Septic Systems Handbook - KAPLAN, O. BENJAMIN

SEPTIC SYSTEMS
HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
O. BENJAMIN KAPLAN
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Kaplan, O. Benjamin.
Septic systems handbook / O. Benjamin K a p l a n - 2 n d ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index
1. Septic tanks. 2. Water, Underground. 3. S o i l s -
Leaching.
I. Title.
TD778.K36 1991 90-42891
628.7'42-dc20
ISBN 0-87371-236-6
COPYRIGHT © 1991 by LEWIS PUBLISHERS, INC.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or trans-

mitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechani-
cal, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or
by any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
LEWIS PUBLISHERS, INC.

121 South Main Street, Chelsea, Michigan 48118
This book is dedicated
to I. Halmos,
who taught me
to be truthful to myself
O. Benjamin Kaplan earned his BS in Soil Science from
California State Polytechnic University, and his M S and PhD
in the same field from the University of California at Davis.
In 1973, Dr. Kaplan obtained an MS in Public Health from
the University of California at Los Angeles. He was hired as
a registered sanitarian by San Bernardino County, Califor-
nia, in 1974. His subsequent publications, lectures, and
activities in the environmental health field earned him list-
ings in Who's Who in Health Care (1977) and Who's Who in the
West (1978).
As a county sanitarian, Dr. Kaplan applied his dual educa-
tional background to the improvement of local practices in
the field of septic systems. His experiences in this area form
the backbone of this book.
Dr. Kaplan ended his public service career in January,
1987, and is currently working as an environmental health
consultant.
Preface
Over the last decade, I have reviewed over 3,000 percolation

test reports (and septic system designs) prepared by a variety
of individuals (mostly civil engineers, and some engineering
geologists, sanitarians, and architects). From those
reports-and conversations with the preparers-I found that
none had received academic training on how to evaluate soils
and design site-suitable septic systems. Their reference
manuals (USPHS Publication 526 and the Uniform Plumbing
Code) contained significant inaccuracies and were rather
obsolete. These same problems bothered other colleagues
who reviewed percolation test reports for other California
counties. Also, most land planners I have talked with are
aware of some of the environmental impacts caused by
sewering an area, but few are aware of the profound land use
consequences of development dependent on septic systems.
So, I set out to write a concise but comprehensive book to
emphasize basic theory and yet be practical for everyday use
by all types of professionals who deal with septic system
design, use, and approval (particularly those who work as
septic systems consultants). This book is the result.
O. B. Kaplan
1986
Foreword to the Second Edition
The first edition of this book emphasized technical knowl-

edge; it has been incorporated into the second edition with
subtle but important modifications. However, professional
practice does not depend only on technical knowledge, and
it does not take place in a vacuum. It is affected by legal,
economic, and ethical considerations. The ways in which
this occurs are explored in Appendices M through T. Appen-
dix U offers tips on solving some problems commonly
encountered in professional practice.
O. B. Kaplan
1990
Acknowledgments
This second edition has benefited from insights provided by

R. B. Brown, Lou and Doreen Blanck, Barry and Joyce Eskin,
Scott Maass, Marlin Fernandez, Jon Lewis, and Robin Berry.
I am also thankful to my wife, Adele, who helped to con-
dense the text.
Contents
1 W H Y PUBLIC H E A L T H AGENCIES
CONTROL THE DISPOSAL OF
DOMESTIC SEWAGE 1
1.1 Consequences of Improper
Disposal of Sewage 2
1.2 Categories of Causative Agents
and Specific Diseases 2
1.3 The Cost of Prevention 5
1.4 Relevance ................. 8
2 THE SEPTIC SYSTEM 11

2.1 The Septic Tank 11
2.2 Leachfield 17
3 ECONOMICS OF LEACHFIELD SIZE 21

3.1 A Lowest-Cost Leachline Is Built
to Last Indefinitely ....................... 22
3.2 Optimal Size of Leachfields 26
4 SOILS AT A G L A N C E 29
5 SOIL WATER MOVEMENT 35

5.1 Infiltration and Percolation 35
5.2 Capillary Flow ........................... 41
5.3 Plant Transpiration 50
ix
5.4 "Rest and Digest" Suggestion 51
5.5 Problems 51
6 THE PERCOLATION TEST, OR "PERK"

TEST 61
6.1 Historical Background and
Development of the Perk Test 62
6.2 Evolution of the Standard Perk Test 68
6.3 Evaluation of and Improvements
Needed in the EPA Standard
Perk Methodology 70
6.4 Problems 75
7 SIZE OF LEACHLINE 85
7.1 Practical Size of Leachline 87
8 FACTORS AFFECTING FAILURE OF

LEACHLINES 93
8.1 Amount and Frequency of
Effluent Discharge 93
8.2 Composition of Effluent 95
8.3 Type of Soil, Vegetation, and
Climate 97
8.4 Amount and Configuration of
Absorption Surface 99
8.5 Installation 101
8.6 User Habits and Behavior 102
8.7 Time (Age) 103
8.8 Miscellaneous 104
8.9 A Word to the Wise 104
9 SIZE OF SEEPAGE PITS 107

9.1 Sizing Pits Through Standard
Leachline Tests 110
9.2 The Falling Head Test 111
9.3 Longevity and Absorption
Capacity of Seepage Pits 114
9.4 Sizing Recommendations 116
X
9.5 Problems 118
10 VARIOUS ONSITE SEWAGE

DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES 125
10.1 "Innovative" Technologies 125
10.2 Comparisons and
Recommendations 128
10.3 Fills for Leachlines 130
11 DEGRADATION OF GROUNDWATER
BY SEPTIC SYSTEMS 133
11.1 Soils as a Sieve 133
11.2 Microbial Retention Within the
Soil 134
11.3 Vertical Separations Between
Leachfields and Groundwater
or Impermeable Bedrock 138
11.4 Contamination by Extraneous
Chemicals 140
11.5 Degradation by Natural Sewage
Components ........................ 142
12 NITRATE IN GROUNDWATER 145

12.1 A Septic System's Nitrogen
Inflow and Outfow ....................... 146
12.2 What Is Being Done ................... 149
12.3 Dealing with a Specific Problem
of Nitrate Pollution 151
13 MOUNDING 155
13.1 Mounding Over a
Low-Permeability Stratum 155
13.2 Mounding Over a Groundwater
Table 167
13.3 Problems ............................ 168
xi
14 SEPTIC SYSTEMS, SEWERS, A N D
L A N D USE 171
14.1 Availability 171
14.2 Convenience 172
14.3 Cost 172
14.4 Health and Pollution Hazards 172
14.5 Land Use and Environmental
Impact 173
15 THE UPC, UNIFORM PLUMBING

CODE 179
15.1 Provisions in the Uniform
Plumbing Code 180
16 ETHICS 191
16.1 Land Use 191
16.2 Restrictive Standards 192
16.3 Disciplinary Actions Against Perk
Consultants 193
17 WORK PRIVILEGES A N D
CERTIFICATION OF PERK
CONSULTANTS 195
18 STANDARD SITE SUITABILITY/PERK

REPORT 201
19 STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS
ABOUT THE USE OF SEPTIC
SYSTEMS 205
20 C O N C L U D I N G THOUGHTS 207
Appendix A 209
Organisms in Sewage 209
Appendix B 211
2.2 "Failure" of Leachfields 211
xii
2.2 Fluctuation of Sewage Levels in
Seepage Pits and Leachlines 212
Appendix C ...................... 215

5.1 Comment ............... 215
5.5.1 The Unwanted Irrigation Canal 215
5.5.2 Measuring k 216
5.5.3 Wetting Fronts 216
5.5.4 Evaporation 216
5.5.5 Balance 217
5.5.6 Seepage ......................... 217
Appendix D ........................ 219

6.3 Geometric Mean Versus
Arithmetic Mean 219
6.4.1 Gravel Packing Correction
Factors .......................... 220
6.4.2 Accuracy of Measurement with
Nonvertical Tape 220
6.4.3 Effect of Precision on Accuracy 226
6.4.4b The "Can" or Soil Cylinder 229
6.4.5 Effect of Changing Head 230
6.4.6 Plugged Bottom ................ 230
6.4.8 Applicability of Olivieri-Roche
(O-R) Corrections .............................. 731
Appendix E ....................... 235

9.5.4 Sizing a Pit ............................ 235
Appendix F ........................... 237

10.1 Experimental System .................. 237
Appendix G ....................... 239

Excerpts from the California
Administrative Code, Title 22 239
xiii
Appendix H 243
Excerpts from the San Bernardino
County Code 243
Appendix I 247
18.1 Soil Perk Report Standards 247
18.2 Practical Considerations 259
Appendix J 263
Leaflet on Septic Systems 264
Appendix K 269
Professional Information Sources 269
Appendix L 273
Questions, Problems, and Brain Teasers 273
Appendix M 281
A n Introduction to the World of Law 281
M.1 Laws 283
M.2 The Judicial System 285
M.3 Lawyers 290
M.4 Judges 293
M.5 The Jury 295
M.6 Court Trials 296
M.7 Hope for the Future . 297
Appendix N . 301
John Q. Professional vs the Legal
System: Helpful Organizations and
"Alternative Justice" 301
Appendix O 307
Negligence is the Legal Term for a
Punishable Goof 307
xiv
Appendix P 311
Testifying in Court and Giving Expert
Testimony 311
Appendix Q 327
Case Histories of Legal Conflict 327
Q.1 Disciplinary Action Against
Professionals 328
Q.2 A Negligence Lawsuit This Side
of Hell 336
Q.3 A Lawsuit Involving Septic
System Failure 341
Q.4 Lawsuit Near-Misses 346
Appendix R 351
Ethics in General and in Septic Systems
Practice 351
R.1 Ethics in General: A Personal
Philosophy 352
R.2 Ethical Decisions in Septic
Systems Practice 358
Appendix S . 373
Science, Law, Ethics, Economics, and a
Nitrate Pollution Control Saga 373
Appendix T 383
Dealing Effectively with Bureaucracy 383
Appendix U 385
Problems Solved, Questions Answered 385
Glossary 429
Index 433
XV
List of Figures
1.1 Spread of disease; percent of

population affected 7
2.1 A septic system: septic tank and
portion of a leachline 12
2.2 Shapes of septic tanks 13
2.3 Scum and sludge within a septic tank 14
2.4 Typical two-compartment septic tank 15
2.5 Cross section (top view) of
improved-removal-efficiency septic
tank 16
2.6 Seepage pit cross section 19
2.7 Progress of clogging mat in a seepage
pit 20
3.1 A n infinite leachline 22
3.2 Cost of leachline use as a function of
leachline length 26
4.1 Log-normal distribution of pore sizes
in a surface loam soil with
well-developed structure 33
5.1 Illustration of Darcy s formula 36
5.2 Measurement of k 38
5.3 Water in tubes 39
5.4 Wetting front 40
5.5 Movement of wetting front in a soil
with macropores 41
xvi
5.6 Water in capillary tubes 42
5.7 Water movement between capillary
tubes 44
5.8 A black wick with one end submerged
in water and dripping at the other
end 45
5.9 Effect of a bulge 45
5.10 Hydraulic conductivity k as a function
of soil moisture tension 47
5.11 Analogy between a gutter and an
unconfined aquifer 50
5.12 The unwanted irrigation canal 53
5.13 Cross section of upslope development 57
5.14 Wetting fronts 58
5.15 Balanced weights of dry sand and dry
clay 59
5.16 Slope seepage 60
6.1 Standard percolation test hole 65
6.2 Trend of percolation rates in two
different field test holes with time 67
6.3 Vertical cross section through a
gravel-packed perk test hole 75
7.1 EPA's and Winneberger's
recommendations for absorption
area versus measured perk times,
mpi 88
7.2 Effect of hole diameter on
Winneberger's data 89
9.1 Flow of water out of a hole into soil 120
9.2 Flow of water into soil through a
narrow leachline 121
13.1 Mounding over a lower-permeability
stratum 156
13.2 Triangle of viscous syrup over a mesh 158
13.3 Steady-state triangle within a soil 158
13.4 Vertical surfaces through which
sewage flows downward 160
xvii
13.5 Model for mounding under a point
source 162
15.1 Top view of septic system with a
distribution box 185
15.2 Septic system without a distribution
box 185
15.3 UPC design requirements for
leachlines and seepage pit 187
15.4 UPC requirements for septic tank size,
distribution boxes, and drainage
trenches (leachline) 188
15.5 UPC requirements for sewage system
location 189
F.1 Public notice to be filed by persons
using experimental sewage disposal
systems, San Bernardino County,
California 238
I.1 Form for leachline test 256
I.2 Form for seepage pit, falling head test 257
I.3 Bird's-eye view of distribution of perk
times in a field 262
U.l Cross section of upslope development 406
U.2 Cross section of soil stratum 407
U.3 Flow from a seepage pit into dipping
strata 409
U.4 Location of seepage pits 410
U.5a Bird's-eye view of the nitrate plume
moving in the direction of flow 415
U.5b Dimensions of the water
parallelepiped 416
U.6 Groundwater recharge mound after
one year of recharging at a rate of 3
ft/yr 420
U.7 Mound dimensions in feet 422
xviii
List of Tables
1.1 Derivation of benefit/cost ratios and

determination of most profitable
fertilizer application schedule, on a
per acre basis 6
1.2 The spreading of a chronic nonlethal
communicable disease over a
population, at a rate of two random
direct or indirect transmissions per
infected person per week 7
3.1 Linear feet of leachline affected by
clogging through time 24
3.2 Leachline longevity data (from Table
3.1) and yearly cost of leachline
replacement 25
5.1 Relative evaporation from a soil
surface wetted by capillary flow
from a water table at various depths 48
6.1 Relative permeability of various soils
as measured in minutes per inch
through percolation tests 61
8.1 Water consumption in California 95
8.2 Summary of effluent data from
various septic tank studies 96
13.1 Maximum height of mounding 165
xix
15.1 Suggested modification of uniform
plumbing code Table 1.4 183
A.l Human enteric viruses in sewage 209
A.2 Bacteria and parasites in sewage and
sludge 210
C. 1 Percent slope and value of the sine 215
D. 1 Gravel packing correction factors 221
D.2 Chance deviations from a mean 228
D.3 Magnitude of error (and its probability
of occurrence) 229
I.1 Required contour intervals for plot
plan 250
I.2 Soil textural classes 255
I.3 Perk times and absorption area
requirements 258
P.1 Criteria for Selection of an Expert
Witness 317
P.2 Preparation of Experts-Pre-Trial
Preparation 318
P.3 Court Appearance-Testimony 321
P. 4 Court Appearance - Cross
Examination 322
P.5 General Information-In Court 323
U.1 New rate-of-fall measurements in a tin
can perforated at the bottom 389
U.2 Drop in water level tapwater run 396
U.3 Drop in sewage level, sewage run 396
U.4 Angles, slopes, and values of tangents
and sines 405
XX
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
HANDBOOK
1
Why Public Health Agencies Control

the Disposal of Domestic Sewage
I used to believe that everyone knew that sewage poses a

health hazard. After all, hygiene is taught at home and in
prep school. Epidemiology itself was born as a science in the
1600s, when Snow related cholera epidemics to sewage con-
tamination of groundwater. At the U C L A School of Public
Health, I learned from Professor C. Senn that, until pit pri-
vies were introduced, millions of people in the South were
parasitized by hookworms and, too weak to work, were con-
sidered to be "lazy." World Health Organization bulletins
from Senn's bookshelves spoke of elevated morbidity and
mortality due to improperly disposed sewage; one of them
described an occasion when introduction of piped-in, clean
potable water to a developing-country village increased mor-
bidity and infant mortality because no measures were taken
to dispose of the water after it was used.
So, I was quite surprised and shocked when I heard an
"expert" testify in front of a local planning commission that
sewage was not a health hazard. Later on, I met more than a
1
few such "experts."

Therefore, it seems proper to start this book by giving solid
reasons why the disposal of wastewater or sewage must be
controlled by public health agencies. For our purposes, sew-
age is any domestic wastewater, be it "blackwater," which
drains down the toilet, or "greywater," which drains from all
other plumbing fixtures (handbasin, kitchen sink, tub,
shower, etc.).
1
2 SEPTIC SYSTEMS HANDBOOK
1.1 CONSEQUENCES OF IMPROPER DISPOSAL

OF SEWAGE
Ponded sewage near inhabited areas may afflict residents

in various ways. As a nuisance, it may generate offensive
odors, it may attract rodent pests, and it may serve as a
breeding ground for mosquitoes and flies. Obviously, such
conditions do not help the neighborhood's property values.
As a health hazard, sewage may contain parasitic worms'
eggs and larvae, and also microbial pathogens and parasites.
Some of these may attack man directly through the skin, or
after transmission by a vector (usually rodent or insect), or
after man ingests sewage-contaminated food or water. Of
the "top five" human parasitic diseases, each with about
2
half a million to a million cases per year worldwide

(ascariasis, hookworm, malaria, trichuriasis, and
amoebiasis), only one (malaria) is not directly spread in
sewage. A wealth of pertinent, detailed, and authoritative
information can be found elsewhere. A brief mention of
34
diseases propagated through direct or indirect contact with

sewage and of their causative agents follows. (See
Appendix A for summary.)
1.2 CATEGORIES OF CAUSATIVE AGENTS A N D

SPECIFIC DISEASES
Various Types of Tapeworms, Roundworms, and

Flatworms
Ancylostomiasis. The hookworm larvae penetrate the skin

of the feet and travel to the gut.
Ascariasis. The roundworm eggs stay i n the

sewage-contaminated soil; after they are ingested (dirty
hands, contaminated food), they develop in the gut. The
adults may attack lungs, liver, and other organs.
0. BENJAMIN KAPLAN 3
Dracontiasis. These unusual roundworm larvae are shed

from the skin with the washwater (greywater), and are
ingested by a tiny aquatic "bug" (Cyclops); the roundworm
infects people who drink (the bug in) the water.
Enterobiasis. The adult female roundworm, "pinworm,"

injects its eggs near the anus of the victim. The eggs are
easily spread in sewage-contaminated irrigation waters, and
contaminate leafy vegetables.
Strongyloidiasis.The roundworm larvae in contaminated

soil penetrate the skin of the feet and move to the lungs and
gut.
Somatic cysticercosis. The eggs of the tapeworm are

ingested with contaminated water, hatch in the gut, and
then the larvae may attack various organs: eye, brain, heart.
Schistosomiasis. The eggs of the flatworms are discharged

in the urine or feces; the larvae grow inside aquatic snails,
are discharged by them, swim to and penetrate the skin of
people who might be wading nearby, and grow to adulthood
in the veins of the victims.
Trichuriasis. Eggs of the roundworm develop into embryos

in contaminated soil; after the embryos are ingested (dirty
food, hands), they grow in the gut.
Yeast
Candidiasis. The yeast is transmitted by contact with feces

or secretions from infected people. Although it causes
usually mild infections, occasionally it may cause ulcers in
the intestinal tract, or lesions in the kidneys, brain, or other
organs.
Protozoa
Amoebiasis, balantidiasis, and giardiasis. The protozoa or

their cysts are transmitted through contaminated water, con-
taminated raw vegetables, and flies; they attack the gut and
cause mild to severe diarrhea.
Bacteria
The bac-
Cholera, salmonellosis, shigellosis, and typhoid fever.
terial agents may be ingested in food or water contaminated
by sewage; some may be transmitted by flies which have
contacted feces.
Viruses
Epidemic and sporadic viral gastroenteritis, hepatitis A, and

polio. The viral agents are transmitted in sewage-
contaminated water or food.
Others
Allegedly, there are infectious agents even smaller than

viruses which are called prions, and which are suspected of
causing some uncommon degenerative diseases. Someday,
one or another kind of prion or an unknown type of life form
might be found to be spread through contaminated food or
water. We should keep our minds open to such possibilities.
Although sewage is a potential health hazard, some

people may experience direct or indirect contact with sewage
and suffer no consequences. Often the sewage may not
contain many dangerous parasites and pathogens. But, if
nowadays few people discharge such parasites ,and
pathogens in their sewage, that's because public health
O. BENJAMIN KAPLAN 5
agencies have implemented programs of immunization and

of provision of potable water and sewers (or septic systems).
1.3 THE COST OF PREVENTION
One may ask, if the risk derived from improper sewage

disposal is low because few people discharge pathogens or
parasites in their sewage, why not allow a few substandard
septic systems? As economists would say it, the marginal
benefit of demanding acceptable standards up to the very
last septic system in a community may be lower than the
marginal cost of doing so. In most human endeavors, there
is a point of diminishing returns, beyond which the marginal
(incremental) benefit/cost ratio is unfavorable. It just doesn't
pay to put more money or effort beyond the point of
diminishing returns.
However, things are somewhat different in the field of
Public Health, as noted elsewhere. The nature of this
5
difference is explained below by means of two hypothetical

events: a farmer's attempt to maximize his profit by
fertilizing his crop up to the point of diminishing returns,
and a public health administrator's attempt to maximize the
health of some villagers.
Table 1.1 presents the hypothetical crop production
operation. As shown, if a farmer increases fertilizer
applications from 0 to 0.15 tons/acre, he will spend $150 per
acre but will gain back $200 per acre. So, he is ahead $50 per
acre. The benefit/cost of this increase in fertilizer is 1.3,
which is larger than 1 and hence favorable. If the farmer
increases fertilizer applications from 0.15 to 0.30 tons/acre,
he will spend $150 per acre and will get back $150 per acre;
the benefit/cost is equal to 1, neutral (he gets back as much as
he puts in). If he goes beyond this point and applies more
than 0.30 tons/acre, he will start losing money.
The common economic schedule thus far presented is not
Table 1.1 Derivation of Benefit/Cost Ratios and Determination of Most

Profitable Fertilizer Application Schedule, on a Per Acre Basis
Tons of fertilizer 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60

Resulting crop yield, tons 1 3 3.5 4 4.2
Net revenue from crop
(at $100 per ton), $ 100 300 350 400 420
Marginal revenue, $ 200 150 50 20
Net cost of fertilizer
(at $1000 per ton), $ 0 150 300 450 600
Marginal cost of fertilizer, $ 150 150 150 150
Marginal or incremental
benefit/cost ratios 1.3 1.0 0.33 0.13
quite applicable to prevention of communicable disease, as

illustrated below.
Let us assume that a transient who carries a communicable
disease spends a week in a village with 100 inhabitants. Dur-
ing that week he transmits his disease, directly or indirectly,
to two villagers. The transient leaves, but in the course of the
second week each of the infected villagers transmits the dis-
ease to two other villagers, and so on, every succeeding
week. At first the progress of the disease is very rapid (loga-
rithmic progression); but later it slows down in proportion to
the number of people already affected, as shown in Table 1.2
and in Figure 1.1.
Now, medical intervention in the first week would require
treating only 2 people and would protect 98 people. But, if
postponed to the fifth week, it would require treating 95
people and would protect only 5. The magnitude of the costs
involved are quite different, not to mention the suffering.
Therefore, it is not difficult to surmise that, when dealing
with a communicable disease:
1. It pays to intervene as soon as possible. Prevention is simi-

lar to intervention on or before "week number zero."
2. Prevention is generally more desirable and can be more
cost-effective than cure.
Table 1.2 The Spreading of a Chronic Nonlethal Communicable Disease

over a Population, at a Rate of Two Random Direct or Indirect
Transmissions Per Infected Person Per Week
Week Cumulative Number

No. Number of New Cases of Cases
1 2 2
2 3.9 5.9
3 11.1 17.1
4 28.3 45.4
5 49.6 95
6 9.7 100 +
Note: Transmissions are random, and some people already have the
disease when it is transmitted to them. Therefore, the new cases
column is computed by multiplying the previous week's number of
cumulative cases times two, and times the probability that the
prospective victims are still free of the disease. For instance, during
the third week, 5.9 x 2 x (100-5.9)/100 equals 11.1, and 11.1 plus
5.9 equals 17.1, neglecting rounding off errors.
PERCENT
WEEKS
Figure 1.1 Spread of disease; percent of population affected.
3. It is generally wise to allow no exceptions to prophylactic

measures. It takes only one person to start the "infection
snowball" rolling.
1.4 RELEVANCE
The hypothetical illustrations in the previous section are

not mere illusions.
Mathematically speaking, the parallelism between the
spread of a communicable disease and the spread of an
imported agricultural pest is striking. The pest affects areas
instead of villagers. Prevention assumes the form of a
quarantine of certain agricultural products at state or U.S.
borders. Also, decisive action is taken the moment an
infestation is discovered.
According to a PBS documentary entitled "Conquest of the
Parasites" (broadcast September 10, 1985), Ceylon (Sri
Lanka) had more than 1 million cases of malaria per year in
1980. A vigorous and expensive campaign lowered the rate
to 18 cases per year by 1983. It seemed proper to reduce the
efforts and expenditures when so few cases occurred, and
so, this was done. By 1985, malaria incidence had increased
to about 1 million cases per year.
REFERENCES
1. Kaplan, O. B. 1978. Health input into land use planning:

experiences in a land use program. Am. J. Public Health
68:489-491.
2. McGregor, Ian. 1985. Parasitology today: an ambitious
project. Parasitology Today 1:2.
3. California Department of Health Services (1983) Control
of Communicable Diseases in California. State Printing
Office.
4. Benenson, A . (Ed.). 1970. Control of Communicable Dis-

eases in Man. American Public Health Association, Wash-
ington, DC.
5. Kaplan, O . B., and El-Ahraf, A . 1977. O n the economics
of justifying a preventive public health program through
benefit-cost analysis: The case of restaurant inspections.
J. Food Protection 40: 566-568.
2
The Septic System
Sewers carry sewage away from its point of origin to a

faraway treatment plant or disposal area. Onsite systems
treat and/or discharge sewage within the site where the sew-
age originates. The most common type of onsite system is
the septic system, also called the septic tank sewage disposal
system, or septic tank soil absorption system (ST-SAS).
Approximately one-third of all houses in the United States
are served by septic systems. Figure 2.1 illustrates a septic
1
system and its components: the septic tank itself, and one
type of leachfield or soil absorption system, a leachline.
2.1 THE SEPTIC T A N K
As seen in Figure 2.1, sewage drains out of a house

through a pipe called a "house sewer," which discharges into
a device called a septic tank. This tank has a liquid capacity
of about 500 to 1500 gallons (sometimes higher), depending
on the amount of sewage generated daily. The tank may
have various shapes (Figure 2.2) and may be made out of
concrete, galvanized and coated steel, fiberglass, or polyeth-
ylene.
The tank's function is to receive sewage and to hold it for a
little while. During this detention period the "floatables" in
the sewage (oils, greases, and some fecal constituents) float
to the top, where they undergo some microbial decomposi-
tion and form a floating layer of white-brownish scum. This
11
Figure 2.1 A septic system: septic tank and portion of a leachline.

(Adapted from U.S. Public Health Service. )
2
detention period also allows the sewage "sinkables" to settle

to the bottom of the tank, where they undergo little decom-
position (due to the anaerobic environment); they acquire a
black color, and become sludge. Between the layer of scum
and the layer of sludge remains a translucent, greenish liq-
uid called clarified sewage; it trickles to the leachfield when
displaced by a fresh load of incoming sewage. (The tank
buffers sudden incoming flows and releases the clarified
sewage slowly and continuously for up to roughly 20 min-
utes after the incoming flows stop.) The relative positions of
Figure 2.2 Shapes of septic tanks. (Source: U.S. Public Health Service. )
2
Figure 2.3 Scum and sludge within a septic tank. (Source: Otis et al. )
1
scum, sludge, and the clear space (clarified sewage) are

shown in Figure 2.3.
Every tank must have vents. These are shown in Figure
2.4. One purpose of the vents is to prevent sewage flows
from draining by vacuum the "u"-traps in the house plumb-
ing. The other purpose is to allow the escape of (explosive)
methane and malodorous gases from the tank. These gases
are generated when (facultative) bacteria decompose some of
the sewage constituents. The gases may travel from the top
of the tank's liquid level into the vent, and back up to the
house sewer pipe and up to the house roof terminal (Figure
2.1), where they are vented to the atmosphere. Malodorous
gases may become a quite noticeable nuisance during the
first year of operation of the septic tank.
A licensed septic tank pumper should pump the sludge
and scum as frequently as necessary to prevent them from
accumulating to such an extent that they reach the entrance
to the outlet "tee" (Figures 2.3 and 2.4) and flow out of the
tank into the leachfield. (The leachfield is damaged by scum
or sludge particles in two ways: The particles directly plug
up the leachfield's soil pores, or else they stimulate the
growth of microorganisms which can plug up the soil pores
and decrease infiltration. This may cause the sewage to pond
within the leachfield and surface out on top of the ground.)
The frequency of pumping must depend on the rate of
Plan
Longitudinal Section (side view)

Figure 2.4 Typical two-compartment septic tank. (Adapted from Otis et
al. )
1
scum and/or sludge accumulation, and this rate in turn

depends on many factors, including amount, composition,
and frequency of sewage discharges. As a very rough
approximation, one person generates about 3 cubic feet of
scum plus sludge per year. Use of a garbage disposal in the
kitchen sink increases the discharge of solids to the septic
tank and the frequency of pumping. Also as a very rough
approximation, the tank should be pumped every 2 to 5
years, commonly every 3. But each individual user should
Figure 2.5 Cross section (top view) of improved-removal-efficiency septic

tank.
determine his own best pumping frequency by evaluating

the accumulation of scum and sludge at the time of the first
pumping. (In passing, it is worth mentioning that septic tank
additives—such as yeast, bacteria, and enzymes-widely
sold for "digesting scum and sludge" and "avoiding expen-
sive pumpings" have not been proven effective in controlled
experiments. ) 13
Figure 2.4 shows horizontal and vertical cross sections of a

two-compartment septic tank. The sanitary "tees" at the
tank's inlet and outlet and the baffle or separation between
compartments help prevent the incoming sewage from mov-
ing directly from inlet to outlet, and help retain the scum and
sludge. In practice, there are some sewage constituents
which have almost the same density as water, and stay
within the clarified sewage for a long time. Other constitu-
ents might be a bit more dense, but they pick up tiny gas
bubbles from the anaerobic fermentation that occurs in the
tank. Thus, they become lighter, and stay in suspension
within the clarified sewage until discharged. I myself have
seen a piece of toilet paper flowing out of a septic tank in a
bare trickle of clarified sewage. But generally, under average
conditions, only clarified sewage flows out of the tank.
Winneberger conducted extensive research on septic sys-
tems and concluded that the tank's removal efficiency could
be substantially increased by lengthening the path of sewage
within the tank, as shown in Figure 2.5.
4
2.2 LEACHFIELD
The function of all types of leachfields is to receive the

clarified sewage from the septic tank and discharge it under-
ground into the soil. The soil environment purifies this liq-
uid by breaking down its biodegradable components, and by
retaining parasitic worms, their eggs, and microbes. The
purified liquid moves away by percolation and evaporation,
and by plant uptake and transpiration.
There are three main types of soil absorption fields: the
leachline, the seepage bed, and the seepage pit.
Leachline
The leachline, as shown in Figure 2.1, is a gravel-filled

trench with a perforated pipe running through its length; the
trench runs below ground level. (In the past, before the
advent of synthetic-material perforated pipe, gapped seg-
ments of clay pipe were used instead of perforated pipe.)
The perforated pipe is installed level and is plugged with a
cap at the end, so that the liquid will drip out of every perfo-
ration along its length. In practice, the dripping occurs
through the first few perforations if the pipe is perfectly
horizontal. But often the pipe sags, just a little, and most of
the liquid (clarified sewage) is discharged at the pipe's lowest
point. Thereafter, the liquid spreads along the bottom of the
leachline trench.
As the liquid spreads over the soil, over time it induces the
growth of a "biomat" or "clogging mat" or "clogging layer" 4-6
on the wetted soil. This mat is composed mostly of faculta-

tive (aerobic/anaerobic) bacteria and bacterial products (a
"goo" or slime of polyuronides and polysaccharides colored
black by ferrous sulfide precipitates). This mat extends, from
the surface of wetted soil, not more than about 1 or 2 inches
into the soil. If the surface of the wetted soil is well-aerated
(aerobic), a variety of soil nematodes and protozoa digest the
mat's bacteria (and perhaps their "goo").
The aerobic mat is more permeable than the anaerobic

mat, but this is not too important, as discussed later in this
7
book. Under very anaerobic conditions, the mat's permeabil-

ity (with liquid ponded about 0.5 foot high over it) is not
lower than about 0.2 gallons per square foot per day, or less
commonly, half this rate. 6
With time, the mat may extend throughout the leachline

bottom, and then move up the sides of the leachline trench.
Eventually, if the daily flow of sewage into the leachline
exceeds the amount that can infiltrate through the mat and
through whatever soil remains unclogged, the sewage sur-
faces over the leachfield. When this happens, the leachfield
is said to have "failed." (This word is a misnomer: Leach-
fields do not fail; leachfield designers or installers do fail to
build them to last. See Chapter 3 and Appendix B.)
The mat serves useful functions. First, it is a matrix where
biological activity takes place and biodegradable materials
and some microbes are consumed. Second, it filters out
most pathogens and parasites. A n d third, it delivers liquid
to the soil at a rate usually slower than the (more permea-
ble) soil can transmit, so that the flow through the soil
(percolation) is unsaturated. (Saturated flow fills every pore
of the soil. Unsaturated flow fills only the smaller pores of
the soil.)
Unsaturated flow enhances the soil's ability to capture in
its small pores the microbes that might have passed through
the mat or through the as yet unclogged soil surfaces.
Seepage bed (leachbed)
The seepage bed is another type of soil absorption system.

It is merely a wide leachline (more than 3 feet in width) with
one or more perforated pipes running through its length.
Seepage pit (leachpit)
The seepage pit is a vertical hole in the ground, usually

about 4 to 6 feet in diameter and 10 to 40 feet in depth.
Figure 2.6 Seepage pit cross section. (Adapted from Otis et al. )
1
The vertical cross section in Figure 2.6 shows an inner sup-

porting cylinder made of concrete bricks (or similar materi-
als), with a layer of gravel between the bricks and the soil
surface, to hold the soil in place.
(Before septic tanks became widely used, the house sew-
age was discharged into a [covered] vertical hole in the
ground called a cesspool. Many contractors still use the word
cesspool when they refer to seepage pits.)
The seepage pit works like a vertical leachline. As shown
in Figure 2.7, the clogging mat moves upward along the
sides, year after year; as the bottom and the sidewall near
the bottom clog up, the sewage ponds at a higher and higher
level. This sewage is absorbed through the (as yet un-
clogged) higher portions of the sidewall; also, the hydro-
static pressure forces more of the sewage through the
clogged bottom and sides of the pit. In a pit, the level of
liquid fluctuates up and down at least 1.8 to 4 times the
extent in a leachline. (See proof in Appendix B.) This fluctua-
tion allows a wetted soil surface to be aerated and remain
more aerobic and permeable.
These two factors, hydrostatic pressure and aeration, may
explain why, if absorption areas are equal and everything
else is the same, a pit lasts longer than a leachline.
YOUNG PIT OLD PIT

Figure 2.7 Progress of clogging mat in a seepage pit.
REFERENCES
1. Otis, R., et al. 1980. EPA Design Manual: Onsite Waste-

water Treatment and Disposal Systems. EPA-625/1-
80-012.
2. U.S. Public Health Service. 1967. Manual of Septic Tank
Practice. PHS Pub. No. 526.
3. Kaplan, O.B. 1983. Some additives to septic tank sys-
tems may poison groundwater. J. Environ. Health 45: 259.
4. Winneberger, J.T. 1984. Septic Tank Systems. Butterworth
Publishers, Stoneham, M A .
5. Otis, R. 1985. Soil clogging: Mechanisms and control. In
"Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium on Individ-
ual and Small Community Sewerage Systems," ASAE
Pub. 07-85, pp. 238-250. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan.
6. Anderson, J.L., et al. 1982. Long term acceptance rates
of soils for wastewater. ASAE Pub. 01-82 (Third
National Symposium), pp. 93-100.
7. Bernhart, A . 1973. Treatment and Disposal of Waste Water
from Homes by Soil Infiltration and Evapotranspiration. Uni-
versity of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.
3
Economics of Leachfield Size
It is sometimes argued that leachline size should be

reduced to a minimum: The money saved by not installing a
regulation-sized leachline can be deposited in a bank to earn
interest; then, if and when the reduced-size leachline fails, it
can be replaced. I believe that this position is generally inju-
dicious. My reasons follow.
1. To start with, allowing the installation of presumably

short-lived leachfields runs counter to a basic aim of public
health:risk prevention. (See Chapter 1.)
2. M a n y a developer could save money; but the leachfield
user (who might not be the same developer) could be
stuck with the replacement costs, and a variety of other
problems:
a. It is not easy for the average person to choose and deal
with a contractor to replace a leachline.
b. Gardens, patios, or other appurtenances can be
destroyed when heavy equipment tries to reach (or
excavate in) the replacement area.
c. Heavy equipment can compact moist soil in and around
the failed leachfield area, and may damage some of the
pipes. The sewage-absorption capacity of compacted
soil is reduced; and, as a result, the replacement leach-
field may last even a shorter time than the original one.
3. The odor from a couple of leachfields that have "failed"
could affect property values over an area far larger than
that of the (small) lots directly involved.
4. Worst of all, leachfields that are not built to last indefi-
nitely do not make good economic sense. (Exceptions to
21
SEPTIC
TANK
Figure 3.1 A n infinite leachline.
this may exist if sewering is about to occur within a few

years, or if lots are very large.)
3.1 A LOWEST-COST LEACHLINE IS BUILT TO

LAST INDEFINITELY
Winneberger referred to a formula for the longevity of

1
seepage beds in some Knox County (Tennessee) soils:
Area (square feet) = 263 + 26 x years (of use before failure)
He observed that, if the bed were 400 square feet, it would

last 5 years; but if the bed area were doubled, it would last 20
years—"far beyond direct proportion." 1
The formula might not be reliable if applied to leachfields

built elsewhere. But it can be shown that, anywhere, extra
area indeed increases longevity far beyond direct propor-
tion, and also that a leachline that is built never-to-fail is the
most economic one. This is elaborated below.
Let us visualize an infinite-length leachline, about 3 feet
wide and with only 1 inch of gravel below gapped pipe seg-
ments. For simplicity, let us assume that the rate of septic
effluent discharge into this leachline is invariant, day after
day. Let us also assume that all of the absorption occurs
through the bottom of the leachline, and that each year
about 10 feet of leachline length is clogged by biomat forma-
tion. Figure 3.1 illustrates this condition, and shows the
biomat forming near the beginning of the leachline.
At the same time that clogging occurs, another process
promoting or resulting in absorption through the clogged
area takes place. It does not matter whether this is due to

microbial decomposition of the clogging mat, to evaporation,
or to residual infiltration through highly developed anaero-
bic mat (0.1 gallons/square foot/day), or to some other cause.
Let us call the clogging process C, and the opposite, anticlog-
ging, A . By definition, the amount of clogging is directly
proportional to time, and the amount of anticlogging is
directly proportional to the area already clogged. Stated oth-
erwise, dC/dt = c' and dA/dt = c"C, where c' and c" are
proportionality constants, t is time, and d is the differential
sign. Integrating the two equalities above between time = 0
and time = t, we obtain
It follows that the net length of leachline clogged, or NC, is

equal to C minus A , or
NC = c't - c"c't /2
2
From this formula we can determine when net clogging will

be zero. Solving for t when N C = 0, we obtain two solutions.
One is trivial: t = 0 (when the leachline just begins to work,
there is no clogging). The other one is t = 2/c" (at this time,
anticlogging consumes all of the clogged area). But, some-
where between these two times, there must be another point
in time when N C reaches its maximum value, just before it
begins decreasing all the way to zero. This is the time of most
interest to us (for leachline design purposes), as will be seen
later. To obtain the value of this particular time, we differen-
tiate N C with respect to time, and solve for t when N C = 0.
Now, dNC/dt = c'- 2c"c't/2 = 0. Solving for t, t = lie". Let
us now give numerical values to c' and c" and see in a more
down-to-earth way what happens to the progress of the
clogging mat and to the longevity of a finite-length leachline.
Table 3.1 Linear Feet of Leachline Affected by Clogging Through Time

t, years C, feet A, feet NC = C - A
1 10 0.5 9.5
2 20 2 18
3 30 4.5 25.5
4 40 8 32
5 50 12.5 37.5
6 60 18 42
7 70 24.5 45.5
8 80 32 48
9 90 40.5 49.5
→10 100 50 50
11 110 60.5 49.5
12 120 72 48
13 130 84.5 45.5
14 140 98 42
15 150 112.5 37.5
16 160 128 32
17 170 144.5 25.5
18 180 162 18
19 190 180.5 9.5
20 200 200 0
Let c' = 10 feet (of leachline length clogged per year), and c"
= 0.1 per year. The results are shown in Table 3.1.
The table shows that the net clogged area increases for 10
years to a maximum of 50 linear feet; thereafter it decreases
to zero. As expected, t = 1/c" = 1/0.1 = 10 years.
The N C column serves to construct a longevity table. For
instance, if the leachline had not been infinite, but only 9.5
feet long instead, it would have clogged completely and
failed after about 1 year of use. If 18 feet long, after about 2
years of use. If 100 feet long, it would have lasted forever.
Let us also derive the yearly cost of using leachlines of
various lengths. To this end, let us assume that banks or
money markets yield a net return of 5 percent on savings.
Locally, leachline replacements cost roughly $200 (for mov
ing in heavy equipment) plus $10 per linear foot. The longev
ity data and the costs of use are shown in Table 3.2 and in
Figure 3.2.
Table 3.2 Leachline Longevity Data (from Table 3.1) and Yearly Cost of
Leachline Replacement
years of
leachline use net
length, before cost cost/
feet failure total yearly $ saved $ yield year
9.5 1 295 295 905 45 250
18 2 380 190 805 41 170
25.5 3 450 150 745 37 156
42 6 620 103 580 29 99
50 10 700 70 500 25 68
100 - 0 0 0
200 - (1000) (50) 50
300
- (2000) (100) 100
The first two columns in Table 3.2 come directly from Table
3.1. The total replacement cost column is obtained by multi-
plying the feet of leachline times $10, and adding $200; the
result is divided by the years of use to obtain the next
column to the right. The money saved column represents the
money that was saved when the original shorter-than-100-
foot leachline was installed, and is computed as 100 minus
leachline length, times $10/foot. The net yield is the annual
5% return on the money saved (after accounting for inflation
effects on yield and capital). The net cost per year column is
obtained by subtracting yield column entries from replace-
ment cost per year entries. The numbers in parentheses are
negative values.
Figure 3.2 shows that the lowest-cost leachline is the one
built to last indefinitely. If one were to build a leachline 200
feet long, which is twice as long as necessary, the yearly cost
of this excessively long leachline would be the same as that
of an 80-foot leachline, which is 20 feet short of the necessary
length. This is indicated by the dotted line in Figure 3.2.
Hence, if one isn't sure how long a leachline should be, in all
likelihood it is more economical to err on the side of safety.
Socioeconomic costs include all the costs to the leachline
user plus all the costs to everyone else. In addition to the
COST
PER
YEAR
LEACHLINE LENGTH, FEET OR PERCENT OF OPTIMUM

Figure 3.2 Cost of leachline use as a function of leachline length. Curve
" U " represents user cost; curve " S " represents hypothetical
socioeconomic costs.
costs associated with the problems mentioned at the begin-

ning of this chapter, socioeconomic costs include those of
public health agencies for purposes of enforcement and
abatement of "failed" leachfields, and sewering of neighbor-
hoods. If the leachline is larger than 100% of the area
required for indefinite or long-term life, socioeconomic costs
are identical to those of the user: a mere misallocation of
resources—wasted money. (Therefore, the S curve is congru-
ent to the U curve, and cannot be seen to the right of 100
feet.)
3.2 OPTIMAL SIZE OF LEACHFIELDS
The previous section gave a general view of what a septic

system designer or environmental health officer should con-
sider regarding leachfield size. Its raw data were hypotheti-
cal. The next few chapters will explain the background mate-
rial needed to understand how a real leachfield is designed.
REFERENCE

4
Soils at a Glance
Four to five billion years ago, the earth's surface was cov-
ered by igneous rocks, by seas, and by an anoxic atmos-
phere. Heating and cooling fractured the rocks, and rainfall
decomposed and leached out some of their soluble minerals.
Thus, the first soil particles and soil minerals were formed
from the igneous rocks. Soil particles are of three types,
according to diameter: sand (2 to 0.05 mm), silt (0.05 to 0.002
mm), and clay (less than 0.002 mm). (Gravel, pebbles, and
cobbles are soil texture modifiers, not soil.)
If we pulverize an igneous rock, we can obtain particles of
sand, silt, and clay. The minerals in each of these three soil
textural fractions are identical to those in the parent rock.
But, if they are subjected to chemical weathering, new min-
erals appear in the clay textural fraction; they are called clay
minerals (kaolinite, bentonite, montmorrillonite, etc.).
Sands, silts, and clays are often extracted, segregated, con-
centrated, and deposited elsewhere by the erosive forces of
gravity, wind, and water (including glaciers). The deposits
may be fairly uniform, like wind-blown sand dunes or loess
(silt) soils. They may be deposited by water streams, layer
over layer of different texture. (For example, there might be a
stratum of sand 3 feet thick over 2 inches of clay over 1 foot
of silt, etc.)
Through time, many soil deposits are altered by a variety
of agents. Chemical solutions may cement the soil particles
or fill pores with new minerals. Tectonic forces may tilt
nearly horizontal strata to near vertical positions, or com-
29
press the strata so strongly that the soil grains melt and
almost reform igneous rock. Plant roots help break up weak-
ened rocks, and accelerate chemical weathering. Plant
decomposition products include organic acids and bases,
which attack rock and soil constituents. Decomposed plants
form part of organic soils, and convey special characteristics
to them. Special types of soils are also created by algae
(diatoms) and "animals" (foraminifera or coral deposits).
Insects, earthworms, rodents, and man himself modify natu-
ral soils.
After one type of soil alteration, another may follow. As a
result of all the possible combinations of (and permutations
between) alteration agents, there are thousands of ways the
soils of a given prospective leachfield might have formed
and acquired specific characteristics.
Some knowledge of such ways is a useful diagnostic tool.
For instance, in the alpine climatic region of the San Bernar-
dino National Forest, many of the soils were formed in place
by weathering of the parent rock; this rock can be found
under the soils. By looking at an excavation through the soil
profile down to the rock, one can estimate what kind of soil
developed and what kind of problems it may present. If the
rock is granitic (with minerals in the form of crystals the size
of those of table sugar, and exhibiting a whitish, sparkling
fresh cut), the overlaying soil may not have unusual prob-
lems. If the rock is microcrystalline (crystals are microscopic;
a cut surface looks like chalk), the soil above the rock prob-
ably has a fine (clayey) texture. Drainage might be a prob-
lem, and compaction of soil may be a problem if the leach-
field is installed when the soil is moist. If the rock is a
pegmatite (crystals are large-about one inch), the soil might
have too fast an initial percolation rate, and a much slower
rate after the big pores are plugged by migrating clay or by a
future clogging mat.
Some soil characteristics are fairly predictable, including a
fairly common one: unpredictability. It is often difficult,
impractical, or impossible to obtain all the data necessary to
anticipate some complex soil behaviors.
For instance, surprising soil behaviors or conditions can be

found within San Bernardino County's 20,000 square miles.
In the Sleepy Hollow area I came across a groundwater
depth of 6 feet in one exploratory boring, and a groundwater
depth of 20 feet in another boring less than 12 feet away.
(Tilted alternating strata of sandstone and shale are common
in this area.) In Yucaipa I examined a reddish clay which, at a
depth of 5 feet (and in my presence), consistently yielded a
percolation time of 10 minutes per inch with plain tap water;
and it had no structure, wormholes, root channels, or other
aids to percolation. (Common percolation times for clays are
well in excess of 45 minutes per inch.) A n engineer* tested a
sand in Morongo Valley which did not absorb water from a
deep bore hole filled with over 20 feet of water. (Soil surface
sands can be made impermeable by coatings of fungal prod-
ucts or other natural organic compounds. But deep, nonoily
sands are supposed to be permeable.)
Soil permeability is a characteristic of importance to septic
system designers, as it influences aeration, water flow,
water retention, biological activities, and filtration of para-
sites and pathogens. Soil permeability is affected by texture,
structure, degree of water saturation, degree of compaction,
total pore space, fraction of total pore space occupied by
large pores, continuity of large pores, and spatial changes in
any of these variables.
Structure is the arrangement of the soil particles into
shapes defined by cracks or weakness planes. These cracks
may develop from expansion and contraction upon wetting
and drying (particularly so if the soil has expanding type
clays), compression from roots, solution channels, or weak-
nesses and fractures in the parent rock. If one takes a lump
of soil and breaks it carefully with the fingers, one may see
that it splits into smaller fragments of characteristic shapes:
prisms, if prismatic structure; plates, if platiform structure;
round or nutlike, if nuciform structure. If the soil grains are
not structured, the "structure" is called single-grained or
*R. Carducci, personal communication.

massive. Other things being equal, the least permeable

structure is the platiform. It could result from compaction
and horizontal plane shear, or from residual weak planes in
decomposing parent rock (like shale or slate). Nuciform
structure is associated with action of fibrous roots and earth-
worms, and imparts high permeability even to clay soils.
Texture refers to the proportion of sand, silt, and clay in a
soil.
Water saturation affects permeability in three major ways.
First, it swells expanding clays, and may even disperse some
clays and weaken the structural stability of a soil. Another
way is relevant to permeability testing: soil that is only par-
tially wet may have air "bubbles" in some of its pores. This
entrapped air acts as a plug to water flow, until it is dissolved
in the flowing water. The third way is indirect: a bit of water
(just enough to change the color of dry soil) takes the soil to
the point of optimal moisture for compaction. At this point
the soil becomes very susceptible to compaction by tools or
heavy equipment. And compaction smudges soil absorption
surfaces and decreases the soil's porosity and the proportion
of macropores.
Figure 4.1 shows pore size distribution in a loam soil. A
vast range of pore sizes are represented in this log-normal
distribution.
Halving the diameter of a soil pore decreases water flow to
less than one-fourth. On the basis of cross-sectional area of
flow, the decrease should be exactly one-fourth. But the
sides of the pore exert a drag on the flow. As the diameter
decreases, the ratio of pore perimeter to pore area increases.
Hence, the drag increases, and the flow decreases more than
in proportion to cross-sectional area of flow. A few big pores
(macropores) can carry more water than hundreds of small
pores (micropores). Macropores are visible to the naked eye.
A soil might have well-developed macropores and still
exhibit low permeability. For instance, a net of macropore
channels might be interrupted by a very thin horizontal layer
of dense silt or clay.
This brief chapter could not possibly discuss even a frac-
RELATIVE FREQUENCY
pore radius (microns)
Figure 4.1 Log-normal distribution of pore sizes in a surface loam soil

with well-developed structure.
tion of what is known about soil genesis, biology, chemistry,

and physics. The bibliography at the end of this chapter is
better suited to this purpose. Instead, this book will concen-
trate on soil conditions relevant to septic systems. These will
be discussed as they appear in subsequent chapters.
But, even with the little information presented so far, one
could debunk some simplistic beliefs held by too many
people. One such belief is that soil texture suffices to deter-
mine the absorption area requirement of a leachfield. This
belief is the basis for the Uniform Plumbing Code's Table I-4. 1
More will be said about this point in Chapter 15.

Another belief is that natural soils, with their cracks and
macropores, are superior to artificially created soils (or fills).
In fact, previous research about filtration of microbes in
sieved and packed soil columns has been criticized: Those
packed soil columns lack macropores and can retain the
microbes far more efficiently than the natural soil. 2
It is also important to emphasize that soils in the field

cannot be treated in the abstract. Spangler and Handy 3
noted that, when faced with a problem, engineers tend to

simplify and abstract, while engineering geologists tend to
emphasize peculiarities and complexities. Soil behaviors

regarding sewage disposal are particular and complex.
Engineers who do not appreciate this fact will be prone to
make major mistakes if they practice in the field of septic
systems.
REFERENCES
1. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical

Officials. (1976 edition, to current 1985 edition.) Uniform
Plumbing Code. IAPMO, 5032 Alhambra Ave., Los
Angeles, C A 90032.
2. Smith, M.S., et al. 1985. Transport of E. coli through
intact and disturbed soil columns. J. Environ. Qual. 14:
87-91.
3. Spangler, M . and R. Handy. 1982. Soil Engineering (4th
ed.). Harper & Row, New York, NY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Written for the general public, yet quite informative, are the
USDA yearbooks, Soils and Men (1938), and Soil (1957). The
latter is widely available in public libraries.
Singer, M . J. and D. N . Munns. 1987. Soils: An Introduction.

Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY.
5
Soil Water Movement
It is not uncommon to find someone who will design a

leachfield without taking into account the peculiarities of the
soil or site. For instance, on one occasion I rejected a consul-
tant's percolation test report. In this report he recommended
that leachlines be used in a prospective subdivision tract,
although the tract's soils were only about 2 feet thick over
solid impermeable rock. After a little while, he resubmitted
the report with a new recommendation: Use seepage pits
instead of leachlines.
It is also not uncommon to find someone who will misap-
ply a general formula to a particular condition. Since one
must "see" and visualize in order to understand something
well, pertinent concepts and formulas will be derived and
explained graphically.
5.1 INFILTRATION A N D PERCOLATION
Water infiltrates into a surface, and percolates through a

porous medium under the influence of gravity. The princi-
ples governing infiltration into flow-restricting surfaces are
very similar, whether the surfaces belong to a clogging mat,
to a smeared or compacted soil surface, or to the bottom and
sides of a tin can with tiny perforations. Let us take a look at
these principles.
Let us take a hypothetical case of an open, long tin can,
with a thin layer of soil at the bottom. The bottom has lots of
35
a b
Figure 5.1 Illustration of Darcy's formula with a cross section of a tin can
with perforated bottom. Dots represent water-saturated soil.
little perforations. The can is full of water and is suspended

in space. Now let us try to predict the speed of the falling
water level between levels 3 and 1, as shown in Figure 5.1(a).
Intuitively, we would assume that the rate of fall is 3 times
faster when the water is at level 3 than when it is at level 1.
The pressure exerted by water is called hydraulic head, H ,
and can be expressed in various types of units: atmospheres,
kilopascals, or feet of water. For our purposes, it is sufficient
to remember that 1 atmosphere is equivalent to the pressure
exerted by a column of water about 10 meters or 34 feet (in
height).
Now let us go back to the can with the perforated bottom.
Let us keep the water level constant at level 3, and then let us
make this soil layer 2, 10, or 100 times thicker, until it reaches
level 1, as shown in Figure 5.1(b). What effect does the thick-
ening of the soil layer have on the flow of water? Intuitively
we know the resistance to flow will increase 2, 10, or 100
times. So, the rate of flow will decrease, respectively, to 1/2,
1/10, or 1/100 of the original rate. It should be noted that H is
the pressure exerted by the whole water column, that is, the
part that is above the wet soil called surface head h, plus the
part that goes through the soil to the bottom of the can,
called soil head h', and equal in magnitude to the height or
thickness of the wet soil, X.
Henry Darcy did similar experiments in the mid-1800s,
with (real) sand filter beds, and also found out that the rate
of flow is directly proportional to H and inversely propor-
tional to X. His famous formula for water flow through
porous media is
Q/S = k (h + X)/X
where
Q = the flow rate in cubic feet per day
S = the surface or bottom area of the "can" (or
sand filter) in square feet
k = a proportionality constant reflecting the per-
meability of a particular soil, feet per day
h = the surface head, or height of water above the
soil, feet
X = the distance of water travel through soil, feet
(X is numerically identical to h ' only when X is verti-
cal)
Note that when we divide Q by S we get units of feet per

day. This is the velocity of a volume of water that goes in and
out of a chunk of soil through unit surface areas. The actual
velocity of water within the soil pores is higher.
From Darcy's formula, we can determine the value of a
soil's k by measuring Q and S when (h + X)/X = 1. The term
(h + h')/X is called gradient; it is equal to 1 when h = 0 and
h ' = X. A device to measure k "the old fashioned way" is
shown in Figure 5.2.
Once we find out the k of a given soil, what happens to the
flow rate (the ratio Q/S) if we tilt the tube so that it makes an
angle 0 with the horizontal? (Later on, the answer to this
question will allow us to solve problems involving uncon-
Figure 5.2 Measurement of k. A n undisturbed soil sample in a tube with

a perforated bottom (or wire mesh) is filled to the top (of the
soil) with water. The water level is kept constant and just
barely above the soil, so that h = 0. The water is collected in a
graduated cylinder. The water is left to run for a while to
displace all air from the soil, and to saturate every soil pore.
After this saturation, the volume of water that collects in the
graduated cylinder in a given time is Q . The area of the
cylinder bottom is S. A n d k = Q/S.
fined flow.) Well, k is a property of the soil in the test tube,

and doesn't change with tilt; X is the length of the wet soil in
the tube, and it is still the same. S doesn't change either. The
only thing that changes is H , as explained below.
As shown in Figure 5.3, the value of H is the difference in
height between the top and bottom of the water column (or
a
b c
Figure 5.3 The schematic to the left, a, shows a big water-filled container
connected to a thin tube. The connection allows free water
flow, so the water level in the thin tube always shows the level
in the container. The schematic in the middle, b, shows a test
tube used to measure k under a unit gradient (H = X, so H/X
or gradient equals 1). The schematic to the right, c, shows the
test tube tilted at an angle 9 re the horizon; the water level in
the thin tube shows the magnitude of H in the tilted tube.
wet soil) in the tube. If we know the values of X and �, we

can determine the value of H because the sine of � is equal to
H/X, and the sine of any angle can be found in trigonometric
tables. So, now we see that the flow in such a tilted tube is
given by a new expression of D arcy's formula,
Q/S = k sin�
Finally, let's do one more trick with D arcy's formula. In our

imagination, let us ram a long hollow tube downward (verti
cally) into a dry soil, without damaging the soil or the tube.
The crosssectional area of the tube is 1 square foot, or unit
area. The tube's top is 1.1 feet above the surface of the soil;
the tube's bottom is 50 feet below ground. A n d let the soil
within the tube be perfectly uniform in all directions. Now
we fill the top of the tube with water until we have a surface
head of 1 foot, and we keep it at that level by adding water as
it is absorbed by the soil. If we measure the rate of flow of
Water
Wet soil
Figure 5.4 Wetting front.
this added (or absorbed) water, we see that the water is

absorbed extremely fast the first second, more slowly after 1
minute, even more slowly after one hour . . . etc. Why? This
slowingdown can be explained with D arcy's equation.
Please refer to Figure 5.4.
Flow velocity per unit area is equal to k(h + X)/X. At the
beginning, the instant water is introduced into the tube, h =
1 foot, but X = 0 feet or pretty close to it. Therefore, the
velocity of flow is extremely high, (k times 1/0 = ∞.) As time
goes by and water percolates downward, the value of X
increases, and therefore the ratio (h + X)/X decreases, and so
does the velocity of flow. After perhaps a month or two,
when X reaches a value of 49 feet, the velocity of flow
reaches a value of k(l + 49)/49, or 1.02 k. If the tube went
infinitely deeper and we waited an infinite number of years
until X was infinite, the velocity of flow would be stable and
exactly equal to k. The length of the wetted soil, X, is mea
sured from the top of the soil down to (just above) the wet
ting front.
When water percolates through soil, the wetted area is
much darker than the dry soil around it. The edge of the
wetted area is quite distinct, and is called "wetting front."
Although the wetting front looks like a sharp line, close
inspection often reveals that the line is jagged and advances
with small jerky motions, as shown in Figure 5.5. The reason
one instant
next instant
Figure 5.5 Movement of wetting front in a soil with macropores. The wet
soil is above the dark horizontal line. One instant, protrusions
of water move down a macropore and stop; the next instant,
the adjacent small pores or capillaries fill. Thereafter the
horizontal black line which represents the boundary of
saturated soil re-forms at the bottom of the protrusions and
the process repeats itself.
is that, in a medium-textured soil, most of the water moves

through big channels-macropores; but, as soon as a macro-
pore fills up, little channels around it suck up its water until
they themselves fill up. After they do, the wetting front can
keep on moving. More is said in the next section, on capil-
lary flow.
5.2 CAPILLARY FLOW
So far we have dealt with water flowing mostly downward

under the effect of gravity and pressure head. As soil texture
becomes finer, going from sands to loams to silts to clays, the
proportion of small pores increases; and these pores or capil-
laries can carry water in any direction, including upward,
under the effect of tension head.
To visualize how water moves in the capillaries, let us
perform imaginary experiments with easily available house-
hold implements. Let us take two glass tubes of different
diameters, say 5 mm and 1 mm. Eye-droppers would work
fine. Let us touch a water surface with the large- and the
small-diameter tips, as shown in Figure 5.6(a). We see that
water rises more in the finer tube, as if pulled up by suction.
Figure 5.6 Water in capillary tubes: (a) hydrophilic tubes (b) hydrophobic
tube.
Also, we see that the top of the raised water is concave; this
concave surface of water is called the meniscus. If we repeat
the experiment with a tube made of (or impregnated with) a
hydrophobic material like candle wax or beeswax, we see
that the meniscus is convex, and is "pushed" below the free
water surface. We might even feel that the water is pushing
the tube up, as if the tube were pressing down on an elastic
membrane.
The reasons for what we see are as follows. Water mole-
cules, like little magnets, attract each other, and are attracted
by some (hydrophilic) materials like glass. The walls of the
glass tube attract some water molecules upward, and these
in turn "drag" other molecules upward with them. So, the
water starts rising within the glass tube, and it rises until the
weight of the water column is too great to be supported by
the attraction between the water molecules in the meniscus'
surface, or between the water molecules and glass. If the
diameter of the glass tube starts increasing, the circular line
of contact (perimeter = 27�r) between the meniscus and the
glass increases in proportion to the radius. (This line of con
tact can be visualized as a ring of water molecules under
tension—tension exerted upward by the dry glass and down
ward by the weight of the water column.) But the weight of
the water column increases in proportion to the square of the
radius (area = 7�r ). The net result is that the height of the
2
water within a tube is inversely proportional to the ratio of

perimeter to area, or H = c/r. H is the maximum height of
the water column; c is a constant which depends on the

strength of attraction between the tube and the water mole-
cules, and also between the water molecules themselves;
and r is the radius of the tube.
Figure 5.6(b) shows the effect of repulsion between the
tube material and the water molecules; the constant c is neg-
ative, and so is H . (The line of contact is repelled or pushed
down by the tube, and the hydrostatic pressure pushes the
middle of the meniscus up.)
The meniscus surface consists of densely packed water
molecules (which attract each other and other water mole-
cules nearby). The same is true of the surface of a raindrop,
or of a soap bubble, or of a pond on which some insects (like
water skimmers) stand without sinking. Sometimes the liter-
ature refers to this molecular membrane as being due to
"surface tension." It is not. If we pull both ends of a piece of
wire, the wire is in tension, and it will break when the cohe-
sion between its molecules is barely exceeded by the tension
caused by pulling. Water acts in the same way. The cohesion
or attraction of the molecules at the water surface is mea-
sured by pulling to the point of rupture, and the tension
measured at this point is surface tension.
Now let us lift the two tubes in Figure 5.6(a), and connect
the two tips that hold water. Water will not move from one to
the other. If we expel some or all of the water from the thin
tip, and connect this tip with the broad tip, the thin tip will
"suck up" water from the broad tip. But if we reverse the
procedure, the broad empty tip will not pull water out of the
full thin tip. (See Figure 5.7.) Water will move from a tube
with a low capillary pull head H to one with a high pull H ,
until the pulls are the same. A high capillary pull head H is
more negative. To make things easier, we can designate cap-
illary pull or capillary-induced tension with the letter T, for
tension. This way, T = - H .
The rate of water movement up a capillary tube is rela-
tively fast at first, but it becomes slower and slower as the
water rises and the weight of the water column and the drag
increase. O n occasion, the literature refers to capillary "sue-
Figure 5.7 Water movement between capillary tubes.
tion," rather than "pull/' The word suction is incorrect. Suc-

tion is the result of vacuum. In theory, a perfect vacuum of 0
atmospheres would cause a column of water to rise 10
meters (34 feet) at sea level, where the air pressure is 1
atmosphere. In practice, the column cannot rise more than
about 8 meters because it starts vaporizing under the tension
caused by the vacuum. Capillary "pull" raises water 100
meters in some tall trees. The relationship between H and T
is shown in Figure 5.8.
Figure 5.8 shows water moving from a free water surface
(where H = 0 and T = 0), through about 20 inches of wick, to
a point 2.5 inches below the 0 level, and then dripping out.
The head H is the difference in elevation (or pressure)
between the free water surface and the exit point, respec-
tively, 0 and 2.5 inches, that is, equal to 2.5 inches. The path
X is 20 inches. Therefore, the gradient is 2.5/20. The drip
flow per unit time is proportional to the cross-sectional area
of the wick (perpendicular to flow) times a constant k for this
particular wick times 2.5/20.* Now, if the dripping end is
raised 2.5 inches to level 0, the flow ceases. The gradient is 0,
and the values of T in the ascending and descending por-
tions of the wick are those shown by dotted lines.
Another important point about capillary rise is shown in
*This is correct if the wick obeys Darcy's law. If flow occurs through
continuous macropores, deviations from Darcy's law may occur.
inches
Figure 5.8 A black wick with one end submerged in water and dripping
at the other end. The scale on the right is in inches.
Figure 5.9. A tube has a diameter capable of raising water 20

inches from a free water surface, but it has a bulge which
itself can raise water only 0.1 inches. Water stops rising
when it gets up to the bulge. But if water is introduced from
above until the bulge fills up, the water can continue rising
the full 20 inches.
The point illustrated above has important implications for
leachfields located a few feet above a groundwater table.
One implication is that capillary flow in soils does not raise
water as far as theoretically possible. For instance, a soil with
an average capillary diameter capable of raising water 10 feet
Figure 5.9 Effect of a bulge.

may raise it only 2 feet. The reason is that most of the

smaller-than-average-diameter capillaries meet "bulges" or
bigger-than-average-diameter capillaries before they reach 2
feet in height.
Another implication is that, when a leachfield just starts
discharging effluent, the "bulges" can be filled with flow
from above so that capillary rise can reach its theoretical
maximum; thus, the soil and the water flow downward can
be saturated all the way from the bottom of the leachfield
down to a groundwater table a few feet below. (This condi-
tion is undesirable. As pointed out previously, unsaturated
flow is desirable because it promotes percolation of sewage
effluent through the smaller soil pores, and enhances the
trapping of sewage microorganisms.)
Another important aspect of capillary flow is that the more
unsaturated the soil, the slower the flow. Figure 5.10 shows
that when the soil dries out a bit, soil moisture tension
increases and k decreases. The soils in this figure vary in
texture from Type I, coarse-textured sand (high proportion
of big pores), to Type IV, fine-textured clay (high proportion
of small pores).
When the Type I soil is saturated with water, its k is about
550 cm/day. (This corresponds to a Q of 135 gallons per day
per square foot of area perpendicular to flow.) When it is just
a bit drier, and the big pores are empty and the smaller pores
still retain water at a tension T of 50 cm, k is a mere 0.15 cm/
day. To give an idea of this, we could allow a chunk of
unsaturated sand to dry out until it develops a tension of
about 50 to 60 cm. Then, if placed just on top of a free water
surface, it would pull water up to a theoretical maximum of
50 to 60 cm, if it had no "bulges."
When the Type IV soil is saturated with water, its k is
about 2.7 cm/day. Its few big pores drain fast with a bit of
tension, but then more and more tension is required to pull
water out from its many small pores, so that the k doesn't
decrease in value as fast as in a Type I soil. In fact, if the
tension were about 1,000 cm, k could still be 0.1 cm/day.
It must be remembered that the curves in Figure 5.10 are
Q, ga1/ft /day
2
k, cm/day
SOIL MOISTURE TENSION, CIT1
Figure 5.10 Hydraulic conductivity k as a function of soil moisture

tension. (Adapted from Otis et al.)1
Table 5.1 Relative Evaporation from a Soil Surface Wetted by Capillary

Flow from a Water Table at Various Depths*
Soil: finef sandy loam
Water table depth below 4 16 28 38 43 50
soil surface, inches
Percent evaporation 88 80 62 33 8 7
Soil: riverbed sand
Water table depth below 3 6 10.5 24
soil surface, inches
Percent evaporation 69 64 58 11
a
A free water surface on top of the soil (zero inches below soil surface)
evaporates 100%. (Source: USDA-derived data from Israelsen.) 3
for illustration purposes only. A given sand or clay can have

curves markedly different from those shown, depending on
the degree of compaction, types of grains, structure, etc.
As for actual rise of water by capillarity in the field, I have
seen sands raise water 1 to 2 feet, and clays about 4 feet.
Other authors reviewed pertinent literature and concluded
that the maximum lift is about 10 feet, and usually not more
than 5 feet. And it can take longer than a year before water
23
rises to the full extent possible. 2
Except under very special conditions, capillary movement

of water from a leachfield to the soil surface (from which it
can evaporate) is negligible. Much more important is the
effect of plants on water loss from leachf ields.
Table 5.1 gives a rough idea of the amount of evaporation
from a bare soil surface (with moisture replenished by capil-
lary flow from a water table).
Now, two simple experiments will shed more light on soil
water movement. Let us take an unglazed clay planter. If it
has a hole in the bottom, we plug it with wax. Now we
suspend the pot under a dripping faucet. The dripping water
will be absorbed by the dry clay bottom and will start climb-
ing and saturating the sides of the pot (capillary rise). While
it is climbing, water does not drip out of the pot, because it is
under a tension gradient (created by the capillary pull from
the microscopic pores in the pot's clay sides). After the water
has climbed to the top of the sides and has saturated all of
the microscopic pores, water accumulates over the pot's bot-
tom and drips from the underside. This drip flow will
depend on the head or height, h, of water over the bottom,
on the thickness of the clay bottom, X, and on the k of the
clay material.
The same thing happens when the discharge from a leach-
field percolates down through sand and hits a dry soil clay
layer which overlies dry sand. Dry sand has very low
hydraulic conductivity. (See Figure 5.10.) The dry sand acts
like the air below the bottom of the clay pot. As droplets of
water form and hang from the underside of the pot's bottom
and come together, grow, and drip from the lowest point or
protrusion, so does water drip out of the soil clay; once it fills
up a pore in the sand below, most of the flow is channeled
into this pore, in a sudden discharge.
The last experiment is as follows. Let us pour water into an
inclined gutter, and observe two things: One, the surface of
the running water is parallel to the bottom of the gutter.
Two, if we introduce water into the gutter at a constant rate,
steepening the gutter's angle fastens the flow through the
gutter and decreases the flow's vertical cross sections.
What happens to flow in the gutter also happens to flow in
unconfined aquifers, as shown in Figure 5.11.
A n aquifer is any water-bearing soil strata. A confined
aquifer is confined by impermeable layers, which act as the
walls of a pipe and keep the water under some pressure. In
Figure 5.11, if the strata on which trees are growing were
impermeable clay, the wet area as drawn (dotted) would be
confined.
Figure 5.11 Analogy between a gutter and an unconfined aquifer.
5.3 PLANT TRANSPIRATION
Plant roots grow toward moisture, and absorb water (and

dissolved nutrients). But usually most of the absorbed water
moves to the roots by capillary flow. Roots may help "pump"
the water up to the rest of the plant by increasing the osmotic
pressure of the absorbed water, or they may just allow the
water tension (developed by evaporation from the leaves) to
pull the water (and nutrients) up. About 98% of the absorbed
water evaporates from the leaves' pores (stomata); this pro-
cess is called transpiration. Roughly 2 to 4% of the absorbed
water is retained in the plant.
About 7 feet of water per year may evaporate from a free
water surface in some desert areas of San Bernardino

County. Pastures or lawns transpire about 60 to 80% as much
as a free water surface. Small to medium sized trees tran-
spire about 10 to 30 gallons per day. A large eucalyptus may
transpire 1 ton of water (290 gallons) per day.
In summary, plants may play a role in the design of septic
systems. But one must prevent the roots from plugging
drainage or leachline pipes.
5.4 "REST A N D DIGEST" SUGGESTION
As of now, practically all the math and physical principles

necessary to understand septic systems have been pre-
sented. These principles can be a powerful analytical tool
when reading pertinent literature or evaluating percolation
reports. After you feel you have grasped the principles, we
can start applying them and solving problems to increase our
understanding even further. Solutions to some of the prob-
lems are in Appendix C. Professionals who are in the busi-
ness of doing percolation test reports (and septic system
design), should first try to solve the problems themselves,
"sleep over them" if necessary, and only then check the
answers in the Appendix.
5.5 PROBLEMS
The truths or principles best remembered are those one

discovers oneself. The problems given in this book are
designed to help you in this process of discovery. Some of
the problems might be tough: they are errors I found in the
literature or in procedures employed by experienced engi-
neers. So, don't feel bad if you can't solve them without
help. Just try.
5.5.1 Slopes and groundwater
In some communities which have shallow soils (10 feet

thick or less) over impermeable bedrock, the sewage dis-
charged through leachlines located at higher elevations may
raise the groundwater level and flood leachlines at lower
elevations. By means of the Darcy equation, we can estimate
how many septic systems can be safely placed at higher or
lower elevations.
Let us tackle and solve a tough problem first, so that the
following ones will appear easy.
The Unwanted Irrigation Canal
Please refer to Figure 5.12. The story is as follows. A n

irrigation canal has been recently extended near a house in
the desert. It transports water from west to east, near the
foot of a mountain chain. The canal is lined beyond the west-
ern horizon shown in the figure, but it is unlined from at
least one mile east to one mile west of the house.
The owner of the house is worried that the seepage from
this unlined canal will raise the groundwater level and flood
his leachline. The bottom of his leachline is 5 feet below
ground. Does he have a reason to worry? We observe the
setting, and see or are informed that:
a. The site is in an alluvial deposits valley. O n the north the

valley is bounded by a mountain chain of impermeable
igneous rock.
b. Throughout the valley, the soil profile is, top to bottom: 0
to 11 feet, sand; 11 to 260 feet, solid impermeable clay.
c. The valley terrain and the soil strata slope at a rate of 1 foot
d o w n per thousand feet horizontal distance west to east.
The canal slope is identical. The terrain and soil strata
slope at a rate of 20 feet d o w n per thousand feet horizontal
distance north to south.
d. The 11-foot-thick sand stratum over the clay is perfectly
0. BENJAMIN KAPLAN
53
Figure 5.12 The unwanted irrigation canal.
uniform in all directions, and its k has been measured to

be 1 foot per day.
e. Where the unlined portion of the canal starts, water is
flowing. A n expert examined this area of the canal and
determined that the canal will lose by seepage 0.19 cubic
feet of water per day per foot of canal length w h e n the
gradient is 2%.
f. The highest groundwater level k n o w n before the canal
was built is 10 feet from the surface (one foot above the
impermeable clay).
From the data above, answer the following questions: 1.

Will the leachline be flooded by rising groundwater? 2. One
often reads that earth canal seepage losses are so many cubic
feet per given length per given time. Period. Why did the
expert make a special reference to a 2% gradient? What does
this mean? 3. What would you advise the homeowner?
Answers
The groundwater level will rise by an unknown amount.

We draw a groundwater table in Figure 5.12, temporarily
half way up to the soil surface, and cut a 1-foot-wide section
through it, perpendicular to the direction of flow. So now we
have a rectangle with a base of 1 foot and a height equal to
the height of the groundwater. This rectangle receives 0.19
cubic feet of water per day from the 1 foot of canal length it is
related to. We could have drawn this rectangle close to the
canal. We could have drawn more such rectangles every foot
westward. But all we need is one rectangle, as what happens
in this one will also happen in all the others. The projection
of this rectangle back to the canal gives us something like a
giant "tube" of wet soil, like the one used to measure k. As
shown in Figure 5.12, this tube has a rectangular cross sec-
tion; its base is 1 foot wide and its height is the unknown
height of the groundwater. It slopes at a gradient of 0.02, or
2%. Therefore, using the modified Darcy formula, we have:
Q/S = k sin�
0.19 (ft per day)/S (ft ) = 1 (ft per day) x 0.02

3 2
Solving for S, S = 9.5 square feet. S is the crosssectional

area of the tube. The base times the height is 1 (ft) x ?(ft) =
9.5 square feet. Hence, the height of the groundwater will be
9.5 feet. The leachline will be flooded.
From Darcy's formula we know that we can neglect the fact
that another gradient exists1 per 1,000 (or 0.1% or 0.001).
Since the flow per unit area is directly proportional to the
sine of 9 when the k's are the same, the flow on the 2%
gradient is about 20 times larger than that on the 0.1% gradi
ent. And how do we know the value of the sines? Well, the
sine of a gradient is numerically the same as the gradient,
from 0 to about 0.20. That is, the sine of the angle which
corresponds to a slope of 1% or 0.01 is 0.01; to a slope of 0.05,
is 0.05; to a slope of 0.20, is 0.20.
The expert specified a seepage under a gradient of 2%
because he knew that the rate of infiltration depends on the
gradient. When infiltration just starts, the gradient is huge.
When the water starts moving from the canal surface to the
clay layer, the gradient is more than 1. (h + X)/X is more
than 1; h is the pressure of the water on the canal surface,
and X is the distance traveled by water through the soil.
When the water is moving along the 2% slope for 100 or
1,000 feet, the effect of h is negligible, so that H = 2 feet
when X = 100 feet, and 20 feet when X = 1,000 feet; and so
the gradient is only 0.02 or 2%. Note that H is not just the
height of the water from the canal down to the clay, or 11
feet. H is the difference in water level elevation from the
canal to any point. Published seepage data usually refer to
canals in use for many years, so that X is large and the
seepage rate is stable.
The homeowner has options. He can go to the canal own
ers or designers and demand that it be lined, on the basis of
the calculations shown above. Or, he can go to the nearest
Agricultural Extension office and find which trees suited to

the site conditions can be planted to lower the groundwater
level.The amount of seepage is quite modest: 0.19 cubic feet
per day per lineal foot of canal is a mere 1.5 gallons per day
per lineal foot of canal, or about 30 gallons per day per each
20 feet in an east-to-west direction.
Perennial fruit trees or ornamentals may do the trick. Euca-
lyptus trees have been used to drain swamps. Tamarisks do
too well in the desert, near groundwater tables. They do
lower groundwater very effectively, but are now considered
to be "pests," almost impossible to eradicate once they take
hold.
Now let us change some parameters, and let the reader do
the figuring. How high would the water rise if the slope
were 10% instead of 2%?
If the slope is 2%, the leachline is 500 feet south of the
canal, and the clay layer is rather permeable, with a k of 0.01
foot/day, would the leachline be affected?
Upslope Development
Tract houses have been built over 15 feet of decomposed

granite soil overlaying undecomposed impermeable granite
(Figure 5.13). The slope of the soil and of the granite rock
surface is 10% downward west to east. The soil is uniform
and has a k of 1 foot/day. The tract is square, 1,000 x 1,000
feet. The lots measure 100 x 100 feet, and each lot has a 3-
bedroom house, a 1,000-gallon septic tank, a 90-foot leach-
line parallel to contour lines (perpendicular to the slope),
and an average discharge of 300 gallons per day. There is no
groundwater. Disregard the effect of rainfall or lawn irriga-
tion or trees when you answer this question: Would you buy
a house in this tract if you see there is one house upslope? If
you see three houses upslope? Would you buy a house at all?
Let us estimate the effect of one house on creating a water
table. First we convert everything to the same units. 300
gallons per day is about 40 cubic feet per day. The 40 cubic
Figure 5.13 Cross section of upslope development.
feet are discharged over 90 to 100 feet, say 0.40 cubic feet per
foot of property line perpendicular to slope. Then,
0.40 (ft /day)/S(ft ) = 1 (ft/day) sin�

3 2
Since sin0 = 0.1, S = 4 square feet. The base of the rectan

gle of area S is 1 foot. So, the rise in groundwater level is 4
feet. Three houses upslope would raise it 12 feet. I would not
buy any house. About 70% of the houses may have severe
sewage disposal problems.
5.5.2 Measuring k Correctly
It is routine for soil engineers to determine k after increas

ing h to about 30 feet (usually with gas pressure). This proce
dure increases the Q, and is quite convenient when one tests
clays that barely drip unless they are subjected to a high h .
The method can be found in Army Manual E M 111021906,
and in California Administrative Code Title 23, Chapter 3,
Subchapter 15, Appendix I. It was designed to test the per
meability of clays that are to be used as liners to contain
hazardous waste.
However, on occasion a consultant will determine a k for a
leachfield design problem by the procedure described in the
Figure 5.14 Wetting fronts.
paragraph above, and his or her answer will be wrong. We'll

see why later in Appendix C.
A n EPA manual has presented a formula for determining
4
the average k of horizontally stratified soils (for instance, a

layer of sand over a layer of clay over a layer of sand). It is
where k is the harmonic mean k, and d and k are the

n n
thickness and the k of stratum number n. This formula also

provides the unwary consultant with opportunities to make
mistakes when dealing with septic systems. The reason for
the potential mistakes is not difficult to figure out, if some-
one has "digested" this chapter and takes time to solve this
riddle, or turns to Appendix C, where the solution is
revealed. (Hint: picture vertical water movement in various
kinds of stratified soils, and deduce the effect of various h
values on measured k values.)
5.5.3 Wetting Fronts
Someone introduces about 5 gallons of water into holes

dug into two types of soil: one is a clay, the other is a sand.
After all the water is absorbed, cross sections of the soils look
as shown in Figure 5.14. Which is the clay soil and which is
the sand? Why? The answer is in Appendix C.
SILT
SAND CLAY
Figure 5.15 Balanced weights of dry sand and dry clay.
5.5,4 Evaporation
A leachline's bottom is about 38 inches below the soil sur-

face. The soil is a fine sandy loam. The leachline is 100 feet
long and 3 feet wide, and receives 300 gallons of sewage per
day. Assume that the sewage effluent acts like a water table
near the bottom of the leachline and that evaporation is as
shown in Table 5.1. The evaporation from a free water sur-
face is 4 feet per year.
The sewage not evaporated percolates downward. What
percentage of the sewage discharged is lost to evaporation?
The answer is in Appendix C.
5.5.5 The Balance
Dry blocks of sand, of silt, and of clay are in a balance, as

shown in Figure 5.15. The silt block is taken out, moistened
to near saturation, and placed back between the clay and the
sand, exactly in the middle and without losing its shape or
displacing the sand or the clay. There is good contact
between the silt and sand, and silt and clay surfaces. Which
way will the balance tilt after a few minutes? Why? The
answer is in Appendix C.
5.5.6 Slope Seepage
Figure 5.16 shows a new house (on terrace deposits) up

above a valley in a desert climate (no rain). A leachline
between the house and the slope discharges into a stratum of
sand. The leachline is heavily loaded with 5 or more gallons
of sewage per square foot of leachline bottom per day. The
Figure 5.16 Slope seepage.
sewage may move down, hit the clay, move laterally, and
seep out or surface as indicated with an arrow. Which condi-
tion will make this seepage more likely: (a) clay overlying
coarse sand, or (b) clay overlying more clay? The answer can
be found in Appendix C.
REFERENCES
1. Otis, R., et al. 1977. Alternatives for Small Wastewater

Treatment Systems. EPA Technology Transfer Pub. No.
EPA-625/4-77-011.
2. Tolman, C.F. 1937. Ground Water. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
3. Israelsen, O . 1950. Irrigation Principles and Practices (2nd
edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York.
4. U.S. EPA. 1981. Process Design Manual for Land Treat-
ment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA-625/1-81-013.
6
The Percolation Test, or "Perk" Test
A leachline (or seepage pit) of a given size is likely to last

longer if installed in a sandy rather than in a clayey soil. So,
people are prone to feel that a soil's texture determines its
permeability, and hence its suitability for leachfields. But we
should remember that permeability is influenced by the
extent of clogging mat development, and that texture and
permeability are generally weakly correlated (Chapter 4).
Occasionally, texture-permeability correlations may be
found in published literature, but only as a local phenome-
non that cannot be duplicated elsewhere, particularly if soils
are high in clay. 1
Table 6.1 compares textures and relative permeabilities of

different soils. Its figures were taken from data reported by
Hantzsche et al. Perhaps this poor correlation was known to
2
exist early in this century; perhaps not. Either way, since
Table 6.1 Relative Permeability of Various Soils as Measured in

Minutes per Inch Through Percolation Tests 3
Expected range:
mean plus minus one
Texture Mean mpi standard deviation
Loamy sand 32 < 5 to 78
Sandy loam 17 < 5 to 28
Loam 25 < 5 to 73
Clay loam 33 < 5 to 97
Clay 152 63 to over 240
a
The soils are ranked texturally. High mpi means low permeability. Each
type of soil is represented by at least 10 measurements.
61
Ryon's time, relative permeability has been used to rate soil

suitability for septic systems.
6.1 HISTORICAL B A C K G R O U N D A N D
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERK TEST
In the 1920s a New York engineer, Henry Ryon, tried to

estimate the permeability of soils near "failing" and nonfail-
ing leachfields by means of what came to be called a percola-
tion test, or perk test. According to Winneberger, Ryon dug
3
a one-foot-square hole down to leachfield depth, wetted it,

refilled it, and measured how long it took for the water level
to go down one inch from an initial surface head of 6 inches.
Then, he associated this crude measure of permeability to
leachfield size and longevity, and developed soil-absorption-
area standards to (try to) achieve a minimum leachfield life-
span of 20 years before "failure."
The percolation test does not measure percolation: we
can't determine how fast water moves through a soil by mea-
suring how fast it disappears from a hole in the soil. It
doesn't measure infiltration either; infiltration measure-
ments require a flat surface and other conditions which are
not part of the perk test procedure. Since it measures noth-
ing but what it happens to measure, i.e., a gross relative
permeability, I prefer to use the honest term "perk," or
"perking," instead of "percolation testing."
The U.S. Health, Education, and Welfare Department tried
to refine Ryon's methodology in 1949, and commissioned a
series of studies in this regard. The studies' conclusions
sometimes were patently flawed, as we will see. Yet they
influenced the standard perk test procedure described in
1957 by the U.S. Public Health Service and in 1980 by the
5
U.S. EPA. 6
Weibel et al. conducted the HEW-commissioned studies.

