Lake County Board of Health tables decision on Alpenflow campground wastewater variance, asks for proof on power and water access

The Lake County Board of Health on Feb. 19 continued a public hearing and tabled a decision on a variance request that would let the Alpenflow campground use vault (holding) toilets for tent loops and composting or dry-flush toilets for sheltered sites instead of installing conforming on‑site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS).

The hearing focused on whether the site “can accommodate a conforming system,” a required finding under the county’s OWTS rules. County staff told the board they could not find conclusive evidence that the tent loop area could not support a conforming OWTS, though they agreed topography and access raise challenges for the proposed sheltered sites. The board directed the applicant to return with additional documentation about electric-service feasibility and well access and continued the hearing to Monday the 2nd at 3:45 p.m.

Why it matters: The variance would allow holding-tank vault privies and alternative toilet technologies in place of multiple on‑site septic fields. The applicant argues those alternatives would reduce land disturbance, conserve scarce local water, and be more reliable in Lake County’s freeze/thaw conditions. Staff and the state’s on‑site wastewater coordinator said Lake County’s regulations are more stringent than state Regulation 43 and treat vault privies as nonconforming uses that require specific, evidence-based findings to approve a variance.

What proponents said: The applicant and supporters described the proposed Alpenflow plan as a 91.02‑acre, low‑impact campground with roughly 30–50 campsites and 10 sheltered sites. The applicant said the tent-loop design would be served by four 1,000‑gallon vault tanks and estimated the tent-site waste generation at about 8,000 gallons per year based on US Forest Service guidance. “The proposed systems provide equal or greater protection of public health and water quality as similar commercial recreation uses within Lake County have shown,” the applicant said during the presentation.

Local contractors and concession operators told the board vault maintenance systems are widely used in backcountry settings. Resident commenter Zach Zer, who installs OWTS in the area, said dosing pump systems are prone to freeze and damage in Lake County and voiced support for the vault approach. Online commenter Bill Stra, who said he manages vault operations for Forest Service concessionaires, described vault pumping and transport to treatment facilities as a standard and economical practice.

What staff and the state said: County staff emphasized the legal framework: Lake County adopted local OWTS rules that may be more stringent than state Regulation 43 and therefore require the board to apply county-specific prohibitions and findings. Staff noted Lake County’s rules regard vault privies as nonconforming and subject vaults to limited-occupancy restrictions (commonly phrased as no more than 90 consecutive days or 180 days per year in some circumstances). CDPHE on‑site wastewater coordinator Steve Proise told the board that a key technical distinction is that a vault privy is a holding tank with no on‑site wastewater treatment, while a conforming septic/OWTS treats effluent on site before recharge or disposal.

Steve Proise: “A vault privy… is a holding tank. There’s no treatment happening on site and that is being pumped and transported to a treatment facility to be treated and returned back to the watershed at that facility.”

Board deliberations and evidence requested: Much of the board’s discussion turned on the first variance criterion — whether the parcel, as proposed for campground use, can accommodate a conforming OWTS. Board members noted precedent in the county for some vault installations but said they needed firm, contemporaneous evidence to justify a written finding that the site cannot accommodate a conforming system. Several members asked the applicant to provide documentation from the utility (Excel) showing whether electric service extension to the proposed campsite area is feasible; staff also asked for any follow-up evidence on well-permit feasibility and haul/pumping access for vault maintenance.

Public‑record exchange: The applicant supplied a 2021 email excerpt from an Excel design contractor saying nearby transformers may be disconnected and describing an option to pull service from a Half Moon Road transformer and install a new transformer across the creek; staff asked the applicant to provide a site plan and any additional utility correspondence.

Board action and next steps: The board voted to table the variance application and set a continuation for Monday the 2nd at 3:45 p.m. to allow time for the applicant to submit utility/engineering documentation and for staff to consult with technical advisers. The hearing remains open and the board expects to reconvene with that additional evidence.

The board’s action was procedural — it did not approve or deny the variance. If the applicant and staff cannot resolve the evidence questions, the board may either deny the request or continue to condition any future approval with specific operational and monitoring requirements (for example, limits on occupancy or mandatory disposal contracts).