Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the On Site Sewage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board accepts petition to review on-site sewage setbacks after implementation issues reported
Summary
The Board accepted a petition to review WAC 246-272A-0210 minimum horizontal separations after local health jurisdictions reported the recent change (surface water setback increase from 100 to 200 feet) has unintentionally restricted development along large rivers; staff will file a CR-101 to begin rulemaking to clarify setbacks measured from ordinary high-water marks.
The State Board of Health voted Jan. 14 to accept a petition for rulemaking that asks the Board to clarify recent revisions to on-site sewage setbacks (WAC 246-272A-0210, Table IV) after several local jurisdictions reported implementation challenges. The change in the rule text increased surface-water setbacks from 100 feet to 200 feet; petitioners and local environmental-health directors said the revision has been applied to large rivers and lakes regardless of the actual drinking-water withdrawal point, making some lots unbuildable.
Peter Browning, a Board member who presented the petition alongside Board staff Shay Bauman and Department staff Jeremy Simmons, said the petition aims to correct unintended consequences and to align setback language with ordinary high-water marks and local water-use patterns. "The recent rule changes have created significant implementation challenges in several jurisdictions across the state, particularly along the Pend Oreille River system," staff said in the presentation.
Department staff described existing guidance and waiver mechanisms local health jurisdictions may use, but Board members expressed concern that relying on waivers is not a sustainable statewide solution. Member Steve Kutz asked whether alternate treatment technologies or reserve-area planning could help address lot-size and failure-plan concerns; Department staff said waivers and higher-technology systems are sometimes used locally but that consistent rule language would reduce confusion.
The Board directed staff to notify the petitioner and to file a CR-101 (preproposal inquiry) to evaluate possible rule changes, clarifications, and cleanup items. Motion/Second: Member Ellsworth/Member Browning. Approved unanimously.
Next steps include DOH evaluation and stakeholder engagement during the CR-101 process; the Board’s action initiates formal rulemaking procedures and signals the Board’s interest in clarifying the application of setback distances measured from ordinary high-water marks.
