The purpose of the “position paper” is to summarize the City of Marco Island’s Septic Tank Replacement Program from both an historical and current perspective.
Approximately 70% of residential and commercial sewage generated on Marco Island flows through the central collection and treatment system. The system was first constructed by the Deltona Corporation, who then sold the utility system to Florida Water Services. In order to better meet the long-term needs of the community, including a more reliable source of drinking water and the provision of a city-wide sewer collection system, the City purchased the system from FWS in November, 2003.
When applying for their permits to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Deltona Corporation, in their Environmental Impact Statement, committed that there would be no septic tanks on Marco Island. Sewage would be collected through a central collection system and pumped to a sewage treatment plant. None-the-less, septic tanks were permitted when lot owners sought to build on their properties where the central system was not yet available. Collier County attempted to expand the central collection system in the 1980’s, at a cost of around $10,000 per lot, but public opposition eventually prompted the County to suspend their program. Collier County then concentrated efforts to expand their central sewer collection system in the Naples area due to increasing levels of pollution in Naples Bay.
As one of its first acts following incorporation of the City, City Council discussed acquiring the Marco Island Utility System. In its first goal-setting session in January,1999 City Council identified the need to have an island-wide sewer collection system. Since then the City has, considered alternatives to provide sewer service to collect the remaining 30% of sewage that flows into septic systems rather than the central sewer system. These alternatives included more than one year of negotiations with FWS for a long-term contract that would insure a city-wide sewage collection and treatment system. The City participated in a negotiated buy-out for over two years, and the cost to expand the sewer collection system was one component of the pricing.
Following detailed analysis of alternatives through a year-long master planning process, public workshops, and public hearings beginning in February 2004, City Council adopted a program to expand the central collection system over the next seven years on an assessment basis. Public notice and hearing on the first two assessment districts was issued in June, 2005. Project design for the first two districts is complete, and construction should begin in February, 2006.
A master plan for the gravity-flow collection system design for the remaining unsewered areas should be completed by January, 2006. Anticipated are 14 sewer districts. The creation of the assessment districts will occur over the next seven years.
Committed Expenses.
As of January 1, 2006, approximately $14 million has been spent or committed for work associated with the Septic Tank Replacement Program. These expenses include costs associated with increasing pipe diameter of existing sewer lines to handle additional flow, pump station additions or upgrades, gravity flow sewer lines, master planning of the city-wide system, and added wastewater treatment capacity.
Support Offered by Environmental Agencies and Organizations.
The negative influences of septic systems are the reasons the City has received letters of support from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (acting under delegated authority from the U.S. E.P.A.), the Rookery Bay National Estuarine, the Florida Department of Health, the Big Cypress Basis/ South Florida Water Management District, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and the Florida Audubon Society. Their positions are summarized as follows:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The Florida DEP is responsible for enforcement of environmental regulations in Florida. The U.S. Department of Environmental Protection has delegated to the Florida DEP its environmental review and enforcement authority. As such, the Florida DEP is the principal environmental review and enforcement authority. The Florida DEP has advised that:
“The quality of Marco Island’s waterways have reached a threshold of concern.”
“Septic tanks, when properly designed, constructed and maintained, perform well in sparsely populated rural areas where large tracts of lands are available for wastewater disposal.” “In urban and coastal areas, septic tanks and drain-field systems can have a significant impact on resources, particularly in residential communities interspersed with tidal canals.”
“In canal communities where septic systems are older or are not regularly maintained, the presence of fecal coliform bacteria and human pathogenic organisms within the canal systems and adjacent waters is commonly documented.”
“Central wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems in communities with canal systems provide significantly greater water quality protection to the resource in a number of ways.”
“…it is the Department’s opinion that central wastewater collection and treatment systems offer a preferred environmental alternative for serving the utility needs of a community such as the City of Marco Island.”
Rookery Bay National Estuarine, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Based on a review of water quality testing since 1971, “on average, both total Nitrogen and fecal bacteria counts have increased from past to present day Marco.” “…all high fecal bacteria counts (>200 MPN) have occurred in the un-sewered or ½ sewered canals. If we combine the past dataset (all sewered) to the present dataset then there is a statistical difference associated with wastewater treatment category”.