4
In order to improve Ryon's crude methodology, they sug-

gested: "(1) Use a smaller bored hole in place of the 1-foot-
square dug hole; (2) use a more specific procedure to insure

saturation, i.e., soak the soil overnight before making test;
(3) use the percolation rate over the later period of the test,
rather than the average rate, as being the more nearly true
rate; (4) use several replicate tests in any area under consid-
eration" Weibel et al. conducted experiments to explore and
define some of these suggestions. The outcome of their find-
ings follows.
6.1.1 Size of Bored Hole
Weibel et al. tested three types of holes in three types of

soils. The hole types were 4-inch-diameter, 8-inch-diameter,
4
and 12 inches by 12 inches square. They obtained means

from three test holes of the same size, in each of the three
types of soil. They reported: "there appears to be no overall
correlation between percolation rate and size of hole," and "it
appears that the differences in rates between replicate tests
within the same soils are greater than the differences in aver-
age rates between different sized holes in the same lots
(soils)". In plain English, they said that the experimental
4
error was so large (mainly because of the small number of

replicates) that no differences due to hole sizes were noticed.
They also quoted literature regarding statistical studies
which "indicated that from 6 to as many as 22 individual
infiltration tests are necessary to estimate closely the repre-
sentative rate for a specific soil site . . . with relatively homo-
geneous soils." Yet they averaged only 3 tests per mean, not
6 or 22.
Curiously, the committee that prepared the USPH Manual 5
read the sentences quoted above, yet concluded that the

type of hole makes no difference as long as it is "4 to 12
inches in horizontal dimension." Now, many kids who have
played by the seashore and filled holes in the sand with
water know (and may still remember) that water disappears
much faster from a smaller-diameter hole. I guess there were
no such kids on the committee.
Even more curiously, this error was not detected for more
than a decade. Unchallenged, it was carried over in respect-
able engineering textbooks. And just last month an engineer
from another county told me, while brandishing his copy of
the USPHS Manual, "here it says that it (hole diameter)
5
doesn't make a difference."

Winneberger, who knew better, stated in his book that, 3
when he was a consultant and had to produce satisfactory

perk results on low-permeability soils, he used 4-inch-
diameter holes.
Olivieri and Roche hypothesized in 1979 that a perk rate
obtained from a test hole of a given diameter could be multi-
plied by a specific correction factor to yield a rate specific for
a hole of different diameter. The correction factor is equal to
7
the ratio volume/surface of one hole, divided by the volume/

surface of the other hole. This hypothesis has merit, and it
ahs been endorsed enthusiastically in some quarters. But it 8
cannot be justified as a panacea on theoretical or practical

grounds, as will be seen later.
Finally, in 1980 the EPA Manual specified a 6-inch hole
6
diameter in its standard perk test procedure (but referred to

6- to 9-inch diam. holes elsewhere). And in 1981 Van Kirk et
al. promoted the adoption of the 6-inch-diameter hole by
8
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation).

The 6-inch-diameter standard is now in wide use, and the
EPA sewage-disposal tables are "geared to work" with this
diameter. For these two main reasons, this is to be our own
standard hole diameter.
6.1.2 Soaking the Hole Overnight
(Here we have another opportunity to apply what we

learned in the previous chapter regarding X and h.).
Weibel et al. recommended that, before testing, the hole
4
be filled with 14 inches of water, and be kept full to that level
. . . for at least 4 hours and preferably overnight (Important:

not that the word "preferably" may result in capriciousness).
A l l o w the soil to swell overnight. This saturation procedure

insures that the soil is given the opportunity to swell and
approach the condition that it will be in during the wettest
season of the year. Thus, the test will give comparable results
in the same soil whether made in a dry or a wet season.
(a) Floating indicator
(b) Fixed Indicator
Figure 6.1 Standard percolation test hole. (Adapted from Otis et al. ) (a)
6
Precise measurement of surface head with the help of a float,

(b) Less precise measurement of surface head with a stick (or
steel tape).
... In sandy soils containing little or no clay, the swelling

procedure is not essential . . .
True enough, some soils contain expanding clays of the

smectite family (montmorillonite, bentonite, nontronite).
Such clays' particles immobilize layer upon layer of water
molecules around them (20 to more than 80), and push away
from each other; i.e., they "swell" and restrict water flow
through the soil pores, and lower the hydraulic conductivity
k. But, what about the distance to the wetting front, X?
Weibel et al. forgot that the gradient changes with X, among
other things. If some perk testers prefer to saturate overnight
and others do not, their "X's" and their results are likely to be
different.
Figure 6.2(a) shows how the perk rate in inches per hour
changes through time as water in the test hole is absorbed
and replenished. The rate seems to "stabilize" in the first run
at about 0.9 inches/hour, but after an overnight soaking, the
rate "stabilizes" at about 0.5 inches/hour. However, if the
measurement continues for 120 days, we would see as in
Figure 6.2(b) that the perk rate keeps on decreasing: presum-
ably, as the "average" X increases, the "average" gradient
approaches the value of unity, and the perk rate approaches
a constant value similar to k.
It should be pointed out that things are actually a bit more
complicated. The perk rate curves may be affected not only
by swelling of clays and increases in X, but also by soil-
aggregate stability (pores may collapse), by entrapped air
bubbles within the soil pores, by microbial growth and activ-
ity, and by uniformity of soil. Occasionally one might see
that a perk rate increases after a day or two, before it starts
decreasing again.
6.1.3 Using "Stabilized" Instead of Average

Perk Rates
If one tries to measure a parachutist's falling speed, it

doesn't make any sense to measure his speeds from the
Fig. 6.2(a)
(One soil)
IN./HR.
RATE —
PERCOLATION
ELAPSED TIME - MINUTES

IN./HR.
Fig. 6.2(b)
(Another soil)
RATE -
PERCOLATION
TIME IN DAYS
Figure 6.2 Trend of percolation rates i n two different field test holes w i t h
time. (Source: Weibel et al. ) 4
moment he jumps from the plane to the moment he lands,

and average all the measurements. The "average speed"
would depend on how long it took for the parachute to
open. And one would be adding and averaging accelerated,
variable free-fall speeds together with a (terminal) constant
(opened-parachute) speed-in other words, adding apples
and oranges. In the same vein, one has to measure the "ter-
minal" or "stabilized" perk rate. But no one can wait 120 days
or so for a true stabilized rate; so, whatever is measured after
a conveniently long period of about one day is called "stabi-
lized."
6.1.4 Using Replicates
The rate obtained from one perk test hole means nothing,
statistically speaking. It might be a fluke. So, more than one
hole must be tested.
6.2 EVOLUTION OF THE STANDARD PERK TEST
The original percolation test recommended by Weibel et

al. was incorporated into the USPHS Manual and, with
4
modifications, into the EPA Manual. Let us examine the

sequential modifications from the beginning.
Verbatim, the perk test procedure of Weibel et al. was: 4
1. Number and location of tests. Six or more tests shall be

made in separate test holes spaced uniformly over the pro-
posed absorption field site.
2. Type of test hole. Dig or bore a hole, with horizontal
dimensions of from 4 to 12 inches and vertical sides, to the
depth of the proposed absorption trench (leachline). In order
to save time, labor, and volume of water required per test, the
holes can be bored with a 4-inch auger.
3. Preparation of test hole. Carefully scratch the bottom and
sides of the hole with a knife blade or sharp pointed instru-
ment, in order to remove any smeared soil surfaces and to
provide a natural soil interface into which water may perco-
late. Remove all loose materials from the hole. Add 2 inches
of coarse sand or fine gravel to protect the bottom from scour-
ing and sediment.
4. Saturation and swelling of the soil. Carefully fill the hole
with clear water to a minimum of 12 inches over the gravel.
By refilling if necessary, or by supplying a surplus reservoir of
water, such as in an automatic siphon, keep water in the hole
for at least 4 hours and preferably overnight. Allow the soil to
swell overnight. This saturation procedure insures that the
soil is given the opportunity to swell and approach the condi-
tion that it will be in during the wettest season of the year.
Thus, the test will give comparable results in the same soil
whether made in a dry or a wet season.
In sandy soils containing little or no clay, the swelling pro-
cedure is not essential and the test may be made as described
under item 5C, after the water from one filling of the hole has
completely seeped away.
5. Percolation rate measurement. With the exception of
sandy soils, percolation measurements shall be made on the
day following the procedure described under item 4, above.
A. If water remains in the test hole after the overnight
swelling period, adjust the depth to approximately 6 inches
over the gravel. From a fixed reference point, measure the
drop in water level over a 30-minute period. This drop is used
to calculate the percolation rate.
B. If no water remains in the hole after the overnight
swelling period, add clear water to bring the depth of water
to approximately 6 inches over the gravel. From a fixed refer-
ence point, measure the drop in water level at approximately
30-minute intervals for 4 hours, refilling 6 inches over the
gravel as necessary. The drop that occurs during the final 30-
minute period is used to calculate the percolation rate. [Note:
one irrelevant sentence is omitted.]
C. In sandy soils (or other soils in which the first 6 inches
of water seeps away in less than 30 minutes, after the over-
night swelling period) the time interval between measure-
ments shall be taken as 10 minutes and the test run for one
hour. The drop that occurs during the final 10 minutes is used
to calculate the percolation rate.
The USPHS procedure is practically identical. The main dif-

5
ference is that, regarding point 4 above, the USPHS text

explains that saturation refers to filling of soil pores and that
swelling refers to swelling of the clays.
The EPA procedure contains the following changes to
6
Weibel's points 1 through 5 above:
1. Minimum 3 tests; more if soil conditions are highly varia-

ble.
2. The diameter of the test hole is 6 inches; the hole is dug or
bored to the proposed (leachline) depth or to the most

limiting soil horizon.
3. (No change.)
4. In sandy soils with little or no clay, if the 12 inches of water
seep completely away in a 10-minute period, and seep
away again (after refilling) in the next 10 minute period,
the test can proceed immediately.
5. Except in the case immediately above, perk rates are mea-
sured not less than 15 hours nor more than 30 hours after
the beginning of the saturation/swelling period. The water
level is not allowed to rise more than 6 inches over the 2
inches of gravel. Measurements are precise to the nearest
1
/ of an inch.
16
A. At least 3 measurements are made. Measurements are

continued every 30 minutes until two in succession do
not vary by more than / of an inch.
1
16
B. Same as A above.
C. (No change.)
6. The EPA standard method has an additional section enti-
tled "Calculation of the percolation rate." Per this section,
one divides the time interval used between measurements
by the magnitude of the last water level drop, and obtains
a percolation rate in minutes per inch. Then, the rates for
each hole are averaged; but if the rates vary by more than
20 minutes per inch, they are not averaged because they
reflect different soils within a site.
6.3 EVALUATION OF A N D IMPROVEMENTS

NEEDED IN THE EPA STANDARD PERK
METHODOLOGY
The EPA Manual authors improved perk methodology in

5
various ways. They
a. reduced the minimum number of tests to a more reason-

able figure-3 instead of 6
b. standardized the diameter of the test hole at 6 inches (vari-
able diameters may result in variable measurements)
c. defined more precisely when measurements were to be
m a d e ( m o r e t h a n 15 b u t less t h a n 30 h o u r s after the f i r s t

w e t t i n g of the hole-this also d e c r e a s e s v a r i a b i l i t y of
results)
d . s p e c i f i e d that the w a t e r l e v e l m u s t n o t e x c e e d 8 i n c h e s
o v e r the h o l e b o t t o m d u r i n g t e s t i n g ( h i g h e r l e v e l s i n c r e a s e
h a n d s o m e t i m e s m a y c a u s e s o m e t h i n g s i m i l a r to b a c k f l o w
of w a t e r i n t o t h e h o l e if the l e v e l g o e s d o w n r a p i d l y )
e. s p e c i f i e d that m i n i m u m p r e c i s i o n of m e a s u r e m e n t s is 1
/ 16
of a n i n c h (this m a y r e m i n d p e r k testers that s l o p p y r e a d -

i n g s m a y i n v a l i d a t e c o n c l u s i o n s as to w h e t h e r a lot is o r is
n o t s u i t a b l e , i n b o r d e r l i n e cases n e a r the c o n v e n t i o n a l
m a x i m u m p e r k of 60 m i n u t e s p e r i n c h )
In spite of all these improvements, some deficiencies remain

in the EPA perk procedures:
a. I n s o m e s o i l s , the a b u n d a n c e of c o b b l e s m a k e s it i m p o s -
sible to u s e a 6 - i n c h - d i a m e t e r h o l e . L a r g e r d i a m e t e r s are
unavoidable.
b. A s t a n d a r d c a n n o t be c a p r i c i o u s . W e i b e l ' s s o a k i n g p r o c e -
d u r e , u n c o r r e c t e d , is s t i l l f o u n d i n the E P A p r o c e d u r e . O n
a g i v e n s o i l , if o n e p e r k tester p r e f e r s to m a i n t a i n at least
12 inches of water overnight during the swelling/
s a t u r a t i o n (or s o a k i n g ) p e r i o d , w h i l e a n o t h e r o n e p r e f e r s
n o t to, e a c h w i l l saturate the s o i l to a d i f f e r e n t extent, the
g r a d i e n t s w i l l d i f f e r , a n d so w i l l the r e s u l t s . T h e s a m e is
t r u e if o n e tester m a i n t a i n s the m i n i m u m 12 i n c h e s a b o v e
the b o t t o m of the h o l e w h i l e a n o t h e r tester m a i n t a i n s 60
inches.
c. It is n o t e n o u g h to r e m o v e a hole's s m e a r e d surfaces.
O f t e n , w h e n d i g g i n g o r d r i l l i n g w i t h a p o w e r auger, t h e
s o i l is s e v e r e l y c o m p a c t e d b e h i n d the s m e a r e d surfaces,
a n d h a s to be " p e e l e d . " V a n K i r k et a l . r e p o r t e d that i n
8
o n e s o i l , p o w e r - a u g e r - d r i l l e d h o l e s h a d a m e a n p e r k of
118.5 m i n u t e s p e r i n c h , w h i l e h a n d - a u g e r e d h o l e s h a d a
m e a n p e r k of 3.1 m i n u t e s p e r i n c h ; i n a n o t h e r s o i l t h e
r e s p e c t i v e m e a n s w e r e 33.8 a n d 0.8 m i n u t e s p e r i n c h .
d . T h e E P A p r o c e d u r e calls f o r r e m o v i n g s o i l that s l o u g h s
d o w n i n t o the test h o l e d u r i n g the s o a k i n g p e r i o d . T h i s
removal often ends u p compacting hole sidewalls, p l u g -
ging soil pores, changing the hole's diameter, and leaving

a real mess.
e. The water level in a test hole falls only about half an inch
over a 30-minute measuring interval if the soil has a 60-
minutes-per-inch perk time. So, the surface head h
changes little. But if the soil has a perk time of 1 minute
per inch, the hole might dry out between the 10-minute
measurement intervals, or the rate of fall in h may slow
down as h decreases; so, the measurements may mean
nothing.
f. A conceptual error in the EPA procedure is that it
expresses the measurements as a rate in minutes per inch
(rather than in inches per minute or per hour, as Weibel et
al. did ). Furthermore, it calls for averaging such "rates"
4
(actually reciprocals of true rates) from 3 or more holes

(which do not differ by more than 20 minutes per inch).
Perk rates are expressed in units of space per time, say

inches per minute, or ipm. Perk times may be expressed in
minutes per inch, or mpi. One cannot calculate the average
of some mpi values, divide 1 by the result, and obtain a real
average rate, ipm. It is mathematically impossible.*
Winneberger noted this error. He analyzed experimental
3
data on percolation rates, and concluded that the best "aver-

age" of the data was the geometric mean rather than the
arithmetic mean. (This conclusion is unwarranted: some
soils yield perk rates which are distributed on a log-normal
curve, and the geometric mean can be used to measure cen-
tral tendency but not to average infiltration; furthermore,
*For instance, let us fancy two test holes, one with a perk time of 1 mpi,
and the other with a time of 20 mpi. The average mpi is 21/2 = 10.5 mpi.
The reciprocal of this is 0.095, but it is not 0.095 ipm. The average ipm is
calculated as follows. The first hole's ipm is 1/1 mpi = 1 ipm; the second
hole's ipm is 1/20 mpi = 0.05 ipm. The average ipm is therefore
(1 + 0.05)/2 = 0.525 ipm, which is quite different from the unreal "aver-
age," 0.095 ipm.
some soils yield rates distributed on a normal curve, and the

arithmetic mean is the proper parameter.)*
So, Winneberger had three recommendations for avoiding
EPA's error: One, use the geometric mean. Two, discard the
highest and lowest mpi "rates" before calculating the arith-
metic mean. And three, calculate the reciprocals of the mpi,
average the results, and then calculate the reciprocal of this
average to obtain the average mpi.
The first recommendation is itself in error, as explained
below. The second one merely improves a bit the result of an
improper mathematical operation. The third one is correct.
The geometric mean is not the proper parameter. To
explain this graphically, let us simplify matters and conduct
a "mental experiment." Let us "test" the average perk rate or
mpi in a trench, half of which runs through a very permeable
sand, and half of which runs through a practically imperme-
able clay. Half of the perk tests yield 2 ipm (sand), and the
other half yield 0.005 ipm (clay). To simplify matters further,
let us assume that one representative hole is tested in the
sand, and one in the clay. (The results will be identical
whether we perform calculations with 1 and 1 hole or with
100 and 100 holes.) Intuitively, we know that half the length
of the trench will absorb water at a rate proportional to 2
ipm, and the other half will absorb practically no water. So,
the average water absorption over the whole trench will be
related to the average of "two plus (nearly) zero" ipm, which
is 1 ipm.
Now let's see how accurate are the arithmetic mean (a.m.)
and the geometric mean (g.m.) and their reciprocals (1/a.m.
and 1/g.m.).
means of: a.m. 1/a.m. g.m. 1/g.m.

2 and 0.005 ipm 1 1 0.1 10
0.5 and 200 mpi 100 0.01 10 0.1
*The arithmetic mean is "the average" we all know about. To obtain the
geometric mean of n numbers, say a, b, c . . . n, we multiply these
numbers and take the nth root of the product. For instance, the geometric
mean of 1 and 9 is the square root of 1 x 9. The geometric mean of 1, 9,
and 10 is the cubic root of 1 x 9 x 10.
It is obvious that only the a.m. of the true rate, inches per
minute, and its reciprocal (minutes per inch), do not contra-
dict what we know to be accurate.
As for the other deficiencies in the EPA methodology, a, b,
c, d, and e mentioned above, they are amenable to correc-
tions. Respectively:
a. Large holes can be dug, and the rates measured can be

corrected in the most conservative direction by means of
the Oliveri-Roche correction factors. (See sections 6.1.1
and 6.4.8.)
b. The "capricious" variability in surface head and time of
soaking can be mitigated by requiring that a given volume
of water be absorbed. For instance, one can invert a 5-
gallon bottle full of water over the test hole, 12 inches
above the hole bottom. Then one can start measurements
when the bottle is empty (in very sandy soils, with perk
times of 2 to 4 mpi, the bottle empties in about 15 to 30
minutes), or on the following day (in clayey soils with a
perk of 120 mpi, the bottle will be about / full the next
1
4
day; and with 400 mpi, it will be about ½ full).

c. One can bore a 4-inch diameter hole and then "peel off"
the compacted side walls until the diameter is 6 inches.
This is done by inserting a nail (or the tip of a pocket knife)
into the sidewall and moving it centripetally to peel off
sliver after sliver of sidewall.
d. One can support the sidewalls to minimize the sloughing
off during the soaking or testing period. A common way is
to insert an 8-inch long piece of 2- to 4-inch diameter perfo-
rated pipe into the test hole, and fill with pea gravel the
space between the pipe and the hole sidewall. This is
called "gravel packing."
e. One can specify that the measurement intervals must be
shortened so that h does not fall more than 3 inches. (I
have observed that, in very sandy soils, measurements do
not vary much if the fall in h is restricted to a maximum of
3 inches.)
Corrections have been incorporated into a streamlined ver-

sion of the EPA's standard perk procedures, presented in
Appendix I.
And now, the moment I have been waiting for: Let's go to

the next section and have some fun with practical and theo-
retical problems.
6.4 PROBLEMS
Let us start by solving the kind of practical problems that

face perk testers and environmental health professionals.
Then we'll entertain ourselves with more esoteric problems.
6.4.1 Gravel Packing of Perk Test Holes
Perk testers who have had the patience to get to this point
will now be rewarded. During the years I have been review-
ing perk reports, I have noticed that perk testers invariably
do laborious, time-consuming calculations to correct for the
effect of gravel packing on measured perk rates. The formula
derived below will make such calculations short and easy. (If
you do perk testing, hopefully you'll be able to save more
from one use of this formula than what you spent for this
book.)
Figure 6.3 shows a perk test hole with radius r and, inside
2
it, a perforated pipe with radius r Loose gravel is placed just

1
Figure 6.3 Vertical cross section through a gravel-packed perk test hole.
outside the pi pe to fill the cyli ndri cal space between r and r .
2 1
The gravel occupies a given volume, and displaces that same

volume of water out of the hole. Si nce there i s less water
within the hole, the water level falls faster than i f there is no
gravel.
The volume of a cylinder is V = πr h, where h is its hei ght.
2
Let us fill the hole wi th water. The total volume of water

(Vw) i n the hole wi th no gravel is
and the volume of water wi thi n the pi pe is . The

volume of water between the pi pe and the hole si dewall is
We have that V w = V p + V w " . The volume of water not

displaced by the gravel wi ll be equal to the gravel voi ds or
pore space. A n d if the porosity of the gravel i s P, the total
water volume i n the hole is
Vw' = Vp + PVw".
The "gravel correcti on factor" i s equal to the ratio of water

volumes wi th and wi thout the gravel: Vw'/Vw.
We have that
let r /r = C. Then,
2 1
and
So and after
simplifying, we get a cookbook formula:
V w ' / V w = [1 + P (C - 1)]/C
2 2
As an exerci se, let us assume that a gravel-packed hole i s 6

inches i n diameter, the pi pe i s 2 i nches i n diameter, the
gravel porosity is 33%, or 0.33, and the stabilized rate is 0.5

ipm (equivalent to 2 mpi). What is the true rate (no gravel)?
The correction factor is
{1 + 0.33 [(6/2) - 1]}/(6/2) = 0.405

2 2
Hence, the true rate is
0.5 x 0.405 = 0.2 i p m (5 mpi)
Another problem is to determine P, the porosity or voids in

the gravel. When doing this, soil or civil engineers follow
A S T M Standard C 29-78, and commit two types of errors.
When one drops gravel into a test hole, the gravel remains
loose and uncompacted, as it should (tamping could com-
pact the hole sidewall). The hole can't be shaken to settle or
compact the gravel. But the A S T M standard calls for tamp-
ing with a rod, and the measuring bucket can be shaken. So,
the A S T M method tends to underestimate the actual value of
P.
The other type of error arises when the engineer uses the
familiar silica sand (used to measure soil compaction) instead
of gravel. In addition to the compaction error described
above, sand retains water in its small pores. So, although the
sand might have an A S T M P of 38%, the usable P might be at
most 35%.
The easiest way to determine P in the field is: Take two
identical tin cans (about 23 oz.), A and B. Fill A with loose
gravel. Do not shake. Fill B with water. Measure the height
of water h. Pour water from B into A until full to the rim.
Collect any spilled water in a tray and return to B. Measure
the new water level h ' in B. Now, P = (h - h')/h.
(Appendix D has a table with correction factors for various
values of C and of P.)
6.4.2 Accuracy of mpi or ipm Meausurement
Some perk testers drill test holes down to 5 feet b elow

ground, and lower the tip of their measuring tapes or rods
down to the water level, about 4.5 feet from the soil surface,
and then measure changes in water level. If the measuring
tape or rod wanders from the vertical and the measuring tip
is 6 inches away from a plumb line, what is the measurement
error? What is the measurement error if the respective fig
ures are 1 foot down to the water level and 3 inches off
plumb? (The answers are in Appendix D.)
6.4.3 Effect of Precision of Measurements on

Accuracy
First let us define precision and accuracy. Take the state

ment, "my foot is 120.00 inches long." this figure is very
precise: it has 5 significant figures (numb er of digits to the
left and right of the period, 3 + 2 = 5). But this figure is very
inaccurate, ab out 108 inches off the mark. Precision refers to
sensitivity of measurement (i.e., to the nearest yard, or mic
ron, or angstrom). Accuracy refers to truth.
In a typical jurisdiction, the maximum allowable perk time
for use of septic systems is 60 mpi. Assuming that a jursidic
tion requires a three test minimum, / inch precision, and
1
16
averaging of mpi, and if the soils are perfectly uniform:

What percentage of soils which actually have perk times of
60 mpi will appear to be "over 60 mpi" due to precision error
and chance (and be rejected)? What percentage of soils
which actually have perk times just above 60 mpi will appear
to be "less than 60 mpi" (and pass)?
Solve this same prob lem for ⅛inch precision (Your
answers might b e as good as mine. See Appendix D for
answers.)
6.4.4 Rate of h Fall in a Perforated Tin Can
When a test hole is first wetted, during the instant that X is

negligible in comparison to h, the h (height of the water
column or surface head) should decrease in a manner similar
to that seen in a leaky bottom, perforated tin can with a layer
of soil covering all perforations.
If the hole's infiltration surfaces are very smeared (or com-
pacted) so that their permeability is a tiny fraction of the
permeability of the soil around the hole, h should decrease
as if the hole were a leaky tin can suspended in the air, until
X grows (if it grows at all) and reduces the gradient.
We fill a tin can with water. The water starts leaking
through a hole in the bottom. The water level h goes down.
We start measuring the decrease in h when h has gone down
to a level of 10.0 inches above the bottom. One second after
that, h is at 9.0 inches above the bottom.
a. Derive a formula and calculate the value of h after 2, 4, 8,
16, and 32 seconds. The formula is worked out below.
b. Same as above, but now the can's body is not made out
of tin, but of a thin layer of soil or fritted glass with pores
throughout. (The answer is in Appendix D.)
The rate of decrease in the height of the water level h is
proportional to the pressure on the bottom of the can, which
is equal to h. Hence, the rate of decrease is
-dh/dt = ch
where
c = a proportionality constant
t = time
Another way of expressing this equality is -d(lnh) = cdt.

Integrating, we have that
lnh = -ct + c', or

h = e e
c' -ct
e is the base of natural logarithms; e raised to a constant is a

new constant, C, so
h = Ce -ct
Now, we know that when t = 0, h = 10 inches; therefore

(since e raised to the zero power is equal to one), we have
that C = 10 inches. A n d we also know that, when t = 1
second, h = 9 inches. Therefore,
9 = 10e -c
Then, c = ln / = ln1.11 = 0.4.

10
9
Now that we know the values of C and c, h = 10e The -04t
reader might wish to plug in the values given for t and plot
the graph of h versus time.
6.4.5 Effect of Changing h on Perk Rate
Some sentences below have been taken from Winne-

berger's generally informative and witty book. They do,
3
however, contain errors which the reader might be able to

detect.
After the soaking period, after the rate of fall had "stabi-
lized," the perk rate in one test hole was 54 inches/hour with
the water level at 6 inches above bottom; but it was 100
inches/hour after the water level was raised to 8 inches above
bottom. Winneberger states, "So far as water columns as
such were concerned, the hydraulic head was increased 1.33
times. But the rate change, which in theory might have
increased proportionately from 54 to 72 in./hr was actually
100 in./hr" (sic).
And in another hole, the water level was decreased from
the 8-inch level to the 6-inch level, and the respective rates
decreased from 28 to 10 inches/hour-this is not proportion-
ate either. Winneberger's explanation is almost accurate:
" . . . whatever forces caused the water to seep into holes
were beyond simple considerations of the depth of water-
fillings, and by unpredictable amounts which could change

in different ways depending on whether or not stabilized
water drops were increased or decreased" (sic).
a. Which sentence immediately reveals an error or miscon
ception?
b. Explain why the perk rate increases and decreases were
not proportionate. Was this unpredictable?
c. If the "stabilized" rate had been measured not after 1 day
but after 120 days, and the "average X " would have been
very large, approximately what perk rate increase and
decrease would have been noticed?
The answers are in Appendix D.
6.4.6 Plugging the Bottom of the Perk Hole
Weibel et al. plugged the bottom of 4inchdiameter holes

4
with concrete, measured perk rates, and reported that the

perk rate was not affected. They did not offer any explana
tions, but you could. (The explanations are in Appendix D .)
6.4.7 Effect of Perk Hole Diameter (or Radius)
Prove that:
a. When X is much smaller than h, i.e., X < <h, the level of
water in a perk hole falls faster if the hole radius is smaller.
b. After true stabilization, when the "average X " is much
larger than h, i.e., X > >h, the water level falls faster if the
hole radius is smaller.
Proofs follow.
The volume of water inside a cylindrical test hole is given
by 7π h. The rate of flow out of the hole is equal to the rate of
2
decrease in water volume. A n d when X < <h, we have a

situation similar to that in the can with perforated bottom
and sides (see 6.4.4b); so, flow is proportional to a constant
times the pressure times the wetted areas. Hence, the
decrease in water volume in an instant of time is:
- d (7π h)/dt = c p7π + c p'27πrh

2 2
The pressure p on the bottom is h, and the pressure p' on the

wetted sidewall of the hole is V2 h. Therefore,
= chπr + ch7πh.
2
Rearranging terms and treating r as if it were a constant and

h as a variable, and simplifying the equality, we get
- d (h/r)/dt = (ch/r)(l + h/r)
From this expression, we can see that, if r is a constant and

extremely large in comparison to h so that h/r = 0, the rate of
decrease in h is given by dh/dt = ch. This can be visualized
as a hole 100 feet in diameter with a surface head of 6 inches:
the initial infiltration rate will be proportional to the surface
head. We can also see that, if r is extremely small in compari
son to h, the term (ch/r)(l + h/r) becomes extremely large, so
that the rate of decrease in h is extremely fast.
When X > > h, or stated another way, when h < < X, the
effect of p and p' on the gradient is negligible. We have a
situation in which the average gradient is close to unity, and
the velocity of flow is almost a constant, as seen in the pre
vious chapter. Also, the rate of infiltration through the hole
sidewalls and bottom is much lower than at the beginning of
a test when X is zero; so, the hole sidewalls do not limit or
control flow. The hole is like a "point" source. The soil is
absorbing water at a nearly constant rate. Hence, the rate of
decrease in h is equal to rate of flow divided by πr . There
2
fore, if r is reduced by a factor of 2, the instantaneous rate of

decrease in h is quadrupled.
6.4.8 The Olivieri-Roche Correction Factors
These correction factors are derived from ratios of perk

hole volume to perk hole wetted area. Let us derive a simple
and easy formula to facilitate calculations. Let V = volume

and S = wetted surface. Then,
V/S = (πr h)/(πr + 27πrh) = rh/(r + 2h)

2 2
Let us assume that the average h during a measuring interval

is about 7.5 inches. The V/S of a 6inchdiameter hole with
h = 7.5 inches is:
rh/(r + 2h) = 3 x 7.5/(3 + 15) = 1.25
The V/S of a 12inchdiameter hole with the same surface

head is 6 x 7.5/(6 + 15) = 2.14. The correction factor for
converting mpi from a 6inchhole to a 12inchhole is 2.14/
1.25. Then, if one measures a perk time of 30 mpi in a 6inch
diameter hole, one would have measured approximately
30 x 2.14/1.25 = 58 mpi in a 12inchdiameter hole, when
the correction factor is applicable.
The OlivieriRoche correction factors are not always appli
cable. D iscuss the limitations to their applicability. (Hint:
Review 6.4.7 and think about h and X. The answer is in
Appendix D.)
REFERENCES
1. Conta, J.F., et al. 1985. Percolation tests, soil texture,and

saturated hydraulic conductivity in lacustrine soils in
North D akota. J. Environ. Qual. 14: 191194.
2. Hantzsche, N . N . , et al. 1982. Soil textural analysis for
onsite sewage disposal evaluation. In ASAE Pub. 182,
pp. 5160.ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, Michigan
49085.
4. Weibel, S.R., et al. 1954. Studies on Household Sewage
Disposal Systems. (Part III). Public Health Service Pub.
No. 397.
5. "Committee." (1957, and revised in) 1967. Manual of

Septic Tank Practice. Public Health Service Pub. No. 526.
6. Otis, R.J., et al. 1980. EPA Design Manual: Onsite
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. EPA
Report No. EPA-625/1-80-012.
7. Olivieri, A . , and R. Roche. 1979. Minimum Guidelines
for the Control of Individual Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems. California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, 1111 Jackson Street, Room 6040, Oak-
land, C A 94607.
8. Van Kirk, J.L., et al. 1981. Percolation Testing for Septic
Tank Leach Fields at Roadside Rests. Report FHWA/CA/
TL/81/05. National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161.
7
Size of Leachline
As of now, whoever has had the fortitude to read through

all the preceding chapters and solve the problems knows
more about perk hole testing than at least 95% of perk test-
ers. The rest of this book should be much easier.
Now that we know how to test perk holes, how do we
translate perk rates into leachfield size requirements? I asked
myself this question, and tried to answer it as if I were in
front of a court of law. M y answer had to make sense, and it
had to agree with (and be endorsable by) other experts. Fur-
thermore, it had to comply with the Uniform Plumbing
Code, which had been incorporated into (San Bernardino)
1
County Code (by reference) in 1948.

The leachfield size requirements found in Table 1-4 of the
UPC (Uniform Plumbing Code) had no scientific basis:
1. They depend on the texture of the soil, and texture is not a

reliable indicator of permeability. This lack of reliability
had been k n o w n at least as far back as 1955. 2
2. E v e n if texture were a reliable indicator, the textural classi-

fications given in Table 1-4 are so vague that they are of
little use. (For instance, "sandy clay," "clay with considera-
ble sand or gravel," "clay with small amount of sand or
gravel"). It is bad enough to see, as I do, that almost every-
thing is "silty s a n d " to experienced engineers, and that
some designate a sand with only 2% clay as "clayey sand."
To entrust the poorly defined U P C classifications to con-
tractors, building inspectors, and sanitarians is b o u n d to
cause trouble.
85
3. From contractors, and from a sanitation district manager, I

learned that leachlines (and replacements) installed in
very sandy soils per U P C requirements invariably failed
after 5 to 8 years. From some engineers, I learned that
some leachlines had failed after only 2 years. I myself
checked some leachlines that were installed per U P C stan-
dards in sandy clay and had failed after 4 months.
4. Colleagues in other California counties told me they h a d
been confronted with so many failures that they had aban-
doned the U P C ' s Table 1-4 requirements entirely.
5. A s seen in the 1976 edition of the U P C , the authors of
Table 1-4 h a d the notion that clear water is absorbed at
least 5 times faster than sewage, so the m i n i m u m size of
leachfields was predicated u p o n this notion. The actual
figure should be roughly 45 to 1,100 times faster. For
instance, 1 i p m is equivalent to an absorption rate of 1440
inches per day and to 900 gallons of water/square foot/day.
But after a clogging mat forms, the soil may absorb only
0.8 gallons of sewage/square foot/day. So, 900/0.8 = 1,100.
The other figure, 45 times faster, derives from 0.01 i p m
and a (clogged soil) absorption of 0.2 gallon/s.f./day.
(The more recent U P C editions have eliminated the sen-
tences implying that there is at least a fivefold difference
between the clear water and the sewage absorption rates.
Yet to this day I see perk reports prepared by otherwise
reputable consultants, i n which they make calculations
based o n an exact fivefold difference.)
6. I suspected that U P C ' s Table 1-4 did not benefit from all the
expertise available at the time it was prepared, a n d m y
suspicion turned out to be correct.*
*I asked a most reliable source, "How could an expert committee have

cooked up UPC's Table 1-4, obviously without the benefit of research or
even well-known published soils data?" His answer was as follows. Not all
of the members of the committee were experts, so they invited a well-
known expert (I cannot reveal his name) to help them. This expert
requested a fee for his services. The members of the committee, who are
and must be unpaid volunteers, could not grant a fee. Hence, the expert
did not participate. But the committee had to come up with recommenda-
tions, and so it did.
Obviously, the UPC could not be a source of valid leachfield

size requirements. However, the EPA had recently con-
ducted further studies to define the perk methodology; and
even better, these studies had been evaluated and criticized
by an "outsider" expert- Winneberger. (In the scientific com-
munity, a study or publication is not considered to be reliable
until it has had the benefit of exposure and criticism-the
more, the better.) So, here was information I could use.
7.1 PRACTICAL SIZE OF LEACHLINE
In the late 1970s, the National Environmental Health Asso-

ciation complained to the EPA that the old USPHS Manual of
Septic Tank Practice (USPHS Pub. No. 526) was far from
adequate. The EPA commissioned (indirectly) Otis et al. to
check and standardize traditional perk procedures and soil
absorption area requirements, and to incorporate their find-
ings into a manual on onsite disposal of sewage. The result
was the EPA Design Manual. I took data from this Manual's
3
Table 7.2, converted sewage application rates from gallons/

s.f./day to square feet (of absorption area)/gallon/day
(because the UPC defines absorption area in this way), and
plotted the results on semi-log paper. I did the same thing
with the absorption area requirements recommended by
Winneberger ; but I plotted half the square footage required
4
so the data would fit on the same sheet of semi-log paper.

This is shown in Figure 7.1. In Figure 7.2 I compared the
EPA's and Winneberger's recommendations for the 0- to 60-
mpi range. Since Winneberger's recommendations might
have been influenced by his use of 4-inch-diameter perk test
holes, I used the Olivieri-Roche hypothesis to calculate and
plot the effect of differences in diameter. The effect was not
pronounced.
Surprisingly, EPA and Winneberger are off only by a factor
of about 2 (in the 1- to 60-mpi range). This is close, and in
excellent agreement, considering all the variables involved in
s.f./g./day
Figure 7.1 EPA's and Winneberger's recommendations for absorption
area (square feet per gallon of sewage per day) versus
measured perk times, mpi. The x's represent the Winneberger
absorption areas divided by 2, and the circles represent the
midpoints of the EPA absorption area ranges; the ranges are
indicated by vertical lines.
Figure 7.2 Effect of hole diameter on Winneberger's data. The E curve

goes through the midpoints of the EPA ranges shown in
Figure 7.1. The W 4 curve is a plot of the Winneberger data in
Figure 7.1; it might reflect results obtained in a 4"-diameter
perk hole. The W 6 curve is the W 4 curve modified to show
results obtained in a 6"-diameter perk hole.
EPA's derivation of experimental data. (All the variables that

affect failure were not properly controlled. It would have
been impossible to achieve proper control of effluent dis-
charges and effluent compositions and infiltration rates daily
and at peak periods for decades, in addition to accounting
for effects of leachfield installations.)
It should be noted that the recommendations were derived
from and apply to effluent from single homes. Multiple
dwelling units, restaurants, or anything else may have dif-
ferent types of effluent discharges and the recommendations
may not apply to them.
The expected useful life of a leachline is 20 to 50 years,
according to Otis; and "long term" to forever if it is suffi-
3
ciently large, according to Winneberger. 4
Now all I had to do was to harmonize EPA, Winneberger,

and UPC. This was not difficult: I adopted the EPA recom-
mendations, as they are a nationwide standard. I added a
UPC requirement which I had to abide with anyhow-a
100% expansion or reserve area for a replacement leachfield,
to be used when the first leachline fails. Thus, Winnebergers'
full-size leachline (double the size of EPA's) automatically
comes about when the first leachline fails and the replace-
ment is constructed. The EPA recommendations for disposal
area exceed those of UPC's Table 1-4, but the UPC sets only
minimum standards, and does not prohibit larger disposal
areas. So, all authorities' requirements are satisfied.
(And when implementation time came, it was easy to
deflect the ire of some local consultants who are in the habit
of squawking when I correct or improve the perk procedures
they are used to. I said, "Blame the EPA, not me.")
However, I made one modification to the EPA recommen-
dations, with the approval of local perk consultants. This
came about because one of them pointed out a problem. He
had tested two small lots. One lot was suitable for septic
systems, the other one was not. The lots were identical,
except that the average perk time of one was 5 mpi, and of
the other, 6-mpi. Only 1 mpi difference caused one to be
rejected because the EPA requirement jumped from 0.83 to
1.25 square feet per gallon per day: a 50% increase in leach-
field size. The 6-mpi lot did not have enough area to accom-
modate this increase. The perk tester felt he could not
explain this to the owner of the rejected lot. The "jump" was
odd, and was perceived as unfair. So, the solution was to
abandon the "jumpy" EPA requirement ranges and to use
the smooth curve which goes through the midpoint of these
ranges shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2.
This is terribly unscientific, as this curve implies that a
high precision exists. But for the sake of fairness, one must
make allowances.
REFERENCES
1. IAPMO. Uniform Plumbing Code (1976 to 1985 eds.).

Los Angeles, C A .
2. SERL. 1955. Studies in Water Reclamation. Sanitary
Engineering Research Lab. Tech. Bull. No. 13, I. E. R.
Series 37, University of California, Berkeley.
3. EPA (Otis, R.J., et al.) 1980. Design Manual: Onsite
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. EPA-625/
1-80-012.
8
Factors Affecting Failure
of Leachlines
Leachlines can fail in two ways: They can fail to absorb the
septic tank effluent, and/or they can fail to treat the effluent
(i.e., filter out parasites and pathogenic microorganisms).
This chapter addresses the first type of failure.
Failure to absorb the septic tank effluent can be ascribed to
various variables, some of which are interrelated:
A m o u n t and frequency of effluent discharge

Composition of effluent
Type of soil, vegetation, and climate
A m o u n t and configuration of absorption surface
Installation
User habits and behavior
Time (age)
8.1 A M O U N T A N D FREQUENCY OF
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
Regarding household sewages, perhaps the most impor-

tant variable influencing failure is the amount of effluent
discharged per square foot of leachline absorption area. In
addition to possibly exceeding normal soil infiltration rates,
excessive loading of a leachline promotes anaerobic condi-
tions and formation of a less-permeable biomat. Experienced
septic system installers (M. Fernandez, D. Arnegard) told
93
me that about 10% of the failures they encounter, occur in

"young" leachlines affected by leaky plumbing (usually the
toilet). After they fix the leak and install flow reduction
devices, the leachline becomes functional again. Siegrist et
al. suggest that flow reduction can translate to reduction in
absorption area. 1
According to Hargett et al. , the frequency of discharge (or

2
dosing) presents little advantage if the discharge rate (load-

ing rate) is high; if the loading rate is low, dosing so as to
cause no ponding on the leachline bottom helps maintain
more aerobic conditions and hence higher infiltration rates
(more permeable biomat).
Asbury and Hendrickson's experiences in New Mexico are
3
not new to southern California counties. They found out that

it is just too much bother to promote aerobic conditions by
means of aerobic pretreatment of septic tank effluent: too
much neglect by users and too many malfunctions. The tra-
ditional septic system is less costly and less trouble-prone.
Otis noted that if septic tank effluent is treated aerobically
4
before it is discharged to the leachline, clogging may be

retarded but not avoided.
All in all, it is important not to overload a leachline, and
not to exceed the loading rates suggested in the previous
chapter. A n d in order not to exceed such rates, one should
keep in mind the type of information presented in Table 8.1.
That is, average sewage flows ("interior" usage) may vary by
a factor of (almost) 3 between different California regions,
and by who knows how much between different localities or
neighborhoods. Therefore, a septic system designer should
never follow the common practice of using discharge figures
found in a reference book (e.g., Metcalf and Eddy). These
figures tend to be gross averages. This means that, even if
the averages are accurate, half of the septic systems based on
these averages are overdesigned, and half are underde-
signed (and this is a problem). Furthermore, such averages
are not specific to particular neighborhoods, localities, or
ways of life. A septic system designer should obtain informa-
tion about residential sewage discharges from local water
Table 8.1 Water Consumption in California (Adapted from Ingham) 5
Gallons/Capita/Day
Hydrologie Study Area Residential Interior Exterior
North Coastal 354 198 156
San Francisco Bay 122 68 54
Central Coastal 132 73 58
South Coastal 122 68 54
Sacramento Basin 239 133 105
Delta-Central Sierra 214 120 94
San Joaquin Basin 296 165 130
Tulare Basin 247 138 109
North Lahontan 334 187 147
South Lahontan 207 116 91
Colorado Desert 257 144 113
Mean 229 128 101
and/or sewer districts; and about specific commercial/

industrial sewage discharges, from actual meter readings at
existing similar projects, if possible. Table 8.1 refers to water
use in the late sixties. Since that time, California and the rest
of the United States came to know the Jacuzzi, the monster-
sized tub, and flow-restriction devices. Immigrants of vari-
ous nationalities and also the natives' new ways of life have
added variety and spice to sewage flows. Therefore, one
should be wary of published flow data.
8.2 COMPOSITION OF EFFLUENT
Table 8.2 serves to illustrate that what is true of sewage

flows (i.e., variability) is also true of sewage flow constitu-
ents. Even the different studies' means vary considerably.
BOD means biological oxygen demand. If we measure the
oxygen consumed by microbes when a bit of sewage is
placed in a relatively large water volume and incubated 5
days, we measure BOD . The more biodegradable matter
5
there is in the sewage, the higher its BOD.

COD is chemical oxygen demand. Whatever can be oxi-
Table 8.2 Summary of Effluent Data from Various Septic Tank Studies
(Source: EPA ) 6
Source
Parameter 7 Sites 10 Tanks 19 Sites 4 Sites 1Tank
BOD 5
Mean, mg/1 138 138 a

140 240 b
120
Range, mg/1 7-480 64-256 - 70.385 30-280
No. of Samples 150 44 51 21 50
COD
- -
Mean, mg/1 327
-
- 200
- -
Range, mg/1 25-780 71-360
-
- -
No. of Samples 152 50
Suspended Solids
Mean, mg/1 49 155 a
101 95 b
39
Range, mg/1 10-695 43-485 - 48-340 8-270
No. of Samples 148 55 51 18 47
Total Nitrogen
Mean, mg/1 45
- 36
- -
-
Range, mg/1 9-125 - -- -
No. of Samples 99
- 51 -
a
Calculated from the average values from 10 tanks, with 6 series of tests.
b
Calculated on the basis of a log-normal distribution of data.
dized by chemical means rather than by microbes is consid-

ered to be COD. C O D is equivalent to "BOD plus nonbiode-
gradable oxidizable matter."
Suspended solids (SS) comprise anything suspended in
the sewage: bacteria, fecal particles, emulsified oil, etc.
Both BOD and SS promote clogging mat formation. BOD
provides "food" to microorganisms which grow and decom-
pose or secrete clogging substances. Some SS particles may
plug the soil pores directly; some may be part of BOD and
stimulate microbial activity.
At one time it was believed that adjustments to absorption
area could be made on the basis of an empirical formula, the
cubic root of (BOD + SS)/250. But this formula did not sur-
vive scrutiny. 7
It should be noted that BOD and SS are convenient words

used to relate "something" to clogging. They convey no

information as to specific composition and as to how "clog-
ging" they are. For instance, emulsified oil and grease might
not be a large part of either BOD or SS, yet they are highly
clogging.
The effect of oil and grease can be pronounced. The wash-
ings from restaurant kitchens contain quite a bit of oil and
grease. At least in theory, the oil and grease are captured by
means of a grease interceptor (or trap), so that they do not
plug up sewer pipes and do not overload the septic tank.
According to J. and M . Fernandez (local septic system con-
tractors), they solved a failure problem by deviating from
code requirements, as follows. A restaurant had a 5,000-
gallon septic tank discharging into one seepage pit, and a
1,000-gallon grease interceptor through which the kitchen
effluents discharged into another seepage pit (of the same
size as the septic tank pit). The interceptor's pit failed yearly
and had been replaced every 2 years, for 8 or 10 years. They
checked the interceptor's influent and effluent, and found
out that the temperature and composition of these were
about the same; i.e., the grease was not being trapped. So,
they directed the flows that used to go to the septic tank to
the grease interceptor, and vice versa. The septic tank's
larger volume increased retention of grease. Eight years after
the switch, everything is still working fine.
Waters with a high sodium/(calcium + magnesium) ratio
tend to deflocculate (disaggregate) expanding clays, which
can seal soil pores. But at least in the common types of soils
used for leachfields, high sodium, and normal use of soap
and detergents and bleach have not resulted in noticeable
impairment of leachfields. 6
8.3 TYPE OF SOIL, VEGETATION, A N D CLIMATE
As discussed in previous chapters, the type of soil influ-

ences how much water moves, how fast, and to where. Veg-
etation and climate influence evapotranspiration.
The interrelationships between soil, vegetation, and cli-

mate are rather special and may present problems not yet
described in the septic systems literature.
For instance, in the semiarid San Bernardino Valley, in a
community where single houses are on 7,200-square foot
lots, leachline failures were frequent after heavy rains. Roof
runoff had nowhere to go but to the leachfield area. (Seep-
age pits did not fail.)
Most soils in the densely forested mountain resort commu-
nity of Fallsvale (San Bernardino County, California) are
very coarse textured. Most of the rainfall falls in winter; the
soils are fairly dry in summer and fall. Conifers and oaks are
common. The conifers, and particularly the "incense cedar"
(Calocedrus recurrens), grow roots toward and into leachlines.
(And what roots they are! Try to imagine a plug of densely
packed fibers within a leachline pipe.)
Mr. W. Fagerstedt has been installing and repairing septic
systems in Fallsvale for over 40 years, and has acquired
unique insights into local septic system problems. He has
kindly agreed to share some with us. He noticed that roots
plug leachpipes severely after only 2 to at most 10 years of
leachline use. (The first symptom of this condition is that
toilets cannot be flushed, tubs cannot be drained.) In order
to minimize this problem, he suggested shorter and wider
leachlines. His prescription was a leachline 40 feet long and 4
feet wide, with 4 feet of gravel below the pipe. Although the
absorption area provided by this leachline is generally
smaller than that required per criteria discussed in the pre-
vious chapter, it does not make any sense to lengthen a
leachline even to 1,000 feet if it gets plugged up near its inlet.
By the way, downstream communities obtain high-quality
water from the Fallsvale area. Therefore, large-scale use of
copper sulfate or rock salt (root killers) could degrade the
water and is not a viable solution. The clearing of trees in an
area famous for its scenic forest is not a viable solution either.
Mr. Fagerstedt also noticed that the problem is much
worse in leachlines that are used intermittently by weekend
users or vacationers. The roots "search" for moisture where
it is available, and grow into the pipe. In this regard, he also

noticed that gravel drains easily and helps keep the roots
down at the bottom of the trench; however, slag has a rough
surface which retains moisture droplets and attracts roots.
On occasion his backhoe had trouble digging failed slag-
filled leachline trenches which had become a solid mass of
roots and slag.
Another way Fagerstedt mitigates the root problem is by
constructing shallow (6-foot-deep) seepage pits with unper-
forated blocks and no gravel. The roots grow outside,
around and just below such pits; and, from what I have
seen, the roots must be absorbing a very large amount of
water from the sides and bottoms of those pits (one has been
in continuous use for 20 years, according to Fagerstedt). A n d
yet another way is by installing unperforated rather than
perforated pipe in the portions of a leachline that are near
trees.
A Wrightwood (San Bernardino County, CA) septic sys-
tem installer (J. Freitas) told me he traced a root from a
plugged leachfield to a cottonwood tree about 40 feet away.
Elsewhere, in a more arid area, I traced a 4-inch-diameter
root for almost 40 feet to a scrub oak bush.
8.4 A M O U N T A N D CONFIGURATION OF
ABSORPTION SURFACE
In the previous chapter we arrived at figures for the

amount of absorption surface per gallon of effluent. But
now, what is the most efficient shape for this absorption
surface? Should it be a narrow deep trench or a broad shal-
low trench?
The EPA Manual's absorption area requirements are
6
mostly derived from experiences in the north central states.

To find out what kind of leachline configuration is used
there, I read Reference 8 and called its author. Machmeier
kindly provided the following information (personal com-
munication, 7/3/84) regarding practices in Minnesota: They

use 2- to 3-foot-wide leachline trenches, maximum 30 inches
deep, with 12 inches of gravel below the pipe. (Under special
conditions they allow up to 2 feet of gravel below the leach-
pipe, and a cover of up to 3 feet of soil; but this is "not
recommended") Leachlines (i.e., microbes) need oxygen,
and therefore are shallow. Also, they try to pond the effluent
and maximize biomat formation, particularly so in soils with
perk times of less than 5 mpi (to promote unsaturated flow
and purification of effluent). This is accomplished by direct-
ing all the flow to a relatively short leachline; when this
leachline is flooded, the excess flow goes out through a drop
box and goes into another leachline, and so on sequentially.
Some leachlines have been in use for more than 45 years and
are still working.
Bowman has reported virtually no failures in septic sys-
tems which have been in use for about 30 years. These sys-
9
tems serve three-bedroom houses, and each consists of 400

lineal feet of shallow leachline, 2 feet wide, with 1 foot of
gravel below the pipe. This is equivalent to about 1600
square feet of absorption area, about half of it sidewall, and
half bottom. Since the soils have perk times of 5 to 25 mpi, 9
and assuming an effluent discharge of 300 gallons/house/

day, only about 900 square feet of absorption area would be
required according to EPA. Hence, the longevity reported
6
by Bowman is not surprising.

On the other hand, studies in Oregon support the view
that leachlines deeper than 36 inches are advantageous
because of "increased absorptive surface, increased hydrau-
lic head [actually, surface head h] . . ." and other factors.
10
Winneberger and Klock are partial to sidewall absorption

11
area. After the bottom of the leachline is clogged by migrat-

ing clay or biomat, the sidewalls keep on absorbing the sew-
age.
As far as I can see, narrower (than 2 feet), deeper (with
more than 2 feet of gravel below the perforated pipe) leach-
line trenches absorb more efficiently than broad shallow
ones, on a per-square-foot basis. Also, they are less likely to
be affected by high rainfall (or by watering the lawn). How-

ever, narrow trenches might be more likely to be affected by
roots, especially in areas where moisture is scarce during
part of the year.
Regarding longevity of leachlines, configuration is less
important than the amount of absorption surface. The less-
efficient configuration of a wider, shallower leachline (with
higher ratio of bottom to sidewall area) can be compensated
by increasing leachline length. Having enough absorption
surface is the paramount consideration.
It should be noted that in the common range of soils used
for septic systems (1 to 60 mpi soils), the main factor limiting
absorption is the permeability of the biomat. The amount of
absorption area required is fairly independent of the type of
soil. (A 60-mpi soil requires only three times more absorp-
tion area than a 1-mpi soil.) This relative independence has
been noted in the literature. Also, a local knowledgeable
12
septic system contractor looked up his voluminous repair

records and concluded that regardless of the kind of soil the
leachlines were in, if the absorption area was less than 550 to
600 square feet, the frequency of failures increased drasti-
cally (M. Fernandez, personal communication).
8.5 INSTALLATION
A septic system might be well-designed, but it may fail fast

if the installer is not knowledgeable and conscientious. I
have noticed that many contractors just "go through the
motions." They dig the leachline trenches, put gravel and
pipe and paper cover, pass the inspection, and fill the top of
the gravelled trenches with excavated soil. Often they dig
when the soil is moist, and end up compacting the soil so
badly that its absorption capacity is drastically reduced.
Sometimes the gravel has much silt and clay, either because
it comes that way or because it gets mixed up with local soil
when it is pushed into the trench. The silts and clays, or
'fines/' are washed downward and plug the soil pores at the
bottom of the leachline. Sometimes, after the trenches are
dug, rainfall washes out fines from the trench sides and
forms a fairly impermeable crust at the bottom of the pro-
spective leachline; then, the contractor dumps gravel on top
of this crust, and proceeds to completion.
If the top of the leachline is not compacted with excess soil
backfill, the soil settles in about one year and leaves a
depression over the length of the leachline. Rain can accu-
mulate in this depression, and can flood the leachline trench
below. If too much backfill is left on top and the leachline is
on sloping ground, the mound of backfill may trap natural
drainage and direct it into the leachline, or it may divert it
into paths where it can cause erosion over other leachlines.
8.6 USER HABITS A N D BEHAVIOR
After long holidays, a not uncommon sight in our local

resort communities is a vacation cabin or house with a failed
(and smelly) leachfield, and, next to the street, a pile of trash
bags overflowing with paper plates, empty beer cans, and
other signs of the good life. A local septic system installer
has corroborated that there is a relationship between failure
and the accumulated trash: He gets many calls after home-
owners have entertained a dozen or so of their friends and
family during the holidays (J. Freitas, personal communica-
tion).
At the higher end of the economic scale, wealthy resi-
dences tend to have large bathtubs and large per capita dis-
charges. Yet at the opposite end of the scale, when I
inspected a failed leachfield in front of a little house, I
noticed that about a dozen people lived in it. If each flushed
the toilet only twice a day . . .
Proper design must take into account the type of neighbor-
hood and lifestyle. Never should a responsible septic system
designer size a leachfield solely "by the book."
Other user behaviors that affect septic system performance

are: no pumping of septic tank, discharging motor oil down
the drain, and postponing repair of leaky plumbing fixtures.
8.7 TIME (AGE)
Do leachlines always have a finite life? There are no data to

support either a "yes" or a "no" answer. The question itself is
not a very good one, as we have not specified parameters
such as amount, frequency, and composition of sewage
flows, and amount of absorption area, type of soil, and cli-
mate.
My own view is that, over most of the United States, they
do. But this finite life could be extended to hundreds or
thousands of years, if the leachlines were built a few times
larger than usual.
We can assume that the fate of the biomat is similar to that
of (natural) soil organic matter, if the leachline is abandoned
for a long period. In tropical climates, organic matter usually
does not accumulate in the soil. It is almost totally decom-
posed. In cold climates, and particularly under wet (anaero-
bic) conditions, organic matter accumulates (and forms
organic soils).
Under hypothetical "average"* local conditions, if the SS
discharged into a leachline are not decomposed at all, it
would take about 100 years for the SS to completely fill the
spaces between the gravel and cause failure (due to lack of
storage volume within the leachline). Most of the local septic
system installers I contacted have not noticed any such accu-
mulation when they have dug old leachlines, but one (M.
Fernandez) told me that he saw about 2 inches of a whitish
material over the bottom of an old abandoned leachline. I
*Average = A house discharges 300 gallons/day with 200 mg/liter of SS

into a leachline with 9,000 liters of gravel void space (or empty space
between the gravel particles). The densities of SS and of water are
assumed to be equal; otherwise, the SS would not be in suspension.
would not worry too much about SS accumulation within

leachlines, if the septic tank is pumped as needed.
8.8 MISCELLANEOUS
E. Scheider has been installing (and monitoring the perfor-

mance of) septic systems for 30 years in and near the com-
munity of Wrightwood. Some of his observations are of
interest to us.
As he tells it, he has found six failed leachlines in which
black slime (mainly from SS and BOD discharges) filled all
the voids of the gravel below the leachpipe; in about half of
these cases, this condition was evident only near the begin-
ning of the leachpipe. In one case the whole length of the
leachline was affected. In each one of these cases the two
compartments of the septic tank were full of sludge. The
worst case, where the whole leachline length was affected,
had a failure 1 year after a water softener was installed; he
found all the baffles of the steel septic tank had been cor-
roded and had practically vanished. He thinks the water
softener salts killed the bacteria which digest organic matter
within the tank. (This explanation is not supported in the
literature. Perhaps the sodium from the salts or from the lye
common in drain openers deflocculated the organic colloids
in the tank, or caused them to "bulk"). Also, he believes
failure problems are worse in "weekender" cabins, because
the bacteria starve out during long periods of nonuse.
8.9 A WORD T O THE WISE
With 8 years of coursework in soil science behind me, and

after having read a ton of publications concerning septic sys-
tems, I still don't have all the answers about leachline lon-
gevity.* No one has.
* False modesty is one of my virtues.

I have learned much from contractors who are not satisfied

with "just meeting the code," and who experiment, observe,
and keep track of what they do and of the consequences. In
practical matters, I suspect they are more knowledgeable
than the average perk professional. Perk professionals
would do well to consult with such contractors before
designing septic systems.
REFERENCES
1. Siegrist, R., et al. 1978. Water conservation and waste-

water disposal. ASAE Pub 5-77:121-136.
2. Hargett, D. L., et al. 1982. Soil infiltration capacities as
affected by septic tank effluent application strategies. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd National Symposium on Individ-
ual and Small Community Sewage Treatment. ASAE
Pub. 1-82, pp. 72-84. ASAE, P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph,
Michigan 49085. (See ref. 4 for recent address.)
3. Asbury, R., and Hendrickson, C. 1982. Aerobic on-site
systems studied in New Mexico. J. Environ. Health 45:
86-87.
4. Otis, R. Soil clogging: Mechanisms and control. 1985. In:
Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium on Individ-
ual and Small Community Sewage Treatment. A S A E
Pub. 07-85, pp. 238-250. ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St.
Joseph, Michigan 49085-9659.
5. Ingham, Alan. 1980. Residential Greywater Manage-
ment in California. (California) State Water Resources
Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, C A 95801.
6. EPA (Otis, R., et al.). 1980. Design Manual: Onsite
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. Report
No. EPA-625/1-80-012.
7. Otis, R., et al. 1977. On-site disposal of small wastewater
flows. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
8. Machmeier, R. E. 1981 Revision. Town and Country

Sewage Treatment. University of Minnesota, Agricul-
tural Extension Service Bulletin 304. St. Paul, Minnesota
55108.
9. Bowman, J. O. 1982. Reliability of on-site sewage dis-
posal systems in Fairfax County, Virginia. J. Environ.
Health 44:249-252.
10. Ronayne, M . P., et al. 1982. Final Report, Oregon On-
Site Experimental Systems Program. Oregon Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 1760, Portland,
Oregon 97207.
11. Winneberger, J. T., and Klock, J. W. 1973. Current and
Recommended Practices for Subsurface Waste Water
Disposal Systems in Arizona. ERC-R-73014. Engineering
Research Center, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Arizona 85281.
9
Size of Seepage Pits
I doubt that there is a reliable study relating seepage pit

absorption area to precise years of use before failure. The
many variables involved would make any results either
inconclusive or else valid only for a particular locality or
restricted set of conditions.
The performance of seepage pits is affected by almost the
same variables affecting leachlines (see Chapter 8), plus a
few others: small to large surface head, stratification of soil
profile, position of porous strata within this profile, lateral
extent and continuity of strata, and angle of such strata with
the horizontal.
Three relevant quotations from the USPHS Manual fol-
low:1
1. "It is important that the capacity of a seepage pit be com-

puted on the basis of percolation tests made in each verti-
cal stratum penetrated." [The test at each stratum is per-
formed just as for leachlines.]
2. "The weighted average of the results should be computed
to obtain a design figure. Soil strata in which the percola-
tion [times] are in excess of 30 minutes per inch should not
be included in computing the absorption area."
3. " A l t h o u g h few data have been collected comparing perco-
lation test results with deep pit performance, nevertheless
the results of such percolation tests, while of limited value,
combined with competent engineering judgment based on
experience, are the best means of arriving at design data
for seepage pits." [In other words, the Manual's authors
are saying, "We don't know."]
107
The EPA Manual prescribes the same methodology, but it

2
omits the cautionary statements and the admission of igno-

rance. This is most unfortunate.
Step by step, let's see what the problem is.
Let us visualize a pit in a uniform soil. With time, the
clogging mat will progress upwards; the column of sewage
within the pit will rise and be absorbed in the as-yet-
unclogged upper portions of the pit. But as this sewage
column increases in height, so does the surface head, and
hence absorption through the clogged portions of the pit also
increases.
Now, if the soil is stratified (like, for instance, horizontal
layers of permeable sand sandwiched between layers of
impermeable clay or caliche), a percolation test on a sand
stratum may grossly overestimate the amount of absorption
of sewage. The saturation of the soil during the test period is
short-range, but after a pit has been in use for some time, the
effluent moves horizontally over the clay stratum until it can
infiltrate (very slowly) over a large area of this stratum. That
is, the path of flow within the soil (the X) increases, and the
resulting gradient is much smaller than under test condi-
tions. Without a substantial surface head, little effluent
movement and little absorption might take place.
Also, if two pits have the same amount of permeable and
impermeable strata, but one has the permeable strata con-
centrated toward the bottom, this pit will derive more bene-
fit from the same amount of surface head.
If the strata are tilted toward the vertical, lateral movement
from the upper sidewalls might sometimes be restricted, but
the movement downward will be enhanced.
When pits are installed in series, all the flow goes to the
first pit, and the overflow goes to the second, and so on. If a
pit is the first one in a series, and the soil is stratified, we do
not have a seepage pit but an injection well. In this case, the
weighted average of perk rates has no meaning at all. Sew-
age will not be absorbed in any manner even remotely
related to the rates given in Chapter 7 for leachlines. We just
don't know what kind of gradients or paths or biomat per-

meability rate changes we are dealing with.
There is some merit to the second USPHS Manual state-
ment, that (strata with) perk times in excess of 30 minutes
per inch should not be included in computing the absorption
area. In the range of 1 to about 20 minutes per inch, soils
drain easily through macropores. The number of macropores
and the ease of drainage decrease when the mpi increases:
the smaller pores or capillaries retain the water more tightly.
Soils with perk times higher than 60 mpi tend to be high in
clay and are prone to such problems as erratic measure-
ments, easy compaction or smearing of sidewalls, poor
drainage, and relatively poor absorption.
As for the third of the USPHS statements, it is easy to
agree with its first part-that "such percolation tests" are of
"limited value." But as for the use of "competent engineering
judgment," I am amazed at its optimism. I have seen very
few instances in which consultants did exceed minimum
legal requirements, even when unusual soil conditions made
it imperative to exceed them. Sanitarians from other jurisdic-
tions have told me of similar experiences.
Winneberger lamented the fact that "minimum require-
ments become the standards of practice." It is not difficult to
3
understand why. Some perk report preparers are afraid to

antagonize their clients if they propose anything that is not
"minimum" and costs money or lowers profit. For instance,
not long ago, I reviewed a perk report, and cut by half the
density therein proposed for a residential project. The pits
were to be located in marginal soils. The calculations in the
report agreed with minimum requirements, but taking into
account the soil strata, the local history of perched water
tables, and so on, a high density was unjudicious. The engi-
neer who prepared the "All's O K " perk report told me in
private that he agreed with my action and felt relieved by it.
Another perk report preparer confided that after (some of)
his perk reports were not approved (by myself, as a county
sanitarian), his clients didn't pay him his fees.
9.1 SIZIN G PITS T H R O U G H STAN DARD

LEACHLINE TESTS
Let us assume that we have a uniform soil all the way

down to 50 feet. We test it as for leachlines, and from Figure
7.2 we determine that the absorption area should be, say, 1
square foot per gallon of effluent per day. If the pit is to serve
a house discharging 300 gallons of effluent per day, the pit's
absorption area must be 300 square feet. If the pit diameter is
to be 5 feet, the perimeter is 5π, or 15.7 feet. Then, 300/15.7
= 19 feet deep. (The bottom area is never counted.) The 5
footdiameter pit should be 19 feet deep below inlet. The inlet
is usually 2 to 4 feet below grade. Therefore, the pit should
be excavated down to about 21 or 23 feet below ground level.
Now let us assume that the soil is stratified. The thick
nesses of the horizontal strata (below inlet) and their respec
tive mpi (measured per standard leachline procedure) are as
follows:
feet mpi feet x mpi

(6) (40) (not applicable)
10 20 200
5 10 50
(5) (60) (not applicable)
10 1 10
25 260
(We ignore completely any strata with mpi higher than 30.)
Now, the weighted average mpi = 260/25 = 10 mpi for a pit
that has an effective depth of 25 feet below inlet and a total
depth of 25 + 6 + 5 = 36 feet below inlet. Now, from Figure
7.2, 10 mpi corresponds to 1.25 square feet/gallon/day. Since
the effective sidewall area of the 5footdiameter pit is 5π ×
25 = 390 square feet, we have that 390/1.25 or 313 gallons per
day is the pit's supposed absorption capacity, for design pur
poses. In passing, this procedure might be fine in states
where the maximum depth of pits is 10 feet below ground
surface. Locally, the pleasures of testing little holes at 30 or

40 feet below ground have been greatly diminished by
O S H A regulations.
9.2 THE FALLING H E A D TEST
In 1976, a committee of local perk consultants adopted a

formula and a procedure to test and size seepage pits. Most
unfortunately, this inaccurate methodology has spread to
other California counties. To help contain the damage, I'll
grant this methodology a bit more space than it deserves.
Briefly, the falling head test methodology is as follows:
drill a 6- to 8-inch hole down to prospective seepage pit
depth, fill it with water, and proceed more or less as if it were
a leachline test but with the water level 10 to 40 feet above
the bottom of the hole. The details are given in Appendix I.
The total volume of water absorbed in a measurement
interval is easily calculated from the hole diameter and the
fall in water level during the interval. The total area through
which absorption takes place (inside the hole) is calculated
from the hole diameter and from the average height of the
water column (during the measurement interval). Now,
dividing the gallonage absorbed by the average absorption
area in square feet, we get "absorbed gallons/square foot/
time interval." Finally, multiplying by a factor which extrapo-
lates the absorption during the measurement interval to
absorption during a 24-hour day, and which takes into
account that the clear water used in the test allegedly is
absorbed 5 times faster than sewage effluent, we obtain the
falling head formula,
Q = FD9/Lt
where
Q = gallons of sewage per square foot of pit side-

wall
F = fall of water column during interval, in feet

D = diameter of hole, in feet
L = average height in feet of water column during
measuring interval
t = time interval, in hours
The best feature of this formula is its worst: it is simple to the

point of oversimplicity. But it looks respectable, so it has
been widely used as a substitute for "competent engineering
judgment." I myself might have played a role in making it
look respectable, after I developed ancillary format and for-
mulas. I do feel guilty. At least I tried warning perk consult-
ants with a note, "The (falling head) formula means nothing.
Results require interpretation." The warning had no effect
whatsoever.
What is wrong with this formula is that:
1. It assumes that water is absorbed exactly five times faster

than sewage. The justification for this absurdity is the 1976
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code. As we saw in pre-
vious chapters, it is way off the mark, and the UPC never
stated it was five times faster, anyhow.
2. Since the UPC allows use of soils with presumed absorp-
tion rates of 0.83 gallons of sewage per square foot per
day, many pits have been installed in low-permeability
soils which have Q's as low as 1.1 to 0.83, with predictable
consequences. (Anyone who had made a simple calcula-
tion would have discovered that 1.1 gallons/square foot/
day translates to 164 mpi!) A n acquaintance's pit (about 5
feet in diameter and 40 feet deep) in a stratified soil rated
for 1.1 gallons/square foot/day lasted 4 months; the
replacement pit was dug even deeper and lasted 5
months.
3. The drilling often compacts the hole side wall so badly that
the soil permeability is decreased drastically. If this
decrease were to occur consistently and uniformly, it could
be corrected with an empirically derived fudge factor. But
this cannot be done. The type of drill, the eccentricity of

the drill, the depth of soil, the type, density, and moisture
of soil horizons, and other factors are responsible for vari-
able results.
4. Its results require much interpretation. For instance, about
three years ago a large-scale housing developer and his
septic system contractor, R. K., asked me to allow them to
deviate from the requirements specified in a perk test
report. I examined this report. It was done "by the book,"
and the consultant who prepared it was as able as any.
The results per the falling head formula indicated that a
three-bedroom home should have a 25-foot-deep pit (if I
remember correctly). But R. K. had dug a few pits, and
found out that the strata of impermeable clay and very
permeable sand were very randomly distributed. In some
cases, the 25-foot depth of the pit would have cut mostly
through sand strata, and in other cases, mostly through
clay strata. In the first case, the absorption area would
have been more than adequate for a 10-year lifespan, and
in the second, less than adequate.
So R. K. requested permission to deviate from the 25-
foot depth requirement, and to dig the pits the way he had
always done it (with satisfactory results). And this was as
follows. No matter what the perk reports or engineering
specifications were, he would dig until he had gone
through at least 10 feet of sand strata. So, some of his pits
were to be less than 25 feet deep, and some maybe 40 feet,
or deeper. (The groundwater table, at 200 feet, was not a
problem.) Here I was talking to someone who knew what
he was doing. After I inquired with county building
inspectors about his reputation and "workmanship," I
agreed wholeheartedly to his proposal.
(I asked the developer how much he had paid for the
perk test report. His answer was $27,000.)
5. If the falling head formula is to have any meaning at all, it
should be Q = 45FD/Lt (gallons of water/square foot/
extrapolated 24-hour day), or "pit mpi" = 20Lt/FD. The "pit
mpi" serve to give an approximate idea of the type of soil.
In coarse-textured, permeable soils, the "pit mpi" are
roughly similar in value to mpi values from leachline perk
tests.
9.3 LONGEVITY A N D ABSORPTION CAPACITY

OF SEEPAGE PITS
In sizing seepage pits, there is really no formula or meth-

odology that can substitute for good judgment. Good judg-
ment must be based on theories and on perceptions about
how such theories are (or are not) pertinent to a given set of
soil conditions. M y theories and views are presented below.
When a clogging mat forms in a leachline, absorption
through the, say, 1-inch-thick layer of clogged soil may be
reduced to about 0.2 gallons/square foot/day. If we increase
the surface head suddenly by a factor of 10, the absorption
rate might also increase by up to a factor of 10 for some time
(see Chapters 5 and 6). Thereafter, at constant head, and
more and more slowly with time and penetration, the clog-
ging advances into the soil and progressively reduces the
absorption rate, until a long-term "equilibrium" absorption
rate is reached. By "equilibrium" I mean something like this:
it might take 1 year to decrease the absorption rate by 10%,
10 years to decrease it by an additional 10%, 100 years to
decrease it by an additional 10%, and so on.
Just as for leachlines, there might be a long-term absorp-
tion rate for pits. For shallow pits, such rates should be very
similar to those for leachlines, which range from 0.8 (in
coarse-textured, 1 mpi soils) to 0.2 gallons/square foot/day
(in fine-textured soils, with perk times of about 120 mpi). 23
I checked a pit with a diameter of 5 feet and a depth of 20

feet in a very coarse-textured soil (1 to 4 mpi). Although it
had been failing for a while, after 20 years of use it was still
absorbing roughly 0.3 to 0.6 gallons/square foot/day. Even
more interesting are the findings of M . Fernandez (personal
communication) and his father. In 1963, they installed 30-
foot-deep pits in the Beaumont area, in Riverside County,
California. The soil was unstratified clay loam. In 1985, they
checked the first of the pits, which had been installed in
series. It had been "loaded to the top" for 22 years, but was
still absorbing 0.4 gallons/square foot/day. Also, they drilled
a vertical hole 4 feet from the pit, and at a depth of 25 feet

they encountered black, clogged soil. (So, clogging indeed
penetrates deeper than in a leachline.) The pit was full of
crusted scum and sludge at the top.
In the Bloomington area, in San Bernardino County, Cali-
fornia, the subsurface soils generally consist of strata of
sands and gravelly sands (with perk times of about 2 to 4
mpi). Three-bedroom houses are served by pits 5 feet in
diameter and 13-16 feet deep (below inlet). The discharge
rate in nearby sewered areas of similar socioeconomic status
is 280 gallons per average house. On the average, pits last
about 14 to 18 years, at a probable gross average loading rate
of about 1.3 gallons/square foot/day. (Please note that this
rate is obtained from the ratio of 280 gallons divided by 220
square feet of total pit sidewall absorption area. But, actually,
most of the time, only a portion of the absorption area is
loaded. The first year of operation, maybe only the bottom
third of the pit absorbs sewage, and at a rate of perhaps 5
gallons/square foot/day.) As a comparison, on the same type
of coarse-textured soils and under the same average loading
(280 gallons/day), old "per code" leachlines 50 feet long, 3
feet wide, with 1 to 1.5 feet of gravel below the pipe, have
lasted about 8 years in the Upland area, in San Bernardino
County, California.
(The loading rates in these leachlines are about 1.1 gallons/
square foot/day, counting all of the absorption surface. So
the EPA recommendation of 1.2 gallons/square foot/day 2
seems to have fallen short of ensuring long life. Perhaps a

large proportion of the leachlines experienced loads much
higher than average during some seasons or years. Perhaps
the reason for the short life is that the flows were not dosed
four times per day, as per Bouma's original recommendation
[the EPA recommendation is patterned on Bouma's but it left
his dosing schedule out of its Table 7-2]. Perhaps Winne-
2
berger's more conservative loading rate is more "correct." It

is difficult to say.)
Anyhow, it would seem that these pits on coarse-textured
soils require roughly half the absorption area of leachlines.
116SEPTIC SYSTEMS HANDBOOK
On less permeable soils, the conservative long-term absorp-
tion rate for leachlines is about 0.2 gallons/square foot/day. It
seems plausible that a figure somewhat higher, like the 0.4
gallons/square foot/day measured by Fernandez (in the pit in
clay loam), is the equivalent rate for seepage pits.
Therefore, for a range of permeable soils, seepage pits 15
to 30 feet deep might require roughly about half the absorp-
tion area of leachlines.
Winneberger mentions that Ryon presented a table giving
loading rates for cesspools and seepage pits which were
about 69% those of leachlines. (But he noted that Ryon did
3
not discard the bottom of the pits, and the leachlines were 1
foot wide and supposedly had 1 square foot of absorption
area per lineal foot.)
If there is such a thing as a factor to convert leachline area
to pit (up to 30 feet deep) area, in uniform soils it probably
has a value of 0.5 to 1, depending on the depth and diameter
of the pit and type of soil, among other things.
9.4 SIZING RECOMMENDATIONS
From all of the above, my recommendations for sizing

seepage pits are based on the following premise:
Too many variables influence longevity of pits and not
enough is known to predict exact sizes. The prudent policy is
to "guesstimate" any reasonable size but to reserve enough
area on a lot to allow installation of replacement pits to
absorb effluent at a long-term absorption rate designed for
leachlines. After the first pit(s) fail, superb longevity data for
designing replacement pits can be obtained from the failed
pit(s). For a given locality with uniform soils, data on neigh-
bors' pit size and longevity can be very useful.
There are many ways to "guesstimate" pit sizes. Size
"guesstimates" based on leachline long-term absorption
rates may yield pits two or three times larger than those
people are used to. It may be impractical and politically
unwise to depart drastically from traditional sizes. So pits

could be downsized to 1/2 or 1/3, but the reserve area should
be kept at full size. Depending on the locality or conditions, I
prefer the following sizing strategies:
a. Coarse-textured strata (alluvial or colluvial gravelly sands to

loamy sands, not cemented). Leachline test perk time, about 1
to 10 mpi; falling head pit test perk time, about 4 to 10 "pit
mpi." For such soils, Winneberger's leachline long-term
absorption rate goes from 0.8 to 0.4 gallons (of sewage)/
square foot/day; and EPA's, from 1.2 to 0.8 gallons/square
3
foot/day. Now, a gross application rate of 1.3 gallons per

2
square foot per day should yield a useful life similar to that of
the Bloomington pits (see Section 9.3), which is not long
enough. A gross application rate of 1 gallon/square foot/day
(which is in the ballpark of EPA recommendations) should
increase longevity 1.3 times due to increase in area, plus up
to (but not quite) another 1.3 times due to the increase in
depth of the pit (and concomitant increase in surface head).
Thus, the longevity would increase to roughly 21 to 27 years.
(Note that this increase might not be cost-effective if the
additional depth requires the use of expensive materials,
equipment, and methods, or if sewering is anticipated.) Few
perk tests, if any, are needed in these coarse-textured materi-
als; often a visual inspection of the strata is sufficient.
b. As above, but some lower-permeability strata are evident in the

soil profile. Proceed as above, but disregard the lower-
permeability strata in the computation of absorption surface
and depth.
c. The strata are too mixed up to tell what the soil profile is like,
or the strata are too numerous to test individually. Use the falling
head formula. If the test results are equal to or lower than 10
pit mpi, no problem; assume the strata are quite coarse-
textured and proceed as in " a " or "b" above. If the test results
fall between 10 and 29 pit mpi, use a "guesstimated" disposal
rate of 0.4 to 1, say 0.7 gallons of sewage/square foot/day. If
the test results fall between 30 and 60 "pit mpi," the 0.4
gallon rate might or might not be too conservative.
If they exceed 100, the soil strata might have poor permea
bility or the test hole sidewalls might be highly compacted.
Such results may be subject to considerable error. (Above
100 pit mpi, I would try not to use pits: the costs associated
with frequent pit replacement or with running out of
replacement area can be substantial.)
(Caution: In some soils that might have permeable upper
strata and lowpermeability lower strata, it might be advisa
ble to do the following in some of the test holes when you
use the falling head formula: after the last refill, measure
how fast the water level keeps on falling until it gets down to
the bottom or slows down considerably. Plot these measure
ments, look for sudden changes in the rate of fall, and see if
most of the absorption takes place in just one stratum near
the bottom, or near the middle, or near the top of the 20 to
40footdeep test hole. Also note that in soils with horizontal
stratification, the falling head test indicates how fast the
water moves laterally during the short testing time. But the
critical and unknown parameter is how fast water moves
through the mostlimiting layer below the test hole after
steady state is reached. See Chapter 13.)
9.5 PROBLEMS
9.5.1 Derivation of the Falling Head Formula
Derive the formula, in gallons (of water absorbed) per

square foot per (extrapolated 24hour) day, and in "pit mpi."
Let Q = volume of water absorbed during a measurement
interval = πT F/t (ft /hour).
2 3
Let S = amount of sidewall through which absorption

takes place = 2 πrL (ft ).
2
Hence, Q/S = rF/2Lt = D F/4Lt [(ft /hour)/ft ] where D =

3 2
diameter of test hole

Multiplying DF/4Lt by 7.5 (gallons/ft ) and then by 24

3
(hours/day), we obtain
Q/S = 45FD/Lt (gallons/ft /day)

2
If we were to assume, wrongly, that sewage is absorbed

five times more slowly than water, we would divide the
right-hand side of the formula by 5 and obtain the currently
popular formula, Q = 9FD/Lt (gallons of sewage/ft /day). 2
Note that in this formula the S is omitted but assumed.

Now, 1 (gallon/ft /day) x (1/7.5) (ft /gallon) = 0.133 (ft/
2 3
day). A n d 0.133 (ft/day) x 12 (in./ft) = 1.6 (in./day). A n d

1,440 (minutes/day) over 1.6 (in./day) = 900 mpi. Hence,
mpi = (900/45)FD/Lt = 20FD/Lt.
9.5.2 Effect of Surface Head
When testing in uniform coarse-textured soils, one may

obtain very similar stabilized Q's (or mpi's) whether the
water column (surface head, or "L") is, say, 5 or 20 feet.
Explain why. (Hint: review Chapters 5 and 6.) The explana-
tion follows.
About 1978, a new perk tester, Sandy M . , deviated from
the standard procedure. The Q's have to be measured with
an L or h equal to the proposed depth of the seepage pits.
But she used surface heads of 5 and 20 feet when testing a
uniform, coarse-textured soil, and measured the same Q's in
all cases. After I evaluated her report, I scolded her: "We
don't know what these results mean." At that time, I did not
believe that absorption could be directly proportional to the
surface head, and that the Q's could be the same in spite of
surface head differences, as her results showed. A n d the
literature, then as now, doesn't either. So I assumed her
34
results were just a fluke. (Sorry, Sandy, I goofed.)

