Commission committee tables resolution that would prohibit residential decentralized wastewater systems

A proposed resolution that would prohibit residential decentralized wastewater systems (often called STEP systems) in Bedford County was the subject of extended public comment and expert testimony before the Courthouse & Property Committee. After discussion, the committee voted to table the resolution and ask the county’s planning and zoning body to review technical standards, including leach-field application area and bonding/inspection requirements.

The resolution presented to committee would have prohibited residential decentralized wastewater systems countywide “until such time as the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) or other appropriate authority have developed and implemented sufficient standards and monitoring processes.” Committee members read a resolution that cited TDEC’s state review and framed the measure as a temporary prohibition intended to protect public health and property rights pending stronger standards.

Public commenters included homeowners and landowners who raised concerns that a countywide ban would reduce property values and restrict how owners may develop their land. One resident with first‑hand wastewater management experience said decentralized systems are valuable if properly overseen; others said they feared a 50 percent failure rate cited in a TDEC review and worried about who would maintain systems in subdivisions when builders left.

Speakers from the development and real estate community urged caution before restricting system types. Ashley Sugar, identified in committee as CEO of the Middle Tennessee Association of Realtors, told commissioners that developers pushing legislative reform sought higher standards, including bonding and third‑party oversight, and she urged the committee to wait for state‑level or negotiated standards before enacting a local prohibition.

Planning staff and the county attorney were asked how a commission-level resolution would interact with the county’s planning and zoning process. Committee members were told that a zoning change or a regulation with the effect of law typically should originate with or be considered by the Planning Commission; passing a commission resolution alone would not create enforceable zoning law without that administrative process. Several committee members suggested updating county zoning regulations to require larger leach-field application areas than the state minimum, require bonding or third‑party maintenance contracts, and locate STEP systems near main roads where sewer extensions are more feasible.

After hearing multiple residents, engineers and industry representatives, the committee voted to table the resolution and asked planning staff to study revised zoning language and stronger technical standards. Committee members framed the motion as giving planning staff time to draft stronger local requirements — including expanded reserve areas, bonding/maintenance language and inspection regimes — before any blanket prohibition is considered by the full commission.

The committee’s action was procedural: tabling keeps the resolution active in committee while requesting further study by planning and zoning and does not enact a countywide ban.