Ingham County holds public hearing on proposed septic-code updates, including larger tank minimums and contractor certification

Ingham County’s Board of Commissioners heard a public hearing Jan. 27 on proposed updates to Chapter 2 of the county sanitary code aimed at modernizing rules for on-site wastewater systems.

Rod McNeil, director of environmental health, told commissioners the code—nearly 50 years old—needs changes to align with current best practices. “We are requiring a minimum of a 1,500 gallon septic tank for, 1 to 3 bedroom homes,” McNeil said, and staff propose certifying contractors, designers and maintenance providers to provide consumer protections and a means to remove contractors who do substandard work. McNeil also described equipment and installation standards the draft adds: risers to grade to ease maintenance, a secondary prevention device to prevent falls into tanks, schedule 40 pipe between tanks and absorption fields, a prohibition on straw as backfill because it degrades, and clarifying language for rare deep-cut systems.

The changes also explicitly allow alternative materials and system types that did not exist when the code was drafted, McNeil said, and he framed many edits as clarifications rather than new prohibitions.

Local designers and manufacturers who spoke at the hearing were broadly supportive but urged technical adjustments. Larry Stevens of Stevens Consulting Services, one of the county’s designated designers for system replacements, said he reviewed the draft closely and recommended only minor, “nitpicky” changes; he called the proposal “one of the better thought out” drafts he has seen and said it could serve as a basis for a statewide code.

Maynard Berry, a soil scientist and on-site wastewater designer, urged the commissioners not to disallow recirculating or intermittent sand filters, saying he has several in operation that perform well and that removing them would be “short-sighted.”

Matthew Johnson, a representative of Infiltrator Water Technologies, asked whether the county would create policies to approve alternative technologies and whether poly tanks could be required to meet third‑party specifications such as IFMO or CSA. McNeil said the county would avoid embedding endorsements of third-party certifiers in the code itself and instead expect to use policies that allow flexibility while the county adapts to new technologies.

Commissioners asked about fees and certification logistics; McNeil said fees have not been set but will likely be similar to existing point‑of‑sale inspector fees (roughly $100–$200), with certifications running about two years and periodic renewals. He also noted county ARPA funds previously used to replace failing wells and septic systems—“we’ve maybe got enough to do one more”—and said those funds are nearly exhausted.

The hearing drew technical comments, practical concerns about costs and inspection pathways, and specific suggestions for wording. The public hearing was closed after no further comments were offered; the county will next consider the draft language and any fee schedule changes through its standard adoption process.