Since then, I have seen other instances in which the Q's
were the same though the surface heads were not. I have
checked published data that purport to show that absorp-
5,6
120
SEPTIC SYSTEMS HANDBOOK
round vertical hole
dry soil
water
wet soil
Figure 9.1 Vertical cross section of a round vertical test hole in a uniform
soil. Water flows out of the test hole and wets the soil as
shown.
tion is not proportional to surface head, but I have inter-

preted the data in a very different way.
Today, as far as I can see, the question is not whether
absorption is or is not directly proportional to h. The ques-
tion is, "When is it and when is it not?"
If we have a situation like that shown in Figure 5.4, in
which the wet soil is confined within a vertical tube of infi-
nite depth, we have that, as long as X > > h, a change in h
will not affect the absorption rate (see Section 5.1). But when
water is not confined within a tube, water flows downward
and laterally out of a hole and forms a (truncated) cone of
supposedly saturated soil, as shown in Figure 9.1. If we
increase h, the cone would grow as shown with the dotted
narrow t r e n c h
Figure 9.2 Vertical cross section of a trench (narrow leachline) i n a

uniform soil. Water wets the soil as s h o w n .
line. At first sight, we might assume that the radius at the

base of each cone is proportional to h, but this is not so.
If instead of a hole we would have a narrow leachline, the
triangular cross sections in Figure 9.2 indeed would have
bases proportional to the h's: the gradients impelling the
water laterally are proportional to the head or height of the
water and inversely proportional to the lateral path. So, if X
> > h, and we double h, we will double the base of the
triangle; or what's the same, the cross-sectional area of satu-
rated flow will also double, and so will the absorption.
But if we have a round vertical hole instead of a narrow
horizontal trench, we cannot expect that the radius at the
base of this cone will double when we double h. If this were
to happen, the cross-sectional area at the base (or below) this
cone would quadruple (since it is proportional to the square
of the radius), and so would the absorption or total saturated
flow downward. And if we quadruple the h, the base would
increase 16 times, and so would the absorption. But this does
not happen in reality. The Q/S measured with h = 30 feet is
very similar to that with h = 1 foot, and nowhere near 30
times larger (i.e., square of 30, divided by 30). The reason is
that it is not the radius that increases in proportion to h, but
the basal area of the cone. And the reason for this, in turn, is
that the horizontal component of the gradient decreases not
in proportion to distance, as in the narrow leachline (or "line
source"), but in proportion to the square of the radial dis-

tance. (The same thing happens with radiation and concen-
tration gradients.)
In short, we may expect that in an ideal coarse-textured
isotropic soil (if X > > h and if the diameter of the hole is
negligible with respect to h), when we increase h by a factor
of N , we also increase total flow by a factor of N ; the absorp-
tion per square foot of sidewall will remain the same. O n the
other hand, if the soil is not isotropic, or if any of the other
conditions do not hold, deviations are to be expected.
9.5.3 Pit Costs and Diameters
The EPA Design Manual (in its Table 7-6) refers to pits of
up to 12 feet diameter. If the cost of a pit were proportional to
the amount of soil excavated, how much more expensive
(per square foot of sidewall absorption area) would be a pit
twice the diameter of another? How much more would h (or
water level) rise the instant we dump the same volume of
water into each of two pits, one twice the diameter of the
other?
9.5.4 One Sizing Procedure for Pits
In a certain jurisdiction, the way to size a pit is as follows:

"Excavate the seepage pit (minimum depth 10 feet below
inlet) and line it. Soak. Refill after 24 hours. After another 24
hours come back and calculate water loss. It must be at least
5 times the daily flow, and not less than 0.83 gallons per
square foot of absorption area per 24 hours."
I asked the local sanitarians how well this procedure
worked. They said they were very satisfied with it, and did
not know of any failures. I asked what kind of soils they had.
"Very sandy," they replied.
Would you use their procedure? Explain. The answer is in
Appendix E.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Public Health Service. 1967. Manual of Septic Tank

Practice. (Pub. No. 526.)
2. EPA Design Manual. 1980. EPA-625/1-80-012.
Pub., Stoneham, M A .
4. Winneberger, J.T., and Klock, J.W. 1973. Current and
Recommended Practices for Subsurface Waste Water
Disposal Systems in Arizona. ERC-R-73014. College of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, Arizona State Uni-
versity, Tempe, A Z .
5. Winneberger, Septic Tank Systems, pp. 43 and 53.
6. Winneberger and Klock, Current and Recommended
Practices, p. 64.
10
Various Onsite Sewage Disposal
Technologies
10.1 "INNOVATIVE" TECHNOLOGIES
When I began working as a septic systems specialist in San

Bernardino County, I heard about past problems with "inno-
vative" onsite sewage disposal technologies:
a. P u m p i n g of sewage to uphill locations was not permitted

for new construction, because users could not or would
not maintain the p u m p system. N o w , all flows had to be
gravity flows.
b. Aerobic systems had malfunctioned, because users were
not interested in maintenance and repair. (Also, some
people were bothered by the p u m p noise, and "pulled out
the plug.") Although they could be installed, they had to
meet septic system standards and their leachfields were
sized just as for septic systems.
c. Spraying pressurized clarified sewage over a large area
with thin soils did not work very well. The sprinkler heads
occasionally plugged up, and they froze in winter.
d. In the case of incinerating toilets, the toilet representative
or repairman often lived far away and one had to wait
weeks for replacement parts.
In the ensuing years, I saw fit not to approve a variety of

"innovative technology" proposals. Two of these, I can't for-
get.
One was promoted by an elderly gentleman who said he
125
represented a large, well-established eastern company, "B."

He wanted to try (for the first time) to discharge aerobically
treated sewage effluent through drip-irrigation tubing. A
developer of a large residential project was "sold" on it. I
suspected that if drip-irrigation had problems with plugged
emitters (which discharge clear irrigation water into the soil),
it would have problems discharging sewage. I called the
alleged parent company, "B." They told me that they knew
the subject gentleman, and that they had nothing to do with
him or his projects. M y supervisors politely informed him
that he would have to prove his system worked before it
could be approved.
The gentleman vanished. But a few months later I received
a call from a central California county sanitarian. He wanted
to check up on the performance of an aerobic sewage drip
system an elderly gentleman (of familiar name and descrip-
tion) claimed to have installed in San Bernardino county; the
following day this gentleman was going to speak in front of
the sanitarian's county board of supervisors.
As for another innovative system, its promoter maintained
emphatically that God had shown him how to design it. But
as yet he has not brought to me the hard data I requested. (In
another county, this system turned out to be a fiasco.)
I was favorably disposed to other types of proposals, but
for various reasons they did not "take root."
A n évapotranspiration (ET) system is a large basin with
impermeable walls filled with gravel and sand and topped
with a layer of soil. Effluent is discharged into the gravel,
taken up by plants growing on the layer of soil, and lost by
évapotranspiration.
Two ET proposals I evaluated were not backed up with
reliable data, were extremely expensive, and offered abso-
lutely no advantages over conventional septic systems at the
proposed sites.
It is not difficult to follow guidelines such as Ingham's and
1
come up with an engineered ET proposal; but it is quite

difficult to account for the ET system's implied and explicit
constraints. Salts may accumulate, plants may die, weather
might not cooperate, onsite microclimate might differ from

areawide weather used for design, users may not maintain,
etc.
When there is little soil above impermeable bedrock or
groundwater, or the soil is excessively permeable or imper-
meable, a specially designed mound of soil-covered sand is
placed upon the ground and used as a filter to purify and
spread the effluent. It is called a "mound system." The efflu-
ent is dischaged under pressure through perforated pipes in
the sand. Details are given elsewhere. When I was con-
2
sulted regarding the use of mounds in thin, moderately slop-

ing soils over impermeable bedrock, I noticed that, in the
prospective sites, it would cost half as much to raise the
ground level (with fill available at the site) and to install
conventional leachlines instead of mounds. (The cost of an
engineered mound was $10,000.) Tips on fills are given in
Section 10.3.
On many occasions I was asked to allow installation of
composting toilets. After reading the claims made in the pro-
prietary literature, I thought highly of those devices. How-
ever, after I found out that the systems required much con-
scientious, elaborate, and frequent maintenance work by the
user, I became suspicious. I enquired further, and eventually
found out that indeed composting toilets were considered to
be a potential public health hazard, as viable parasites and
pathogens had been found in the compost. In 1983, the
3
"Liquid-Waste Committee" of the California Conference of

Environmental Health Directors recommended that com-
posting toilets not be allowed even for experimental pur-
poses.
Years ago I witnessed a demonstration of the patented
electro-osmosis (E-O) system. I saw that the water level was
practically stationary in perk test holes dug into a clay (perk
time, about 150-240 mpi); yet when the E-O electrodes were
installed, the water level fell rapidly (about 10 mpi). More
recently, two investigators found that E-O might not make
any difference in the long run in "average" soils; the long-
term absorption of sewage (rather than water) by leachlines
in a 7 to 8 mpi soil was governed by the lower long-term

absorption rate after a clogging mat formed. 4
Over the years, I have become a firm believer in Murphy's

law-"If anything can go wrong, it will." The more compli-
cated the "innovative" system, the higher the likelihood that
it will break down and cause problems. A n d if it is proprie-
tary or exclusive, it might be difficult to obtain parts or ser-
vice.
In order to promote innovation, I have encouraged anyone
who has a reasonable idea to try it out at his/her own risk, by
means of a public notice. (Details are in Appendix F.) But as
yet I have seen nothing that can equal the cost-effectiveness
of a septic tank with leachlines, seepage pits, or deep leach-
lines (with 5 to 10 feet of gravel depth below the perforated
pipe.) These deep leachlines are not specifically authorized
by the Uniform Plumbing code, but may be used effectively
under proper soil and "political" conditions.
10.2 COMPARISONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS
The leachline has the following advantages over the seep-

age pit:
a. It may be installed where groundwater is or might be rela-

tively shallow.
b. Its absorption area requirements are fairly well-defined in
the literature.
c. It is easy to install with a backhoe or even with hand labor.
d. If it becomes clogged and "fails," a backhoe operator can
scrape a couple of inches off the bottom and sides (under
dry soil conditions), and rebuild the leachline. (This can-
not be done with deep seepage pits.)
e. It is safe. No one can fall into an old abandoned leachline.
(I have heard of people falling into abandoned pits.)
f. It may accomplish a higher degree of sewage aerobic
biodegradation than a pit.
g. It may cost less to install.
The advantages of the seepage pit over the leachline are:
a. It requires less (horizontal) area on a lot.

b. It can reach permeable strata at great depth.
c. It is little affected by rain or lawn watering, by roots, and
by traffic over it.
d. High surface head and side wall, and larger fluctuations in
height of effluent column (per volume of effluent), tend to
increase useful life.
I have checked claims and information provided by many

"innovative" onsite system manufacturers. Invariably, the
claims turned out to be highly exaggerated, and the "infor-
mation" without solid foundation.
Again, as far as I can see, the simplest and most cost-
effective onsite disposal technologies depend on nothing
more than: a septic tank, a seepage pit or leachlines, prop-
erly placed fills, and drop boxes. No distribution boxes.
Per code requirements (Uniform Plumbing Code), a distri-
bution box supposedly splits the sewage flow evenly into 2,
3, or more portions and directs them to an equal number of
pits or leachlines. But I have observed that a septic tank
buffers the flow of sewage, so that flow trickles into the
distribution box, and goes preferentially into one of its out-
lets and shuns the others. Hence, one might find a failing
leachline beside a dry leachline, though both are served by
the same distribution box. This poor performance has been
reported in the literature. 5,6
One solution is to install an automatic siphon between the

leachfield and the septic tank, so as to discharge sewage in
massive batches. Massive flows have a chance of being split
evenly by a distribution box. But siphons do malfunction
and require maintenance. 7
In sloping ground, the best strategy is to eliminate distri-

bution boxes, and to allow the sewage overflows to cascade
sequentially from higher to lower leachfields by means of
drop boxes, inverts, or step-downs. In flat ground, the ends
of parallel leachlines fed by the same distribution box should
be connected with a perpendicular graveled trench, so that

the sewage flow can move from one leachline back into the
other.
Regarding simple and inexpensive technical devices, the
most promising one I have seen in the last few years is the
"dipper." The "dipper" is a plastic tray on a pivot. The tray
receives trickling sewage from the septic tank and retains 1.5
gallons. When full it dips and discharges the 1.5 gallons in
less than 2 seconds. This massive flow goes to a distribution
box, where it is properly split. The problem of non-uniform
distribution of sewage flow by distribution boxes might be
at an end if the "dipper" performs as claimed. Informa-
tion about this device can be obtained from United Con-
crete Products, 173 Church St., Yalesville, CT 06492,
(213)269-3119.
10.3 FILLS FOR LEACHLINES
As a medium for wastewater disposal, a good fill can be as

good or better than many a natural soil. The safest way to
construct a good fill follows:
1. Place a layer of dry loamy sand about 8 inches thick over

the dry ground that is to be built up.
2. Smooth out and press down the layer of dry loamy sand
with a bulldozer or scraper.
3. Repeat the procedure with successive layers until the
ground has been raised about 7% beyond design height.
4. After at least one wet and one dry season have given the
fill a chance to settle, check the perk rate, remove or add
up to a foot of fill if necessary, and then install leachlines.
(If less than two feet of fill have been placed, it may not be
necesary to wait for the fill to settle.)
Attention to detail and some expertise are called for when

deviating from the procedure described above.
Let's assume the fill materials are coarser-textured. Then,

the big soil pores may not filter out sewage microbes.
Let's assume the fill materials are finer-textured. If they are
dry and lumpy when placed in layers, the resulting fill may
have big pores or cavities and may not filter out sewage
microbes very well. But if the fill materials are barely moist
(just to the point where a change from the dry state is notice-
able), they may smear and compact rather easily, especially
so just below (bulldozer) tracks or tires. The result is that a
vertical cross-section of the fill may show compacted layers
of soil stacked one upon another, with an even more com-
pacted or smeared area marking the transition between adja-
cent layers. This condition is common in foundation fills
(which must achieve at least 90% of maximum compaction)
compacted with tamper, bulldozer, heavy equipment tires,
or steamroller. (A sheepsfoot roller may or may not result in
clearly displayed layers.)
If one must use slightly moist, finer-textured fill materials,
one should do at least the following: disk the upper 2 or 3
inches of each layer before another layer is placed on top;
trench and observe the profile of the fill for signs of highly
compacted or smudged zones between layers; do a perk test;
after completing this test, excavate around the perk test hole
and see if the wetting front spread laterally (sideways) along
fill layers and failed to move downward. (If this is the case,
the fill might not be usable).
Cobbles and stones may compact adjacent fill materials
and leave big holes between themselves and the fill material.
REFERENCES
1. Ingham, A. 1980. Guidelines for Evapotranspiration

Systems. State Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box
100, Sacramento, C A 95801.
2. Ingham, A . 1980. Guidelines for Mound Systems. State

Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacra-
mento, C A 95801.
3. M . Smith. 1981. Evaluation of Compost Toilets. USDA
Forest Service Equipment Development Center, San
Dimas, C A 91773; and unpublished data from the Cali-
fornia Health Department.
4. Effert, D., and Beer, C. In:ASAE Pub. 07-85. 1985. Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individ-
ual and Small Community Sewage Systems, pp. 59-68,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659.
5. Mellen, W. In:ASAE Pub. 07-85. 1985. Proceedings of
the Fourth National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems, pp. 87-93, ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659.
6. Gross, M . , and Thrasher, D. In:ASAE Pub. 07-85. 1985.
Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Indi-
vidual and Small Community Sewage Systems, pp.
260-264, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659.
7. Converse, J. C., et al. In:ASAE Pub. 07-85. 1985. Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individ-
ual and Small Community Sewage Systems, pp. 95-103,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659.
11
Degradation of Groundwater by
Septic Systems
Septic tank effluent discharged into soil carries various

constituents which may reach and degrade groundwater.
Some may be natural chemicals, such as chloride, nitrate,
and phosphate salts. Some may be chemicals such as waste
oil fractions, fuel oil, TCE and other chlorinated hydrocar-
bons, gasoline, turpentine, and almost anything that can be
found in a house and flushed down the toilet. Other constit-
uents are parasites and microbes of various kinds.
In the period of 1971 to 1982, waters from wells tapping
into degraded groundwater have accounted for at least 177
disease outbreaks involving 30,046 people nationwide. Most
1
of these people were affected by gastroenteritis and shigello-

sis. (Most of the gastroenteritis appears to be due to viruses.)
Twelve of the outbreaks were caused by chemicals (petro-
leum products, nitrate, PCBs, TCE, phenols, benzene, arse-
nic, selenium) and involved 157 people. 1
Let us start with the problem of microbial pollution.
11.1 SOILS AS A SIEVE
When they receive septic tank effluent, soils act like sieves
and easily trap large parasites like flatworms, roundworms,
and tapeworms. The ova of these parasites are generally
fairly large, 50-60 µ (microns or micrometers) in diameter for
A. lumbricoides. The diameter of the smallest cyst of the pro-
133
tozoan Giardia is 7 µ. Leachfields capable of trapping intesti-

2
nal bacteria will also trap larger organisms, so we need not

give further attention to these larger organisms. According
to a chart prepared by Osmonics, Inc. (1984), the diameters
of bacteria range from about 30 to 0.25 µ, and of viruses, from
about 0.1 to 0.009 µ. As the microbes get smaller than about 3
µ, physical trapping becomes less efficient, but other factors
play an increasingly more important role in retaining
microbes within the soil.
11.2 MICROBIAL RETENTION WITHIN THE SOIL
Research publications regarding individual measurements

of microbial travel within soils seem to be inconsistent. Some
report that bacteria (or viruses) have traveled hundreds of
feet within the soil; others, that they have been retained in
less than a foot of soil. Two main reasons for this apparent
inconsistency are:
a. The conditions in which the travel or retention took place

were different; all of the variables affecting travel or reten-
tion were not controlled or accounted for.
b. Every specific bacteria (or virus) is different from every
other specific bacteria (or virus). For instance, one particu-
lar type of virus may be much more adsorbed by a given
soil clay at a given soil p H than another type of virus. One
type of bacteria may survive longer and travel farther in a
viable state than another type.
Of all the articles I have read on the subject matter, three 3-5
shed more light than all others, and are expounded upon
below.
Hagedorn et al. reviewed pertinent literature and arrived
3
at the following conclusions (slightly modified from the orig-

inal text):
1. Microorganisms move only a few feet in unsaturated soil,

but much larger distances in saturated soil.
2. Bacterial retention is higher in finer-textured soils.
3. The main limitation to travel through soil is physical
straining or filtration (of bacteria or larger microbes).
4. Adsorption plays a role in retention of bacteria, and
increases with clay content.
5. Death of the microorganism plays an important role.
Death may occur due to ingestion by other organisms,
adverse soil conditions (no nutrients, drying, antagonistic
organisms' secretions, such as antibiotics), and "aging"
during long retention periods.
Hagedorn et al. reviewed experimental results published by

3
Bouma in 1972. These indicated that 1 to 3 feet of unsatu-

rated soil below a leachline's clogging mat was adequate for
complete bacteria removal. So, Hagedorn et al. concluded
that the (USPHS Manual 526) standard of 4 to 5 feet of "suit-
able" soil fell in line with Bouma's experimental data. 3
However, the EPA Manual's standard minimum separa-

6
tion between leachline bottom and groundwater is 2 to 4

feet. I think that this is inadequate:
a. Much of the knowledge about wastewater purification

below leachlines is derived from studies about distribution
of bacteria in the soil profile after a clogging mat develops.
Bacterial and especially viral movement can be more
extensive before the mat is fully developed.
b. Capillary "suction" can maintain the continuity of large-
diameter soil water columns from the bottom of the leach-
line to groundwater, and decrease "sieving" or filtration.
c. Coarse-textured soils absorb much rainfall; absorbed rain-
fall creates a layer (or layers) of nearly saturated soil. While
the soil is draining, bacteria and viruses may be "washed
down."
d. Mounding of effluent can raise the level of groundwater.
(This will be addressed in Chapter 13.)
e. As pointed out in the previous chapter, minimum require-
ments become the standards of practice. Soil conditions
throughout the land are quite more varied than those near
a few experimental leachlines. Few perk professionals

know when (or dare) to exceed the minimum require-
ments.
f. Depth to shallow groundwater is at least as variable as the
weather, and usually cannot be predicted with certainty.
(It can be predicted if drains are installed.) As for using
iron bars or looking for mottles, such techniques are not
reliable, in light of the variables involved (time of submer-
gence, rainfall, presence and location of decomposable
organic matter, parent material, etc.) For instance, Couto
et al. found no indications of groundwater in a soil they
6
knew had groundwater at 2 feet for more than 120 days

per year. A good 5 feet may promote more complete
decomposition of biodegradable (possibly mutagenic)
organic matter. This is purely speculative, but considering
that sewage shows mutagenicity per the Ames test, and
that algae have been found at 5 feet below ground living
only on dissolved nutrients coming from above, it might
be advisable to maximize opportunities for biodegradation
by requiring at least 5 feet to groundwater, even if 2 or 4
feet were sufficient to trap bacteria.
g. Not enough data exist to ascertain a safe distance of travel
through soil for trapping all types of viruses.
Movement of typhoid bacteria from a leachline down

through at least 3 or 4 feet of "less than 1 or 2 mpi sand," and
thence through 210 feet of saturated soil (i.e., groundwater)
downgradient to a well was reported by McGinnis and De
Walle. These authors also tabulated the distances traveled
4
by other types of bacteria (as reported in other publications);

distances ranged from 1 to 300 feet in sandy aquifers,
reached 2,800 feet in gravelly aquifers, and 3,300 feet in a
fractured limestone. They pointed out that the (code-
required) exclusion of leachlines from an area 100 feet
around a drinking water well does not ensure adequate pro-
tection, particularly if the well is downgradient and the
velocity of flow is high.
What is true of the extent of bacterial movement is just as
true of viral movement in soils and groundwater. Vaughn
and Landry reviewed 182 publications and put together a

comprehensive picture of viral movement. The next two
5
paragraphs contain abstracts from their paper.

Regarding travel, they referred to a report of poliovirus
moving downward from a leachfield and then laterally 300
feet (91.5 m) to a well. Under rapid-infiltration units receiv-
ing secondary-treated sewage, viruses were recovered 30 m
down and 183 m lateral distance. One report concerns Cox-
sackie virus 402 m downgradient from a sanitary landfill;
another report concerns a coliphage which moved 900 m
under saturated soil conditions at a rate of 350 m/day.
When they enter a leachfield, viruses may be metabolized
(or "eaten") by microbes, or they may adsorb onto the slimy
bacterial secretions in and around the clogging mat, or they
may continue their travel and be adsorbed in charged soil
particles (mostly clays), and inactivated by (the fairly com-
mon clay fraction constituents) A1 O or M n O . Adsorption
2 3 2
to the (usually abundant) SiO and Fe O does not inactivate

2 2 3
viruses. Rainfall can desorb viruses and carry them down in

a still viable state. Virus adsorption is extremely variable:
different strains of the same virus may adsorb to a different
extent; and within a purified population of virus particles,
some subgroups adsorb at different rates. Dry soil appears to
kill or inactivate viruses.
To make a long story short, suffice it to say that the old
concepts about separations between leachfields and ground-
water and wells need updating.
Standards currently in vogue seem to have been influ-
enced by a single study published in 1970, in which Romero
cataloged and interpreted the data then known on microbial
travel through soils. Today, it is recognized that not enough
8
is known to predict how far each specific virus can travel

through each specific soil, particulary under actual field con-
5
ditions (mass loadings, rainfall-saturated soil, not fully

developed clogging mats, and root channels). However, it
can be safely said that the control of viral pollution depends
mainly on forcing sewage effluent to pass through a biomat
and/or through unsaturated soil with sufficient adsorption
sites within its matrix (mostly from clay or silt). Other things
being equal, on a per-foot-of-travel basis, comparatively little
viral adsorption and inactivation occur after viruses reach
groundwater and move through saturated soil. Generally,
the vertical separations between leachfields and ground-
water are far more important than the horizontal separations
between leachfields and wells.
11.3 VERTICAL SEPARATIONS BETWEEN

LEACHFIELDS A N D GROUNDWATER OR
IMPERMEABLE BEDROCK
In order to promote unsaturated flow conditions below a

leachfield, minimum separations from the bottom of leach-
fields to groundwater or impermeable bedrock (or imperme-
able stratum) have been adopted in various quarters. Unsat-
urated flow may enhance the activity of aerobic soil microbes
which "eat" pathogens; also, unsaturated flow moves in
thinner films and through smaller-diameter pores, thus
enhancing the sieving and adsorption of pathogens. Mach-
meier's recommendations follow. 8
Use a minimum separation of 3 feet.

If soil " A " perk time is less than 0.1 mpi, little filtration of
pathogens will occur. Place 6 inches of 6 to 15 mpi soil
between soil " A " and leachline gravel.
If a soil's perk time is between 0.1 and 5 mpi, bacteria will
move through with the percolating sewage until a biomat
forms and filters the bacteria out. Leachlines can be installed
in such soil but the leachline must be designed so as to pro-
mote the formation of a biomat; for instance, by dividing the
total length of the leachline into 4 parts in such a way that the
overflow from the first part goes to the second, and so on
sequentially. Or else, leachlines can be installed but the sew-
age is spread uniformly over the whole leachline under pres-
sure distribution. (Spreading the sewage over a large surface
results in unsaturated flow.) Or else, 6 inches of finer-
textured 5 to 15 mpi soil is placed as explained in the para-

graph above.
The EPA Design Manual recommends 2 to 4 feet of vertical

7
separation, and a different approach: If the soil perk time is

less than 1 mpi, place at least 2 feet of "loamy sand or sand-
textured soil" between the soil and the gravel of the leach-
line. (There is no definition of sand-textured soil within the
vocabulary of soil science; however, the EPA Manual implies
in a subsequent paragraph that this is 6 to 15 mpi soil.)
According to the Manual, if perk time is higher than 1 mpi,
conventional leachlines can be installed. (This doesn't seem
right, in view of the paragraph above, where at least 2 feet of
6 to 15 mpi soil are required. The explanation for this dis-
crepancy may be found in Winneberger's book.) 10
According to Winneberger, the origin of the 1 mpi stan-

10
dard is more or less as follows:
In 1978 a conference was held in EPA offices . . . 5 mpi was

considered as a limit . . . One consultant pointed out that
such limit had no technical merit and would likely rule out
disposal fields in Florida, where soils had lower m p i . . . One
of the less experienced conferees suggested 1 mpi: "How
about that?" . . . And the motion carried!
There is nothing magical about a 1 or a 5 mpi standard, or

about a 2 to 4 or a 5 foot separation. However, it can be said
that "average" soils with no channels or fractures are gener-
ally safe if the perk time is higher than 5 mpi and the sewage
percolates at least 5 feet through unsaturated soil. This rule —
"5 mpi and 5 feet"-is not absolutely foolproof, but it is a
convenient starting point for evaluation of site suitability. A
"2 and 2" or a "1 and 2" rule might work sometimes, but it
would imply considerably more risk, and would involve
extreme care in the planning, construction, use, and perhaps
monitoring of systems and groundwater. I doubt that most
jurisdictions would feel comfortable with such impositions,
unless they are prepared either to treat local water pumped
for domestic consumption (by coagulation, filtration, and

chlorination or ozonization), or else to avoid using such
water for domestic consumption. Finally, we should note
that if pits are installed in series, the first pit may receive a
tremendous amount of flow under a high surface head, and
saturated flow may occur under it for more than 10 feet
downward, especially if the clogging mat has not had time to
form. Pits should not be installed in series where ground-
water may be at risk.
11.4 CONTAMINATION BY EXTRANEOUS

CHEMICALS
Nowadays we are well aware that a variety of carcinogenic

synthetic chemicals have contaminated groundwater in
many areas of the United States. O n or about March 1986,
CBS's "60 Minutes" presented a segment about children who
died of leukemia because a chemical company dumped a
chlorinated hydrocarbon solvent or degreaser. The chemical
found its way to the children's neighborhood water supply.
The owner of the company was sued in federal court. The
parents were compensated per the undisclosed provisions of
an out-of-court settlement.
As recently as 1979, things were different. The Cape Cod
Times (September 3, 1979) reported that local boards of
health were reluctant to take action against the sale of chemi-
cals used as drain and cesspool cleaners that were polluting
groundwater supplies. The reason for the reluctance was
that a company making and selling such products had sued a
county health department for libel ($15 million), for implying
that their drain cleaner (with methylene chloride and trichlo-
roethane) was hazardous to people drinking groundwater
contaminated by it.
Today any such lawsuit would be thrown out of court,
laughingly. But that's all that has changed. The federal gov-
ernment still does not control or intend to control the
improper use and disposal of small quantities of hazardous

chemicals which can be purchased in most supermarkets. 11,12
The responsibility to do so falls on state and local jurisdic-

tions. How well they deal with this issue is "a measure of
12
their strength, capabilities, and resources." (Ah, diplo-

12
macy.)
In California, we have nine Water Quality Control Board
Regions. Their mission is to protect the waters of the state.
A while ago I found a septic system declogger with char-
acteristic odors for sale in a local supermarket, and I noti-
fied the local (Santa Ana) Regional Board. It made the man-
ufacturer change the formula of the declogger very quickly.
The manufacturer of another declogger openly stated that
it contained chlorobenzene, in an ad placed in a national
environmental health magazine (of all places)! When I
wrote and questioned the legality of their product, the man-
ufacturer's legal counsel showed me a letter from an EPA
officer stating that it was okay to use it: It was not regulated
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
because it was used for something (declogging) rather than
dumped. I publicized this experience, and informed the
11
(Santa Ana) Regional Board of what was going on. Its exec-
utive director wrote a terse note to the manufacturer's legal
counsel informing him that groundwater was an important
local resource, and that under no circumstances would he
permit the use of the declogger. I never saw the ad again in
any magazine.
The problem is still with us. Few jurisdictions have a com-
prehensive program to educate septic system users to the
fact that they may end up drinking many of the chemicals
they flush down. Even fewer control the products that are
sold for sewer or septic system "declogging." As far as is
known, elves are reluctant to check supermarket shelves for
decloggers and to educate septic system users. (Hopefully,
sanitarians do.)
11.5 DEGRADATION BY NATURAL

SEWAGE COMPONENTS
Under "average" conditions, after sewage percolates

through 5 feet of unsaturated soil it should have negligible
amounts of BOD and SS; respectively, less than 2 and 1
mg/L. Sewage TDS (total dissolved solids)-also called TFS
13
(total filterable solids)-corresponds mainly to salts. Precise

definition of this (and other terms like BOD, SS, etc.) can be
found elsewhere. Most of the salts in piped-in water are
14
chlorides, sulfates, and bicarbonates of sodium, calcium,

magnesium, and potassium. TDS may change a little in com-
position when it goes through the soil. Some cations may
exchange with those in the "soil exchange" colloids, or some
TDS salts may precipitate, or soil salts may be dissolved.
TDS is definitely not "absorbed" by the soil or the leachfield.
TDS moves in the percolating liquid and may reach ground-
water and increase its salinity. A rule of thumb is that water
which passes through a septic tank experiences a TDS
increase of about 100 to 300 mg/L.
The phosphorus (mainly phosphate salts) found in septic
tank effluent is not directly harmful to humans. But if it
reaches lakes or bodies of water it may act as a "fertilizer"
and promote excessive growth of algae (eutrophication).
(When algae accumulate and decompose, the water body
assumes a disagreeable aspect and odor; fish may die.) Phos-
phate anions are precipitated by calcium, iron, and alumi-
num cations, one or more of which are quite abundant in
most soils; and the phosphate anions adsorb to soil sesquiox-
ides and calcareous precipitates. So, generally speaking,
phosphorus is not much of a problem. It may be a problem if
leachfields are located in some very coarse-textured (less
than 1 mpi) soils near water bodies.
For evaluation purposes, the EPA assumes that each per-
son on septic systems within 300 feet of a lake shoreline
releases 0.25 pounds of phosphorus (5 to 10% of the total
yearly per capita output) to lake waters. Sewage effluent
15
contains about 10-14 mg/L of phosphorus, while natural

16
water bodies contain 0.002 to 0.09 mg/L. 17
Canter and Knox refer to a study conducted by

16
Viraraghavan and Warnock in a clayey Canadian soil with

cold, snowy winters and wet springs (melting snow). In this
study, (apparently) 5 feet of soil reduced septic tank effluent
SS, BOD, and COD by an average of 75 to 90%; this reduc-
tion was higher in summer and fall (when the soil was more
unsaturated), and lower in winter and spring. The reduction
in phosphorus was only 25 to 50%, much lower than that
reported in the literature. (Possibly, the cold temperature
and saturated soil allowed a high proportion of organic
phosphorus to pass through without precipitating.)
Nitrates are another pollutant of concern where septic sys-
tems are used. They are discussed in the following chapter.
REFERENCES
1. Craun, G.F. 1985. A summary of waterborne illness

transmitted through contaminated groundwater. J. Envi-
ron. Health 48: 122-127.
2. Logsdon, G . , et al. 1979. Water filtration techniques for
removal of cysts and cyst models. In Waterborne Trans-
mission of Giardiasis, U.S. EPA 600/9-79-001.
3. Hagedorn, C , et al. 1981. The potential for groundwater
contamination from septic effluents. J. Environ. Qual. 10:
1-8.
4. McGinnis, J., and De Walle, F. 1983. The movement of
typhoid organisms in saturated, permeable soil. J. Am.
Water Works Assoc. 75: 266-271.
5. Vaughn, J.M., and Landry, E.F. 1983. Viruses in soils
and groundwaters. In Viral Pollution of the Environment,
pp. 163-210, G . Berg, Ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
6. Couto, W., et al. 1985. Factors affecting oxidation-
reduction processes in an oxisol with a seasonal water
table. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49: 1245-1248.
7. U.S. EPA. 1980. Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater

Treatment and Disposal Systems. EPA-625/1-80-012.
8. Romero, J.C. 1970. The movement of bacteria and
viruses through porous media. Ground Water 8: 37-48.
9. Machmeier, R. 1981. Town and Country Sewage Treat-
ment. Extension Bulletin 304, Agricultural Extension
Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, M N 55108.
11. Kaplan, O.B. 1983. Some additives to septic tank sys-
tems may poison groundwater. J. Environ. Health 45: 259.
12. Bacon, J.M., and Oleckno, W.A. 1985. Groundwater
contamination. J. Environ. Health 48: 116-121.
13. U.S. EPA et al. 1981. Process Design Manual For Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA 625/1-81-013.
14. U.S. EPA. 1974. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes. EPA 625/6-74-003.
15. U.S. EPA Region V. 1983. Final-Generic EIS: Wastewater
Management in Rural Lake Areas. Water Division, Chi-
cago, IL 60604.
16. Canter, L., and Knox, R. 1985. Septic Tank System Effects
on Ground Water Quality. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI
48118.
17. Britton, L., et al. 1975. A n Introduction to the Processes,
Problems, and Management of Urban Lakes. Geological
Survey circular 601-K. U.S. Geological Survey, National
Center, Reston, VA 22092.
12
Nitrate i n Groundwater
Nitrogen is a fairly inert gas. About 78% of the air we

breathe is nitrogen. A variety of algae, bacteria, and fungi
can "fix" inert nitrogen gas into chemicals that they can use
(or that organisms that associate with them or feed on them
can use) to manufacture their proteins. When an organism
dies, the nitrogen in its decomposing protein is released to
the environment in various chemical forms, including nitro-
gen gas. The sum of processes involving fixation and release
of nitrogen gas is called the "nitrogen cycle." Detailed
descriptions of cycle processes can be found elsewhere. 1
Nitrate, one of the chemical compounds in the nitrogen

cycle, is of interest to us. The U.S. Public Health Service and
the World Health Organization drinking water standard for
nitrate is 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen (45 mg/L as nitrate).*
*The 10 mg/L standard was established to prevent methemoglobinemia

("blue baby" disease) in infants. Ingested nitrate combines with hemoglo-
bin (the red pigment in blood that transports oxygen and carbon dioxide to
and from the cells in our body). When hemoglobin combines with nitrate,
it becomes methemoglobin, and cannot do its job. Babies less than 3
months old (and some adult Eskimos) lack a reducing enzyme that can
knock the nitrate out of the methemoglobin; when they ingest too much
nitrate they turn bluish, and may die.
In the last few years, the amount of nitrate used as a preservative (in
hams, hot dogs, corned beef, and other processed meats) has been low-
ered due to another type of concern: cancer. The probability is low that
any single individual will contract cancer due to ingested nitrates. But
when a low individual risk is shared within a large population, some
members of this population may contract cancer.
145
This standard may be exceeded in groundwaters affected by

septic system discharges.
Sewage effluent discharged into septic tanks usually has
only a trace of nitrates. About 1/4 to 1/3 of the nitrogen in
sewage is part of fecal protein (and fecal amino acids and
amino sugars); the rest is part of urea (urine's main nitrogen
compound). In the septic tank or in the soil, a bacterial
enzyme splits urea into ammonia and carbon dioxide. Fecal
proteins, when decomposed, may also release ammonia.
Ammonia combines with water to form ammonium ions.
Aerobic bacteria oxidize the ammonium ion to nitrate, usu-
ally within 2 to 5 feet of unsaturated (aerobic) soil, below the
2
leachfield. This oxidation is called nitrification. If bacteria

have carbonaceous food available* and their environment is
anaerobic (or if oxygen doesn't reach them fast enough when
they are "eating" the carbonaceous food), they use the
nitrate's oxygen atoms instead and reduce nitrate to nitrous
oxide and to molecular nitrogen. Then, these two gases
escape into the atmosphere. This is nitrogen loss by denitrifi-
cation.
In the next sections we will explore somewhat controver-
sial topics: how much (if any) nitrate is generated in a leach-
field, how much of it is denitrified, and how nitrate pollution
is controlled.
12.1 A SEPTIC SYSTEM'S NITROGEN INFLOW

A N D OUTFLOW
The per capita ingestion and excretion of N (nitrogen) are

fairly constant, with relatively minor and predictable varia-
tions due to diet, weight, and age. The per capita intake of
N/day can form the basis for estimating nitrogen inflows and
outflows. According to Carla Bouchard, R.D., a public health
*Sugars, organic acids, alcohols, aldehydes, molasses, or any other biode-

gradable matter that increase the carbon-nitrogen ratio to more than 1.3:1.
nutritionist (personal communication), the actual consump-

tion of protein is between 70 and 140 g/capita/day (nation-
wide average), twice as much as necessary.
Nitrogen constitutes 16% of the weight of the average pro-
tein. Hence, 16% of 70 and 140 gives us, respectively, 11 and
22 g N/capita/day. For comparison purposes, Laak has 3
referred to an EPA study (Process Design Manual for Nitro-

gen Control, 1975) and quoted a figure of 11 g N/capita/day;
the EPA Manual figures (Table 4-3 in Reference 4) are 6 to 17
g N/ capita/day.
A negligible proportion of ingested N is incorporated into
growing bodies.* Some of the nitrogen excreted stays in
(and is pumped out of) the septic tank, but this small amount
can be neglected as well.**
Most literature evaluates nitrogen discharged from septic
tanks by means of concentration units, mg N / L . This pro- 4-9
cedure superimposes flow variability onto nitrogen excretion

variability, so it is not surprising that one researcher might
measure a mean of 35 mg N/L and another a mean of 97 mg
4
N/L. Bauman has referred to one of his previous studies in

9 7
which he averaged the means of 20 other studies and

obtained a concentration of 62 ± 21 mg/L nitrogen in septic
tank effluent; he did not state whether the other 20 studies
were an unbiased sample of the United States as a whole.
Now let's see how 11 to 22 g/capita/day compares to the
figures in the literature. The average per capita discharge of
sewage is 64 gallons/day, according to Ingham, and 55 8
gallons/day per (some portions of) the EPA Design Manual; 4
* A youngster who gains 5 kilograms in one year retains as much nitrogen

as is contained in the food he eats in 5 days.
**Septage (liquid pumped from a septic tank) contains about 588 mg/L of
total N (average of 4 studies with means of 510, 572, 650, and 820 mg/L, as
reported in Table 9-2 of the EPA Design Manual ). For an average family of
4
3 people served by a septic tank of 3,800 liters capacity pumped every 3

years, the figures are: Total grams of N discharged in 3 years = 3 x 365 x
3 x (11 + 22)/2 = 56,000. And total grams of N lost in pumped septage =
3,800 x 588/1,000 = 2,200, only 4% of the total discharged.
let's say 60 gallons/day, or 230 liters/day. Dividing 11 and 22

g by 230 L, we obtain nitrogen concentrations of 48 and 96
mg/L, respectively-say roughly 72 mg/L, which is not too
far from Bauman's figure. (And it is even closer if we assume
that 15% of the N is lost from the septic tank, as in Andreoli
et al.'s experiment. But this loss has not been verified with
2
replications.)
Now, let us try to figure out the magnitude of nitrogen loss
when septic effluent percolates through the soil. Winne-
berger assumed that denitrification was a major process, and
stated that an 85% loss of N was a conservative figure. But 9
Sikora, et al. asserted that "passage of septic tank effluent

through a seepage field [leachfield] usually results in a nitri-
fied effluent with insufficient BOD [carbonaceous food] lev-
els to support denitrification." And Perkins observed that
10
" . . . data relating chemical contamination [of groundwater],

especially nitrate contamination, to septic tank density are
becoming numerous" and mentioned various instances and
nine pertinent publications. 6
Eastburn and Ritter reviewed fairly current literature that

included reports of up to 48% to 86% denitrification (in some
mound systems), and concluded that "denitrification rates
under conventional septic systems may vary from 0 to 35%"*
and that "absolute values of denitrification for conventional
septic systems cannot be predicted based on the available
literature." 11
From the above, we may surmise that, for gross planning

or evaluation purposes, we should neglect denitrification
*This conclusion is in harmony with views in literature not cited by East-

burn and Ritter. Regarding wastewater irrigation, Broadbent and Aref 12
found up to 32% denitrification loss when sewage percolated through

aerobic soil columns. A n d Broadbent and Reisenauer stated that coarse-
13
textured, well-drained soils with low organic matter content have negligi-
ble denitrification potential; sandy loam and loam soils have medium
denitrification potential (10 to 20% N loss); and finer textured soils, high
potential (20 to 40% N loss).
2
losses and use two parameters: (11 + 22)/2 = 17 g N/capita/

day, and Bauman's 62 mg N/L of discharged effluent.
12.2 WHAT IS BEING DONE
There is an incredible variety of technologies to denitrify

sewage. Practically all are based on promoting nitrification of
effluents and then supplying carbonaceous food to the bacte-
ria in the effluent in an anoxic medium. The carbonaceous
food may be sewage BOD constituents, or methanol, or
whatever. The medium may be a special chamber or the soil
itself. Almost total nitrogen removal is possible; but such
removal may not be practical in every case. Prakasam and
Krup have given an extensive review of technological
14
approaches. (Among their 122 references, more than 2 dozen

refer to denitrification processes patented in Japan.) The EPA
has published a detailed description of basic nitrogen control
technologies.15
In addition to technological approaches to control nitrate

pollution, there are land use approaches. There are three
main land use approaches for preventing or minimizing deg-
radation of groundwater. One is to prevent development in
watershed or groundwater supply areas. Another one is to
install sewers and discharge treated sewage pollutants some-
where else where their effect is not too deleterious. And the
last one is to control the density of septic systems, i.e., to
restrict use of septic systems to lots of a given large size.
In southern California, as a means to minimize degrada-
tion of water in the Santa Ana river basin by TDS or "salts," a
minimum lot size of one-half acre is required in large resi-
dential developments. In northern California, some counties
require minimum lot sizes of five acres or larger for various
"environmental" reasons. Perkins has summarized pretty
well the state-of-the-art knowledge re controlling density of
septic systems and nitrate pollution. However, I think he is
6
much too optimistic about the general applicability of the

mathematical models he discussed.
Most of the models Perkins described are too simplistic to
6
account for a wide variety of field conditions. If and when

they "work," the models could show that an area as a whole
does not suffer from nitrate pollution, yet many wells within
this area could be affected. On the other hand, another
model mentioned by Perkins, the "U.S.G.S. Method-of-
6
Characteristics Model for Solute Transport of Groundwater"

(Konikow-Bredehoeft model), is complex enough to take
into account many pertinent variables. But complex models
present nearly insoluble problems. Canter and Knox tried
out the Konikow-Bredehoeft model. Excerpts from their
5
evaluation follow:
The results . . . must be classified as disappointing and frus-

trating . . . the model was unable to be calibrated for ground-
water flow . . . a parameter determined from a particular test
in a particular spot may be accurate but may not reflect the
gross properties of the aquifer. The only conclusion to be
drawn concerning the applicability of sophisticated ground
water models to the problem of septic tank systems is that the
utility of the models may be outweighed by their significant
data requirements.
I am in complete agreement.
Although we do not have practical and reliable tools to
determine specific minimum lot sizes, we can make rough
estimates on the basis of data in the Perkins and Bauman
6
and Schafer articles. Perkins stated, "The range of [mini-

7 6
mum] lot sizes . . . appears to be from 1/2 to 1 acre based on

reported data, and from 3/4 to 1 acre, based on theory." But
Bauman and Schafer calculated that the nitrate standard
7
would be exceeded if the lots were less than 1 to 2 acres and

the groundwater moved less than 31 m/year (hydraulic con-
ductivity of 3,154 m/year and 1% gradient [or hydraulic con-
ductivity of 315 m/year, and 10% gradient], 40-acre develop-
ment, effluent 62 mg N/L, 186,500 L of effluent/family/year,
10 m mixing zone on top of the aquifer). So, as a "first

approximation," we may say that, for an isolated 40-acre
development with onsite wells, nitrate pollution could be a
cause for concern if the lots are less than about 1.5 acres in
size and/or groundwater moves slower than 31 m/year (100
feet/year).
12.3 DEALING WITH A SPECIFIC PROBLEM OF

NITRATE POLLUTION
Caution: To safely deal with real nitrate pollution prob-

lems, one should know a bit of hydraulics and geology and
should read in depth (and with a critical eye) the references
given in this chapter. What follows is a mere sketch, not a
methodology or prescription.
The first thing one should do is to define what is meant by
nitrate pollution in the specific setting: What will be the
"source" (i.e., amount, type, location of septic systems), and
what will be the "sink" (location and depth of well or wells;
or, will the nitrate plume go to marshlands, agricultural
areas, the ocean, etc.).
The second thing is to learn as much as possible about the
specific setting. Cannery wastes are high in BOD (carbona-
ceous food for bacteria) and could be used to denitrify col-
lected septic tank effluent (a sanitation district would have to
be formed). If the nitrate plume will pass through a marsh-
land, the nitrates might be consumed or denitrified. If the
plume goes to a groundwater basin serving an agricultural
area, it may pay to know whether the impact will be worthy
of note. While farmers apply about 100, 300, or more pounds
of N per acre per year, and about half of this nitrogen is
leached down to the groundwater as nitrate, the septic sys-
tem of a household with 3 people discharges only about 40
pounds of nitrate-N per year. If a subdivision's lots are large
enough to allow a "gentleman farmer's lifestyle," more
nitrates may be generated by lawn, tree, or crop fertilization

than by septic systems.
The third thing is to estimate the flows of water and of
nitrates, and to approximate a worst-case situation. One can-
not predict exactly what the level of pollution will be, and
exactly where it will occur. But one can make conservative
assumptions, like zero denitrification in the soil, and assume
the worst case. And if the worst case is not too bad, there is
no need to worry. A n illustration is given below.
Years ago, I had to determine whether a high-density
development served by seepage pits would result in nitrate
pollution of a well nearby, as follows. (The actual figures
may be different.) I assumed a generation of 6 kg of N (as
nitrates) per year per each 1 of the 50 residents. The water
table was at 200 feet and the well's perforated casing
extended from 300 to 400 feet. The groundwater was practi-
cally nitrate-free and moved at a probable rate of at least 1
foot per day. I did not know (no one knows) the depth of the
mixing layer where percolated sewage supposedly mixes
with groundwater.* But by assuming that the well extracts a
volume of water from 200 feet down to 400 feet, and over the
width of the development (perpendicular to groundwater
flow) of 200 feet, the thickness and concentration of the mix-
ing layer is irrelevant: The well mixes (whatever amount of)
nitrate (is in the upper polluted water layer) with all the
clean water pumped to a depth of 400 feet. So, we have a
"cube" (parallellepiped) of water 200 feet wide, 200 feet
deep, and at least 365 feet long, which receives about 300 kg
of nitrate-nitrogen per year. The total weight of water in this
cube is 400 million kg. Hence, the nitrate concentration is
*By the way, it may be risky to assume given thicknesses of (or concentra-
tions in) the mixing layer. In semi-arid climates, nitrates may stay above
the groundwater during some years and then leach down in mass during
other years, depending on the rainfall regime and soil conditions. In shal-
low leachfields, nitrates may move down with rainfall and then up by
capillarity and evapotranspiration. Soils are capable of performing all
kinds of tricks just to confound experts.
300/400 = 0.75 parts per million or 0.75 mg N/L. The well

wasn't even in the presumed path of the pollution plume,
and the plume probably had a tendency to stay over the top
of the groundwater because of a bit of stratification in the
aquifer. So, it was a safe bet that the 10 mg N/L standard
would not be exceeded. (And a bet it was. Among other
strange things, in California we have geologic faults all over
the place and plumes may not move the way they are sup-
posed to.)
And finally, the last thing to do is to compare and choose
among the lowest cost strategies that are viable. There are
hundreds of possible ways to match technical and land use
approaches. It is beyond the scope of this book to delve into
these.
REFERENCES
1. Delwiche, C. (Ed.) 1981. Denitrification, Nitrification, and

Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide. J. Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
2. Andreoli, A . , et al. 1979. Nitrogen removal in a subsur-
face disposal system. J. Water Poll. Control Fed.
51:851-855.
3. Laak, R. 1982. A passive denitrification system for on-
site systems. In ASAE Pub 1-82, pp. 108-115. ASAE, St.
Joseph, MI.
4. U.S. EPA. 1980. Design Manual. EPA 625/1-80-012.
5. Canter, L.W. and Knox, R.L. 1985. Septic Tank System
Effects on Ground Water Quality. Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, MI.
6. Perkins, R. 1985. Septic tanks, lot size and pollution of
water table aquifers. J. Environ. Health 56:298-303.
7. Bauman, B.J., and Schafer, W. M . 1985. Estimating
groundwater quality impacts from on-site sewage treat-
ment systems. In ASAE Pub. 07-85, pp. 285-295. ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI.
8. Ingham, A. 1980. Residential Greywater Management in

California. (It quotes data from "Water Conservation in
California," Bulletin 198, May 1976.) State Water Quality
Control Board, Sacramento, C A .
9. Winneberger, J.T. (Undated. The last reference is dated
1971; probably published on or about 1972.) Hancor's
"On-Site Waste Management," vol II. Hancor, Findlay,
OH.
10. Sikora, L., et al. 1976. Septic nitrogen and phosphorus
removal test system. Ground Water 14:309-314.
11. Eastburn, R.P., and Ritter, W. F. 1985. Denitrification in
onsite wastewater treatment systems-a review. In
ASAE Pub. 07-85, pp. 305-313. (See reference 7 above.)
12. Broadbent, F.E., and Aref, K.E. 1976. Nitrification and
Denitrification of Municipal Wastewater Effluents Dis-
posed to Land. Publication No. 58. California State
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, C A .
13. Broadbent, F.E., and Reisenauer, H . M . 1984. Fate of
wastewater constituents in soil and groundwater: nitro-
gen and phosphorus. In "Irrigation with Reclaimed
Municipal Wastewater." Report No. 84-1wr. California
State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, C A .
14. Prakasam, T.B.S., and Krup, M . 1982. Denitrification. J.
Water Poll. Control Fed. 54: 623-631.
15. Brown and Caldwell. Process Design Manual for Nitro-
gen Control. 1975. EPA 625/1-75-007. NTIS Report no.
BA PB 259/49/LS.
13
Mounding
If sewage flows downward through a porous medium and

is stopped or slowed down by a barrier, it accumulates above
the barrier and forms a mound of saturated soil. As the
height of the mound increases, the hydrostatic pressure
builds up and pushes the sewage laterally.
When a mound forms below a leachfield (leachline, seep-
age pit, seepage bed, soil mound, etc.), the separation
between the bottom of the leachfield and groundwater (or
saturated soil) may decrease to less than minimum code
requirements. The mound may grow high enough to flood
the leachfield. And, of course, saturated soil (within the
mound) facilitates the movement of pathogens to the
groundwater table.
Mounds may form over two kinds of "barriers." One kind
is clay, caliche, or other low-permeability stratum; the other
is a groundwater table's surface.
13.1 M O U N D I N G OVER A LOW-PERMEABILITY

STRATUM
Early in 1985, I reviewed a perk report in which seepage

pits 20 feet deep were recommended for a high-density
development. At the site, a loam surface soil graded to clay
loam with depth. There was a clay stratum (and traces of
perched groundwater) at a depth of 30 feet. (The code
requires a minimum separation of 10 feet between bottom of
155
Figure 13.1 Mounding over a lower-permeability stratum.
pit and impermeable layer or groundwater.) I doubted that

the recommendation was appropriate because of the effect of
mounding. Therefore, I derived simple, practical formulas to
estimate mounding, and showed that the heights of the
mounds above the clay stratum could exceed 20 or even 30
feet. The top of the mounds could have been near the top of
the pits, and sewage would not have been absorbed. So the
proposed density of development was halved, and leach-
lines were used instead of pits.
Derivations of formulas to estimate mounding under ideal
conditions follow. Ideal conditions are that the soil strata are
isotropic (and homogeneous) and horizontal, and the satu-
rated flows obey Darcy's formula. Sewage percolates down,
encounters a lower-permeability stratum, and mounds over
it. Figure 13.1 depicts mounding over a lower-permeability
soil.
13.1.1 Mounding Under a "Line Source" (Leachline)
Let us visualize a series of time-lapse photographs of vis-

cous syrup trickling onto a plate. After impact, the first drop
forms a little cone that flattens out and spreads to the extent
permitted by the viscosity of the syrup, and then turns into a
flat cylinder. The second drop forms a little cone over the top
of this cylinder; as the weight of the cone pushes down, the
diameter of the cylinder below increases, and the cone itself
subsides and spreads into a flat cylinder, on top of the pre-
vious one-and so on. The faster we pour, the higher the
cone. The higher the cone, the more pressure is exerted by
its weight downward and the bigger becomes the base of the
cone.
Now let us visualize something similar. However, this time
the syrup is poured between the middle of two vertical, par-
allel glass panes, half an inch apart. We see a solid triangle of
syrup form (between the glass panes), as if it were a cross-
section through the middle of a cone of syrup.
Now, let us imagine that we place a fine wire mesh under
the glass panes, horizontally, and we allow the syrup to ooze
slowly through it. (This is represented in Figure 13.2.) As we
pour syrup between the glass and over the mesh, we see that
the solid triangle increases its height and base until the
amount of syrup going into it is equal to the amount of syrup
oozing out through the mesh below. This is called "steady
state."
Let us modify this last experimental fantasy: let us imagine
that water percolates down a soil between vertical, parallel
glass panes until it hits a low-permeability layer. It also forms
a triangle between the glass panes. The force that pushes the
water laterally is the weight of water above it; the forces that
counteract this push are viscosity and friction in the soil
channels. In Figure 13.2, the triangle between the two glass
panes represents a vertical cross-section through a mound
below a "line source" (leachline).
Now, the derivation follows. Figure 13.3 shows a steady-
Figure 13.2 Triangle of viscous syrup over a mesh.
state triangle within a soil. The "line source" lies just above
the triangle and runs parallel to the Z axis. The "barrier" is
the lower-permeability stratum below the X-Z plane. The
daily flow is Q. Half of it goes to the left of the Z axis, and
half to the right. The flow 1/2 q through a small element of
the triangle with height dh follows the general Darcy for-
mula shown in Equation 1. The gradient is proportional to
the difference between hydraulic pressures at two points,
the "left" and the "right" ends of this element (respectively h
and 0), divided by X. (Note that at the top of the triangle,
hydraulic pressure = 0; at the bottom, it is proportional to
h.)
Figure 13.3 Steady-state triangle within a soil.

The thickness of the triangle is 1 foot-i.e., Z = 1 foot.

Steady-state conditions exist.
Per Darcy's formula,
ft /day/linear foot = k(ft/day) x H/X x A (ft )

3 2
(1)
Let X = ah ("a" is an unknown proportionality (2)

constant)
½q = k(h /ah ) dh = (k/a) dh

i i i (3)
(4)
From Formula 2, a = X/h, and substituting this value in

Formula 4,
½Q = ½kh /X 2
(5)
Per Darcy's formula, the saturated flow downward out of

the half-triangle is 1/2 Q/A = k' x 1. A is the area at the base
of the half-triangle, equal to X times the width; the width is 1
foot (Z = 1). k' is the hydraulic conductivity of the lower-
permeability stratum. And 1 is the value of the gradient
downward: we assume that the flow has occurred over a
long period of time, so that the column of saturated soil
below the triangle is very large. Hence,
X = ½Q/k' (6)
And substituting this value of X in Formula 5,
½Q = (½kh )/(½Q/k')
2
(7)
And rearranging terms and canceling out constants, we

obtain the value of h:
Figure 13.4 Vertical surfaces through which sewage flows downward.
(8)
There is another way of arriving at the same result. The

solid triangle in Figure 13.4 shows vertical surfaces through
which the sewage flows ("to the right") before it moves
downward. The extent of flow obeys Darcy's formula; it is
proportional to the area of the vertical surface and to the
gradient, here expressed in differential form, dh/dx.
Each of these vertical surfaces measures "h feet" in height
and 1 foot in width. Temporarily assuming that the bottom is
impermeable, so that the Q through each vertical surface is
about the same, we have:
½q /(h
i i x 1) = k dh/dX (9)
½Q = k x h x dh/dX (10)
½Q dX = kh dh (11)
Integrating Formula 11 from X = 0 to X = X and from h =

0 to h = h, we obtain Formula 12.
QX/k = h 2
(12)
and as we saw in Formula 6, X must be equal to ½ Q/k'.

Substituting this value of X in Formula 12 and rearranging,
we obtain
(13)
which is identical to Formula 8.

Let us try the formulas out. Let us assume that a leachline
discharges 1 cubic foot of sewage per day per lineal foot, and
that k = 5 ft/day and k' = 0.01 ft/day. Then,
X = ½Q/k' = 0.5/0.01 = 50 ft
Generally, a mound with a base of 2X = 100 feet, and as

long as the leachline plus a few more feet at each end, may
never reach full theoretical growth, because it grows slowly
and loses water to unsaturated flow, to évapotranspiration
(see Section 5.5.1), and to drainage (over and under a slop-
ing low-permeability barrier).
Assuming that the soil has 50% voids, the time for 1 cubic
foot per day (per lineal foot of leachline) to fill the voids and
saturate 30 feet of soil below the solid triangle in the previous
problem (so that the downflow gradient becomes close to
unity) is 0.5 x 100 x 30 = 1,500 days; and to fill the solid
triangle, 0.5 x 0.5 x 100 x 3 = 75 days.
13.1.2 Mounding Under a "Point Source"

(Seepage Pit)
Let us imagine cylindrical surfaces within a cone, as shown

in Figure 13.5. Let us use a derivation similar to that leading
to Formula 13 above. The difference is that the vertical sur-
faces are cylindrical, and the area through which Q flows
down and out of the cone is circular.
Then, per Darcy's formula,
Q = Sk(dh/dr) (14)
where dh/dr is the gradient in differential form and S is

the area of the cylindrical s urface. So,
Q = 2πrhk(dh/dr)
Rearranging terms, we obta in
Q (dr/r) = 2 πkhdh (15)
and integra ting this from r = r to r = R, where R is the

maximum radius at the base of the cone; a nd from h = 0 to h
= H , where H is the ma ximum height of the mound, we
obtain
Q ln(R/r) = πkH 2
(16)
The va lue of R corresponds to the ma ximum basal ra dius

of the cone, a nd the va lue of r to the ra dius at the top of the
mound (roughly equa l to the ra dius of the pit). The cone
grows until the flow downward out of the base of the cone is
equal to the flow coming into the cone from above. After a
Figure 13.5 Model for mounding under a point source.

long time, the gradient of the flow downward through the

lowpermeability clayey stratum below the base of the cone
is close to unity, because the ratio (h + X)/X approaches
unity (see C hapters 5 and 6). So the flow through the base of
this cone is Q/A = k' x 1, where A is equal to the area at the
base of the cone, k' is the hydraulic conductivity of the
clayey stratum, and 1 is the value of the gradient. And since
A = πR , we have that at steady state
2
Q = πR k'
2
(17)
Hence,
(18)
and plugging this into Formula 16, and neglecting a small

amount of flow downward through the area πr , we have
2
that
(19)
And solving for H ,
(20)
Let us try out this formula.

A seepage pit is installed in a very permeable sandy soil,
but 10 feet below the bottom of the pit there is a thick stra
tum of less permeable loam soil. The pit receives 300 gallons
of sewage per day (40 cubic feet). Let us assume that k = 5.2
and k' = 0.1 ft/day. If r = 2.5, what is the maximum possible
value of H? Of R?
Again, same as above, but k = 0.1 and k' = 0.01 ft/day.
And now with k = 1 and k' = 0.001,
13.1.3 Estimates of Maximum Mounding Heights
I used the previous formulas to estimate the maximum

possible height of mounding seen in Table 13.1 by assuming
that:
a. A leachline with 7.5 square feet of absorption area per

lineal foot receives Q's (or sewage flows) per loading rates
recommended in Table 7-2 of the EPA Design Manual. 1
b. The relationship between k and mpi is as determined by

Winneberger in decomposed-granite soil. Presumably,
2
this decomposed granite was fairly isotropic and approxi-

mated an ideal soil. The relationship between k and mpi
changes a bit in other types of soil, according to Fritton et
al. This is to be expected, as most soils are not isotropic.
3
In a horizontally stratified soil, k in the horizontal direction

may be 100 times larger than in the vertical direction. The
horizontal permeability constant corresponds to k, and the

vertical one to k'.
It should be emphasized that the permeability constants of
clayey soils are very variable and unreliable. Although two
volume units or "lumps" of soil may be identical in practi-
cally all respects (including density and total pore volume), if
one lump has its pore volume concentrated into a just a few
macropores, its k will be much higher than the other lump's
k. Also, even nonstratified soils might have very different k's
for flows in the vertical and in the horizontal direction,
according to the direction and continuity of the macropores.
Therefore, we must remember that the formulas were
derived for ideal, isotropic strata.
Table 13.1 Maximum Height of Mounding a
leachlines seepage pits Q(UPC)

Q(Pit)
soil 300 800
type mpi k Q(L) h X h h
s 3 5.2 1 7 500 3 5 5 (60)
a 1 30 0.14 0.5 21 250 19 32 5(6)
noc 45 0.08 0.5 28 250 25 43 4
d a 1 120 0.02 0.2 112 100 50 85 1.5
m a 163 1.1
y 220 0.83
600 0.0014 0.3
a
The soil types are very approximate. k is as given, in ft/day; k' = 0.001
ft/day. h = feet [maximum height of mound above the low pemeability
layer]. Q(L) [for leachlines] is in ft per ft of leachline length. X is in ft.
3
Q(Pit) represents two pit loading rates, 300 and 800 gal/day [66 and 110
ft /day, respectively]; the corresponding values of R are 113 and 187 feet.
3
Q(UPC) is in gal/ft /day; this column translates mpi to the requirements of

2
Table 1-4 of the Uniform Plumbing Code by means of the relation Q

4
[gallons of sewage/ft /day] = 180/mpi; the U P C ' s maximum allowable Q is

2
5 gallons of sewage/ft /day. (For comparison purposes: Per California

2
Administrative Code Title 23 [Sections 2533 and 2542], clays used as liners
to seal landfills must have a k lower than 0.003 feet/day.)
13.1.4 Discussion of Mounding Over a

Low-Permeability Stratum
From Table 13.1 and the formulas derived, we can con-

clude that:
a. The maximum height of mounding increases as k de-

creases.
b. The base of the mound increases as k' decreases.
c. Many soils have alternating strata of low and high permea-
bility. When a seepage pit is installed in such soils, the top
of the mound may be within the pit itself.
d. When many pits are installed over a low-permeability stra-
tum, one should ensure that the R's do not overlap too
much. The UPC's minimum separation of 12 feet between
pits may be inadequate unless the soil is deep and very
permeable, or the loading rate is low.
e. Usually less than 500 gallons of water are used to perform
a falling head test for a seepage pit. (The test hole is 6 to 10
inches in diameter.) And during this test the h is "full
height," but the parameters that decrease the gradient
(i.e., r and depth of wet soil below the bottom of the test
hole) are only a fraction of their full magnitude at steady
state. (For instance, at near steady state, the volume of
water in the wetted soil when R = 113 feet is well in excess
of 500 million gallons.) So, the gradients during testing are
much larger than during true equilibrium or steady state
conditions, and the measured Q (absorption rates) should
be much larger than at equilibrium. But very often the
compaction of test hole sidewalls is substantial and the
rate of absorption is reduced drastically. Hence, all in all,
the raw results of seepage-pit falling head tests are a poor
indicator of required size or expected longevity.
In practice, most soils used for sewage disposal have (satu-

rated) k values of about 0.1 to 3 feet/day, and k' values of
0.01 feet/day or higher. Mounding is not a common occur-
rence under leachlines because of the large horizontal spread
of the sewage and the influence of evapotranspiration,
drainage, and unsaturated flow. Mounding may be more of

a problem in pits installed in some stratified soils with low k
and k' values, and especially so if pits are concentrated
within a small area; even then, it may take more than 4 to 8
years for the top of the mound to rise to the top of a pit's
inlet. By this time, the actual absorption of sewage might
have decreased because of formation of a clogging layer, and
mounding might subside if the flow goes to other faraway
pits in series. Where pits 100 feet deep are used, it may take
more than 100 years before steady state is reached and
mounds reach maximum height. If one must have a pit
installed in low-permeability soil, it is much better to have
one 100-footer than two 50-footers.
13.2 M O U N D I N G OVER A GROUNDWATER

TABLE
Formulas to calculate mounding over a groundwater table

were derived by Hantush in 1967. They were simplified by
5
Finnemore and Hantzsche in 1983, and, according to Canter

6
and Knox, by Kincannon in 1981.

7
Canter and Knox presented Kincannon's very simple step-

7
by-step procedure to calculate mounding, and provided an

extensive table of necessary " W " coefficients. It is not proper
to repeat in this book what was well presented elsewhere. 7
However, some important details were left out of Canter and

Knox's book, and are noted below:
a. The procedure may not yield accurate results if the height

of the mound exceeds 50% of the original depth of satu-
rated soil. In other words, if the thickness of an aquifer is
5
100 feet, and the expected mound over the top of this
aquifer will be more than 50 feet high, the calculated
height may be in error by more than 6%. But Finnemore
5
and Hantzsche quote other investigators who reported

6
that the error was less than 2% when mounding raised

groundwater level more than 3 times the initial saturation

depth, under a line source.
b. Transmissivity (in gallons/day/foot) is calculated by multi-
plying hydraulic conductivity k (in gallons/day/square
foot), by the thickness of the aquifer (in feet).
c. "Average" specific yields of various aquifer materials can
be found in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, page 3-9, of the EPA
Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater. These rough averages can be used for plan-
8
ning or comparison purposes; the calculated heights of

mounding are not too sensitive to errors in specific yields.
6
d. Step 5 (of the procedure) calls for adding together the four
"W" values obtained in Steps 3 and 4.
e. The "W" table in their book (Reference 7, Appendix D, pp.
263-261) was not specifically labeled as such.
f. It is cumbersome to calculate mounding heights for times
longer than a year or so. Sometimes the coefficients in the
"W" table are not precise enough. But Finnemore and
Hantzsche have solved this problem (see their Formula 4). 6
Finnemore and Hantzsche made practical observations

6
about mounding above an aquifer:
a. An average individual home discharging 250 gallons/day

to leachlines, seepage beds, or soil mounds within an area
of 600 square feet may raise groundwater not more than
about 13 inches. (But, looking at Figure 4 of their paper,
one can estimate that over 10 years the mound height can
exceed 12 feet, if the aquifer below the mound is less than
10 feet thick and the k is less than 1 ft/day.)
b. When trying to maximize separation between leachline
bottom and groundwater, there is little advantage to alter-
nating two leachfields instead of continuously discharging
half the flow to each leachfield.
13.3 PROBLEMS
Estimate the maximum possible height of mounding under

ideal conditions. Use k = 0.1, k' = 0.01 feet/day.
a. One pit receives a Q of 160 cubic feet per day.

b. Three pits are 12 feet apart from each other (in a triangular
pattern). Each receives 40 cubic feet per day.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA. 1980. Design Manual. EPA-625/1-80-012.

2. Winneberger, J.T. 1974. Correlation of three techniques
for determining soil permeability. J. Environ. Health 37:
108-118.
3. Fritton, D . D . , et al. 1982. A site evaluation model for
effluent disposal. In ASAE Pub. 1-82, pp. 32-41, ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI.
4. IAPMO. 1985. Uniform Plumbing Code. IAPMO, Los
Angeles, C A .
5. Hantush, M . S. 1967. Growth and decay of groundwater-
mounds in response to uniform percolation. Water Res. Res.
3:227-234.
6. Finnemore, E.J., and Hantzsche, N . N . 1983. J. Irrig.
Drainage Eng. 109:199-210.
7. Canter, L.W., and Knox, R.C. 1985. Septic Tank System
Effects on Ground Water Quality. Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, MI.
8. U.S. EPA. 1981. Process Design Manual for Land Treat-
ment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA-625/1-81-013.
14
Septic Systems, Sewers,

and Land Use
Because of alleged "failure" problems, septic systems have

a somewhat tarnished reputation. Of course, it is not septic
systems that fail—it is people who fail to design, locate,
install, and use them correctly.
What is not so well known is that sewers also "fail." Rae
Tyson wrote* about the contents of a 1986 draft by an EPA
advisory group. A n abstract from the article follows:
Half the nation's major sewer plants violate the Clean Water
Act by discharging pollutants into lakes, rivers, streams, and
oceans. About 3,360 of some 12,000 smaller plants (capacity
less than 5 million gallons per day) also violate effluent stan-
dards on a regular basis. 46% of all major municipal permit-
tees are in serious violation of the Act.
Septic systems are not "better" than sewers. Sewers are not
"better" than septic systems. Each has its advantages and
disadvantages.
14.1 AVAILABILITY
Where sewers are not available, septic systems are usually

the only practical alternative. Where septic systems cannot
be installed due to site constraints (high groundwater table,
*Gannett News (The Sun, San Bernardino County), January 19, 1986.
171
solid-rock ground, groundwater quality protection, etc.),

sewers are the preferred alternative.
14.2 CONVENIENCE
Sewers are extremely convenient: "just flush and forget."

A sewered house may discharge a sewage volume 10 times
higher than normal with no problems. The design of sewers
and treatment plants is fairly standard.
The use of septic systems requires some knowledge about
the limitations of the system: what and how much can be
flushed, and how often to pump the septic tank. Discharges
much larger than normal may cause premature failure. The
design of septic systems ought to be sensitive to site condi-
tions, but this is often not the case.
14.3 COST
As a very rough approximation, the present-worth cost of

sewering is 1 to 9 times that of septic systems. Sewering
becomes cost-competitive if lots are smaller than 0.5 acres.
Precise figures cannot be given because too many local varia-
bles affect the cost figures. Details about costs can be found
elsewhere. 12
14.4 H E A L T H A N D POLLUTION HAZARDS
Sewers carry away large amounts of pollutants, parasites,

and pathogens for treatment and discharge at remote offsite
locations where harmful effects may be minimized. Septic
systems treat effluents onsite; nitrates, rarely phosphates,
and extraneous synthetic chemicals may contaminate local
groundwater. Both sewers and septic systems can overflow
and create health hazards. The magnitude and location of

these hazards are obviously different.
Rats, which are vectors of various diseases, may live in,
propagate in, and spread through an urban area's sewer net-
work.
14.5 L A N D USE A N D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Sewers are the result and the cause of high-density devel-

opment. Availability of sewers encourages development,
especially high-density. The resulting growth may entail air
pollution, congestion of traffic arteries (especially in moun-
tain communities with narrow winding roads), and pollution
of surface waters due to stormwater runoff. Urban stormwa-
ter runoff is highly polluted. It contains lead (from car
3
exhaust), parasites and pathogens from pet feces, and a vari-

ety of chemicals, including garden pesticides.
Sewers may dry out an area. According to an Environmen-
tal Pollution & Control abstract, Whipple noted that sewers
4
in parts of New Jersey would dry up the streams they were

supposed to protect from degradation by septic systems.
14.5.1 U.S. EPA Summary
An excellent summary of land use and environmental

impacts of sewers and septic systems has been published. A 5
copy of this summary follows (with references expurgated).
In rural and developing areas, the enforcement of on-site

sanitary codes, beginning anywhere from 1945 to the end of
the 1960s, has served as a form of land use control. These
codes have limited residential development in wetland areas,
on soils with a seasonal high water table, including flood-
plain areas, on steeply sloping areas, and in locations with
shallow depth to bedrock because these areas are considered
unsuitable for on-site wastewater treatment. Sanitary codes
have thus served as a form of de facto zoning, resulting in
large lot sizes and a settlement pattern based on suitable

soils. The codes have minimized development in some envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas that would otherwise be unpro-
tected.
Please note that this use of sanitary policy for land use
control can have harmful effects. In some states where repair
and upgrading of existing systems is considered "new con-
struction," codes have been interpreted to prohibit any
upgrading or repair of existing systems. Individual sanitari-
ans have been unwilling to approve repairs or upgrading, to
avoid any precedent that might allow further lakeshore
development. This not only uses sanitary policy to rule out
improvements in sanitation, but forces some residents to
think of sewering as the only method that allows community
growth. Sanitary and land use policy interact closely, but it is
nearly always preferable to consider each openly on its own
merits; codes and standards in sanitation should not be used
as a crutch to compensate for the absence of goals in land use
planning.
The introduction of new forms of wastewater treatment
technology that partially or entirely overcome unfavorable
site conditions, or that take advantage of more favorable off-
site conditions, may enable developers to circumvent these
controls. These treatment systems could thus result in signifi-
cant environmental impacts as a result of the encroachment
of housing development on sensitive environmental
resources. Also, this could permit a development pattern
inconsistent with local goals and objectives. The use of on-
site technology such as elevated sand mounds may enable
development to occur in areas with a seasonal high water
table or shallow depth to bedrock. Off-site treatment such as
cluster systems can circumvent on-site limitations altogether
and could thus permit development in any of these areas.
Impacts from the use of these treatment systems include
markedly higher density residential development within
existing development areas, a development pattern inconsis-
tent with local goals and objectives, loss of open space buffers
between existing developments, and encroachment into envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas.
To anticipate these impacts, localities should consider con-
ducting land use planning prior to or concurrent with waste-
water treatment facilities planning. This would ensure that

the suitability of the area for development would be ana-
lyzed, that community development goals would be defined,
and that appropriate performance standards would be
drafted to mitigate impacts of both wastewater treatment
facilities construction and associated residential develop-
ment.
The limited amount of literature available on the land use
effects of on-site systems demonstrates the use of sanitary
codes to enforce large lot sizes. Local health officials and sani-
tarians have often become the permitting officials for new
housing development and that stipulation has been made for
housing densities of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre in order
to prevent groundwater pollution.
Generalized dwelling unit per acre zoning in the Seven
Rural Lake EIS project areas requires 0.5-acre or larger lots in
unsewered areas. Often these lot size requirements have
been based on the best professional judgement of sanitarians.
These professionals have experienced the need for larger lots
because of site limitations or odd lot lines and have recom-
mended larger lots based on the need to protect community
health and welfare, not on community development goals.
Alternative on-site technologies may impact lot size
requirements. Elevated sand mounds may require larger lots
because of larger system areal requirements. Greywater/
blackwater separation systems reduce the areal requirements
of the soil absorption system.
However, for public health protection, it is unlikely that
well separation distances will be reduced. Thus, lot size
requirements may not change. Cluster systems featuring cen-
tralized collection and off-site treatment will have the same
effect on lot size as large-scale centralized collection and treat-
ment systems. When the public health risk from well contam-
ination is avoided, smaller lot sizes are permitted in local
zoning codes. For example, Littlefield Township in the
Crooked/Pickerel Lakes, Michigan, area allows 4.5 dwelling
units to the acre with the provision of public water and sewer.
In the Otter Tail Lake, Minnesota, area, provisions for clus-
tered development in the local zoning ordinance allow for 8
to 9 dwelling units to the acre where central sewer service is
provided.
The predominant settlement pattern and housing type with

standard septic tank/soil absorption systems is reported as
single-family detached units in small subdivisions and dis-
persed low density sprawl patterns. This development pat-
tern has been determined by access to and the spatial distri-
bution of suitable soil. If on-site technologies continue to be
used, this development pattern may lead to a situation where
the future option to sewer may be precluded because of the
great expense of constructing sewers between dispersed
houses. Further dependence upon local sanitary codes may
thus severely restrict the amount and distribution of develop-
able land in lake areas. Such restrictions may run counter to
local growth plans or subdivison plans of large landholders.
One of the most consistent impact findings in the Seven
Rural Lake EIS's was that, in the absence of local develop-
ment controls, centralized collection and treatment systems
would induce growth in environmentally sensitive areas such
as floodplains, wetlands, and steeply sloping areas. Alterna-
tive and innovative forms of wastewater treatment may have
similar effects, though to a lesser degree. Historically, sani-
tary codes have been used as tools to limit or control growth,
and as such have become a form of zoning. Some sanitary
codes do not permit development of on-site wastewater treat-
ment systems in these marginal areas. However, local munic-
ipal officials in many rural lake areas do not have the staff or
the budget to conduct land use planning and zoning and do
not have formally adopted land use plans. Nor do they have
the tools to inventory and analyze their environmental
resource base and to formulate performance standards that
permit development but prevent significant impacts.
Planning for wastewater treatment facilities gives local
municipalities the opportunity to contract for the necessary
expertise to conduct land use planning in concurrence with
facilities plans. Because the two topics are so closely linked,
anticipation of impacts prior to facilities design and formula-
tion of an impact mitigation strategy could save considerable
time and expense. A n understanding of the environmental
resource base, housing types, lot sizes, and existing densi-
ties, in conjunction with a program that involves land use
planning concurrent with facilities planning, would lead to
an environmentally sound wastewater management pro-

gram.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA. 1980. Innovative and Alternative Technology

Assessment Manual. EPA-430/9-78-009.
2. U.S. EPA. 1977. Alternatives for Small Wastewater
Treatment Systems, Vol. I. EPA-625/4-77-011.
3. U.S. EPA. 1977. Nationwide Evaluation of Combined
Sewer Overflows and Urban Stormwater Discharges.
Vol III. EPA-600/2-77-064c.
4. Whipple, Wm. Jr. 1977. Advantages and Disadvantages
of Regional Sewerage Systems. Water Resources
Research Institute Pub. W 78-00562. Rutgers State Uni-
versity, New Brunswick, NJ.
5. U.S. EPA Region V. 1983. Final-Generic EIS: Wastewater
Management in Rural Lake Areas. Water Division, Chi-
cago, IL.
15
The U P C , Uniform Plumbing Code
Codes are written in dogmatic language: "Minimum (area,

length, depth, etc.) shall be . . . feet." The reasons for the
code commandments are rarely stated, if ever. If the reasons
happen to be wrong or obsolete, no one may realize it until
after damage has been done.
At first I was apprehensive about employing the UPC 1
(Uniform Plumbing Code) in my line of work. I did not have

much choice, as it had been adopted by my jurisdiction and
there were no better codes. (The National Plumbing Code
was not better. Circa 1978, the Uniform Building Code had a
section on septic systems; subsequent editions did not.)
Nevertheless, I found out that the UPC has redeeming quali-
ties:
a. It provides uniformity of design and hence a basis for com-

petitive bidding among septic system contractors. This
helps keep prices reasonable.
b. It is a time saver. Years ago, I tried to reason with the
occasional people who got upset when they found out
their unsewered lot was unsuitable for septic systems (the
ground was solid rock, for instance, or the land was under
water part of the year). I could not satisfy them with 30 to
45 minutes of reasoned explanations about public health
hazards, operation of septic systems, etc. One day I hit it
right. I said, "You can't have a septic system because it is
against the code." To my surprise, this was the end of the
argument. Thereafter, I continued using the same tech-
nique, with superb results. It seems that most people do
179
not question laws, especially if they don't understand

them well enough to argue.
c. It sets only minimum requirements and allows stricter
standards. (But the people who enforce its provisions
must have the courage to insist on more-than-minimum
compliance when necessary, and this is a drawback.)
In the following paragraphs I intend to point out and eval-

uate important sections of the UPC, and suggest changes if
needed.
15.1 PROVISIONS IN THE UNIFORM

PLUMBING C O D E
Sections 319-321
These sections are very useful to abate nuisances or health

hazards. They empower a local jurisdiction to demand abate-
ment of nuisances or hazards even if a septic system was
installed and maintained in compliance with previous laws
or code editions.
Section 1101
This section requires use of public sewers or a "private

sewage disposal system." Connection to public sewers is
mandatory except when:
a. The sewer is more than 200 feet away from any building or
exterior plumbing.
b. Single-family dwellings and attachments existed before
sewer availability, and their approved septic systems work
satisfactorily and sewage cannot flow to sewer by gravity.
Section 1102
This section declares that it is unlawful to deposit into any

plumbing fixture or device connected to any drainage system
" . . . any ashes, cinders, solids, rags, flammable, poisonous
or explosive liquids or gases, oils, grease and any other thing
whatsoever which would, or could, cause damage to the
public sewer, private sewer or private disposal system."
Sodium hydroxide (lye) and sulfuric acid are often used to
"declog" a failing leachline or seepage pit. They do not work
well (declogging lasts about six months, and repeated treat-
ments are ineffective), and they corrode and weaken the
structural integrity of metal and concrete components of sep-
tic systems. UPC Section 1102 authorizes prohibition of such
practices.
The statement about "poisonous or explosive liquids or
gases" fails to take into account that many undesirable com-
pounds can be flushed down in solid form, and that many
such substances are not "poisonous" but "toxic." Toxic sub-
stances do their damage over a long period of time. Poison-
ous substances are acutely toxic. Toxic substances include
septic system decloggers, such as chlorobenzene, and a vari-
ety of chlorinated organic solvents.
I'd like to see the UPC modernized to prohibit deposit of
"any ashes, cinders, solids, rags, toxic, corrosive, ignitable,
or reactive substances, or any other thing which would, or
could, cause damage to the public sewer, private sewer, or
private disposal system, or severely degrade groundwater."
The crucial terms "toxic, corrosive, ignitable, or reactive"
are defined in the California Administrative Code, Title 22,
Division 4. Excerpts are in Appendix G .
Section 1109
Section 1109 establishes authority to require a site-

suitability/perk report for use of septic systems.
Section 1119
Section 1119 requires filling abandoned septic tanks, seep-

age pits, and cesspools (to prevent someone from falling in).
Section I-2
This section contains the statement, "The capacity of any

one septic tank and its drainage system shall be limited by
the soil structure classification, as specified in Table I-5." This
statement needs substantial corrections:
a. Table I-5 refers to soil texture, not soil structure.

b. There is no basis for the requirements in Table I-5. I sup-
pose that its authors were trying to prevent mounding
when they developed this table. But, as we have seen in
Chapter 13, mounding depends not only on the amount of
discharge and the permeability of the soil (which are
implicit in Table I-5), but also on the depth of the low-
permeability layer, on the hydraulic permeability of this
layer, on the depth to groundwater, on the type and geom-
etry of the leachfield, on slope, on drainage, etc. There-
fore, I'd change the subject statement to: "The capacity . . .
shall be limited by the ability of the leachfield (leachline,
seepage pit, seepage bed, hybrid, etc.) to absorb the sew-
age so that mounding shall not exceed required separa-
tions between bottom of leachfield and saturated soil or
groundwater table."
An important part of this same section requires that the

liquid capacity of a septic tank that serves a dwelling shall be
determined by the number of bedrooms (UPC Table I-2). If
the structure served is not a dwelling, the capacity is the
larger of the values obtained on the bases of:
1. Number of plumbing fixtures (UPC Table 4-1)

2. Actual flow rates
Thus, the septic tank is sized on the basis of the most con-
servative estimate, and the leachfield absorption area is sized
on the basis of septic tank capacity. This conservatism is
proper and called for, as peak flows are rarely known.
Section I-3
Various improvements are required in this section.