The seasonal pattern in fecal bacteria counts suggest that septic tanks may be a significant contributor. As water level rise in the wet season there is more bacteria in the canal waters of present day Marco.”
“It is difficult to be absolutely sure the septic systems are the source of the water quality decline but the data suggests that as water table levels rise in the rainy season there are increases in fecal bacteria and nitrogen in the canals. Additional research could be done to determine the source of the bacteria and nitrogen but given the density of Marco Island and the potential for rainy season ground saturation I feel that sewers are needed and the money is best spend moving forward.”
“As a research scientist I wish there were more Marco Island data to base the septic system versus central sewage treatment decision on, especially from some of the more specific genetically based bacterial and stable isotope techniques that are now available. You should however not limit your decision based sole (sp) on Marco Island specific datasets. There are many other coastal communities with similar densities as Marco that proactively made the decision to move to central sewage treatment without regret.”
Dr. Michael Shirley, a research scientist at Rookery Bay National Estuarine, compared water quality data collected since the 1970’s. He has stated that the results of his analysis indicate that water quality conditions have declined in the canals based on increase in both nitrogen and fecal bacteria. Areas with sewers had the lowest bacteria and nitrogen, areas with septic systems have the highest and the areas with mixed sewage treatment types fell in-between. He expressed his opinion that sewers are needed and that the money is best spent moving forward.
The Florida Department of Health.
“….supports your decision to move to a public sewer system for all City of Marco Island residents…”
“When public sewer is available it is always the desired way to serve the urban domestic waste needs of residents. Public sewers will provide the most flexibility for future development of the property and the assurance that the maintenance and operations of the system is regulated and monitored.”
“Many properties [unsewered] will require the use of performance based septic systems which can be very expensive, require annual inspection and maintenance agreements…”
“Septic systems are much more susceptible to misuse from residents not familiar with non urban waste treatment requirements.”
“The possible interaction with tidal areas, potential flooding and septic system failures make the public sewer system a more desirable option to protect public health in you island environment.”
“In short, migration to a standard central sewer system is a positive action by the City of Marco Island in the best interest of the public’s health”.
Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management District
Resolution No. 05-8-4 commending the City of Marco Island for its efforts to protect and conserve the precious water resource of Collier County through is proactive seven year plan to build central sewers for the protection of the groundwater and nearby waterways.
Audubon of Florida
“On behalf of approximately 6,000 Audubon members in southwest Florida, I wish to commend the City of Marco Island for its proactive and politically courageous efforts to conserve our area’s precious water resources…”
“Audubon of Florida and Collier County Audubon Society recognize the City of Marco Island for committing to building central sewers for the protection of the groundwater and surrounding surface waters.”
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
“…we applaud the City for taking steps to provide sewage treatment for more of Marco Island…”
In reference to the Estuaries Report Card for Southwest Florida dated December 8, 2005, “Marco Island is too far off shore and is completely excluded for the Rookery Bay and the 10,000 Islands Report Card. The Report Card has the overarching principal that it is imperative that throughout the watersheds, the dependency on septic systems to treat waste should be removed and municipal centralized waste systems are recommended”.
Citizen Surveys.
Marco Island Civic Association 2004 member survey showed that 75% of respondents expressing an opinion supported a citywide sewer system and elimination of septic tanks.
An independent statistically valid survey funded by the City in 2004 reported that a majority of citizens believe that septic tanks negatively impact the water quality of our waterways. Four out of five expressed that a central sewer system is the best option to handle an increasing volume of wastewater.
Assignment of Cost of Sewer System.
We know that many property owners object to the “cost”. By cost, we mean the construction cost to extend sewer lines into the neighborhoods, the cost to upsize existing mains to handle the additional sewage flow, and the cost to add treatment capacity to the wastewater treatment plant. The City considered many alternatives to pay for these improvements, including a general utility rate increase and funding through property taxes. City Council deemed it unfair for businesses, condominiums, and single-family property owners, who currently have central sewer service, to pay for the expansion cost to serve those who do not. Therefore, they have opted to use a special assessment process to collect the required revenue that will be used to repay the bonds issued to finance the program. City staff continues
to explore options to reduce costs, and to seek grant revenues which will, in turn, reduce the cost to the individual property owner.
Alternatives to a Central Sewer Systems.
