Hardly a day passes without some disturbing report about water quality in North Carolina. Unfortunately, as we grow in this state - adding new people, industry and jobs - we also create new threats to our water resources. Agricultural waste, residential waste, industrial discharges and construction runoff are the undesirable side effects of our economic and population growth. The result is mounting pressure on our rivers, streams, sensitive estuarine waters and groundwater. Water quality balances precariously between our desire for continued economic growth and protection of natural resources.

To protect these resources, safeguard our health, and ensure the availability of water for basic human needs and commerce, North Carolina communities began nearly 100 years ago to install public water and sewer systems in the state. Today, there are an estimated 4,000 of these systems statewide. Thousands of us depend on them every day to bring clean water to our homes, businesses and institutions - and to transport wastewater away and dispose of it safely.

Yet, we know that many of North Carolina's water and sewer systems are in jeopardy. Stories of crumbling pipe, leaks and infiltration, bypasses and overflows crop up more frequently than any of us would prefer. Dozens of communities, including some of the state's larger cities and economic engines, are under state imposed moratoria, bringing population and business growth to a standstill. In some cases, communities are loosing industrial prospects because they lack the water or sewer capacity.

Our local and state leaders have made efforts to respond to these needs over the past four decades. The State of North Carolina has provided over $1.7 billion in water and sewer funding, most recently in the form of the 1998 Clean Water Bonds, which represented the state's single largest bond investment in anything in the state's history. Local governments have also done their part struggling to meet tightening regulatory requirements while balancing needed improvements with other competing needs of the government.

Yet, like most states, North Carolina has not had a comprehensive and effective strategy for determining where water and sewer systems are located, what condition they are in, what the needed improvements are for the future, nor how to develop and focus financial resources to address these needs.

A project undertaken by the Rural Center starting in 1994 laid the groundwork for that comprehensive strategy. Called the Rural Water and Sewer Initiative, the project inventoried, assessed and mapped public, community water and sewer systems in 78 of the states 100 counties between 1994 and 1998. The results of the project include a comprehensive database on water and sewer systems available in GIS (Geographic Information Systems) format. The data layers are housed at the Office of State Planning - Center for Geographic Information and Analysis and can be purchased for a whopping $100 for the entire statewide coverage. This information is being used by engineers and planners, water and sewer funders, economic developers, and regulatory agencies and by such agencies as State Emergency Management in evaluation of storm inundation areas for major storm events such as our recent Hurricane Floyd.

Although it will likely not come as a surprise, you may be interested to know some of the findings from this study for wastewater systems. For all systems surveyed, the three major and critical needs were: 1) replacement of deteriorating sewer pipes; 2) correction of inflow and infiltration problems (I & I ranged from 1,000 to 3 million gallons during a 24-hour worst day period); and 3) the need to expand or improve treatment to meet current regulatory requirements. Currently in North Carolina, there are about 100 sewer systems under some form of administrative order.

Of the 270 sewer systems covered in the study, about two-thirds have both treatment and collection systems. As years advance from this study, I believe it is likely we will see this ratio change as more and more North Carolina communities abandon their wastewater treatment plants due to cost and complexity of regulations and chose, instead, to join with neighboring systems for regional treatment.

There were over 9,000 miles of sewer pipe covered by the study. Over 40 percent are vitrified clay (VCP). It's old - much of it installed in the 1930's during the New Deal Area - and it's failing. Replacement costs for VCP range from $50-100 per linear foot. In that New Deal Period, now almost seventy years ago, first-ever public sewers and a treatment plant were installed in the towns of Columbia (Tyrell County), Elizabethtown (Bladen County), Faison (Duplin County) , Kinston (Lenoir County) Fountain (Pitt) and the Cities of Monroe (Union County) and Belmont (Gaston County). Major renovations occurred in Burlington (Alamance County), Asheville (Buncome County) and Sanford (Lee County).

It is this study that led to the conclusion that the methodology used by the EPA to estimate total needs was not accurately capturing the North Carolina picture. EPA estimates totaled $6.46 billion for water and sewer combined (1998); the Rural Initiative Project doubled that figure to around $11.34 billion. Because EPA uses their estimate to determine allocations of funds to the state under the State Revolving Fund program, it is estimated in the first year following the completion of the study that North Carolina would have been eligible for approximately $10 million additional dollars.

Through the Rural Initiative project and a companion study that analyzed the fiscal side of water and wastewater - funding and operations - we learned that a significant number of North Carolina communities have limited, if any access to the private market for capital in the form of loans or bonded debt. In fact, over 61 percent of North Carolina local government entities that are regulated by the Local Government fit this description. Even taking into consideration rate increases as are figured by the LGC and the consulting engineer as part of the project, they are dependent upon grants or heavily subsidized loans or loan guarantees.

What is County-Wide Sewer?

