Grand Traverse County opens public hearing on proposed septic inspection regulation

The Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners opened a public hearing on the county’s proposed on-site wastewater and sewage disposal regulation and invited public comment on whether the county should require inspections at time of property transfer.

Mike Leahy of the Grand Traverse County Health Department introduced the draft rule, described four prior board briefings and three ad hoc committee meetings, and said the proposal was posted for public review. Leahy told the board the draft includes an effective date of Jan. 1 (year specified in the draft language) and that the board could direct staff to bring an adoption ordinance to a tentative May 21 meeting or revise the language and hold an additional hearing.

The hearing drew dozens of residents and organized groups. Christine Christman, executive director of the Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay, told the board “the more than 25,000 septic systems located in Grand Traverse County are not regulated by a statewide code requiring system maintenance,” and urged the county to act to protect groundwater and surface water. Christman cited national and local evidence that point-of-transfer or time-of-sale inspection programs identify needed repairs; she also said published local-health data show many evaluated systems require fixes.

Members of the League of Women Voters and local scientists similarly urged adoption, while some commenters asked for stronger or clearer implementation details. Connor Miller of Aspire North Realtors asked the county to publish maps and a database showing properties within 300 feet of surface water so owners and realtors can know when inspections would apply. Tim Warner, a member of the Traverse City Light & Power Board, urged independent verification of the energy and lifecycle math for any design-dependent rules tied to the program.

Opposition focused on cost and scope. Tony Anne Sergi warned the board that local health departments already enforce state minimum design and construction standards and cautioned against a regulation with uncertain public-health benefit and recurring program costs; Sergi estimated recurring annual costs in the low‑hundreds of thousands and said some other counties later rescinded similar ordinances after community pushback. Sergi said commissioners must weigh fiduciary responsibility and concrete, documentable public-health benefits.

Commissioners used the hearing to press staff on operational details. Commissioner questions included whether graywater and nontraditional dispersal systems would be covered (environmental health director Brent Wheat replied that the draft treats graywater as wastewater), whether commonly used terms such as “wetland” should be defined in the ordinance, and how long certification and corrective-action reviews would take. Health staff said department guidelines tied to the regulation would supply implementation timelines and procedures; commissioners asked staff to consider providing reasonable ranges for review and compliance timeframes and to work with GIS staff to produce public-facing maps identifying regulated properties.

Next steps: the board may accept limited clarifying edits without another hearing and proceed to a planned May adoption meeting, or it may direct additional edits and an additional public hearing. No final vote on the ordinance occurred at this meeting.