Influencing the City’s decision to proceed is the frequent requests from commercial and residential owners of vacant property, and property owners who wish to expand or demolish and rebuild. There are about 1,900 vacant properties remaining. The limitations caused by on-site systems combined with the trend to build larger homes makes the central system more appealing to these owners. These owners must either connect to a central sewer or design their structure to accommodate a much larger septic system or an on-site performance-based sewer treatment system. The initial and continuing cost of a performance-based treatment system is the same or greater than the cost of central sewers. There are properties in commercially-zoned areas that must have a central sewer system available to effectively utilize the
site. The requests from property owners seeking connection to the central sewer system will continue to increase as property is developed or redeveloped.
Summary of Sewer Assessment Program
The total estimated cost to construct a new sewer collection system, upgrade the existing collection system to handle the additional flow capacity, and expand the wastewater treatment plan is $105.6 million. Marco Island Utilities must borrow the money through the issuance of tax exempt bonds to finance the project. The revenue required to repay the bonds will be derived from a special assessment upon only those property owners who will receive this new sewer service.
The special assessment process involves establishing an assessment district to encompass only those properties that will benefit from the improvements. Fourteen assessment districts will be established over the next seven years. To establish an assessment district, City Council will adopt an initial assessment resolution that describes the proposed improvements and the estimated cost. In the year in which the assessment district is formed, property owners will be notified by mail as to the estimated project cost for that district and the estimated maximum annual assessment imposed upon each property within the assessment district.
As each assessment district is established over the next seven years, property owners have the following options to pay:
· Assessment may be prepaid when actual costs for the new central sewer line are available. There will be a 6% discount for those who elect to prepay their assessment.
· Assessments may be deferred for a period of up to 20 years. Thereafter, payment of the assessment plus accrued interest will be due (unless a financial hardship deferment is granted). Payment is due upon transfer of property ownership.
· Assessments plus interest may be paid with the annual property tax bill in equal installments over a 20-year period. With this option, one may elect to prepay a portion of the assessment, and one may elect to pay the balance at any time. Payment of the unpaid balance is due upon transfer of property ownership.
The assessment will be based on the cost of two components. These are the “capacity cost” and “collection cost.” The first component, capacity cost, is the cost to upgrade the existing wastewater collection system and expand capacity at the wastewater treatment plant. The total cost to upgrade and expand capacity is estimated to be $38.6 million. By dividing the capacity cost by the number of equivalent residential connections (ERC) that will be served by the new system, the capacity cost is determined to be $6,298 per ERC (each existing home served by the new system). This component will be the same for all assessment districts. Grant funds received will be used to lower this cost.
The second component, collection cost, is the capital cost to provide new sewer lines and ancillary facilities to the unsewered areas of the City. This component will vary from one district to another as some districts may have more or less lift stations, more lineal feet of sewer lines, more or less gravity flow lines versus force mains, and in the seventh year, construction costs may be higher than construction costs in the first year. In other words, each geographic area is unique, and construction costs may vary from one district to another.
During the year in which a sewer assessment district is created for your neighborhood, you will be notified by mail of the maximum assessment cost. The cost will be based on engineering estimates at the time. The actual cost will not be determined until competitive construction bids are received and a contract awarded. The actual assessment cost may be lower than the “maximum” assessment cost provided to you. You will be notified of the final assessment after competitive bids for construction have been received.
While not a component of the assessment, there is a cost incurred for work on your property to take the septic tank out of service and to connect the home to the sewer main. This cost is paid by the homeowner to a plumbing contractor who is licensed to take the septic tank out of service and install a sewer line from your home to the property line. It is recognized that connecting to the sewer main adds a burden to the property owner. Multiple state and city permits must be received to take the septic tank out of service. The tank must be pumped clean and then either removed or broken in place and filled with suitable soil. A contract must be negotiated with a licensed plumbing contractor. To ease the burden on the homeowner, Marco Island Utilities has a turnkey alternative available.
Enclosed is a list of “Frequently Asked Questions” about the assessment program and a response to these questions. These include a summary of public health and scientific reports that explain why coastal communities are converting from on-site septic systems to centralized sewer systems. Also enclosed is a map depicting the future sewer districts and the anticipated year that construction will begin.
Project Phases
After assessment districts are created over the next seven years, projects in each in each of the 14 districts will go through four basic stages—planning and design, pre-construction, construction, and post-construction.