The minimum amounts for leachfield absorption area
requirements are specified to be those in UPC Table I-4. As
we saw in previous chapters, this table should not be used in
its present form. If perk tests are too expensive or unreliable,
the use of something like UPC Table I-4 might be advisable,
but not before this table is modified to read as in Table 15.1.
Other leachline requirements found in UPC Section I-3 are
carryovers from old traditions: "minimum 150 square feet of
trench bottom, and sidewall area in excess of required 12
inches but not to exceed 36 inches below the pipe." Origi-
nally, most leachlines were 1.5 to 3 feet wide and had 1 foot
of gravel below the pipe. Only the bottom of the leachline
was considered to be absorption area. The 150 square feet
Table 15.1 Suggested Modification of Uniform Plumbing Code

Table I-4
Minimum square feet of leaching
area per 100 gallons for leachlines
b
or seepage beds serving

Class of Soil a
single homes
1. Sand or gravelly sand; ground-
water deeper than 45 feet 55
2. Loamy sand 85
3. Sandy loam, loam 100
4. Silty or clayey loams, uncom-
pacted ("light in weight") 140
5. Clay loams and clays perk test required
a
See Glossary for definition of terms.
b
According to R. Maggard, former IAPMO board president, this refers to
"per 100 gallons of septic tank capacity."
was the minimum considered suitable for one bedroom's

sewage generation. Also, it provided a storage capacity of
about 50 cubic feet within the gravel voids.
Later on, credit was given for extra depth of gravel (i.e.,
sidewall absorption area) in excess of the first foot below the
pipe. For instance, a leachline 3 feet wide with 1 foot of
gravel below the pipe is credited with 3 square feet of
absorption area per foot of length; with 2 feet of gravel, with
5 square feet; with 3 feet of gravel, with 7 square feet.
I understand that no credit is given for depth of gravel
beyond 3 feet below the pipe, because building inspectors'
probes go only 3 feet into gravel. The inspectors do not have
the time to make a special appointment and be present when
the gravel is placed in the leachline trench, and later on they
can't verify that the gravel is deeper than 3 feet. This is
unfortunate. Sidewall area is far more cost-effective than
bottom area, and should be given credit, as is done for seep-
age pits. Building officials should make use of the "alternate
systems" clause (UPC Section I-1h) and find a way to give
credit for extra sidewall absorption area. (But beware of wet
soil slumping or migrating into the gravel voids after installa-
tion. Use geotextile around gravel, or use base material-or
sand-below the required 1 to 3 feet of gravel.)
The minimum requirements of 5 feet to groundwater (from
bottom of leachlines or leachbeds) and 10 feet to ground-
water (from bottom of seepage pits) are adequate only if
mounding is not a problem and if soils are not excessively
permeable (less than 5 mpi) and do not have channels or
fractures.
Section I-6e
Per UPC, where two or more drain lines (from septic tank
to leachlines, pits, etc.) are installed, a distribution box shall
be installed to ensure equal flow.
As we saw in Chapter 10, Section 10.2, a distribution box
does not split the flow equally, unless the flow is massive.
Figure 15.1 Top view of septic system with a distribution box. ST =

septic tank and DB = distribution box.
Figure 15.2 Septic system without a distribution box.
Septic systems for single houses should not rely on equal

splitting. The old-fashioned methods should be revived.
Today, a septic system with leachlines on level ground
may appear as in Figure 15.1. But a long time ago, before
distribution boxes were introduced, the same septic system
would have appeared as in Figure 15.2. The old-fashioned
design has a perpendicular leachline branch at the end to
connect all other branches. This way, one branch cannot be
full and failing while another one is dry. This same design
should be mandatory when leachlines are on level ground.
Section I-6h
A dosing tank is required if a septic tank discharges to

leachlines with lengths adding up to more than 500 feet. The
massive surge from the dosing tank helps distribute the flow
to the end of the leachline branches.
Dosing tanks do malfunction. They leak and do not release
effluent in a surge. A provision for inspecting and maintain-
ing dosing tanks might do much good. (An electrical or
mechanical alarm would help.)
Section I-6i
The maximum length of a leachline branch is 100 feet.

Winneberger states that this requirement is a carryover from
the times when leachpipes were made of clay and broke
when vehicles ran over the leachlines. 2
As I see it, sewage tends to be discharged near the begin-

ning of the leachpipe. If the bottom of the leachline trench
sloped down 2% to 4% toward its end, there would be no
good reason to restrict maximum length to 100 feet. The
sewage would spread through the leachline, accumulate
near the end, and move up and down as in a seepage pit. If
this vertical movement of the surface of the ponded sewage
amounts to 1 foot in a 2% sloped bottom, this would wet/dry
50 feet of bottom; and this would help with aeration.
The required grade of "lines" is "level to 3 inches/100 feet."
This has been interpreted to mean that leachpipes and bot-
tom area must be nearly level. But it is much better to inter-
pret it as referring only to lines, i.e., pipes. The problem is
that some leachlines with sloped bottoms might have more
than 3 feet of gravel at their end, and this might frustrate
building inspectors who have to check the depth of gravel.
The minimum spacing between leachline trenches, side-to-
side, is 4 feet, plus 2 feet for each foot of gravel below the
leachpipe in excess of the first foot. Fair enough.
Section I-7
Seepage pits are required to be circular and to have a lining

of bricks or blocks or "other approved materials." Where
gravel is cheap, it may be cost-effective to place a perforated
pipe, 4 inches in diameter, vertically into a seepage pit exca-
vation, and fill the excavation with gravel. The effluent that
is not absorbed at the top of the column of gravel would fall
into the vertical pipe and be absorbed below. (A clogging
mat can form over the top of the gravel if toilet paper, nap-
kins, and similar materials escape the septic tank. Soil migra-
LEACH LINE SYSTEM
SEEPAGE PIT SYSTEM
Figure 15.3 UPC design requirements for leachlines and seepage pit.
(Source: R. Maggard.)
188
DRAINAGE TRENCH
DISTRIBUTION BOX
(Cross Section)

SEPTIC TANK SIZE
BEDROOMS GALLONS
1 or 2 750
3 1,000
1,200
5 or 6 1,500 DRAINAGE TRENCH
(Longitudinal Section)
NOTE A:
Add two (2) feet to this dimension for each additional foot of
gravel below the twelve (12) inch gravel bed in trench.
NOTE B:
Where no water main exists, the leach line or seepage pit may be
located a minimum of five (5) feet from side property line.
NOTE C:
Leach line must contain at least one hundred and fifty (150)
square feet of trench bottom. There must be sufficient yard space
to increase the leach line by one hundred (100) percent.
NOTE D:
These lines from the distribution box to the leach line area shall
be water - tight lines.
Figure 15.4 UPC requirements for septic tank size, distribution boxes, and drainage trenches (leachlines). (Source: R. Maggard.)
Minimum Horizontal
Distance in Clear Bldg. Septic Disposal Seepage Pit
Required From: Sewer Tank Field or Cesspool
Buildings or Structures 1 2 ft. 5 ft. 8 ft. 8 ft.
Property line adjoining

private property Clear 5 ft. 5 ft. 8 ft.
Water supply wells 50 f t . 2 50 ft. 100 ft. 150 ft.
Streams and lakes 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft.
Large trees - 10 ft. - 10 ft.
Seepage pits or cesspools - 5 ft. 5 ft. 12 ft.
Disposal field - 5 ft. 4 ft. 5 ft.
Domestic water line 1 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
Distribution box - — 5 ft. 5 ft.
N O T E S : When disposal fields and/or seepage pits are installed in sloping

ground, t h e m i n i m u m horizontal distance between any part of the
leaching system and ground surface shall be fifteen (15) feet.
1. Including porches and steps whether covered or uncovered, breezeways,
r o o f e d p o r t e cocheres, roofed patios, car ports, covered walks, covered
driveways and similar structures or appurtenances.
2. A l l non-metallic drainage piping shall clear domestic water supply wells
by at least f i f t y (50) feet. This distance may be reduced t o not less than
t w e n t y five (25) feet w h e n approved t y p e metallic piping is installed.
Where special hazards are involved, the distance required shall be
increased, as may be directed by the Health Officer or the Administrative
Authority.
Figure 15.5 UPC requirements for sewage system location. (Source: R.

Maggard.)
tion or slumping can plug portions of the gravel volume.)

Pits full of gravel are not likely to be a lethal hazard after they
are abandoned and forgotten.
UPC design requirements have been summarized in Fig-
ures 15.3, 15.4, and 15.5. Septic system designers should
note that:
1. Leachlines may be installed right next to the property line

adjacent to a street, but (any portion of a leachline) must
be 5 feet from any other property line.
2. The UPC does not require that leachlines be straight. They
can be curved at 90 degree angles. This is not a good
practice where mounding may occur.
For many years, there has been talk of the Uniform Plumb-
ing Code being incorporated into the Uniform Building
Code. It appears that this is finally about to happen. I hope
that the Uniform Plumbing Code will be improved before
this event occurs.
REFERENCES
1. IAPMO. Uniform Plumbing Code, 1976 to 1988 editions.

16
Ethics
Various ethical considerations come into play in any gov-

ernmental activity. Occasionally, some ethical standards con-
flict with other ethical standards. What follows is not a les-
son in ethics. It is a sample of illustrations to whet the
reader's appetite for more. And much more is presented in
Appendices Q, R, and S and particularly in Appendix R.
Whoever becomes a "septic system specialist" in a govern-
mental entity should be prepared to face similar quandaries
and dilemmas and choose his/her own course of action. A n
excellent guide to ethical courses of action has been written
by Gunn and Vesilind. 1
16.1 L A N D USE
Fairness is part of ethics.

Early in this century, a certain county allowed minuscule
lot sizes (2,500 square feet) in subdivisions with no sewers.
In modern times, to be fair to the owners of such lots who
could not build (for lack of space for leachlines), the county's
191
board of supervisors allowed the use of holding tanks,*

under permit to Environmental Health and local sanitation
districts. This is what happened in the ensuing years:
a. Many holding tank owners shot holes in the tanks after

they were installed to induce leakage and save on pump
ing costs.
b. On occasion, holding tank pumpings were dumped near
creeks.
c. Some people merged three or five small lots and built
expensive homes with septic tank systems. Later on, their
smalllot neighbors built 400squarefoot "houses," with
holding tanks, right next to the expensive homes and
affected property values.
It is difficult to be fair to all.
16.2 RESTRICTIVE STAN DARDS
In the late 1970s, I faced an ethical dilemma. I reviewed our

local standards for determining site suitability. I found that,
in general, our standards restricting maximum slopes to 25%
and 30% had no factual basis.** If I relaxed the standards,
major areas in our scenic mountains would be opened for
development. Development on steep slopes could cause
substantial environmental impacts.
* A holding tank holds all the effluent from a home, so that (in theory)
none of it is discharged into the ground or nearby streams. It is made of
coated steel, looks like a septic tank (but has one manhole with a remov
able lid at ground level), holds 1,500 or 2,000 gallons, and has an electrical
or mechanical alarm that signals when it is ⅔full. At a per capita dis
charge of 50 gallons/day, a family fills it up in about 10 days. It must then
be pumped at a cost of $80100 per 1,000 gallons, say $3,000 or $4,000 per
year under daily use.
**These standards followed state guidelines. They were at odds with prin
ciples decribed in Chapter 5 and 6: the steeper the slope, the lower the
danger of sewage surfacing. However, these standards are proper in some
areas that have unstable (landslideprone) slopes.
I had two choices. One was being ethical in the sense of

being honest, and eliminating an unwarranted restriction
(i.e., being fair to owners of steep lots). The other one was
being ethical with regard to preservation of nature and the
environment: I would keep quiet about a restriction I
thought unwarranted, and wait for a very long time or for-
ever until a knowledgeable private consultant challenged the
standard (none had as yet).
Being ethical in one way meant being unethical in the
other way.
After much thought, I decided that, as a private citizen, I
was entitled to try to preserve nature. But as a county
employee, my responsibility was to enable development
where it was feasible. So I relaxed the standards. I might
have acted differently if I had not had confidence in county
planning agencies.
With some misgivings, I have done the same thing with
regard to another unwarranted restriction: maximum allow-
able perk time equals 60 mpi. It is possible to have a septic
system in a 400-mpi soil. My misgivings are due to fears that
the relaxed standards might be copied by other jurisdictions
that will not require (or that will not know how to require)
careful design, installation, and use of septic systems in
high-mpi soils.
16.3 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST PERK

CONSULTANTS
It is not easy for me to come down hard on a nice perk

consultant I have caught cheating, especially if we have been
on friendly terms. But things that must be done, must be
done. My feelings about dishonest or incompetent perk con-
sultants are strong.
As I see it, it is not ethical when a mugger steals $100 at
gunpoint. He gains $100 and his victim loses $100. This is fair
mugging, as mugging goes. It is far worse when a perk con-
sultant makes $400 or $1,000 with a spuriously favorable site-

suitability/perk report that burdens his client (or the person
who buys a worthless lot from his client) with a $10,000 or
$80,000 loss. Keeping this in mind, and remembering the
distress of some victims I met, I have had no qualms when I
went after consultants who should not be in business.
Disciplining involves ethical and technical judgments.
Technically, I have had to figure out if a consultant's "mis-
take" was due to mere ignorance, to incompetence, or to
outright cheating. Ethically, I have tried to take a course of
action that first and foremost protects the public from the
consultant, and that also does not harm the consultant more
than necessary to ensure that "mistakes" do not occur again.
Of course, I am not the final judge or arbiter. More about
this, and about legal procedures involved in disciplinary
actions, is described in the next chapter.
REFERENCE
1. Gunn, A.S., and Vesilind, P.A. 1986. Environmental Eth-

ics for Engineers. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
17
Work Privileges and Certification of

Perk Consultants
At the California Environmental Health 1985 convention,

M . Vinatieri* stated that in his county about 600 septic sys-
tems are designed by perk consultants and installed annu-
ally, and that 30% fail after two to three years. His words are
echoed through much of the nation, as few institutions train
and certify or license perk consultants.
I doubt that many surgeons dare practice without thor-
ough grounding in anatomy. But every month or two I meet
a prospective consultant who insists he can perform site
evaluations and septic system designs although he has
received no training in the subject. Professors of civil engi-
neering have told me they devote "about two hours" to sep-
tic systems in their lectures. It seems that scant instruction
has convinced a good number of engineers I have met that
they are quite capable of measuring how fast water is
absorbed in a test hole, looking up a table, and writing a
report-since, according to them, that's all there is to practic-
ing as a perk consultant. They insist that the law allows
registered civil engineers to practice in the field of septic
systems. My pointing out that they must be competent**
*Director of Environmental Health, Sonoma County.

**One of the fundamental canons of ethics of the American Society of
Civil Engineers is embodied in the California Administrative Code, Title
16, Section 415: " A professional engineer . . . shall practice only in the field
or fields in which he is . . . fully competent and proficient."
195
often fails to persuade them that their "right to practice" is

limited by the law.
I understand that most of the complaints filed with the
Board of Registration for Professional Engineers (California
Department of Consumer Affairs) relate to septic systems,
and that, therefore, only soil engineers will be licensed to
practice as "perk consultants" starting in 1987.* But I doubt
that this measure will have a significant effect. There is a
specific body of knowledge that must be learned. This
knowledge being absent, no license or amount of "experi-
ence" will result in satisfactory performance. (The field is full
of consultants who have many years of experience doing the
wrong things.)
Ignorance is perhaps the most common problem evident in
site-evaluation/perk reports for sites with unusual conditions,
but not necessarily the most serious problem. Dishonesty is.
Dishonesty or "cheating" may range from ingenious trick-
ery (for instance, secretly drilling a leachline perk test hole 10
feet down into a low-permeability clay, filling it with sand to
5 feet, placing 2 inches of gravel over this sand, and "prov-
ing" that the clay's absorption rate is satisfactory) to falsifica-
tion of facts (for instance, failing to see and report ground-
water at 2 feet when excavating a 10-foot-deep trench in a
swamp).
For many years, the California Directors of Environmental
Health have pondered how to solve the above-mentioned
problems. In San Bernardino County, we have taken sub-
stantial steps in this regard. A n account follows.
In the 1970s, in southern California, an engineering firm
specialized in producing satisfactory perk reports with false
data. They never "noticed" any problems with shallow
groundwater, solid rock, or steep slopes. I reviewed some of
their amazing reports, and so did a colleague in a neighbor-
ing county environmental health unit, William Leuer, P.E.
*Note: A young engineer who could not qualify sued the state and won.
Currently, the limitation to soil engineers does not apply.
Both of us refused to approve perk reports prepared by the

subject firm. Leuer notified the Registration Board.
Eventually, these events gave impetus to an ordinance
which defined who qualified as a perk consultant, required
demonstration of competence, and established causes and
procedures for revocation of perk testing privileges.
It is important to emphasize the word "privileges." County
counsel determined that, since the county (Environmental
Health) requires, regulates, and establishes the rules for perk
report submittal, it is also empowered to establish who may
and who may not prepare such reports.
Many engineers have told me our ordinance is not legal,
and I have heard the same from sanitarians in other counties
who believe that registered engineers with unrevoked
licenses cannot be prevented from practicing in the field of
septic systems even if they are ignorant and crooked. Maybe
so, maybe not. Our ordinance has been at work, and it has
worked very well. For reasons that will become clear in the
paragraphs below, no one has challenged it in court. The
pertinent portions of this ordinance and of the hearing pro-
cedure for suspension or revocation of perk testing privi-
leges are in Appendix H .
After the ordinance was adopted, as part of a training pro-
gram for prospective perk consultants, I prepared a very
friendly written examination designed to give anyone ample
opportunities to show his competence. It could not be
friendlier:
a. I suggested reading materials for the examination.

b. The examination was open-book, and I was there to
answer any questions at any time (except for direct
answers to examination questions).
c. Although the examination took 2.5 to 3.5 hours to com-
plete, one could work on it the whole day.
d. The date and time of the examination were pretty much up
to the examinee to decide.
e. Any answer that made sense received full credit.
Individuals who had been submitting satisfactory perk

reports for years were "grandfathered." All others had to
pass the exam, or proceed at their own risk.
The outcome has been very revealing. About half of the
prospective perk testers (or consultants) who inquired about
practicing within our jurisdiction changed their minds when
they heard they would be examined (as described above),
even though they would be given the opportunity to chal-
lenge the outcome in front of the Registration Board. Of the
other half, one-third received a score of 88%-89%; the rest had
scores below 55%. The minimum passing score was 70%.
Most found the test fair. One of the high and one of the low
scorers found the test very easy. Not one among those who
failed challenged the examination scores: all of them realized
that they were not as competent as they thought, and that
they could get into trouble if they practiced in our county.
It is of interest to note that the high scorers took the trouble
to read the literature that was suggested to them (parts of the
EPA Design Manual, Winneberger's Septic Tank Systems, the
Uniform Plumbing Code, and the local Procedures Manual).
The low scorers did not. Another note of interest is that the
two who protested the most about having to be examined
performed the worst.*
Training and testing serve to "keep away" consultants who
*One of them was a consultant who had been "perking" in a neighboring

county. Under our local requirements, perk report preparers (i.e., consul-
tants) must certify that their septic system design will not cause ground-
water degradation. So the exam had a multiple-choice question requiring
the identification of the most common natural septic system pollutant.
(Regional newspapers had published articles on it, so one did not have to
be an expert to choose the right answer.) When he encountered the subject
question in the exam, he looked at me and protested furiously, "This is
chemistry!" His score turned out to be about 22%.
The other one was unforgettable. Our conversation was more or less as
follows (he is E; I am K):
E: I do not need to take an exam.
K: You may know a lot, but county code requires that you demonstrate
your knowledge.
E: . . . [His answer was a long recital of qualifications as owner of (and
principal engineer in) an established firm-with no mention of accom-
plishments in regard to septic systems.]
K: So what. That doesn't demonstrate knowledge about septic systems.
are less than fully competent. The site evaluation or perk

report requirements described in Appendix I provide other
mechanisms to check up on competence and honesty.
From all the above, it appears that local jurisdictions can
and should play an active role in helping professional regis-
tration boards protect the public and the interests of compe-
tent professionals.
Note: The examination of prospective perk testers was discon-

tinued in 1987, before the State Attorney General determined
that a county was entitled to test the engineers' knowledge
regarding local perk testing procedures.
E: It is illegal for you to require an examination.

K: Fine. Sue the county.
He decided to take the exam at once, without any preparation, and
without reading any of the suggested literature.
His score turned out to be about 24%.
18
Standard Site Suitability/Perk Report
The previous chapter illustrates why prospective perk con-

sultants should be trained and/or examined and certified to
ensure that they know at least a bare minimum about perk
topics. In this chapter we will explore a way to ensure that
consultants who do not measure up in other respects can be
persuaded to change their line of business. The means to this
end is the "site suitability/soil percolation test report."
"Site suitability" and "soils report" are terms used in com-
pletely different contexts by planning and building depart-
ments. Furthermore, it is awkward to use a full name with 17
syllables. Even the often used name, "soils percolation test
report," is too long. Hence, well call it "perk report."
Under the auspices of Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties, in the mid-1970s about a dozen southern Califor-
nia engineers formed an " A d Hoc Percolation Test Commit-
tee" to try to standardize the perk requirements of both
counties. After more than 400 man-hours were devoted to
the task, in 1979 the committee produced a document which
was useful as a framework. But due to unmet concerns, each
of the two counties modified this framework to satisfy its
own needs. Uniform requirements were still elusive.
Between 1979 and 1984 it became obvious that, for perk
report preparers to be held accountable, and subject to sus-
pension or revocation of "perk consulting" privileges, the
perk standards had to be specific and detailed. Anyone can
make a mistake, and "forget" about noticing solid rock at 2
201
feet depth. But if local perk standards require noticing such a

constraint, excuses are not plausible.
Also, the Professional Registration Boards use a local juris-
diction's perk standards when determining whether a perk
consultant has done something wrong. If the standards are
vague, a Board can do little or nothing.
In order to overcome resistance from some local perk con-
sultants who did not want to be subjected to clear and spe-
cific requirements, I waited until some of them made "mis-
takes." As they did, I "slipped in" pertinent requirements in
our county "perk standards manual," and encountered no
opposition.
A partial list of these "mistakes" follows:
1. Signed report prepared by unqualified technicians.

2. Forged data.
3. Topography was ignored in the design: part of the leach-
line was 16 feet below ground, and part of it was up in
the air.
4. Conducted perk tests without notifying the county "sep-
tic systems" specialist; so, results could not be verified
years after testing.
5. Tested the wrong lot; the "right" lot would have passed.
6. Tested the wrong lot; the "right" lot would not have
passed.
7. Did not find caliche while boring with a screw-type auger
through caliche strata.
8. Did not find groundwater (in the dry season).
9. Did not know that water level moves faster in a gravel-
packed test hole.
10. Soil over solid bedrock was too thin for leachlines; so, he
recommended seepage pits.
11. Placed leachlines over stratified soils next to a road cut.
The strata sloped downward toward the cut.
In 1985 a reconstituted " A d Hoc Perk Committee" tried

again to make the perk standards uniform in the two coun-
ties. The result is that, after many meetings, it suggested
adoption of the San Bernardino County format with "stan-
dards" that reflected the wishes of the perk consultants.

(These included: low absorption area requirements, mea-
surement precision of ¼ inch for leachline perk tests, and
continued use of Q = 9FD/Lt formula.)
I understand that in one of the committee meetings a very
experienced septic systems contractor pleaded with mem-
bers of the committee not to reduce absorption area require-
ments below the EPA's recommendations; he himself had
found out the hard way that lower requirements do not work
well. If the requirements were lowered, he would still install
larger-than-required absorption areas, and lose business to
less knowledgeable or less scrupulous contractors. But he
was overruled because most members of the committee "did
not know of any failures" with reduced absorption areas,
and as they put it, "it is easier to fit a smaller leachfield in a
small lot."
On the positive side, I learned two things while working
with and against this committee:
1. It pays to "keep in touch" with perk consultants. There are

things one does not think about when developing stan-
dards. For instance, at one meeting I proposed that the
standard diameter of leachline test holes should be 6
inches. I managed to come out alive, with the distinct
impression that the perk consultants were not agreeable to
my suggestion. (They had already bought equipment to
bore 8- to 10-inch-diameter holes.)
2. Private perk consultants alone should not be allowed to set
standards. As one of the consultants forcefully stated dur-
ing a heated discussion, his concern and responsibility
were to his own client. It became very clear during some of
the perk meetings that the concerns of some of the con-
sultants had little to do with environmental health.
My Riverside County environmental health colleagues*

and I met and evaluated the Committee's latest proposals.
*Wm. Leuer, P.E., and R. Luchs, R.S.

We were (practically) of one mind as to what the perk report

standards should be. They are shown in Appendix I.
19
Strategic Considerations About the

Use of Septic Systems
From the point of view of a governmental jurisdiction,

various strategies for use of septic systems could be consid-
ered.
Ideally, the jurisdiction's land use planners have deter-
mined which areas are to be developed with and without
sewers, where the discharges will go, the amount of these
discharges, and the carrying capacity of each area for the use
of septic systems (among other things).
It is costly and ineffective to require piecemeal studies of
environmental impacts as growth occurs; often, such studies
are commissioned only after growth has overwhelmed an
area's carrying capacity.
Since the amount of leachfield absorption area is fairly
inelastic in respect to perk times (1- to 60-mpi range), it
might be cost-effective to require a conservative size of leach-
field in communities with no (or moderate) soil and site
problems and dispense with costly perk reports. For
instance, for single homes with 100% or 200% reserve area
for replacements, these conservative sizes could be 70 square
feet (very sandy soils) and 140 square feet (other soils with
little clay) of leachline absorption area per hundred gallons
of septic tank capacity-and half as much absorption area for
seepage pits. Anyone would be free to hire a perk consult-
ant, file a perk report, and reduce what might appear to be
an excessive requirement.
As we saw in Chapters 8 and 17, the best strategy for
205
ensuring long-lived, low-cost septic systems must take into

account all of the factors that contribute to premature failure:
a. Perk consultants should be knowledgeable, and licensed

or certified.
b. Septic system contractors should be given at least a mini-
mum amount of instruction as to what the soil and site
conditions are in their localities, what hazards to avoid,
and when to notify or consult with county specialists. A
bare-bones certification program might help, too.
c. Septic system users should be given a short, readable leaf-
let about the use and care of septic systems. (One such
leaflet is shown in Appendix J.) If politically viable, they
should be licensed to use septic systems after demonstrat-
ing they are at least aware of where their sewage goes to. (I
have met people who didn't know that their houses were
on septic systems. Some wondered why they never got a
sewer bill.)
Many people buy houses served by septic systems without

giving too much thought to what a septic system is like.
After their septic systems fail, they call their local jurisdiction
and ask, "What kind of septic system do I have? Where is it
located?" Well, in the very near future, cheap, compact data
storage in optical (laser) disks may permit easy and fast
retrieval of plot plans showing the layout of each and every
septic system in a jurisdiction.
On the basis of money alone, septic sytems and their users
deserve a good break. At about $1,000 per leachfield, the
total investment in leachfields in San Bernardino county is
about $100,000,000; in California, about $2,000,000,000; in
the United States, about $20,000,000,000. Since at present
the average leachfield lasts roughly 10 years, a jurisdiction's
program that merely increases average life of leachfields by
10% might have a superb cost/benefit ratio.
20
Concluding Thoughts
After a new house was built, the villagers released chickens near
it, and observed their movements. Where they first saw a chicken
"leaving its mark" on the ground, that's where they built a [20-foot-
deep] cesspool for the new house. And their cesspools lasted forever.
-Adapted from a tale of anonymous authorship.

(Note: the village's ground was flat and made of
dry, permeable sand all the way down to 300
feet.)
As far as I am concerned, if it works, don't knock it. If site

and soil conditions are good, any chicken can do as well as a
competent perk consultant, and for much less money.
But if site and soil conditions are not good, the difference
between chickens and experts may become quite obvious
after a while. For instance, I have just visited a large sewage
disposal site for a residential development in another
county. Black septage is oozing out of the soil at the lower
portions of a concave 10-acre basin, and is forming a
mosquito-laden swamp. The septic system was designed by
a major engineering company, which tested the upper 2 feet
of a thin (8-foot) soil mantle over impermeable bedrock, and
concluded that the site was quite suitable for leachlines.
Methodologies currently in use in some jurisdictions, like
that in the anonymous-authorship tale, may work under
favorable local soil conditions. But they cannot be applied
blindly where the conditions are different.
In practice, one is likely to encounter infinitely varied con-
ditions or problems. A cookbook approach to site evaluation
207
or design of septic systems is nearly worthless when the

problems are of an unusual variety, as is often the case.
Therefore, in this book, I have attempted to explore and
explain reasons, causes, and effects.* These are the key to
solving problems. Additional in-depth perspectives may be
found in Appendixes M through S.
The reader might wish to test his understanding of the
subject matter by trying to answer the questions provided in
Appendix L. Questions like these might appear in certifica-
tion or competency examinations.
I hope that any such examinations will be open-book.
Understanding, not memorization, is what makes the differ-
ence between a competent and a not-too-competent perk
consultant.
*While doing so, I might have exposed my own biases or misconceptions.

If any of my readers can teach me something, I'd be most appreciative. To
this end, feel free to write to me, P.O. Box 522, Calimesa, C A 92320.
Appendix A
ORGANISMS IN SEWAGE
Table A.1 Human Enteric Viruses in Sewage
Number
of
Virus Types Diseases Caused
Enteroviruses:
Poliovirus 3 Meningitis, paralysis, fever
Echovirus 31 Meningitis, diarrhea, rash, fever, respira-
tory disease
Coxsackie virus 23 Meningitis, herpangina, fever, respira-
tory disease
Coxsackie virus 6 Myocarditis, congenital heart anomalies,
pleurodynia, respiratory disease, fever,
rash, meningitis
New enteroviruses 4 Meningitis, encephalitis, acute
(Types 68-71) hemorrhagic conjunctivitis, fever, respira-
tory disease
Hepatitis Type A 4 Infectious hepatitis
(enterovirus 72?)
Norwalk virus 1 Diarrhea, vomiting, fever
Calicivirus 1 Gastroenteritis
Astrovirus 1 Gastroenteritis
Reovirus 3 Not clearly established
Rotavirus 2 Diarrhea, vomiting
Adenovirus 37 Respiratory disease, eye infections
Source: EPA-625/1-83-016.
209
Table A.2 Bacteria and Parasites in Sewage and Sludge

Group Pathogen Disease Caused
Bacteria Salmonella (1700 types) Typhoid, paratyphoid,
salmonellosis
Shigella Bacillary dysentery
Enteropathogenic Escheri-
chia coli Gastroenteritis
Yersinia enterocolitica Gastroenteritis
Campylobacter jejuni Gastroenteritis
Vibrio cholerae Cholera
Leptospira Weil's disease
Protozoa Entamoeba histolytica Amebic dysentery, liver
abscess, colonic ulceration
Giardia lamblia Diarrhea, malabsorption
Balantidium coli Mild diarrhea, colonic
ulceration
Helminths Ascaris lumbricoides Ascariasis
(Roundworm)
Ancyclostoma duodenale Anemia
(Hookworm)
Necator americanus Anemia
(Hookworm)
Taenia saginata Taeniasis
(Tapeworm)
Source: EPA-625/1-83-016.
Appendix B
2.2 "FAILURE" OF LEACHFIELDS
Leachfields can be built to last indefinitely. If leachfields do

"fail," it is not the leachfields' failure.
Perhaps the myth about leachfield failures came about for
a practical reason.
The first or second year I worked as a sanitarian, I was
asked to participate in a sanitary survey of a target area. The
procedure was simple. We had to go house to house and
note any indications of leachfield failure: sewage on top of
the ground, odor, drainage hose or pipes sticking out of the
house, etc. And, when possible, we had to interview the
residents and ask about "failure." If 2% of the homes had
"failures," the area was declared a "failure problem area,"
and had to be sewered.
The procedure seemed illogical. If we conducted a survey
of "failing cars" and added up all the "failing cars" in a neigh-
borhood, we would be counting cars that had conked out the
day of the survey along with cars that had been lying around
since Methuselah's time. When we add up prevalence and
incidence, we get a number that means nothing. Then, we
would have to go tell the people in the neighborhood that
since x% of their cars have "failed," the whole neighborhood
must find an alternative means of transportation! Yet this is
what the sanitary survey was about.
To make matters worse, I had asked, "How long is a good
leachfield supposed to last?" The answer was, "About 20
211
years." Well, assuming that failures were to occur randomly

in time and leachfields last 20 years, at any given year 5% of
the leachfields would fail! And 5% is higher than the critical
2% standard. I voiced my concerns, but received the type of
stares reserved for the naive.
Months later, I learned that if the health officer declares an
area a "failure problem area," state and federal funds become
available for sewering it, and cover 87.5% of the total cost. A
real bargain. (So, I had to admit to myself that something
absolutely illogical could be perfectly reasonable.) But nowa
days, state and federal funds have dried up.
2.2 FLUC TUATION OF SEWAGE LEVELS IN

SEEPAGE PITS A N D LEAC HLINES
The Uniform Plumbing Code requires that a leachline have

at least 150 ft of bottom area, and that seepage pits be 46 ft
2
in diameter.
The volume of water in a trench = width x length x height
or
V = Wx L xH
And the volume of water in a cylindrical pit is
V = πr H'
2
Taking derivatives, we have that
dV/dH = W x L
and
dV'/dH' = πr 2
APPENDIX B 213
Hence, rea rra nging a nd combining,
dH'/dH = W x L/πr 2
Since W x L = 150 ft , a nd r is 2-3 ft, we ca n substitute

2
these values in the formula above to get
150/π(2 ) = 12
2
and
150/π(3 ) = 5.3
2
So the level of sewage fluctuates 5.3 to 12 times more in a

pit than in an open minimum-size leachline trench. But after
the lea chline trench is filled with gra vel, the fluctua tion in
the lea chline trench must increa se by a fa ctor of a bout 3,
because gra vel voids a re a bout 1/3. Therefore, the sewa ge
fluctuation difference is at lea st 1.8 to 4 times.
Appendix C
5.1 COMMENT
In the formula H = h + h', the surface head h is also called

"pressure head," and h' is called "gravitational head" or "soil
head."
5.5.1 T H E U N W A N T E D IRRIGATION C A N A L
Table C.1 Percent Slope and Value of the Sine a
S l o p e (%) Sine S l o p e (%) Sine

1.000 0.010 23.414 0.228
2.000 0.020 24.472 0.238
3.001 0.030 25.534 0.247
4.002 0.040 26.602 0.257
5.004 0.050 27.676 0.267
6.007 0.060 28.755 0.276
7.011 0.070 29.841 0.286
8.017 0.080 30.934 0.296
9.024 0.090 32.033 0.305
10.033 0.100 33.139 0.315
11.045 0.110 34.252 0.324
12.058 0.120 35.374 0.333
13.074 0.130 36.503 0.343
14.092 0.140 37.640 0.352
15.114 0.149 38.786 0.362
16.138 0.159 39.941 0.371
17.166 0.169 41.105 0.380
18.197 0.179 42.279 0.389
19.232 0.189 43.463 0.399
20.271 0.199 44.657 0.408
21.314 0.208 45.862 0.417
22.362 0.218 47.078 0.426
a
Interpolate w h e n necessary.
215
5.5.2 MEASURING k
Let us visualize a 4-in. layer of clay over a 4-in. layer of

sand. If we measure the vertical k's (saturated flow) of the
clay and of the sand, we might get, say, 0.001 ft/day and 1 ft/
day, respectively. Under a leachfield, water movement is
usually not under pressure. The water moving through the
clay will encounter an unsaturated sand with lower permea-
bility than that measured under saturated flow. In the lab,
with an h of 30 ft, so much water is transmitted through the
clay that the sand below becomes more saturated, and more
permeable. The joint average permeability of the clay and
the sand strata is overestimated. This is fine when the test is
for liners, but not when it is for leachfield design.
The same type of problem affects the harmonic-mean k
formula.
5.5.3 WETTING FRONTS
The round figure to the left represents the clay soil. Capil-
lary suction is strong, in all directions; movement downward
is slow. Most of the movement within the sand is downward
and fast.
5.5.4 EVAPORATION
As shown in Table 5.1, 33% of 4 ft, or 1.33 ft, will be lost to

evaporation per year. Multiplying 1.33 ft by (3 x 100) ft of 2
evaporative surface equals 400 ft lost to evaporation per

3
year. And 300 gal of sewage/day equals 300 x 360/7.5 =

14,400 ft discharged.
3
So, 400/14,400 = .027, or 3%.

APPENDIX C 217
5.5.5 BALANCE
Clay will suck up water from the silt, as it has more

smaller-diameter capillaries than the silt, and the silt has
more (and more continuous) smaller-diameter capillaries
than the sand. The balance will tilt down toward the clay.
5.5.6 SEEPAGE
Condition (a) (clay overlying coarse sand) will.

Appendix D
6.3 GEOMETRIC M E A N VERSUS

ARITHMETIC M E A N
Perhaps another mental experiment will make it easier to

visualize why the arithmetic mean is appropriate while the
geometric mean is not.
Let us assume that we have a large barrel of water. Let us
divide its 300-in. bottom into three sections, 100 in. each.
2 2
Let's put one hole in each of these sections. The areas of the
holes are 1, 10, and 100 in. ; the flows through the holes are
2
proportional to their areas, say, 1 in. /sec/in. of hole at a

3 2
given head. The total amount of infiltration or flow through

the barrel's bottom will be 1 + 10 + 100 = 111 in. /sec. 3
Now, let us see if the geometric mean of the infiltration

rates per 100 in. will give us the total amount of flow after it
2
is multiplied by the total area of the bottom. The cubic root of

(1/100) x (10/100) x (100/100) is the geometric mean, and it is
equal to 10/100 (10 in. /sec/100 in. of barrel bottom). If we
3 2
multiply this mean by the total area of the bottom, 300 in. , 2
we get a total flow rate of 30 in. /sec, which is quite a bit less
3
than 111.
The arithmetic mean is equal to 1/3 of (1/100 + 10/100 +
100/100) or 111/300; and this, multiplied by the total area of
the bottom, 300 in. , gives 111 in. /sec, which is correct.
2 3
219
6.4.1 GRAVEL PACKING CORRECTION FACTORS
See Table D.1, starting on the next page. Multiply your

measurements in ipm (or mpi) by the factors given to obtain
ipm (or mpi) in a hole with no gravel packing. P = porosity
of gravel; C = ratio of diameters, hole/pipe (or ratio of outer
over inner diameter of gravel pack).
Example: You measure 10 mpi. Porosity is 0.30 and C is
1.6. O n next page, under C = 1.6, look down the P column
until you find 0.30. Move horizontally to the "x mpi"
column and you will see 2.77. Multiply 10 mpi times 2.77 and
the result is 28 mpi.
6.4.2 ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENT WITH

NONVERTICAL TAPE
The nonvertical tape or rod will measure a longer distance

equal to a in the triangle below.
The correct distance is b. So the error is a - b. Using the

theorem of Pythagoras, we can calculate b and subtract it
from a.
In the first problem, a = 4.5 x 12 = 54 in.,
and the error is a - b = 0.34 in. [5/16 in.]

In the second problem, the same procedure is followed.
The error is 6/16 in.
APPENDIX D 221
Table D.1 Gravel Packing Correction Factors

C = 1.2
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 1.4
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 1.6
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
Table D.1 Continued

C = 1.8
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 2
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 2.2
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
APPENDIX D 223
Table D.1 Continued

C = 2.4
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 2.6
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 2.8
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
Table D.1 Continued

C = 3
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 3.2
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 3.4
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
APPENDIX D 225
Table D.1 Continued

C = 3.6
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 3.8
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
C = 4
P x ipm x mpi
.24 .3057439 3.270711
.26 .3240138 3.086288
.28 .3422837 2.921553
.30 .3605536 2.773513
.32 .3788236 2.639751
.34 .3970934 2.518299
.36 .4153633 2.407531
.3800001 .4336333 2.306096
.4000001 .4519032 2.212863
.4200001 .4701731 2.126876
.4400001 .488443 2.047322
.4600001 .5067129 1.973504
.4800001 .5249828 1.904824
.5000001 .5432527 1.840764
6.4.3 EFFECT OF PRECISION O N ACCURACY
In a 60-mpi soil, the water level falls half an inch during the
30-min measurement interval. So, with 1/16-in. precision, a
test in a 60-mpi soil could yield measurements of:
30 ÷ 7/16 = 68.5 mpi, or

30 ÷ 8/16 = 60 mpi, or
30 ÷ 9/16 = 53.5 mpi.
Note that their average is 61 mpi, instead of 60. If the

average were obtained from ipm values, the reciprocal of this
average would be exactly 60 mpi.
Also note that if the precision were to the nearest 1/8 in.,
the figures above would be 80, 60, and 48 mpi respectively,
and their incorrect mpi average would be 63 mpi. The errors
committed when averaging mpi directly instead of through
reciprocals of ipm are rather small.
If three tests are made in a 60-mpi soil, and the precision is
1/8 in., just by chance all three tests might measure 48 mpi,
or all might measure 80 mpi, or two might measure 60 and
one 48 mpi, etc. So, we want to find out what proportion of
average mpi values will overestimate or underestimate the
actual mpi.
Before we can do that, we must find out what kind of
statistics the measurements obey. Perhaps the clue can be
found in the type of data I have encountered while review-
ing perk reports, similar to the data shown below.
Below, the rates of fall of water level in three test holes are
"stabilized" and show no trend. The last four sequential
measurements (at 30-min intervals) are, in inches:
Hole 1 4/8, 4/8, 3/8, 4/8

Hole 2 4/8, 5/8, 4/8, 5/8
Hole 3 3/8, 4/8, 3/8, 4/8
Yes, most perk test measurements I have seen have a pre-

cision of 1/8 in. It is difficult to be more precise than that
APPENDIX D 227
under field conditions (readings are affected by light reflec-

tions, angle of sight, meniscus curvature, water ripples,
receding water level). (A precision higher than 1/16 in. can
be easily achieved by installing a float within the perk hole.
This float moves a vertical wire or rod up and down a scale,
which can be easily read [see Figure 6.1], but only one of the
local perk consultants has bothered to measure to 1/16 in.)
Well, the way I see the measurements above, it seems to
me that each final reading has the same probability of being
"on the mark" as of being 1/8 in. higher, or 1/8 in. lower.
Assuming that this is the case, we can construct a table of
chance deviations from a mean. These deviations are desig-
nated " + " or " - . " The mean is designated "o." For example,
the measurement from one hole might be + , or o, or -. The
measurements from two holes might be tabulated as
+ o
+ ++ +o +-
o o+ oo o-
-+ -o --
So we have that in one out of nine possible chance results

obtained with two test holes, both holes are going to err on
the + side. And in two out of nine, one hole will err on the +
while the other will not err. And in two out of nine, one hole
will err on the + side while the other will err on the - side, so
errors will cancel out and yield a result without error, as if it
were a oo situation. Adding up all the net + and the net oo
for one, two, or more simultaneous tests (the net minuses
are symmetric to the net pluses; there are as many - as +, as
many — as + +, etc.), we can easily construct Table D.2.
If the mpi of only one hole is measured, this mpi has one
chance in three of being +, or - , or o. If two holes, 1/9 will
have a net + +, 2/9 will have a net + , 3/9 will be oo (a + and
a - average out to an oo), and so on.
The chance that the errors in each of the three holes are all
on the + side is 1/27, or less than 4%. The chance that two
out of three err on the + side is 3/27, or about 10%. The
Table D.2 Chance Deviations From a Mean a
1 2 3 4 5
+++++ 1
++++ 1 5
+++ 1 4 15
+ + 1 3 10 30
+ 1 2 6 16 45
o 1 3 7 19 51
- 1 2 6 16 45
— 1 3 10 30
— 1 4 15
1 5
1
3 9 27 81 243
a
This triangle of numbers can be easily expanded. Please note that each
number in the triangle can be derived by adding the number to its left
to the number above and below this left number.
chance that one out of three errs on the + side is 6/27, or 22%
(note that, in this case, since there are three holes, the aver-
age will be affected only one-third as much as if each had a +
error). So if we designate a + or - error as "f", the average of
the errors will be as shown below:
magnitude probability
fff ÷ 3 = f 1/27
ff0÷3 = 2/3 f 3/27
f00 ÷ 3 = 1/3 f 6/27
Repeating the procedure for one through six holes, we can

obtain the results shown in Table D.3.
Looking at the lower left portion of this table, we see that
the measurement from one hole has a 0.33 probability of
being off by the full 1/8 (or 1/16 in., whichever precision is
being used). Let's use 1/8 in. The average from two holes has
a 0.11 or 11% probability of being off by 1/8 in., and a 0.22 or
22% probability of being off by half of 1/8 in. In other words,
of the averages of two holes in a 60-mpi soil, 11% will yield
values as high as 80 mpi, 11% will yield values as low as 48
APPENDIX D 229
Table D.3 Magni tude of Error (and Its Probability of Occurrence, in

Parenthesis)
F(⅓) F(1/9) F(1/27) F(1/81) F(½43) F(1/729)
½F(2/9) ⅔F(3/27) 3/4F(4/81) 4/5F(5/243) 5/6F(6/729)
⅓F(6/27) 2/4F(10/81) 3/5F(15/243) 4/6F(21/729)
¼F(16/81) 2/5F(30/243) 3/6F(50/729)
1/5F(45/243) 2/6F(90/729)
1/6F(141/729)
F(.33) F(.ll) F(.037) F(.012) F(.0041) F(.0014)

½F(.22) 2/3F(.11) 3/4F(.049) 4/5F(.020) 5/6F(.0082)
1/3F(.22) 2/4F(.123) 3/5F(.062) 4/6F(.029)
¼F(.198) 2/5F(.123) 3/6F(.069)
1/5F(.185) 2/6F(.123)
1/6F(.193)
mpi, 22% will yield values of 68.5 mpi, and 22% values of
53.5 mpi. When we get to the average of four holes, only
1.2% of these averages will be affected by the full error of 1/8
in., and 12.3% by 2/4 of 1/8 in. That is, in a 60mpi soil, only
1.2% of the averages will yield values as high (low) as 80 (48)
mpi, and 12.3% as high (low) as 68.5 (53.5) mpi.
The average of a minimum of four holes seems to be a reasonable
standard, when the precision is 1/8 inch and the soil is perfectly
uniform.
Winneberger (see Reference 3 in Chapter 6) requested five
people to take five measurements each under simulated perk
test conditions with a static water level. The average mea
surement error was 3/16 in. One of the five people, a very
skilled technician, was more accurate than the rest.
6.4.4 THE " C A N " OR SOIL CYLIN DER
Since the flow is proportional to pressure, the total flow or

the decrease in h is proportional to the flow through the
side wall plus the flow through the bottom. The pressure on
the side wall is always 1/2 h, and the pressure on the bottom
is h. Hence,
-dh/dt = ch + c(1/2 h)
= 1.5 ch
Now 1.5 c is a constant times a constant, which is another

constant, say c". Therefore, we get the same derivation as in
page 79, only with a c" instead of a c. And if we solve the
equation with the same data points as to times and h levels,
we get identical results.
(It is worthy of note that, if we conduct a real experiment,
when h goes down near the bottom, the water will not flow
exactly as the equation predicts because of the cohesion
between water molecules and attraction between container
and water molecules.)
6.4.5 EFFECT OF C H A N G I N G H E A D
a. The erroneous statement is "The hydraulic head was

increased 1.33 times." Only h, surface head, was increased
this amount.
b. They were not proportional because when one starts
with a small h, one develops a small X in a given time. So by
increasing h suddenly, one develops a relatively large gradi-
ent, especially up near the sidewalls. These phenomena are
rather predictable.
c. If h is much larger than the diameter: A sudden decrease
in h should have no effect for a little while, but then it should
stabilize to a rate proportional to the decrease. Conversely, in
the short run, an increase should increase ipm more than
proportionally, but then the ipm should tend to stabilize at a
rate proportional to the increase in h. Chapter 9 makes this
clearer.
6.4.6 PLUGGED B O T T O M
There are at least three possibilities. One, the bottom of the

controls might have been compacted, so no difference was
APPENDIX D 231
observed. Two, there might have been a thin, low-

permeability clay or silt layer just below the holes, so that all
the flows were mainly through the sidewalls. Probably nei-
ther of these instances occurred, because Weibel et al. knew
about compaction risks and impermeable soil layers, and
they would have taken these factors into account. Here is the
third, most likely possibility:
The bottom area of a hole 4 in. in diameter is 12.5 in. If we
2
increase the radius only 1 in., the bottom area increases to 28

in. The water had to move only a little bit sideways around
2
the plug, and increase its path (or X) just a bit, to flow
through an equivalent cross-sectional area, at a rate similar
to that in an unplugged hole.
6.4.8 APPLICABILITY OF OLIVIERI-ROCHE (O-R)

CORRECTIONS
The O-R hypothesis neglects the effect of differential flows

per unit area of sidewall and of bottom, due to the differ-
ences in gradients. The surface head acting on the bottom is
h, and on the sidewall, 1/2 h. Also, it assumes that the soils
are homogeneous and isotropic, the same in all directions;
often they are not, and the ratio of downward to sideways
flows can vary greatly.
However, if the soils are fairly homogeneous and isotropic,
and the conditions are such that the magnitude of h or 1/2 h
does not affect the gradient, and h is kept constant, the O-R
hypothesis should work for the common hole diameters.
And so should the simple ratios of diameters, which yield
almost the same results as the more elaborate O-R correction
factors, numerically speaking.
I requested perk testers to test holes of different sizes, and
I have also conducted tests of my own. In a very sandy soil, I
tested a hole, carefully enlarged its diameter, and tested it
again. The rates were within 9% of those predicted by O-R. I
repeated the experiment in a dense clayey silt soil of very
low permeability (about 200 mpi), and the rates were 30% off
those predicted by OR.
Van Kirk et al. (C hapter 6, note 8) analyzed perk data
obtained by Winneberger in two different soils and found
that OR predictions were less than 10% off. On the other
hand, either the data from local perk testers showed no dif
ferences due to hole diameter, or else the differences were
roughly 60% as large as expected on the basis of OR or of
diameter ratios.
The clue to this puzzle might be found in an article recently
published by Fritton et al.* They concluded that a theoretical
equation
log k = log mpi log (1 + 4/πar )
could be used to convert mpi data to k values. To account for

the experimental data, "a" varied from 0.1 to 100 per meter;
"a" is a constant (specific for each soil) that may reflect soil
anisotropy (nonuniformity, stratification). And r is the
radius of the perk hole.
Well, I manipulated this equation and derived from it the
formula below:
mpi"/mpi' = ([r + 4/πa]/r ) x ([2 r ]/[2 r + 4/πa])
in which mpi' is the mpi measured in a hole of a given radius

r, and mpi" is the mpi measured if the radius of this same
hole were doubled.
According to this formula, if a 3in. radius is doubled, the
most that can happen is a doubling of the mpi (if a > 100);
the least that can happen is no effect (the measured mpi
stays the same after doubling the radius if a < 10). So,
depending on the type of soil around the hole, a correction
factor could be equal to 1, 2, or any value in between.
As far as I am concerned, the best policy to follow is:
*Fritton D.D., et al. 1986. Determination of saturated hydraulic conductiv

ity from soil percolation test results. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50: 273276.
APPENDIX D 233
a. Use a standard hole diameter; do not count on O-R or

ratio of diameters for routine corrections of mpi's obtained in
holes of various diameters.
b. If a hole must be much larger than standard, then cor-
rect in the most conservative direction. (For instance, a
larger-diameter hole in a clay soil will yield slower absorp-
tion rates, so do not correct for diameter. But a larger-
diameter hole in an excessively permeable soil will yield
rates purporting to show the soil not to be excessively per-
meable; use ratio-of-diameter corrections in this case.)
Appendix E
9.5.4 SIZING A PIT
This is not a technical problem. It is a "public relations"

problem.
My views are reflected in Chapter 20, and in the old say-
ing, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." . . . But if I had
to do as the local sanitarians do, I'd write a polite note
explaining an "alternative" (i.e., more reasonable) way of
sizing a pit, for their consideration.
235
Appendix F
10.1 EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM
The document recorded to enable experimentation is

reproduced in Figure F.1.
237
Figure F.1 Public notice to be filed by persons using experimental sewage

disposal systems, San Bernardino County, California.
Appendix G
EXCERPTS F R O M THE CALIFORNIA

ADMINISTRATIVE C O D E , TITLE 22
66696. Toxicity Criteria.

(a) A waste, or a material, is toxic and hazardous if it:
(1) Has an acute oral LD50 less than 5,000 milligrams per
kilogram; or
(2) Has an acute dermal LD50 less than 4,300 milligrams
per kilogram; or
(3) Has an acute inhalation LC50 less than 10,000 parts per
million as a gas or vapor; or
(4) Has an acute aquatic 96-hour LC50 less than 500 milli-
grams per liter when measured in soft water (total hardness
40 to 48 milligrams per liter of calcium carbonate) with fat-
head minnows (Pimephales promelas), rainbow trout. . . .
66702. Ignitability Criteria.

(a) A waste, or a material, is ignitable and hazardous if it:
(1) Is a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing
less than 24 percent alcohol by volume, and has a flash point
less than 60 degrees centigrade (140 degrees Fahrenheit), as
determined by a Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, using
the test method specified in American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Standard D-93-79, or a Setaflash
239
Closed Cup Tester, using the test method specified in ASTM

Standard D-3278-73; or
(2) Is not a liquid and is capable, under standard tempera-
ture and pressure, of causing fire through friction, absorp-
tion of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and,
when ignited, burns so vigorously and persistently that it
creates a hazard; or
(3) Is a flammable compressed gas as defined in 49 CFR
173.300(b) (codified October 1, 1982) and as determined by
the test methods described in that regulation; or
(4) Is an oxidizer as defined in CFR 173.151 (codified Octo-
ber 1, 1982).
66705. Reactivity Criteria.

(a) A waste, or a material, is reactive and hazardous if it:
(1) Is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent
change without detonating; or
(2) Reacts violently with water; or
(3) Forms potentially explosive mixtures with water; or
(4) Generates toxic gases, vapors or fumes, when mixed
with water, in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to
human health or the environment; or
(5) Is a cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which, when
exposed to p H conditions between 2 and 12.5, generates
toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to
present a danger to human health or the environment; or
(6) Is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is
subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under
confinement; or
(7) Is readily capable of detonation or explosive decompo-
sition or reaction at standard temperature and pressure; or
(8) Is a forbidden explosive as defined in 49 CFR 173.51
(codified October 1, 1982).
APPENDIX G 241
66708. Corrosivity Criteria.

(a) A waste, or a material, is corrosive and hazardous if it:
(1) Is aqueous and has a p H less than or equal to 2 or
greater than or equal to 12.5, or its mixture with an equiva-
lent weight of water produces a solution having a p H less
than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5. The p H
shall be determined by a p H meter using either test method
9040 specified in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods", SW-846, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2nd edition, 1982, or as described in
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Waste and Wastes", EPA
600/4-79-020, March 1979; or
(2) Is a liquid, or when mixed with an equivalent weight of
water produces a liquid, and corrodes steel (SAE 1020) at a
rate greater than 6.35 millimeters. . . .
Appendix H
EXCERPTS FROM THE SAN BERNARDINO

COUNTY CODE
33.057 Soil Testing Requirements.

When required by the Director, soil percolation testing
shall be done in compliance with the current Percolation Test
Report Requirements adopted by the Department. The
Director may establish other means for determining liquid
waste application rates and charge such fees as are appropri-
ate and authorized by this Code.
33.058 Soils Testing Administration.

Persons performing soils percolation tests for review by
the Department shall be subject to the following require-
ments:
(a) Testers shall be qualified as one or more of the follow-
ing:
(1) State of California Registered Civil Engineer.
(2) State of California Certified Engineering Geologist.
(3) Business firm employing or comprised of one (1) or
more State of California Registered Civil Engineers
or State of California Certified Engineering Geolo-
gists.
(4) State of California Registered Sanitarian.
(b) Demonstration to the Director of competence in soil
percolation testing and local procedures.
243
33.059 Revocation by Department of Testing Privileges.

Any tester may have his testing privileges revoked or sus-
pended for any one or more of the following causes: (1) if
found by the Department to have lost the status which quali-
fies such person to perform percolation testing; or (2) if
found to have falsified information submitted to the Depart-
ment in a report(s) or correspondence; or (3) if found to have
provided any other false information to the Department on a
material question; or (4) if found generally to have per-
formed in other than a diligent manner regarding any testing
performed or reports filed with reference to this Code.
(a) Upon determining probable cause for revocation or sus-
pension of testing privileges, the Department shall give writ-
ten notice to the tester to show cause why his testing privi-
leges should not be revoked or suspended.
(b) Upon written notification to show why his privileges
should not be revoked or suspended, the tester may appeal
to the Director within ten (10) working days for a hearing.
(c) Within five (5) working days after the close of any hear-
ing, the Director shall notify the tester whether his privileges
have been revoked or suspended. If the decision of the
Director is to revoke or suspend the privileges, the notice or
revocation or suspension shall state the grounds therefor.
(d) Unless special approval is granted by the Director, a
person whose privileges have been revoked pursuant to this
Section 33.059 may not reapply for reinstatement unless rev-
ocation was based solely upon loss of status which qualified
the person for testing privileges and such loss of status was
without wrongdoing on the part of such person.
31.061 Applicability of This Hearing Procedure.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this County Code,
the following administrative hearing procedure shall be
applied for any hearing pertaining to the suspension, revo-
cation or reissuance of any license, permit certificate or enti-
tlement where such action is provided for in any of the pro-
visions of Title 3 of this Code except when a hearing before
the Board of Supervisors is otherwise provided. This proce-
APPENDIX H 245
dure provides an appeal from a permit suspension. Said

appeal shall be made in writing to the Director within ten
(10) working days of the permit suspension, denial or revo-
cation and shall contain the address to which the notice of
hearing shall be sent.
31.062 Hearing Officer.

The hearing officer for hearing pursuant to this chapter
shall be the Director of the Department of Environmental
Health Services or his appointee for such purpose. Any such
appointee shall be a person who has no knowledge of the
facts of the particular case at the outset of the hearing, and a
person not immediately involved with regulation of the par-
ticular code provisions concerned.
31.063 Notice.
At least ten (10) days written notice of the hearing shall be
given to the holder of the right prior to the hearing date. The
hearing date may be postponed or continued by stipulation
of the parties. If the party notified does not respond or
appear, no further hearing procedure shall be required.
31.064 Hearing Procedures.

Witness shall swear or affirm to tell the truth. The oath or
affirmation shall be taken by the hearing officer.
The enforcing officer shall present his case first, with oral
testimony and documentary evidence or other exhibits. The
responding party shall have the right to be represented by
counsel, and shall have the right of cross-examination.
The responding party may present its response after the
enforcing officer has presented his case. The enforcing offi-
cer shall have the right of cross-examination.
After both sides have completed presenting evidence, the
enforcing officer may comment on the evidence and argue.
After the enforcing officer has commented on the evidence
and/or argued, the responding party may do the same.
31.065 The Hearing Officer's Determination.

No determination or order shall be based solely on the
basis of hearsay evidence.
The Hearing Officer shall make his determination within
five (5) working days of the end of the hearing, unless the
responding party stipulates to a greater period of time. The
determination shall be in writing, and shall state the findings
upon which the determination is made. Final determination
is the responsibility of the Director, and shall be made in
writing within five (5) working days of the Hearing Officer's
report. There shall be no further non-court proceedings or
appeal, unless specifically so provided elsewhere in this
Code.
Appendix I
18.1 SOIL PERK REPORT STANDARDS
NOTICE: Before conducting perk tests, you must contact

the County Specialist and provide the assessor's parcel num-
ber of the site to be tested, and the date of testing. At his
option the Specialist may wish to conduct a field inspection
during testing or shortly thereafter. Leave three-foot laths
marked with your initials and hole number at each backfilled
hole. The date when the Specialist (or his secretary) was
contacted must be stated in the report.
[In the "old times," a perk consultant would test without
notifying anyone. If he found the site unsuitable, he kept
this finding confidential in order not to harm his client. After
I added the notification requirement, I was able to find out
what happened in the field, and why a perk test report was
not forthcoming months after testing. Now that the notice
above is in effect, perk consultants are very cooperative and
reveal the existence of adverse site or soil conditions. Also,
when a new perk consultant comes on board, I can be
present to guide him during his first few tests. Thereafter, I
drop by unannounced.]
Introduction
I. A perk report is required:

a. On all subdivisions of land.
247
b. O n any parcel or land division where current data will

not allow the county specialist to set a sewage disposal rate.
c. O n any single lot where space or soil conditions are
critical.
d. For all septic systems within areas specifically defined
by the governing authority. [Refer to an appendix, specific
for every county.]
II. Those who prepare the perk report also assume responsi-
bility for it. Preparers must have demonstrated knowledge
and understanding of local criteria, requirements, and proce-
dures for perk testing and perk report preparation and also
must qualify under state law or county ordinance.
Reports must show the original signature and registration
number of the preparer. Photocopies are not acceptable.
[There used to be a firm which allegedly used photocopied
signatures of former employees in reports with falsified
data.]
Format and Other Requirements
State when Specialist was given notice of proposed date of

testing.
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE A N D OF PROPOSED

PROJECT
1.1 PREPARED FOR: Name of client, address, phone.
1.2 LOCATION OF SITE: Assessor's parcel number, legal

description, method of location in the field (client's word is
not acceptable). Provide a clear sketch showing "how to get
there"; give street addresses nearby, if any; point out land-
marks if difficult to find. It is the report preparer's responsi-
bility to ensure tests are conducted where described in the
report.
APPENDIX I 249
1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

a. Type of project: condominium, apartments, subdivision
tract, shopping center, etc.
b. Acreage, number of lots, average and range of lot sizes.
c. Type of sewage disposal: leachline, seepage pits, dis-
charge to separate (single) or common (confluent) septic sys-
tems.
1.4 VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

a. Slope/grading.
b. Floodway, flood plain, streams, and/or drainage
courses.
c. Vegetation type and density (especially indicators such
as willows, cattails, cactus, green patches).
d. Existing structures (including septic systems); general
evaluation of surrounding area and density of development.
e. Rock outcroppings. Specify type of rock.
f. Groundwater table information. Specify source of infor-
mation.
g. Any other feature that may affect sewage disposal:
springs, fill, obvious signs of slope instability, spots of vege-
tation, fractured bedrock, root channels, or cracks in the soil
profile.
h. If any portion of the soil absorption system or reserve
will not be located on natural soil ( ± 1 ft of cut/fill for leach-
lines, 3 ft for seepage pits), provide a grading plan or title
perk report, "preliminary perk report."
1.5 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (PLOT

PLAN)
Plot plan must be to scale and include:
a. Contours. Provide a topo map unless site and surround-
ings are flat or have a uniform, constant slope (for instance,
uniform slope of 5% downward from north property line to
south property line). See Table I.1.
b. Floodways, floodplains, streams or drainage courses.
c. Significant vegetation (including trees near proposed
leachline area).
Table I.1 Required Contour In tervals for Plot Plan

Maximum interva l of contours,
% slope ft
0-2 2
3-9 4
≥10 10
d. Existing wells or remnant of wells on or within 200 ft of

the property. La rge high-density projects ma y impa ct wells
even fa rther a wa y.
e. Existing structures.
f. Rock outcroppings.
g. All borings or excavations (including those of tests that
failed). If the report recommends tha t the septic system be
installed in the a rea tested ra ther tha n in the genera l a rea ,
test borings sha ll be a ccura tely dimensioned to property
lines.
h. The proposed sewa ge disposa l system. If none is con-
templated in lots zoned for single homes (lot-sales subdivi-
sion), an hypothetical system for a five-bedroom home shall
be shown to fit in the smallest or most difficult lot; if zoned
for multi-unit development, the hypothetical system shall be
shown to suffice for the effluent discharged by an average of
3 bedrooms per unit.
1.6 GRADING Where grading is expected, include a grad-

ing plan. If grading plan was prepared by others, perk report
preparer must comment on its adequacy.
2. EQUIPMENT
List equipment used in detail. Where the soil is stratified,
and low-permeability layers like clay or caliche may affect
the leachline system, the soil profile shall be described by
looking at it directly, in a backhoe trench, road cut, or suit-
able large (≥ 1 ft diameter) boring.
APPENDIX I 251
3. M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D PROCEDURES
3.1 Borings and trenchings

a. Distribution: If not randomly distributed (grid method),
state specific reasons for choosing selected locations.
b. Depth: The minimum depth of exploratory borings/
trenches shall be to leachline depth plus 8 ft, and to seepage
pit depth plus 10 ft, or in accordance with stricter local water
quality control board requirements.
c. Number: For a single lot with a single dwelling unit, in an
area with slight site limitations, the minimum number of
exploratory borings/trenchings shall be one; the minimum
number of test holes shall be four for leachline, and two for
seepage pit use. (But two-thirds of tests must yield satisfac-
tory results; more than the minimum number will be
required if soil conditions are not optimal.) For all other
types of development, or if site is in a general area of moder-
ate or severe limitations, check with county specialist. The
minimum number of tests is locality-specific.
3.2 Standard test for leachlines

The USPHS-EPA methodology is adopted for lack of a bet-
ter alternative. The county specialist may allow a nonstan-
dard methodology in addition to this one.
Excavation:
Bottom of excavation is approximately 13 in. above the
expected bottom of the leachline trench.
Perk test hole is drilled or augered at the bottom of the
excavation.
Hole:
a. Final diameter is 5.5 to 6.5 in. after scraping. Larger sizes
are acceptable, as they yield slower infiltration rates. (Up to 8
in., no corrections are necessary.) But in coarse soils with mpi
lower than 8, apply ratio-of-diameter corrections to mpi if the
diameter is larger than 8 in. [See Section 6.4.8 in Chapter 6, and
Appendix D (6.4.8), for explanation of corrections.]
b. Depth is 13-14 in.
c. Place 2 in. of gravel over bottom. A perforated tin can
may be placed over the gravel.
Soaking:
Fill hole with 12 in. of clear water (10 in. above the gravel
or bottom of perforated can).
a. If twice 10 in. seeps away in less than 10 min and soil is
coarse-textured, testing can be conducted immediately; oth-
erwise,
b. Maintain level (8-16 in.) for at least 4 hours (or until 5 gal
have been absorbed [invert a full 5-gal bottle over the 8-10-
in. level after ensuring the bottle is well secured and surges
will not scour sides of hole]).
[In coarse-textured soils, with mpi 1-4, the bottle will be
empty after about 1 hr or less; in 15-mpi soils, after about 7
hr; in 120-mpi soils, the bottle will not be empty the follow-
ing day.]
Testing:
Except as noted in (a) and (b) above, begin testing after 15
hr and finish within 30 hr after beginning of soaking. Refill
after each measurement. Measure from a fixed reference
point.
[If there is still at least 6 in. of water in the hole (4 in. above
the gravel) after 5 gal have been absorbed, or after 15 hr from
start of soaking, remove the bottle, restore water level to 8
in., and make at least 2 final measurements; the interval of
the measurements is modified so that the decline in water
level is kept within 1 to 3 in. Otherwise follow usual proce-
dure:]
a. Fill hole to exactly 8 in. from bottom of hole (6 in. from
top of gravel or bottom of can).
b. If 6 in. is gone in 30 min, use 10-min measurement
intervals; otherwise, 30-min intervals.
c. Measure to nearest 1/16 inch. Lower precision may be
acceptable if results justify such imprecision.
d. Make at least six consecutive measurements until three
do not vary by more than 1/16 in. (Lower precision may be
acceptable if justified.) The interval of the final three mea-
surements is modified so that the decline in water level is
kept between 1 and 3 in.
e. Where gravel packing or similar measures are taken to
APPENDIX I 253
prevent soil migration or sloughing off, some additional

holes should be soaked and used as controls to see if such
hazard can occur and if special measures are needed during
construction of the leachfield.
3.3 Standard test for seepage pits

There is no standard test for seepage pits. See Chapter 9.
What follows is the usual falling head test procedure, with
an improved formula.
a. Drill to proposed depth of pit. Hole is 6 to 8 in. in
diameter. (Exploratory borings may be backfilled 10 ft and
used for testing provided top of fill is fine-textured or is
sealed with driller's mud and protected with 1 ft of gravel.)
b. Fill hole with clear water to the level of inlet of assumed
pit.
c. In highly sandy soils, where water on two consecutive
fillings seeps faster than half the wetted depth in 30 min,
measurement intervals shall be 10 min and the test shall be
run for at least 1 hr until three consecutive readings do not
vary by more than 10%. Refill after each measurement inter-
val. Decomposed granite is not to be considered a sandy soil.
d. In other soils, soak the hole and let set overnight. The
following day fill to assumed depth of pit inlet. From a fixed
reference point, measure drop in water level over 30-min
intervals for at least 5 hr until readings do not vary by more
than 10%. Refill after each reading but the last. After each
reading, measure the depth to bottom.
Caving in excess of 15% of depth may invalidate results.
Use gravel packing in at least one test hole and at least 20%
of test holes.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Soil logs

A boring or trench log shall be submitted for each explor-
atory boring or trench.
a. Texture. If you use the U.S.C. classification, state
approximate percentage of sand, silt, and clay. Otherwise,
use the classification in Table I.2, based on handling and

appearance.
b. Colors. Specify if dry or moist soil. Note reduction-
oxidation mottling.
c. Presence and extent of small/large roots.
d. Ease of excavating/drilling (soft, firm, hard, refusal).
e. Moisture. If moisture is found, allow 24 hr to determine
if free water will appear.
f. Free water.
g. Other.
4.2 Test results
4.2.1 Tabulate all final results, including those of tests that

"failed" to meet standards.
4.2.2 Provide copies of all field data and calculations, using

the following format:
a. Leachline test. Include hole number, depth of bottom
below grade, type of strata tested, method to prevent side-
wall caving, hole diameter, hours soaking, name of tester,
date tested, condition of hole (caving or siltation?) See Figure
I.1.
b. Seepage pit, falling head test. Include boring number,
diameter of boring (feet), depth of bottom below grade,
hours presaturation, name of tester, date tested, and strata
peculiarities (if any). See Figure I.2.
5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.1 Discuss uniformity or variability of results. A uniform

soil unit is delineated by at least four test results falling
within one-third of their mean mpi.
At any given location with presumably uniform soils, at
least two-thirds of tests must show acceptable mpi (three out
of four, or four out of six).
5.2 Discuss possible sources of error or variability of

APPENDIX I 255
Table I.2 Soil Textural Classesa
TEXTURAL PROPERTIES OF MINERAL SOILS
Soil Feeling and Appearance

Class Dry Soil Moist Soil
Sand Loose, single grains which Squeezed in the hand, it
feel gritty. Squeezed in the forms a cast which crum-
hand, the soil mass falls bles when touched. Does
apart when the pressure is not form a ribbon between
released. thumb and forefinger.
Sandy Loam Aggregates easily crushed; Forms a cast which bears
very faint velvety feeling careful handling without
initially but with contin- breaking. Does not form a
ued rubbing the gritty ribbon between thumb
feeling of sand soon domi- and forefinger.
nates.
Loam Aggregates are crushed Cast can be handled quite
under moderate pressure; freely without breaking.
clods can be quite firm. Very slight tendency to
When pulverized, loam ribbon between thumb
has velvety feel that and forefinger. Rubbed
becomes gritty with con- surface is rough.
tinued rubbing. Casts bear
careful handling.
Silt Loam Aggregates are firm but Cast can be freely handled
may be crushed under without breaking. Slight
moderate pressure. Clods tendency to ribbon
are firm to hard. Smooth, between thumb and fore-
flour-like feel dominates finger. Rubbed surface has
when soil is pulverized. a broken or rippled
appearance.
Clay Loam Very firm aggregates and Cast can bear much han-
hard clods that strongly dling without breaking.
resist crushing by hand. Pinched between the
When pulverized, the soil thumb and forefinger, it
takes on a somewhat forms a ribbon whose
gritty feeling due to the surface tends to feel
harshness of the very slightly gritty when damp-
small aggregates which ened and rubbed. Soil is
persist. plastic, sticky and puddles
easily.
Table I.2 Continued

TEXTURAL PROPERTIES OF MINERAL SOILS
Soil Feeling and Appearance

Class Dry Soil Moist Soil
Clay Aggregates are hard; clods Casts can bear considera-
are extremely hard and ble handling without
strongly resist crushing by breaking. Forms a flexible
hand. When pulverized, it ribbon between thumb
has a grit-like texture due and forefinger and retains
to the harshness of its plasticity when elon-
numerous very small gated. Rubbed surface has
aggregates which persist. a very smooth, satin feel-
ing. Sticky when wet and
easily puddled.
a
Source: EPA-625/1-80-12.
results. Siltation or caving of test holes may require special

construction measures to prevent the soil absorption system
from suffering the same fate.
6. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Criteria
a. For uniform soil units, use a mpi between mean and
most-conservative. If there are no uniform soil units, the
location with the least favorable mpi overrides any other test
in the area of the disposal field.
b. Unless an area has been defined to have degraded or
degradable groundwater, there shall be a minimum of 5 ft
(leachlines) or 10 ft (seepage pits) of soil between the bottom
of the soil absorption system and groundwater. If a soil has a
perk time between 1 and 5 mpi, then the soil for a total
thickness of 5 ft below the bottom of a leachline shall contain
at least 10% of material passing the #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
t 1
depth1 t 2 depth 2 ∆t ∆d ∆t/∆d mpi
Figure I.1 Form for leachline test.
APPENDIX I 257
db
ti t f
t d i
d F F = d - d
F i Q = 45FD/Lt
or "pit mpi" =
20FD/Lt
Where d b = depth to bottom, feet

t i = initial time, when refilling is completed, hour
t F = final time, when measurement is made
t = time interval, 0.5 or 0.166 hour
d i = depth to water surface at t , feet i
dp = depth to water surface at t , feet F
L = average length of water column, feet

Q = gallons of water absorbed per square foot per day
D = diameter of hole in feet
Figure I.2 Form for seepage pit, falling head test.
(and less than one-fourth of a representative vertical soil

cross-section shall be occupied by stones larger than 0.5 ft).
Where this requirement is not met, a 40-ft separation shall be
maintained below the bottom of the leachline and highest
expected groundwater (50-yr height). Fairly uniform coarse-
textured soils shall not be used for seepage pits if the "pit
mpi" is less than 10 and the separation to groundwater is less
than 40 ft.
6.2 Conversion of measurements to absorption area requirements.

[Table 1.3 was derived by interpolation of data from the
EPA Manual Table 7-2. The requirements per 100 gal of sep-
tic tank capacity refer to septic tanks not larger than 1,500
gal; if larger tanks are used, the requirements should be
increased in proportion to the ratios of rated flows to the
tank capacities.]
For leachlines, use absorption areas in Table I.3 and leave
reserve area for another set of leachlines. For pits 15 to 30 ft
deep in unstratified or poorly stratified soils, use a sewage
disposal rate between 1 gal/ft /day (if the soils are coarse-
2
textured) and 0.4 gal/ft /day (if not coarse-textured but the fall-
2
ing head test Q is over 15 gal water/ft /day). If the soils are2
Table I.3 Perk Times and Absorption Area Requirements

Ft of absorption area/100
2
Perk time, mpi gal of septic tank capacity

0-4 55
5-6 65
7-9 75
10-14 85
15-19 100
20-29 115
30-44 130
45-60 145
> 60 normally unsuitable; consult
with county specialist a
a
I prefer not to give a categorical "no" when I see mpi's higher than 60.
Often, the measurement technique is at fault. Soils with mpi 60-120 and
even higher can be used with increased absorption area. Also, when perk
testers call in for consultations, they reveal where a problem area exists.
stratified and/or Q is less than 15 gal water/ft /day, anything

2
might happen regarding longevity. [A jurisdiction should

not grant approval to seepage pits under these conditions,
unless the perk report consultant assumes responsibility if
the pit lasts less than 10yr, or other arrangements are made.]
Leave enough expansion area for at least three more sets of
pits.
6.3 Special situations

a. If leachlines or pits serve a common system for two or
more units, add 30% more square footage.
b. If leachlines must be under dirt driveways or pavement,
increase affected footage by 30%. Such installations are not
recommended. Ensure against subsidence and breakage.
Provide aeration ports for leachlines.
c. If leachlines are affected by conditions (a) and (b) above,
increase their footage by 60%.
d. For laundromats, and confluent systems serving mobile
home parks or shopping centers (3 or more shops), multiply
square footage by 2.5.
APPENDIX I 259
7 PLOT PER CURRENTLY ADOPTED UPC

Plot system and 100% (300%) expansion system. Slope
precision is ± 2%. Remember UPC requirements are mini-
mum requirements under the most ideal conditions. Disre-
gard UPC Table I-4. Where higher requirements are called
for, use higher requirements.
8 GENERAL DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, A N D

RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Specify pertinent Water Quality Control Board require-

ments and state whether they are being met.
8.2 State unequivocally whether each lot has sufficient area

to handle the liquid waste without creating a nuisance or
contaminating groundwater. Include a qualifying statement
if swimming pools, building expansions, etc., are or may be
planned. Provide a set of septic system user guidelines to
your client, whether prepared by yourself or by the county.
[End of Perk Standards text]
18.2 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The previous section is useful as a framework. All possible

constraints might not have been mentioned. The perk con-
sultant must ensure that they are.
The main purpose of the perk report is not to force perk
consultants to comply with a bunch of requirements, but to
ensure that the septic system will "work" (i.e., will last at
least 20 years, and will not cause health or pollution haz-
ards). Other purposes are:
a. After reviewing the report, the county specialist may
offer advice on how to improve a design.
b. A record is provided for possible action against unprin-
cipled or incompetent consultants.
c. If something goes wrong and the septic system "fails"
prematurely, a consultant has something on record to prove

that he did notice all physical constraints and that his recom-
mendations were "state of the art."
When I evaluate a site, this is what I notice in reference to

some of the subsections in the Perk Standards above:
1.4. Description of property

c. Vegetation is a very good indicator of rainfall, soil, and
drainage conditions. Dwarf trees often indicate the presence
of a shallow, low-permeability claypan; willows, high sea-
sonal groundwater; cattails, year-round high groundwater.
d. Too many septic systems in an area might raise ground-
water level or result in mounding.
e, f. Indicator-types of rocks a consultant should be famil-
iar with are:
Shale, slate, and schist. They are associated with low-
permeability/mounding and with fractures/channels. Soils
derived from mica schist may yield erratic perk test readings.
(Mica flakes are suspended when water scours sidewalls of
test holes, and plug up the hole absorption surface.) Dolo-
mite is associated with fractures/channels in humid climates.
(Apparently, it is not a problem in California.)
1.5. Determining slope

If a hand level is not available, a carpenter's level and a
tape can be used to determine slope. First pour some water
on the soil and see where it runs, to ensure your line of sight
will be parallel to the maximum slope. Tie the carpenter's
level over the middle of a straight 2x4 stud. Place the stud
level over the path of the water, with one end on the soil and
the other up in the air. Measure the vertical distance from the
end up in the air down to the soil. Divide this distance by the
length of the stud and you get the slope.
If water is not available, move the floating end of the stud
from side to side, and measure the longest vertical distance
down to ground level.
APPENDIX I 261
3.2. Instructions for technicians: leachline test

Excavation: Bottom of excavated trench, approximately 13
in. above designed bottom of leachline trench.
Hole: Diameter after scraping, 5.5-6.5 in. Depth, 13 in.;
gravel, 2 in. of pea gravel. Place perforated can on top.
Soaking: Fill hole with 12 in. of water (10 in. above bottom
of perforated can).
a. If twice 10 in. seep away in less than 10 min and soil is
coarse-textured, begin testing; otherwise,
b. Maintain level (8-13 in.) for 4 hr or 5 gal.
Testing: Begin testing 15-20 hr after beginning of soaking
or after 5 gal are absorbed.
a. Fill hole to 8 in. level (6 in. from bottom of can)
b. If 6 in. are absorbed in 30 min, take readings at 10-min
intervals; otherwise, at 30-min intervals.
c. Measure to nearest 1/16 in.
d. Make at least six consecutive readings until two mea-
surements do not vary by more than 1/16 in.
e. Final three measurements: a decline of not less than 1 in.
and not more than 3 in.; modify interval accordingly.
Simplified or shortcut procedure: Invert and secure full 5-
gal bottle over hole so it discharges at the 8-10-in. level.
After 5 gal are gone or the following day, remove bottle, and
proceed with measurements. If there is still 6-8 in. of water
in the hole, refill and make two final measurements; if there
is less than 6 in. of water, go to "Testing," point (d), above.
5.1 Uniform soil units

A uniform soil unit is defined by a minimum of four
(points or) measurements and a range of ± one-third of the
mean. Measurements of 30, 40, 40, and 50 mpi define a uni-
form soil unit with a mean of 40 mpi.
Measurements of 20, 40, 60, and 80 mpi have a mean of 50
mpi. One-third of 50 is 16 mpi. Only two of these four mea-
surements fall between 34 and 66 mpi. We do not have a
uniform soil unit.
B
(40 mpi)
A C
(100 mpi) E (50 mpi)
(40 mpi)
D
(30 mpi)
Figure I.3 Bird's-eye view of distribution of perk times in a field.
6.1 Design criteria

Let us assume mpi measurements are spread out in the
field as shown in Figure I.3. The set of measurements A, B,
C, D does not define a uniform soil unit. If E does not exist,
the area ABCD is assigned 100 mpi. If E exists, the areas AEB
and AED are assigned 100 mpi; the area BCDE is assigned an
mpi between 40 and 50, say 45 mpi.
6.3 Special situations

To lower a groundwater table, or to divert springs away
from leachline areas on sloping ground (> 5%), I have
found no need for formulas or experimental hydraulic con-
ductivity determinations. It is much more practical to install
a simple French drain upslope (20 ft minimum horizontal
distance upslope from leachfield; 25 ft minimum distance
from each side of leachfield; and a bit lower than the maxi-
mum allowed depth of groundwater).
Appendix J
A leaflet prepared for public distribution is reproduced

here. It was developed so that it could be printed and distrib-
uted by private businessmen (septic pumpers, real estate
agents; see upper right corner of its first page) at no cost to
the county. It was kept small and trim so that it would be
read.
263
$ SAVE MONEY $
Mr./Ms. Homeowner:
T h i s n o t i f i c a t i o n c o u l d save you anywhere from about S600.00

t o t h e a c t u a l v a l u e o f y o u r home.
U n l e s s you a r e a l r e a d y p a y i n g m o n t h l y sewer b i l l s , you may be u s i n g

a s e p t i c system f o r d i s p o s i n g o f your wastewater ( t o i l e t f l u s h i n g s ,
shower, k i t c h e n , w a s h i n g m a c h i n e s ) . I f and when a p a r t o f t h i s
system " f a i l s " , t h e h e a l t h o f t h e members o f y o u r h o u s e h o l d and o f
your n e i g h b o r s i s endangered; and t h e n , you a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e p l a c e
the " f a i l e d " p o r t i o n o f y o u r s e p t i c s y s t e m .
T h i s l e a f l e t e x p l a i n s how t o t a k e good c a r e o f y o u r s e p t i c system

and a v o i d problems and c o s t l y r e p l a c e m e n t s .
The s e p t i c system is composed o f a s e p t i c tank and a leach f i e l d .

The s e p t i c tank i s u s u a l l y a concrete " b o x " o f about 1,000 g a l l o n s
capacity. I t i s most o f t e n located about f i v e feet from your
house, under two o r three f e e t o f s o i l . Wastewater flows i n t o
t h i s t a n k , and stays t h e r e t e m p o r a r i l y . During t h i s s t a y , the
o i l and grease I n the wastewater r i s e t o the top o f the t a n k ,
where they form scum, and the s o l i d s s i n k t o the b o t t o m , where
they form sludge. The c l e a r wastewater In the middle o f the tank
flows t o the l e a c h f i e l d , and p e r c o l a t e s down i n t o the s o i l .
The l e a c h f i e l d u s u a l l y c o n s i s t s o f e i t h e r l e a c h l i n e s , which are

g r a v e l - f i l l e d underground t r e n c h e s , o r o f seepage p i t s , which
are v e r t i c a l holes i n the g r o u n d , f o u r t o s i x f e e t i n diameter
and f i f t e e n t o f o r t y f e e t deep, w i t h concrete block w a l l s and a
s o i l - c o v e r e d l i d on t o p .
I f the scum and sludge are l e f t t o accumulate i n the tank too

l o n g , they f i l l up the t a n k , a r e discharged i n t o the l e a c h f i e l d ,
and plug up the s o i l . Then, the l e a c h f i e l d " f a i l s " : the waste-
water comes up t o the s o i l s u r f a c e , and new l e a c h l i n e s o r seepage
p i t s must be c o n s t r u c t e d under a permit from the County (or C i t y )
Department o f B u i l d i n g and S a f e t y .
There a r e n i n e i m p o r t a n t p r i n c i p l e s t h a t e n s u r e a good and economic

f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e s e p t i c system:
- 1 -
APPENDIX J 265
1. The most i m p o r t a n t one i s t o use t h e s e r v i c e s o f a c o u n t y -

l i c e n s e d s e p t i c tank pumper e v e r y two t o f o u r y e a r s . The
t a n k s h o u l d be pumped when t h e t o t a l d e p t h o f f l o a t i n g scum
p l u s bottom sludge exceeds o n e - t h i r d of the depth of the
l i q u i d i n the tank. Check y o u r phone book y e l l o w pages f o r
l i c e n s e d S e p t i c Tank Pumpers o r r e q u e s t ( f r e e ) r e f e r r a l s
f r o m t h e L i q u i d Waste Management A s s o c i a t i o n — (714) 883-8701
(at 3972 N. Waterman Ave., Suite 106, San Bernardino 92404).
Make sure the second compartment of your s e p t i c tank i s pumped at l e a s t

every t h i r d time. (Uncover two l i d s . )
2. A l t h o u g h p e r m i t t e d by t h e U n i f o r m P l u m b i n g Code, i t i s b e t t e r
not t o p a v e o v e r , d r i v e o v e r , o r t r a m p l e y o u r l e a c h l i n e s .
T r a f f i c v i b r a t i o n may a l s o damage y o u r seepage p i t s .
3. Do not w a s t e money on y e a s t s , b a c t e r i a , o r enzymes.