So what is countywide sewer? I don't know - we really did not find any. We did find instances such as those in Buncombe County with their Metropolitan Sewer District which provided closest to "county-wide" in the study. Buncombe MSD has over 32,000 residential and 2,300 commercial/industrial customers. The permitted capacity of the system is 40 MGD or an amount roughly equal to the permitted capacity in Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Burke, Caldwell, Caswell, Chatham and Cherokee Counties combined. What we also know about the MSD system, as large and as well run as it is, that they have a huge amount of improvement work to do, particularly on their sewer collection system. The figure for projected need over a 20-year planning period is $675 million.

The study did reveal a significant number of communities that were either already participating in a regional system (defined as two or more cooperating local government units) or were seriously considering regionalization. This option is most attractive for communities with failed or failing treatment systems where the cost to replace or repair cannot be justified. Over half of the wastewater systems surveyed fell into this category.

The balance of the systems were small, most with fewer than 500 connections, that needed treatment or collection system improvements but were not - for reasons of geography or local politics - considering consolidation or regionalization as a viable option.

Alternatives to Public, Central Sewer?

So, what are the alternatives for safe disposal of wastewater for residential and business uses in North Carolina? For those that do not rely on outhouses - and we still have a few of those in the state - it is obviously on-site systems. The most common of these is the septic -tank ground -absorption systems in which you folks are the experts. Yet, your area of expertise comes under just about as much fire as mine. Largely in response to the record growth the state has experienced in the last decade- adding almost one million people - we have seen the number of on-site system permit requests skyrocket.. This is a phenomenon largely occurring around our urban centers as residential development moves further and further into rural areas. Lines and waits in building inspections and county health departments get longer. Permitting is not the only difficulty. Finding a qualified, technically capable installer is critical to the functioning of systems long-term. Education on ongoing maintenance responsibilities is a real sticking point. And we have hundreds of failing septic systems across the state - many aged beyond useful lives, ill-maintained or simply located in areas with poor soils - that are failing and leaching contaminants into groundwater. In talking with some folks here at NC State active in your area, I understand that just like publicly-owned, central wastewater, you have your own set of concerns to deal with. Health regulations tighten, watershed protection ordinances are the order of the day and the acceptance of technological advances, particularly in the form of innovative or alternative systems struggle to be accepted and implemented.

The Big Picture

It is only when you step back and take into consideration the big picture that you really begin to understand the magnitude of the job we have ahead of us. In the big picture we recognize the following

* That whether it be on-site, decentralized or concrete and steel central sewer, our objectives are the same - protection of public health and the environment - while balancing that with the economic growth and change that is occurring in the state;
* That there are forces at work that must be reckoned with- many of which we cannot control - such as politics, public perception and the forces of nature;
* That there is a finite amount of financial resource that can be made available at any one time to address water quality issues; and
* That if we don't get our collective act together on managing wastewater more effectively, we will likely loose, if not significantly compromise, our natural resource base.

I would like to offer some suggestions and observations based on my experience in state and local government. I believe we need to do a Strategic Plan for the Environment - starting with water quality. Through a strategic plan, we can pull together the type of information that will alert us when the public health is being compromised so that we can than develop comprehensive policies and regulations that protect health and the environment. Such a plan would cover the following:

1. Tools for Understanding: Using the tools we have - GIS, hydrologic modeling and others- let's validate the information we have already collected and create any other we may need to understand more about our wastewater systems. Where they are, how they function or fail; about the interconnection between our groundwater supplies, our lakes and rivers and other surface waters, estuaries and wetlands and how various pollutants, based upon their chemical composition, move through soil and water.

2. Education: Increasing the public's understanding of the connections between water and wastewater is critical. Folks across the state must understand the true costs of adequately treatment wastewater effluent and drinking water. Local governments, private businesses, and institutions - "US"- must then be willing to pay the cost for adequate treatment be it on-site or community systems or central, public sewer. We can no longer afford the luxury, however we may choose to cut it, of crying for better environmental and water quality protection and then not putting our money where our mouths have been.

3. Location Decisions: Building on the efforts here at the university, at UNC, the state, the Rural Center and other organizations and institutions involved in wastewater programming, we must assess our current natural and built environment and figure out where we go from here with wastewater management. What are the most appropriate and cost-effective methods for wastewater treatment on a regional or subregional basis? Where should our publicly owned, central concrete and steel plants be located? Should we advocate regional systems because of reliability, efficiency, and their ability to attract higher-paid, qualified personnel and provide rate structures that are sustainable over time with good management? Where are decentralized approaches such as larger community septic systems feasible and appropriate? Do we advocate these for low-density communities with varying site conditions in ecologically sensitive areas? And what areas are appropriate for single-user on-site systems?

4. Appropriate Roles: Let's figure out what the appropriate roles in the big wastewater picture are for government and the private sector? Do government entities - municipalities, counties, water and sewer districts to name a few - need to continue in the role of providing wastewater infrastructure and service? Although we do very little of it in wastewater thus far, what role should the private sector play - contract operations, totally privatized ownership and operation of facilities, or should the sector maintain it's presence in equipment provision only?