Planning and design involves preparation of designs and contracts by the City and engineers to ensure we implement the most cost-effective, easy-to-operate and easy-to maintain solutions. During this phase you may see surveyors taking measurements of existing conditions for use in the engineering design.
The pre-construction phase includes:
· Gathering competitive bids from pre-qualified local contractors
· Documenting existing conditions – Crews videotaping properties, streets and driveways so they can put things back when construction is complete.
· Establishing rights-of-way – This is done in order to determine where on each property construction will take place.
· Setting staging areas – We will be locating sites where equipment and materials will be stored while the utilities are under construction.
· Addressing public access – The contractor will be determining temporary locations for school bus pickup, trash pick up and mail delivery while streets are under construction.
During the construction phase:
· Utility lines will be installed in the ground, either within the street or beneath the swale..
· Property owners will be notified of construction dates via door hangers and printed notices, or letters.
· If there is a trench, a short section of trench will be open at a time and then back-filled or plated over at night so that the disruption is kept to a minimum.
· Temporary locations will be provided for school bus pick up, trash pick up and mail delivery.
· Streets will be repaired or replaced, lawns will be fixed and all property restored after the lines are installed. This means fixing all driveways, sprinkler heads and mailboxes that may have been affected.
The post-construction phase is a very important time for individual residents.
· The City utility lines stop at the right-of-way; therefore, owners are responsible for connecting their houses and businesses to the City’s lines. The City intends to offer a turn-key proposal. Property owners may grant to the City and its contractor the right to enter on their private property to connect the home to the sewer main. The work will be supervised by the City, who will then bill the property owner for work.
· Connection instructions and guidelines will be sent to all developed properties and properties under construction when the City sends the Notice of Availability letter. The Notice of Availability letter advises the property owner that the utilities are now available, and it advises the home or business owner of the requirement to connect to water and sewer.
The City’s prime concern is minimizing disruption during construction and remaining responsive to citizen concerns.
Independent Studies and Articles on Septic Systems.
The City recognizes that many believe septic systems are an acceptable alternative to a central sewer system. Our years of experience and research suggest otherwise. Because of our high density coastal development, extensive waterways, and a high water table, individual septic systems are not desirable for Marco Island. Many reports indicate that in septic systems in coastal areas cannot adequately treat human waste, including the removal of viruses, fecal matter, pharmaceuticals, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphates, all of which present health risks and degradation of our beaches and waterways. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection “Septic tanks, when properly designed, constructed and maintained, perform well in sparsely populated rural areas where large tracts of lands are
available for wastewater disposal.” “In urban and coastal areas, septic tanks and drain-field systems can have a significant impact on resources, particularly in residential communities interspersed with tidal canals.” These reports support actions taken by other areas in Southwest Florida to remove septic systems when located near waterways (Naples, Collier County, Sanibel, Cape Coral, Monroe County, to name a few).
Dr. Michael Shirley, Research
“The results (of my water quality data) indicate that water quality conditions have declined in the canals based on increasing both total nitrogen and fecal bacteria. Additional research could be done to determine the source of bacteria and nitrogen byt given the density of Marco Island and the potential for rainy season ground saturation I feel that sewers are needed.”
Bloetscher F. and Whitfield, R. Van Cott (1999) in an article titled "Impact of septic tanks on wellhead Protection Efforts" states:
" A brief study conducted on Marco Island several years ago indicated a perfect correlation between areas that has sanitary sewer and minimal fecal coliform counts in the adjoining waterways (less than 2 colony forming units/100ml), versus areas with septic tanks that consistently had bacteria counts classified as "too high to count". Similarly, the Naples Conservancy produced a report in the early 1980s that pointed to the high concentration of septic tanks in East Naples as the source of degradation and fecal coliform in Naples Bay. This report subsequently led to Collier County installing a sewer system.”
Arnade, L.J (1999) in an article titled "Seasonal Correlation of Well Contamination and Septic Tanks Distance" determined that there is a correlation between the density of septic tanks, porous sand, seasonal water table, distance of septic tank from water body and fecal coliform occurrence in ground water. The paper states:
"Ground water samples collected at all distances from septic tanks during the wet season contained twice as many fecal coliform and higher concentrations of nitrate and phosphates compared with samples collected during dry season."
