Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Republican state lawmakers are seeking to “overhaul” Indiana’s septic system laws and make it easier for new residential sewage disposal mechanisms to be installed or replaced.
But environmental advocates say at least one of the proposals advancing through the Statehouse could lead to more failed septic systems and increased pollution across Indiana.
House Bill 1647 would grant Hoosier property owners the ability to override local health department decisions about new septic system installations and existing systems that have failed—as long as they have a paid consultant who agrees with them.
It also makes it easier for installers and engineers to get permits to provide sewage system services across multiple counties.
Critics say the bill breeds conflicts of interest and argue that decisions regarding septic systems should remain in the hands of public health professionals.
“Our local health departments have the objective of doing what’s best for the community,” said Indra Frank, environmental health and water policy director for the Hoosier Environmental Council, while speaking Monday before a Senate environment committee. “Do we want to leave regulatory decisions in the hands of people who have a financial stake in that septic system?”
The House bill advanced 7-2 from the committee and is now under consideration in the Senate chamber.
Debate over that and other septic system bills comes amid increased scrutiny over a separate measure that originally detailed the storage of residential sewage but was amended last week to add controversial wetlands language.
Transferring control over septic system rules
Septic systems are designed to collect household wastewater from toilets, sinks, showers, and other drain flows into an underground tank. Solid waste settles on the bottom of the tank, while the remaining liquid flows into an absorption field before seeping into the surrounding soil.
There are nearly 1 million such systems in Indiana, according to the Indiana Department of Health, or IDOH.
Many are found in rural areas of the state, but some also exist in urban areas, per a report by the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Indianapolis, for example, recorded 17,000 systems as of 2019.
But the state health department estimates that approximately 200,000 of those disposal systems are inadequate, have failed or are in the process of failing—putting environmental and public health at risk.
Health officials warn that every failing septic system can discharge more than 76,000 gallons of untreated wastewater annually into the state’s groundwaters and surface waters. Contaminated water can breed E. Coli and harmful bacteria.
It’s up to locals to keep records on septic systems. There is no statewide tracking of all the systems that exist or what condition they’re in.
There are not any state requirements for inspections of septic systemand only a few individual counties have related ordinances.
Now, House Bill 1402, authored by Rep. Jim Pressel, R-Rolling Prairie, intends to transfer authority over residential onsite sewage systems from IDOH to a Technical Review Panel, or TRP, made up of various state officials, scientists, academics and industry professionals.
That panel would then be “in total control of Indiana’s septic code,” Pressel said, making it responsible for amending the existing state requirements and authorizing new sewage system technology.
Further, local septic ordinances would be void as of July 1, according to the latest draft of the bill. Any new ordinances adopted by a city or county will need to be approved by the TRP or the ordinance can’t be enforced.
“The goal is to have one statewide septic rule … we want one level playing field throughout the state,” Pressel said, noting that his bill seeks to require local septic ordinances be adopted like building codes.
Homeowners are still responsible for the overall operation, maintenance, and upkeep of the system, including repairs or replacement.
“This is safeguarding us from unreasonable manufacturing ordinances,” he continued. That could include local requirements limiting septic tanks to sizes for which necessary seals and pipes do not exist.
The bill advanced 9-0 from the Senate Environmental Affairs Committee and now heads to the Senate floor.
Paid consultants ‘supersede’ local health officials
While Pressel’s bill would take on the system as a whole statewide, House Bill 1647, authored by Rep. Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne, addresses septic system installers, specifically.
Currently, Indiana’s local health departments are responsible for determining if a site is adequate for installing a residential septic system and ordering corrective measures if a system is failing. Even under Pressel’s bill, local departments would still be charged with enforcement.
Indiana’s local health departments issue more than 15,000 permits per year for new systems, and about 6,000 permits for repairs, according to IDOH.
Morris’ bill would change that process, allowing property owners to overrule local health department decisions if a hired consultant declares the system operable.
“These local departments of health are taking it upon themselves to say, ‘You can’t build a home there because of the soils,’ but this professional over here is saying you can build a home there—and I’ve talked to the installer and I’ve talked to the designer and you can build a home,” Morris said. “Being told that you cannot build a home on this ground that you worked hard for … and then when you talk to these professionals and they say you can … that’s what we’re getting at here.”
Permits for new septic system installations would have to be issued within 30 days—far more expeditiously than in some counties, where such credentials can take months to get, Morris said.
Additionally, if a local health department determines that a residential septic system is in failure and orders corrective action, the owner or occupant of the property can hire an independent consultant for a second opinion. If the contractor deems the system not to be in failure, the local order must be withdrawn, or the municipal health department can conduct an investigation–within 60 days—to make a new determination.
Morris’ bill also allows members of the Indiana Onsite Wastewater Professionals Association, or IOWPA, which represents septic system installers, to provide services anywhere in Indiana as long as they’re registered to do so in at least one county.
Although the Hoosier Environmental Council was originally neutral on the bill, Frank said the group is “now concerned.”