5. Identify and Target Funding Resources. Perhaps the single most successful example of identifying a problem, and then identifying and targeting financial resources to address the problem was the 1998 Critical Needs Bond Act. Using the GIS information gained through the Rural Water and Sewer Initiative in concert with stats from the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources on systems in failure, we were able to capture a better picture of need. We then identified and targeted funding resources to begin address the most critical of those needs. EPA estimates that about 70 percent of the $23 billion being spent annually by local governments on wastewater infrastructure is for operations and maintenance. As sewer systems grow so do operations and maintenance budgets. There is no doubt that money is a powerful tool with which to leverage situations. Used wisely as part of a comprehensive plan to achieve maximum, appropriate environmental protection, it can be effective in ways it has not before. An example might be the need to address funding options for improvements for on-site systems or the development of future community decentralized systems. And while we are at it, we must ensure that the options for treatment that we choose and fund are sustainable in the location and the particular environmental setting.

6. Research Innovative Waste Management Practices. We must continue our research efforts in alternative and innovative waste management systems. Employing these technologies that are environmentally compatible and cost-effective may be the only way that some of our North Carolina communities ever surmount their existing wastewater system failures. Nationally recognized research and demonstration in this area takes place here at NCSU and at the Vernon James Center in advanced on-site technologies such as sand filters, pressure distribution systems and drip-irrigation and constructed wetland systems for example.

7. Develop Management Systems that Match Need: As we depend more and more on "non-traditional" septic tank-ground absorption systems that are more complex and sophisticated, we must also develop more sophisticated management systems that can monitor and maintain these systems through their lifecycles. As Professor Mike Hoover writes:

"While decentralized wastewater technologies work best for rural communities, a centralized management network to oversee them provides the most effective management and the best implementation for rural areas. The centralized management can be provided on a community, county or multiple county area." (Hoover, Choices for Communities: Wastewater Management Options for Rural Areas, NCSU, 1998) An example of movement in this direction is the ratification of HB 638 in July of this year. HB 638 is an exceptional piece of legislation in that it permits the transfer of ownership of septic systems in the particularly environmentally sensitive area of Northeastern North Carolina to a "joint agency". This joint agency would then own and maintain the systems for a fee, and thereby increase the likelihood of decentralized systems being permitted in this area of acutely poor soils and high water tables.

Conclusion

The logical end result of a Strategic Plan for the Environment would be to modify existing policy and law or to create new policy or law as may be needed to carry out the strategies. As professionals in this field, we have a responsibility to educate the regulators, policy wonks and our legislators on the strategies that we believe, in this "bottom-up" approach, are the most appropriate for the state. We have seen in the past few years the state legislature become more and more active in the environmental arena. And as politics will go, many would argue that we have achieved a set of policies and regulations that are complex, almost understandable, somewhat manageable, and maybe even slightly conflictual in cases. Any modified and new policy or law must be devised within a comprehensive scope.

I believe that the goal of protecting the public health and the environment while achieving manageable economic growth is attainable. There is much to consider and to balance, particularly in the area of wastewater. Traditional methods for delivery of environmental protection - standards, regulations, executive orders and compliance enforcement - must be supplemented with predictable and dependable financial resources, education, outreach and technical assistance. The costs of regulatory compliance must be balanced with the benefit achieved. Drawing on the state's major research universities, new technologies that incorporate sound science, are cost-effective and achieve environmental protection should be promoted. Evaluation methods for economic decision-making such as risk management and cost-benefit analysis must integrate environmental considerations.

We must recognize that we all have a responsibility to play in this game. For if we choose not to, our collective ability as a state to protect the public health and to sustain our natural resource base may well be limited, not by our vision, our political will or lack of funding, but by the loss of our resources themselves.

The pathway out of this crisis will be found through collaboration between many partners. Local and state regulators, planning and engineering consultants, technology researchers and developers, policy leaders, and residents of affected communities. We are all potential public participants and all tax-paying citizens of North Carolina. There is much at stake -- the quality, availability, and cost-reasonableness of drinking water and wastewater treatment. Moving through the environmental enforcement barriers and the financing maze will require technical assistance and the building of local capacity to address the community's own needs. In this picture, there may also be a place for the banks and the foundation community as well.

Riding on the decisions we make in North Carolina in the several years is the future of our health and economic well-being. A balance must be sought. The first steps - those such as the Clean Water Bond Bill and the further investigation into alternative waste technologies - seem large, almost overwhelming. Yet, we risk much if we falter. If history repeats itself, these steps will seem small in future years - and ones well worth the taking.

This page (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/plymouth/septic2/99perception.html) created by
Roland O. Coburn, Research Technician, I on 3/10/00.
Last Updated on 7/27/00.