“Many people do not realize or acknowledge the potential for septic tanks to contamination and the epidemiological effects that may be caused by this process. Fecal coliform, nitrates, and phosphorus present in septic tank effluent are responsible for such diseases as shigellosis, typhoide fever, gastroenteritis, blue baby syndrome (National Research Council 1998)."
"Fecal coliform counts were almost double during the wet season versus the dry season."
"The problem of ground water contamination via septic tanks is not an isolated problem in Palm Bay, but rather a nationwide problem."
Postma, et al. GW (1992), in an article titled “Nutrient and Microbial Movement from Seasonally-Used Septic Systems,” states:
“Unsewered season vacation communities present unique problems for on-site sewage disposal. Seasonal occupancy may promote the transmission of contaminants to groundwater due to incomplete formation of a biological clogging mat in the soil absorption system. Groundwater surrounding three seasonally-used septic systems was monitored to determine the movement and attenuation of nitrogen, phosphorus and two bacterial indicators of human fecal contamination, fecal coliforms and Clostridium perfringens. Nitrate-N concentrations were often three to four-fold greater than the drinking water standard at wells 6 m from the soil absorption systems. Minimal phosphorus migration occurred from these systems.”
DeBorde, et el (1998) in a study titled "Virus Occurrence and Transport in a School Septic System and Unconfined Aquifer" determined that 42% of all water associated disease outbreaks were a result of water impacted by septic tanks. They found that viruses had long survival times and low sorption rates.
Lipp, E.K, Farrah, S.A. and Rose, J.B. (2001) in a paper titled "Assessment and Impact of Microbial Fecal Pollution and Human Enteric Pathogens in a Coastal community" concluded that surface water bodies at risk are those with high concentrations of septic tanks. They state:
"Tracer studies demonstrate rapid movement of viruses from septic tanks into nearby coastal waters."
"Viruses may migrate under saturated conditions beyond current setback distance required between the drain field and wet weather water table."
"Under current regulations Florida soils may not be able to filter viral pathogens adequately."
“Infectious enteroviruses were detected throughout the study area, indicating a widespread contamination problem and a potential public health risk."
Cherry, John A. (1994), in an article titled “Biogeochemical Evolution of Domestic Waste Water in Septic Systems,” states:
“Recent findings raise issues beyond those of improved septic-system functioning and point to the possible need to diminish our reliance on conventional septic systems as a common means of waste-water disposal. The most compelling findings are those involving N[O.sub.3]-contamination. Nitrate-N has a maximum permissible drinking water concentration of 10 mg/l (Sayre, 1998; USEPA, 1992), but as explained below, properly designed and constructed septic systems cause [N[O.sub.3].sup.-]-N concentrations greater than 10 mg/l in the underlying ground water. Furthermore, septic systems also release other contaminants, such as [P[O.sub.4].sup.3-] (Sawhney and Starr, 1977), human pathogens (Hagedorn, 1984), and toxic organic chemical from household products (Kolega et al., 1987).”
Paul, J.H. et el (1997) in a paper titled "Evidence for groundwater and surface marine water contamination by waste disposal wells in the Florida Keys" states:
"Given known rates of travel of viruses in the subsurface, currently regulated setbacks distance will be ineffective at preventing micro-organisms, particularly viruses, from migrating to laterally to nearby surface waters."
Beaudoin, C.M. (1998) in a paper titled " Effects of sea water canals on fresh waste resources: an example from Big Pine Key, Florida" reported a substantial increase in nutrients in ground water near septic tanks (LaPoint et el (1990).
Kruczynski, W. (with USEPA), Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program Report, dated September 1999, in an article titled “Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Source, Effects, Solutions” states:
“Properly functioning septic tank systems remove very little nutrients (only 4% N and only 15% P) from wastewater and effluent from septic tanks drainfields can rapidly migrate to surface waters.”
“Sewage discharged from septic tanks are a source of nutrients and human pathogens to ground and surface waters.”
“With septic tanks, the columns of many canals over six feet deep is stratified and bottom waters are usually in violation of Class III Surface Water Qualities Standards.”
Krucznski, W.L. in EPA study titled " Water Quality Concerns in Florida Keys: Sources, Effects, and Solutions, Water Protection Program", concluded that nutrients from wastewater are one of the major contributors to the decline of the water quality in the Florida Keys.