A c c o r d i n g t o s c i e n t i f i c t e s t s , t h e y do not p r e v e n t prema-
t u r e f a i l u r e o f l e a c h f i e l d s ; o n l y r e g u l a r t a n k pumpings do.
4. C h e m i c a l s used t o c o r r e c t f a i l u r e s postpone f i n a l f a i l u r e
f o r o n l y a few months. O f t e n t h e y c o r r o d e y o u r s e p t i c t a n k
and s e e p a g e p i t l i n i n g and r e s u l t i n t h e i r c o l l a p s e . Some
a r e h a z a r d o u s and c o n t a m i n a t e g r o u n d w a t e r . They a r e not
recommended.
5. Do not f l u s h down e x c e s s i v e amounts o f o i l o r f r y i n g - p a n

grease. Do not l e a v e f a u c e t s r u n n i n g f o r l o n g p e r i o d s o f
time. Keep f a u c e t s and t o i l e t s i n good r e p a i r . I f you u s e
y o u r g a r b a g e d i s p o s a l y o u r s e p t i c t a n k w i l l f i l l up much
faster.
6. T r y n o t t o d e s t r o y an o l d , f a i l e d l e a c h f i e l d : I t may be
u s e d a g a i n a f t e r i t r e s t s f o r t h r e e t o f i v e y e a r s . When you
have a new l e a c h f i e l d b u i l t , have a d i v e r s i o n v a l v e i n s t a l l e d
t o p e r m i t you t o d i s c h a r g e w a s t e w a t e r t o t h e new o r t o t h e
old f i e l d . A f t e r t h r e e t o f i v e y e a r s , d i s c h a r g e t o t h e new
f i e l d on even-numbered y e a r s , and t o t h e o l d one on odd-
numbered y e a r s . I f you l e t a l e a c h f i e l d r e s t e v e r y o t h e r
y e a r , t h e l e a c h f i e l d m i g h t l a s t f i f t y o r more y e a r s , w i t h
r e g u l a r s e p t i c t a n k p u m p i n g . But i f you have trees nearby, roots
may plug up the d r y i n g l e a c h f i e I d .
7. I f y o u r c o n t r a c t o r has n o t p r o v i d e d you w i t h one, make a
s k e t c h of the layout of your s e p t i c system. ( I t w i l l cost
more t o pump y o u r t a n k o r t o i n s t a l l a new l e a c h f i e l d i f
t h e pumpers o r c o n t r a c t o r s have t o d i g and s e a r c h f o r t h e
f i e l d o r t a n k ) . Y o u r l i c e n s e d pumper can h e l p you s k e t c h
the l a y o u t .
8. Keep a r e c o r d o f i n s t a l l a t i o n s and o f pumpings. If a leach-

f i e l d f a i l s l e s s t h a n f i v e y e a r s a f t e r i t has been i n s t a l l e d ,
t h i s may i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e l e a c h f i e l d was not c o n s t r u c t e d
properly. P l e a s e r e p o r t t h i s t o Environmental Health Service,
(714) 383-2543.
9. When you s e l l ( o r buy) a h o u s e u s i n g a s e p t i c s y s t e m , g i v e

( o r r e q u e s t ) t h e l a y o u t o f s e p t i c s y s t e m i n s t a l l a t i o n s and
r e c o r d o f pumpings as shown i n t h i s l e a f l e t .
- 2 -
- 3 -
APPENDIX J 267
SKETCH OF SEPTIC SYSTEM LAYOUT
- 4 -
Appendix K
PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
Much information about septic systems can be found in

other currently available publications. I believe that four of
these should be in the library of every professional:
EPA's Design Manual: On-site Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
posal Systems. Available from National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; the
order number is EPA-625/1-80-012. It is as essential to a sep-
tic systems consultant as a Bible is to a preacher.
J. T. Winneberger's Septic Tank Systems. This book points
out what's wrong with the "Bible" above, and what's wrong
with many common beliefs. It is also witty and humorous. It
requires little math. You'll be delighted with Winneberger's
writing style. (I was.) Order it from Butterworth Publishers,
80 Montvale Avenue, Stoneham, M A 02180; the order num-
ber is 0-250-40651-9, Septic Tank Systems/Winneberger.
R. Laak's second edition of Wastewater Engineering Design
for Unsewered Areas is a good companion to Winneberger's
book and vice versa. Laak's book is broad in scope (but very
succinct), uses more math, and allows the reader to quickly
find much information. It describes innovative infiltration
and denitrification systems patented by its author. It was
published in 1986 by Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., 851
New Holland Avenue, Lancaster, PA 17604.
IAPMO's Uniform Plumbing Code, if adopted by your
local jurisdiction. IAPMO, 5032 Alhambra Avenue, Los
Angeles, C A 90032.
269
At another level, the book Ethics is useful as a guide for

consultants, and as a guide for governmental officials who
want to know what to expect and demand from consultants.
Although written for engineers, the book is pertinent to pro-
fessionals in all environmental fields. (Gunn, A . S., and
Vesilind, P. A. 1986. Environmental Ethics for Engineers. Lewis
Publishers, 121 S. Main Street, Chelsea, MI 48118.)
Professionals who wish to keep abreast of practical devel-
opments in the field without spending too much time or
money may wish to purchase the "Proceedings of the [nth]
National Symposium on Individual and Small Community
Sewage Systems," published every three years by the Ameri-
can Society of Agricultural Engineers. (The Proceedings of
the Fourth National Symposium were published in 1985.)
ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659.
Professionals who wish to explore related theoretical top-
ics, well beyond practical needs, might find the following
papers useful as a starting point.
Corey, A. T., and Klute, A. 1985. Application of the poten-
tial concept to soil water equilibrium and transport. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 49:3-11. (A review of fundamental concepts, with
corrections and clarifications.)
Dane, J. H . , et al. 1986. Estimating soil parameters and
sample size by bootstrapping. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:283-287.
(A new statistical technique.)
Byers, E., and Stephens, D. 1983. Statistical and stochastic
analysis of hydraulic conductivity and particle size in a flu-
vial sand. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47: 1072-1081. (Hydraulic con-
ductivity was log-normally distributed, whereas the 10%
finer mean particle sizes were normally distributed. Empiri-
cal formulas relating d[10] to k are useful only as rough
approximations, not as predictors of k values.)
Boast, C. W., and Langebartel, R. G . 1984. Shape factors
for seepage into pits. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:10-15. (One way
to calculate k in the field is to measure how fast the ground-
water level recuperates after pumping a pit that reaches
below the water table. This article explores the effect of pit
shape and other factors.)
APPENDIX K 271
Russo, D., and Bresler, E. 1981. Soil hydraulic properties

as a stochastic process. Part I. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:682-687.
Russo, D., and Bresler, E. 1982. Soil hydraulic properties
as a stochastic process. Part II. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:20-26.
(At any location, values of k and of other soil properties are
not independent of values obtained near that location. The
number of samples may be reduced without decreasing
accuracy.)
Practically all of the knowledge in the previously noted
articles has been distilled into Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I
(second edition, 1986). This book is indispensable to those
who wish to understand soil testing methodology and its
limitations. It discusses, in detail, just about every method to
measure Darcy's constant k in the field and the laboratory. It
is available from the Soil Science Society of America, 677
South Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53771.
A recent book by Perkins (Onsite Wastewater Disposal, 1989,
R. Perkins, Lewis Publishers, Inc.) has useful pictures and
schematics of septic systems and components. I'd caution
readers to ascertain the limitations of the easy-to-follow rules
or recommendations provided in Perkins' book. For
instance, my local experience is that the minimum amount of
square feet of bottom area in Perkins' Table 5.1 regarding fine
and coarse sand has commonly resulted in failures after
about three years of use. As another instance, in the "Com-
posting Toilets" section, Perkins describes the advantages of
well-maintained composting toilets. Then he warns that a
poorly maintained toilet will "stink and be an unpleasant
mess to clean up." He states, "Before you install a compost
toilet, recognize that it is a biological system just like your
own body, and commit to the regular care and feeding of
that system." Personally, I am more concerned about the
survival of pathogens and parasites than about the smell and
the unpleasantness. Moreover, I figured out that while it
takes me one to five minutes to make use of a conventional
toilet, it would take me an additional 10 to 20 or more min-
utes to collect and add the required sawdust or straw and to
mix this into the compost after every use. I might exert
myself for a day or two, but thereafter I would get tired of

the maintenance hassle. I do not recommend allowing the
installation of private composting toilets wherever the pro-
spective users might feel as I do.
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment (D. Hammer,
ed., 1989, Lewis Publishers, Inc.) may be of interest to con-
sultants who are tempted to treat sewage in natural wetlands
or in artificial "single-home-size" mini-wetlands. Mainte-
nance and vector problems prevent artificial mini-wetlands
from becoming very common in Southern California. But in
other parts of the United States, they might have a very
bright future. The same can be said for artificial wetlands
large enough to serve a whole community.
Appendix L
QUESTIONS, PROBLEMS, A N D BRAIN TEASERS
1. The stabilized perk rate in a leachline perk test hole is 0.1

ipm. The measurement interval is 30 min. The soil is iso-
tropic. If the measurement interval is shortened to 15 min,
the measured perk rate usually will:
a. Double to 0.2 ipm.
b. Increase to a bit more than 0.1 ipm, but not as much as
0.2 ipm.
c. Stay the same.
d. Decrease to a bit less than 0.1 ipm, but not as much as
0.05 ipm.
e. Decrease to 0.05 ipm.
2. A technician has been sloppy and his readings of stabi-

lized rates have a 1/4-in. precision. A trend is not detectable.
If you had to use his findings, how would you make them
more meaningful? His measurements for four test holes (six
sequential measurements per hole) are given below. The
inches of fall in 30-min intervals are:
Hole No.
1 2, 1.75, 2.25, 1.75, 1.75, 2.25
2 1, 1.5, 1.5, 1, 1, 1.5
3 2.25, 1.75, 2, 1.75, 2, 2.25
4 1.5, 1, 1, 1.5, 1, 1.5
3. A perforated pipe 2 in. in diameter and 34 ft long is
273
placed in a seepage-pit test hole 34 ft deep and 6 in. in

diameter. Then the hole is gravel packed 30 ft high. The
water level is refilled to 4 ft below grade (30 ft above bottom).
The gravel voids are 33%. If the rate of fall is 5 ft during a
measurement interval of 30 min,
a. What is the true rate of fall after accounting for the
gravel?
b. The same question as above, but assume the gravel
packing is only 20 ft high.
4. Fit a 400-ft house pad near the middle of a lot 30 x 100 ft,
2
and design (per UPC) a septic tank and leachline (plus 100%
expansion). Assume that the required absorption area is
50ft /100 gal of septic tank capacity. The house has two bed-
2
rooms; the terrain is flat and has no trees.
5. The formulas derived in Chapter 13 have some limita-

tions, even from the mathematical point of view. Under
what theoretical soil conditions would they not be accurate
and thus require iterative calculations?
6. A sanitarian measured the vacuum generated by septic

tank pumper trucks within his jurisdiction. The results var-
ied from a (suction head) low of 12 ft of water to a high of 27
ft of water. In the local mountain areas, some septic tanks
were being installed at inaccessible locations; the truck vac-
uum pumps would be faced with lifting pumped sewage
more than 50 feet up (vertical distance). No pumper used
centrifugal pumps, and none was about to.
The sanitarian decided to forbid the installation of septic
tanks at locations more than 25 (vertical) ft down from the
assumed height of the truck vacuum pumps.
Was this a good decision? (The answer is at the end of this
appendix.)
7. Some fine gravels might retain water and foul up the

measurement of voids by the methodology presented in
Chapter 6. How would you avoid this fouling up with only
APPENDIX L 275
two implements: a little drill to make a hole in the can, and

your finger?
8. A seepage pit test hole set as in Problem 3 above is

gravel packed to near the top. The top 3 ft is backfilled with
native soil. Water is rapidly pumped from a water truck into
the hole through the perforated 2-in. pipe. After a few min-
utes, and rumbling noises, water erupts 10 ft into the air
from the top of the pit test hole (through the tip of the perfo-
rated pipe). Just as with Old Faithful, the eruptions are fairly
timely for a while. But with time, the eruptions occur less
frequently and reach lower heights. (Are you a practical
joker? Try it out, you'll have fun!)
Explain this phenomenon.
Could the same thing happen in any gravel-packed hole?
Could rate-of-fall measurements be affected?
9. In your own words, prepare a list of dos and don'ts

regarding use of septic systems.
10. Seepage pits were used in a new subdivision tract (40

half-acre lots, residential). The soils were generally coarse-
textured, very permeable, and deep. Pits 15 ft deep have
lasted well over 10 yr in the general area. All of a sudden, the
pits in three lots failed simultaneously after only 3 yr of use.
The septic system contractor checked his records and
obtained samples of the liquid in the pits. This is his report:
a. The 17-ft-deep pits were excavated through (top to bot-
tom) 12 ft of sand, followed by 2 ft of clay, followed by 3 ft of
sand.
b. The liquid in the pit was not clear; it had black sludge
particles.
Can you offer explanations for the failures? (Two hypothe-
ses are offered at the end of this appendix.)
11. Two soils have identical percent voids, identical parti-

cle densities, and identical bulk densities. Can you assume
their k's are identical? Why or why not?
12. Imagine an isotropic sand stratum 10 ft thick over com-

pletely impermeable bedrock. The k of the sand is 1 ft/day.
The k' of the bedrock is zero. The terrain is horizontal and
flat for miles. A 100-ft-long leachline discharges 1 ft /day/
3
lineal ft. Assume flows obey Darcy's formula. Disregarding

evapotranspiration and rainfall, a. How long would it take
for the top of the mound to rise 8 ft above the bedrock?
(Hint: the final formulas derived in Chapter 13 are useless
when k' is zero. Make slightly different assumptions, and
derive a different formula that will give you the dimensions
of h and X after one day's Q has mounded. Assume the ratio
of h to X will hold when the rise is 8 feet.)
b. What is the maximum rise of the mound if the terrain
slope becomes 40% and the leachline follows contour lines?
c. What is the maximum rise of the mound if the terrain is
horizontal and flat again but 3 ft of water is lost to evapotran-
spiration per year?
13. How would you go about estimating the (horizontal) k

of an aquifer? (Many answers are possible.)
14. A large-diameter, 4-ft-long vertical tube is full of 3/4-

in.-diameter gravel (high uniformity coefficient). For our
purposes, the gravel has 33% voids. The tube is used to
measure the k of this gravel. The result is that k = 40 ft/day.
The measurement is repeated, but this time a tracer dye is
uniformly mixed in with the water, at the top of the tube.
Assume laminar flow.
a. Approximately how long would it take for the first color-
ation to be visible at the bottom of the tube?
b. Let us repeat the whole thing, but this time with a sand
of low uniformity coefficient, 33% voids, and a k of 4 ft/day.
Approximately how long would it take for the dye to appear
at the bottom, especially in comparison to the gravel (i.e.,
would it take 10 times longer)? Why?
15. Forget about the Uniform Plumbing Code and explore

in your imagination different shapes of excavations to create
APPENDIX L 277
absorption surfaces for sewage disposal: U shape, V shape,

vertical cylinder, deep trench, etc. Figure out the least costly
type of excavation that will make the best possible use of a
"load" of gravel (a truck-trailer combination carries a load of
about 22 tons or 350 ft [about $300 locally]). Assume you
3
work with your local excavation costs, and your local gravel
cost. Envision the following different situations:
a. Root-plugging hazard
b. Soil sloughing hazard
c. Groundwater at 10 ft
16. In the pit falling head formula, L is the arithmetic aver-

age length of the water column. Is this a correct average? If
the soil is isotropic, does the water column fall at a constant
speed from a height of, say, 30 ft (above bottom) to a height
of 15 ft? How would you compute the true value of L?
17. A consultant follows the UPC to the letter. He designs a

septic system as follows:
One hundred feet upslope from a neighbor's drinking-
water well, the consultant installs a leachline. The soil is
"coarse sand and gravel," and is loaded at the UPC's rate of 5
gal of sewage/ft of absorption area/day. The perk time of the
2
soil is 0.1 mpi. Groundwater is 5 ft below leachline bottom.

When the neighbor's well is not pumping, the water moves
downslope at a velocity of 30 ft/day.
You are the sanitarian who has to approve the septic sys-
tem. What will you do?
18. In a uniform soil, the measurements from 40 leachline

test holes, 6 in. in diameter, average out to a normally dis-
tributed mean of 10 ± 1 mpi. If the testing will be replicated
with 12-in. test holes, what mpi's might be measured?
19. In a uniform soil, the measurements from 40 seepage

pit test holes, 6 in. in diameter and 30 ft deep, average out to
a normally distributed Q of 20 ± 2 gal of water/ft /day. If the
2
testing will be replicated with 12-in.-diameter holes, what

Q's might be measured (per the falling-head formula)?
20. Use the formula to correct for gravel packing, and cal-
culate the error from ignoring the thickness (volume) of the
perforated pipe that holds the gravel in place. Assume that
the inner diameter of the pipe is 1.5 in., and that the outer
diameter is 1.75 in. Assume the test holes are 6 in. and 3 in.
in diameter.
ANSWERS T O PROBLEMS 6 A N D 10
6. If your answer is yes, congratulations. You are intelli-

gent and well educated, and you know physics. One cannot
lift water more than about 27 feet by vacuum.
However, your answer is absolutely incorrect. But don't let
that bother you. You are in excellent company.
I was the sanitarian mentioned in Problem 6. I had drafted
rules and regulations to prohibit installation of septic tanks
too far down from a pumper truck's vertical reach.
One day I learned from a reliable source that the pumpers
in our mountain area, who didn't know that it was impos-
sible to do what they were doing, were in fact pumping
septage up 40 to 80 feet by vacuum!
I went to the mountains, and found out that it was possi-
ble. The pumpers allowed air bubbles to be sucked up with
the septage. As the bubbles rose, they pushed the fluid up.
This was a slow process. Some pumpers accelerated the pro-
cess and increased the lift power by introducing compressed
air into the lower end of the hose.
(Fortunately, the rules and regulations I drafted got lost in
"the paper shuffle," and never saw the lights of the Board of
Supervisors' chamber.)
I tested Problem 6 on a couple of top-notch engineers. As I
suspected, they also knew enough physics to assure me
pumpers couldn't pump that high. (Some of us educated
APPENDIX L 279
p r o f e s s i o n a l s w o u l d not q u a l i f y to be g o o d septic tank

pumpers!)
10. T h e r e are m a n y p o s s i b i l i t i e s . I n m y o p i n i o n , the m o s t

l i k e l y h y p o t h e s e s are:
a. Septage p l u g g e d the b o t t o m 3 ft of the p i t . W a t e r started
m o u n d i n g above the clay a n d created anaerobic c o n d i t i o n s
that p r o m o t e d faster d e v e l o p m e n t of a l o w e r - p e r m e a b i l i t y
b i o m a t o v e r the rest of the p i t . T h e septage got o u t of the
( t w o - c o m p a r t m e n t ) septic t a n k because it w a s i n s u s p e n s i o n .
T h i s m a y h a p p e n w h e n there is a t h e r m a l i n v e r s i o n a n d the
b o t t o m (sludge) l a y e r rises to the t o p of the t a n k . A l s o , s o m e
septic t a n k a d d i t i v e s (bacteria, e n z y m e s , yeasts) generate lit-
tle b u b b l e s that rise as a f r o t h a n d c a n attach to a n d m o v e
s l u d g e particles.
b . T h e clay w a s s m e a r e d a r o u n d the b o t t o m 3 ft of the p i t
d u r i n g p i t e x c a v a t i o n , a n d sealed it. M o u n d i n g , a l o n g w i t h
e s c a p i n g s l u d g e , d i d the rest.
Appendix M
A N INTRODUCTION T O T H E WORLD OF LAW
W h a t o n e does i n p r o f e s s i o n a l practice d e p e n d s n o t only

o n one's t e c h n i c a l k n o w l e d g e , b u t o n l e g a l a n d ethical con-
straints. L e t u s start b y g e t t i n g a c q u a i n t e d w i t h o u r legal
e n v i r o n m e n t . L a t e r o n , i n A p p e n d i x R, w e ' l l d e l v e into
ethics.
I w a s first i n t r o d u c e d to the i n f l u e n c e of o u r l e g a l / j u d i c i a l
s y s t e m b y m y s u p e r v i s o r i n 1974. S o o n after I b e g a n m y
practice as a c o u n t y septic s y s t e m s specialist, I detected
f a l s e h o o d s a n d deficiencies i n a r e p o r t s u b m i t t e d b y a d e v e l -
o p e r . M y s u p e r v i s o r t o l d m e to a p p r o v e the r e p o r t if it w a s
s i g n e d b y a r e g i s t e r e d c i v i l engineer. H e e x p l a i n e d that l i a b i l -
ity w o u l d rest o n the engineer, n o t o n o u r c o u n t y . That's a l l
that mattered(!).
M a n y years later, a n e n g i n e e r ( w h o r e a d S e p t i c S y s t e m s
H a n d b o o k ) p r o p e r l y d e s i g n e d l e a c h l i n e s a l o n g c o n t o u r s of
s l o p i n g t e r r a i n w i t h o u t u s i n g a d i s t r i b u t i o n b o x , i n o r d e r to
a v o i d p r e m a t u r e f a i l u r e . ( A p p r o p r i a t e l y , he u s e d d r o p
b o x e s . ) B u t the c o u n t y s a n i t a r i a n i n s i s t e d that he use a d i s t r i -
b u t i o n b o x , because the U n i f o r m P l u m b i n g C o d e (still)
r e q u i r e s it. T h e e n g i n e e r c o n s e n t e d after the s a n i t a r i a n
stated h i s d e m a n d i n w r i t i n g . If the e n g i n e e r is s u e d for
designing a short-lived leachfield, he can rightfully blame
the c o u n t y . T h e c o u n t y is p r o b a b l y i m m u n e to a l a w s u i t
because the s a n i t a r i a n f o l l o w e d r e g u l a t i o n s a n d " a c c e p t e d
281
p r a c t i c e / ' T h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r w h o p a i d for the l e a c h f i e l d is

the o n e w h o m a y suffer the c o n s e q u e n c e s .
S o o n after the d e v a s t a t i n g 1988 A r m e n i a n e a r t h q u a k e , a
story w a s i n the n e w s . O f f i c i a l s b r o u g h t f o o d a n d m e d i c a l
s u p p l i e s to s u r v i v o r s i n a d e v a s t a t e d A r m e n i a n v i l l a g e .
H o w e v e r , t h e y r e f u s e d to d i s t r i b u t e s u c h i t e m s to the s u r v i -
v o r s because there w e r e n o l o c a l officials that c o u l d s i g n the
receipt f o r m s : t h e y h a d a l l p e r i s h e d i n the e a r t h q u a k e . I n a
t o t a l i t a r i a n state, strict a n d i d i o t i c a d h e r e n c e to r u l e s or r e g u -
l a t i o n s is quite u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . B u t i n " t h e l a n d of the free
a n d h o m e of the b r a v e / ' s u c h events are also rather c o m -
m o n , i n part t h a n k s to t o d a y ' s l e g a l / j u d i c i a l s y s t e m o r i g i n a l l y
d e s i g n e d to k e e p u s free. S o c o m m o n are these instances
that t h e y are accepted as i n e v i t a b l e facts of l i f e .
For i n s t a n c e , a c t i n g as a p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a n t , I c o m p l a i n e d
once to a c o u n t y septic s y s t e m specialist a b o u t a n a b s u r d
r e q u i r e m e n t . E v e r y t h i n g b e c a m e clear i n a f e w s e c o n d s as
the specialist j u s t i f i e d h i s p o s i t i o n i n f r o n t of m y client a n d
m y tape r e c o r d e r :
I w i l l explain to y o u what I was told w h e n I started this job

[as a septic systems specialist]. That I follow the standards as
they are i n the book. I was told that the previous specialist
did things by policy, without approval from anybody, and
that w i l l not happen [here]. Y o u [specialist] w i l l go to us
[departmental supervisors] and the Board of Supervisors and
follow procedure. Y o u won't have any problem if y o u follow
procedure because your liability is zero. Consultants w h o fol-
low procedure because the county dictates the procedure
have no liability because the county dictates procedure.
W h e n y o u deviate, y o u as [a] consultant are liable for things
that may fail prematurely.
In o t h e r w o r d s , h e s a i d that o n e m u s t a v o i d the p o s s i b i l i t y
of l a w s u i t s a n d " g o b y the b o o k " e v e n if " t h e b o o k " says that
e a r t h m e a s u r e m e n t s are to be b a s e d o n the e a r t h b e i n g flat.
H e m i g h t h a v e b e e n a b s o l u t e l y correct, if a v o i d i n g l i a b i l i t y
takes p r e c e d e n c e o v e r s e r v i n g the p u b l i c . (I s t r o n g l y d i s -
APPENDIX M 283
agree w i t h s u c h a p o s i t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y if there is s u b s t a n t i a l
p r o o f that the earth is s p h e r i c a l . ) B u t , alas, he h a d a p o i n t .
T h e a b o v e - c r i t i c i z e d w a y of t h i n k i n g is not c o m m o n o n l y
to p u b l i c agencies' p e r s o n n e l . P r i v a t e geologists a n d e n g i -
neers h a v e c o n f i d e d to m e that s o m e t i m e s t h e y h a d to d o
w h a t w a s l e g a l l y safe ( a n d f o l l o w e d i r r a t i o n a l , c o u n t e r p r o -
d u c t i v e rules) i n s t e a d of d o i n g w h a t w a s p r o f e s s i o n a l l y
h o n o r a b l e . I o p e n e d m y eyes a n d ears to the n e w s m e d i a
a n d f o u n d o u t that the s a m e p r o b l e m is c o m m o n i n m a n y
other f i e l d s of e n d e a v o r . (Just recently, the n e w s r e p o r t e d
that a drastic increase i n cesarean b i r t h s , w e l l b e y o n d
p a t i e n t s ' n e e d s a n d w i s h e s , is d u e to obstetricians' attempts
to l o w e r the r i s k of l a w s u i t s ; Forbes m a g a z i n e o f t e n carries
stories about h o w o u r tort s y s t e m is r u i n i n g o u r c o u n t r y
economically.)
S o , I d e c i d e d to e x p l o r e i n s o m e d e t a i l h o w " t h e l a w "
w o r k s a n d i n f l u e n c e s e v e r y b o d y i n g e n e r a l a n d h o w it
i m p a c t s the f i e l d of septic s y s t e m s . A t first I started w i t h
a r m c h a i r d e d u c t i o n s a n d inferences, a n d t h e n I c o m p a r e d
these w i t h the w o r l d I s a w d e p i c t e d i n the m e d i a . (It is p o s s i -
ble that w h a t I s a w i n the m e d i a w a s b i a s e d b y a n e e d to
v i n d i c a t e m y p e r s o n a l v i e w s . I d o n ' t t h i n k this w a s the case;
b u t , y o u be the j u d g e . )
T h e f o l l o w i n g sections w i l l e n c o m p a s s a r m c h a i r e v a l u a -
t i o n s , c o m p a r i s o n s w i t h r e v e l a t i o n s i n the m e d i a , s o m e per-
tinent experiences w i t h the l a w , a n d o p i n i o n s a n d sugges-
t i o n s o n h o w p r o f e s s i o n a l s c a n practice h o n o r a b l y a n d
s u r v i v e u n d e r o u r present l e g a l / j u d i c i a l s y s t e m .
M . l LAWS
M o s t l a w s originate i n o u r legislative b o d i e s . M a j o r l a w s
u s u a l l y s p e c i f y w i s h e s or abstract goals a n d are d e f i n e d b y
the j u d i c i a l s y s t e m at court trials.
It is g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d that the p u r p o s e of a l l g o v e r n m e n -
tal activity is to i n d u c e " t h e greatest g o o d to the greatest
n u m b e r of p e o p l e . " T h e r e f o r e , o n e w o u l d expect that w e

w o u l d elect as o u r legislators p e o p l e v e r s e d i n ethics a n d
e c o n o m i c s , m a n a g e m e n t science, or r e l a t e d f i e l d s . J u d g i n g
f r o m the n e w s , it a p p e a r s that w e d o not elect s u c h e n l i g h t -
ened people intentionally.
H o w e v e r , o u r representatives are w e l l v e r s e d i n p a s s i n g
l a w s . A c c o r d i n g to P e r k i n s , d u r i n g 1988, 1600 n e w b i l l s
1
w e r e a p p r o v e d i n C a l i f o r n i a ; at the f e d e r a l l e v e l , C o n g r e s s
p a s s e d o v e r 2700 b i l l s . Q u o t i n g P e r k i n s , " w i t h the . . . c o n -
t i n u i n g d e l u g e of n e w l a w s , y o u w i l l f i n d that the state a g e n -
cies h a v e s w i t c h e d f r o m e n f o r c i n g e x i s t i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l
p r o g r a m s to c r e a t i n g a n i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e p l e t h o r a of spe-
cial a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d t e c h n i c a l u n i t s that s p e n d 90 p e r c e n t
of t h e i r t i m e d e v e l o p i n g u n r e a l i s t i c s t a n d a r d s a n d the o t h e r
10 percent t r y i n g to get l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s to enforce t h e m .
A sort of p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i o n w i t h o u t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . " T h e
r e s u l t i n g p r o b l e m s h a v e " . . . c a u s e d S a c r a m e n t o to pass
a d d i t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n . T h i s i n t u r n has f u r t h e r c o n f u s e d
those w h o are r e g u l a t e d as w e l l as those w h o regulate a n d so
on ad nauseam." 1
A R C O ' s g e n e r a l c o u n s e l , F r a n c i s M c C o r m a c k , echoes
P e r k i n s : " A s a n a t i o n , w e are o v e r - l e g i s l a t e d a n d o v e r -
regulated, b u r y i n g ourselves i n laws a n d litigation. Things
h a v e g o t t e n so c o m p l i c a t e d that m a n a g e m e n t can't m o v e
w i t h o u t t a l k i n g to l a w y e r s . "
2
M a y b e the n e e d for l a w s increases l o g a r i t h m i c a l l y w i t h the

lack of ethics of the p o p u l a t i o n , a m o n g other t h i n g s . A t r i l -
l i o n l a w s can't force a p e o p l e w h o are not e t h i c a l l y o r i e n t e d
to " d o r i g h t . " E a c h a n d e v e r y e m p l o y e e or b u s i n e s s m a n
w o u l d h a v e to be r e g u l a t e d a n d i n s p e c t e d , a n d the r e g u l a -
tors a n d i n s p e c t o r s t h e m s e l v e s w o u l d h a v e to be r e g u l a t e d
a n d i n s p e c t e d , a n d so o n u n t i l the n u m b e r of p e o p l e
r e q u i r e d to regulate a n d i n s p e c t constitutes a sizable part of
the p o p u l a t i o n . A n d e v e n t h e n , w h o w o u l d regulate a n d
i n s p e c t the t o p m o s t regulators a n d inspectors?
T h e b u r d e n of l a w s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s as a substitute f o r
e t h i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s is a s t r o n o m i c a l . Let's a s s u m e that i n a
f i e l d of l a w there are o n l y 99 l a w s e n a c t e d . If w e a d d o n e
APPENDIX M 285
a d d i t i o n a l l a w , h o w m u c h t i m e w o u l d it take to c o m p a r e this
l a w w i t h the o t h e r o n e s , o n e , t w o , three, 100 at a t i m e , i n
o r d e r to see if a n d h o w t h e y relate to each other? Let us
a s s u m e that each c o m p a r i s o n lasts just o n e s e c o n d a n d a
l i f e t i m e lasts 70 years. T h e a n s w e r is that o n e w o u l d h a v e to
s p e n d a f u l l 250,000,000,000,000,000,000 lifetimes ( w i t h o u t
a n y sleep). T h i s gives s o m e v a l i d i t y to a statement attrib-
u t e d to W i n s t o n C h u r c h i l l (if I recall correctly): " W h e n y o u
have a thousand laws, y o u have no l a w s . "
T h o u g h h u m a n b r a i n s c a n d o a bit better w i t h c o m p l e x
matters because t h e y b e h a v e l i k e " p a r a l l e l p r o c e s s o r s " a n d
process i n f o r m a t i o n a c c o r d i n g to selective cues, the p r e v i o u s
a s t r o n o m i c a l n u m b e r illustrates the c o m p l e x i t y a n d p r o b -
l e m s i n v o l v e d w h e n too m a n y l a w s are e n a c t e d as a s u b s t i -
tute for a f e w ethical r u l e s .
T h e Incas are s a i d to h a v e m a n a g e d w i t h three l a w s ( " d o n ' t
lie, d o n ' t steal, w o r k h a r d " ) , a n d the ancient H e b r e w s w i t h
10. P e r h a p s their legislators w e r e better at m a t h a n d l o g i c .
M.2 T H E J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M
I a m d i s t u r b e d b y w h a t I see i n o u r j u d i c i a l s y s t e m . T h e
s y m p t o m s of its malaise are rather e v i d e n t : the v i c t i m s '
r i g h t s m o v e m e n t , e x p o s u r e of the " t i d e of l a w y e r m i s c o n -
duct, unethical behavior, a n d outright criminal activity," 3
c o n g e s t e d courts a n d l e n g t h y trials, a n d the c o m p l a i n t s of

p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n m a n y f i e l d s that t h e y h a v e to p a y i m m e n s e
i n s u r a n c e fees a n d practice not p r o p e r l y a n d e t h i c a l l y b u t i n
w a y s that a v o i d the m e r e p o s s i b i l i t y of a l a w s u i t .
It s e e m s that the present j u d i c i a l s y s t e m i m p o s e s i m p o s -
sible tasks o n its p e o p l e . Take, for instance, a s u p e r i o r c o u r t
*The number of comparisons or combinations of n things, one to n at a

time, is given by Cn,n = 2 . Since 2 is approximately 1000, it follows
n-1 10
that 2 translates into roughly 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

100
seconds, and 2", half as much. So, an additional law would require
500 x10 seconds. A lifetime of 70 years has a total of 2.2 x10 seconds.
27 9
Hence one needs 250x10 lifetimes.

18
j u d g e . H e m u s t r u l e alone o v e r a trial i n a fair, alert, a n d

i m p a r t i a l w a y , e v e n if h i s p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s m a y affect h i m
the d a y of a t r i a l . H e is s u p p o s e d to u n d e r s t a n d e v e r y s u b -
ject i m a g i n a b l e , a l t h o u g h this is i m p o s s i b l e i n o u r s p e c i a l -
i z e d , t e c h n i c a l w o r l d . A s h e l p , h e has c o u n s e l s for p l a i n t i f f
a n d d e f e n d a n t ; b u t b o t h c o u n s e l s are free (if n o t e n c o u r -
aged) to z e a l o u s l y d o their u t m o s t to deceive j u d g e a n d j u r y .
Surgeons, w h o often deal w i t h life-and-death situations,
receive r i g o r o u s l y s u p e r v i s e d tutelage a n d s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n -
i n g before t h e y are a l l o w e d to practice o n t h e i r o w n . J u d g e s
d e a l w i t h issues that are e v e n m o r e g r a v e , yet their t r a i n i n g
is not as r i g o r o u s , a n d there are n o j u d g e s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s
(say, real estate, contracts, etc.)
A s a n o t h e r case i n p o i n t , the a d v e r s a r y s y s t e m a l l e g e d l y is
" t h e best w a y to a r r i v e at the t r u t h . " I n m e d i e v a l E u r o p e , it
w a s t a k e n for g r a n t e d that d u e l i n g b e t w e e n a d v e r s a r i e s
w o u l d elucidate w h o w a s the r i g h t e o u s d i s p u t a n t , r e g a r d -
less of f i g h t i n g ability. ( D i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e w o u l d h e l p the
g o o d g u y w i n . ) T h i s a b s u r d , grotesque t r a d i t i o n still s u r -
v i v e s i n o u r j u d i c i a l s y s t e m ( a n d w i t h o u t the excuse or p r e -
tense of d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n ) : T h e o u t c o m e of a trial o f t e n
d e p e n d s m o r e o n a l a w y e r ' s ability, trickery, or lack of s c r u -
p l e s t h a n o n the m e r i t of h i s / h e r client's c l a i m s . A n d since
n o t o r i o u s l y s u c c e s s f u l l a w y e r s charge v e r y h i g h fees, the
c o r o l l a r y is that the o u t c o m e of a trial o f t e n reflects l i t i g a n t s '
i n c o m e d i s p a r i t y . " J u s t i c e " that c a n be b o u g h t v i o l a t e s e v e r y
e t h i c a l a n d m o r a l c o d e I k n o w of.
T h e p r o m i n e n t trial a t t o r n e y a n d l a w p r o f e s s o r A . D e r s h o -
w i t z was confronted by G . Rivera's question, " D o y o u deny,
sir, that there is a n u n e q u a l s y s t e m of justice i n this c o u n t r y
a n d that a r i c h m a n c a n b u y a n a c q u i t t a l ? " T h o u g h s o m e -
4
w h a t extreme, h i s r e p l y w a s , "I d o n o t d e n y it. I p r o c l a i m it.

It is o n e of the w o r s t aspects of o u r c r i m i n a l justice s y s t e m .
Justice i n this c o u n t r y is for sale, it's for rent, a n d it's f o r
barter." H e s h o u l d k n o w .
4
L a s t y e a r I t r i e d to f i g u r e out w h a t ' s h a p p e n i n g w i t h o u r
l e g a l s y s t e m b y r e a d i n g a f e w issues of C a l i f o r n i a L a w y e r , a
m a g a z i n e p u b l i s h e d b y the State B a r of C a l i f o r n i a . I t r i e d to
APPENDIX M 287
f i n d articles about subjects f u n d a m e n t a l to a n y large m o d e r n

e n t e r p r i s e , say, q u e u e a n a l y s i s to o p t i m i z e c o u r t l o a d d i s t r i -
b u t i o n , or critical p a t h s to s t r e a m l i n e l e g a l p r o c e d u r e s , or
cost effectiveness a n d cost efficiency, or i n s t i t u t i n g q u a l i t y
c o n t r o l m e c h a n i s m s , or i m p r o v i n g e v a l u a t i o n a n d feedback
m e c h a n i s m s so legislators k n o w h o w w e l l t h e i r l a w s are
w o r k i n g , o r c h a l l e n g e s to (or v a l i d a t i o n of) the f u n d a m e n t a l
p r e m i s e s o n w h i c h the j u d i c i a l s y s t e m is b a s e d (like, for
i n s t a n c e , the p r e m i s e that the a d v e r s a r y s y s t e m is " t h e best
w a y to a r r i v e at the t r u t h . " ) I f o u n d n o t h i n g , a b s o l u t e l y n o t h -
i n g of the k i n d . (I r e m e m b e r that a b i g d e a l about " i n n o v a -
t i o n " a s s u m e d the f o r m of a n article d e s c r i b i n g a s o l u t i o n to a
l o c a l shortage of j u d g e s : l a w y e r s acted i n t h e i r s t e a d . A
" B a n d - A i d " cure for cancer!) A n d I recall that i n those a r t i -
cles I f o u n d little or n o c r i t i c i s m s of, or b y , the l e g a l p r o f e s -
s i o n . T h e m e n t a l i t y that s p o k e to m e f r o m the pages I r e a d
w a s that of s m a r t p e o p l e of the 18th c e n t u r y , before the
scientific r e v o l u t i o n c h a n g e d o u r w a y of r e a s o n i n g a n d a n a -
lyzing things.
H o w e v e r , I w a s d e l i g h t e d w h e n I f o u n d o u t that the D a i l y
J o u r n a l , a p p a r e n t l y the largest l e g a l j o u r n a l i n the n a t i o n , d i d
p u b l i s h s o u l - s e a r c h i n g articles. I n a s e m i - r a n d o m w a y , I r e a d
t w o issues p e r w e e k b e t w e e n F e b r u a r y a n d M a r c h , 1989.
T h o u g h still w i t h i n the m i n d s e t of the 18th-century w o r l d ,
t h e i r l i v e l y articles o f f e r e d c a n d i d critical v i e w s that I w i l l
share w i t h m y readers. A t about the s a m e t i m e I f o u n d p r o -
v o c a t i v e d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t the j u d i c i a l s y s t e m o n the T V
c h a n n e l s . F r o m a l l these sources, I g l e a n e d statements b y
p e o p l e w h o s h o u l d k n o w v e r y w e l l w h a t the s h o r t c o m i n g s
of the j u d i c i a l s y s t e m are.
O n e of these p e o p l e is M i c h a e l J o s e p h s o n , f o u n d e r of the
J o s e p h s o n Institute for the S t u d y a n d T e a c h i n g of E t h i c a l
Choices. Bill M o y e r s began a television interview w i t h
J o s e p h s o n b y c o n t r a s t i n g J o s e p h s o n ' s p h i l o s o p h y w i t h that
5
e n u n c i a t e d b y J. R . E w i n g ( " O n c e i n t e g r i t y goes, e v e r y t h i n g
else is just a piece of c a k e " ) . J o s e p h s o n t a u g h t l a w a n d e t h -
ics. I n the ethics c o u r s e , h i s o r i g i n a l e m p h a s i s w a s o n h o w to
a v o i d r u l e s ' r e s t r i c t i o n s . B u t after the b i r t h of h i s s o n , h e
w o n d e r e d w h a t k i n d of w o r l d he w o u l d b e q u e a t h to the
c h i l d a n d c h a n g e d h i s o u t l o o k drastically. H e s a i d , "I h a v e
b e e n a l a w p r o f e s s o r for the last 20 y e a r s . I c e r t a i n l y u n d e r -
s t a n d the l a w a n d the r u l e s . A n d o n e of the t h i n g s I u n d e r -
s t a n d is that y o u can't w r i t e a l a w I can't get a r o u n d . " A s h e
sees it, " t h e u n d e r l y i n g p u r p o s e of the l a w is a social state-
m e n t , a n d this s h o u l d take p r e c e d e n c e o v e r the m e c h a n i c s of
the l a w . " * O t h e r w i s e , w e h a v e a " d o g - e a t - d o g society i n
w h i c h e v e r y b o d y is l a w y e r i n g e v e r y b o d y else, p u s h i n g the
r u l e s . " H e p o i n t e d o u t that ethics consists of c a r i n g a b o u t
5
other p e o p l e , that o u r society is at present r i g h t s - o r i e n t e d

rather t h a n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - o r i e n t e d , a n d that n o w a d a y s p e r -
s o n a l m o t i v a t i o n is g e a r e d t o w a r d c o m p e t i t i o n a n d v i c t o r y
rather t h a n d o i n g the r i g h t t h i n g .
A t the A m e r i c a n Bar A s s o c i a t i o n 1988 c o n v e n t i o n i n D e n -
ver, A r c h i b a l d C o x d e l i v e r e d a s p e e c h (see the D a i l y J o u r n a l
[Los A n g e l e s ] of F e b r u a r y 16, 1989) that b r o u g h t the s y m p -
t o m a t o l o g y of the p r o b l e m i n t o f o c u s . E x c e r p t s f o l l o w :
Exclusive loyalty to a client is sometimes inconsistent w i t h

the legal system or the public good. In litigation, endless
discovery, mountains of documents, and frivolous appeals
that may produce a favorable settlement or even w i n the case
w i l l often be incompatible with the fair and reasoned a d m i n -
istration of justice. . . .
We [lawyers] have largely accepted . . . the system of
administering justice devised for the 18th and 19th centuries
and contented ourselves w i t h perfecting the details of the o l d
machine. Both fair m i n d e d observers and much of the public
regard the whole system of administering civil and criminal
justice as s l o w , creaky, h a p h a z a r d , a n d i n c r e d i b l y
expensive.
W h e n substantial reforms are proposed, does not the pub-
lic position of segments of the organized Bar often corre-
spond to the selfish interest of lawyers or their clients as to
*The same thing was enunciated almost 2000 years ago: "The Sabbath (the
law) was made for man, not man for the Sabbath/' That is, one should
follow the spirit rather than the sacred letter of the law.
APPENDIX M 289
raise public criticism about the . . . profession's disinterested

dedication to the fair and efficient administration of justice?
Often, we seek to hide the conflict, stressing the duty of
loyalty to our clients, and then rationalize preferring the cli-
ent's interest over concern for the integrity of the law by
saying that justice is best served by the adversary system.
S o m e of the a d v e r s a r y system's f l a w s w e r e r e v e a l e d i n the

P B S series " E t h i c s i n A m e r i c a . " E x c e r p t s f o l l o w . F o r clarity's
sake, m o s t of m y p e r s o n a l notes or c o m m e n t s are i n italics.
D u r i n g the broadcast of a p a n e l d i s c u s s i o n I h e a r d t h i s
6
exchange:
From a N e w York University law professor: "Lawyers,

especially criminal defense lawyers, are amoral agents that
can justify their behavior only by being part of an adversary
system that is based largely on the Constitution and that is
amoral. But we can change it. They [lawyers] are told to
behave this way."
A Massachusetts district attorney added, "The constitution
governs these particular issues."
R. Duncan, judge (Superior Court of A l a m e d a County, Cal-
ifornia), interjected (with what I felt was a tinge of annoyance
in his voice): "It is lawyers that made such rules for lawyers.
A n d the public and the legislature get a chance to look at it,
but basically nobody is paying any attention to lawyers w h o
debate these issues at conventions. But it is only they w h o are
doing it. It isn't society."
A n o t h e r discussion featured very prominent panelists.

7
A t t o r n e y J. F. N e a l a s s u m e d the role of a defense attorney.

H e a d m i t t e d that, at trial, k n o w i n g f u l l w e l l that the p r o s e c u -
tion's w i t n e s s w a s t e l l i n g the t r u t h , h e w o u l d still t r y to m a k e
this w i t n e s s l o o k l i k e a liar. H e s a i d that i n the a d v e r s a r y
s y s t e m , " O u t of the c l a s h w i l l c o m e t r u t h a n d j u s t i c e . " J.
S m i t h , p h i l o s o p h y a n d ethics p r o f e s s o r at Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y ,
r e t o r t e d that the o n l y t h i n g h e ever s a w c o m i n g f r o m a d v e r -
sary c o n f r o n t a t i o n s w a s c o n f l i c t . N e a l a d m i t t e d , " M y g o a l is
to deceive the j u r y . B u t that is p e r m i t t e d b y the s y s t e m . "
Smith replied, "Then we must take another look at the sys-

tem." U.S Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia tried to
defend the system, stating, "By and large it works well." [In
my opinion, this is a value judgment without any scientific basis
whatsoever. In comparison to some other countries' systems, he
might be right. In comparison to a hypothetical but feasible system
with scientifically defined objectives, with built-in feedback evalua-
tion and other quality control mechanisms, and ultimately cost
efficient and cost effective, the available evidence is that it is work-
ing very, very poorly]. Justice Scalia further postulated that the
alternative is an inquisitorial system with investigative
judges: "And then you win or lose depending on the judge.
[In t h e a d v e r s a r y s y s t e m ] if y o u h i r e a b a d attorney, it is y o u r
f a u l t . " A n d h o w is the average p e r s o n g o i n g to k n o w i n
a d v a n c e w h e t h e r h i s a t t o r n e y w i l l t u r n o u t to be b a d o r not?
F u r t h e r m o r e , m u n i c i p a l c o u r t j u d g e s c a n a n d d o p e r f o r m as
investigative judges.
N e a r the e n d of the p a n e l d i s c u s s i o n N e a l retracted h i s
p r e v i o u s statement about the a d v e r s a r i e s ' c l a s h e n g e n d e r i n g
t r u t h a n d justice. H e stated, " D o n ' t p u t m e i n a p o s i t i o n that
I h a v e s a i d that I a m o u t f o r the t r u t h . T h e a d v e r s a r y s y s t e m
is n o t c a l c u l a t e d to p r o d u c e the t r u t h , b u t j u s t i c e . " H e s a i d
this earnestly; h e w a s n ' t j o k i n g or q u o t i n g s o m e t h i n g f r o m
O r w e l l ' s A n i m a l F a r m . H i s statement p o i n t s o u t w h a t ' s
w r o n g w i t h the a d v e r s a r y s y s t e m i n a m o s t s t r i k i n g w a y !
M.3 LAWYERS
If justice is the g l u e that h o l d s society together, l a w y e r s are

the p r i n c i p a l g l u e - m a k e r s . L a w y e r s s p e a k f o r the l e g i s l a t u r e .
T h e y might not author l a w s , but they write a n d interpret
l a w s . A t c o u r t trials, t h e y d e f i n e a n d refine l a w s . T h e y d i s c i -
p l i n e a l l o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n s a n d trades. A n d ( u n f o r t u n a t e l y , i n
m y o p i n i o n ) t h e y h a v e b e e n g i v e n the p r i v i l e g e of d i s c i p l i n -
i n g t h e m s e l v e s , as if t h e y w e r e e t h i c a l p a r a g o n s .
I k n o w about a d o z e n l a w y e r s w e l l e n o u g h to v e n t u r e a n
APPENDIX M 291
o p i n i o n about t h e m . S o m e are e x t r e m e l y h o n e s t a n d decent.

( O n e of t h e m t o l d m e he w a s so d i s g u s t e d w i t h h i s successes
at c o u r t trials d e f e n d i n g p e o p l e he k n e w w e r e g u i l t y , a n d
also about w h a t he p e r c e i v e d to be a n u n j u s t j u d i c i a l s y s t e m ,
that he q u i t this l i n e of w o r k , b e c a m e a p u b l i c e m p l o y e e , a n d
e n g a g e d i n activities that h e l p society.) A s for others, I
w o u l d not call t h e m s w i n e , as s u c h c o m p a r i s o n w o u l d be
u n f a i r a n d h i g h l y o f f e n s i v e to s w i n e . T h e rest fall a n y w h e r e
b e t w e e n the t w o extremes.
B u t I w o u l d not d r e a m of e x t r a p o l a t i n g characteristics f r o m
a s m a l l or e v e n a large s a m p l e of l a w y e r s to the w h o l e of the
p r o f e s s i o n . It is m e a n i n g l e s s to ask, " A r e l a w y e r s c r o o k e d ? "
C r o o k s c a n be f o u n d i n e v e r y p r o f e s s i o n . T h e p r o p e r q u e s -
tions to ask are t w o . T h e first is, "Is a p r o f e s s i o n ' s c o d e of
ethics t r u l y e t h i c a l , the w a y ethics is u n d e r s t o o d b y p h i l o s o -
p h e r s a n d c o m m o n p e o p l e ? " A n d the other o n e is, " D o e s a
p r o f e s s i o n h a v e g o o d m e c h a n i s m s to r e m o v e its i n c o m p e -
tent a n d c r o o k e d m e m b e r s ? "
In the case of l a w y e r s , the a n s w e r to the first q u e s t i o n
appears to be, " N o t n o w a d a y s . " E t h i c s is c o n c e r n e d w i t h the
greater g o o d of society, not just the benefit of a l a w y e r ' s
client. I n the early 1930s, F. W e l l m a n n o t e d h o w t h i n g s u s e d
8
to be (in the late 1800s to early 1900s) w h e n l a w y e r s w e r e

r e g a r d e d as h i g h l y ethical p e o p l e , d e v o t e d to the p u b l i c
g o o d . A s he p u t s it, the f a m o u s E l i h u R o o t a d v i s e d s o m e of
h i s clients i n this m a n n e r : " Y e s , the l a w lets y o u d o it. B u t
d o n ' t : it's a r o t t e n t h i n g to d o . " A n d t h e y w o u l d h e e d h i s
advice.
T o d a y t h i n g s are so different that, a c c o r d i n g to H a l l , the 9
State Bar of C a l i f o r n i a c o n t e m p l a t e d a v o l u n t a r y (!) " C o d e of

P r o f e s s i o n a l C o u r t e s y " w h i c h i n c l u d e s statements s u c h as,
"I w i l l r e m e m b e r that m y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as a l a w y e r i n c l u d e
a c o m m i t m e n t not o n l y to m y client b u t to the p u b l i c g o o d , "
a n d "I w i l l a d v i s e m y client against p u r s u i n g l i t i g a t i o n . . .
that does not h a v e m e r i t . " (!!!)
T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n has b e e n a n s w e r e d b y W a l t e r s a n d b y
B u m s t e d a n d G u t t m a n . W a l t e r s n o t e d that the C a l i f o r n i a
10
Bar has a d u a l r o l e : It regulates errant l a w y e r s a n d also is a

p r i v a t e l o b b y f o r l a w y e r ' s p o l i t i c a l interests ( i n p l a i n E n g l i s h ,
it is the fox g u a r d i n g the c h i c k e n c o o p ) . I n h i s w o r d s , " S o m e -
t h i n g h a s to g i v e ; that s o m e t h i n g h a s b e e n the p u b l i c inter-
est." B u m s t e d a n d G u t t m a n ( G a n n e t t N e w s Service) w r o t e
a n e x p o s e i n s e r i a l f o r m . F o r b r e v i t y ' s sake, I q u o t e v e r b a t i m
3
the series' d a i l y abstracts:
Sunday: The nation's bar, bursting w i t h an unprecedented

number of lawyers, is failing to stem the tide of misconduct,
unethical behavior, and outright criminal activity.
Monday: Lawyers stealing from their clients are a growing
national disgrace: Theft is so widespread that at least 45 state
bars or high courts have special funds to reimburse victims.
Tuesday: Leniency is the letter of the law i n lawyer discipline.
Few misconduct cases are pursued. Those that are result i n
penalties w h i c h tend to be lenient, late, and w i l d l y
inconsistent.
Wednesday: The nation's self-regulated bar fails to protect
the public w h e n it hides complaints against lawyers and pros-
ecutes misconduct i n secret, closed hearings.
Thursday: Critics w i t h i n the profession w a r n that lawyer
privilege of self-regulation could be jeopardized unless the
bar improves discipline.
F r o m the title of a n article i n the D a i l y J o u r n a l , "Forget

1 1
w h a t S h a k e s p e a r e s a i d " ( w h i c h i s , " L e t ' s k i l l a l l the l a w -

y e r s " ) , I s u r m i s e that its a u t h o r is sensitive about l a w y e r s '
p u b l i c i m a g e . Its a u t h o r p o i n t s o u t that it w a s n ' t S h a k e -
speare w h o d i d n ' t appreciate l a w y e r s , b u t o n e of the d e s p i c -
able characters i n K i n g H e n r y V I . A f t e r r e a d i n g h i s article,
m e t h i n k s that this S h a k e s p e a r e a n interpreter d o t h protest
too m u c h about the negative p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g l a w y e r s
b e i n g this or that. (I d o not m a k e m u c h of these protestations
b e c a u s e - a n d I trust m y e n l i g h t e n e d readers d o l i k e w i s e - I
j u d g e n o t a l l l a w y e r s b y w h a t s o m e d o or are.) A l s o , t w o of
his statements are s y m p t o m a t i c of a c o n t a g i o u s f o r m of l e g a l
n a i v e t e : " A m e r i c a n citizens are not necessarily m o r e l i t i g i o u s
t h a n other p e o p l e s : t h e y are just m o r e o f t e n p u t i n s i t u a t i o n s
w h e r e d i s p u t e s are l i k e l y to a r i s e . " A n d , " O u r s y s t e m does
APPENDIX M 293
n o t w o r k p e r f e c t l y / ' ( N o t e that this last sentence c a n be u s e d

b y the G u l a g ' s bosses to j u s t i f y t h e i r s y s t e m , too.)
T h e N a t i o n a l L a w J o u r n a l w a s q u o t e d re the attendance at
the recent C a l i f o r n i a Bar c o n v e n t i o n , i n M o n t e r e y , 1988. A s
r e p o r t e d , o v e r f l o w c r o w d s a t t e n d e d the " e v e r - p r o f i t a b l e "
12
s e s s i o n e n t i t l e d " C u r r e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s i n estate p l a n n i n g ,
trust, a n d p r o b a t e l a w . " T h e s e s s i o n e n t i t l e d " W h y are t h e y
s a y i n g a l l those terrible t h i n g s a b o u t l a w y e r s ? " d r e w a " f a i r
c r o w d " b u t " m o s t left before the s e s s i o n e n d e d . " T h e "least
p o p u l a r " s e s s i o n " d r e w b a r e l y a d o z e n p e o p l e at a n y o n e
t i m e " a n d w a s e n t i t l e d , " P r a c t i c i n g e t h i c a l l y a n d success-
f u l l y . " A l s o , it has b e e n r e p o r t e d that a c o m m i t t e e of the
A m e r i c a n B a r A s s o c i a t i o n o f f e r e d a r e s o l u t i o n o p p o s i n g the
r e g u l a t i o n of the l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n b y executive o r l e g i s l a t i v e
b r a n c h e s of g o v e r n m e n t at a n y l e v e l . (I h e a r d that it p a s s e d
13
w i t h u n a n i m o u s a p p r o v a l . ) F r o m these r e p o r t s i n references
12 a n d 13, I i n f e r that the S h a k e s p e a r e a n i n t e r p r e t e r m e n -
t i o n e d i n the p a r a g r a p h above is n o t a l o n e , w h a t e v e r g a l a x y
he might inhabit.
M . 4 JUDGES
I k n o w o n l y o n e ( S u p e r i o r C o u r t ) j u d g e w e l l e n o u g h to
f o r m a n o p i n i o n , a n d it is h i g h . H e sees j u d g e s as the " s h o c k
a b s o r b e r s " (or p e o p l e i n the m i d d l e ) b e t w e e n the l e g i s l a t u r e
a n d the vast u n m e t n e e d s of the p o p u l a t i o n . H e t o l d m e that
s o m e t i m e s h e gets d e p r e s s e d b y the w a y the j u d i c i a l s y s t e m
is w o r k i n g — o r n o t w o r k i n g .
I have asked lawyers about judges. I heard (in t w o differ-
ent j u r i s d i c t i o n s ) that about 10% of the j u d g e s are i n c o m p e -
tent, 10% are h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d , a n d the rest fall s o m e w h e r e i n
b e t w e e n : Just a n o r m a l c u r v e , t h o u g h I w i s h e d it w e r e
b i a s e d t o w a r d s excellence. A s for j u d g e s ' a p p a r e n t c a l l o u s -
ness, a n attorney t o l d m e that h e k n e w a j u d g e w h o r e a l l y
c a r e d a n d v i s i b l y a g e d 20 years i n h i s first three years o n the
job: w r i n k l e s , w h i t e h a i r , a l w a y s v e r y s e r i o u s . J u d g e s '
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are e n o r m o u s ; I s u p p o s e that if t h e y d o n o t
b e c o m e d e t a c h e d f r o m the tragedies t h e y see i n c o u r t , t h e y
are at r i s k of w r e c k i n g t h e i r o w n l i v e s .
R h e i n g o l d o f f e r e d a trial attorney's p e r s p e c t i v e a b o u t
j u d g e s ( a n d , i n so d o i n g , a p e r s p e c t i v e o n h i m s e l f ) . A c c o r d -
14
i n g to h i m , t h o u g h m o s t j u d g e s are g o o d , there are p r o b l e m

j u d g e s w h o " t h r e a t e n to t h w a r t n o t o n l y the case b u t the
fairness of the j u d i c i a l s y s t e m . " H e c l a s s i f i e d the t y p e s of
" p r o b l e m j u d g e s " ( a n d r e c o m m e n d e d strategies to c o p e w i t h
t h e m ) : arrogant ("most c o m m o n " fault); d u m b ; t o o - s m a r t
("they k n o w a l l the a n s w e r s a n d d o not w a n t to l i s t e n to
y o u " ) ; i n t e m p e r a t e ; b i a s e d against y o u ; b i a s e d for y o u
("they m i g h t m a k e the j u r y feel s o r r y for the other s i d e " ) ;
i n d e c i s i v e ; l a z y ; r u s h e d . T h e strategy he r e c o m m e n d e d to
c o p e w i t h arrogant j u d g e s is to suffer t h e m a n d " t e l l y o u r s e l f
that he d i d n ' t h a v e a s u c c e s s f u l practice [as a l a w y e r ] , w h i c h is
h o w h e got o n the b e n c h . " *
J u d g e s are s u p p o s e d to f o l l o w p r e c e d e n t so that the l a w
w i l l n o t be erratic a n d c a p r i c i o u s . B u t h i s t o r y s h o w s that
h o n o r s accrue to j u d g e s w h o b r e a k w i t h p r e c e d e n t ( B r a n -
d e i s , W a r r e n ) . V e r d i c t s i n h i g h e r courts (appellate, state a n d
f e d e r a l S u p r e m e C o u r t s ) p r o v e that j u d g e s t e n d to be fallible
i n direct p r o p o r t i o n to a n a p p e l l a n t ' s a b i l i t y to carry the l i t i -
g a t i o n to e v e r - h i g h e r c o u r t s .
O n o n e h a n d j u d g e s h a v e m u c h p o w e r ; o n the other h a n d
this p o w e r is restricted i n w a y s that m a y v i o l a t e true (ethical)
justice. F o r i n s t a n c e , late i n 1988 the n e w s r e f e r r e d to a case
i n w h i c h a p e r s o n w a s p r o s e c u t e d for m a n u f a c t u r i n g a n ille-
gal " d e s i g n e r d r u g , " a d e r i v a t i v e of m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e . T h e
j u d g e t h r e w the case o u t because the l a w as w r i t t e n h a d
merely b a n n e d a n o n existing d r u g , " e t h a m p h e t a m i n e "
d e r i v a t i v e : the " m " w a s m i s s i n g d u e to a s i m p l e t y p o g r a p h i -
cal error. I h y p o t h e s i z e d t w o alternative r e a s o n s for the
* Could it be that such a lawyer was too ethical to be "successful"? As a

former public employee, I strongly disagree with Rheingold. I suppose
that some people whose main concern is making money might find it
difficult to understand that many people go into public service just
because they do wish to serve the public.
APPENDIX M 295
j u d g e ' s actions: O n e , the j u d g e d e c i d e d that the intent of the

legislators w h o e n a c t e d the l a w w a s n o t ascertainable, o n the
a x i o m that legislators so s t u p i d (as to a l l o w a j u d i c i a l s y s t e m
to r u n the w a y it does) c o u l d not be t r u s t e d to k n o w w h a t
t h e y m e a n t w h e n t h e y e n a c t e d the l a w . O r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , the
j u d g e f e a r e d a r e v e r s a l o n a p p e a l if he h a d n o t f o l l o w e d the
letter of the l a w p r e c i s e l y . L a w y e r s t o l d m e that the s e c o n d
h y p o t h e s i s w a s correct. (This v a l i d a t e s Josephson's v i e w s ;
see S e c t i o n M . 2 i n this A p p e n d i x . )
J u d g e s g e n e r a l l y c a m p a i g n for e l e c t i o n a n d r e e l e c t i o n .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e i r c a m p a i g n c o s t s are sometimes
e x t r e m e l y h i g h . S o m e j u d g e s h a v e accepted bribes a n d h a v e
r e p a i d c a m p a i g n c o n t r i b u t o r s w i t h l e g a l f a v o r s . I n "Justice
3
for S a l e " M e t h v i n tells u s h o w " a h a n d f u l of m i l l i o n a i r e l a w -

y e r s r e s h a p e d the Texas S u p r e m e C o u r t to t h e i r l i k i n g " w i t h
m o n e y a n d f a v o r s , a n d h o w the p e o p l e of Texas " w o n it
back." 15
It has b e e n r e p o r t e d that last year a r e c o r d n u m b e r of

16
C a l i f o r n i a j u d g e s w e r e d i s c i p l i n e d . C a l i f o r n i a has 1462
j u d g e s . 693 c o m p l a i n t s against j u d g e s w e r e r e v i e w e d b y the
J u d i c i a l P e r f o r m a n c e C o m m i s s i o n . B u t w h a t d o these f i g u r e s
m e a n ? T h e subject r e p o r t does not e x p l a i n . T o o m a n y p o s s i -
bilities o b s c u r e t h e i r m e a n i n g , for i n s t a n c e :
• There are too many unqualified judges.

• Excessive judicial workloads are taking their toll.
• Californians have a propensity to complain.
• Mechanisms to discipline judges are w o r k i n g well.
• A few judges might account for most of the complaints.
M.5 T H E J U R Y
W h a t c a n be fairer t h a n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e cross s e c t i o n of a
c o m m u n i t y , k n o w l e d g e a b l e of the facts a n d free f r o m bias?
N o t h i n g , i n m y o p i n i o n . H o w e v e r , our judicial system per-
m i t s l a w y e r s to practice d e c e p t i o n , a n d s o m e t i m e s does n o t
p e r m i t a j u r y to k n o w a l l the facts. A s a case i n p o i n t , A l c e e
H a s t i n g s is the f e d e r a l j u d g e w h o w a s a c c u s e d of b r i b e r y a n d
l y i n g under oath, a n d was acquitted by a jury, apparently
because m u c h of the e v i d e n c e w a s n o t a d m i t t e d at h i s t r i a l . 17
But C o n g r e s s is n o t b o u n d b y c o u r t r u l e s . T h e H o u s e e x a m -
i n e d a l l of the e v i d e n c e , a n d i m p e a c h e d h i m b y a vote of 413
to 3 . * O f c o u r s e , the j u d g e c l a i m s that a j u r y a b s o l v e d h i m
17
and that the legislators s h o u l d not t a m p e r w i t h the j u r y

system. ** 17
M.6 C O U R T T R I A L S
T h e d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s the w o r d " t r i a l " as " h a r d s h i p , p a i n ,

source of a n n o y a n c e or i r r i t a t i o n . " P e r h a p s e x c e p t i n g s o m e
trial attorneys (for w h o m trials are a source of i n c o m e ) , t h i s
d e f i n i t i o n a p p e a r s to be rather accurate.
W o r d s are n o t e n o u g h to describe h o w the c o u r t s w o r k . A
f a s c i n a t i n g v i e w c a n be o b t a i n e d b y w a t c h i n g the T V p r o -
g r a m " P e o p l e ' s C o u r t . " It a n d its j u d g e h a v e b e e n c r i t i c i z e d
by a U . S . Appellate C o u r t judge. But I f o u n d "People's
18
C o u r t " true to reality (as I h a v e s e e n it m y s e l f as a p l a i n t i f f

a n d as a n expert w i t n e s s ) . I'd s t r o n g l y r e c o m m e n d w a t c h i n g
this p r o g r a m d a i l y for at least a m o n t h . T h e n e n v i s i o n w h a t
m a y h a p p e n i n a S u p e r i o r C o u r t t h u s l y : I m a g i n e that o n e (or
both) of the l i t i g a n t s does n o t s p e a k h i s m i n d freely (as l i t i -
gants i n " P e o p l e ' s C o u r t " d o ) , b u t has a l a w y e r w h o m a y
facilitate the a p p e a r a n c e of false w i t n e s s e s , * * * m a y c o a c h o n
*On October 20, 1989, the press reported that the Senate followed suit.
**Wouldn't the American Bar Association resolution against interference
from the legislative or executive branches of government support his 12
position and implicitly endorse corruption of the judiciary and hence of

the whole legal system?
***When I noticed that proven perjuries were not punished in a California
Superior Court series of trials, I asked why, and an attorney told me that
it's because judges assume that everybody lies. (So people find out that
being truthful is no advantage and are not afraid of perjuring themselves.)
He also said that in federal courts perjury is punished. I checked with
other lawyers; they confirmed his statements but noted that on rare occa-
sions a local judge will punish a perjurer to "send the message out/'
APPENDIX M 297
h o w to lie u n d e r o a t h or p l e a d the f i f t h A m e n d m e n t , m a y t r y
to s u p p r e s s the e v i d e n c e f r o m the o t h e r s i d e , a n d / o r m a y t r y
to d e l a y the trial i n c e s s a n t l y to w e a r d o w n the other l i t i g a n t .
(The other l i t i g a n t m a y d i e or r u n o u t of m o n e y , or h i s w i t -
nesses m a y d i e , m o v e a w a y , or forget the details of w h a t
t h e y w e r e to testify about.)
I w o n d e r w h a t the P l e d g e of A l l e g i a n c e (". . . a n d justice
for all") m e a n s to the p e o p l e w i t h i n o u r j u d i c i a l / l e g a l s y s t e m .
I t h i n k it w a s f o r m e r C h i e f S u p r e m e C o u r t Justice W a r r e n
B u r g e r w h o s a i d that o u r s y s t e m of justice w a s u n w o r t h y of
a civilized country.
A l l i n a l l , n o o n e is safe.
D e s p i t e the bleak p i c t u r e p r e s e n t e d so far, there is n o
cause f o r d e s p a i r . I n s u b s e q u e n t sections w e ' l l see that there
is h o p e for the f u t u r e , a n d w e ' l l also see that e n g i n e e r s ,
geologists, s a n i t a r i a n s , or other p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a n t s m a y
practice h o n o r a b l y w i t h little fear that a l a w s u i t w i l l v i c t i m i z e
t h e m , as there is a n " a l t e r n a t i v e j u d i c i a l s y s t e m . "
M.7 HOPE FOR T H E FUTURE
In C a l i f o r n i a , S e n a t o r R . P r e s l e y a u t h o r e d a b i l l i n 1984
a u t h o r i z i n g the t e a c h i n g of ethics a n d civic v a l u e s i n C a l i f o r -
n i a s c h o o l s . T h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of p u b l i c i n s t r u c t i o n
( W i l l i a m H o n i g ) p r o c u r e d f u n d i n g , a n d , a c c o r d i n g to a
s c h o o l v i c e - p r i n c i p a l , s u c h t e a c h i n g is n o w w i d e s p r e a d i n
19
California.
O n J u n e 21, 1989, the A B C E v e n i n g N e w s w i t h Peter Jen-
n i n g s c a r r i e d a v e r y e n c o u r a g i n g story. S o m e s c h o o l s across
the n a t i o n are t e a c h i n g " o l d v a l u e s " (honesty, t r u t h f u l n e s s ,
c a r i n g about o t h e r p e o p l e , h o n o r , etc.) a g a i n i n s p e c i a l
c o u r s e s . A n d s u r p r i s e ! B e h a v i o r a n d grades i m p r o v e d
n o t i c e a b l y t h r o u g h o u t those s c h o o l s . I n the 1960s s c h o o l s
q u i t t e a c h i n g v a l u e s (out of fear that s o m e o n e m i g h t sue),
b u t n o w at last it is " i n " a g a i n to i n c u l c a t e ethics a n d civic
values.
A t a n o t h e r l e v e l , w o r t h y of i m i t a t i o n i n o t h e r states, S e n a -
tor P r e s l e y a u t h o r e d l a n d m a r k l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1988 (SB 1498)
to r e f o r m the State B a r a t t o r n e y d i s c i p l i n e s y s t e m . L a w s
h a v e b e e n e n a c t e d to p r o v i d e for a State B a r D i s c i p l i n e M o n i -
tor a n d to p r o v i d e p r o f e s s i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w j u d g e s to
the State Bar. T h e M o n i t o r reports to the legislature ( a n d to
the p u b l i c ) h o w w e l l the l a w y e r d i s c i p l i n e p r o c e s s is w o r k -
i n g . P r o f e s s i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w j u d g e s are r e p l a c i n g the
v o l u n t e e r l a w y e r s w h o u n t i l recently c o n d u c t e d d i s c i p l i n a r y
h e a r i n g s against their errant c o l l e a g u e s .
A n o t h e r cause for o p t i m i s m is that u n d o u b t e d l y o u r legal/
j u d i c i a l s y s t e m w i l l be b r o u g h t u p to the 20th c e n t u r y . It's
i n e v i t a b l e , e v e n if it takes 40 c e n t u r i e s .
I n d i v i d u a l s w h o can't w a i t 40 c e n t u r i e s o r so m a y w i s h to
s p e e d u p the p r o c e s s a n d h e l p t h e m s e l v e s b y j o i n i n g a n d / o r
u s i n g the h e l p o f f e r e d b y the o r g a n i z a t i o n s m e n t i o n e d i n
Appendix N .
REFERENCES
1. P e r k i n s , K . 1989. C a l i f o r n i a e n v i r o n m e n t a l p o l i c y : a t i m e
for c h a n g e . Calif. J. E n v i r o n . H e a l t h 12:16-18.
2. D a i l y J o u r n a l ( L o s A n g e l e s ) , M a r c h 29, 1989 ( C a l i f o r n i a
L a w B u s i n e s s s e c t i o n , p . 9).
3. B u m s t e d , B . a n d J. G u t t m a n . O c t o b e r 19-23, 1986.
B e y o n d the l a w . T h e Sun ( S a n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y ) .
4. " G e r a l d o : T h e best d e f e n s e that m o n e y c a n b u y . " C B S
b r o a d c a s t of J a n u a r y 25, 1989. T r a n s c r i p t o b t a i n a b l e f r o m
J o u r n a l G r a p h i c s , 267 B r o a d w a y , 3 r d F l o o r , N e w Y o r k ,
N Y 10007.
5. " B i l l M o y e r s ' W o r l d of Ideas: I n t e r v i e w w i t h M i c h a e l
J o s e p h s o n . " P B S b r o a d c a s t of S e p t e m b e r 14, 1988. T r a n -
script o b t a i n a b l e f r o m J o u r n a l G r a p h i c s , 267 B r o a d w a y ,
3 r d F l o o r , N e w Y o r k , N Y 10007.
6. " E t h i c s i n A m e r i c a : To d e f e n d a k i l l e r . " P B S b r o a d c a s t of
F e b r u a r y 7, 1989. V i d e o t a p e o b t a i n a b l e b y c a l l i n g 1-800
APPENDIX M 299
L E A R N E R or c o n t a c t i n g T h e A n n e n b e r g C P B C o l l e c t i o n ,
2040 A l a m e d a P a d r e S e r r a , P . O . B o x 4069, Santa Bar-
b a r a , C A 93140.
7. " E t h i c s i n A m e r i c a : T r u t h o n t r i a l . " P B S broadcast of
M a r c h 21, 1989. V i d e o t a p e obtainable b y c a l l i n g 1-800
L E A R N E R or c o n t a c t i n g T h e A n n e n b e r g C P B C o l l e c t i o n ,
2040 A l a m e d a P a d r e S e r r a , P . O . B o x 4069, S a n t a Bar-
b a r a , C A 93140.
8. W e l l m a n , F. L . 1932. T h e A r t of C r o s s - E x a m i n a t i o n . R e -
p u b l i s h e d i n 1986 b y D o r s e t P r e s s , N e w Y o r k , N Y .
9. H a l l , M . 1989. State bar w a n t s r e t u r n of c o u r t e s y to the
legal p r o f e s s i o n . D a i l y j o u r n a l ( L o s A n g e l e s ) , M a r c h 6, p .
6.
10. W a l t e r s , D . 1989. L a c k of o v e r s i g h t is d e s t r u c t i v e of the
state b a r ( r e p r i n t e d f r o m the S a c r a m e n t o B e e ) . D a i l y Jour-
n a l ( L o s A n g e l e s ) , M a r c h 6, p . 6.
11. M o s k o w i t z , M . 1989. Forget w h a t S h a k e s p e a r e s a i d .
D a i l y J o u r n a l ( L o s A n g e l e s ) , J a n u a r y 18, p . 6.
12. Briefs b y A m i c u s . 1989. C a l i f o r n i a B a r : W h a t ' s i n , o u t .
L e g a l R e f o r m e r 9:28.
13. H a l l , M . 1989. H a r d issues set f o r A B A H o u s e at w i n t e r
m e e t . D a i l y J o u r n a l ( L o s A n g e l e s ) , F e b r u a r y 2, p p . 1, 24.
14. R h e i n g o l d , P . D . 1988. H o w to cope w i t h p r o b l e m
j u d g e s . D a i l y J o u r n a l ( L o s A n g e l e s ) , F e b r u a r y 14, 1989, p .
6 ( r e p r i n t e d f r o m the N o v e m b e r 1988 issue of T r i a l , p u b -
l i s h e d b y the A s s o c i a t i o n of T r i a l L a w y e r s of A m e r i c a ) .
15. M e t h v i n , E . 1989. Justice f o r sale. R e a d e r ' s D i g e s t , M a y ,
p p . 131-136.
16. H a g e r , P . 1989. R e c o r d n u m b e r of j u d g e s i n v e s t i g a t e d ,
d i s c i p l i n e d . L o s Angeles T i m e s , F e b r u a r y 25, part I, p . 35.
17. R o b i n s o n , M . 1989. J u d g e asks i m p e a c h m e n t h a l t . D a i l y
J o u r n a l ( L o s A n g e l e s ) , M a r c h 16, p . 2.
18. M i k v a , A . 1989. T h e v e r d i c t o n J u d g e W a p n e r . T V G u i d e ,
A p r i l 22, p p . 12-14.
19. S. Fleischer, p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , J u l y 15, 1989.
Appendix N
J O H N Q. PROFESSIONAL VERSUS T H E L E G A L
SYSTEM: HELPFUL ORGANIZATIONS A N D
" A L T E R N A T I V E TUSTICE"
M a n y o r g a n i z a t i o n s are t r y i n g to r e f o r m the legal s y s t e m

a n d / o r h e l p its v i c t i m s or p r o s p e c t i v e v i c t i m s . H A L T is a
n o n p r o f i t , tax-exempt o r g a n i z a t i o n . * W i t h o v e r 150,000
active m e m b e r s n a t i o n w i d e , H A L T describes itself as A m e r i -
ca's largest o r g a n i z a t i o n for legal r e f o r m . I q u o t e their m e r i -
t o r i o u s goals as stated i n their literature:
• Educate consumers about the law so that they can handle

their o w n legal matters or work knowledgeably with a
lawyer.
• Simplify legal procedures to make them comprehensible
and accessible to the average citizen.
• Increase access to affordable legal services by increasing the
range of legal services provided by competent nonlawyers.
• Promote the use of alternative methods of resolving legal
disputes such as mediation and arbitration.
H A L T p u b l i s h e s a p l e t h o r a of s e l f - h e l p m a n u a l s . F o r
instance, a m i n i - m a n u a l e n t i t l e d " G o i n g it A l o n e i n C o u r t "
e x p l a i n s h o w to d o just that, a n d offers s a m p l e f o r m s , p l e a d -
i n g s , a n d f l o w charts. " U s i n g a L a w y e r " p r o v i d e s g u i d a n c e
o n h o w to select a l a w y e r , negotiate w i t h o n e , w o r k w i t h the
*1319 F Street N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20004
301
c h o s e n o n e , a n d part. A n o t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n is e n t i t l e d " D i r e c -
t o r y of L a w y e r s w h o S u e L a w y e r s " a n d offers a d v i c e o n
w e i g h i n g the m e r i t s of one's m a l p r a c t i c e c l a i m , a v o i d i n g t h e
n e e d f o r malpractice suits, c h o o s i n g a g o o d m a l p r a c t i c e
attorney (it is v e r y d i f f i c u l t to f i n d l a w y e r s w h o dare s u e
o t h e r l a w y e r s ) , etc. A l s o , u p o n request, H A L T m a y refer a
p e r s o n to l a w y e r s s y m p a t h e t i c to its g o a l s . *
T h e A m e r i c a n A r b i t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n * * offers a w a y o u t of
the w o r l d of l a w s u i t s . T h i s n o n p r o f i t private o r g a n i z a t i o n w a s
f o u n d e d i n 1926, w h e n it became apparent that the j u d i c i a l
s y s t e m " w a s not the best w a y of s o l v i n g a l l types of d i s p u t e s . "
T h r o u g h the A A A , o n e m a y solve d i s p u t e s w i t h o u t the p r o b -
l e m s c o m m o n to court trials: h i g h legal expenses, l o n g legal
delays, harassment f r o m the other party, judges o r juries w h o
d o not u n d e r s t a n d v e r y technical matters a n d m i g h t be m i s l e d
b y the other party's l a w y e r o r expert witnesses, etc. F r o m the
start, o n e has a g o o d i d e a of h o w m u c h the arbitration w i l l
cost (fees v a r y f r o m about $300 m i n i m u m for s m a l l claims to
about $14,000 for a $5,000,000 claim). A l s o , o n e k n o w s that
the process w i l l be relatively speedy. T h e cost of a court trial is
often u n p r e d i c t a b l e , m o n e y w i s e a n d time w i s e . C o n t r a c t o r s ,
consultants, a n d other professionals w o u l d d o w e l l to
acquaint themselves w i t h the A A A , its p h i l o s o p h y , a n d its
p r o c e d u r e s for arbitration a n d m e d i a t i o n . A s for myself, after
I f o u n d o u t about the A A A , I b e g u n p l a c i n g i n some of m y
p r o f e s s i o n a l contracts a s t a n d a r d clause that takes a n y p o s s i -
ble c l a i m against m e o u t of the r e a l m of court trials a n d places
it i n the r e a l m of expert-assisted A A A arbitrators: " A n y c o n -
troversy or c l a i m a r i s i n g o u t of o r relating to this contract o r
a n y breach thereof s h a l l be settled i n accordance w i t h the
*HALT's Director of Development, B. Alford, told me that out of

150,000-180,000 active members, 485 are lawyers (personal communica-
tion, 3/22/89). Interesting statistic. This is about one per 340 members,
within the ballpark of the national ratio of one lawyer per 360 people. O n
the other hand, 485 lawyer-members out of over 700,000 lawyers nation-
wide might mean that less than 0.07% of lawyers know and care enough
about H A L T s goals to join this organization.
**140 West 51st Street, New York, NY 10020-1203
APPENDIX N 303
R u l e s of the A m e r i c a n A r b i t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , a n d j u d g m e n t
u p o n the a w a r d m a y be entered i n a n y court h a v i n g j u r i s d i c -
t i o n thereof."
If s o m e o n e w e r e to b r i n g m e to c o u r t , the C a l i f o r n i a C o d e
of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e s , S e c t i o n 1281.2, w o u l d u s u a l l y r e q u i r e
the c o u r t to o r d e r a r b i t r a t i o n p e r the clause a b o v e . O t h e r
states h a v e s i m i l a r l a w s .
A l s o , it s h o u l d be n o t e d that the parties to a contract m a y
d e s i g n a t e a n y arbitrator o r m e d i a t o r t h e y feel c o m f o r t a b l e
w i t h , n o t just the A A A .
L o c a l offices of the A A A are l i s t e d b e l o w :
Arizona Colorado
3033 N o r t h Central Avenue, 1775 Sherman Street, Suite

Suite 608 1717
Phoenix, A Z 85012-2803 Denver, C O 80203-4318
(602) 234-0950/230-2151 (Fax) (303) 831-0823/832-3626 (Fax)
Deborah A . Krell Mark A p p e l
Connecticut
California
Two Hartford Square West
443 Shatto Place Hartford, C T (06106-1943)
Los Angeles, C A 90020-0994 (203) 278-5000/246-8442 (Fax)
(213) 383-6516/386-2251 (Fax) Karen M . Jalkut
Jerrold L . Murase
525 C Street, Suite 400 District of Columbia

San Diego, C A 92101-5278
(619) 239-3051/239-3807 (Fax) 1730 Rhode Island A v e n u e ,
N . W . , Suite 509
417 Montgomery Street Washington, D C 20036-3169
San Francisco, C A 94104-1113 (202) 296-8510/872-9574 (Fax)
(415) 981-3901/781-8426 (Fax) Garylee Cox
Charles A . Cooper
Florida Massachusetts
99 Southeast Fifth Street, Suite 230 Congress Street

200 Boston, M A 02110-2409
Miami, F L 33131-2501 (617) 451-6600/451-0763 (Fax)
(305) 358-7777/358-4931 (Fax) Richard M . Reilly
Rene Grafals
Michigan
Georgia
Ten Oak H o l l o w , Suite 170
1360 Peachtree Street, N . E . , Southfield, M I 48034-7405
Suite 270 (313) 352-5500/352-3147 (Fax)
Atlanta, G A 30309-3214 M a r y A . Bedikian
(404) 872-3022/881-1134 (fax)
India Johnson
Minnesota
Hawaii 514 Nicollet M a l l , Suite 670

Minneapolis, M N 55402-1092
810 Richards Street, Suite 641 (612) 332-6545/342-2334 (Fax)
Honolulu, H I 96813-4728 James R. Deye
(808) 531-0541/533-2306 (Fax)
Keith W . Hunter
Missouri
Illinois 1101 Walnut Street, Suite 903

