Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health Septic Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County health staff propose septic‑inspection rule focused on properties near water
Summary
Grand Traverse County health officials presented a draft local regulation proposing inspections for on‑site wastewater systems near surface water (proposed 300‑foot buffer), a third‑party inspector model, fee funding and a 10/20 public‑notice adoption process; commissioners raised questions about buffer distance and workload.
Mike Leahy, deputy health officer for Grand Traverse County, and Brent Wheat, the county's environmental health director, presented a first draft of a local on‑site wastewater regulation at the board's study session. The draft, developed by an ad hoc committee, would require inspections for wastewater systems within a targeted distance of surface water and rely on third‑party inspectors to limit county staffing needs.
Brent Wheat told the board the ad hoc group had settled on a 300‑foot buffer from "surface water" (which the draft treats broadly to include lakes, wetlands and other surface bodies) as the scope for required inspections. "What we were proposing is inspections for any dwellings containing wastewater systems within 300 feet of water," Wheat said, explaining the choice was intended to target higher‑risk parcels while keeping total inspections manageable. Staff cited equalization‑department estimates that a 250‑foot buffer would generate roughly 200–500 inspections annually while a 500‑foot buffer could reach about 600 inspections.
Leahy said the department plans to fund the program primarily through fees and to use third‑party inspectors for many field visits; he also described an appeals process that would come before the board acting as the local board of health. He walked the board through a proposed public‑process timeline he summarized as a "10 and 20" rule: post the proposed regulation 10 days prior to a discussion and 20 days before final adoption.
Commissioners pressed staff on the scientific defensibility of the 300‑foot number versus 500 feet and on operational concerns such as inspection turnaround times and appeals. Staff said they chose 300 feet as a compromise derived from the ad hoc and offered to revisit the distance if the board desired. For turnaround, staff said in‑house health departments can obtain lab results in about five days while private third‑party inspectors reported roughly two‑week turnaround for a complete inspection and sample processing.
Leahy said the draft is intended as a limited, practical first step to address higher‑risk transfers and that full countywide inspection would require substantially more capacity. The department asked for direction and input before moving the draft through the notice and adoption process.