Paul, J.H., et al. (1995), in a paper titled “Viral Tracer Studies Indicate Contamination of Marine Waters by Sewage Disposal Practices in Key Largo, Florida,” states:
“Our work suggests that the on-site disposal practices employed in Key Largo lead to contamination of the marine surface waters. These practices could pose a health risk to the human population, when contact (swimming or diving) occurs, particularly in the canals, or from the consumption of seafood harvested from these canals.
Our work also is the first to link microbial contamination of the outstanding marine waters (station KLWC1) with on-site disposal practices. These data argue for changes in current waste disposal practices in the Florida Keys.”
Mcclure, Robert (2002) in an article titled “Septic systems an unseen danger up to a half-million exist in the region and many fail,” states:
“It reminds me of a harbor in a Third World country,” said commuter Lisa Jagunzy, who happens to work for the environmental group, People for Puget Sound. “It’s putrid, rotting, raw sewage. It’s disgusting.” Those failing tanks are one of the biggest reasons why one-fifth of the Sound’s commercial shellfish beds have seen harvest restrictions since 1980.”
P.R. Newswire (1998) in an article titled “Septic Tanks Pose Serious Threats to Health and Quality of Life for Millions,” states:
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says “leaking, malfunctioning, and worn out septic tanks are responsible for most of the groundwater pollution in the U.S. today.”
“As reported in the Canter & Knox study “Septic Tank System Effects on Groundwater Quality” done for the EPA, an average of 40 percent (8 million) of these septic tanks do not function properly. The tanks fail eventually, dumping hundreds of millions of gallons of raw, untreated wastewater and other toxic materials into the ground, and at times into the nation’s water supply.”
“The major problem with septic tanks is they contain significant amounts of bacterial pathogens. The effluent also contains viral pathogens, which can and do pose a serious public health problem. Currently, no national enforcement standards exist for keeping viruses out of public and private water supplies, further exposing the public to increased risks of illness and death.”
Scandura and Sobsey (1997) in an article titled "Viral and Bacterial Contamination of groundwater from on-site sewage treatment systems" reported that the septic tank/soil absorption system that treat domestic wastewater have contaminated ground water with entric viruses, and other pathogens, causing waterborne disease outbreaks. They state "on-site septic wastewater treatment systems in sandy, coastal plains soils having seasonally high water tables can cause groundwater contamination with enteric viruses, bacteria and nutrients."
Stoner, N. and Dorfman M. (July 2005) with the Natural Resources Defense Council, reported in a paper titled “Testing the Waters 2005 – A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches” states:
“Every year, more than 180 million Americans head to their favorite coastal and Great Lakes beach-vacation destinations to enjoy the sun, and the surf. Too often, however, they have to stay out of the water or risk getting sick. “
“Major causes of beach closings and advisories in 2004 were as follows:
· 85 percent were based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding beachwater quality standards;
· 13 percent were precautionary, due to rainfall known to carry pollution to swimming waters;
· 3 percent were in response to known pollution events, such as sewage treatment plant failures or breaks in sewage pipes.”
“Because pathogens in sewage-contaminated waters can cause a wide range of diseases – including ear, nose, and throat problems, gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, and respiratory illnesses – beachwater pollution threatens the public’s health. The consequences of these swimming-associated illnesses can be greater for children, elderly people, pregnant women, cancer patients and others with weakened immune systems.”
“Aside from the disease-causing organisms present in sewage, its high nutrient content acts as fertilizer that can spur massive blooms of microscopic organisms. In some cases, exposure to these organisms can cause illness through skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion. Toxic “red tides” outbreaks of such organisms such as Pfiesteria piscicida, have been found in recent years to be associated with fish kills in Atlantic and Gulf Coast marine and estuarine waters. Pfiesteria piscicida and other species of algae contain neurotoxins that may affect fishermen, swimmers, and other recreational users of nearshore marine and riverine waters. Exposure to these toxic blooms may result in short-term memory loss, dizziness, muscle aches, peripheral tingling,
vomiting, skin lesions, and abdominal pain. Several leading scientists believe that the number and frequency of outbreaks such as these toxic blooms are increasing around the world and that these blooms may be attributed in part to coastal pollution.”