Kansas City, M O 64106-2110
205 West Wacker Drive, Suite (816) 221-6401/471-5264 (Fax)
1100 Lori A . M a d d e n
Chicago, IL 60606-1212
(312) 346-2282/346-0135 (Fax) One Mercantile Center, Suite
D a v i d Scott Carfello 2512
St. Louis, M O 63101-1643
(314) 621-7175/621-3730 (Fax)
Louisiana N e i l Moldenhauer
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2035

New Orleans, L A 70130-6101
(504) 522-8781/561-8041 (Fax)
A n n Peterson
APPENDIX N 305
New York Ohio
585 Stewart Avenue, Suite 302 441 Vine Street, Suite 3308
Garden City, N Y 11530-4789 Cincinnati, O H 45202-2809
(516) 222-1660/745-6447 (Fax) (513) 241-8434/241-8436 (Fax)
M a r k A . Resnick Philip S. Thompson
140 West 51st Street 1127 Euclid A v e n u e , Suite 875

New York, N Y 10020-1203 Cleveland, O H 44115-1632
(212) 484-4000/765-4874 (Fax) (216) 241-4741/241-8584 (Fax)
Carolyn M . Penna Earle C. B r o w n
State Tower Building, R o o m Pennsylvania

720
Syracuse, N Y 13202-1838 (315) 230 South Broad Street
472-5483/472-0966 (Fax) Philadelphia, P A 19102-4121
Deborah A . Brown (215) 732-5620/732-5002 (Fax)
James L . Marchese
34 South Broadway
White Plains, N Y 10601-4485 Four Gateway Center, R o o m
(914) 946-1119/946-2661 (Fax) 221
Marion J. Z i n m a n Pittsburgh, P A 15222-1207
(412) 261-3617/261-6055 (Fax)
John F. Schano
New Jersey
265 Davidson Avenue, Suite Puerto Rico

140
Esquire Building, Suite 800
Somerset, N J 08873-4002
San Juan, PR 00918-3628
(201) 560-9560/560-8850 (Fax)
(809) 764-8515/764-8848 (Fax)
Richard Naimark
Lillian A . Reyes
North Carolina Tennessee
7301 Carmel Executive Park, 162 Fourth Avenue N o r t h ,

Suite 110 Suite 106
Charlotte, N C 28827-8297 Nashville, T N 37219-2412
(704) 541-1367/542-7287 (Fax) (615) 256-5857/256-7819 (Fax)
Mark Sholander Tony Dalton
Texas Washington
Two Galleria Tower, Suite 811 First Avenue, Suite 200

1440 Seattle, W A 98104-1455
Dallas, T X 75240-6620 (206) 622-6435/343-5679 (Fax)
(214) 702-8222/490-9008 (Fax) Neal M . Blacker
Helmut O . Wolff
1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1459

Houston, T X 77010-3025
(713) 739-1302
Therese Tilley
Appendix O
N E G L I G E N C E IS T H E L E G A L T E R M F O R A
PUNISHABLE G O O F
When professionals are sued for an alleged goof, the trial

judge gives standard instructions to the jury on how to make
a determination of guilt or innocence. I reproduce the (verba-
tim) instructions given in California, as found in the Book of
Approved Jury Instructions, or BAJI.* (Instructions in other
states are similar, but may not be identical.) The blank spaces
are filled by inserting "engineer," "geologist," or similar
professions.
BAJI 6.37:
In performing professional services for a client, a has
the duty to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily
possessed by reputable , practicing in the same or a
similar locality and under similar circumstances.
It is his or her further duty to use the care and skill ordinarily
used in like cases by reputable members of his or her profes-
sion practicing in the same or a similar locality under similar
circumstances, and to use reasonable diligence and his or her
best judgment in the exercise of his professional skill and in
the application of his learning, in an effort to accomplish the
purpose for which he or she was employed.
A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence.
*The excerpts from BAJI are reprinted with permission from California Jury
Instructions, Civil, copyright 1986 by West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN.
307
BAJI 6.37.1:
It is the duty of a , who holds himself or herself out as a
specialist in a particular field of , to have the knowledge
and skill ordinarily possessed, and to use the care and skill
ordinarily used, by reputable specialists practicing in the
same field and in the same or a similar locality and under
similar circumstances.
A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence.
BAJI 6.37.2:
A is not necessarily negligent because he errs in judg-
ment or because his efforts prove unsuccessful. Such a per-
son is negligent if the error in judgment or lack of success is
due to a failure to perform any of the duties as defined in
these instructions. [The judge would instruct the jury as to what
the duties are. The duties outlined in local manuals re perk testing/
site evaluation would probably be included.]
BAJI 6.37.3:
[This instruction applies only if it is included within the professional
standards of the profession involved.] Once a has under-
taken to serve a client, the employment and duty as a
continues until ended by consent or request of the client or
the withdraws from the employment, if it does not
unduly jeopardize the interest of the client, after giving the
client notice and a reasonable opportunity to employ another
or the matter for which the person was employed has
been concluded.
BAJI 6.37.4:
You must determine the standard of professional learning,
skill and care required of the defendant only from the opin-
ions of the [including the defendant] who have testified as
expert witnesses as to such standard.
You should consider each such opinion and should weigh the
qualifications of the witness and the reasons given for his or
her opinion. Give each opinion the weight to which you
deem it entitled.
You must resolve any conflict in the testimony of the wit-
nesses by weighing each of the opinions expressed against
the others, taking into consideration the reasons given for the
opinion, the facts relied upon by the witness and the relative
credibility, special knowledge, skill, experience, training and
education of the witness.
APPENDIX O 309
F r o m a l l the i n s t r u c t i o n s a b o v e , o n e m a y i n f e r that:
1. It is legally safe to goof if one can prove to a jury that other

reputable professionals are just as guilty of the same type
of error.
2. Bad judgment and bad results are not necessarily punish-
able unless failure to perform specified duties is involved.
(Compliance w i t h requirements i n a pertinent "procedures
manual," even if the manual's procedures are wrong, does
much to protect professionals from liability.) The other
side of the coin is that it may be dangerous to be innova-
tive and strive for progress through one's work.
3. Solely on the basis of the defendant's and expert wit-
nesses' opinions (often about complicated subjects, w h i c h
jurors may not fully understand), the jury must determine
whether a professional is guilty of negligence. A n d a key
to this determination is relative credibility. (Unfortunately,
from what I have seen and heard, it seems that lawyers
can produce expert witnesses w h o will testify to anything;
I heard one lawyer brag about his ability to procure such
expert witnesses. In contrast, I understand that i n Ger-
many it is the judge w h o hires and pays the expert wit-
nesses so they'll act as his truthful and objective guides.)
Appendix P
T E S T I F Y I N G IN C O U R T A N D G I V I N G
EXPERT T E S T I M O N Y
It is p o s s i b l e that m a n y of u s w i l l testify i n c o u r t as expert

w i t n e s s e s , p l a i n t i f f s , or d e f e n d a n t s . K n o w l e d g e of the f i e l d
of battle is c r u c i a l . A t h o r o u g h a n d concise m a p of the f i e l d
has b e e n p u b l i s h e d b y S a n f o r d M . B r o w n a n d is r e p r o d u c e d
1
at the e n d of this A p p e n d i x . C a s e h i s t o r i e s i n A p p e n d i x Q
s h e d m o r e l i g h t o n the l e g a l b a t t l e f i e l d as w e l l as o n t e c h n i c a l
septic s y s t e m matters. B e l o w , I h a v e w r i t t e n s o m e o b s e r v a -
t i o n s to m a k e B r o w n ' s m a p m o r e c o m p l e t e . A d d i t i o n a l
i n s i g h t s m a y be o b t a i n e d f r o m M a t s o n ' s b o o k . 2
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Before a p p e a r i n g i n c o u r t , o n e s h o u l d be a w a r e of w h a t I
w o u l d c a l l " t h e F r y n n e effect" ( p r o n o u n c e d " f r e e " as i n free-
d o m , a n d " n e " as i n n e v e r ) . I n G r e e c e , d u r i n g the classical
period, a very beautiful w o m a n called Frynne was charged
w i t h a c r i m e . W h e n she a p p e a r e d i n f r o n t of the j u d g e s at
h e r t r i a l , h e r attorney r e m o v e d h e r t u n i c w i t h a stroke of h i s
h a n d a n d e x h i b i t e d her, stark n a k e d . " C o u l d this w o m a n be
g u i l t y ? " he a s k e d the j u d g e s . T h e j u d g e s s a w the e x q u i s i t e
e v i d e n c e a n d c o n c l u d e d to a m a n that she w a s n o t g u i l t y .
T h e G r e e k s of the p e r i o d (wise Socrates i n c l u d e d ) " k n e w "
that B e a u t y is V i r t u e , a n d V i r t u e is B e a u t y . W e l l , e v e n t o d a y ,
311
w h e n w e see m o v i e s , i n the first scenes w e j u d g e w h o the

g o o d g u y s are just f r o m their g o o d l o o k s . S o d o j u r o r s at
t r i a l , s u b c o n s c i o u s l y . O f course, n o w a d a y s it's n o t h o w w e l l
w e l o o k w h e n w e are u n d r e s s e d , b u t w h e n d r e s s e d . A p p r o -
priate clothes (like those w o r n b y respectable l o c a l l a w y e r s ) ,
a n d c o n v i c t i o n i n one's " b o d y l a n g u a g e " a n d i n one's v o i c e
a d d u p to c r e d i b i l i t y . A p p e a r a n c e s d o c o u n t . *
A w i t n e s s m u s t b e w a r e of h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s . T h e s e
a s s u m e the f o r m of, "If . . . (biased o r r i d i c u l o u s a s s u m p t i o n )
. . . w o u l d y o u m a i n t a i n that . . . (charge or c o n c e r n ) ? " F o r
instance, "If septage h a d n o m i c r o o r g a n i s m s or c h e m i c a l s ,
w o u l d y o u m a i n t a i n it presents a n y h a z a r d ? " If the l a w y e r of
the o p p o s i n g side asks s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h i s , it is because he
has i n m i n d s h o w i n g to the j u r y that i n the case at h a n d
septage has not b e e n s h o w n to h a v e h a z a r d o u s constituents
a n d h e n c e poses n o h a z a r d . O n e s h o u l d not a n s w e r a h y p o -
thetical q u e s t i o n w i t h a brief " y e s " or " n o . " Juries m a y be
s w a y e d b y s u c h a n a n s w e r . A g o o d tactic is to r e p l y w i t h a
h y p o t h e t i c a l a n s w e r i n o r d e r to c o n v e y the p r o p e r p e r s p e c -
t i v e . F o r instance, one c o u l d r e p l y , "If l e a d w e r e lighter t h a n
water, it w o u l d float, a n d if septage h a d n o h a z a r d o u s c o n -
stituents, I w o u l d not be c o n c e r n e d . " O f t e n , the l a w y e r o n
one's side w i l l object to h y p o t h e t i c a l questions before o n e
answers them.
A w i t n e s s m u s t k e e p i n m i n d that w h e n the o p p o s i n g
l a w y e r is b e i n g v e r y nice, that's p r o b a b l y to b r i n g the w i t -
ness's g u a r d d o w n . That same l a w y e r m a y try to p l a n t a n
i d e a i n the witness's m i n d a n d ask i n n o c e n t l y , "Isn't it s o ? "
A n d s u b c o n s c i o u s l y the w i t n e s s w i l l t e n d to agree, as one is
generally polite to a c h a r m i n g f e l l o w . O f course, this c a n be
d e a d l y w h e n a court reporter is t a k i n g notes. Later o n the
* About 20 years ago I read in Psychology Today about an interesting experi-

ment. Two speakers (actors) addressed an audience. The first one deliv-
ered a common speech. The second one's speech consisted of completely
nonsensical sentences, on purpose, but he spoke with conviction and in
an amiable tone. The audience felt that the second speech was better and
held a far more favorable impression of the second speaker.
APPENDIX P 313
s a m e nice l a w y e r m a y treat the agreeable w i t n e s s l i k e s c u m

of the e a r t h .
If a n d w h e n the o p p o s i n g - s i d e l a w y e r b u l l i e s , i n s u l t s , o r
denigrates y o u or y o u r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n o r d e r to m a k e y o u
a n g r y so that y o u w i l l n o t be able to t h i n k clearly, k e e p y o u r
c o o l b y r e m e m b e r i n g that h e is s a y i n g m u c h about h i m s e l f
a n d n o t h i n g about y o u .
T h e m e a n i n g of a n y o n e specific w o r d m a y n o t be the s a m e
to the parties i n c o n f l i c t . O n c e this is clear, s o m e of the heat
a n d conflict d i s a p p e a r . F o r instance, o n e p a r t y m a y m a i n t a i n
that s e w a g e is b e n e f i c i a l ; a n o t h e r o n e that it is a h a z a r d . T h e
f o r m e r m i g h t t h i n k of s e w a g e as " n i g h t s o i l , " o r fertilizer, the
latter as a p u b l i c h e a l t h h a z a r d . T r y to v i s u a l i z e w o r d s as
h a v i n g subscripts, sewage l7 s e w a g e , h a z a r d , h a z a r d , etc.
2 1 2
a n d k e e p i n m i n d that e a c h m a y m e a n s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t to
s o m e o n e else. M a k e sure that w h o e v e r cross e x a m i n e s y o u
d e f i n e s h i s w o r d s to y o u r satisfaction.
A w i t n e s s m a y be i n f l u e n c e d b y w h o is a s k i n g the q u e s -
t i o n s (or b y w h e r e the q u e s t i o n e r is " c o m i n g f r o m " ) . A s a
h y p o t h e t i c a l e x a m p l e , let u s a s s u m e that I s a w t w o p i n k
s p a r r o w s i n a f l o c k of 100. If a n y o n e w e r e to ask m e , " W e r e
there a lot of p i n k s p a r r o w s i n the f l o c k ? " I w o u l d a n s w e r ,
" N o . " ( T w o o u t of 100 is n o t a lot.) If later o n s o m e o n e I k n e w
w a s a n o r n i t h o l o g i s t w o u l d ask m e the s a m e q u e s t i o n , I
w o u l d a n s w e r " Y e s , " t r u t h f u l l y , a n d w i t h o u t g i v i n g it a n y
t h o u g h t . That's because s u b c o n s c i o u s l y I a m a w a r e that o r n i -
t h o l o g i s t s k n o w that the i n c i d e n c e of p i n k s p a r r o w s is, say,
o n e i n a m i l l i o n s p a r r o w s . (So t w o out of 100 is a lot.)
T h o u g h truthful, m y contradictory answers w o u l d have
m a d e m e l o o k l i k e a liar i n front of a j u r y . T h e w a y to a v o i d
this t y p e of p r e d i c a m e n t is to g i v e factual o r q u a n t i t a t i v e
a n s w e r s l i k e , "I s a w t w o o u t of 100."
A n d y o u s h o u l d be a w a r e that p e o p l e w h o act as advocates
( a n d take sides) h a v e t r o u b l e t h i n k i n g i n objective w a y s that
l e a d to p r o b l e m r e s o l u t i o n . A s a theoretical i l l u s t r a t i o n , let
u s e x a m i n e the t h i n k i n g of h o n o r a b l e p e o p l e , s o m e of w h o m
are for a n d s o m e against c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t as a deterrent to
c r i m e . A t y p i c a l " e i t h e r - o r " s i t u a t i o n : E a c h side sees itself i n
the r i g h t . O n e side m a y p r o v e its p o i n t w i t h statistics s h o w -

i n g n o decrease i n c r i m e r i g h t after a p u b l i c h a n g i n g . T h e
o p p o s i t e side m a y p o i n t o u t that d e a d c r i m i n a l s are n o t
r e c i d i v i s t s . B o t h sides fail to notice that statistics are u n r e l i -
able u n l e s s t h e y refer to s u b p o p u l a t i o n s , e . g . , the d e a t h p e n -
alty m a y stop s o m e t y p e s of p e o p l e f r o m i n d u l g i n g i n " w h i t e
c o l l a r " c r i m e , b u t it w o u l d d o little or n o t h i n g to p r e v e n t
c r i m e s of p a s s i o n . A s i n m a n y other d i s p u t e s , I see t h i s as a
p r o b l e m of p r o p e r l y d e f i n i n g w h a t ' s d e s i r e d a n d d e t e r m i n -
i n g the social cost a n d benefits of a p p l y i n g a g i v e n r e w a r d ,
p u n i s h m e n t , or other treatment to c a r e f u l l y d e f i n e d s u b p o p -
u l a t i o n s , so as to achieve desirable results at acceptable costs
a n d h a z a r d s to society. I n t h i s f r a m e of m i n d , it is easier to
see that o p p o s i n g sides m a y base t h e m s e l v e s o n accurate
p e r c e p t i o n s w h i l e u s i n g the w r o n g f r a m e of r e a s o n i n g . ( O f
c o u r s e , r e g a r d i n g the d e a t h p e n a l t y , t h i n g s are m o r e c o m p l i -
c a t e d . B u t this is just a n i l l u s t r a t i o n . )
In g e n e r a l , l a w y e r s of o p p o s i n g sides w i l l be quite c i v i l to
each other, i n a n d out of c o u r t . B u t d o n ' t be m i s l e d : their a i m
is to w i n , a n d s o m e w i l l d o just a b o u t a n y t h i n g to a c h i e v e
this a i m . N o w a d a y s , there are c o m p a n i e s that coach attor-
n e y s a n d expert w i t n e s s e s o n d e f e n d i n g against d i r t y tricks
a n d o n i n c r e a s i n g the c r e d i b i l i t y of t e s t i m o n y . In the P B S T V
broadcast " N i g h t l y B u s i n e s s R e p o r t " (October 25, 1989), a
representative f r o m o n e of those c o m p a n i e s d e m o n s t r a t e d
h o w to d e s t r o y a n h o n e s t w i t n e s s ' s c r e d i b i l i t y :
Lawyer: Do y o u have kids?

Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: D i d y o u tell them that there is a Santa Claus?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: I hope you won't lie now that y o u give testimony i n
court.
F i n a l l y , m y a d v i c e to p r o s p e c t i v e expert w i t n e s s e s is to
r e m e m b e r that t h e y are a t o o l i n the h a n d s of their attorney.
(This v i e w is not s h a r e d b y M a t s o n . P e r h a p s h i s " t o o l / ' is
2
APPENDIX P 315
n o t m y " t o o l . It is a d v i s a b l e to r e a d M a t s o n ' s b o o k to o b t a i n
2
"
a broader perspective.)
REFERENCES
1. B r o w n , S. M . 1983. T h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s -
s i o n a l as a n expert w i t n e s s . J. E n v i r o n . H e a l t h 46:84-87.
2. M a t s o n , J. V . 1990. Effective Expert Witnessing. Lewis Pub-
lishers, Inc., Chelsea, M I .
ARTICLE A B O U T EXPERT WITNESSES
By k i n d p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e J o u r n a l of E n v i r o n m e n t a l
H e a l t h , D r . S. M . B r o w n ' s article is r e p r o d u c e d h e r e . It is
r e l e v a n t to expert w i t n e s s e s i n a n y f i e l d o r specialty. T h e
m a t e r i a l b e l o w w a s b a s e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m a subse-
quently p u b l i s h e d textbook, E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h L a w
( B r o w n , S . M . , a n d T. R . Forrest, Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , N e w
Y o r k , N Y , 1984).
The Environmental Health Professional

As an Expert Witness
Sanford M . Brown, P h . D .
T h e s a n i t a r i a n , e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h specialist, as w e l l as
o t h e r h e a l t h p r a c t i t i o n e r s , m a y be c a l l e d f r o m t i m e to t i m e t o
serve as a n expert w i t n e s s . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n -
als h a v e b e e n u t i l i z e d b y courts to h e l p r e s o l v e cases i n v o l v -
i n g scientific fact a n d t e c h n i c a l issues w h e r e there is a d i f f e r -
ence of o p i n i o n o n t h e "best available t e c h n o l o g y . " T h i s h a s
b e e n t h e case i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h f i e l d , e s p e c i a l l y
d u r i n g t h e 1970's—the decade of t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . C o n s e -
q u e n t l y , expert o p i n i o n p l a y s a n i m p o r t a n t role i n t h e f i e l d of
e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h d u e to the i n e x a c t i t u d e of c u r r e n t
k n o w l e d g e i n the area a n d o p e n s the d o o r for the e n v i r o n -
m e n t a l h e a l t h specialist to be u t i l i z e d as a n expert w i t n e s s .
A l t h o u g h sanitarians or o t h e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h p r a c t i -
t i o n e r s m a y be generalists, t h e y u s u a l l y s p e c i a l i z e , o v e r the
y e a r s , i n a p a r t i c u l a r area of e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h f i e l d p r a c -
tice w h e r e t h e i r expertise c a n be u t i l i z e d .
A n expert w i t n e s s is o n e w h o , because of e d u c a t i o n a n d
experience, demonstrates a certain k n o w l e d g e not possessed
b y the o r d i n a r y p e r s o n . T h e F e d e r a l R u l e s of E v i d e n c e , R u l e
702, state that a n expert is a p e r s o n w h o m a y g i v e t e s t i m o n y
i n the " f o r m of a n o p i n i o n or o t h e r w i s e , " w h e r e h e or she is
q u a l i f i e d " b y k n o w l e d g e , s k i l l , t r a i n i n g or e d u c a t i o n , " if " s c i -
e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l or o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e w i l l assist
the trier of fact to u n d e r s t a n d the e v i d e n c e to d e t e r m i n e a
fact i n i s s u e . " T h e expert assists the j u d g e a n d / o r j u r y to
9
u n d e r s t a n d a n d interpret technical evidence i n a specialized

area. T h e expert differs f r o m the l a y w i t n e s s i n that i n a d d i -
t i o n to the s t a t i n g of fact, the expert is p e r m i t t e d to offer
c o n c l u s i o n s , d r a w cause-effect r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d express
o p i n i o n s . T h e expert m a y be u s e d i n d i s c o v e r y p r o c e e d -
10
i n g s , the p r e p a r a t i o n a n d c o m p l e t i o n of i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s a n d /
or d e p o s i t i o n s , a n d as a w i t n e s s i n c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s .
Table 1 s u m m a r i z e s the criteria u t i l i z e d for the s e l e c t i o n of
a n expert w i t n e s s . T w o basis criteria a p p l y to the s e l e c t i o n of
experts: A ) the expert m u s t q u a l i f y as a n expert i n the specific
a r e a i n w h i c h h e or she w i l l testify a n d , B) the expert m u s t be
able to e x p l a i n s i m p l y h i s or h e r theories i n a c o u r t a p p e a r -
a n c e . G e n e r a l i s t s a n i t a r i a n s , q u a l i f y i n g as expert w i t n e s s e s ,
9
m u s t h a v e a specific area of expertise b a s e d o n e d u c a t i o n ,

e x p e r i e n c e , k n o w l e d g e , s k i l l or t r a i n i n g . M a n y t i m e s a s a n i -
t a r i a n m a y h a v e a l i m i t e d s p e c i a l i t y or be a p r o g r a m s p e c i a l -
ist of c o n s u l t a n t i n a specific area of e n v i r o n m e n t a l practice.
T h e s e p r a c t i t i o n e r s are best q u a l i f i e d as experts. E d u c a t i o n
a n d experience are the k e y s to expert p a r t i c i p a t i o n a l t h o u g h
either m a y be the basis of q u a l i f i c a t i o n a n d n o t necessarily
both. 3,9
Table 2 lists the g u i d e l i n e s for the expert's p r e p a r a t i o n . T h e

APPENDIX P 317
Table P. 1 Criteria for Selection of an Expert Witness 2,9
1. The expert should qualify as an expert in the specific area in which

he or she is to testify.
2. The expert should be qualified to appear in court to explain his or
her theories and be cross-examined.
3. The expert should have a comprehensive understanding of his or
her area but should also have the ability to explain technical find-
ings in a simple, clear and concise manner.
4. The expert should be able to reduce his or her technical knowledge
to understandable English.
5. The expert should have the ability to think on his or her feet.
6. The expert should have the ability to deal in facts and theories.
7. The expert should be a professional and a practitioner.
8. The expert should have both public and private sector experience.
9. The expert should be familiar with the literature in the area of
expertise.
10. The expert should have published in the area of his or her
expertise.
11. The expert should be a local or national expert, appropriate to the
needs of the class.
a t t o r n e y a n d the e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h expert m u s t u n d e r -
take t h o r o u g h p r e t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n . T h e y m u s t w o r k c l o s e l y
together o n t e c h n i c a l matters a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g l e g a l
i s s u e s . T h e a t t o r n e y a n d the expert s h o u l d r e v i e w a l l f i e l d
notes, tests, r a w d a t a , i n s p e c t i o n f o r m s , r e p o r t s a n d corre-
s p o n d e n c e g e n e r a t e d as a result of the i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t s ,
calculations, prior testimony, depositions, interrogatories,
p e r t i n e n t literature a n d p u b l i c a t i o n s . W h e n the expert is
e n g a g e d i n c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n , m u c h of the expert's t i m e w i l l be
d e v o t e d to d i s c o v e r y p r o c e e d i n g s . D i s c o v e r y is the p r o c e s s
b y w h i c h each p a r t y to a case is a l l o w e d to l e a r n of a n d p r o b e
the f a c t u a l c o m p o n e n t s of the o t h e r p a r t y ' s case. G e n e r a l l y ,
d i s c o v e r y a l l o w s o n e p a r t y to e x a m i n e the other's w i t n e s s e s
a n d d o c u m e n t s , etc. before the t r i a l , either o r a l l y or b y w r i t -
t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . M a n y t i m e s the expert u n d e r g o e s the
p r e p a r a t i o n of a d e p o s i t i o n , w h i c h is a w r i t t e n r e c o r d of
s w o r n t e s t i m o n y , m a d e before a p u b l i c officer for p u r p o s e s
of c o u r t a c t i o n . T h e d e p o s i t i o n is u s u a l l y i n the f o r m of inter-
rogatories p o s e d b y a n attorney.
Table P.2 Preparation of Experts—Pre-Trial Preparation ' 5 6,9
1. Before you testify, visit a court and listen to other experts testify.
2. Do not participate in a case against your best judgment.
3. Know the client before agreeing to work for him or her.
4. Know the attorney before agreeing to work for him or h e r — d o not
risk your reputation with a careless attorney.
5. Prepare yourself thoroughly in advance with field and/or record
investigations.
6. Document conditions thoroughly with drawings, maps and photo-
graphs that demonstrate facts, interpretations and conclusions.
7. Review your testimony with the attorney well in advance of the
case.
8. Educate the attorney thoroughly about the technical facts of the
case.
9. Plan the presentation of your testimony with the attorney in
advance.
10. Be prepared. Review all works and reports on the issue as well as
your professional writing that may be related. As a rule, allow 5 to
10 hours of participation for each hour on the stand.
11. Follow the directions of the attorney.
12. Coordinate your testimony with other experts on your team.
13. Review pretrial depositions of witnesses and experts in your area of
testimony.
14. If the opposing attorney takes your deposition as an expert, be
prepared to supply your notes, correspondence and reports that you
used as a basis for your information.
15. Review transcripts of relevant court proceedings prior to your
appearance in court.
16. Do not memorize what you are going to say.
17. Do not stray beyond your area of competence.
18. Testify for the benefit of lay triers of fact.
19. Do not have a disdain for laypersons or the adversary's witnesses or
attorney.
20. Familiarize yourself and the attorney with the literature in the area.
T h e p r e t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n m u s t i n c l u d e the b a s i s f o r the
expert's o p i n i o n s . T h e e x p e r t m u s t be p r e p a r e d to g i v e o p i n -
i o n o n facts i n e v i d e n c e a n d o n facts n o t i n e v i d e n c e but
reasonably relied o n by experts. 9
The attorney s h o u l d r e v i e w
w i t h t h e s a n i t a r i a n the f o l l o w i n g t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e s of e x p e r t
testimony. 11
APPENDIX P 319
1. Expert testimony on the matter directly at issue is inadmis-

sible, particularly if the issue is a mixture of fact and l a w . 12
2. Expert testimony is not admissible if it deals with matters

of common knowledge. 8
3. Facts u p o n w h i c h an opinion is based must be established

by evidence. 7
4. The adverse party's expert cannot generally be called for

direct testimony, for an expert cannot be compelled,
against his w i l l , to render expert testimony. 4
E x p e r t t e s t i m o n y b e g i n s w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n
of the w i t n e s s to stipulate the w i t n e s s e s ' q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d
c o n c e d e expert status. T h i s c o n c e s s i o n s h o u l d be r e s i s t e d
w h e n the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h s p e c i a l -
ist are i m p r e s s i v e . T h i s is n o t i m e for m o d e s t y . I m p r e s s i v e
c r e d e n t i a l s s h o u l d be e n t e r e d i n t o the c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s .
T h e w i t n e s s is u s u a l l y a s k e d a series of q u a l i f y i n g q u e s t i o n s
to e s t a b l i s h h i s or h e r expertise. T h e q u e s t i o n s m a y i n c l u d e
the f o l l o w i n g :
1. What is your name? Where do y o u live?

2. What is your profession? What does the profession
involve? D o y o u specialize within your profession? What
does the specialty involve? H o w long have y o u practiced
your profession?
3. With respect to your formal education, what colleges
and/or universities d i d y o u attend and what degrees d i d
you receive? Were those degrees in any specialized area?
If so, please explain? Was the program accredited? What
other schools have similar programs i n this area? A r e
they accredited programs?
4. W i t h w h o m are y o u employed? H o w long have y o u been
employed i n your present position? What are the duties
of your position?
5. A r e y o u registered, certified, licensed, etc.? In this state?
A r e y o u licensed, etc. i n any other state? H o w long have
y o u been licensed? Have y o u been i n practice all that
time? A r e y o u certified i n a speciality? If so, what does
that involve?
6. In the course of your professional duties, have y o u per-
formed analyses or tests? What d i d this involve? H o w

many tests have y o u conducted?
7. Have y o u done any teaching? H o w long? Describe your
teaching responsibilities?
8. Have you published any written works i n the area of
your expertise? Have these works appeared i n refereed,
professional journals? W o u l d y o u state the title of some
of these works? D o y o u have an up-to-date and accurate
list of your publications? Have y o u reviewed written
works for a professional journal?
9. A r e y o u a member of any professional associations? D o
y o u hold any offices i n those associations?
10. Have y o u performed consulting duties i n your area of
expertise? For the government? For private companies?
11. Have y o u received any prizes or awards i n your field?
Please describe a few of those awards.
12. Have y o u ever previously testified as an expert witness i n
an administrative or judicial proceeding? O n h o w many
occasions?
A f t e r the q u e s t i o n i n g , the attorney m a y offer the w i t n e s s

as a n expert. A f t e r the offer, the o p p o s i n g p a r t y m a y c h a l -
l e n g e the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the expert a n d ask q u e s t i o n s c o n -
c e r n i n g the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . T h e c o u r t t h e n m a k e s the d e c i s i o n
o n the expert w i t n e s s .
O n c e q u a l i f i e d , the expert w i t n e s s m a y testify to facts p e r -
c e i v e d b y the w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e n p r o c e e d w i t h o p i n i o n testi-
m o n y . Table 3 lists the g u i d e l i n e s f o r the a p p e a r a n c e i n c o u r t
a n d direct t e s t i m o n y of a n expert w i t n e s s . T h e expert t h e n
g i v e s h i s or h e r o p i n i o n or s o m e t i m e s a d e s c r i p t i o n of c e r t a i n
c o n d i t i o n s . T h e expert's a t t o r n e y m a y u t i l i z e the h y p o t h e t i -
cal q u e s t i o n p r o c e d u r e i n o r d e r to m o r e f u l l y illustrate to the
j u d g e a n d / o r j u r y the facts the expert is r e l y i n g u p o n . T h i s
p r o c e d u r e i n c l u d e s a series of q u e s t i o n s that are b a s e d o n
a n d b e g i n w i t h a series of a s s u m e d facts. T h e facts are l i s t e d
i n a specific o r d e r a n d the expert w i t n e s s is q u e s t i o n e d o n
the facts.
T h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of direct expert t e s t i m o n y u s u a l l y f o l l o w s
o n e o r t w o m e t h o d s : A ) testify to a l l e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g o n the
APPENDIX P 321
Table P.3 Court Appearance—Testimony ' 5 6,9
1. Stand upright when taking the oath. Say "I do" clearly.
2. Use notes to refresh your memory on lengthy data, and that of oth-
ers, but do not use an outline of your testimony. The court may ask
to see the notes.
3. When answering questions, look at the attorney and listen carefully
to the question; then, answer to the judge and/or the jury, not the
attorney.
4. Convey the image of competence and sincerity.
5. State your professional qualifications clearly and completely. Include
education, experience, professional membership and professional
registration or license.
6. Display total impartiality, don't be a surrogate advocate.
7. Speak in clear, loud tones in an authoritative manner.
8. Use plain language. Omit uncommon or technical terms or at least
use an illustration that will clearly convey your message.
9. Answer only the question asked and don't expand on your answer.
10. Don't be content with a brief answer to a complex question, clarify
the basic points and conclusions to the question.
11. Help your attorney rephrase a question that is not clear. You can
say " D o you mean . . . ? "
12. Do not exaggerate your response.
13. Act modest on the stand.
14. Do not guess; if you do not know the answer, say so.
15. Do not be afraid to admit a mistake or qualify an answer. A reputa-
tion of honesty and sincerity is highly valuable.
16. If you answer "sometimes," or "usually not" or "under certain
circumstances," you may indicate to your attorney to elaborate on
the point in question.
17. Be serious and polite. Never lose your temper.
18. Don't say, "That is all I remember." You may think of more later
and then you can add it.
19. Don't surprise your own attorney by your testimony.
case d u r i n g d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n b y y o u r a t t o r n e y , or B) d e l a y
i n t r o d u c t i o n of s o m e of t h e e v i d e n c e w h i c h is d a m a g i n g to
y o u r a d v e r s a r y i n a n t i c i p a t i o n that t h e o p p o s i n g a t t o r n e y
w i l l r e q u e s t it d u r i n g c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , i n belief that y o u
o m i t t e d a s t a t e m e n t o n t h e subject b e c a u s e it c o n t r a d i c t s
y o u r c o n c l u s i o n s . If t h e o p p o s i n g a t t o r n e y does not ask
about this i n f o r m a t i o n , y o u r attorney s h o u l d question y o u
o n this i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g redirect e x a m i n a t i o n . F o l l o w i n g
Table P.4 Court Appearance—Cross Examination ' 5 69
1. Do not rush your answers. Never allow the opposing attorney to

force you to rapid conclusions, and allow time for your attorney to
object.
2. Do not accept confusing rapid-fire questions. Be deliberate and ask
the attorney to repeat the question.
3. Do not attempt to answer several questions at once; have the attor-
ney choose one to answer.
4. Beware of trick questions.
5. Do not hesitate if the answer is obvious.
6. Do not allow the opposing attorney to disturb your composure.
7. Do not try to be clever.
8. Do not forget the opposing attorney may be better informed on
some point than you are.
9. Watch out for certain "stock questions." " D i d your attorney tell you
to say that?"
10. Do not be too eager to agree with authorities in your field.
11. Limit your answers to the questions asked.
12. Do not risk confusion with a long, hypothetical question, ask the
court reporter to repeat the question.
13. Do not be misled by compound questions.
14. Remain cool, objective and as cooperative as possible. Many judges
don't like uncooperative hostile witnesses.
15. Judges themselves may inject their own questions, and the witness
should be fully cooperative and duly deferential.
the d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y , the a t t o r n e y a n d the expert should

q u i c k l y r e v i e w the s t r e n g t h as w e l l as the w e a k n e s s e s of t h e
expert's t e s t i m o n y i n p r e p a r a t i o n for c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n .
D u r i n g c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , the o p p o s i n g a t t o r n e y w i l l u s u -
a l l y treat a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s i n o n e of three w a y s : A ) as if t h e
e x p e r t is w e l l - p r e p a r e d , k n o w l e d g e a b l e a n d t r u l y a n e x p e r t ;
i n t h i s case, the a t t o r n e y w i l l ask f e w q u e s t i o n s b e c a u s e h e o r
she fears d a m a g i n g a n s w e r s , B) as if the e x p e r t d o e s not
k n o w h i s o r h e r subject o r the facts of the case; i n t h i s case,
the a t t o r n e y a t t e m p t s to d i s c r e d i t the w i t n e s s , C ) as if t h e
expert is u n s u r e a b o u t the i m p o r t a n t facts or aspects of t h e
case; i n t h i s case, the a t t o r n e y a t t e m p t s to d i s c r e d i t the testi-
m o n y a n d obtains conflicting or contrary statements for the
APPENDIX P 323
Table P.5 General Information—In Court 5,6,9
1. Do not appear in court until you are instructed to do so.

2. On the witness stand, sit erect and be alert at all times.
3. The court will look at your appearance: experts command high
fees—dress accordingly.
4. Wear clean clothes and dress conservatively.
5. Follow the rules of the court even though they may seem restraining
and inexplicable.
6. Do not discuss the case in the halls of courtroom.
7. Do not discuss or consult with opposing experts about the case.
8. Do not sit at the counsel's table inside the railing unless asked to do
so.
9. Unless requested by your attorney to advise him or her during the
trial, leave the court when you have completed your testimony.
10. Do not engage in lengthy note-passing with your attorney. Wait until
the next recess to relay information.
11. Never try to win the game of " w i t s " with the opposing attorney. A
good attorney never asks a question unless he knows what the
answer should be.
12. Expect d e l a y s — d o n ' t get frustrated with them.
13. Never volunteer any public comment concerning the case to press,
radio, T.V., etc.
r e c o r d . T h e r e is n o d o u b t that t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h
expert m u s t strive to r e p r e s e n t t h e first category.
Table 4 s u m m a r i z e s t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e c o u r t a p p e a r -
ance d u r i n g c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . D u r i n g t h e o p p o s i n g attor-
ney's c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e expert w i t n e s s s h o u l d u t i l i z e
h i s o r h e r r e s p o n s e s to a d d to h i s o r h e r o w n direct testi-
m o n y . W a t c h for t h e o p p o s i n g attorney's effort t o s h o w y o u r
bias o r i m p r o p e r interest i n t h e case. D o n ' t let t h e a t t o r n e y
e s t a b l i s h c o n t r o l o v e r y o u b y a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s that o n l y
r e q u i r e a y e s o r n o a n s w e r ; elaborate w h e r e necessary. D o n ' t
get c a u g h t i n t h e l a c k - o f - f i r s t h a n d - k n o w l e d g e t r a p . If at a l l
possible, go a n d obtain firsthand k n o w l e d g e .
Table 5 s u m m a r i z e s g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n that t h e expert
witness s h o u l d follow i n a n d a r o u n d the court r o o m . T h e
s a n i t a r i a n m u s t r e m e m b e r that expert t e s t i m o n y is a t e a m
effort. Y o u s h o u l d o n l y a p p e a r a n d testify w h e n a s k e d o r
t o l d to d o s o . R e m e m b e r that y o u are p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a n area
w h e r e y o u are a n o v i c e . Y o u m u s t h a v e the k n o w l e d g e a n d
also t h e ability to f o l l o w t h e rules of the c o u r t . E x p e r t testi-
m o n y i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h cases requires t h o r o u g h p r e p -
a r a t i o n a n d f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n to be s u c c e s s f u l . It is a n e x p e r i -
ence that a q u a l i f i e d s a n i t a r i a n w i l l n e v e r forget.
REFERENCES
1. B a l d w i n , M . , a n d J. K . P a g e . 1970. L a w a n d t h e E n v i r o n -
m e n t . W a l k e r a n d C o . , N e w Y o r k , p . 432.
2. Beck, D . 1977. T h e role of the expert w i t n e s s i n the e n v i -
r o n m e n t a l l i t i g a t i o n . L i t i g a t i o n , t h e J o u r n a l of t h e S e c t i o n of
t h e A m e r i c a n B a r A s s o c i a t i o n . 3:38-40.
3. B o c k r a t h , J. T. (1977) E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w f o r E n g i n e e r s , Sci-
entists a n d M a n a g e r s . M c G r a w - H i l l C o . N e w York, p.
359.
4. C o l d M e t a l Press C o . V . U . S . E n g . & F o u n d r y C o . 83 F.
S u p p . 914 W . D . P A (1938). I n B a l d w i n , M . , a n d J. K .
P a g e 1970. L a w a n d t h e E n v i r o n m e n t . W a l k e r a n d C o . ,
N e w York.
5. E m b e r , L . R . 1975. T h e expert w i t n e s s . E n v . S c i . a n d
T e c h n o l . 9:620-621.
6. F a h y e , R . P . 1975. A g u i d e to b e i n g a w i t n e s s . O h i o J.
E n v i r o n . H e a l t h . 15:25-26.
7. M o z e r V . A e t n a L i f e I n s u r a n c e C o . , 126 F 2 n d 141 3 r d
C i r c u i t (1942). I n B a l d w i n , M . , a n d J. K . P a g e . 1970. L a w
a n d t h e E n v i r o n m e n t . Walker a n d C o . , N e w York.
8. N o a h V . B o w e r y S a v i n g s B a n k , 225 N Y 284 (1919). I n
B a l d w i n , M . a n d J. K . Page. 1970. L a w a n d t h e E n v i r o n -
m e n t . Walker and C o . , N e w York.
9. R i e s e l , D . 1982. P r e - t r i a l d i s c o v e r y of experts, expert tes-
t i m o n y a n d e x a m i n a t i o n of experts i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l l i t i -
g a t i o n . E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w . E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w Institute,
P h i l a d e l p h i a , p . 444.
10. S i k o r a , V . 1981. P r o v i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h v i o l a -
t i o n s . J. E n v i r o n . H e a l t h . 43:195-200.
APPENDIX P 325
11. S i v e , D . 1970. S e c u r i n g , e x a m i n i n g a n d c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g
expert w i t n e s s i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l cases. M i c h i g a n L a w
R e v i e w . 68:1175-1198.
12. U . S . V . R o b e r t s , 192 F. 2 n d 893 5 t h C i r c u i t (1951).
APPENDIX Q
C A S E HISTORIES O F L E G A L C O N F L I C T
S a n i t a r i a n s , geologists, e n g i n e e r s , l a w y e r s , a n d o t h e r p r o -
fessionals m a y b e c o m e i n v o l v e d i n l a w s u i t s r e g a r d i n g septic
s y s t e m s . T h i s a p p e n d i x illustrates s u c h i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h
real case h i s t o r i e s , g i v e n i n d e t a i l s u f f i c i e n t for readers to r e l y
o n their o w n i n s i g h t s a n d f o r m their o w n o p i n i o n s
I n o r d e r to p r e s e r v e a n o n y m i t y , the g e n d e r of s o m e of the
p r o t a g o n i s t s has b e e n c h a n g e d , a n d the p r o t a g o n i s t s are
r e p r e s e n t e d b y the f o l l o w i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s :
• P = plaintiff(s)
• P L = plaintiff's lawyer(s)
• P L S = plaintiff's lawyer(s) representing a state (where the
state is a plaintiff)
• D = defendant(s)
• D L = defendant's lawyer(s)
• C S S S = county septic system specialist
• S S C = septic system consultant (private)
• E W = expert witness
• G = geologist
• E = engineer
• E G = engineering geologist
327
Q . l DISCIPLINARY A C T I O N A G A I N S T
PROFESSIONALS
Q.1.1 A n Engineer
A g r o u p of n e i g h b o r i n g c o u n t i e s h a d f o r m e d a c o m m i t t e e
c o m p o s e d of l o c a l c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s that m e t m o n t h l y
w i t h c o u n t y officials to s t a n d a r d i z e p e r c o l a t i o n test r e q u i r e -
m e n t s . A t a m e e t i n g of t h i s c o m m i t t e e , C S S S s a w a n e w
m e m b e r i n attendance, E . O n e of those p r e s e n t a d d r e s s e d E
a n d a c c u s e d h e r p a s s i o n a t e l y of b e i n g the " d i s g r a c e of the
e n g i n e e r i n g p r o f e s s i o n . " T h e other c o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s ,
(very) c i v i l e n g i n e e r s , t r i e d to c a l m t h i n g s d o w n . ( M u c h
later, s o m e of t h e m t o l d C S S S that t h e y b e l i e v e d E r o u t i n e l y
m a n u f a c t u r e d reports w i t h fake data, p r e c o o k e d at h e r
office.) E d i d n ' t c o m e to a n y m o r e c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g s .
A year or t w o later, state c o n s u m e r affairs i n v e s t i g a t o r s
c o n t a c t e d C S S S a n d a s k e d h i m to cooperate i n their i n v e s t i -
g a t i o n of E . C S S S a g r e e d a n d p r o v i d e d t h e m w i t h r e p o r t s
s u b m i t t e d b y E . ( C S S S h a d rejected these reports because i n
h i s o p i n i o n t h e y c o n t a i n e d false data.)
C S S S r e c e i v e d a list of charges against E a n d a notice to
a p p e a r at the d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g ( i n front of a n a d m i n i s t r a -
tive l a w j u d g e ) . C S S S r e a d the charges. T w o of t h e m r e l a t e d
to n o t r e p o r t i n g s h a l l o w g r o u n d w a t e r (at a d e p t h of about
three feet) at t w o sites that s u p p o s e d l y h a d h a d e x p l o r a t o r y
excavations d o w n to at least 8 feet b e l o w g r o u n d . A n o t h e r
charge related to e x p l o r i n g a n d a l l e g e d l y a p p r o v i n g a site for
a tract s u b d i v i s i o n ; the h o u s e s w e r e f a l l i n g apart, the f o u n -
d a t i o n s w e r e c r a c k i n g a n d s i n k i n g , a n d tires a n d trees f o u n d
b e l o w f o u n d a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d the site as a f o r m e r l a n d f i l l .
O t h e r charges w e r e b a s e d o n the reports C S S S gave to the
investigators.
C S S S w e n t to the d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g . T h e r e w a s n o j u r y .
E d i d not b r i n g a n attorney. S h e p l e a - b a r g a i n e d w i t h the
j u d g e , stating that she w o u l d a d m i t guilt r e g a r d i n g the
charges of not r e p o r t i n g s h a l l o w g r o u n d w a t e r . B u t she
APPENDIX Q 329
w o u l d n o t a d d r e s s a n y t h i n g r e l a t i n g to the l a n d f i l l affair o n
the g r o u n d s that she w a s the subject of a n o t h e r r e l a t e d l a w -
suit o n this matter, a n d a n y t h i n g she s a i d c o u l d be u s e d to
i n c r i m i n a t e h e r . * A n d she r e f u s e d to a d d r e s s a n y of the
charges b a s e d o n the r e p o r t s C S S S rejected, o n the g r o u n d s
that a s a n i t a r i a n ( C S S S ) is not q u a l i f i e d to pass j u d g m e n t o n
the w o r k of a p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r . A n d w i t h a s m i l e she
s h o w e d the j u d g e a b e a u t i f u l c o m m e n d a t i o n certificate g i v e n
h e r b y C S S S ' c o u n t y . (She h a d left h e r n a m e , a d d r e s s , a n d
s i g n a t u r e o n the p e r c o l a t i o n test s t a n d a r d s c o m m i t t e e ' s ros-
ter o n the o c c a s i o n she w a s i n attendance; the c o u n t y m a i l e d
c o m m e n d a t i o n certificates to e v e r y p e r s o n n a m e d o n that
roster.)
T h e j u d g e accepted h e r p l e a . E's license w a s s u s p e n d e d f o r
six m o n t h s . T h e l o c a l press r e p o r t e d c o n t a c t i n g d e v e l o p e r s
w h o c l a i m e d E's f i r m g u a r a n t e e d p r o d u c i n g f a v o r a b l e
r e p o r t s , e v e n before p e r f o r m i n g f i e l d e x p l o r a t i o n s .
C S S S l e a r n e d that, if h i s c o u n t y ever h a d to press charges
against a p r o f e s s i o n a l , it w o u l d be a d v a n t a g e o u s to enlist the
services of a m e m b e r of the s a m e p r o f e s s i o n as the a c c u s e d .
( A n d also that c o m m e n d a t i o n certificates s h o u l d be g i v e n
s p a r i n g l y a n d o n l y for g o o d cause.)
Q.1.2 A Geologist
A n engineer, E , w a n t e d to d o p e r k t e s t i n g . H e a s s u r e d
C S S S that h e w a s a n expert.
T h e r e p o r t s E b e g a n to s u b m i t to C S S S c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d
that E w a s n o t c o m p e t e n t . E's r e p o r t s f a i l e d to meet m i n i -
m u m c o d e r e q u i r e m e n t s . I n h i s last s u b m i t t a l , E's l e a c h l i n e
d e s i g n w a s o b l i v i o u s of steep slopes at the site of i n s t a l l a -
t i o n : the l e a c h l i n e s w o u l d h a v e b e e n i n s t a l l e d either at exces-
*In 1988 an engineering geologist who investigated why the homes on the
tract in the landfill were breaking up told CSSS that the other lawsuit
never took place, as there was no way of recovering the cost of trial plus
roughly $4 million in damages from E; a financial institution absorbed all
the loss. E's company is no longer listed in the telephone directories.
Allegedly, she moved out of the area.
sive d e p t h o r p a r t l y a b o v e g r o u n d ! C S S S e m p l o y e d the u s u -
a l l y effective t e c h n i q u e to get r i d of i n c o m p e t e n t s : C S S S t o l d
E that if he i n s i s t e d o n s u b m i t t i n g s u b s t a n d a r d p e r k r e p o r t s ,
C S S S w o u l d file a c o m p l a i n t w i t h the p r o f e s s i o n a l registra-
t i o n a u t h o r i t i e s . C S S S w r o t e h i m a letter to this effect. ( T h e
s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s l e t t e r will become c l e a r l a t e r o n . ) E r e p l i e d that
h e w o u l d n o l o n g e r s u b m i t p e r k r e p o r t s a n d that h e w o u l d
b r i n g to the area a k n o w l e d g e a b l e e n g i n e e r i n g geologist able
to p r e p a r e s u c h r e p o r t s . A n d that's w h a t h e d i d .
T h e e n g i n e e r i n g geologist, let's call h i m " G , " t u r n e d o u t to
be a v e r y c h a r m i n g f e l l o w . H e t o l d C S S S h e h a d a master's
degree, a n d i m p r e s s e d h i m w i t h h i s k n o w l e d g e a n d c o m p e -
tence. H i s r e p o r t s s e e m e d v e r y g o o d . G a n d C S S S b e c a m e
rather f r i e n d l y .
A c o u p l e of years later, after a t i p f r o m a l o c a l b u i l d i n g
i n s p e c t o r , C S S S f o u n d that three h o u s e s (that w e r e to be
b u i l t o n three s m a l l c o n t i g u o u s lots) h a d l e a c h f i e l d s i n exces-
s i v e l y steep t e r r a i n . T h e i r p e r k r e p o r t h a d b e e n p r e p a r e d b y
G . G h a d s e r i o u s l y u n d e r r e p o r t e d the steepness of the
s l o p e s . T w o y o u n g f e l l o w s w h o w e r e b u i l d i n g three " s p e c "
h o u s e s ( s p e c u l a t i o n h o u s e s for sale) o n the lots a s k e d C S S S
to h e l p t h e m o u t , as t h e y c o u l d n o t a f f o r d a l a w s u i t against G
to r e c o v e r their losses. C S S S h e l p e d t h e m to salvage t w o of
the three lots. T h e t h i r d o n e , w i t h a 60% s l o p e ( r e p o r t e d as
40%) w a s u n s a l v a g e a b l e .
C S S S w e n t to the f i e l d a n d c h e c k e d r e c e n t l y - a p p r o v e d
r e p o r t s s u b m i t t e d b y G . C S S S f o u n d a p a t t e r n of u n d e r r e -
p o r t i n g of steep s l o p e s . A n d , w h e n h e c h e c k e d a s m a l l lot for
w h i c h G h a d w r i t t e n a favorable r e p o r t , C S S S f o u n d that a
5 5 % s l o p e (unsuitable) w a s r e p o r t e d as m u c h less steep.
A n d , e v e n w o r s e , a n i g n e o u s r o c k o u t c r o p that o c c u p i e d
m u c h of the lot h a d b e e n r e p o r t e d as "scattered b o u l d e r s . "
L e a c h l i n e s can't be i n s t a l l e d i n u n w e a t h e r e d , s o l i d i g n e o u s
r o c k . C S S S a s k e d E G , a c o u n t y e n g i n e e r i n g geologist, to
r e a d the reports a n d to check a l l the sites. E G d i d , a n d t o o k
p i c t u r e s . C S S S a s k e d E G h i s o p i n i o n of G b a s e d o n the p e r k
r e p o r t s G s u b m i t t e d , a n d E G a n s w e r e d that h e b e l i e v e d the
errors i n G ' s r e p o r t s w e r e i n t e n t i o n a l a n d n o t d u e to i n c o m -
APPENDIX Q 331
p e t e n c e . A l s o , he i d e n t i f i e d the r o c k o u t c r o p as the t o p part

of a d i k e (a m a s s i v e , m o s t l y b u r i e d " w a l l " of i g n e o u s r o c k ) .
C S S S w r o t e G a letter " i n v i t i n g " h i m to a p p e a r at a n office
h e a r i n g a n d s h o w cause w h y the c o u n t y s h o u l d k e e p o n
a c c e p t i n g h i s r e p o r t s . C S S S t h o u g h t that G w o u l d a d m i t the
o b v i o u s , that he w o u l d q u i t s u b m i t t i n g r e p o r t s , a n d that h e
w o u l d not repeat h i s m i s t a k e i n other j u r i s d i c t i o n s .
I n s t e a d , G h i r e d a n a t t o r n e y to f i g h t the charges at the
office h e a r i n g . T h i s m a d e C S S S t h i n k that G w a s n e i t h e r
r e p e n t a n t n o r c o n c e r n e d about ethics. C S S S n o l o n g e r t r i e d
to save h i m f r o m h i m s e l f , a n d f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t w i t h the
professional registration board.
A t the office h e a r i n g , G ' s a t t o r n e y t r i e d to d i s c r e d i t C S S S ' s
m o t i v a t i o n s a n d f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g to this attor-
n e y , C S S S w a s m o t i v a t e d b y a p e r s o n a l desire to h a r m h i s
c l i e n t . * A s for C S S S ' s f i e l d s l o p e m e a s u r e m e n t s , the attor-
n e y s a i d that these w e r e m e r e l y " C S S S ' s o p i n i o n s . " C S S S
interjected, " M e a s u r e m e n t s are not o p i n i o n s . " * *
T h e c o u n t y geologist, E G , testified as to w h a t he s a w a n d
m e a s u r e d i n the f i e l d a n d s h o w e d the p i c t u r e s h e t o o k at the
sites. H e c o r r o b o r a t e d C S S S ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s . T h e h e a r i n g
officer w a s p e r s u a d e d . C o u n t y a u t h o r i t i e s n o t i f i e d G i n w r i t -
i n g that he w a s b a r r e d f r o m s u b m i t t i n g p e r k r e p o r t s to the
county.
G m o v e d to a n e i g h b o r i n g c o u n t y . H i s c h a r m i n g p e r s o n a l -
ity m u s t h a v e w o r k e d for h i m . H e b e c a m e the chief geologist
of a r e p u t a b l e e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m . T h e h e a d of t h i s f i r m
p h o n e d C S S S a n d p r o t e s t e d p o l i t e l y C S S S ' s r e f u s a l to a l l o w
h i s h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d chief geologist to s u b m i t r e p o r t s . H e d i d
n o t b e l i e v e C S S S ' s e x p l a n a t i o n s that h e h a d g o o d r e a s o n s to
refuse r e p o r t s s i g n e d b y G .
*It is always so, at every hearing: The client is always innocent, and the
county and especially CSSS has something personal against the client.
**One might get different opinions if one gives a glass of water to two
people and asks, "Is the water warm or cold?" But there is no room for
subjective opinions when someone sticks a calibrated thermometer into
the water and replies, "It is 78°F." This is one reason why the scientific
approach yields more truthful results than zealous advocacy.
A b o u t a year later, C S S S a n d E G r e c e i v e d s u b p o e n a s to
a p p e a r at G ' s d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g o n the basis of a c o m p l a i n t
f i l e d b y the g e o l o g i s t s ' r e g i s t r a t i o n a u t h o r i t y w i t h the A t t o r -
n e y G e n e r a l ' s office. C S S S t r i e d to f i n d E G ' s p i c t u r e s a n d the
tape r e c o r d i n g of the office h e a r i n g p r o c e e d i n g s . T h e y w e r e
absent f r o m the storage file, a n d n o one k n e w their w h e r e -
a b o u t s . C S S S p r e p a r e d h i m s e l f for the h e a r i n g the best h e
could.
Just before the h e a r i n g , E G a n d C S S S m e t w i t h P L S , a
state d e p u t y A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l w h o h a d just f l o w n i n f r o m
the state c a p i t a l . P L S t o l d t h e m about h e r i m m e n s e w o r k
l o a d a n d s a i d that she c o u l d d e v o t e o n l y t w o d a y s to t h i s
case, i n c l u d i n g t r a v e l t i m e . S h e r e v i e w e d the materials C S S S
h a d g a t h e r e d a n d E G ' s notes. T h e y e n t e r e d the h e a r i n g
r o o m a n d s a w the defense t e a m : G , G ' s n e w l a w y e r D L , a n d
E!
C S S S p u t t w o a n d t w o together a n d c o n c l u d e d that the
state's p r o b a b i l i t y of success i n its case against G w a s v e r y
low:
• C S S S d i d not have the pictures shown at (and the tape

recording of) the office hearing.
• D L had all the time in the w o r l d to prepare plausible
defenses, while PLS's time was extremely limited.
• C S S S had heard that no geologist had ever been disci-
plined before i n a court of that state.
T h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e g a n i n f r o n t of a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w
j u d g e . T h e r e w a s n o j u r y . C S S S w a s c r o s s - e x a m i n e d about
h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d the e v i d e n c e he p r o d u c e d . T h e n G
t e s t i f i e d . G a n d D L t r i e d to c o n v i n c e the j u d g e that C S S S
h a d a p e r s o n a l g r u d g e against G . A c c o r d i n g to G , the r o c k
o u t c r o p w a s just loose b o u l d e r s that h a d r o l l e d d o w n to the
site f r o m u p h i l l ; slopes c o u l d be m e a s u r e d i n w a y s that
y i e l d e d different results, a n d a n y h o w there w a s n o r e q u i r e -
m e n t for accuracy. C S S S testified that if b o u l d e r s h a d r o l l e d
f r o m a b o v e , the b o u l d e r s w o u l d h a v e e m p t y spaces a n d / o r
s o i l b e t w e e n t h e m ; C S S S h a d seen o n l y fractures i n the o u t -
APPENDIX Q 333
c r o p , a n d the fractures c o n t a i n e d n o s o i l . A n d C S S S s a i d
that G ' s u n d e r r e p o r t i n g of s l o p e steepness c o u l d not be a n y -
t h i n g b u t i n t e n t i o n a l . F o r i n s t a n c e , w h e n the s l o p e w a s m i l d ,
20%, it w a s r e p o r t e d as 20%. B u t w h e n it w a s steep, say,
60%, it w a s r e p o r t e d as 40%, a n d a 40% s l o p e w a s r e p o r t e d
as 20%. C S S S s a i d that a n y o n e c o u l d get better results w i t h a
carpenter's l e v e l , a n d p o i n t e d o u t that the c o u n t y t e s t i n g
p r o c e d u r e s h a n d b o o k h a d a table that r e q u i r e d d e t e r m i n a -
t i o n of slopes to w i t h i n 5 percentage p o i n t s .
G a g a i n testified as to h i s c o n s i d e r a b l e expertise a n d d i s -
m i s s e d C S S S ' s allegations that G h a d h a r m e d the spec h o u s e
d e v e l o p e r s : " N o b o d y has s u e d m e , " he s a i d . T h e n E testified
(for G ) . H e d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f as a v e r y e x p e r i e n c e d e n g i n e e r .
H e stated that s l o p e r e a d i n g s v a r y a c c o r d i n g to h o w o n e
h o l d s the l e v e l . T h e j u d g e a s k e d h i m , " D o y o u m e a n that the
w a y y o u h o l d the l e v e l results i n d i f f e r e n t s l o p e r e a d i n g s ? "
" Y e s , " r e p l i e d E w i t h a s m i l e . T h e " e x p e r t " h a d s p o k e n ; the
j u d g e m u s t h a v e accepted E's e x p l a n a t i o n , because f r o m that
m o m e n t o n the j u d g e a d d r e s s e d C S S S i n a h a r s h tone of
v o i c e . C S S S felt l i k e y e l l i n g " H e y , j u d g e , if y o u p a y for six
p o u n d s of groceries a n d y o u get f o u r , w o u l d y o u accept the
e x p l a n a t i o n that w h a t y o u get d e p e n d s o n h o w the grocer
h o l d s the scale?" O f c o u r s e , C S S S k e p t h i s m o u t h s h u t . T h e
d a y w a s over, a n d the h e a r i n g w a s c o n t i n u e d to a date
m o n t h s i n t o the f u t u r e . C S S S t o l d P L S w h a t C S S S k n e w
a b o u t E , a n d later o n C S S S m a i l e d P L S a c o p y of the m e n a c -
i n g letter h e h a d sent to E years before.
T h e d a y of the s e c o n d h e a r i n g C S S S e n t e r e d the h e a r i n g
r o o m w i t h E G a n d P L S , r e s i g n e d to G ' s v i c t o r y . A n d t h e n he
n o t i c e d that the p i c t u r e s he t h o u g h t h a d b e e n " l o s t " w e r e i n
the h a n d s of G ' s t e a m . A n d C S S S also n o t i c e d that E h a d a
t o p o g r a p h i c m a p that E p r e p a r e d f o r o n e of the lots i n d i s -
p u t e . C S S S e x a m i n e d it. It c o r r o b o r a t e d C S S S ' s s l o p e m e a -
s u r e m e n t s , n o t G ' s ! C S S S d i s c u s s e d these f i n d i n g s w i t h P L S
and E G .
P L S c r o s s - e x a m i n e d E i n f r o n t of the j u d g e . S h e a s k e d E ,
" D o y o u remember w h e n y o u quit d o i n g percolation testing
i n the c o u n t y ? " H e d i d . " D o y o u r e m e m b e r w h y y o u q u i t
d o i n g p e r c o l a t i o n tests i n the c o u n t y ? " E r e p l i e d that he just

w a s n ' t i n t e r e s t e d , it w a s too m u c h of a hassle, so he q u i t .
P L S gave h i m the c o p y of the letter C S S S h a d sent E . " P l e a s e
r e a d it. D o e s this r e f r e s h y o u r m e m o r y as to w h y y o u q u i t ? "
T h e effect w a s d e v a s t a t i n g . E r e p l i e d i n a l o u d a n d s h r i l l
v o i c e t r e m b l i n g w i t h a l a r m , " W h e r e d i d y o u get this? W h e r e
d i d y o u get t h i s ? " P L S w a s f i r m . " R e a d i t , " she o r d e r e d . E
r e a d it. A n d i n so d o i n g , he r e v e a l e d that he c o u l d h a v e
h a r m e d h i s clients if C S S S h a d not detected h i s errors, a n d
also r e v e a l e d C S S S ' s threat of r e p o r t i n g h i m to the state
registration authorities. P L S asked, " W h o signed it?"
" C S S S , " r e p l i e d E . " D o e s t h i s r e f r e s h y o u r m e m o r y as to
w h y y o u quit d o i n g percolation reports?" W i t h a p a n i c k y
v o i c e E s p u t t e r e d that h i s clients w e r e not h a r m e d , etc. A s h e
rambled o n a n d o n a n d o n , his credibility evaporated. A f t e r
this event, the j u d g e d i d not a d d r e s s C S S S i n a h a r s h tone of
voice.
E G t o o k the s t a n d . H e stated h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s as a n e n g i -
n e e r i n g geologist w i t h a master's degree. H e gave s u p e r b l y
professional testimony a n d corroborated C S S S ' s findings.
P L S i n t r o d u c e d as e v i d e n c e the p i c t u r e s i n p o s s e s s i o n of G ' s
t e a m a n d a s k e d E G to e x p l a i n w h y h e t o o k each p i c t u r e ,
w h i c h h e d i d . ( P L S s a i d that these p i c t u r e s w e r e m o r e c r e d i -
ble n o w , as t h e y w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m the defense.) E G stated
that i n college, s o p h o m o r e geologists m u s t pass a c o u r s e o n
the use of the B r u n t o n c o m p a s s , w h i c h is u s e d (as a level) to
m e a s u r e s l o p e s . P L S b o r r o w e d f r o m G ' s t e a m the t o p o -
g r a p h i c m a p p r e p a r e d b y E a n d gave it to E G . " W h a t s l o p e
d i d C S S S m e a s u r e at s u c h - a n d - s u c h p o i n t o n the l o t ? " E G
checked a n d replied, "40%." " W h a t slope d i d y o u measure?"
E G c h e c k e d a n d r e p l i e d " 4 0 % . " " W h a t ' s the s l o p e m e a s u r e d
b y E ? " E G c h e c k e d the m a p a n d r e p l i e d , " 4 0 % . " " W h a t s l o p e
d i d G r e p o r t at the s a m e l o c a t i o n ? " E G c h e c k e d a n d r e p l i e d ,
" 2 0 % . " F i n a l l y r e a l i z i n g the extent of the d e c e p t i o n , the
j u d g e s a i d , " U h , that's e n o u g h . " T h e j u d g e a s k e d b o t h D L
a n d P L S to f i g u r e o u t w h a t p u n i s h m e n t h a d b e e n g i v e n i n
s i m i l a r cases, a n d to r e p o r t to her.
A s P L S , E G , a n d C S S S left the h e a r i n g r o o m , t h e y o v e r -
APPENDIX Q 335
h e a r d s o m e o n e i n G ' s g r o u p say, " W e s h o u l d n o t h a v e

b r o u g h t the p i c t u r e s . " That's the o n l y s i g n of r e p e n t a n c e
C S S S detected.*
W h a t C S S S l e a r n e d f r o m this case is that:
1. In the past C S S S had had occasion to be sorry w h e n he

was too merciful to a friendly yet dishonest professional.
This time C S S S felt that he d i d the right thing. C S S S felt
that one should not give another chance to unethical
people. It's unlikely they'll become ethical after a mere
reprimand. They may try to come back with legal ammu-
nition and fight the merciful (county official and) county;
and then the county may find itself i n a difficult legal
position for not having clamped d o w n hard w h e n it
should have. C S S S felt that unethical professionals
should be given enough rope to hang themselves and
then be reported to the pertinent registration board w i t h
no qualms. The board's o w n disciplinary system probably
acts with more than enough leniency and mercy.
2. Evidence should be guarded w i t h someone's life, at least
in triplicate, and i n at least two different secret places.
3. Justice might not have prevailed if it were not for luck, a
procedures manual w i t h well-defined requirements, the
additional testimony of a well-qualified professional of
the same profession as the accused, and the dedication
and competence of an overworked deputy attorney gen-
eral (may her free time and salary increase i n proportion
to the moral debt owed her by citizens of her state).
* About a year later CSSS found out that G had been subject to disciplinary
action for negligence in misrepresenting certain material information to a
local public agency. G's license was suspended for two months, but this
suspension was stayed and G was placed on probation for two years
under the following terms and conditions: (1) G must take courses related
to percolation testing; (2) G can't personally measure slopes during the
probation period; (3) G shall obey all federal, state, and local laws; and (4)
time of practice or residency outside the state will not be credited. Also,
G's engineering geologist certificate was "publicly reproved."
Q.2 A N E G L I G E N C E L A W S U I T T H I S SIDE
OF HELL
Years ago, a p r i v a t e e n g i n e e r t o l d m e that h e w a s g o i n g to

placate a client d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h a septic s y s t e m h e h a d
d e s i g n e d . S i n c e the client's c o m p l a i n t w a s totally a b s u r d , I
a s k e d the e n g i n e e r w h y h e b o t h e r e d : " L e t h i m sue, h e ' l l
l o s e . " T h e e n g i n e e r r e p l i e d , " N o , w h e n y o u are s u e d y o u
lose, e v e n if y o u w i n . "
H e k n e w w h a t h e w a s t a l k i n g about. T h e story i n t h i s
s e c t i o n illustrates w h y the p r o s p e c t of b e i n g s u e d , e v e n o v e r
u n r e a s o n a b l e or false charges, c a n scare s o m e o n e . It also
offers a n o p p o r t u n i t y to describe h o w a l a w s u i t w o r k s
against a p r o f e s s i o n a l . T h e actual events h a v e b e e n s l i g h t l y
m o d i f i e d ; for instance, " P L " w a s r e a l l y three d i f f e r e n t l a w -
yers f o r the p l a i n t i f f . (Readers w h o are not f a m i l i a r w i t h the
t e c h n i c a l subjects d i s c u s s e d m i g h t suffer s o m e b o r e d o m .
R e a d e r s w h o are f a m i l i a r m i g h t experience a t e m p o r a r y ele-
v a t i o n of b l o o d p r e s s u r e . W a t c h out!)
A l a w y e r r e t a i n e d S S C as a n expert w i t n e s s . T h e l a w y e r ,
let's call h i m defense l a w y e r or D L , a s k e d S S C to evaluate a
p e r k r e p o r t p r e p a r e d b y D L ' s client, a large, reputable engi-
n e e r i n g a n d g e o l o g i c a l c o n s u l t i n g f i r m ; let's c a l l this f i r m
" R e n g , " as p e r the p r e v i o u s italic " r " a n d " e n g . " R e n g w a s
b e i n g s u e d b y a d e v e l o p e r o n a c c o u n t of the a l l e g e d short-
c o m i n g s of the p e r k r e p o r t p r e p a r e d b y R e n g ( w h i c h p r o -
p o s e d u s i n g m u l t i p l e seepage pits) a n d the a l l e g e d d a m a g e s
these s h o r t c o m i n g s c a u s e d .
A f t e r S S C r e a d the p e r k r e p o r t he met w i t h D L . D L a s k e d
h o w S S C w o u l d h a v e r a t e d the r e p o r t at the t i m e it w a s
p r e p a r e d . S S C r e p l i e d that g i v e n state-of-the-art k n o w l e d g e
at that t i m e , it w a s d e f i n i t e l y better t h a n the average. ( A n d
that h e w o u l d h a v e g i v e n it a " B " g r a d e , because h e w o u l d
not g i v e a n " A " to a n y r e p o r t that b a s e d itself o n the U n i f o r m
P l u m b i n g C o d e t h o u g h this is a c o m m o n l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t . )
R e n g h a d i n d e e d f o l l o w e d a l l the p r e s c r i p t i o n s of the t h e n -
c u r r e n t e d i t i o n of the U n i f o r m P l u m b i n g C o d e . D L s a i d that
APPENDIX Q 337
he w a s r e l i e v e d to hear that the r e p o r t d i d a b i d e b y this c o d e .

H e a s k e d S S C to p r e p a r e for a d e p o s i t i o n .
A m o n t h or so later S S C e n t e r e d the r o o m w h e r e the p l a i n -
tiff's l a w y e r , P L , w a s to take h i s d e p o s i t i o n . T h e r e S S C also
met D L A , a defense l a w y e r for a n o t h e r large a n d w e l l -
e s t a b l i s h e d e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m w h i c h w a s b e i n g s u e d together
w i t h R e n g b y P L ' s client. T h e charge against this other e n g i -
n e e r i n g f i r m w a s that it h a d u s e d R e n g ' s p e r k r e p o r t to p r o -
p o s e a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e septic s y s t e m d e s i g n , a n d h a d
f a i l e d to detect the a l l e g e d s h o r t c o m i n g s i n R e n g ' s r e p o r t .
P L t o o k S S C ' s d e p o s i t i o n . P L a p p e a r e d to be u n f a m i l i a r
w i t h septic s y s t e m s . M a n y of the q u e s t i o n s he a s k e d w e r e so
n o n s e n s i c a l that s o m e of S S C ' s a n s w e r s w e r e b o u n d to be
r i d i c u l o u s , l i k e b a b y talk. P L b e c a m e u p s e t w i t h D L because
S S C h a d not b r o u g h t w i t h h i m a r e p o r t w i t h " c a n n e d state-
ments" revealing SSC's opinions. Apparently o n purpose,
D L h a d n o t p r e s s e d S S C to w r i t e a r e p o r t ; h e just m a d e S S C
available to P L so P L w o u l d extract w h a t e v e r i n f o r m a t i o n h e
c o u l d out of S S C , as D L h a d d o n e h i m s e l f .
In brief, S S C c o m m e n d e d the r e p o r t for r e v e a l i n g p r o b -
l e m s w i t h the site, u n l i k e a p r e v i o u s r e p o r t (by a n o t h e r c o n -
sultant) that r e v e a l e d n o p r o b l e m s at a l l .
T h e d e p o s i t i o n w e n t o n f r o m 10 a . m . to late i n the after-
n o o n . Instead of c o m i n g back a n o t h e r d a y so that P L c o u l d
f i n i s h a s k i n g a l l the q u e s t i o n s he w a n t e d , the l a w y e r s a n d
S S C a g r e e d to k e e p o n g o i n g w i t h the d e p o s i t i o n . It e n d e d
late at n i g h t . D L w a s satisfied a n d s a i d g l e e f u l l y that after
this d e p o s i t i o n P L c o u l d n o t call S S C back a n d m a k e f u r t h e r
inquiries.
D L r e a d S e p t i c S y s t e m s H a n d b o o k a n d a s k e d S S C to be
present w h e n he t o o k the d e p o s i t i o n of E W , P L ' s expert
witness.
W e e k s later, D L t o o k E W ' s d e p o s i t i o n i n the presence of
P L , D L A , a n d D L A ' s expert w i t n e s s . T h e p a y of expert w i t -
nesses a n d l a w y e r s p l u s o n e c o u r t r e p o r t e r a d d e d u p to
about $8,000-10,000 p e r e a c h of the f o u r d a y s of d e p o s i t i o n .
A n d the l a w y e r s h a d a l r e a d y d e p o s e d o t h e r p e o p l e i n v o l v e d
i n this case. S S C s a w D L A c a r r y i n g h i s p a p e r w o r k for this
case o n a d o l l y , f o u r or f i v e c a r d b o a r d boxes s t a c k e d o n e o n
t o p of another, i n a p i l e f i v e feet h i g h !
D L t o l d S S C that he e s t i m a t e d p r e - t r i a l costs of a l l parties
at $125,000 a n d c o u r t trial costs at $100,000 p e r each p a r t y .
(These f i g u r e s d i d not take i n t o account the v a l u e of the t i m e
s p e n t b y Reng's p e r s o n n e l . ) H e also t o l d S S C that R e n g w a s
b e i n g s u e d for w e l l o v e r a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s , a n d that the i n s u r -
ance c o m p a n y that i n s u r e d R e n g w o u l d n o t r e n e w R e n g ' s
p o l i c y , e v e n if R e n g w e r e cleared i n a t r i a l . R e n g h a d to get
another insurer a n d possibly pay m u c h higher insurance
fees, e v e n if n o t g u i l t y of a n y t h i n g .
T h e first d a y of d e p o s i t i o n , E W d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f as a n
e n g i n e e r i n g geologist a n d h y d r o g e o l o g i s t w h o w a s a p r i v a t e
c o n s u l t a n t to v a r i o u s e n g i n e e r i n g a n d g e o l o g y f i r m s . H i s
c o n s u l t a t i o n s e x t e n d e d to the f i e l d of sewage d i s p o s a l . A f t e r
he s a i d r e p e a t e d l y a n d i n m a n y w a y s that e a c h c o u n t y h a d
its o w n d i f f e r e n t U n i f o r m P l u m b i n g C o d e (there is b u t o n e
for the w h o l e w o r l d ) , S S C s u s p e c t e d that E W w a s a n y t h i n g
b u t a n expert. A t a " b a t h r o o m - v i s i t b r e a k , " S S C t o l d this to
D L a n d s u g g e s t e d that he ask E W h o w m a n y p e r k r e p o r t s h e
h a d ever p r e p a r e d . Later, E W a n s w e r e d that he h a d p r e -
p a r e d o n e or t w o p e r k r e p o r t s for l e a c h l i n e s , n o n e for seep-
age p i t s .
E W p r o d u c e d copies of E W ' s letters to P L , i n w h i c h E W
p o i n t e d o u t the a l l e g e d deficiencies of R e n g ' s r e p o r t a n d
b l a m e d the other e n g i n e e r i n g c o m p a n y that u s e d this r e p o r t
for not d e t e c t i n g the a l l e g e d d e f i c i e n c i e s . I n S S C ' s o p i n i o n ,
E W ' s allegations w e r e a b s o l u t e l y p r e p o s t e r o u s .
For e x a m p l e , o n the s e c o n d d a y of h i s d e p o s i t i o n , E W
p r o d u c e d a b u n c h of p h o t o c o p i e d p a g e s . H e h a d just r e a d
a b o u t seepage pits i n a p h o t o c o p i e d c h a p t e r f r o m S e p t i c Sys-
t e m s H a n d b o o k ( g i v e n to h i m b y o n e of h i s e n g i n e e r i n g
acquaintances). H e stated that r e a d i n g this c h a p t e r c o n -
f i r m e d h i s beliefs. H o w e v e r , it w a s o b v i o u s that he h a d n o t
b o t h e r e d to r e a d the rest of this H a n d b o o k , because h i s state-
m e n t s w e r e less t h a n f u l l y i n f o r m e d . F o r i n s t a n c e , he s a i d
that after seepage pits get c l o g g e d b y b i o m a t t h e y are scari-
f i e d w i t h a steel b r u s h , a n d that he r e a d about it i n the
APPENDIX Q 339
H a n d b o o k ! T h e d o c u m e n t s E W p r o d u c e d i n c l u d e d a sche-
m a t i c of a seepage p i t cross s e c t i o n . If o n e d i d n ' t k n o w a n y -
t h i n g about seepage p i t s , after l o o k i n g at this schematic o n e
w o u l d realize that seepage pits c a n n o t be s c a r i f i e d . * A t
b r e a k s , w i t h the c o n s e n t of D L , S S C s h a r e d i m p r e s s i o n s a n d
o p i n i o n s w i t h D L A a n d h i s expert. T h i s expert, a v e t e r a n
c i v i l engineer, h a d n o t r o u b l e d e t e c t i n g o n h i s o w n each a n d
e v e r y error i n E W ' s statements. B y the e n d of the s e c o n d d a y
of d e p o s i t i o n s D L A t o l d S S C that E W w a s " d e a d . "
O n the t h i r d d a y of E W ' s d e p o s i t i o n s , D L A d i d m u c h of
the q u e s t i o n i n g . To the c h a g r i n of D L , D L A c o n f r o n t e d E W
w i t h s o m e of E W ' s p r e v i o u s i l l - i n f o r m e d statements. ( D L
p r e f e r r e d to w a i t a n d d o this at t r i a l , so that E W a n d P L
w o u l d n o t realize E W ' s goofs a n d h a v e t i m e to p r e p a r e p l a u -
sible e x p l a n a t i o n s .) E W a d m i t t e d that he h a d n e v e r u s e d the
U n i f o r m P l u m b i n g C o d e u n t i l he w a s h i r e d b y P L i n this
case. A n d he also a d m i t t e d that he d i d not k n o w h o w to
d e s i g n septic s y s t e m s . B u t h e felt c o m p e t e n t to declare that
R e n g ' s r e p o r t a n d D L A ' s client's p r o p o s a l d i d n o t meet the
c o d e . H e h a d never seen s o m e t h i n g l i k e R e n g p r o p o s e d , i . e . ,
a septic s y s t e m w i t h m u l t i p l e seepage pits for a cluster of
h o u s e s . A n d he t h o u g h t that this s y s t e m c o u l d not w o r k !
I n S S C ' s o p i n i o n , E W a p p e a r e d to be a f i n e g e n t l e m a n w h o
w a s n o t able to e v e n suspect the extent of h i s i g n o r a n c e
about septic s y s t e m s .
S S C a s k e d D L if b y n o w P L ' s client w o u l d realize that there
w e r e n o g r o u n d s for a l a w s u i t , a p o l o g i z e , a n d w i t h d r a w the
l a w s u i t . D L r e p l i e d that if a n y of that o c c u r r e d this late i n the
*EW was familiar with sewage disposal ponds or percolation ponds.

