Trinity County board orders quick study of alternative septic rules after contractors, residents press for options

Trinity County supervisors on March 17 directed county staff to study whether the county can pursue a Local Area Management Plan (LAMP) that would permit alternative on-site wastewater technologies in areas where conventional septic systems cannot meet state setbacks, percolation, or groundwater separation rules.

Environmental Health Director Christy Anderson told the board that Trinity County currently regulates septic systems under the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s on-site policy and is effectively operating at “tier one,” which limits county-approved systems to standard septic and leach-field designs. Anderson said a LAMP would allow the county to approve “tier 2” alternatives — advanced treatment and monitored systems — but requires a formal agreement with the regional board and new inspection and maintenance processes.

Contractors and local residents urged the board to act. Wendy Drake of Plumbing Plus Construction said many landowners face failed systems and cannot develop inherited or long-held parcels: “If we don’t see an option of the LAMP program and moving forward to see if it’s even viable, then these property owners can pretty much just walk away from useless property,” she told the board during public comment.

Board members asked what adopting a LAMP would take. Anderson said only two counties in the North Coast region have approved LAMPs and that a program would likely require engineering standards, monitoring, annual permits for some systems, and enforcement mechanisms. She noted a range of installation costs for alternative systems and said a typical owner‑installed conventional system might cost about $4,000–$5,000 while professionally installed or advanced systems can be $10,000–$15,000 or more.

County Administrative Officer Justin Tutill and board members discussed how to scope the first step. Supervisors agreed to direct staff to gather information from the regional water board and other counties that have adopted LAMPs, consult local engineers and potential consultants, and return with estimated timing and costs. The board asked for an initial staff report within roughly 60 days. Tutill and department staff said a targeted initial fact‑finding task could be done with modest staff hours (estimates in the meeting ranged from a few hours up to a short staff effort), whereas a full consultant-led development of a LAMP could cost substantially more (participants referenced ranges of tens of thousands of dollars for a full program development).

The board’s direction did not adopt a LAMP; it asked staff to report back with a recommendation and cost estimate. Tutill cautioned that any significant county work on a LAMP would be supported from general fund or other non‑grant sources unless the county identifies specific external grant funding. The Environmental Health office will also evaluate whether grant programs or state revolving funds could support any next steps.

Next steps: staff will contact the North Coast Water Board and peer counties, solicit input from engineers and possible consultants, and return to the board with a memo that lays out options, likely timing and cost estimates, and recommended milestones for moving forward.