Septic pumpers and county forms draw complaints; committee weighs disclaimer and clearer guidance

At a committee meeting, planning staff reported five complaints from residents who said pumper reports indicated tanks were pumped when residents later learned they were not. The issue prompted a wide-ranging discussion about whether the county should continue to publish a list of septic service providers, require landowner signatures on pumper forms, or add a clarifying letter explaining that the three-year requirement is for inspection and that pumping occurs only if the inspection indicates it is necessary.

Katrina (planning staff) described the administrative problem: many residents misunderstand the required three-year inspection and assume the mailed notice means pumping is mandatory. "We could help the situation by rewording it to make it clear that they shouldn't assume it's going to get pumped," a board member said.

David, who identified himself as owner of Richland Septic, said pumpers follow DNR training and use a sludge judge to determine whether pumping is necessary. "If there's not enough solids, then we don't pump; we do the inspection," David said, defending current practice and warning that requiring landowner signatures could be burdensome because many owners are not home when pumpers visit.

Committee members suggested options: add a short explanatory letter to accompany the form that clarifies inspection vs. pumping; add a disclaimer to the county’s online listing that the list is not an endorsement but merely a directory of providers who consented to be posted; and reconsider whether a landowner signature requirement is practical given operational realities described by pumpers.

The committee asked staff to revise the mailed form wording, consider a disclaimer for the provider list, and review whether signatures or other process changes are necessary; staff will bring draft language back to a future meeting.