When the bottoms of these shallow open-air ponds plug up with biomat or
with silt or clay, they are drained and allowed to dry; then they are raked
(scarified) to break up and open the crust and restore infiltration. To do
this to a seepage pit would require removing the inner concrete-block wall,
using potent magic to prevent collapse of the structure (unsupported
gravel and wet soil around cavity would collapse), removing the gravel
envelope, scarifying the sidewalls who knows how, and reinstalling the
gravel and inner wall. Even if this were feasible, it would be far cheaper to
build a new seepage pit.
g a m e , P L ' s o w n client c o u l d sue P L for m a l p r a c t i c e for n o t

r e a l i z i n g this fact earlier. A n d he s a i d that E W c o u l d n o t be
s u e d for the d a m a g e h e h a d d o n e , a n d that R e n g c o u l d n o t
r e c o v e r d a m a g e s e v e n f r o m P L . H e s u s p e c t e d P L m i g h t still
w a n t to go to trial because juries are n e v e r c o m p l e t e l y p r e -
dictable, a n d t h o u g h the p r o b a b i l i t y of P L w i n n i n g w a s l o w ,
the " d a m a g e s " p r i z e c l a i m e d , n o w b a r g a i n e d d o w n to $1.5
m i l l i o n , w a s w o r t h a try. N o w w a s the t i m e w h e n a l l attor-
n e y s t r y to r e a c h a settlement satisfactory to their c l i e n t s . H e ,
D L , w o u l d contact S S C if S S C ' s services w o u l d be n e e d e d at
trial.
M a n y d a y s later, D L a s k e d S S C to p r e p a r e for trial a n d
i n f o r m e d h i m as to w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d . D L A h a d settled
separately a n d a g r e e d to p a y $25,000 to r e m o v e h i s c l i e n t
f r o m the l a w s u i t . * T h e p l a i n t i f f s w e r e w i l l i n g to l o w e r t h e i r
d e m a n d to $500,000 (the a m o u n t c o v e r e d b y R e n g ' s i n s u r -
ance). B u t R e n g ' s p r i n c i p a l w a s a m a n of p r i n c i p l e s . H e w a s
c e r t a i n R e n g w a s i n n o c e n t a n d w o u l d n o t agree to c o n c e d e
o n e cent.
S S C l e a r n e d that this n e g l i g e n c e l a w s u i t w a s c o n n e c t e d to
a n o t h e r l a w s u i t started b y o t h e r parties a n d that c o n s i d e r i n g
the c o m p l a i n t s , c r o s s - c o m p l a i n t s , a n d d e l a y s b y the m a n y
parties i n v o l v e d , a c o u r t trial m i g h t n o t o c c u r d u r i n g h i s
lifetime.
It is w o r t h n o t i n g that R e n g ' s i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y first
d e l a y e d a n d t h e n q u i t p a y i n g the fees of D L ' s expert w i t -
n e s s e s . D L t o l d S S C that t h i s i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y c o u l d get
s u e d f o r s u b s t a n t i a l d a m a g e s if the case w a s lost d u e to
u n p a i d (hence u n c o o p e r a t i v e ) expert w i t n e s s e s . D L ' s f i r m
w a s large a n d r e p u t a b l e a n d p a i d the expert w i t n e s s e s o u t of
*This meant that DLA's client yielded to what some might describe as
extortion, but SSC understood why. Assuming that the chance of losing
the case was only 1 in 20 (that is, 5%), 5% of $1.5 million constitutes a
payoff or value loss of 0.05 x 1.5 x 106 = $75,000, plus trial costs. Sadly,
our judicial system allows this form of extortion. SSC felt certain that if
judge-appointed experts would have heard and seen half of what SSC did,
the lawsuit would have ended at once.
APPENDIX Q 341
its o w n p o c k e t . ( W h o k n o w s w h a t m i g h t b e f a l l " l i t t l e g u y s "

w h o are d e f e n d e d b y i m p e c u n i o u s l a w f i r m s . )
O n e t h i n g S S C l e a r n e d f r o m this experience is that, m e t a -
p h o r i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , the a d v e r s a r y s y s t e m m a y l e a d m a n y
i n t o the t e m p t a t i o n of c o n f r o n t a t i o n , a n d m a y l e a d s o m e
(including innocent victims) into financial perdition. Trivial
or u n r e a s o n a b l e charges c a n result i n a m i n d - b o g g l i n g w a s t e
of t i m e a n d m o n e y . O n e w a y of a v o i d i n g this m i g h t be a r b i -
t r a t i o n , as s u g g e s t e d i n A p p e n d i x N . A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y
m i g h t exist if p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r i n g o r l i k e associations
o f f e r e d free " s c r e e n i n g " a n d a d v i s o r y services to c o u r t s , or
h a d a r b i t r a t i o n b o a r d s , or b o a r d s that w o u l d " s c r e e n " for a
fee the v a l i d i t y of l i t i g a n t s ' c l a i m s before a l a w s u i t c o m -
m e n c e s . O r , if j u d g e s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y their o w n expert
witnesses.
Q.3 A L A W S U I T I N V O L V I N G SEPTIC S Y S T E M
FAILURE
A l a w y e r t o l d m e that i n h i s e x p e r i e n c e , w h e n the issues

w e r e " b l a c k a n d w h i t e , " it w a s better to go to c o u r t t h a n to
a r b i t r a t i o n . H e p e r c e i v e d arbitrators as o p e r a t i n g o n the
basis that n o o n e is 100% r i g h t , as s e e i n g e v e r y t h i n g gray,
a n d as too eager to c o m p r o m i s e . H e m i g h t be r i g h t ; I d o n ' t
k n o w . T h e f o l l o w i n g " b l a c k a n d w h i t e " case illustrates the
d i f f i c u l t i e s of b e i n g 100% r i g h t a n d p r o v i n g this i n c o u r t .
A l t h o u g h I w i l l still use the a b b r e v i a t i o n s P L a n d D L , these
refer to c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t l a w y e r s . I n fact, " P L " w a s t w o
l a w y e r s for the p l a i n t i f f s , a n d " D L " w a s t w o l a w y e r s for the
defendant.
P L r e t a i n e d S S C as a n expert w i t n e s s the v e r y d a y of the
t r i a l . P L a s s u r e d S S C that e v e r y t h i n g w o u l d be o v e r after
" a b o u t t w o h o u r s " i n c o u r t . P L e x p l a i n e d the l a w s u i t . H e r
clients b o u g h t a h o u s e f r o m a real estate b r o k e r w h o h a d
o w n e d a n d l i v e d i n this h o u s e . T h i s b r o k e r t o l d t h e m that a
p r e v i o u s " p r o b l e m " w i t h the septic s y s t e m h a d b e e n cor-
r e c t e d . F i v e d a y s after h e r clients m o v e d i n t o their n e w

h o m e , the b a t h t u b a n d toilet b a c k e d u p a n d p o u r e d s e w a g e
o n tiles a n d carpets. T h e n c e f o r t h t h e y h a d to s e v e r e l y l i m i t
their use of w a t e r for years, u n t i l the t i m e of the t r i a l . T h e ex-
o w n e r (broker a n d d e f e n d a n t ) r e f u s e d to a d m i t a n y b l a m e o r
to p a y e v e n part of the r e p a i r costs, so he w a s b e i n g s u e d b y
P L ' s c l i e n t s . P L t o o k S S C to inspect h e r c l i e n t s ' p r o p e r t y . I n
the s m a l l f r o n t y a r d , S S C s a w a riser w i t h s e w a g e near its
t o p . T h e n P L a n d S S C r u s h e d to c o u r t .
A t c o u r t , P L a s k e d the j u d g e to hear the case at o n c e , as it
h a d b e e n " t r a i l i n g " a n d it h a d b e e n g i v e n p r i o r i t y the p r e -
v i o u s w e e k . D L a s k e d for a p o s t p o n e m e n t as h i s client w a s
to go o n a t r i p to a n o t h e r state the f o l l o w i n g d a y , b u t the
j u d g e r e f u s e d . T h e j u d g e a d m o n i s h e d a l l parties to t r y to
r e a c h a settlement.
D L o f f e r e d to settle a n d p a y for a p a r t i a l r e p a i r ; P L ' s clients
w e r e i n c e n s e d a n d r e f u s e d this offer, w h i c h t h e y w o u l d h a v e
a c c e p t e d years earlier, before t h e y d e c i d e d to s u e . T h e r e w a s
n o j u r y , a n d a l l the l a w y e r s a g r e e d that t h e y d i d n o t e v e n
n e e d a c o u r t reporter.
T h e trial b e g a n w i t h the t e s t i m o n y of P L ' s other expert
w i t n e s s , S T P , w h o h a d b e e n a septic t a n k p u m p e r a n d c o n -
tractor for o v e r 30 years. H e gave a n o u t s t a n d i n g p r e s e n t a -
t i o n . I n brief, h e s a i d that w h e n the tract w a s g r a d e d i n 1977,
the s o i l w a s b u i l t u p ( a n d c o m p a c t e d ) 5 to 15 feet i n s o m e
lots, a n d that contractors o f t e n i n s t a l l e d l e a c h l i n e s o n c o m -
p a c t e d f i l l because n e i t h e r the project e n g i n e e r n o r c o u n t y
i n s p e c t o r s w e r e k e e p i n g a n eye o n t h e m . S o , a s u b s t a n t i a l
n u m b e r of h o u s e s i n this ( a n d i n n e i g h b o r i n g ) tracts h a d
f a i l i n g septic s y s t e m s o n e year after the h o u s e s w e r e s o l d .
H e h a d r e p a i r e d m a n y s u c h s y s t e m s b y i n s t a l l i n g seepage
p i t s , w h i c h p e n e t r a t e d a n d e x t e n d e d b e y o n d the c o m p a c t e d
soil.
T h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , S T P w a s cross e x a m i n e d b y D L a n d d i d
v e r y w e l l . H e w a s a p r a c t i c a l m a n , yet e v e r y t h i n g h e s a i d
w a s i n agreement w i t h septic s y s t e m s t h e o r y a n d practice.
S S C c o u l d not h a v e d o n e a better job.
P L t r i e d to h a v e S S C testify. D L objected because S S C w a s
APPENDIX Q 343
b r o u g h t i n at the last m i n u t e a n d D L h a d n o t h a d a n o p p o r -
t u n i t y to take S S C ' s d e p o s i t i o n . D L h a d n o t objected w h e n
h e t h o u g h t S S C w a s just a n o t h e r septic t a n k p u m p e r , b u t h e
objected n o w that h e f o u n d o u t that S S C h a d a P h . D . T h e
j u d g e a g r e e d w i t h D L . P L t o l d S S C to stay a r o u n d a n d be a
" r e b u t t a l w i t n e s s . " T h i s t y p e of w i t n e s s c a n be i n t r o d u c e d at
a n y t i m e a n d w i t h o u t p r i o r d e p o s i t i o n , b u t o n l y to r e b u t
s o m e o n e else's statements. V e r y c l e v e r l y , P L i n t e n d e d to ask
e v e r y p o t e n t i a l l y d a m a g i n g q u e s t i o n of the defense's expert
w i t n e s s , a n d t h u s g i v e S S C a n o p p o r t u n i t y to v o i c e a l l of h i s
expert o p i n i o n s b y m e a n s of rebuttals.
T h e defense's expert w i t n e s s , E W , t o o k the s t a n d . H e w a s
a septic t a n k p u m p e r a n d contractor. E W p u f f e d h i m s e l f u p
to be a v e r y expert expert. A l m o s t e v e r y t h i n g h e s a i d w a s
c o n t r a r y to septic s y s t e m s t h e o r y a n d practice. F o r i n s t a n c e ,
E W s a i d that c o m p a c t i o n does n o t affect s o i l p e r m e a b i l i t y ,
because the s o i l texture is the same before a n d after c o m p a c -
t i o n ! ( E W m u s t h a v e g o t t e n t h i s i d e a f r o m the U n i f o r m
P l u m b i n g C o d e : it assigns s o i l a b s o r p t i o n rates o n the basis
of s o i l texture o n l y . ) W h e n P L c o n f r o n t e d E W w i t h the
r e c o r d of f r e q u e n t septic t a n k p u m p i n g s p r i o r to the sale of
the h o u s e , E W s a i d that the r e c o r d d i d n ' t m e a n that the
s y s t e m w a s f a i l i n g . T h e fact that s e w a g e b a c k e d u p i n t o the
h o u s e f i v e d a y s after the n e w o w n e r s m o v e d i n t o the h o u s e
m e a n t to h i m that the n e w o w n e r s " w e r e u s i n g too m u c h
w a t e r . " H e s a i d that h e c o u l d squeeze a c h e a p a d d i t i o n a l
l e a c h l i n e i n the f r o n t y a r d a n d that this w o u l d s o l v e the
p r o b l e m . H e s a i d that h e s i z e d that l e a c h l i n e o n the basis of a
m a p of the area, d r a w n b y the c o u n t y , that s p e c i f i e d 25
square feet of a b s o r p t i o n area (per 100 g a l l o n s of septic t a n k
capacity). A s h e s a i d , o n e gets a p e r m i t a n d installs the
l e a c h l i n e . E a s y stuff; h e h a d d o n e it m a n y t i m e s a n d h a d
m u c h e x p e r i e n c e . ( S S C k n e w o t h e r w i s e ; the 25 square feet
f i g u r e s e e m e d too l o w . S S C t h o u g h t that if E W h a d i n s t a l l e d
u n d e r s i z e d l e a c h l i n e s i n the area, h e m i g h t h a v e c h e a t e d h i s
c u s t o m e r s a n d created p u b l i c h e a l t h h a z a r d s , as the l e a c h -
l i n e s w e r e b o u n d to fail i n a s h o r t t i m e . )
E W ' s cross e x a m i n a t i o n e n d e d late i n the a f t e r n o o n . A s h e
h a d d o n e before, the j u d g e a g a i n o r d e r e d a l l the w i t n e s s e s to

c o m e back the f o l l o w i n g d a y . Before S S C left, S S C t o l d P L
w h a t h e t h o u g h t of E W ' s expertise.
E W ' s t e s t i m o n y u p s e t S S C so m u c h that he c o u l d n o t sleep
that n i g h t . H e felt that the j u d g e w a s g i v i n g as m u c h cre-
d e n c e to E W as to S T P .
E a r l y i n the m o r n i n g of the f o l l o w i n g d a y , S S C w e n t to the
c o u n t y office a n d o b t a i n e d copies of the r e q u i r e m e n t s for the
tract w h e r e the f a i l i n g septic s y s t e m w a s l o c a t e d . T h e o f f i c i a l
r e c o r d s c u r r e n t at the t i m e the s y s t e m w a s i n s t a l l e d s h o w e d
that the r e q u i r e m e n t w a s 45, n o t 25, square feet ( n o w a d a y s ,
m u c h h i g h e r ) . W h e n S S C a r r i v e d at c o u r t , he gave the c o p -
ies of the r e c o r d s to P L .
S o o n after S S C b e g a n the r e b u t t a l t e s t i m o n y , P L a s k e d
S S C to state h i s o p i n i o n about E W ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n . S S C
r e p l i e d : " D e s p i c a b l e . W h e n he w a s n ' t l y i n g h e w a s s p e a k i n g
u n t r u t h s . I w a s so m a d about t h i s that I c o u l d n ' t sleep last
n i g h t . . . ." ( H e r e D L l a u g h e d . ) " . . . H e c o u l d be subject to a
class a c t i o n l a w s u i t . " D L attacked S S C v o c i f e r o u s l y for d a r -
i n g to g i v e a l e g a l o p i n i o n , b u t the j u d g e d e f e n d e d S S C
v i g o r o u s l y a n d t o o k a n interest i n w h a t S S C w a s s a y i n g .
S S C r e a d h i s notes a n d c r i t i c i z e d E W ' s t e s t i m o n y p o i n t b y
p o i n t . S o m e of the p o i n t s S S C m a d e w e r e :
• Per official records, the required design rate was 45, not
25, square feet.
• Compaction of soil does decrease permeability; even if the
soil had not been compacted, the traffic of heavy equip-
ment smudges the top of each layer of soil as the ground is
built u p . A thin smudged layer prevents d o w n w a r d flow
about as much as if the whole soil were compacted.
• Once a septic tank is p u m p e d twice a year (this d i d happen
before the house was sold to the plaintiffs), county officials
in EW's county consider this a system failure. It was
strange that EW, a pumper, didn't k n o w that twice-a-year
p u m p i n g defines system failure, since every pumper has
to provide a report of pumpings to county officials so that
they can identify areas with septic system problems per
that twice-a-year-pumping definition.
APPENDIX Q 345
( W h i l e S S C w a s t e s t i f y i n g , the d e f e n d a n t w a s s q u i r m i n g
i n h i s seat a n d h i s face a s s u m e d a l l the colors of the r a i n b o w ;
but his hired guns, D L , were u n p e r t u r b e d a n d almost
jovial.)
S S C w a s h a l f w a y t h r o u g h h i s notes a n d c r i t i c i s m s . T h e
j u d g e a s k e d h i m directly, " W h a t ' s w r o n g w i t h E W ' s w a y of
r e p a i r i n g the l e a c h l i n e s ? " S S C r e p l i e d that there w e r e three
things w r o n g :
• E W was proposing to install a substandard length of leach-

line, 53 feet in length per his incorrect calculations, though
the m i n i m u m requirement calculated on the basis of 45
square feet (per 100 gallons of a 1200-gallon septic tank)
was 77 feet long.
• E W was proposing to install a system where it was obvious
that the soil was having problems absorbing the sewage.
The previous leachline was having problems, and he
wanted to repeat the mistake of the original installers,
though he had noticed that there was a problem.
• There was barely enough space in the yard for the existing
system. It w o u l d be difficult to impossible to squeeze in an
additional leachline 53 feet long, much less one 77 feet
lone.
T h e j u d g e t o o k notes a n d s a i d that S S C ' s t e s t i m o n y w a s n o

longer required.
P L a s k e d S S C a f e w m o r e q u e s t i o n s . S S C stated that he
w o u l d use seepage pits to get t h r o u g h the c o m p a c t e d or
s m u d g e d soil layers.
P L p r e v a i l e d . T h e j u d g e t o l d the l a w y e r s to c o n c l u d e a n d
p r e s e n t yheir v i e w s i n w r i t i n g , a n d s a i d that he c o n s i d e r e d
the d e f e n d a n t to be p a r t i c u l a r l y r e s p o n s i b l e because he w a s
a real estate b r o k e r a n d h a d a d u t y to protect h i s clients.
O n e has to w o n d e r about all the i n c o n v e n i e n c e that the
litigants s u f f e r e d . T h e p l a i n t i f f s w e r e w o r r i e d because the
f o l l o w i n g d a y t h e y w e r e to depart o n a cruise a n d f e a r e d
t h e y m i g h t h a v e to cancel their t r i p . A n d , just i n each of the
d a y s S S C s e r v e d , each of the l i t i g a t i n g parties h a d p r o b a b l y
s p e n t as m u c h i n l a w y e r ' s fees as it w o u l d cost to i n s t a l l

r e m e d i a l seepage p i t s . (The p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y m i g h t get r e i m -
b u r s e d for l a w y e r ' s fees, t h o u g h . )
If S S C h a d b e e n just a n o t h e r septic t a n k p u m p e r , the
j u d g e m i g h t n o t h a v e k n o w n w h o s e t e s t i m o n y to b e l i e v e .
Q.4 L A W S U I T N E A R - M I S S E S
I n t h i s s e c t i o n w e ' l l take a l o o k at t y p i c a l p r o b l e m s w i t h
septic s y s t e m s practice a n d p r a c t i t i o n e r s . T h e t e c h n i c a l m a t -
ters p r e s e n t e d here are i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h e t h i c a l a n d w i t h
l e g a l (lawsuit) c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . A p p e n d i x R addresses the
subject of e t h i c a l i s s u e s .
Q.4.1 One Power Auger
S o m e p r o s p e c t i v e h o m e b u i l d e r s w e r e d i s t r e s s e d because
t h e i r lots d i d n ' t pass p e r k tests (for l e a c h l i n e s ) . (The p e r k
t i m e s m e a s u r e d b y their e n g i n e e r w e r e about 80 m i n u t e s p e r
i n c h ; the c o u n t y r e q u i r e d a m a x i m u m of 60 m i n u t e s p e r
i n c h . ) S o t h e y r e t a i n e d S S C ' s services.
T h e test h o l e s u s e d b y the b u i l d e r s ' e n g i n e e r h a d b e e n
d r i l l e d w i t h p o w e r augers of the h e l i c a l or s c r e w t y p e , c o m -
m o n l y e m p l o y e d i n the area. T h e test h o l e s S S C u s e d w e r e
prepared by h a n d ; all smeared a n d compacted sidewalls
w e r e r e m o v e d f r o m h i s test h o l e s . H e got p e r k t i m e s of a b o u t
8 minutes per inch.
S S C ' s h a p p y clients w e r e m a d at the e n g i n e e r w h o h a d
" f a i l e d " their lots. T h e y a s k e d S S C w h e t h e r t h e y s h o u l d sue
the e n g i n e e r .
S S C t o o k i n t o a c c o u n t that:
• The engineer was not a crook. If he were, he might have

"passed" rather than "failed" the lots.
• Just about every septic system consultant i n the area was
using screw-type power augers and treating the soil like
APPENDIX Q 347
dirt. The engineer was just one of many, and he did not
know better.
S o , S S C t o l d e v e r y o n e that if he w e r e i n t h e i r shoes, he
w o u l d n ' t sue. A n d t h e y d i d n ' t .
Q.4.2 Another Nasty Power Auger
A very reputable engineering f i r m h a d done a perk report

for a v e r y e x p e n s i v e lot i n a n e x c l u s i v e area. It d r i l l e d e x p l o r -
a t o r y a n d test h o l e s d o w n to 50 feet w i t h a s c r e w - t y p e f l i g h t
auger; a n d it tested the h o l e s p e r the f a l l i n g - h e a d test for
seepage p i t s . T h e results s h o w e d a n a b s o r p t i o n rate of w a t e r
p e r e x t r a p o l a t e d 24-hr d a y of a b o u t 1.5 g a l l o n s / s q u a r e foot
p e r d a y , a n d a n e q u i v a l e n t p r e s u m e d a b s o r p t i o n of s e w a g e
o n e - f i f t h as large, 0.3 g a l l o n s / s q u a r e f o o t / d a y . T h e latter f i g -
u r e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n 1.1 or h i g h e r to h a v e met c o u n t y
r e q u i r e m e n t s . * T h e e n g i n e e r s c o n c l u d e d that there w a s n o
h o p e for seepage p i t s , a n d that the o w n e r c o u l d t r y l e a c h -
l i n e s . H o w e v e r , t h e y c l a i m e d that " t e s t i n g for l e a c h l i n e s at
the subject site w o u l d be costly a n d m o s t l i k e l y p r o v i d e
results s i m i l a r to those for seepage p i t s . "
A n o t h e r c o n s u l t a n t dealt w i t h the desperate o w n e r of the
lot, a n d r e t a i n e d S S C to see if the lot c o u l d be s a v e d .
S S C w e n t to the f i e l d a n d c h e c k e d b a c k h o e - e x c a v a t e d
t r e n c h e s . A s he s u s p e c t e d , the strata w e r e d i f f e r e n t f r o m
those r e p o r t e d i n the o r i g i n a l s t u d y . W h e n o n e logs s c r e w -
auger s p o i l s (soil that c o m e s o u t of the d r i l l e d h o l e as the
a u g e r is d r i l l i n g ) , it is d i f f i c u l t if not i m p o s s i b l e to k n o w h o w
m u c h of the s p o i l s reflects materials d r i l l e d b y the t i p of the
a u g e r w a y d o w n the h o l e , a n d h o w m u c h reflects materials
f r o m the h o l e s i d e w a l l s u p h i g h e r . A l s o , the s i l t y s o i l
e n c o u n t e r e d w a s of a t y p e easily c o m p a c t e d a n d s m u d g e d
by p o w e r augers.
S o S S C t r i e d t e s t i n g for l e a c h l i n e s . H i s h a n d - e x c a v a t e d
*The county manual of procedures still does not acknowledge that these
rates are pure fiction.
test h o l e s y i e l d e d a n excellent p e r k t i m e of 3 to 4 m i n u t e s p e r
i n c h . T h e lot w a s s a v e d .
T h e h a p p y lot o w n e r w a s f u r i o u s w i t h t h e e n g i n e e r i n g
c o m p a n y : S h o u l d h e sue? H e felt c h e a t e d . H e h a d p a i d t h e
e n g i n e e r s far m o r e t h a n h e h a d p a i d S S C , y e t the e n g i n e e r s
w r o t e a r e p o r t that " f a i l e d " h i s lot, w h i l e S S C h a d d o n e t h e
opposite.
I n S S C ' s v i e w , t h e o w n e r w a s cheated, b u t n o t b y t h e
e n g i n e e r s . T h e y d i d w h a t practically a l l other p r o f e s s i o n a l
c o n s u l t a n t s w o u l d h a v e d o n e . T h e y f o l l o w e d t h e m a n u a l of
p r o c e d u r e s to t h e slightest d e t a i l . (This m a n u a l e n d o r s e d t h e
use of s c r e w - t y p e augers.) A n d w h i l e t h e y w e r e l o o k i n g at
the m a n u a l , t h e y d i d n ' t l o o k at w h a t their e q u i p m e n t w a s
d o i n g to the s o i l . S S C sent w o r d o u t that i n h i s o p i n i o n t h e
o w n e r d i d n ' t h a v e a case. T h e o w n e r d i d n ' t s u e .
Q.4.3 Ability of Strata to Transmit Percolates
A f t e r S S C d e t e r m i n e d the rates of sewage d i s p o s a l for p r o -

p o s e d i n s t i t u t i o n a l b u i l d i n g s o n a large lot w i t h t h i n s o i l (2 to
10 feet t h i c k ) , S S C s a w that leachlines w o u l d meet c o u n t y
r e q u i r e m e n t s . B u t estimates of the D a r c y p e r m e a b i l i t y c o n -
stant l e d S S C to believe that the large a m o u n t of sewage to
be d i s c h a r g e d m i g h t n o t m o v e o u t of the leachline areas
w i t h o u t s u r f a c i n g at the t o p of t h e g r o u n d . C o u n t y r e q u i r e -
m e n t s ( a n d the U n i f o r m P l u m b i n g C o d e requirements) d i d
not r e c o g n i z e or a c k n o w l e d g e the fact that after sewage p e r -
colates a w a y f r o m a leachline it h a s to m o v e s o m e w h e r e .
S S C ' s client requested that h e certify the l o t as suitable f o r
all t h e p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g s . S S C r e f u s e d . S o , the client gave
the j o b to a n engineer w h o , t h o u g h c o n s c i e n t i o u s , w a s n o t
f a m i l i a r w i t h the p e r t i n e n t t o p i c s . T h i s engineer certified the
suitability of the l o t , a n d the c o u n t y a p p r o v e d i t . T h e e n g i -
neer f o l l o w e d p r o c e d u r e s , a n d s h o u l d n o t be liable f o r t h e
possible consequences.
It s h o u l d be n o t e d that the ability of the s o i l to t r a n s m i t
percolate a w a y f r o m the l e a c h f i e l d c a n be e s t i m a t e d b y
APPENDIX Q 349
m e a n s of D a r c y ' s f o r m u l a . T h i s s h o u l d be w i d e l y k n o w n , b u t
i s n ' t . I n e v e r s a w this factor t a k e n i n t o account i n a n y of the
3000-plus p e r k reports I r e v i e w e d . O n e e x c e p t i o n : W h e n I
w a s a c o u n t y e m p l o y e e , I f o r c e d a p e r k c o n s u l t a n t to m e a -
sure the D a r c y p e r m e a b i l i t y constant a n d to s h o w site suit-
ability before I a p p r o v e d h i s p e r k r e p o r t . H o w e v e r , after a
s h o r t w h i l e I gave u p t r y i n g to force h i m a n d the other recal-
citrant c o n s u l t a n t s to d o l i k e w i s e . I s u p p o s e that t h e y w e r e
all a f r a i d of l i a b i l i t y if t h e y p e r f o r m e d " u n u s u a l " d e t e r m i n a -
t i o n s not s p e c i f i e d i n the c o u n t y p r o c e d u r e s m a n u a l . N o w
that this p r o b l e m is p u b l i c k n o w l e d g e , j u r i s d i c t i o n s m u s t
take the l e a d i n s o l v i n g it.
Appendix R
E T H I C S IN G E N E R A L A N D IN SEPTIC S Y S T E M S
PRACTICE
M u c h of i n d i v i d u a l (or societal) b e h a v i o r c a n be e x p l a i n e d
o n the basis of the i n d i v i d u a l (or societal) ethics or m o r a l i t y .
T h o u g h s y n o n y m s , "ethics" a n d " m o r a l i t y " have distinct
connotations.
P e r Webster's d i c t i o n a r y , the w o r d " m o r e s " is d e f i n e d as
" f o l k w a y s that are c o n s i d e r e d c o n d u c i v e to the w e l f a r e of
society a n d so, t h r o u g h g e n e r a l o b s e r v a n c e , d e v e l o p the
force of l a w , o f t e n b e c o m i n g part of the f o r m a l l e g a l c o d e . "
" M o r a l " is d e f i n e d as " r e l a t i n g to, d e a l i n g w i t h , or capable of
m a k i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n , r i g h t a n d w r o n g i n c o n -
d u c t . " M o r a l " i m p l i e s c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d
s t a n d a r d s of g o o d n e s s or r i g h t n e s s i n c o n d u c t or character."
Its s y n o n y m , " e t h i c a l , " i m p l i e s " c o n f o r m i t y w i t h a n elabo-
r a t e d , i d e a l c o d e of m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s . "
Morality changes w i t h time a n d geographical location. A
f e w centuries ago, it w a s perfectly m o r a l to b u r n at the stake
witches, broadminded people, and even people w h o looked
351
or acted too d i f f e r e n t l y . * M o r a l i t y is a b s o r b e d w i t h m o t h e r ' s

m i l k . O n e learns rules as to w h a t is r i g h t a n d w h a t is w r o n g ,
a n d that's it. N o n e e d to t h i n k : the rules are g i v e n . M o s t
m o r a l r u l e s t e n d to be e t h i c a l , b u t n o t a l l at a l l times a n d
places.
E t h i c s is a d i s c i p l i n e of p h i l o s o p h y . It uses r e a s o n to deter-
m i n e what's right a n d what's w r o n g . One's outlook colors
one's p e r c e p t i o n s , a n d v i c e v e r s a . I n m y attempts to u n d e r -
s t a n d w h a t is a n d isn't e t h i c a l , I h a v e d e v e l o p e d p e r s o n a l
v i e w s that m i g h t be c o l o r e d i n c e r t a i n respects. It seems o n l y
p r o p e r to start this a p p e n d i x b y e x p o s i n g m y p e r s o n a l v i e w s
so that t h e i r p o s s i b l e biases c a n be detected.
R.1 E T H I C S IN G E N E R A L : A P E R S O N A L
PHILOSOPHY
O v e r the last 35 years, I l e a r n e d t w o t h i n g s i n m y r e a d i n g s

a b o u t p h i l o s o p h y ( f r o m Socrates to B e r t r a n d R u s s e l l ) :
1. Historically, each school of philosophy had a logical way

of reasoning, but the assumptions underlying its reasoning
were mostly flawed, as proven by succeeding schools of
philosophy. This perception allows one to dare question
"logical" systems of belief, like, for instance, our judicial
system's components and procedures and the wobbly
assumptions these are based o n . Questioning basic
assumptions leads almost invariably to surprising results.
2. The philosopher I. Kant had the key to ethics. The key was
to ask this question: "If everybody d i d as I intend to do,
*When I visited England, a tour guide told me that in the 11th century,
shipwrecked French sailors came to an English coastal village. They were
darker in complexion and spoke a weird language that no one could
understand. It was obvious that they were from the Devil, and so they
were burned at the stake. (A moral rendition of hospitality, for that time
and place.) Not long ago the news media reported that Iranian children
were sent across enemy minefields, with a promise that they'd go straight
to Paradise when blown up, same as the adult holy warriors. All this is
perfectly moral to anyone who grew up at the proper time and place.
APPENDIX R 353
w o u l d the w o r l d be a better or a worse place?" I have been

using this key ever since Kant's words reached my ears in
the 12th grade. It works i n most situations, but some situa-
tions have no keyholes, no optimal solutions.
Before a n a l y z i n g actual uses of this k e y i n septic s y s t e m s

practice, let u s e x p a n d o u r m i n d s w i t h s o m e p h i l o s o p h i c a l
t h o u g h t s , a n d let us try to detect biases i n the f o l l o w i n g
p h i l o s o p h i c a l v i e w s that c o l o r m y d e c i s i o n s w h e n c o n -
fronted w i t h ethical problems.
R.1.1 Everything is Related
E t h i c s (or lack of it) is i n v o l v e d i n e v e r y h u m a n activity.

E v e r y t h i n g is r e l a t e d to e v e r y t h i n g else, a n d n o t just i n the
e n v i r o n m e n t a l sense. Past relates to p r e s e n t , l a n g u a g e to
v i e w of the w o r l d , architecture to art, art to free t i m e , free
t i m e to e c o n o m i c status, ethics to e c o n o m i c status, etc.
O u r s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g is v e r y d e p e n d e n t o n e c o n o m i c
t r a n s a c t i o n s , a n d e c o n o m i c s is v e r y r e l a t e d to ethics. A s o n e
i n s t a n c e , w e m i g h t recall that i n the 1970s the A m e r i c a n car
m a k e r s b e h a v e d as if t h e i r (ethical) m i s s i o n w a s m a k i n g
m o n e y for t h e i r s t o c k h o l d e r s . T h e Japanese car m a k e r s
b e h a v e d as if it w a s m a k i n g g o o d cars. A s a result, b y the
e a r l y 1980s the Japanese w e r e m a k i n g cars a n d m o n e y , w h i l e
the A m e r i c a n s w e r e m a k i n g little of either. A s a n o t h e r i l l u s -
t r a t i o n , a g o v e r n m e n t ' s e t h i c a l a i m , " d o i n g the m o s t g o o d to
the greatest n u m b e r of p e o p l e " i m p l i e s d e f i n i n g the w o r t h
o f - a n d d i s t r i b u t i n g - w h a t is c o n s i d e r e d g o o d , a n d h e n c e
necessitates e c o n o m i c s . E v e n at the p e r s o n a l l e v e l , ethics
a n d e c o n o m i c s are also i n t e r t w i n e d . F o r i n s t a n c e , p u n c t u a l -
ity is the e t h i c a l r e g a r d for the v a l u e of s o m e o n e else's t i m e .
S e p t i c s y s t e m s practice (or for that matter, a n y o t h e r t y p e
of practice) results i n the a l l o c a t i o n of e c o n o m i c resources to
a c h i e v e c e r t a i n e n d s . T h e r e s u l t i n g patterns of l a n d use ( a n d
m i s u s e ) , as w e l l as the a l l o c a t i o n of e c o n o m i c resources
t h e m s e l v e s , m a y affect the e c o n o m i c v i a b i l i t y of c o m m u n i -
ties a n d e v e n the m e n t a l a n d p h y s i c a l h e a l t h of their i n h a b i -
tants. I n a c o m p e t i t i v e w o r l d , a l l these factors m a y affect the

e c o n o m i c s of a w h o l e n a t i o n . E v e r y t h i n g is a b s o l u t e l y
r e l a t e d to e v e r y t h i n g else, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y . E v e n if there
w e r e n o other reasons for it, just the e c o n o m i c i m p a c t of
ethics w o u l d suffice to m e r i t a c h a p t e r about ethics i n a b o o k
a b o u t p r o f e s s i o n a l practice.
R.1.2 Assumptions Tend to Be the "Clay Feet" of

Elaborate Beliefs
If w e a s s u m e that A = 2 a n d B = 3, t h e n w e c a n c o n s t r u c t
all k i n d s of m a t h e m a t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . F o r i n s t a n c e , the
statement ( A / A ) = (B - A ) + B m a k e s perfect sense, g i v e n
B
o u r a s s u m p t i o n . W e c a n p r o c e e d to d e v e l o p the w h o l e w o r l d
of m a t h e m a t i c s f r o m o u r s i m p l e i n i t i a l a s s u m p t i o n that A =
2 a n d B = 3. B u t if A is n o t exactly 2, or if B is n o t exactly 3,
all of o u r d e r i v a t i o n s a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n s a n d statements are
untrue, nonsensical, a n d mere pretense.
I n a d e m o c r a c y , the r e a s o n for the existence of legal codes
is a n e t h i c a l o r m o r a l o n e : the w e l f a r e of society. B u t this
p o i n t is o f t e n lost i n a m a z e of l a w s , r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d r e g u l a -
t o r y p r o c e d u r e s . T h e s e l a w s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s are l i k e v e r y
c o m p l e x m a t h e m a t i c a l constructs b a s e d o n the i m p l i c i t
a s s u m p t i o n that A = 2 a n d B = 3. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the " r u l e of
l a w " has a t e n d e n c y to b e c o m e the r u l e of r u l e s (i.e., the r u l e
of the letter of the l a w ) , rather t h a n the r u l e of r e a s o n (i.e.,
the s p i r i t of the l a w , e v i d e n t o n l y if a n d w h e n the a s s u m p -
t i o n s that s e r v e d as f o u n d a t i o n s for a l a w are a c k n o w l e d g e d ,
l i k e b y c h e c k i n g w h e t h e r A = 2 a n d B = 3).
I recall h a v i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h a n a t t o r n e y a b o u t the
j u d g e w h o t h r e w o u t the case against a n i l l e g a l d r u g m a n u -
facturer because of the " m " i n the w o r d m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e
w a s m i s s i n g i n the l a w as w r i t t e n (see S e c t i o n 4 i n A p p e n d i x
M ) . T h i s attorney s a i d that the l a w h a d to be exact a n d p r e -
cise, because o t h e r w i s e j u d g e s c o u l d b e c o m e too arbitrary.
H e e x p l a i n e d that, if the c o m m o n w o r d " t h e " h a d b e e n m i s -
s p e l l e d i n a l a w , e v e r y o n e w o u l d h a v e u n d e r s t o o d w h a t the
APPENDIX R 355
l a w m e a n t ; b u t w h e n the letter " m " w a s left o u t of m e t h a m -

p h e t a m i n e , this w a s a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e a n d the l a w w a s n o
l o n g e r a b s o l u t e l y clear. T h e r e a s o n i n g m i g h t be l o g i c a l , b u t
the result ( f r e e d o m for s o m e o n e l i k e l y to h a r m society) is
n o t . T h e s p i r i t o r i n t e n t of the l a w , a n d the v e r y a s s u m p t i o n
o n w h i c h l a w itself is b a s e d , got short s h r i f t . ( O h , y e s , it
c o u l d be a r g u e d that strict i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l a w protects
o u r f r e e d o m s ; a n d i n the s a m e v e i n it c o u l d be a r g u e d that
n o d r u g s h o u l d be m a d e i l l e g a l because e v e n t u a l l y the g o v -
e r n m e n t w i l l e n d u p c u r t a i l i n g o u r r i g h t to b u y a s p i r i n . I
d o n ' t b u y the a r g u m e n t that t a k i n g o n e step f o r w a r d leads
i n e v i t a b l y to f a l l i n g off a cliff o n e m i l e a w a y . ) *
R.1.3 The Fallacy of Rigid Interpretations or

Behaviors
In mathematics, one can m u l t i p l y any n u m b e r by another

a n d get a r e s u l t . B u t m a t h e m a t i c i a n s d i s c o v e r e d that m u l t i -
p l y i n g b y zero c o u l d y i e l d ridiculous results. For instance, 3
x 0 = 5 x 0; h e n c e 3 = 5. S o , t h e y d e c i d e d that o n e c o u l d
n o t p e r f o r m c e r t a i n o p e r a t i o n s w i t h the n u m b e r z e r o .
R e s u l t s dictate the r u l e s . S a m e t h i n g i n l o g i c . T a k e , for
i n s t a n c e , the p a r a d o x of the self-reflective statement i n the
rectangle b e l o w :
A l l statements i n t h i s rectangle are false.
A is C
*I suppose that judge Ellen Morphonius would not have freed the drug
manufacturer. A n extremely popular Florida judge, she appeared on the
TV programs "60 Minutes" and "Cops." Her philosophy is that she tries to
follow the letter of the law as much as she can, to a point. As she puts it,
when the letter of the law "clearly violates common sense," she does what
common sense dictates, and too bad if the appellate court reverses her. To
me, she abides by the rule of reason, and behaves ethically.
If a l l the statements are t r u l y false, the statement " a l l state-

m e n t s i n this rectangle are f a l s e " is itself false, a n d " A is C "
m a y be t r u e . T h i s is n o t a g o o d result, p a r t i c u l a r l y so if w e
k n o w that A is n o t C . H e n c e , just as w i t h m u l t i p l i c a t i o n b y
z e r o , l o g i c i a n s d e c i d e d that the t r u t h of a statement d o e s n o t
a p p l y to itself. T h e e t h i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n is that, for i n s t a n c e ,
o n e c a n be i n t o l e r a n t t o w a r d i n t o l e r a n t p e o p l e w i t h o u t b e i n g
i n t o l e r a n t . R e s u l t s tell us w h e t h e r the rules of m a t h , l o g i c , or
ethics d o or d o not w o r k . B y the fruits w e k n o w the tree.
R.1.4 Is It True That the Ends Never Justify the

Means?
I m a g i n e that a terrorist is h o l d i n g t e n p e o p l e hostage. I n

f i v e m i n u t e s he w i l l detonate a n atomic b o m b a n d w i p e o u t a
city w i t h o n e m i l l i o n p e o p l e . Y o u c a n press a b u t t o n a n d
b l o w h i m u p together w i t h h i s i n n o c e n t hostages a n d save
the city. W o u l d y o u press the b u t t o n ?
M y h a n d m i g h t freeze, b u t I w o u l d m a k e e v e r y effort to
press the b u t t o n . To m e , u n d e r these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the k i l l -
i n g of t e n i n n o c e n t p e o p l e is j u s t i f i e d b y the s a v i n g of o n e
million innocent people.
R.1.5 Not A l l Ethical Problems Have a Solution
I m a g i n e n o w that p r e s s i n g the b u t t o n w i l l b l o w u p the

a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d terrorist a n d h i s t e n hostages. B u t if y o u
d o n ' t press the b u t t o n he w i l l b l o w u p at m o s t o n e h o u s e
w i t h o n l y 10 p e o p l e . If y o u k n o w w h a t to d o , please increase
or decrease the n u m b e r of hostages or of p e o p l e i n the
h o u s e , u n t i l y o u d o n ' t k n o w . Thereafter a d d to the terrorist's
l o c a t i o n or to the h o u s e a l l the art w o r k s of L e o n a r d o d a
V i n c i , a n d see if y o u c a n balance this w i t h a g i v e n n u m b e r of
l i v e s . T h e ethical p r o b l e m i n the section above w a s r e l a t i v e l y
easy, because m a n y lives w e r e t r a d e d for f e w l i v e s . T h e " c u r -
r e n c y " (lives) w a s the s a m e . If the n u m b e r of lives to be lost
is s i m i l a r w h i c h e v e r a c t i o n is t a k e n , t h i n g s get c o m p l i c a t e d .
APPENDIX R 357
W h e n the s u r v i v a l of p r e c i o u s w o r k s of art h a v e to be b a l -
a n c e d against o n e or m o r e i n n o c e n t l i v e s , the " c u r r e n c y " is
n o t the s a m e a n d the p r o b l e m m a y not be s o l u b l e . *
R.1.6 Some Ethical Solutions M a y Be Unethical in

the Long Run; Mores May Be a Guide
L e t u s go back to the p e r i o d f r o m about 1000 B C to 1400

A D . L e t u s p i c t u r e a v e r y sick p e r s o n , w i t h v i s i b l e s k i n sores,
e n t e r i n g a v i l l a g e a n d b e g g i n g for w a t e r or f o o d . T h e v i l -
lagers are r e l a t i v e l y e n l i g h t e n e d p e o p l e , a n d react i n a n
a p p r o p r i a t e w a y . W h a t w a s " a p p r o p r i a t e " d u r i n g that p e r i o d
of time? W e m i g h t a s s u m e that i m m e d i a t e h e l p w a s .
W e l l , the t r a d i t i o n a l a n d m o r a l r e s p o n s e w a s i n d i g n a t i o n !
The poor wretch w o u l d have been d r i v e n out a n d away
u n d e r a h a i l of stones, or w o r s e . P e o p l e w i t h certain " a b n o r -
m a l i t i e s " (say, l i k e l e p r o s y ) o f t e n p o s e d a l o n g - t e r m h a z a r d
to the w h o l e c o m m u n i t y . T h e c o m f o r t of o n e n e e d y p e r s o n
w a s n o t h i n g c o m p a r e d to the r i s k to the h e a l t h of the w h o l e
v i l l a g e . I n those t i m e s , s o m e f o r m s of c r u e l t y h a d a n e t h i c a l
justification.
T h e ethical effects of a n a c t i o n h a v e to be w e i g h e d o v e r the
l o n g r u n . Yet, it is v e r y d i f f i c u l t to p r e d i c t the f u t u r e .
I t e n d to q u e s t i o n e v e r y ethical or m o r a l r u l e , a m o n g o t h e r
t h i n g s . B u t , u n l e s s I see v e r y c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n s to d o other-
w i s e , I t e n d to f o l l o w c o n v e n t i o n . O l d m o r e s h a v e b e e n
tested t h r o u g h t i m e ; m o r e o f t e n t h a n not t h e y h a v e g o o d
r e a s o n s to be w h a t t h e y are.
*If a democratic society freely agrees to place a monetary value on the life
of children, breadwinners, older persons, etc., ethical solutions may be
possible to the problem above. (See "Science, Values, and Human Judg-
ment," by K. R. Hammond and L. Adelman [Science 194:389-396, 1976].
This is a landmark article on judgments involving scientific valuation.)
Nowadays this and similar types of valuation permit compensation of
survivors of air crashes and people who lose body parts; if and when
practiced, they also permit a rational allocation of health and safety
resources.
R.1.7 Flowers for the Taking
If w e g o to a p u b l i c p a r k , w e m a y feel l i k e t a k i n g s o m e of
its f l o w e r s to g i v e t h e m to s o m e o n e w e k n o w . E v e n if t h e
p a r k h a d n o s i g n p r o h i b i t i n g the t a k i n g of f l o w e r s , it w o u l d
be u n e t h i c a l to take s o m e : If e v e r y o n e w o u l d d o as w e d o ,
there w o u l d be n o f l o w e r s left f o r a n y o n e to enjoy.
B u t , w h a t if w e w e r e o u t i n the w i l d e r n e s s , i n l a n d that
b e l o n g e d to " n o b o d y " ? F i f t y years a g o , I w o u l d h a v e s a i d
c u t t i n g a f e w f l o w e r s w o u l d present n o ethical p r o b l e m s .
T h e f e w p e o p l e w h o w o u l d v i s i t the same area c o u l d n ' t take
m o r e t h a n a f r a c t i o n of the f l o w e r s . T o d a y , w i t h o f f - r o a d
v e h i c l e s a n d lots of p e o p l e e v e r y w h e r e , o n e w o u l d h a v e to
be c a r e f u l : T h e f l o w e r s m i g h t b e those of e n d a n g e r e d p l a n t
species, o r the f l o w e r s t h e m s e l v e s m i g h t be f o o d f o r e n d a n -
g e r e d insect o r a n i m a l species. S o , u n l e s s w e k n o w that t h e
f l o w e r s are f r o m a c o m m o n t y p e of p l a n t , w e s h o u l d n o t take
t h e m . O t h e r w i s e w e m i g h t be c a u s i n g e x t i n c t i o n , a n i r r e -
versible outcome.
R.2 E T H I C A L D E C I S I O N S IN SEPTIC S Y S T E M S
PRACTICE
N o w c o m e s the f u n part. I n the f o l l o w i n g subsections I u s e

true stories to describe ethical p r o b l e m s i n septic s y s t e m s
practice. F r o m the clues g i v e n i n the p r e v i o u s pages, y o u
m i g h t be able to guess w h a t t h e s o l u t i o n s w e r e (i.e., t h e
" o u t c o m e s " ) . Y o u c a n also f i g u r e o u t y o u r o w n d i f f e r e n t
s o l u t i o n s to t h e s a m e o r s i m i l a r p r o b l e m s , a n d d e f i n e a n d
a n a l y z e the a s s u m p t i o n s that g i v e rise to t h e d i f f e r e n t
solutions.
To p r e s e r v e a n o n y m i t y , CSSS stands f o r a c o u n t y septic
s y s t e m s specialist; a n d SSC stands f o r a (private) septic sys-
tems consultant.
APPENDIX R 359
R.2.1 Ladies in Distress
I n the late 1970s, a c o u n t y septic s y s t e m s specialist, C S S S ,

v i s i t e d the h o u s e of t w o e l d e r l y ladies w h o h a d a f a i l i n g
l e a c h l i n e . T h e i r lot w a s v e r y s m a l l , a n d there w a s n o r o o m to
i n s t a l l the r e q u i r e d a n d necessary l e n g t h of replacement
l e a c h l i n e . T h e ladies w e r e b a r e l y m a n a g i n g w i t h S o c i a l S e c u -
r i t y benefits, so t h e y c o u l d not a f f o r d the i n s t a l l a t i o n of a
h o l d i n g tank a n d its e x p e n s i v e f r e q u e n t p u m p i n g s . A c o n -
sultant h a d t o l d t h e m that there w a s n o t h i n g h e c o u l d d o for
t h e m . T h e y w e r e f a c e d w i t h v a c a t i n g their h o m e b y force of
law.
The policy C S S S h a d inherited f r o m a departmental super-
v i s o r w a s that h e s h o u l d n o t d o a n y e n g i n e e r i n g t y p e of
w o r k for a p r i v a t e p a r t y : H i s c o u n t y c o u l d be s u e d if t h i n g s
d i d n o t w o r k w e l l . H e s h o u l d just stick to e n f o r c i n g r u l e s
a n d regulations.
Analysis
C S S S felt that the c o u n t y h a d a m o r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to d o

s o m e t h i n g if s o m e t h i n g c o u l d be d o n e . A f t e r a l l , the c o u n t y
h a d a l l o w e d p e o p l e to b u i l d h o u s e s s e r v e d b y a s y s t e m that
w o u l d f a i l . C S S S k n e w that h e c o u l d h e l p the l a d i e s , b u t
o n l y b y " b e n d i n g " the c o d e s a n d d o i n g s o m e " e n g i n e e r i n g . "
D e p t h to g r o u n d w a t e r w a s n o t a p r o b l e m . T h o u g h a p e r -
c o d e l e n g t h of l e a c h l i n e w o u l d n o t fit i n the s m a l l lot, the
s a m e a m o u n t of a b s o r p t i o n area c o u l d be o b t a i n e d w i t h a
shorter b u t d e e p e r l e a c h l i n e : I n s t e a d of the p e r - c o d e m a x i -
m u m 3 feet of g r a v e l b e l o w p i p e , C S S S c o u l d g i v e credit for
the s i d e w a l l a b s o r p t i o n area s u r r o u n d i n g 5 or 6 feet of g r a v e l
d e p t h b e l o w the l e a c h l i n e p e r f o r a t e d p i p e . T h i s d e e p e r t y p e
of l e a c h l i n e w o u l d w o r k v e r y w e l l , so the p r o b a b i l i t y of a
l a w s u i t against the c o u n t y w a s r e a s o n a b l y l o w .
Outcome
C S S S p r e s c r i b e d a n d a u t h o r i z e d the d e e p e r l e a c h l i n e , a n d
i n s t r u c t e d the l a d i e s o n h o w to take care of t h e i r septic s y s -
t e m a n d r e d u c e the a m o u n t of t h e i r w a s t e w a t e r . To t h i s d a y ,
there has b e e n n o l a w s u i t .
I n 1986 a n e w C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e r a s s u m e d
c o m m a n d . H e sent a letter to e v e r y c o u n t y e m p l o y e e . I n t h i s
letter h e stated that a n e m p l o y e e ' s m i s s i o n w a s n o t to
enforce r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s , b u t to h e l p p e o p l e . C S S S ' s
action was vindicated.
R.2.2 Allowing Illegal Installations
C S S S h e a r d that C , a contractor, w a s i n s t a l l i n g i l l e g a l s e p -
tic s y s t e m s w i t h o u t a p e r m i t : I n s t e a d of i n s t a l l i n g seepage
p i t s p e r c o d e , h e w o u l d d i g a h o l e w i t h a b a c k h o e , place a
v e r t i c a l p e r f o r a t e d p i p e i n the h o l e , a n d f i l l the space
b e t w e e n the p i p e a n d the s o i l w i t h g r a v e l . It m a d e s e n s e .
T h r o u g h a n i n t e r m e d i a r y , C S S S c o n t a c t e d C a n d let h i m
k n o w that C S S S w o u l d k e e p c o n f i d e n t i a l e v e r y t h i n g C
w o u l d reveal, i n c l u d i n g C's identity. C trusted C S S S , a n d
t h e y h a d a talk. C w a s o p e r a t i n g i l l e g a l l y because h i s i n s t a l l a -
t i o n s v i o l a t e d the c o d e ; h o w e v e r , t h e y w e r e w o r k i n g v e r y
w e l l . H i s clients w e r e r e t i r e d p e o p l e w h o c o u l d n o t a f f o r d
the p e r - c o d e seepage p i t s (about 3 0 - 4 0 % m o r e e x p e n s i v e ) .
C S S S o f f e r e d to t r y to l e g a l i z e h i s t y p e of i n s t a l l a t i o n , a n d C
agreed.
C S S S d i s c u s s e d the p r o b l e m of l e g a l i z a t i o n w i t h the
c o u n t y C h i e f P l u m b i n g Inspector. T h i s i n d i v i d u a l felt that h e
c o u l d n o t a u t h o r i z e s o m e t h i n g that d i d n o t m e e t the U n i -
f o r m P l u m b i n g C o d e r e q u i r e m e n t s . ( A h , the d a n g e r of l a w -
suits!) A n d h e a s k e d C S S S to r e v e a l the i d e n t i t y of C , the
contractor.
APPENDIX R 361
Analysis
P e r c o n v e n t i o n a l m o r a l i t y , one's w o r d is s a c r e d . T h e c o n -
tractor t r u s t e d C S S S ' s w o r d , a n d C S S S c o u l d n o t betray h i s
trust. T h e i n s t a l l a t i o n s w e r e w o r k i n g w e l l , a n d n o b o d y w a s
b e i n g h a r m e d . O n the other h a n d , C S S S w a s a county
e m p l o y e e , a n d o w e d allegiance to the c o u n t y a u t h o r i t i e s .
Outcome
C S S S t o l d the C h i e f P l u m b i n g Inspector that h e h a d g i v e n

his w o r d a n d that h e c o u l d n o t betray the trust of t h e c o n -
tractor. T h e C h i e f u n d e r s t o o d . T h i n g s w e n t b a c k to
"normal."*
R.2.3 The Power of Tears
C S S S r e v i e w e d a p e r k r e p o r t f o r a lot w i t h p r o b l e m a t i c s o i l
conditions o n w h i c h a house was partially built. C S S S told
the o w n e r of t h e p r o p e r t y that h e s a w p o t e n t i a l p r o b l e m s
w i t h a septic s y s t e m i n s t a l l e d o n that l o t , a n d that h e c o u l d
n o t a p p r o v e i t . T h e lot o w n e r ' s w i f e started c r y i n g bitterly,
a n d s a i d that s h e h a d u m p t e e n c h i l d r e n to s u p p o r t ( a n d
C S S S d i d see part of h e r n u m e r o u s b r o o d ) , a n d that t h e sale
of t h e h o u s e w a s their o n l y i n c o m e . O n o n e h a n d , C S S S w a s
m o v e d a n d w a n t e d to h e l p . O n the other h a n d , C S S S felt
that it w a s n o t e t h i c a l to a p p r o v e s o m e t h i n g h e w a s n ' t sure
w o u l d perform, t h o u g h liability rested w i t h the engineer
w h o p r e p a r e d the p e r k r e p o r t .
*If I were a psychiatrist or a lawyer and a client told me he would go out

and murder someone he did not like, I would feel free to betray his trust.
In my view, ethical rules and protections need not be extended to those
who break them by a most unethical and irreversible act such as murder. If
the expected unethical act were reversible and far less drastic, like damag-
ing property, I might have kept mum: It is to society's benefit that profes-
sional confidentiality be respected, in most cases.
Analysis
B e i n g e t h i c a l i n the sense of h e l p i n g p e o p l e i n distress

c o u l d e n d u p b e i n g u n e t h i c a l to the f u t u r e b u y e r s of the
h o u s e . If the o w n e r s h a d b e e n the average s p e c u l a t o r or
developer, denial w o u l d have been no problem. But, g i v e n
the c i r c u m s t a n c e s . . .
Outcome
C S S S e s c a p e d the q u a n d a r y b y t e l l i n g the w o m a n that,

t h o u g h he c o u l d not a p p r o v e the p e r k r e p o r t , she c o u l d
a p p e a l to the t o p d e c i s i o n m a k e r , h e r c o u n t y s u p e r v i s o r .
( C S S S b r o k e w i t h p o l i c y , because he s h o u l d h a v e r e f e r r e d
h e r to s o m e o n e d i r e c t l y above h i m . B u t C S S S s u s p e c t e d that
the p e r s o n above h i m or e v e n the p e r s o n a b o v e this p e r s o n
w o u l d just enforce the r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d C S S S
w a n t e d to g i v e the w o m a n a chance.)
W e e k s later, C S S S ' s s u p e r v i s o r t o l d h i m that a w o m a n
" c r i e d h e r heart o u t " at the office of a c o u n t y s u p e r v i s o r , a n d
that h e r p e r k r e p o r t h a d to be a p p r o v e d . H e k n e w h o w
C S S S felt about p r i n c i p l e s , a n d to spare C S S S a n y e m b a r -
r a s s m e n t he k i n d l y o f f e r e d to a p p r o v e the r e p o r t u n d e r h i s
o w n s i g n a t u r e . C S S S h a d n o q u a l m s about s i g n i n g it h i m -
self: a d e c i s i o n m a k e r h a d d e c i d e d for h i m .
R.2.4 Duty of C i v i l Servants
T h e r e are instances w h e n w h a t a C S S S is e x p e c t e d to d o o r
say violates C S S S ' s p e r c e p t i o n of w h a t ' s r i g h t to d o or say.
Analysis
A s I see it, c i v i l servants are p a i d b y a n d serve the t a x p a y -

ers. T h o u g h f i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y rests w i t h the u l t i m a t e d e c i -
s i o n m a k e r s ( u p the c h a i n of s u p e r v i s o r s ) w h o s h o u l d u s u a l l y
be o b e y e d , c i v i l servants are p r o t e c t e d b y c i v i l service r u l e s
APPENDIX R 363
so that t h e y w o n ' t h a v e to o b e y o r d e r s t h e y k n o w c o u l d
d a m a g e a c o m m u n i t y o r v i o l a t e ethics. T h i s is a great p r i v i -
lege. H o w e v e r , there is a f i n e l i n e b e t w e e n b e i n g a r i g i d S O B
and a principled civil servant.*
Outcome
P e r s o n a l l y , I w a s v e r y f o r t u n a t e to h a v e w o r k e d for a
r a t h e r " c l e a n " g o v e r n m e n t a l entity. I a m a c q u a i n t e d w i t h a
v e r y able, h o n e s t , a n d p r i n c i p l e d colleague w h o s e life w a s
m a d e so m i s e r a b l e i n a n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n that h e h a d to q u i t
his job. M y a d v i c e to p r o s p e c t i v e p u b l i c e m p l o y e e s is to d o
as t h e y are t o l d for as l o n g as t h e y are o n p r o b a t i o n , a n d to
be r e a d y to c h a n g e jobs if t h e y can't i m p r o v e t h i n g s that are
patently w r o n g .
R.2.5 The Solar Power Plant
A large solar p o w e r p l a n t d e v e l o p m e n t project h a d c l e a r e d

the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t r e p o r t p r o c e d u r e a n d h e a r i n g s ,
b u t its p e r k r e p o r t w a s h o l d i n g u p its f i n a l a p p r o v a l . T h e
soils at the p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t site w e r e terrible. T h e y
w o u l d n o t h a v e p a s s e d u n d e r c o u n t y codes a n d r e g u l a t i o n s .
C S S S w a s o n the spot.
Analysis
T h e r e w a s n o d o u b t i n C S S S ' s m i n d that the benefits of

s u c h a u n i q u e d e m o n s t r a t i o n p l a n t to society w e r e e x t r e m e l y
h i g h . T h e site's r e m o t e l o c a t i o n a n d i s o l a t i o n m i n i m i z e d c o n -
*The advice of some experienced and highly ethical acquaintances is as

follows: If a request comes from a city council member (or someone else
who has been elected and hence should be obeyed), one should make sure
that the majority (3 out of 5) of the council members concur. If the request
comes orally from a city manager or administrator, one should reply with a
letter stating "I understand you have requested such-and-such."Then,
one should keep a copy of this letter in one's own home: Locked office
desks and files can be ransacked in the dark.
cerns about p u b l i c h e a l t h h a z a r d s , a n d its e x t r e m e l y large

area p r o b a b l y h a d spots suitable for i n s t a l l i n g the r e q u i r e d
s m a l l septic s y s t e m . D e p t h to g r o u n d w a t e r w a s not a p r o b -
l e m . I n the past C S S S h a d a u t h o r i z e d use of o p e n - a i r s e w a g e
l a g o o n s i n r e m o t e areas, so h e h a d a p r e c e d e n t to g o b y .
Outcome
C S S S actively a d v i s e d the p e r k c o n s u l t a n t s w h a t to d o a n d
w h a t to l o o k for. C S S S forgot a b o u t codes a n d r e g u l a t i o n s ,
a n d c o n c e n t r a t e d o n d e s i g n i n g a s y s t e m that w o u l d w o r k .
H e t o l d the project's p e r k c o n s u l t a n t s that h e w o u l d accept
d e e p a n d / o r l o n g l e a c h l i n e trenches; the trick w a s to exca-
vate as m u c h s o i l as necessary to intercept a m a x i m u m
a m o u n t of p e r m e a b l e strata. O n e l e a c h l i n e w o u l d be l o n g
a n d n o t too d e e p , another, m a y b e shorter b u t d e e p e r t h a n
the code's m a x i m u m 3 feet of g r a v e l b e l o w p e r f o r a t e d p i p e .
I n the u n l i k e l y e v e n t that i n 10 years or so a l e a c h l i n e f a i l e d ,
the c o n s u l t a n t w o u l d h a v e to evaluate a n d r e p o r t t h i s e v e n t
so that the r e p l a c e m e n t l e a c h l i n e c o u l d be s i z e d to last
indefinitely.
R.2.6 Bribes
O f c o u r s e , the d i l e m m a is n o t w h e t h e r to take bribes or

n o t , b u t h o w to refuse t h e m . If bribe offers are r e f u s e d w i t h
i n d i g n a t i o n , the b r i b e r m i g h t l e a r n a l e s s o n ; if t h e y are
r e f u s e d g r a c i o u s l y , the b r i b e r m i g h t n o t .
C S S S ' s first e n c o u n t e r w i t h a n a t t e m p t e d b r i b e t o o k h i m
by surprise. H e was inspecting a leachline installation, a n d
the i n s t a l l a t i o n contractor gave h i m a l a r g e - d e n o m i n a t i o n b i l l
f o r "coffee m o n e y . " C S S S w a s , as u s u a l , d r e s s e d l i k e a s l o b
(i.e., c o m f o r t a b l y ) ; so h e t h o u g h t that m a y b e the contractor
t o o k p i t y o n h i m . P e r h a p s . A n y h o w , C S S S d i d n o t w a n t to
e m b a r r a s s the contractor. H e r e p l i e d " T h a n k y o u , I d o n ' t
n e e d it. I a m w e l l - t o - d o . " * A n d C S S S i n s i s t e d h e d i d n o t
*His reply wasn't quite truthful, but it was ethical.

APPENDIX R 365
n e e d the m o n e y . T h e contractor t o o k the b i l l back w i t h a

f u n n y s m i l e . M o n t h s later, a n o t h e r contractor t o l d C S S S
a b o u t the i n c i d e n t , so the o r i g i n a l contractor m u s t h a v e
p a s s e d the w o r d a r o u n d .
M a n y years later, C S S S w a s o f f e r e d m o n e y to " t a k e s h o r t -
c u t s " or to r e n d e r f a v o r a b l e o p i n i o n s . H i s a n s w e r s w e r e
s o m e t h i n g l i k e " N o , I can't," or " D o n ' t w a s t e y o u r m o n e y , I'll
d o m y best r e g a r d l e s s . "
C S S S felt h e d i d n ' t h a v e the heart to lecture s u c h p e o p l e
about ethics. M o s t l i k e l y , d o i n g so w o u l d n o t affect t h e i r
f u t u r e b e h a v i o r . P r o b a b l y t h e y l e a r n e d f r o m e x p e r i e n c e that
b r i b i n g is the w a y to get a h e a d i n a c o m p e t i t i v e w o r l d . C S S S
p r e f e r r e d to be p o l i t e w h e n r e f u s i n g offers.
R.2.7 Private Consultant Versus Society
I h a v e m e t c o n s u l t a n t s w h o w i l l p u s h for t h e i r client's
interests, w i t h o u t r e g a r d as to w h e t h e r their client is r i g h t o r
w r o n g . I feel it is a matter of p r i n c i p l e to d o the u t m o s t for
one's client, b u t o n l y u p to a p o i n t . If I h i r e d a c o n s u l t a n t , I
w o u l d expect the s a m e f r o m h i m / h e r . I feel that there is a
p o i n t w h e r e it w o u l d be u n e t h i c a l to d o the client's b i d d i n g :
P r o f e s s i o n a l s of v a r i o u s k i n d s are part of, a n d are l i c e n s e d
by, the society t h e y l i v e i n . E t h i c a l l y , this entails a r e s p o n s i -
b i l i t y to society.
T h e f o l l o w i n g sections illustrate the c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n
w h a t ' s o w e d to society a n d w h a t ' s o w e d to c l i e n t s .
R.2.7.1 Advocacy
A consultant requested SSC's h e l p . A certain jurisdiction

w o u l d not a p p r o v e h i s client's h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t o n the
g r o u n d s that its d e n s i t y w a s too h i g h . B e c a u s e of c e r t a i n
p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the project, S S C c o u l d r e a d the c o d e s i n a
w a y that w o u l d a l l o w the d e v e l o p m e n t to p r o c e e d . It w a s a
t r i c k y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : It f o l l o w e d the letter of the c o d e s , b u t
not their s p i r i t . It w a s b i a s e d .
Analysis
S S C felt it w a s a matter of p r i n c i p l e to h e l p those w h o

c a m e to h i m for h e l p , b u t also felt u n e a s y a b o u t h e l p i n g h i s
c l i e n t . H e r e a s o n e d that:
1. It is ethical for trial attorneys to present only one side of a

problem, the one that favors their clients. H e could do
likewise.*
2. H e had told the staff of the jurisdiction involved that, as a
public service, they were free to consult w i t h h i m at no
charge. The jurisdiction staff had done that once before. If
the staff w o u l d call h i m and ask for his opinion about the
development at hand, he could speak his conscience and
alert them to the biased interpretation.
3. N o significant irreversible damage to groundwater w o u l d
result from the approval of this project alone, or a few
more like it. This was a crucial point w h e n S S C decided to
help the consultant.
4. The public (or, more exactly, some members of the public)
needed housing projects like this.
5. S S C w o u l d tell the consultant that the solution involved
bias; it w o u l d be the consultant's decision whether to pro-
mote his client's interest or not.
6. Since he wasn't absolutely sure whether he was doing the
right thing, h o w could S S C make sure he wasn't selling
his integrity out? There was one way: definitely not
accepting money for the advice he w o u l d give.
Outcome
S S C r e v e a l e d to the c o n s u l t a n t h o w to interpret the codes

i n a w a y b i a s e d i n f a v o r of the d e v e l o p e r . T h e c o n s u l t a n t d i d .
*I think that SSC erred by trying to imitate trial attorneys. First, I feel
uncomfortable with "tunnel vision" positions, within or outside the halls
of justice. And second, the comparison with trial attorneys might be falla-
cious: though some people murder other people, this doesn't entitle one
to say, "Why can't I do that, too?"
APPENDIX R 367
T h e j u r i s d i c t i o n staff d i d n o t c o n s u l t w i t h S S C . T h e d e v e l o p -
ment was approved.
S S C r e f u s e d a n y m o n e y f r o m the c o n s u l t a n t a n d f r o m h i s
g r a t e f u l client.
R.2.7.2 Using a n Inaccurate Methodology
T h e chief e n g i n e e r i n g geologist of a c o n s u l t i n g f i r m h i r e d
S S C to p r e p a r e a p e r k r e p o r t for seepage p i t s i n a l o c a t i o n
w i t h p r o b l e m a t i c s o i l s . S S C t o l d h i m that there w a s n o a c c u -
rate w a y of p r e d i c t i n g p i t l o n g e v i t y w i t h the t y p e of s t r a t i f i e d
soils at the site. T h e geologist c o n f i d e d that he too w a s o f t e n
f a c e d w i t h s i t u a t i o n s that i n v o l v e d d e c i s i o n s w e l l b e y o n d
state-of-the-art k n o w l e d g e , a n d that o n e h a d to d o the best
o n e c o u l d , a n d h o p e f o r the best.
Analysis
First S S C w o n d e r e d if h e s h o u l d take the job at a l l . T h o u g h

h e d i d the e t h i c a l t h i n g a n d d i d n o t p r e s e n t h i m s e l f as a
k n o w - i t - a l l , h e w a s still b o t h e r e d b y the use of pits i n c o m -
p l e x s t r a t i f i e d s o i l s . H e w a s a w a r e that, i n a large p o r t i o n of
the c o u n t y that h a d s i m p l e s t r a t i f i e d soils, p i t s w o r k e d w e l l
f o r m a n y y e a r s . H e w a s also a w a r e that i n a n o t h e r p o r t i o n of
the s a m e c o u n t y that h a d c o m p l e x stratified s o i l s , there w e r e
p r o b l e m s : T h e c o u n t y started r e c e i v i n g r e p o r t s of " g r o u n d -
w a t e r " at a b o u t 30 feet, t h o u g h g r o u n d w a t e r w a s o v e r 100
feet d e e p : T h e c u m u l a t i v e d i s c h a r g e of m a n y p i t s i n the area
w a s too m u c h to percolate t h r o u g h o n e or m o r e of the l i m i t -
i n g clay layers b e l o w 30 feet. (Lateral s a t u r a t e d s e w a g e f l o w
is a n o - n o , as p a t h o g e n s d o not get f i l t e r e d - o u t efficiently.)
S S C also k n e w that m u c h of the c o u n t y ' s desert r e g i o n w a s
t h e o r e t i c a l l y u n s u i t a b l e for septic s y s t e m s ; yet m u c h d e v e l -
o p m e n t h a d a l r e a d y o c c u r r e d i n it, a n d o n l y a f e w areas w e r e
h a v i n g p r o b l e m s . O n e c o u l d n o t g o to the B o a r d of S u p e r v i -
sors a n d argue that because of the theoretical p o s s i b i l i t y of
p r o b l e m s , p r a c t i c a l l y a l l g r o w t h o n septic s y s t e m s h a d to be
s t o p p e d . C o u n t y s u p e r v i s o r s , the d e c i s i o n m a k e r s , w e r e p r o -
g r o w t h a n d u n d o u b t e d l y felt that d e v e l o p m e n t w a s w o r t h
the r i s k .
F o r at least the p r e v i o u s 13 years, other c o n s u l t a n t s h a d
b e e n d o i n g p e r k r e p o r t s for pits i n the p r o b l e m a t i c area S S C
w a s to tackle, a n d t h e y w e r e u s i n g the inaccurate b u t
r e q u i r e d " f a l l i n g h e a d " m e t h o d o l o g y . If S S C d i d n o t take the
j o b , s o m e o n e else w o u l d ; a n d b y m e r e l y f o l l o w i n g r u l e s ,
that s o m e o n e else w o u l d d o m u c h w o r s e t h a n S S C c o u l d . If
S S C d i d take the job, he c o u l d l e a r n a n d pass o n w h a t he
l e a r n e d to the j u r i s d i c t i o n .
Outcome
S S C t o o k the j o b . W i t h the h e l p of the chief e n g i n e e r i n g

geologist a n d h i s staff, S S C p r e p a r e d the m o s t extensive a n d
t h o r o u g h p e r k r e p o r t ever s u b m i t t e d to the j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r
the area i n v o l v e d . S i n c e he w a s f o r c e d to use the " f a l l i n g
h e a d " test, h e p e r f o r m e d it. B u t he n o t e d i n the p e r k r e p o r t
that t h i s t y p e of test w a s f l a w e d . B a s i n g h i s s u g g e s t i o n s o n
h u n c h e s rather t h a n o n the test results, S S C r e c o m m e n d e d
r o u g h l y 3 to 5 t i m e s m o r e p i t a b s o r p t i o n area t h a n the m i n i -
m u m county requirements. A n d S S C prepared instructions
for the p r o s p e c t i v e users of the p i t s , to e x p l a i n to t h e m h o w
the septic s y s t e m o p e r a t e d , a n d h o w to take care of it, a n d its
limitations.
( M o n t h s later a p i t installer v e r y e x p e r i e n c e d i n the s a m e
area w i t h the p r o b l e m a t i c soils t o l d S S C that h e u s u a l l y rec-
o m m e n d s 3 to 4 times m o r e p i t a b s o r p t i o n area t h a n the
county-required m i n i m u m s . W h e w ! S S C h a d guessed
rieht!)*
*I feel that one cannot change the world by oneself and at once, and that
one need not abstain from doing as other ignorants do, if one can do at
least as good a job, poor as it may be. But, to be ethical, I also believe that it
is important to take a stand and point out things that aren't right to those
who can correct them.
APPENDIX R 369
R.2.7.3 Cumulative Impact
T h e g r o u n d w a t e r i n a n area w a s d e g r a d e d w i t h nitrates,
a n d c o n t i n u i n g d e v e l o p m e n t o n septic s y s t e m s w a s m a k i n g
t h i n g s w o r s e . L o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s t r i e d to s l o w d o w n d e v e l -
o p m e n t o n septic s y s t e m s b y r e q u i r i n g the f i l i n g of a " n i t r a t e
i m p a c t r e p o r t " to p r o v e that each d e v e l o p m e n t b y itself
w o u l d n o t affect g r o u n d w a t e r . D e v e l o p e r s c a m e to S S C for
help.
Analysis
If S S C d i d h i s best to h e l p h i s clients, he c o u l d s h o w that

e a c h of their i n d i v i d u a l d e v e l o p m e n t s , b y itself, w o u l d n o t
i m p a c t the g r o u n d w a t e r . B u t h e felt that h e w o u l d be h e l p -
i n g to exacerbate a n area w i d e p r o b l e m .
Outcome
S S C ' s s o l u t i o n c o n s i s t e d of:
• writing reports on the basis of explicit assumptions (which

turned out to be favorable for each separate development)
• pointing out to the jurisdictions involved that their objec-
tives had to be properly defined
• offering free consultations to help out the jurisdictions in
their attempts to protect groundwater
It w a s l i k e p i c k i n g a f l o w e r i n a n o p e n f i e l d , a n d t h e n
t r y i n g to i n d u c e the o w n e r of the f i e l d to p o s t a s i g n p r o h i b i t -
i n g the p i c k i n g of f l o w e r s . S S C ' s i n d i v i d u a l clients w o u l d
n o t be h a r m e d . F u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t s m i g h t be s t o p p e d , a n d
S S C w o u l d d e p r i v e h i m s e l f ( a n d o t h e r consultants) of s i m i -
lar c o n s u l t i n g jobs, b u t g r o u n d w a t e r a n d the c o m m u n i t i e s
that d e p e n d e d o n it w o u l d be better p r o t e c t e d .
R . 2 . 7 A Civil Servant Versus Private Consultant
S S C w r o t e a p e r k r e p o r t a n d s u b m i t t e d it to C S S S . T h e
r e p o r t c l a i m e d that lots w e r e suitable for septic s y s t e m s ; b u t
the r a w data p r e s e n t e d c o n t r a d i c t e d t h i s c l a i m . S S C t o l d
C S S S that s o m e of h i s clients w o u l d not p a y h i m if he w e r e
100% t r u t h f u l a n d w r o t e i n h i s p e r k r e p o r t s that septic sys-
t e m s w o u l d not w o r k o n t h e i r lots.
Analysis
S S C w a s b e i n g h o n e s t w i t h C S S S , a n d w i t h the p u b l i c
C S S S r e p r e s e n t e d . If C S S S i n s i s t e d o n S S C b e i n g 100%
t r u t h f u l , C S S S w o u l d either force S S C to be d i s h o n e s t or
d e p r i v e S S C of the t y p e of clientele that w o u l d h i r e a less
h o n e s t c o n s u l t a n t ; t h e n less h o n e s t c o n s u l t a n t s w o u l d g a i n
and h o n e s t o n e s w o u l d lose.
Outcome
S S C a n d C S S S reached a n agreement: In his reports, S S C

w o u l d g i v e C S S S a l l the accurate f i e l d data n e e d e d f o r C S S S
to f o r m h i s o w n o p i n i o n , a n d S S C w o u l d be free to p r a i s e
the s u i t a b i l i t y of a n y site h e w a n t e d e v e n if the data i n d i -
c a t e d the site w a s u n s u i t a b l e .
S S C d i d h i s p a r t , a n d so d i d C S S S . W h e n the t i m e c a m e ,
C S S S w a s the o n e w h o g a v e the b a d n e w s to S S C c l i e n t s .
C S S S d i d n ' t feel e m p a t h y for clients w h o w o u l d n o t p a y
an h o n e s t f e l l o w . C S S S w i s h e d c o n s u l t a n t s w o u l d n o t h a v e
to u s e a s u b t e r f u g e to get p a i d , a n d that a l l c o n s u l t a n t s at a l l
t i m e s w o u l d g i v e society's interests t o p p r i o r i t y i n t h e i r
r e p o r t s , as i m p l i e d b y , say, the A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y of C i v i l
APPENDIX R 371
E n g i n e e r s c o d e of e t h i c s . * B u t w i t h the w o r l d as it w a s ,
C S S S t h o u g h t that it w o u l d be u n r e a l i s t i c to expect s u c h
idealistic b e h a v i o r to m a t e r i a l i z e a n y t i m e s o o n .
* A county Environmental Analysis Unit solved this problem thusly: It

itself hired environmental-impact consultants with the developers'
money. If hiring by a public agency can be kept honest and fair, this
solution seems pretty good. Recently I had a conversation with a very
ethical and able public employee who reviews geotechnical reports for a
Water Quality Control Board regional office. He was upset by the fact that
developer's consultants were submitting to him reports that (in his words)
"came within an inch of lying"; their interpretations and conclusions were
always extremely favorable to their clients, even if their own field data
made a strong case for just the opposite type of interpretations and conclu-
sions. He felt that these consultants were not behaving honestly. I felt that
if the field data were honest and permitted him to reach opposite conclu-
sions with ease, the consultants did a decent job: They had to behave as all
other consultants were behaving or go bankrupt. When consultants can be
disciplined for acting deviously, then I'll feel differently.
Appendix S
SCIENCE, LAW, ETHICS, E C O N O M I C S A N D A

NITRATE POLLUTION C O N T R O L S A G A
O n M a r c h 3 0 , 1 9 8 9 , a s p e c i a l C B S broadcast, " L . A . J u s t i c e , "

i n f o r m e d u s that the L o s A n g e l e s c o u n t y c o u r t s - t h e largest
i n the n a t i o n — w e r e c o n g e s t e d b y too m a n y l a w s u i t s to the
p o i n t of " p a n d e m o n i u m " a n d w e r e h i g h l y i n e f f i c i e n t . T h e
same day, K C E T - T V ("California Stories") broadcasted a n
i n t e r v i e w w i t h a l a w y e r w h o r e p r e s e n t e d the A m e r i c a n C i v i l
L i b e r t i e s U n i o n ( A C L U ) i n its f i g h t to s o l v e the c o u r t s ' p r o b -
l e m . T h e A C L U ' s s o l u t i o n to this c o n g e s t i o n p r o b l e m w a s to
sue the c o u r t s !
P e r h a p s l a w y e r s are p r o n e to t h i n k i n g that e v e r y p r o b l e m
has a s o l u t i o n : a l a w s u i t . ( W h a t else?) P e r h a p s legislators are
p r o n e to t h i n k i n g that the s o l u t i o n to e v e r y p r o b l e m is a n e w
l a w . ( W h a t else?) P e r h a p s p s y c h o l o g i s t s m i g h t be b i a s e d i n
f a v o r of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s for e v e r y b o d y . ( O f course!) A s for
m y s e l f , I a d m i t h a v i n g a s t r o n g bias, if this is a bias: I b e l i e v e
that, if a p r o b l e m has a s o l u t i o n , the o p t i m a l p a t h to a n
o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n is the scientific m e t h o d . ( W h a t else?)
E s s e n t i a l l y , the scientific m e t h o d consists of d e f i n i n g a n d
s o l v i n g a p r o b l e m b y m e a n s of a n s w e r a b l e q u e s t i o n s . O n e
m u s t d e f i n e a p r o b l e m i n s u c h a w a y that the variables of
interest c a n be o b s e r v e d a n d m e a s u r e d u n d e r a p r o v e n o r
a c c e p t a b l e m e t h o d o l o g y t h a t c a n be m o n i t o r e d a n d i m p r o v e d . Take
the f a m o u s B y z a n t i n e d i s c u s s i o n s about h o w m a n y angels
c a n d a n c e o n the h e a d of a p i n : T h e d i s c u s s i o n s l a s t e d for-
373
ever a n d l e d n o w h e r e because n o o n e w a s able to m e a s u r e

d i r e c t l y ( u n d e r a c o m m o n l y accepted m e t h o d o l o g y ) or i n d i -
rectly ( w i t h a m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l of a n angel's relative size
and a n a t o m y ) h o w m u c h r o o m a n a n g e l n e e d s i n o r d e r to
p e r f o r m a specific dance i n a d e f i n e d w a y .
In A p p e n d i x M , S e c t i o n 1, P e r k i n s w a s q u o t e d r e g a r d i n g
1
the d i s m a l results of l e g i s l a t i o n that i n d u c e s e v e n m o r e legis-

l a t i o n a n d so o n . I see this s p i r a l of l e g i s l a t i o n as the conse-
q u e n c e of l a w s that i g n o r e e v e r y t h i n g about science b u t its
t r a p p i n g s . ( A n d w e s h o u l d n o t expect m u c h i m p r o v e m e n t i n
this r e g a r d . T h i s p r o b l e m is l i k e l y to get m u c h w o r s e before
it gets better: T h e p r o p o r t i o n of college f r e s h m e n w i s h i n g to
m a j o r i n m a t h a n d sciences fell b y h a l f - t o 5 . 8 % - b e t w e e n
1966 a n d 1988. * H e n c e , o u r f u t u r e legislators are l i k e l y to be
2
elected b y - a n d f r o m - a p o p u l a t i o n that is b e c o m i n g m o r e
" s c i e n t i f i c a l l y illiterate.")
L o c a l attempts to c o n t r o l the p r o b l e m of nitrate p o l l u t i o n
i n g r o u n d w a t e r serve to illustrate interactions of f l a w e d l e g -
i s l a t i o n ( a n d l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s ) , t e c h n i c a l k n o w l e d g e , eco-
n o m i c s , a n d ethics. Because the subject is h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d ,
I h a v e p l a c e d it here, as a n A p p e n d i x . B u t , I h a v e n o d o u b t
that the events d e s c r i b e d are c o m m o n l y r e p l i c a t e d i n ( a n d
a p p l i c a b l e to) m a n y other f i e l d s .
T h e m a j o r actors of the story that u n f o l d s b e l o w are " g o o d
g u y s " w h o t r y to p r e v e n t p o l l u t i o n of g r o u n d w a t e r the best
w a y t h e y c a n w i t h their l i m i t e d resources:
*The reason for this trend may be that the income of engineers (and
scientists) is less than half that of lawyers, per the September 25, 1989
issue of U.S. News and World Report ("Best Jobs for the Future"). Comment-
ing on this statistic, Mr. M . Jacobs (U.S. News and World Report, October 23,
1989, "Letters to the Editor;") noted, "The best minds are going to corpo-
rate or tax law . . . producing nothing more than advice . . . on how to
circumvent the travesty of laws that they themselves created. Until we get
a grip on a legal system out of control, we'll continue to slide in competi-
tiveness, while the brightest among us make fortunes giving advice on
how to sue one's neighbor."
APPENDIX S 375
• sanitarians (environmental health specialists) i n county

jurisdictions
• engineers (and geologists) from a regional office of the Cali-
fornia Water Quality Control Board (WQCB)
O t h e r " g o o d g u y s " are e n t r e p r e n e u r s c a l l e d " l a n d d e v e l -

o p e r s " or just " d e v e l o p e r s . " T h e y m a k e a l i v i n g b y s a t i s f y i n g
the p o p u l a t i o n ' s n e e d for h o u s i n g at the l o w e s t cost d i c t a t e d
by m a r k e t d e m a n d s . T h e p r o b l e m is that t h e l o w e s t - c o s t d e v e l -
o p m e n t often depends o n t h e use of s e p t i c s y s t e m s , w h i c h g e n e r a t e
n i t r a t e s t h a t p o l l u t e g r o u n d w a t e r . G r o u n d w a t e r is the m a i n
s o u r c e of p o t a b l e w a t e r for m u c h of s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a ' s
p o p u l a t i o n . T h e C a l i f o r n i a W Q C B m u s t protect g r o u n d -
w a t e r f r o m p o l l u t i o n (per the C a l i f o r n i a " P o r t e r - C o l o g n e
A c t " ) . B u t its h a n d s are t i e d b y l e g i s l a t i o n . I n p a r t i c u l a r , it
c a n n o t abate p o l l u t i o n c a u s e d b y a g r i c u l t u r a l f e r t i l i z e r s ,
w h i c h are a m a j o r source of nitrate p o l l u t i o n . A n d C a l i f o r n i a
W a t e r C o d e s e c t i o n 13280 e x p r e s s l y p r o h i b i t s the W Q C B to
abate p o l l u t i o n u n l e s s it c a n p r o v e that there is a p r o b l e m .
O n c e p e o p l e are d y i n g left a n d r i g h t , it is u s u a l l y easy to
p r o v e that there is a p r o b l e m . Before t h e n , it is v e r y d i f f i c u l t ,
c o n s i d e r i n g h o w the j u d i c i a l s y s t e m w o r k s . A n d b y the t i m e
the p r o o f is at h a n d , it is o f t e n too late to r e p a i r the d a m a g e .
Now, a c h r o n i c l e of h a p p e n i n g s .
A r o u n d 1987-1988, a r e g i o n a l office of the W Q C B a c c e p t e d
t w o m e t h o d o l o g i e s to evaluate w h e t h e r r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p -
m e n t i m p a c t e d g r o u n d w a t e r w i t h nitrates. O n e m e t h o d o l -
o g y w a s b r i e f l y m e n t i o n e d i n S e p t i c S y s t e m s H a n d b o o k a n d is
e l a b o r a t e d i n A p p e n d i x U , P r o b l e m N o . 12. T h e o t h e r o n e
w a s p r e s e n t e d b y N . H a n t s z c h e at the 31st a n n u a l m e e t i n g
of the C a l i f o r n i a D i r e c t o r s of E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h i n 1986.
It a i m s to f i n d o u t h o w m u c h area is r e q u i r e d (per e a c h
d w e l l i n g s e r v e d b y a septic s y s t e m ) i n o r d e r to catch a n d
percolate e n o u g h r a i n f a l l to d i l u t e a n a s s u m e d s e w a g e p e r -
colate c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 40 m g / L of N (nitrogen) to the d r i n k -
i n g w a t e r s t a n d a r d , 10 m g / L ( e q u i v a l e n t to 45 m g / L of
nitrate). W h e r e v e r there is s u f f i c i e n t a n d r e g u l a r r a i n f a l l a n d
p e r c o l a t i o n , as i n s o m e states east of the M i s s i s s i p p i , t h i s

a p p r o a c h s h o u l d be u s e f u l .
L i t e r a t u r e p r e p a r e d b y the W Q C B staff d e s c r i b e d a n d
a p p l i e d H a n t s z c h e ' s p r o c e d u r e as f o l l o w s . M y c o m m e n t s are
i n brackets.
Most studies dealing w i t h areas less than ideally suited to

septic systems recommend densities closer to one [single
house] system per five acres. Average septic system density
i n the X X X area is one system per 0.17 acre.
. . . While a number of factors . . . affect the nature and
degree of the contamination problem caused by septic sys-
tems, the density of the systems is the principal controlling
factor. A s lot size increases, groundwater contamination
problems decline since more groundwater is available for
dilution of the septic tank effluent percolating into the
aquifer.
U s i n g the following equation, it is possible to estimate the
critical development density (Dc), defined as the acre/
dwelling unit ratio, that will result i n an areawide percolate
nitrate nitrogen concentration of 10 m g / L (45 m g / L as
nitrate).
Dc = (2.01)(Np - 10)/(DP)(10 - Nb)
Dc = Critical development density, acre/edu. [ A n edu is

an "equivalent dwelling unit," a single house or
something like it.]
N p = Wastewater nitrate nitrogen concentration, m g / L
(assumed to be 40 m g / L i n the f o l l o w i n g
calculations).
N b = Background nitrate nitrogen concentration of perco-
lation rainfall (mg/L); assumed to be 0.5 m g / L .
D P = Deep percolation of rainfall (in/yr); 12 inches/year
assumed.
2.01 = Conversion factor for assumption of the discharge
rate of 150 gallons of effluent/edu/day.
APPENDIX S 377
[At this point I w o u l d like to note that 150 gallons of effluent

per day w i t h 40 m g N / L results i n a nitrogen output of 8.3 kg/
year/edu. This is low. The 40 m g N / L figure is probably cor-
rect as a local average, but the average outflow i n neighboring
sewered areas is 280-300 gallons/day. A t 300 gallons/day, the
nitrogen output w o u l d be 16.6 kg/year/edu, similar to the
figure i n Chapter 12 of this book (Section 12.1). This book
uses 6 k g N/person/year; since there is an average of 3
people/edu locally, an edu w o u l d discharge 18 k g N/year;
septage pumpings and some denitrification w o u l d reduce
this figure by roughly 20% to about 15 k g N/year.]
Therefore,
Dc = 2.01 (40 - 10)/12(10 - 0.5) = 0.53 acres/edu
The value of 12 in/year for deep percolation of rainfall

assumed i n this calculation is probably unrealistic . . . a more
realistic figure (3.72 in/year) yields the following result for the
study area:
Dc = 2.01(40 - 10)/3.72(10 - 0.5) = 1.71 acres/edu
Based o n these calculations, septic system densities of 0.53

to 1.71 acres/edu should not result i n violation of the primary
drinking water standard for nitrate i n ground water. Cur-
rently, the average density of developments o n septic sys-
tems i n the study area is 0.17 acres/edu.
[The assumption that 3.72 inches/year percolate d o w n to the
aquifer i n the local area under study is probably incorrect. Per
Bulletin 33 of the California Department of Public Works,
1930, all of the scant local precipitation, about 16 inches/year,
runs off or is lost to evapotranspiration. I pointed this out to a
W Q C B engineer and he noted that the suspect figure was
derived i n an engineering study; I checked this study's tables
and saw that the suspect figure was an average for a very
large region, w h i c h comprises a small area w i t h much
precipitation-mountains —and a very large area w i t h very
little precipitation-desert! Though the W Q C B calculation
might be valid for the region as a whole, it has no scientific
validity for the local area " X X X . " "Estimation of Natural
Groundwater Recharge" emphasizes that, r e g a r d i n g

