Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Health staff recommend limited property‑line setback reductions for septic systems
Loading...
Summary
Elbert County public health staff told commissioners they will recommend allowing limited reductions to the state’s 10‑foot septic property‑line setback in constrained cases, while keeping neighbor‑well protections and formalizing criteria for variances before submitting rules for public review.
Marissa Ginger, Elbert County’s environmental health specialist, told the board at a Feb. 11 work study that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s updated on‑site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) rules allow counties to opt in or out of several optional provisions and that the county must pick which options to send to the state for review.
Ginger said one decision the county must make is whether to authorize local public‑health determinations permitting property‑line setback reductions that would otherwise require a 10‑foot separation. "We already allow some variances," she said, "but I think having it written into our regs showing clear that, yes, we do allow for it if the situation needs to be that way" while stressing that neighboring wells would still be required to meet setbacks.
Why it matters: Many older Elbert County neighborhoods were built on lots smaller than current guidelines and are now experiencing failing septic systems with limited space for replacement. Ginger said some subdivisions have 1–2 acre lots that were designed for two‑bedroom houses but now support larger households and failing systems, forcing costly "rip‑and‑replace" work that frequently requires hauling out contaminated soil and installing engineered components.
Ginger described technical options (sand media, time‑dosing, additional tanks) that engineers can use to allow systems on tight lots, but she cautioned such solutions are costlier and often require ongoing maintenance. Commissioners pressed on neighbor‑well risk: Ginger said wells remain a priority risk and that a variance would be declined if the alternative would place effluent too close to another property’s well.
Ginger noted state minimums: while she had earlier suggested recommending a 5‑foot minimum in conversation with the board, she later clarified the state’s regulation allows local setbacks to go as low as 3 feet when counties opt to permit reductions. "So I think I had said 5, but per the state regs, we cannot go any less than 3 feet," she told the group.
Process and next steps: Ginger said staff will finalize recommended opt‑ins and opt‑outs, circulate them to the commissioners for review, submit to the state (she indicated a target submittal around March 2), allow the state’s 30‑day review, and then open the proposals to public comment—proposing to use the April Board of Health meeting for hearings. "This is just what we're going to recommend they do," Sarah McIntosh, public health director, said of the packet staff will prepare for public notice.
The board did not take a formal vote at the work study; members directed staff to refine criteria for variances, factor in neighbor‑well protections, and return with a written recommendation to post for public comment.
Ending: Staff will prepare a formal submittal to the state and a public‑notice package for the Board of Health meeting; any final code changes will return to the commissioners after the public comment period.
