You are here:
MANUAL: WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISPOSAL FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
Citation:
BOWKER, P. G., G. FRIGON, J. F. KREISSL, AND R. J. OTIS. MANUAL: WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISPOSAL FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES. EPA/625/R-92/005, 1992.
Impact/Purpose:
information
Description:
Over the past decade, changes in federal policies have forced states to play a larger role in financing and admin- istering public works programs and compelled local governments to do more for themselves. A 1990 report by the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment identified several national wastewater treatment problems common to small communities: • Absence of economies of scale and low per capita incomes • Low level of technical expertise of many operating personnel • Limited access to existing advanced technologies Many small communities are without access to the engineering expertise that would enable them to resolve the technical problems related to assessing needs, evaluating technologies, siting facilities, and deciding on action plans to meet regulations. Furthermore, small, low-income communities have few alternatives to raising user fees substantially to cover operating and maintenance costs and to pay debt service. In many cases, traditional wastewater treatment strategies have been shown to be inappropriate for the physical and economic characteristics of the small community. In the past, when public sewer systems were not available, the only practical alternative was to install individual onsite wastewater systems that used traditional septic tank-soil absorption treatment. While these individual systems still represent a viable wastewater management option for many small communities, not all situations or community planning strategies are suited for this type of disposal system. The current trends in wastewater treatment technology and the adoption of innovative manage- ment strategies have provided new alternatives and options for small communities. When carefully evaluated against actual community needs and available resources, these alternatives can result in a final selection and implementation of a wastewater management system that is responsive to the needs of each community by providing a balanced approach to cost allocation and operational responsibilities. The 1977 Clean Water Act (CWA) and subsequent amendments provided the first federal cognition that costs are a major problem in the national program to address water pollution. This is especially true for established small communities where failing onsite systems and growing rural population densities necessitate the development of wastewater management programs to protect public health. Conventional options of providing gravity sewers and activated sludge treatment are often excessively expensive and require significant management costs that lead to unacceptably high burdens for small communities. As a result, the emerging focus for small community systems has shifted to small-scale systems that are designed to fit the specific needs of the community, rather than to provide a standard solution for all situations. Thus small communities have found that development of specialized wastewater systems calls for a well thought-out strategy in the early stages of problem definition and planning, the generation and evaluation of options pertaining to system selection and costs, and, finally, the selection of a management approach that meets the existing and future needs of all the identified small community user groups. The improved levels of treatment and long-term economic savings of well-designed small community systems provide engineers and planners with increasing confidence for reevaluating wastewater management strategies for existing and developing communities and give hope to local officials who formerly despaired when considering the cost of complying with environmental regulations. Historically, although much of the initiative for financing small community systems had been assumed by the Federal Construction Grants Program, which provided up to 85 percent of the funding for construction of wastewa- ter systems, most small communities were unable to ob- tain funding due to the reliance on priority lists related to population. Incentives for development of wastewater systems were provided primarily through the allocation of state "set-aside" funds for implementation of small community wastewater system construction grants. However, for many communities, the impact of the amendments to the CWA, the changes in the construction grant program instituted after 1984, and the implementation of the State Revolving Fund Program have restricted the availability of grant assistance and increased the local share of proj'ect costs. These changes have placed increased pressure on small communities to reduce project costs. This is usually accomplished through greater use of easy-to-manage, low-cost technologies and implementation of effective management strategies with appropriate planning and operational functions.