or relevant state agencies to review the three‑year maintenance requirement to ensure it reflects current best practices and to examine related statutory language. Committee members who spoke supported the amended language, saying it clarified the committee's intent to request review rather than deregulate the program.