The environmental council supported a provision in the introduced bill that would have required a septic system inspection to be completed before the transfer or sale of a property. That language was removed, however, along with another section that would have created a licensing system for septic system installers.
“I think this bill goes beyond just appealing their decision and actually puts those paid consultants in the position of superseding the local health department,” Frank said.
Adam Kallick, representing IOWPA, said the association supports and is “looking for licensure.”
Morris said the House, “as a whole,” isn’t ready for a state licensure requirement, though.
“There’s only one person that’s required to be licensed through the State of Indiana when you build your home, and that is a plumber,” Morris said. “We’re going to move towards that with the septic installation, but we’re not there yet.”
Morris added that “there’s nothing in state law” stopping a homebuyer from getting their own inspection of a septic system.
“If they want to know if this septic system is fully functioning, they can bear the cost of that,” he said, echoing similar pushback from the Indiana Association of Realtors that mandated septic inspections at the point of sale would complicate closings.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
What no one mentioned in the story: one of the reasons to have local Health Departments control septic system permits is that they also typically control residential water well drilling…and it makes good ol’ Hoosier Common Sense to have someone watching both of those at the same time so that homeowners don’t end up drinking their own sewage. If Health Departments can’t enforce a “sanitary setback” from a well, then that protection disappears.
Let’s put the foxes in charge of the chicken coops! Allowing a septic contractor to “override” a health department determination should be allowed only if, say, the contractor agrees to pay triple repair and remediation costs if that septic system subsequently fails.
This bill is a bad idea.
This is bad policy. It’s bad for people and the environment. The Indiana GOP will pass this in a heartbeat.
I wasn’t aware that strengthening the right to pollute the communal water supply with bodily waste was a GOP priority this session.
The more you know…
Maybe if some of the local health departments were open minded about new and alternative systems this wouldn’t be necessary.
Be more specific.
Joe B. – I can be specific. Our septic system in Indy was having issues. It was really a distribution box issue, $3k to rebuild the box system which would function “as needed”. However, we preferred to install a whole new system in our backyard, because it was the original 50 year old system and we wanted to go the extra mile. Our septic contractor, that is considered the best in Indy, they suggested the best location, if we wanted a new one, would be the same place in the backyard. This is after multiple soil samples. We said great, that works, because anywhere else has large trees and other items. Price would be $15k, we agreed. Then the Health Department came out, they said they found a workable spot, 20 feet down, in a remote corner of our yard, that would require loosing a massive 75+ year old oak tree, ripping out a garden, as well as unground boring to avoid damaging sidewalks, and an electronic grinder pump system that requires a permit to be renewed every 3 years I think, and maintenance, and brought the cost to $36k. Two other contractors agreed with our first, that it was best where the old one is, but the city said there is a rule that if another possible location is found, then we must go there, no matter what, and abandon the old one. So we went with the simple $3k repair. Let me know what you think about those specifics.
Sounds like you solved the problem in the most fiscally responsible way that didn’t involve getting health department approval. Good outcome all around!
Why did the City insist on a new location?
I struggle with the concept that professionals always know better than the government, members of one specific trade group now gets to overrule all government oversight, and the apparent lack of consequences for that professional.
I mean, what’s to stop a homeowner for shopping around until they find the required one professional who says yes? What are the consequences in the bill for a professional who says yes to take the check and his malfeasance fouls a water source? Best I can tell, there are none.
And, a reminder, Indianapolis is still under a consent decree with the EPA for how polluted streams are.
I personally think a better solution to situations like yours might be a process created to appeal to a state level organization.
Joe B – because the health department has an arcane understanding of their own rule that they require “if there is another useable location, then the old site must be abandoned (meaning pumped dry and caved it/backfilled) and the homeowner must use the new location”. Even though it required costly and trouble prone equipment (i.e., if power goes out, if a pump is out of service, possible overflows, failure, etc.). The assumption that they health department knows more than the contractor is not one that you should make. More-often-than-not when we work with the health department, they rely on out expertise. Their staff that knew the trades have all since retired or are getting very close to that age. The fact is, the current staffers just do not have that knowledge, which is where these complaints come from, when experts constantly shake their heads at the health department decisions. Yes, there is an opportunity for private companies to side step based on the reported suggested regulation, but something is needed to either allow the experts to run the show, or get actual experts working for the health department, because they no longer have any (stay for a very small few).
I appreciate your insight and sympathize with what you’re going through but I think the current legislation remains a poor solution to any problem. Just increasing funding levels to where the experts work for the government would also solve the problem… my opinion is that it would behoove the government to have such expertise on their payroll.
“I sympathize”. Great, thank you. Now your suggestion to increase government payroll to attract the “best of the best”. Let’s double all government payroll, which of course we all pay for with our taxes, and then attract the “best”, and cross our fingers that the private sector does not then increase their wages to compete for the best, which of course they will, and so it goes. I used to work in government, it is sad, but best of luck. To counter, we need private/public partnerships, WITH oversight rules. Your plan is inflation with no hope, because government is slower than private sector innovation/pay increases. Respectfully, your mindset is stuck; even when you know your mindset is flawed, you dig and double down.