“Preliminary research from scientists working southwest Florida’s Lee County on both red tides and red-drift algae (a nontoxic micro algae whose blooms are also triggered by the presence of nutrients in water), suggests the occurrence of such blooms are worsening, tied to wastewater discharges as well as other nutrient sources, and are initiated near shore (closer to sources of humanmade pollution) rather than offshore as previously thought.”
· “Water pollution has a significant economic effect on coastal states. Failing to invest in clean water costs coastal states jobs, job productivity, tourism, property-tax dollars, and economic growth.”
· “Polluted waters also cause economic losses both from swimming- related illnesses and from beachgoers’ lost use of the beach.”
· “Beaches are the top vacation destination in the country. Coastal tourism, dependent in part on clean beaches, generates substantial revenues for state and local governments. According to the Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, ocean-related tourism and recreation contributed roughly $29 billion and 1.67 million jobs to the U.S. economy in 2000.”
Dale W. Griffin, et al. (1999), in an article titled “Detection of Viral Pathogens by Reverse Transcriptase PCR and of Microbial Indicators by Standard Methods in the Canals of the Florida Keys,” states:
“In order to assess the microbial water quality in canal waters throughout the Florida Keys, a survey was conducted to determine the concentration of microbial fecal indicators and the presence of human pathogenic microorganisms. A total of 19 sites, including 17 canal sites and 2 nearshore water sites, were assayed for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, Clostridium perfringens, enterococci, coliphages, F-specific (F+) RNA coliphages, Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium parvum, and human enteric viruses (polioviruses, coxsackie A and B viruses, echoviruses, hepatitis A viruses, Norwalk viruses, and small round-structured viruses). Numbers of coliforms ranged from <1 to 1,410, E. coli organisms from <1 to 130, Clostridium spp. from <1 to
520, and enterococci from <1 to 800 CFU/100 ml of sample.”
“Seventy-nine percent of the sites were positive for the presence of enteroviruses by reverse transcriptase PCR (polioviruses, coxsackie A and B viruses, and echoviruses). Sixty-three percent of the sites were positive for the presence of hepatititis A viruses. Ten percent of the sites were positive for the presence of Norwalk viruses. Ninety-five percent of the sites were positive for at least one of the virus groups. These results indicate that the canals and nearshore waters throughout the Florida Keys are being impacted by human fecal material carrying human enteric viruses through current wastewater treatment strategies such as septic tanks. Exposure to canal waters through recreation and work may be contributing to human health risks.”
D. Reide Corbett, et al. (2001), in an article titled “The spatial variability of nitrogen and phosphorus concentration in a sand aquifer influenced by onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems: a case study on St. George Island, Florida” states:
“Nutrient concentrations monitored downgradient from wastewater disposal systems show significant attenuation before discharge into surface waters. Silicate was used as a natural conservative tracer, providing insight to the extent of the wastewater plume and dilution of other nutrients. Total nitrogen, ammonia, and total phosphate were all attenuated relative to silicate, indicating non-conservative removal of these nutrients in the subsurface. Estimates of the total nitrogen flux into Apalachicola Bay from groundwater originating on St. George Island ranged between 1.5 and 65.7 mg N m¯² year¯¹ and the total phosphate flux ranged between 1.2 and 24.2 mg P m¯² year¯¹, based on estimated groundwater discharge rates and groundwater pore water
nutrient concentrations measured near surface waters. However, current setback distances (23m) are insufficient to reduce nutrient concentrations to natural levels. By increasing the setback distance to approximately 50 m, most nutrient concentrations will be reduced to natural levels.“
Lapointe, B.E. et al. (2004) in a paper titled “Anthropogenic nutrient enrichment of seagrass and coral reef communities in the lower Florida Keys: Discrimination of local vs. regional nitrogen sources” states:
“Local sewage discharge from the Florida Keys is significant.” Nitrogen source supporting eutrophication and algae blooms in seagrass and coral reef communities in the lower Florida Keys.”
“Most of these OSDSS (septic tanks) are located adjacent to constructed canal systems that were designed to provide boating access to coastal waters that contain nutrient sensitive seagrass and coral reef communities.
They concluded that “high groundwater tables and transmissive substrata, OSDS (septic tanks) in the Florida Keys rapidly contaminated groundwater with high concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and to a lesser extent, soluble reactive phosphorous.”
In their conclusions, they state:
“Results of this study support the hypothesis that land-based nutrient enrichment (from septic tanks) is a primary factor in seasonal development of phytoplankton, macrogalgae and seagrass epiphyte blooms in the inshore, nearshore and offshore waters.”
Chanton, J., in a paper titled “Accommodating Coastal Growth Panel Nonpoint Source Pollution” states:
“Florida’s coastal environment is especially vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution for two reasons. One, the extent of the karst nature of the platform allows great interaction between ground and surface waters. Second, the low gradient of the land results in high water tables. Both of these factors result in poor attenuation of contaminants in the subsurface, and the release of nutrients and pathogens to surface waters.” Dr. Chanton recommends:
“Onsite sewage disposal systems such as septic systems don’t work well in karst areas like the Florida Keys or in areas where the water table is high. Water can wick up into mounded septic systems, reducing their efficiency.”
“Homes in coastal areas should be connected to centralized sewer systems as much as possible.”
“Increase setbacks of septic systems from the shoreline to 150 feet.”
Quirolo, D.V. (2001) an article titled “Clean Water Protects Coral Reefs” states:
“This past September in Florida, Key West city officials held a ribbon-cutting ceremony to inaugurate one of the most advanced wastewater treatment facilities in the southern United States and Caribbean. The effort is the culmination of an accelerated $67.3 million dollar project to replace the island’s 46 miles of main sewer lines and 27 miles of lateral sewage collection pipelines with new PVC pipe. Some of the iron, steel, and clay pipes date to the 1800’s. In addition, almost all of Key West’s septic tanks and cesspits have been eliminated. The plant improves the biological treatment process by adding filtration to remove nutrients. “
“Sewage contains nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphates, as well as viruses and pathogens that are a public health threat to humans. Once released into the aquatic environment, increased nutrients, chemical toxins, and biological pathogens from sewage effluent can be responsible for algae blooms, coral reef and fish diseases, genetic defects in fish and wildlife, beach closings, and general environmental degradation.”
Nurse, Doug, Staff (2001) in an article titled “Gwinnett officials target septic tanks as potential polluters under scrutiny: County plans project to detect failing systems and decide where sewers can have most impact on streams,” states:
“Gwinett County has about 90,000 septic tanks, thousands of which are nearing the end of their 20-year lifespan with potentially dire consequences for the environment. County officials suspect that the aging septic systems---and newer ones, too---are contributing to pollution of streams with disease-carrying fecal coliform. The county has between 120 and 144 miles of fishing streams that exceed the state and federal standards for fecal coliform, a bacterium that lives inside of the bowels of warm-blooded animals, including humans.”
Tankersley, Claude (1996) in an article titled “Small Waterfront Community Faces a Big Sewer Challenge. (Suwannee, Florida)” states:
“Located at the end of a narrow, two-lane road and surrounded by wilderness, the coastal community of Suwannee, Florida is an unincorporated town in Dixie County with fewer than 1,000 fulltime residents. Nearly every lot in the community has direct canal access , and wastewater treatment and disposal is currently provided by septic tanks. The combination of these two factors caused major problems for Suwannee in recent years.”
“In 1990, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) declared that the town’s failing septic tanks were linked to the contamination of local shellfish beds. As a result, the state closed the oyster fishing industry in Suwannee Sound.”
Meehan, Mary (2002) in an article titled “Lack of Sewers Poses a Health Risk for Many” states:
“But some 207,000 people living in 17 Central Kentucky counties don’t have the comparative luxury of an absent-minded flush. They depend on often poorly maintained septic systems or privately operated package plants. In about half of those counties, more than 50 percent of homes are not on public sewers. In an unfiltered, undiluted form, sewage mingles with groundwater and eventually makes its way into creeks and rivers. That helps give Kentucky waterways the dubious distinction of having one of the highest rates of fecal coliform in the country, said Mike Davis, Director of the Kentucky On-Site Wastewater Training Center in Anderson County. Fecal coliform is a bacteria that can signal the presence of untreated sewage and other disease-causing bacteria.”
Paul, J.H., et al. (1995), states:
“Using viral tracers found that the wastewater transport from septic tanks into adjacent surface water (a 70 foot horizontal distance) occurred in as little as 11 hour.
| 