3
groundwater recharge i n arid areas, " N o single comprehen-

sive estimation technique can yet be identified from the spec-
trum of methods available; all are reported to give suspect
results." A n d the W Q C B engineer was aware of the fallacy of
averages,* but as an engineer, presumably he had to act and
do the best he could with the data available.]
W e l l , since m o s t l o c a l d e v e l o p e r s w e r e p l a c i n g s i n g l e
h o m e s o n lots s m a l l e r t h a n 0.53 acres, the d e v e l o p e r s ' e n g i -
neers h a d to f i n d a n o t h e r w a y of j u s t i f y i n g s u c h d e v e l o p -
m e n t to the W Q C B . A n d t h e y f o u n d it i n C h a p t e r 12 of S e p t i c
S y s t e m s H a n d b o o k (Section 12.3). S o d i d a c o n s u l t a n t w e ' l l c a l l
S S C . B u t after h e p r o d u c e d m a n y nitrate i m p a c t r e p o r t s ,
S S C felt b a d . H e w a s a w a r e that p i e c e m e a l a p p r o a c h e s d o n ' t
w o r k too w e l l , a n d the i m p a c t s t u d i e s w e r e p i e c e m e a l . It just
d i d n ' t feel r i g h t to c o n t i n u e w i t h the same r o u t i n e .
F u r t h e r m o r e , a c o u n t y j u r i s d i c t i o n w a s r e q u i r i n g the f o l -
l o w i n g f r o m developers:
Prior to recordation [of the tract] submit an engineering

report assessing the impact of the subsurface septic system i n
relation to nitrates o n the underlying groundwater. The
report should include geologic and hydrologic evidence that
the discharged waste w i l l not individually or collectively,
directly or indirectly, adversely impact the water quality
(nitrate level) of the area. Should the water quality be
adversely affected, hook u p to sewers w i l l be required.
W h e n S S C c a l l e d this j u r i s d i c t i o n , a s a n i t a r i a n t o l d h i m
that " j u s t a n y r e p o r t w o u l d d o " ; the s a n i t a r i a n d i d n ' t u n d e r -
s t a n d w h a t the r e q u i r e m e n t e n t a i l e d . Its w o r d s w e r e clear,
b u t n o o n e c o u l d h a v e u n d e r s t o o d the r e q u i r e m e n t , n o t e v e n
w h o e v e r a u t h o r e d it, because it h a d n o t b e e n e x p r e s s e d p e r
* A n easy way to illustrate this type of fallacy follows. A medical researcher

visits a tribal chieftain. One of the chieftain's four wives is pregnant, in her
eighth month. Since 8 (months) divided by 4 (wives) equals 2 months per
wife, the reseacher reports to the chieftain that his wives are two months
pregnant.
APPENDIX S 379
scientific m e t h o d o l o g y . If it h a d b e e n , the t e r m " a d v e r s e "

w o u l d have been defined i n a quantitative w a y a n d i n func-
t i o n of a m e t h o d o l o g y or m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l . T h i s i n t u r n
w o u l d h a v e d e f i n e d a l l the variables that m u s t be e s t i m a t e d
o r d e t e r m i n e d . F o r t u n a t e l y , the s a n i t a r i a n k n e w o n e crite-
r i o n for s i g n i f i c a n c e , " a n increase of 1 p p m (part p e r m i l l i o n )
n i t r o g e n content i n the w a t e r . " T h i s e n a b l e d S S C to w r i t e a
few more impact reports.
T h e sanitarian's j u r i s d i c t i o n w a s u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e of the
W Q C B . S S C w r o t e a letter to the W Q C B e n g i n e e r , a n d s u g -
g e s t e d that:
. . .By determining what is the carrying capacity of the aquifer

for added nitrates, it might not be necessary to require devel-
opers to produce a nitrate impact report every time they want
to record a tract. . . .
A f t e r s e n d i n g the letter, S S C m e t w i t h the W Q C B e n g i n e e r

a n d c o u n t y s a n i t a r i a n s . T h e y d i s c u s s e d the issues a n d the
d i f f i c u l t i e s of d e f i n i n g a n d m e a s u r i n g nitrate i m p a c t . F o r
i n s t a n c e , the e n g i n e e r b r o u g h t u p the p o i n t that, a c c o r d i n g
to h i s geologist, the a q u i f e r f l o w velocities S S C w a s u s i n g i n
h i s nitrate i m p a c t r e p o r t s w e r e too fast; a c o u n t y geologist
w h o w a s p r e s e n t stated that t h e y w e r e too s l o w . S S C
p o i n t e d o u t that the velocities w e r e o b t a i n e d b y a h y d r o g e o l -
o g y p r o f e s s o r w h o tested 400 w e l l s i n the i m p a c t e d area, a n d
that t h i s w a s the best that state-of-the-art k n o w l e d g e c o u l d
offer. T h e W Q C B e n g i n e e r stated that h e w o u l d not r e q u i r e
nitrate i m p a c t r e p o r t s i n the f u t u r e , because h e t h o u g h t that
it w a s easy f o r c o n s u l t a n t s to o b t a i n f a v o r a b l e results b y
m a k i n g subjective (but n o t " i n c o r r e c t " ) a s s u m p t i o n s . H e
w o u l d p r o b a b l y r e q u i r e a m i n i m u m lot size of about 0.5 acres
per h o m e .
A t t h i s m e e t i n g , S S C m i g h t h a v e m i s l e d the c o u n t y s a n i -
t a r i a n w h e n he t o l d h i m that the w a y to m a k e results objec-
tive w a s to d e f i n e i n a d v a n c e the p a r a m e t e r s n e e d e d a n d
also to m a k e the p a r a m e t e r s restrictive to e n s u r e safety. T h e
s a n i t a r i a n o n l y d i d the latter a n d r e s t r i c t e d the a l l o w a b l e
d e p t h of m i x i n g i n the aquifer to 100 feet m a x i m u m . U n d e r

this r e s t r i c t i o n S S C c o u l d n o l o n g e r p r o v e that the average
s u b d i v i s i o n tract w o u l d h a v e a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t , if h e
c o n t i n u e d u s i n g the m e t h o d o l o g y d e s c r i b e d i n S e p t i c S y s t e m s
H a n d b o o k S e c t i o n 12.3. B u t S S C k n e w he c o u l d achieve the
s a m e result w i t h a m o r e c o m p l e x m e t h o d o l o g y . (This m e t h -
o d o l o g y is d e s c r i b e d i n A p p e n d i x U , P r o b l e m 14.)
W h e n S S C p r e p a r e d a n o t h e r nitrate i m p a c t r e p o r t for a
n e w client, he d e v e l o p e d a m o r e c o m p l e x a n d realistic
m o d e l . H e s u b m i t t e d it to the c o u n t y . T h e c o u n t y a p p r o v e d
it a n d r e s c i n d e d the r e q u i r e m e n t for nitrate i m p a c t r e p o r t s : It
a p p e a r s that the r e p o r t m a d e it easy to v i s u a l i z e w h y e v e n a
h i g h - d e n s i t y s u b d i v i s i o n , b y itself, o v e r a n a q u i f e r h u n d r e d s
of feet b e l o w g r o u n d , w o u l d not cause a s i g n i f i c a n t nitrate
impact.
L a t e r o n , at a n o f f i c i a l m e e t i n g , a W Q C B e n g i n e e r m e t
w i t h a g r o u p of c o n s u l t a n t s a n d e x p l a i n e d that the W Q C B
w o u l d i m p o s e a m i n i m u m lot size of 0.5 acres for s i n g l e
r e s i d e n c e s . S S C m e n t i o n e d that the c a l c u l a t i o n s to d e r i v e
this lot size w e r e b a s e d o n the fallacy of averages ( a v e r a g i n g
a large area w i t h little or n o r a i n f a l l recharge a n d a little area
w i t h m u c h recharge) a n d that specific c o m m u n i t i e s m i g h t
n o t be p r o t e c t e d : T h e g r o u n d w a t e r of s o m e c o m m u n i t i e s
c o u l d be s e v e r e l y i m p a c t e d b y nitrates at the s a m e t i m e that
o t h e r n e i g h b o r i n g c o m m u n i t i e s w o u l d be e x p e r i e n c i n g n o
p r o b l e m s at a l l . S S C also m e n t i o n e d that since the a m o u n t of
percolated precipitation reaching groundwater was probably
z e r o t h r o u g h o u t m o s t of the area of c o n c e r n , lot size w a s n o t
as r e l e v a n t as it a p p e a r e d . W i t h i n a g i v e n w i d t h p e r p e n d i c u -
lar to the f l o w of a n aquifer, 50 h o m e s o n 0.17-acre lots
w o u l d result i n a g r o u n d w a t e r nitrate l e v e l n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l
to that of 50 h o m e s o n 10-acre lots. T h e e n g i n e e r w a s q u i t e
a w a r e of t h i s . H e s a i d that the W Q C B h a d a l r e a d y c o m m i s -
s i o n e d a ( n a t i o n a l l y k n o w n ) e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m to d o a
detailed areawide hydrogeological study. This was a move-
m e n t i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n .
H o w e v e r , a m o v e m e n t i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n m a y n o t be
e n o u g h . I d o u b t that a s o l u t i o n w i l l be f o u n d a n y t i m e s o o n ,
APPENDIX S 381
u n l e s s the b u d g e t for the h y d r o g e o l o g i c a l s t u d y is v e r y g e n -

e r o u s or else a totally d i f f e r e n t w a y of t h i n k i n g a n d p r o b l e m -
s o l v i n g is a d o p t e d . I h a v e w o r k e d for a n d w i t h e n g i n e e r s
a n d r e v i e w e d t h o u s a n d s of their r e p o r t s . It is m y i m p r e s s i o n
that consultant's reports t e n d to r e a c h c o n c l u s i o n s not so
m u c h o n the basis of w h a t ' s r e a l l y h a p p e n i n g o u t there i n
n a t u r e ( w h i c h is v e r y d i f f i c u l t to ascertain), b u t v e r y m u c h
o n the basis of legal a n d b u d g e t a r y c o n s t r a i n t s . A s t h e y
m u s t , t h e y d o the best t h e y c a n w i t h the m o n e y a n d data
a v a i l a b l e . O f t e n , this is g o o d e n o u g h ; s o m e t i m e s , it i s n ' t . If
t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n s are b a s e d o n f l i m s y data or a s s u m p t i o n s ,
so that the c o n c l u s i o n s are w o r t h l e s s , that's the best t h e y c a n
d o ; t h e y can't w o r k for free. A n d I d o n ' t fault t h e m for t h i s .
B u t m u c h too o f t e n s u c h reports are treated l i k e G o d ' s w o r d
b y less s o p h i s t i c a t e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s o r n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l
p e o p l e , a n d t h e y c a n lay the g r o u n d for m o n u m e n t a l goofs
w h e n translated into policy, legislation, or p l a n n i n g
schemes.
A n d there is a n o t h e r t r o u b l e s o m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I n g e n -
eral, c o n s u l t a n t s g i v e their clients w h a t their clients request.
If the clients d o n ' t k n o w w h a t t h e y w a n t , t h e y d o n ' t get w h a t
t h e y n e e d . I suspect that the W Q C B d o e s n ' t k n o w w h a t to
r e q u i r e because the d e c i s i o n m a k e r s , the legislators w h o
w r i t e the l a w s , d o n ' t k n o w either. F o r e x a m p l e , w h a t is the
d e f i n i t i o n of " a d v e r s e i m p a c t " ? Is it to be d e f i n e d as r e a c h i n g
a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 1% or of 100% of the s t a n d a r d (45 p p m
nitrate)? T i m e w i s e , w i l l the c o n c e n t r a t i o n be m e a s u r e d as a n
average or o n the basis of data o b t a i n e d d u r i n g the w o r s t
three c o n s e c u t i v e d r o u g h t years? H o w is it g o i n g to be
d e f i n e d r e g a r d i n g space c o o r d i n a t e s ? Is it g o i n g to be b a s e d
o n the d e g r a d a t i o n of the u p p e r 10 feet of aquifer or of the
l o w e r 10 percent of w e l l d e p t h s ? Is it to be b a s e d o n a p e r -
centage of w e l l s p r o t e c t e d , of w e l l y i e l d p r o t e c t e d , or of
w a t e r c o n s u m e r s protected? W h a t d e p t h a n d lateral s p r e a d
of p o l l u t i o n are to be c o n s i d e r e d a d v e r s e i m p a c t ? W h i c h
m e t h o d o l o g y for s a m p l i n g a n d a n a l y s i s w i l l be c h o s e n ? A t
w h a t cost d o e s a c e r t a i n l e v e l of p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l effort
b e c o m e excessive? B e y o n d w h a t l e v e l of e x p e n d i t u r e w o u l d
m o n e y h a v e m o r e u t i l i t y if s p e n t o n c o n t r o l l i n g o t h e r p o l l u -
tants, o n e d u c a t i o n , o n p r o v i d i n g a r e v e r s e - o s m o s i s d e v i c e
at e v e r y h o m e , or o n s o m e t h i n g else?
T h o u g h the last c h a p t e r of the nitrate p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l
saga w i l l not be w r i t t e n b y m e , a n d p e r h a p s n o t b y a n y o n e i n
this c e n t u r y , I h o p e that this n a r r a t i v e y i e l d e d i n s i g h t s
r e g a r d i n g s o m e of the w a y s i n w h i c h t e c h n i c a l / s c i e n t i f i c
k n o w l e d g e (or, m o r e accurately, the lack thereof) m a y inter-
act w i t h l a w , p o l i c y , e c o n o m i c s , a n d ethics, a m o n g o t h e r
t h i n g s . E v e r y t h i n g is r e l a t e d to e v e r y t h i n g else, a n d
p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g o u g h t to take this i n t o a c c o u n t . A s i m i l a r
saga c o u l d h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n a b o u t a m y r i a d of o t h e r
problems.
W e h a v e s e e n that a n e t h i c a l c o n c e r n , p r o t e c t i n g the q u a l -
ity of ( d r i n k a b l e ) g r o u n d w a t e r , w a s e m b o d i e d i n l e g i s l a t i o n .
P o s s i b l y a n o t h e r ethical c o n c e r n ( p r e v e n t i n g abuse of
p o w e r ) , r e s u l t e d i n l e g i s l a t i o n that t i e d u p at least o n e h a n d
of the W Q C B . T h e n w e s a w h o w s o m e j u r i s d i c t i o n s
a t t e m p t e d to c o n t r o l a n i m p r o p e r l y d e f i n e d nitrate p o l l u t i o n
p r o b l e m the best t h e y c o u l d w i t h costly t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r
efforts. I r o n i c a l l y , w h i l e the p r e s e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s for larger
lot sizes i n o u r a r i d areas h a v e a v e r y w e a k scientific basis,
s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t s m i g h t d o s o m e g o o d because of the
" b a c k - d o o r " i m p a c t of e c o n o m i c s : the cost of larger lot sizes
may i n d u c e d e v e l o p e r s to b u i l d o n s m a l l , s e w e r e d lots. A n d
s e w e r i n g a n d t r e a t i n g ( a n d d e n i t r i f y i n g ) s e w a g e at a s e w a g e
treatment p l a n t c a n r e d u c e the nitrate p o l l u t i o n p r o b l e m .
REFERENCES
1. P e r k i n s , K . 1989. C a l i f o r n i a e n v i r o n m e n t a l p o l i c y : a t i m e
for c h a n g e . Calif. J. E n v i r o n . H e a l t h 12:16-18.
2. G r e e n , K . C . 1989. A p r o f i l e of u n d e r g r a d u a t e s i n the
sciences. A m . S c i e n t i s t 77:475-480.
3. A n d e r s o n , M . 1989. R e v i e w of E s t i m a t i o n of N a t u r a l
G r o u n d w a t e r R e c h a r g e . A m . S c i e n t i s t 77:491-492.
Appendix T
D E A L I N G EFFECTIVELY WITH B U R E A U C R A C Y
O n e w o u l d i m a g i n e that p r o f e s s i o n a l s are h i r e d to m a k e ,
u n d e r s t a n d , a n d a d a p t or b e n d r u l e s for s o u n d e t h i c a l or
t e c h n i c a l r e a s o n s . B u t w h e n p r o f e s s i o n a l s b e c o m e part of
a l m o s t a n y o r g a n i z a t i o n , p u b l i c or p r i v a t e , t h e y m a y n o t act
as o n e m i g h t expect. A n o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s b u r e a u c r a t s are
h u m a n b e i n g s w h o t r y to d o t h e i r jobs, safely. If t h e y are
s u b s e r v i e n t to " t h e r u l e of r u l e s " a n d f o l l o w the letter of the
l a w (or o r d i n a n c e or r u l e ) , t h e y are v e r y safe (even t h o u g h
the results of t h e i r actions m a y s o m e t i m e s be i r r a t i o n a l o r
c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e ) . If t h e y f o l l o w the r u l e of r e a s o n a n d
b e n d or break r u l e s , t h e y m a y e v e n t u a l l y goof a n d be s u b -
jected to r e p r o o f a n d c h a s t i s e m e n t . (That's h o w the s y s t e m
w o r k s . ) S o , the easiest w a y to d e a l w i t h a n a p p a r e n t l y
u n r e a s o n a b l e b u r e a u c r a t is to h e l p t h i s p e r s o n h e l p y o u .
Years ago, C S S S , a c o u n t y septic s y s t e m s specialist, w a s
b o t h e r e d b y h i s c o u n t y ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s for e x p e n s i v e p e r c o l a -
t i o n test reports i n s o m e c o m m u n i t i e s that h a d g o o d s a n d y
soils a n d d i d n ' t n e e d s u c h r e p o r t s . To h e l p p r o s p e c t i v e h o m e
b u i l d e r s , C S S S p r e p a r e d a n o f f i c i a l f o r m a n d t i t l e d it, " S o i l s
E v a l u a t i o n . " W h e n the soils w e r e g o o d , C S S S c o n f i r m e d this
fact b y i n s p e c t i n g e x p l o r a t o r y t r e n c h e s i n the f i e l d a n d f i l l e d
o u t the " S o i l s E v a l u a t i o n " f o r m w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of the s o i l
p r o f i l e a n d w i t h a p e r c o l a t i o n rate that h e a s s i g n e d . T h i s
f i l l e d - o u t f o r m s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the f o r m a l a n d e x p e n s i v e p e r -
c o l a t i o n test r e p o r t . H o m e b u i l d e r s s a v e d q u i t e a bit of
383
m o n e y because of this f o r m . B u t , a l l of a s u d d e n , o n e d a y a n
e n g i n e e r f r o m a state a g e n c y rejected these " S o i l E v a l u a t i o n "
f o r m s . H e t o l d C S S S that h i s state agency c o u l d not accept
the f o r m s because h i s agency's r u l e s r e q u i r e d f i l i n g a p e r c o l a -
t i o n test r e p o r t .
S o , C S S S i m m e d i a t e l y c h a n g e d the title of the f o r m to
" S o i l s P e r c o l a t i o n Test R e p o r t , " r e - f i l l e d it w i t h i d e n t i c a l
data, a n d r e - s u b m i t t e d it. T h e e n g i n e e r ( a n d h i s agency)
accepted this " p e r c o l a t i o n test r e p o r t " a n d the o n e s that f o l -
l o w e d . (This e n g i n e e r w a s a v e r y i n t e l l i g e n t p r o f e s s i o n a l . H e
w a s a w a r e of w h a t C S S S d i d . R u l e s h a d to be o b e y e d , a n d
h e d i d obey. If he h a d n ' t , h i s agency m i g h t h a v e b e e n s u e d
b y s o m e p u n c t i l i o u s l a w y e r , a n d he w o u l d h a v e b e e n i n
t r o u b l e . Bureaucracies t e n d to be h i g h l y r i s k - a v e r s i v e . )
If o n e is at o d d s w i t h a b u r e a u c r a t r e g a r d i n g the i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n of r e g u l a t i o n s , o n e s h o u l d p o l i t e l y a n d a m i a b l y request
to h a v e a talk w i t h a s u p e r v i s o r . If the matter of disagree-
m e n t is so f u n d a m e n t a l that the r e g u l a t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s
s h o u l d be c h a n g e d , it p a y s to go d i r e c t l y to the p e r s o n at the
v e r y t o p of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . S u c h a p e r s o n is less b o u n d b y
r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d m u c h m o r e l i k e l y to f o l l o w the
r u l e of r e a s o n . Before g o i n g to the t o p p e r s o n , y o u s h o u l d
e x p l a i n y o u r p o i n t of v i e w a n d r e a s o n i n g to the b u r e a u c r a t ,
a m i a b l y . If y o u engage i n w h a t is p e r c e i v e d as u n f a i r i n t i m i -
d a t i o n or p o w e r p l a y s , bureaucrats m a y f i g h t back i n a w a y
r e m i n i s c e n t of g u e r r i l l a w a r f a r e .
APPENDIX U
Problems Solved, Questions Answered
T h e f o l l o w i n g p r o b l e m s a n d q u e s t i o n s g i v e tips o n h o w to
h a n d l e obstacles o n e m a y e n c o u n t e r i n p r o f e s s i o n a l practice.
S o m e are b a s e d o n errors c o m m i t t e d r o u t i n e l y b y expert
consultants.
P R O B L E M 1. Perk times of a mixture
W e h a v e a large m o u n d of a d r y u n i f o r m s a n d . It w e i g h s
o n e m i l l i o n t o n s . A p e r k test o n this s a n d g i v e s a p e r k t i m e of
1 m i n u t e / c m . W e m i x a n d r e m i x this s a n d t o p to b o t t o m a n d
side to s i d e , a n d retest. W e still get 1 m i n u t e / c m .
N e a r b y w e h a v e a large m o u n d of a d r y u n i f o r m g r a v e l . It
also w e i g h s exactly o n e m i l l i o n t o n s . Its p e r k t i m e is 0.05
m i n u t e / c m , b o t h before a n d after w e m i x it as i n the p a r a -
g r a p h a b o v e . T h e m i n e r a l o g i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n of the s a n d a n d
the g r a v e l are the s a m e . T h e s a n d particle d e n s i t y is i d e n t i c a l
to the g r a v e l particle d e n s i t y .
W e m i x a n d r e m i x the s a n d a n d the g r a v e l together, u n t i l
the m i x t u r e is p e r f e c t l y u n i f o r m e v e r y w h e r e , a n d w e test
a n d m e a s u r e its p e r k t i m e .
385
Multiple choice question
W h a t ' s t h e m o s t l i k e l y v a l u e of t h e p e r k test result o n this

m i x t u r e , i n m i n u t e s p e r centimeter?
a) The arithmetic mean of 1 and 0.05

b) The harmonic mean of 1 and 0.05
c) The geometric mean of 1 and 0.05
d) A bit larger than 1
e) A bit larger than 0.05
f) A bit smaller than 0.05
g) Other: explain
Answer
( S u r p r i s i n g l y , m a t h e m a t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d p e o p l e are l i k e l y t o
give the w r o n g answer.) O n e must visualize what's g o i n g
o n . I m a g i n e w a t e r p e r c o l a t i n g t h r o u g h s a n d . T h e p a t h of a
c u b i c m i c r o n of w a t e r is f a i r l y straight d o w n w a r d . N o w
i m a g i n e that there are b i g stones o r g r a v e l i n t e r s p e r s e d
w i t h i n t h e s a n d . T h e p a t h of t h e c u b i c m i c r o n of w a t e r is n o
l o n g e r as straight as before. T h i s c u b i c m i c r o n m o v e s d o w n
u n t i l it hits g r a v e l o r a large stone, t h e n it m o v e s s o m e w h a t
s i d e w a y s a n d t h e n d o w n u n t i l it h i t s another, a n d so o n : T h e
p a t h is m o r e t o r t u o u s a n d l o n g e r t h a n i n t h e p u r e s a n d . T h e
p a t h X h a s i n c r e a s e d , a n d t h e p e r m e a b i l i t y decreases. S o ,
the v e l o c i t y of f l o w decreases a n d d is t h e r i g h t a n s w e r .
M a t h e m a t i c a l averages are n o n s e n s i c a l i n t h i s case.
W h e n d e a l i n g w i t h other soil-related p r o b l e m s , o n e
s h o u l d try to f o r m a m e n t a l p i c t u r e of w h a t ' s g o i n g o n i n t h e
soil.
P R O B L E M 2. Applicability of Darcy's formula
A n i n v e s t i g a t o r t o o k a t i n c a n , d r i l l e d a little h o l e at t h e
b o t t o m , f i l l e d t h e c a n w i t h w a t e r to a h e i g h t h above t h e
h o l e , let t h e w a t e r f l o w o u t of t h e little h o l e , a n d c h e c k e d
APPENDIX U 387
w h e t h e r the rate of decrease i n h e i g h t h (rate of fall i n the

w a t e r level) w a s d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to the h e i g h t s h of the
w a t e r l e v e l at different t i m e s d u r i n g the f a l l . H e c o n d u c t e d
t w o i n i t i a l trials, w i t h t w o m e a s u r e m e n t s each, a n d i n each
trial the t i m e for h to fall f r o m 16 to 15 c m w a s h a l f the t i m e it
t o o k to fall f r o m 8 to 7.5 c m . H e c o n c l u d e d that the rates of
fall are d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to the h e i g h t s h , as p r e d i c t e d b y
Darcy's formula.
Question A
D i d the i n v e s t i g a t o r r e a c h a v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n ?
Answer
N o . B e r n o u l l i ' s f u n d a m e n t a l l a w of h y d r a u l i c s relates the

p r e s s u r e h e a d , the v e l o c i t y , a n d the e l e v a t i o n of p o i n t s a l o n g
a l i n e of w a t e r f l o w . It is e x p r e s s e d as
p + 0.5DV + D g h = constant
2
w h e r e p is the p r e s s u r e h e a d , D is the d e n s i t y of water, V is

the v e l o c i t y of water, g is the g r a v i t a t i o n a l c o n s t a n t , a n d h is
the e l e v a t i o n above a n arbitrary l e v e l .
L e t u s v i s u a l i z e the s a m e variables at t w o p o i n t s , o n e
w i t h i n the c a n a n d o n e just o u t s i d e the c a n : one p o i n t is
w i t h i n the c a n , at the t o p of the f a l l i n g w a t e r c o l u m n , a n d
the other o n e is just o u t s i d e the c a n , at the b e g i n n i n g of the
little s p o u t of w a t e r ( w h i c h is c o m i n g o u t of the little h o l e i n
the can's b o t t o m ) . Let the first p o i n t be 1, a n d let the o t h e r
p o i n t (at the spout) be 2.
Per Bernoulli's law,
p + 0.5DV + D g h = p + 0.5DV + D g h
1 1 1 2 2 2
N o w p a n d p c a n be e l i m i n a t e d , as b o t h are e q u a l to the
1 2
a t m o s p h e r i c p r e s s u r e . T h e D ' s cancel o u t . W e c a n a r b i t r a r i l y
locate the p e r f o r a t i o n at a c o o r d i n a t e p o i n t e q u a l to z e r o so
that h 2 = zero a n d is the h e i g h t above the o r i f i c e . A n d

s i m p l i f y i n g a n d r e a r r a n g i n g the leftover t e r m s of the e q u a -
t i o n a b o v e , w e get
V -V
1
2
2
2
= 2gh 1
We know that the fall of the water level is extremely slow

compared to the speed of the water coming out of the tiny
perforation (the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the
direction of the flow in the can versus that in the perforation
could be in a ratio of 1000 to 1, respectively, or higher).
Then, let V = uV where u is a very small fraction.

2 1
Therefore, V - u V = 2gh ; and rearranging,

1
2
2 1
2
1
V, = 2gh /(1-u ); or, V =

2
2gh /(1-u )
1
2
1 1
2
a n d since o n e m i n u s the square of a v e r y s m a l l f r a c t i o n is still

a b o u t o n e , w e h a v e that the v e l o c i t y of fall is d i r e c t l y p r o p o r -
t i o n a l to the square root of the h e i g h t of the w a t e r l e v e l . S o ,
the w a t e r l e v e l rate of fall at a n y h e i g h t h s h o u l d be (square
root of 2 =) 1.4 times larger t h a n at h a l f the s a m e h e i g h t .
D a r c y ' s f o r m u l a a p p l i e s o n l y to f l o w t h r o u g h a p o r o u s
m e d i u m , l i k e s o i l or f r i t t e d glass. A n d the m e d i u m c a n n o t
h a v e large c o n t i n u o u s m a c r o p o r e c h a n n e l s .
Question B
The investigator repeated his measurements, but this time

he d i d n ' t just d e t e r m i n e the v e l o c i t y of fall at a " h i g h h " l e v e l
a n d t h e n at half that h e i g h t . H e c o n d u c t e d a w h o l e series of
m e a s u r e m e n t s o v e r a r a n g e of h's i n t w o n e w trials. H i s
m e a s u r e m e n t s are g i v e n i n Table U . 1 . (These are real e x p e r i -
m e n t a l v a l u e s ) . S t u d y the data i n the table a n d see if y o u c a n
e x p l a i n w h y the investigator's i n i t i a l m e a s u r e m e n t s l e d h i m
to the w r o n g c o n c l u s i o n .
APPENDIX U 389
Table U . l New Rate-of-Fall Measurements in a Tin Can Perforated at

the Bottom
First Trial Second Trial
h Time Interval Time Interval
(cm) (min:sec) (sec) (min:sec) (sec)
16 0:3 0:0
6 7
15.5 0:9 0:7
8 7
15 0:17 0:14
7
14.5 - 14
0:21
8
14 0:31 0:29
9 8
13.5 0:40 0:37
6
13 - 17
0:43
11
12.5 0:57 0:54
8 7
12 1:05 1:01
9
11.5 - 1:10
10
18
11 1:23 1:20
12 7
10.5 1:32 1:27
7 8
10 1:39 1:35
9
9.5 - 17
1:44
9
9 1:56 1:53
12 10
8.5 2:06 2:03
10 11
8 2:16 2:14
11 10
7.5 2:27 2:24
11 9
7 2:38 2:35
11 11
6.5 2:49 2:46
11 12
6 3:00 2:58
11 11
5.5 3:11 3:09
12 13
5 3:23 3:22
16 14
4.5 3:39 3:36
15 14
4 3:54 3:50
Answer
If w e l o o k at the first-trial data, w e see that the w a t e r l e v e l

t o o k 6 s e c o n d s to fall f r o m 16 c m to 15.5 c m . A n d it t o o k 11
s e c o n d s to f a l l f r o m 8 c m to 7.75 c m . H a l v i n g the h e i g h t
r e s u l t e d i n h a l v i n g the rate: 6/11 = 0.54. H o w e v e r , the first-
trial data s h o w that the m e a s u r e d t i m e s are " j u m p y " because
of l o w p r e c i s i o n a n d accuracy. ( C o m p a r e w i t h the d a t a f r o m
the s e c o n d trial.) T h e fall i n w a t e r l e v e l w h e n h is at 16 c m is
v e r y fast, a n d d u r i n g the first trial the i n v e s t i g a t o r d i d n ' t
r e a d the f a l l i n g h l e v e l p r e c i s e l y e n o u g h . B y c o m p a r i n g the
first-trial i n t e r v a l s at 4.25 a n d 8.5 c m , w h e n the w a t e r is
f a l l i n g m o r e s l o w l y , w e get the e x p e c t e d result, that the ratio
of decrease is p r o p o r t i o n a l to the square root of the ratio of h .
T h e s a m e correct result is seen t h r o u g h o u t the s e c o n d - t r i a l
data.
T h e d i d a c t i c v a l u e of this p r o b l e m is that the e x p e r i m e n t a l
s e t u p a n d the variables w e r e v e r y s i m p l e , yet a n i n v e s t i g a t o r
w a s m i s l e d b y t w o i n i t i a l trials. It m a y be far m o r e d i f f i c u l t to
i n t e r p r e t data o b t a i n e d f r o m e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t u p s i n v o l v i n g
a c t u a l soils a n d far m o r e c o m p l e x p h y s i c a l a n d b i o l o g i c a l
variables.
P R O B L E M 3. Depth of ponding and absorption rate
A s r e p o r t e d b y L a a k , the L o n g T e r m A b s o r p t i o n Rate
1
( L T A R ) of a s o i l surface w i t h p o n d e d septic t a n k e f f l u e n t
o v e r it is r o u g h l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to the c u b i c root of the c o n -
stant h e i g h t (or d e p t h ) of the e f f l u e n t o v e r it. ( A t a g i v e n
d e p t h of e f f l u e n t p o n d i n g , a s o i l surface s h o u l d k e e p o n
a b s o r b i n g e f f l u e n t f o r e v e r at the s a m e L T A R . )
A s s u m e that this c u b i c root m a t h e m a t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p is
f a i r l y exact o v e r a w i d e range of p o n d i n g d e p t h s .
APPENDIX U 391
Question
I n a g i v e n s o i l , the L T A R m e a s u r e d o v e r a h o r i z o n t a l or
v e r t i c a l s o i l surface is 0.2 g a l l o n s / f t / d a y w i t h p o n d i n g 4 "
2
h i g h o n the average. A s s u m e that w e are g o i n g to i n s t a l l a

seepage p i t or a d e e p l e a c h l i n e t r e n c h i n the s a m e s o i l , a n d
calculate h o w m u c h b i g g e r the average L T A R is i n the s i d e -
w a l l of the p i t (or d e e p trench) f u l l of septic t a n k e f f l u e n t if
the d e p t h of e f f l u e n t w i l l be:
a) 20 times 4"
b) 80 times 4"
Answer
W h e t h e r the o r i g i n a l L T A R w a s m e a s u r e d u n d e r a 4 "
d e p t h or a 4' d e p t h , w e c a n call the o r i g i n a l d e p t h " u n i t y "
a n d the other d e p t h 20 t i m e s u n i t y (or 80 t i m e s u n i t y ) . T h e
total L T A R of a l l the square feet i n a surface area o n e foot
w i d e a n d 20 (or 80) u n i t s l o n g (deep) is g i v e n b y the i n t e g r a l
of the c u b i c root of h (h = d e p t h of p o n d i n g ) , f r o m u n i t y to
20 (or 80). A n d the average L T A R of this v e r t i c a l surface of
square feet r u n n i n g f r o m a h e i g h t of u n i t y to a h e i g h t h = 20
(or 80) t i m e s u n i t y is e q u a l to the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d i n t e g r a l
d i v i d e d b y the h e i g h t h .
W h e n h = 20 or 80, 1/h is n e g l i g i b l e . H e n c e ,
= 3/4 x h 1 / 3
W h e n h = 20 t i m e s u n i t y , L T A R is 0.75 x 2 0 1 3
= 2 times
bigger.
W h e n h = 80 t i m e s u n i t y , L T A R is 0.75 x 8 0 1 3
= 3 times
bigger.
A n d 2 a n d 3 t i m e s 0.2 g a l l o n s / f t / d a y g i v e s r e s p e c t i v e l y
2
L T A R s of 0.4 a n d 0.6 g a l l o n s p e r a v e r a g e square foot of s i d e -

w a l l per day.
References
1. Laak, R. Wastewater Engineering Design for Unsewered

A r e a s . 1986. T e c h n o m i c P u b l i s h i n g C o . , Lancaster, P A .
P R O B L E M 4. Sizing absorption areas
Question
Can l e a c h l i n e s be s i z e d accurately o n the basis of p u b -

l i s h e d data?
Answer
N o . L e t u s c o m p a r e the s i z i n g of l e a c h l i n e s to t a i l o r i n g a
custom-made suit.
Let u s i m a g i n e that w e go to the " P r e c i s e T a i l o r i n g s h o p to
,,
b u y c u s t o m - m a d e , f i n e s u i t s . T h e precise m a s t e r tailor m a i n -
tains that the fit of h i s suits is s u p e r b because h e takes p r e -
cise m e a s u r e m e n t s , to the nearest m i c r o n . (Readers of f e m i -
n i n e g e n d e r , please i m a g i n e g o i n g to a seamstress rather
t h a n to a tailor.) S o , w e are at the s h o p . O u r m e a s u r e m e n t s
are b e i n g t a k e n . W e see that the tailor's m e a s u r i n g tape h a s
99 m a r k s l a b e l e d centimeters, a n d at the e n d it has a m i c r o -
meter c a l i b r a t e d to r e a d 1 c m exactly f r o m 0 to 10,000 m i -
c r o n s (zero to o n e centimeter). To o u r c o n s t e r n a t i o n , w e see
that the tape is m a d e o u t of r u b b e r o r s o m e t h i n g l i k e that,
b e c a u s e it s h r i n k s o r e x p a n d s r a n d o m l y to 1/3 to 3 t i m e s its
average l e n g t h . T h e m i c r o n s m i g h t be v e r y precise a n d a c c u -
rate, b u t the centimeters m i g h t be off b y u p to a factor of 9.
APPENDIX U 393
W o u l d n ' t w e be s k e p t i c a l if the tailor m e a s u r e d o u r w a i s t l i n e

as " e x a c t l y 10.0007 c m " ?
W o u l d y o u b u y a suit f r o m this tailor?
N o ? If y o u h a v e b e e n u s i n g p e r k rates or p e r k t i m e s i n
y o u r practice as a c o n s u l t a n t or as a specialist i n the septic
s y s t e m s f i e l d , p r o b a b l y y o u h a v e b e e n d o i n g the s a m e t y p e
of " p r e c i s e t a i l o r i n g . " A n d p e r h a p s y o u h a v e b o u g h t a n d
s o l d the e m p e r o r ' s clothes, t o o . E x p l a n a t i o n s f o l l o w .
L e t u s a s s u m e that i n a lot or tract w e o b t a i n a r e p l i c a b l e
p e r k t i m e m e a s u r e m e n t of 10 ± 1 m p i ( m i n u t e s p e r i n c h ) . I n
practice, u n l e s s c o n s u l t a n t s h a v e b e e n t r a i n e d a n d d o t h e i r
t e s t i n g i n exactly the s a m e w a y a n d d u r i n g the same s e a s o n
of the y e a r a n d f i n d the s a m e s o i l ( a n d the s a m e s o i l air a n d
w a t e r content a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d t e m p e r a t u r e ) , s u c h p r e c i -
s i o n a n d r e p l i c a b i l i t y w o u l d be v e r y u n u s u a l . N e v e r t h e l e s s ,
let's a s s u m e that w e d o o b t a i n t h i s accurate m e a s u r e m e n t .
N o w w e l o o k u p a table of r e q u i r e d a b s o r p t i o n areas. S u c h
tables c a n be f o u n d i n the E P A M a n u a l , or i n P e r k i n s ' ,
1 2
W i n n e b e r g e r ' s , or L a a k ' s b o o k s . T h e last t w o a u t h o r s rec-

3 4
o m m e n d about t w i c e as m u c h a b s o r p t i o n area as E P A i n the

u s u a l 1-60 m p i r a n g e . H e n c e , o u r "tailor's t a p e " m i g h t be off
b y a factor of t w o .
N o w , let u s c o n s i d e r that l e a c h l i n e l o n g e v i t y w i l l be
affected b y (at least) 2 h i g h l y v a r i a b l e p a r a m e t e r s : v a r i a b i l i t y
of s e w a g e f l o w s a n d v a r i a b i l i t y i n c o m p o s i t i o n of f l o w (fats,
B O D , S S ) . It is also affected b y t e m p e r a t u r e , a e r a t i o n , m i c r o -
b i a l c o m p o s i t i o n , etc. O u r " t a i l o r ' s t a p e " c o u l d w e l l be off the
m a r k b y a factor of 10. T h e a b s o r p t i o n area tables i n the
a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d references 1-4 are l i k e the m i c r o m e t e r at
the e n d of the tailor's tape.
B u t this m i c r o m e t e r itself is not too accurate either! It is
also affected b y the variables m e n t i o n e d i n the p r e v i o u s p a r -
a g r a p h . A n d the m e a n i n g of its m e a s u r e m e n t s is n o t at a l l
clear. S o m e t h i n g terrible h a p p e n s w h e n p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h
is t r a n s l a t e d i n t o p r a c t i c a l r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .
F o r i n s t a n c e , a n i n v e s t i g a t o r m a y d e t e r m i n e that c e r t a i n
s e w a g e at a c e r t a i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d p o n d i n g d e p t h o v e r a
c e r t a i n t y p e of s o i l i n a s o i l c o l u m n of g i v e n d e p t h results i n a
g i v e n l o n g - t e r m acceptance rate (or a b s o r p t i o n rate) for s e w -

age. B u t w h e n this f i n d i n g is t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a table of s e w -
age a p p l i c a t i o n rates, a l l w e see i n the table is that, to a r e a l
s o i l w i t h a g i v e n m p i (or p e r m e a b i l i t y constant), w e are to
a p p l y u p to a g i v e n a m o u n t of s e w a g e p e r square foot. A l l
the o t h e r i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s , a n d their effects, are lost i n
the t r a n s l a t i o n . P r o b l e m s 3 a n d 5 i n this A p p e n d i x i n c l u d e
e x p e r i m e n t s to e m p h a s i z e the d i f f i c u l t i e s of i n t e r p r e t i n g
research results a n d translating t h e m into practical
recommendations.
(Fortunately, t h o u g h p u b l i s h e d s e w a g e a p p l i c a t i o n tables
are n o t as precise a n d accurate as t h e y s e e m , t h e y a l l r e v e a l
that a b s o r p t i o n areas are f a i r l y i n v a r i a n t . T h e a b s o r p t i o n
r e q u i r e m e n t for a 6 0 - m p i s o i l is o n l y about 3 times larger
t h a n that for a 5 - m p i s o i l . O n e c a n err quite a bit i n d e t e r m i n -
i n g a soil's m p i a n d still c o m e u p w i t h f a i r l y decent r e c o m -
m e n d a t i o n s , if o n e uses s u b s t a n t i a l safety factors.)
References
1. U . S. E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y . 1980. D e s i g n
M a n u a l : O n s i t e W a s t e w a t e r Treatment a n d D i s p o s a l
Systems. EPA-625/1-80-012.
2. P e r k i n s , R . 1989. O n s i t e W a s t e w a t e r D i s p o s a l . L e w i s P u b -
l i s h e r s , Inc., C h e l s e a , M I .
3. W i n n e b e r g e r , J. T. 1984. S e p t i c T a n k S y s t e m s , V o l . 1. B u t -
ter w o r t h P u b l i s h e r s , S t o n e h a m , M A .
4. L a a k , R . 1986. W a s t e w a t e r E n g i n e e r i n g D e s i g n f o r U n s e -
w e r e d A r e a s . T e c h n o m i c P u b l i s h i n g C o . , Lancaster, P A .
APPENDIX U 395
P R O B L E M 5. Comparing rates of absorption, water

versus sewage
W h a t f o l l o w s is a n actual e x p e r i m e n t to estimate the r e l a -

tive a b s o r p t i o n rates of t a p w a t e r v e r s u s septic t a n k
effluent.
Experiment
I n t h e first h a l f of 19871 h a d a n e x p e r i m e n t a l l e a c h l i n e b u i l t
o n m y p r o p e r t y . It w a s 3 feet w i d e a n d h a d 6 i n c h e s of 1 " -
d i a m . g r a v e l u n d e r t h e p e r f o r a t e d p i p e . T h e first p o r t i o n of
the l e a c h l i n e h a d about 7.5 ft of b o t t o m area. It w a s g o i n g to
2
receive a l l t h e f l o w f r o m a septic t a n k . T h e o v e r f l o w w a s to
g o to a d i s t a n t l e a c h l i n e . W i t h a v e r t i c a l s l o t t e d p i p e I c o u l d
m o n i t o r the l i q u i d l e v e l . T h e s o i l w a s a p o r o u s l o a m that h a d
tested r o u g h l y 0.5 to 5 m p i .
O n J u l y 19,1987, at 10 a . m . , I s a t u r a t e d t h e as-yet d r y s h o r t
l e a c h l i n e (7.5 f t b o t t o m area) b y f i l l i n g it 6 i n c h e s a b o v e
2
b o t t o m w i t h t a p w a t e r . T h e same d a y , after 4 p . m . , I r e f i l l e d
a n d started m e a s u r i n g h o w fast t h e w a t e r l e v e l w a s decreas-
i n g . I w a n t e d to m e a s u r e t h e rate of a b s o r p t i o n w h e n t h e
w a t e r l e v e l w a s close to t h e b o t t o m . A t s u c h a m o m e n t the
g r a d i e n t w o u l d b e close to u n i t y (the ratio of s u m of surface
h e a d p l u s s o i l h e a d , d i v i d e d b y s o i l h e a d , w o u l d be close to
u n i t y ) , a n d t h e rate w o u l d be c o n s t a n t . T h e results are i n
Table U . 2 .
A f t e r these m e a s u r e m e n t s , I d i v e r t e d a l l t h e s e w a g e f r o m
m y septic t a n k to t h e s a m e s h o r t l e a c h l i n e ( w i t h a b o u t 7.5 f t 2
of b o t t o m area). It k e p t o n r e c e i v i n g septic t a n k e f f l u e n t u n t i l
A p r i l 30, 1988. O n t h i s date, at n o o n , I c u t off t h e f l o w of
e f f l u e n t . T h e l e v e l of (translucent) l i q u i d w i t h i n t h e s h o r t
l e a c h l i n e w e n t d o w n s l o w l y . O n t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , M a y 1,
1988, b y 8:18 a . m . , t h e l e v e l h a d g o n e d o w n 1.94 i n c h e s i n
18.3 h o u r s . T h i s is a n average rate of 0.27 c m / h o u r o r 1.6
g a l l o n s / f t / d a y . I started t h e m e a s u r e m e n t s . T h e s e are i n
2
Table U . 3 .
Table U.2 Drop in Water Level, Tapwater Run

Time Time Increment Level Drop Rate
(hr:min:sec) (sec) (cm) (cm) (cm/hr)
4:49:22 1
54 1 67
4:50:16 2
77 1 46
4:51:33 3
90 1 40
4:53:03 4
99 1 36
4:54:42 5
221 2 32
4:58:21 7
124 1 29
5:00:25 8
123 1 29
5:02:28 9
62 0.5 29
5:03:30 9.5
End of run after two equal measurements. Stabilized rate = 29 cm/hr. Remaining
liquid level was about 4-6 cm from bottom.
Table U.3 Drop in Sewage Level, Sewage Run

Time Time Increment Level Drop Rate
(hr:min) (hr) (cm) (cm) (cm/hr)
08:46 4.85
2.25 0.5 0.22
11:00 5.35
5.17 0.95 0.18
16:10 6.3
16:11
a
0.5 a
3.17 0.6 0.19

19:22 1.1
End of run. Remaining liquid level was about 4-6 cm from bottom. Stabilized
rate = 0.2 cm/hr.
a
A t this moment I adjusted the measurement scale so that the new level read on
the scale was 0.5.
APPENDIX U 397
C o m p a r i n g the tables' s t a b i l i z e d rates, o n e m i g h t be

t e m p t e d to c o n c l u d e that tap w a t e r i n f i l t r a t e d at a n e q u i l i b -
r i u m rate 29/0.2 or a l m o s t 150 t i m e s faster. O r , that s e w a g e
i n f i l t r a t e d the c l o g g i n g l a y e r at a rate a l m o s t 150 t i m e s
s l o w e r . T h i s is w h a t h a p p e n e d i n the e x p e r i m e n t .
Question A
W e r e the rates m e a s u r e d the actual rates of i n f i l t r a t i o n i n t o

the soil?
Answer
Y e s a n d n o . T h e g r a v e l w i t h i n the l e a c h l i n e h a d a b o u t 3 3 %
v o i d s . S o , the rates m e a s u r e d w e r e a b o u t 3 t i m e s faster t h a n
if the g r a v e l h a d b e e n absent.
Question B
C a n o n e c o n c l u d e that ( i n the s o i l used) s e w a g e d i s c h a r g e d

to l e a c h l i n e s infiltrates at a rate l / 1 5 0 t h as fast as p u r e
water?
Answer
N o . T h e e x p e r i m e n t a l results c a n n o t be e x t r a p o l a t e d to a
n o r m a l l e a c h l i n e w i t h 1 to 3 feet of sewage p o n d e d a b o v e
b o t t o m , e v e n if the s o i l a n d t e m p e r a t u r e a n d m i c r o b e s a n d
s e w a g e c o m p o s i t i o n are the s a m e . It w o u l d be l i k e c o m p a r -
i n g a p p l e s a n d o r a n g e s , as e x p l a i n e d b e l o w .
D i s r e g a r d i n g the fact that the tap w a t e r m e a s u r e m e n t s
m a y be o n l y o n e - f i f t h as fast as t h e y s h o u l d be because of air
e n t r a p p e d i n the s o i l p o r e s , * r a i s i n g the l e v e l (pressure
1
head) of p o n d e d w a t e r has a c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t effect f r o m

r a i s i n g the l e v e l of p o n d e d s e w a g e . L e t u s d i s r e g a r d the fact
that the w e t t i n g f r o n t is n o t q u i t e the p o i n t w h e r e g r a d i e n t
*This applies to perk test holes, too.

c a n be m e a s u r e d f r o m (because of " c a p i l l a r y s u c t i o n " just

b e l o w the f r o n t ) . L e t u s also d i s r e g a r d the effect of s i d e w a l l
i n f i l t r a t i o n , as it w o u l d c o m p l i c a t e the p i c t u r e e v e n f u r t h e r .
Let's concentrate o n the b o t t o m of the l e a c h l i n e t r e n c h .
L e t u s a s s u m e that w e increase the l e v e l of p o n d e d w a t e r
f r o m 6 to 60 c m , a n d that the s i d e w a l l s d o n o t absorb a n y
w a t e r . (This w o u l d o c c u r i n s o m e t h i n g l i k e a 15' w i d e seep-
age b e d excavated t h r o u g h a clay s t r a t u m u n t i l the b o t t o m is
o n a l o a m s o i l s t r a t u m . If the w a t e r i n the b e d has b e e n
p o n d e d for a l o n g t i m e , the w e t t i n g f r o n t is v e r y d e e p a n d
h e n c e the g r a d i e n t a n d the i n f i l t r a t i o n rate w i l l r e m a i n
a l m o s t the s a m e , e v e n t h o u g h the p o n d i n g l e v e l increases b y
a factor of 10.)
N o w let u s v a r y the l e v e l of p o n d e d s e w a g e , after the
b i o m a t has c l o g g e d the b o t t o m . R i g h t b e l o w the b i o m a t there
is a n u n s a t u r a t e d z o n e . F o r practical p u r p o s e s , w e c a n e n v i -
s i o n the w e t t i n g f r o n t as b e i n g r i g h t b e l o w the b i o m a t a n d
s t a y i n g there e v e n t h o u g h the p o n d i n g s u d d e n l y increases
f r o m 6 to 60 c m . T h e b i o m a t is l i k e the b o t t o m of a p o r o u s
clay or fritted-glass p o t . A s u d d e n t e n f o l d increase i n the
p r e s s u r e h e a d c o u l d result i n a n a l m o s t t e n f o l d increase i n
a b s o r p t i o n rate. T h e n , w i t h t i m e , this rate m i g h t decrease
because the c l o g g i n g m a t enters d e e p e r i n t o the s o i l a n d
increases the resistance (decreases g r a d i e n t ) . T h e f i n a l l o n g -
t e r m a b s o r p t i o n rate ( L T A R ) m i g h t be r o u g h l y p r o p o r t i o n a l
to the c u b i c root of the ratio of p o n d i n g h e i g h t s . S o , a b s o r p -
2
t i o n of w a t e r a n d a b s o r p t i o n of sewage are not quite

comparable.
T h e e x p e r i m e n t d e s c r i b e d above y i e l d e d o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g
o b s e r v a t i o n s . S o o n after the cell d r i e d u p , I l o o k e d at the
b o t t o m of the o b s e r v a t i o n p i p e (a bit of geotextile w i t h s o m e
g r a v e l o v e r it). E v e r y t h i n g w a s c o v e r e d w i t h a f i l m of g r a y i s h
m u c i l a g e , the b i o m a t . T w o w e e k s later, the g r a v e l h a d
streaks of a w h i t e p o w d e r ( p o s s i b l y ascomycetes?). B y M a r c h
1989 e v e r y t h i n g w a s as c l e a n as the d a y it w a s i n s t a l l e d : n o
traces of b i o m a t or of w h i t e p o w d e r .
APPENDIX U 399
References
1. C o n s t a n t z , J., et a l . 1988. A i r e n c a p s u l a t i o n d u r i n g i n f i l -
t r a t i o n . S o i l Sci. Soc. A m . P r o c . 52:10-16.
2. L a a k , R . 1986. W a s t e w a t e r E n g i n e e r i n g D e s i g n f o r U n s e -
w e r e d A r e a s . T e c h n o m i c P u b l i s h i n g C o . , Lancaster, P A .
P R O B L E M 6. Sizing seepage pits
Question A
C a n seepage pits be s i z e d accurately o n the basis of p e r k

tests?
Answer
Usually, no.
W h e n s i z i n g l e a c h l i n e s , o n e c a n go back to m u c h research
w o r k a n d e v e n to s o m e statistical c o r r e l a t i o n of p e r f o r m a n c e
v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t (of m p i or p e r m e a b i l i t y constant).
T h e r e is n o t h i n g of the k i n d to go back to w h e n it c o m e s to
seepage p i t s i z i n g (unless a l o c a l contractor has k e p t r e c o r d s
for 20 or m o r e years).
T h i s b o o k discusses m e t h o d o l o g i e s for s i z i n g p i t s , a n d it
e v e n m a k e s a n attempt to tolerate the f a l l i n g h e a d test as
currently performed i n southern California. Nevertheless, I
feel that it is i n t e l l e c t u a l l y d i s h o n e s t to c o n t i n u e u s i n g a n d
t o l e r a t i n g the c u r r e n t f a l l i n g h e a d m e t h o d o l o g y . T h e r e a s o n s
are p r e s e n t e d i n the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n C , b e l o w .
Question B
T h e f a l l i n g h e a d f o r m u l a i n d i c a t e s that the rate of w a t e r

a b s o r p t i o n i n a p i t or d e e p test h o l e , i n total g a l l o n s p e r d a y ,
s h o u l d be p r o p o r t i o n a l to the d i a m e t e r of the h o l e . Is t h i s
s e e n i n the f i e l d ?
Answer
E v e r y t h i n g else b e i n g the s a m e , d o u b l e the d i a m e t e r

m e a n s d o u b l e the a b s o r p t i o n surface, a n d h e n c e d o u b l e the
a b s o r p t i o n . T h i s s h o u l d h o l d as l o n g as the g r a d i e n t s h a v e
n o t d e c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y d u e to w a t e r i n f i l t r a t i o n ; d u r i n g
s h o r t - t e r m t e s t i n g , the g r a d i e n t s d o not decrease s u b s t a n -
tially. T h e results of a test p e r f o r m e d o n 15'-20'-deep p i t s
d r i l l e d w i t h b u c k e t augers i n 1963 b y A m c o E n g i n e e r s for
Los A n g e l e s C o u n t y tracts 26263 a n d 27463 are c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h the t h e o r y . (The d a t a t h e y r e p o r t e d d o n o t p r o v e a n y -
t h i n g because w e d o n ' t k n o w if the data w e r e b i a s e d b y the
m e t h o d o l o g y a n d expectations of the testers. B u t i n the
absence of o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , if I h a d to place a bet, I w o u l d
bet the ratios o b t a i n e d are correct for s h o r t - t e r m testing.) T h e
ratios of g a l l o n s of w a t e r a b s o r b e d p e r d a y i n 4 8 " - d i a m e t e r
pits v e r s u s 2 4 " - d i a m e t e r pits w e r e 1.8, 2.1, 1.6, a n d 2.7. P e r
the f a l l i n g h e a d f o r m u l a , the ratio s h o u l d be 2. T h e average
a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of the r e p o r t e d ratios t u r n s o u t to be
2.05 ± 0 . 1 5 .
Question C
Is there s o m e t h i n g w r o n g w i t h the c u r r e n t f a l l i n g h e a d test

for pits? If so, w h y is it still b e i n g u s e d ?
Answer
In the late 1970s, a c o m m i t t e e of c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s f r o m

t w o s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a c o u n t i e s a n a l y z e d the results of a
series of f a l l i n g h e a d tests f o r s i z i n g p i t s . T h e h o l e s tested at
the s a m e l o c a t i o n w e r e about 6 " , 1 0 " , a n d 14" or m o r e i n
diameter, per m y rusty m e m o r y banks. The holes w i t h d i a m -
eter 10" or s m a l l e r h a d b e e n d r i l l e d w i t h s c r e w - t y p e f l i g h t
a u g e r s ; those w i t h 14" or larger d i a m e t e r w e r e d r i l l e d w i t h
b u c k e t a u g e r s . T h e m e a s u r e d rates of a b s o r p t i o n p e r square
foot of s i d e w a l l w e r e so m u c h h i g h e r t h a n e x p e c t e d i n the
APPENDIX U 401
1 4 " - o r - l a r g e r - d i a m e t e r h o l e s that the e n g i n e e r s c o n c l u d e d

that t h e f a l l i n g h e a d f o r m u l a Q = F D 9 / L t d i d n o t w o r k w i t h
l a r g e - d i a m e t e r h o l e s ! * S o , t h e y also c o n c l u d e d that the test
h o l e d i a m e t e r h a d to be k e p t b e l o w 10" a n d that o n e h a d to
use s c r e w augers o n l y . It n e v e r o c c u r r e d to t h e m to l o o k at
w h a t the s c r e w - t y p e augers w e r e d o i n g to the h o l e s i d e w a l l s
a n d p e r m e a b i l i t y . I m a g i n e t h e s i d e w a l l as a c y l i n d e r of a n
a d o b e - l i k e m a t e r i a l about 1" t h i c k w i t h a g l i s t e n i n g ,
s m u d g e d i n n e r surface, a n d y o u ' l l see w i t h y o u r i m a g i n a t i o n
w h a t t h e y f a i l e d to see w i t h their eyes. Years later I p o i n t e d
this o u t to s o m e of t h e m , b u t t h e y r e p l i e d that it w a s better to
err o n the side of safety: c o m p a c t e d s i d e w a l l s w o u l d y i e l d
conservative results.
N o t q u i t e . I h a v e s e e n that c o m p a c t i o n a n d s m u d g i n g
r e s u l t i n m e a s u r e m e n t s that i n d i c a t e a n a p p a r e n t m e d i u m o r
l o w p e r m e a b i l i t y i n soils that w e r e so excessively p e r m e a b l e
that t h e y w e r e u n s u i t e d f o r s e w a g e d i s p o s a l . ( W h e n s e w a g e
percolates d o w n fast, it is n o t w e l l f i l t e r e d a n d it c o n t a m i -
nates g r o u n d w a t e r ) . A n d there are m a n y o t h e r p r o b l e m s
w i t h the m e t h o d o l o g y :
• Testing screw-augered holes does not yield a rough esti-

mate of soil permeability, but of relative soil compaction
(and of the lack of concern of the tester). It is like giving an
IQ test to a cadaver-we may learn something about the IQ
or disposition of the tester, little about the subject of the
test.
• Bucket augers, not screw augers, are the accepted type of
auger per Methods of Soil A n a l y s i s . 1
• About a year ago, an inexperienced county septic systems

specialist forced me to use screw-augered holes. I used
them, and obtained very high values. (Some Q's exceeded
about 10 gallons of sewage per square foot per day. The
soil might have had fractures, or portions of the com-
*Q is one-fifth the gallons of water absorbed per time interval t per square
foot of sidewall, and is mistakenly assumed to be equal to the amount of
sewage that can be applied per square foot; D is the diameter of the test
hole; F is the fall in water level during the interval; and L is the average
length of the water column during the interval.
pacted sidewall might have sloughed off.) The specialist

suspected that there must be something w r o n g with the
measurements because, per his calculations, a very shal-
low 7-foot-deep seepage pit w o u l d suffice for a 6-bedroom
home. H e hadn't yet learned that the experts w h o p r o m u l -
gated the falling head test had figured out a way to deal
w i t h real but absurdly high Q's, and that this way had
been incorporated into southern California counties' meth-
odology manuals. The experts had deduced that since the
1976 U n i f o r m P l u m b i n g Code allowed a maximum Q of 5,
Q's higher than 5 must be given a value of 5. Thus, the
ridiculous results of an absurd methodology were counter-
acted by means of a ludicrous rule!
A n accurate picture of the soil strata i n w h i c h the test holes
and pits are installed cannot be obtained from holes drilled
by screw augers. These augers mix soil from the bottom of
the hole w i t h soil from the sides of the hole and push the
mixture u p and out of the hole. The soil technician, usually
located at the top of the hole, has to figure out what bits of
soil came from where and invent and manufacture plausi-
ble soil logs. If and w h e n something goes w r o n g , and it is
found that the logs aren't accurate, the consultant and
boss of the technician can blame the poor technician for
the screwy soil logs.
T h e m e t h o d o l o g y is w r o n g i n d e e d ! T h e p r o b a b l e r e a s o n
the m e t h o d o l o g y is still b e i n g u s e d is to be f o u n d i n a p p e n d i -
ces M a n d O : fear of liability. E v e r y b o d y u s e s it a n d has b e e n
u s i n g it for a l o n g t i m e , so it is l e g a l l y safe to k e e p o n d o i n g
it.
Question
Is there a better w a y ?
Answer
If o n e m u s t d o f a l l i n g h e a d testing for seepage p i t s , m o s t of

the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d p r o b l e m s c a n be m i t i g a t e d if the h o l e s
APPENDIX U 403
are d r i l l e d w i t h b u c k e t augers. T h e m e a s u r e m e n t s o b t a i n e d
m a y be c o n v e r t e d to " p i t m p i " as s h o w n i n S e p t i c S y s t e m s
H a n d b o o k . T h e n , the s a m e s t a n d a r d tables u s e d for l e a c h l i n e
a b s o r p t i o n area m a y be u s e d w i t h these " p i t m p i . " A l l o w n o
m o r e t h a n 30 p i t m p i . T h i s m e t h o d o l o g y is n o t a n accurate
w a y to p r e d i c t h o w m u c h pit a b s o r p t i o n area is n e e d e d , b u t
it is consistent w i t h l e a c h l i n e m e t h o d o l o g y a n d is just a bit
less r i d i c u l o u s t h a n the p r e s e n t w a y of d o i n g t h i n g s .
W h a t e v e r t y p e of a u g e r is u s e d to d r i l l p i t test h o l e s , w e
m u s t r e m e m b e r that m o s t of the a b s o r p t i o n m i g h t o c c u r
t h r o u g h a c o u p l e of b a r e l y v i s i b l e fractures or root c h a n n e l s .
S o , m e r e test results m i g h t l e a d o n e to b e l i e v e that a l o w -
p e r m e a b i l i t y s o i l w i t h fractures (or root c h a n n e l s ) is a h i g h -
p e r m e a b i l i t y s o i l . That's w h y the s o i l p r o f i l e m u s t be a c c u -
rately d e s c r i b e d (by u s i n g b u c k e t augers) a n d the test results
m u s t be i n t e r p r e t e d i n l i g h t of this d e s c r i p t i o n . S c r e w augers
do not result i n accurate d e s c r i p t i o n s . M e a s u r i n g D a r c y ' s
p e r m e a b i l i t y ( h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y ) c o n s t a n t s of s o m e of
the strata p e n e t r a t e d b y the p i t c a n be a v e r y u s e f u l d i a g n o s -
tic t o o l .
It is i m p o r t a n t that j u r i s d i c t i o n s m o n i t o r the l o n g e v i t y of
the a b s o r p t i o n areas i n s t a l l e d i n e a c h l o c a l i t y that has d i s -
tinct s o i l c o n d i t i o n s . R e a l i t y i n the f o r m of r e c o r d s (of f a i l u r e
v e r s u s time) is m o r e p e r s u a s i v e t h a n theories, e s p e c i a l l y i n
r e g a r d to seepage p i t s .
Reference
1. A m o o z e g a r , A . a n d A . W . W a r r i c k . 1986. H y d r a u l i c c o n -
d u c t i v i t y of s a t u r a t e d soils. I n : A . K l u t e ( E d . ) , M e t h o d s of
S o i l A n a l y s i s , P a r t I, s e c o n d e d i t i o n , p p . 735-798. A m e r i -
c a n Society of A g r o n o m y a n d S o i l S c i e n c e S o c i e t y of
America, Madison, WI.
P R O B L E M 7. Applicability of Dairy's formula when

gradients are steep (or high)
In s o m e e n g i n e e r i n g a n d h y d r o g e o l o g y b o o k s , o n e f i n d s
that k (Darcy's p e r m e a b i l i t y constant or h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v -
ity) a p p e a r s i n f o r m u l a s i n w h i c h the h y d r a u l i c g r a d i e n t is
e x p r e s s e d as the d i f f e r e n t i a l of the v a r i a b l e i n the o r d i n a t e
(dh), o v e r the d i f f e r e n t i a l of the v a r i a b l e i n the abscissa (dx).
T h e d e r i v a t i o n of the classical w e l l f o r m u l a u s e d to p r e d i c t Q
(water f l o w i n t o w e l l s ) a s s u m e s s u c h a d h / d x g r a d i e n t . S o
does this b o o k (see C h a p t e r 13, S e c t i o n 13.1.2, f o r m u l a 14).
Questions
W h a t ' s w r o n g w i t h s u c h f o r m u l a t i o n s ? Is there s o m e t h i n g
w r o n g w i t h the D a r c y f o r m u l a Q / S = k d h / d x ? W h y d o s o m e
p r o f e s s i o n a l s b e l i e v e that D a r c y ' s f o r m u l a d o e s n ' t w o r k w e l l
w h e n the g r a d i e n t exceeds a n angle of 4 5 ° ?
Answers
In analytic g e o m e t r y or c a l c u l u s , the ratio, " d i f f e r e n t i a l of

the o r d i n a t e v a r i a b l e ( d y o r d h ) o v e r the d i f f e r e n t i a l of the
abscissa v a r i a b l e (dx)," c o r r e s p o n d s to the tangent at a p o i n t
i n the c u r v e of y (or h) v e r s u s x. T h e v a l u e of the t a n g e n t
varies f r o m z e r o ( 0 ° , h o r i z o n t a l ) to i n f i n i t y (90° to the h o r i -
z o n t a l , v e r t i c a l angle).
Per Darcy's formula, Q / S = k sin�
T h e sine of a n angle varies f r o m z e r o (at 0 ° ) to 1 (at 9 0 ° ) .

T h e constant k is m e a s u r e d w h e n the f l o w is v e r t i c a l ( 9 0 ° ) ;
t h e n the sine is e q u a l to 1.
N o w , m o s t n a t u r a l b o d i e s of w a t e r m o v e u n d e r a g r a d i e n t
or s l o p e of just a f e w degrees a n d the sine a n d the tangent
are n u m e r i c a l l y q u i t e s i m i l a r , so u s u a l l y it d o e s n ' t matter too
m u c h w h e t h e r the D a r c y f o r m u l a u s e d is the true o n e (the
APPENDIX U 405
Table U.4 Angles, Slopes, and Values of Tangents and Sines 3
Angle
(degrees) Slope Tangent Sine
1 0.017 0.017 0.017
5 0.087 0.087 0.087
10 0.17 0.17 0.17
20 0.36 0.30 0.34
30 0.57 0.57 0.50
45 1.00 1.00 0.71
60 1.73 1.73 0.87
89 57.0 57.0 0.99
90 infinity infinity 1.00
a
(Note that the values given for the slope, when multiplied by 100, give the more
familiar values of "percent slope.")
o n e w i t h the sine), or the o n e w i t h the d i f f e r e n t i a l s ; b u t at o r

b e y o n d the 4 5 ° a n g l e (100% slope) the v a l u e s of the sine a n d
the tangent d i v e r g e p r o g r e s s i v e l y a n d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . (This i s
the m a i n p o i n t I h a d i n m i n d w h e n I w r o t e q u e s t i o n N o . 5 i n
A p p e n d i x L . ) See Table U . 4 .
P R O B L E M 8. Filter to control phosphate and nitrate
A n i n t e r e s t i n g w a y to r e d u c e t h e d i s c h a r g e o f p h o s p h a t e
a n d nitrate has b e e n d e v e l o p e d i n C a n a d a . Septic t a n k e f f l u -
ent is d i s c h a r g e d o v e r a large s a n d filter. W i t h i n t h e s a n d
filter, there is a h o r i z o n t a l l a y e r of s a n d m i x e d w i t h r e d m u d
(a b y - p r o d u c t o f bauxite m a n u f a c t u r e that c o n t a i n s o x i d e s o f
i r o n , a l u m i n u m , a n d c a l c i u m ) t o trap p h o s p h a t e a n d also
a n o t h e r l a y e r of s a n d m i x e d w i t h a zeolite (clinoptilolite) t o
t r a p a m m o n i u m . E i g h t i n c h e s of a l a y e r m a d e w i t h 96% s a n d
p l u s 4 % r e d m u d captures p h o s p h a t e , r e d u c e s it f r o m a b o u t
14 m g / L to about 5 m g / L , a n d a l l e g e d l y lasts 50 years u n d e r a
l o a d of 1 g a l l o n / f t / d a y . T h e s a n d w i t h c l i n o p t i l o l i t e a b o v e
2
t h i s l a y e r r e d u c e s t h e total n i t r o g e n c o n c e n t r a t i o n f r o m
about 36 m g / L t o 7 m g / L .
C l i n o p t i l o l i t e selectively captures a m m o n i u m (and potas-
s i u m ) i o n s because these fit almost exactly w i t h i n its crystal
Figure U.1 Cross section of upslope development.
lattice holes (negatively c h a r g e d h e x a g o n a l holes). A b o u t 3.3

g of a m m o n i u m i o n c a n be c a p t u r e d b y 100 g of c l i n o p t i l o l i t e .
Question
If a h o m e w i l l d i s c h a r g e 14 k g N p e r year, w h a t w e i g h t of
c l i n o p t i l o l i t e w o u l d be r e q u i r e d to trap this y e a r l y d i s c h a r g e ?
A s s u m e 100% efficiency.
Answer
P e r the p e r i o d i c table of the e l e m e n t s , 14 k g N are e q u i v a -

lent to 18 k g N H . If 3.3 g N H
4
+
r e q u i r e 100 g of c l i n o p t i l o -
4
+
lite, t h e n 18 k g w i l l r e q u i r e 540 k g of c l i n o p t i l o l i t e p e r year.
P R O B L E M 9. Transmission of percolates
V i s u a l i z e a s u b d i v i s i o n o n a 10% s l o p e , as s h o w n i n F i g u r e
U . 1 . T h e d i m e n s i o n of the s u b d i v i s i o n a l o n g the s l o p e is 500
feet, w e s t to east; the d i m e n s i o n p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the s l o p e ,
n o r t h to s o u t h , is 1225 feet. T h e s o i l is d r y a n d 25 feet t h i c k .
B e l o w it, the b e d r o c k is i m p e r m e a b l e . T h e k of the s o i l is 2.6
g a l l o n s / f t / d a y , or, w h a t ' s the s a m e , 0.35 feet/day.
2
(2.6
g a l l o n s / f t / d a y d i v i d e d b y 7.5 g a l l o n s / f t g i v e s 0.35 feet/day).
2 3
If the s u b d i v i s i o n is d e v e l o p e d as p l a n n e d , e a c h d a y 18,000
g a l l o n s of s e w a g e w i l l be d i s c h a r g e d t h r o u g h l e a c h l i n e s .
APPENDIX U 407
1225'
25'
DEEP
1225 x 25 = 30.625 F T 2
Figure U.2 Cross section of soil stratum.
A s s u m e there is n o r a i n f a l l a n d n o i r r i g a t i o n .
Question A
H o w m a n y g a l l o n s / d a y c a n the site t r a n s m i t d o w n the 10%

s l o p e before s e w a g e surfaces o n t o p of the g r o u n d ?
Answer
T h e cross s e c t i o n p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the d i r e c t i o n of f l o w is
25 x 1225 = 30,625 ft , as r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e U . 2 . T h e sine
2
of a 10% s l o p e is 0.1. H e n c e , Q = 30,625 x 2.6 x 0.1 = 8800

g a l l o n s / d a y c a n be t r a n s m i t t e d .
Question B
H o w m a n y g a l l o n s of s e w a g e c o u l d the site absorb a n d

t r a n s m i t if l e a c h l i n e b o t t o m s are at a v e r t i c a l d e p t h of 4 feet
and o n e n e e d s 5 feet of u n s a t u r a t e d s o i l b e l o w the
leachlines?
Answer
T h e p r o j e c t i o n of the 4 feet of v e r t i c a l d e p t h o n t o the cross

s e c t i o n p e r p e n d i c u l a r to f l o w is 4 feet t i m e s the cosine of the
a n g l e , w h i c h y i e l d s 4' x 0.99 = still 4'. 4 feet p l u s 5 = 9 feet.

T h i s leaves 2 5 - 9 = 16 feet of s o i l t h i c k n e s s f o r f l o w trans-
m i s s i o n d o w n t h e 10% s l o p e . A b o v e , w e c a l c u l a t e d that 25
feet c o u l d t r a n s m i t 8800 g a l l o n s / d a y . H e n c e
25/8800 = 16/X
a n d s o l v i n g , X = 8 8 8 0 x 1 6 / 2 5 = 5600 g a l l o n s c a n be safely
absorbed a n d transmitted.
P R O B L E M 10. Transmission of percolates i n dipping

strata
T h e site of a p r o p o s e d s u b d i v i s i o n is f a i r l y h o r i z o n t a l a n d
flat, a n d m e a s u r e s 500 b y 1225 feet. T h e s o i l strata d i p at a
4 0 ° a n g l e . F i g u r e U . 3 s h o w s a v e r t i c a l cross s e c t i o n a l o n g
( a n d p a r a l l e l to) t h e 500-foot d i m e n s i o n ; note t h e a n g l e of
d i p o f t h e strata a n d h o w t h e seepage p i t perforates t h e
strata. T h e strata are s a n d s t o n e i n t e r b e d d e d w i t h i m p e r m e -
able s h a l e . T h e s h a l e o c c u p i e s o n e - t h i r d of t h e p r o f i l e ; s a n d -
stone o c c u p i e s t w o - t h i r d s . T h e k of t h e s a n d s t o n e i s 2.6
gallons/day.
T h e p r o p o s e d d i s c h a r g e of s e w a g e w i l l b e 18,000 g a l l o n s /
day. A s s u m e that t h e t o p of a n a q u i f e r b e l o w i s s o d e e p that
there w i l l be n o i n t e r f e r e n c e . A l s o a s s u m e that there is n o
rainfall a n d n o irrigation.
Question A
If e n o u g h p i t s are i n s t a l l e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e site so that t h e

site c a n a b s o r b t h e p r o p o s e d d i s c h a r g e , w i l l a l l of t h e
a b s o r b e d s e w a g e f l o w (laterally) d o w n ? T h e p i t s are 25 feet
deep b e l o w the inlet.
APPENDIX U 409
Figure U.3 Flow from a seepage pit into dipping strata.
Answer
Refer to F i g u r e U . 4 . B e l o w the b o t t o m of the p i t s , the t h i c k -

ness of the cross-sectional area i n w h i c h f l o w occurs (this
cross section is p e r p e n d i c u l a r to f l o w ) is 50 0 feet t i m e s sine of
400, or 320 feet; the l e n g t h o f this area is 1225 feet. T h e area
p e r p e n d i c u l a r to f l o w b e l o w the b o t t o m of the p r o p o s e d p i t s
is t h e n 320 x 1225 = 392,0 0 0 ft . If the p i t s are 25 feet d e e p
2
b e l o w the inlet, t h e n the p r o j e c t i o n of 25 feet o n t o the p e r -

p e n d i c u l a r to f l o w is 25 cos 40 0 = 20 feet. T h e n 320 + 20 =
340 feet, a n d the total area p e r p e n d i c u l a r to f l o w is 340 x
1225 = 416,50 0 ft . 2
T h e n , Q = S k s i n � = 416,5 0 0 x 2.6 x 0 .64 = 693,0 0 0

gallons/day.
B u t s a n d s t o n e o c c u p i e s o n l y 2/3 of the cross s e c t i o n p e r -
Figure U.4 Location of seepage pits (dots). Note: Graph is not to scale.
p e n d i c u l a r to f l o w . H e n c e , 2/3 of the above g a l l o n a g e is

462,009 g a l l o n s / d a y .
T h e r e f o r e , the strata c a n t r a n s m i t m u c h m o r e t h a n 18,000
gallons.
Question B
Refer to the s i t u a t i o n a b o v e , b u t i m a g i n e that the s e w a g e

d i s c h a r g e d is g o i n g to be 400,000 g a l l o n s p e r d a y . I m a g i n e
that the t o p of the aquifer is 20 feet b e l o w the d e p t h of the
p i t s . W o u l d y o u be c o n c e r n e d ?
APPENDIX U 411
Answer
I w o u l d . W h e n the d i s c h a r g e is close to the m a x i m u m

s a t u r a t e d f l o w that the strata c a n t r a n s m i t , m u c h of the f l o w
w i l l be saturated (just a b o v e each i m p e r m e a b l e s t r a t u m ) , a n d
p a t h o g e n s m a y not be r e m o v e d e f f i c i e n t l y before the f l o w
reaches the aquifer. F u r t h e r m o r e , m o u n d i n g m i g h t elevate
the t o p of the aquifer a l l the w a y u p to the seepage p i t s .
O n e m i g h t also w o n d e r h o w m u c h aerobic d e c o m p o s i t i o n
of the o r g a n i c s e w a g e c o n s t i t u e n t s w o u l d o c c u r d e e p i n a
stratified s o i l w i t h v e r y p o o r p e r m e a b i l i t y to air.
P R O B L E M 11. Nitrate impact and well depth
A l o n g , n a r r o w v a l l e y has a n aquifer m o v i n g t h r o u g h o u t
its l e n g t h , f r o m east to w e s t . T h e w i d t h of the v a l l e y a n d of
the aquifer is 3000 feet ( n o r t h to s o u t h ) , a n d the w e t t e d
d e p t h of the aquifer is 200 feet. A p r o p o s e d s u b d i v i s i o n tract
w i l l s p r e a d t h r o u g h the n o r t h e r l y o n e - t h i r d of the 3000-foot
w i d t h a n d w i l l d i s c h a r g e 690 k g N i n the f o r m of nitrates
t h r o u g h its septic s y s t e m s . T h e s o i l is so s a n d y that n o signif-
icant d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n w i l l take place. T h e w a t e r i n the a q u i f e r
c o n t a i n s a l m o s t z e r o p p m ( m g / L ) of N a n d c a n accept 10
ppm.
T h e m i n i m u m f l o w t h r o u g h a v e r t i c a l n o r t h - s o u t h cross
s e c t i o n of the aquifer is 950 acre-feet p e r year, m o v i n g east to
w e s t . A s s u m e that a l l r a i n f a l l is lost to e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n .
Question A
If e a c h lot o w n e r is g o i n g to h a v e h i s or h e r o w n w e l l , h o w
d e e p s h o u l d the w e l l p u m p s go b e l o w the t o p of the a q u i f e r
i n o r d e r not to p u m p w a t e r w i t h m o r e t h a n 10 p p m N ?
A s s u m e that n i t r o g e n - c o n t a i n i n g p l u m e s are d i l u t e d u n i -
f o r m l y i n the h o r i z o n t a l p l a n e , n o r t h to s o u t h .
Answer
T h e w e t t e d cross s e c t i o n p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the aquifer f l o w

is 200 x 3000 = 600,000 ft . 950 acre-feet c o n t a i n 950 x 43,500
2
= 41,000,000 ft . T h e r e f o r e , the D a r c y v e l o c i t y of f l o w is
3
41,000,000/600,000 = 69 feet p e r year, east to w e s t .

N o w the p r o b l e m is r e d u c e d to f i n d i n g the d e p t h of a
p a r a l l e l e p i p e d of w a t e r ( m e a s u r i n g 1000 feet n o r t h to s o u t h
a n d 69 feet east to west) sufficient to d i l u t e the N to 10 p p m .
V i s u a l i z e this p a r a l l e l e p i p e d m o v i n g b e l o w the tract, enter-
i n g the tract o n the tract's east side ( w i t h a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 0
p p m N ) a n d c o m i n g o u t of the tract's w e s t s i d e ( w i t h a n
average c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 10 p p m N ) e v e r y year.
E a c h foot of d e p t h of the p a r a l l e l e p i p e d has 69,000 ft a n d 3
w e i g h s 69,000 ft x 28 k g / f t = 1.9 m i l l i o n k g .
3 3
To d i l u t e the N w e n e e d
10 (parts)/l,000,000 (parts) = 690 (kg N ) / X (kg N)
S o l v i n g for X , X = 69 m i l l i o n k g water.
D i v i d i n g 69 m i l l i o n b y 1.9 m i l l i o n p e r foot of d e p t h w e get
36 feet of d e p t h .
(I'd start the p e r f o r a t e d c a s i n g at 20 o r 30 feet d e p t h a n d
t h e n I'd a d d the m i n i m u m of 36 feet. T h e a d d i t i o n a l 20 or 30
feet of d e p t h w o u l d h e l p to m i n i m i z e the d a n g e r of p u m p i n g
too close to a p o o r l y d i l u t e d nitrate p l u m e , n e a r the t o p of
the aquifer.) N o t e that the 36 feet of d e p t h refers to the w e s t
side of the tract. T h e m i n i m u m d e p t h of w e l l s at the east side
is z e r o . E l s e w h e r e , d e p t h c a n be o b t a i n e d b y s i m p l e
interpolation.
Question B
If the b a c k g r o u n d N c o n t e n t of the aquifer h a d b e e n 1

p p m , the m i n i m u m d e p t h of the p u m p w o u l d c h a n g e to Y
feet. W h a t ' s the v a l u e of Y ?
APPENDIX U 413
Answer
M u l t i p l y 36 times the ratio 1 0 / ( 1 0 - X ) , w h e r e X is the i n i t i a l

N c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n p p m . If X = 1, Y is 40 feet. O n e p a r t per
m i l l i o n ( p p m ) is v i r t u a l l y t h e same as one m i l l i g r a m per l i t e r
(mg/L).
P R O B L E M 12. Nitrate impact per the "cube'' or

parallelepiped method
A s s u m e that (1) a l l of the nitrate g e n e r a t e d i n a p r o p o s e d

s u b d i v i s i o n reaches the a q u i f e r b e l o w it; (2) aquifer w a t e r is
extracted w i t h a h y p o t h e t i c a l w e l l that reaches d o w n to the
b o t t o m of the aquifer; a n d (3) the nitrate is m i x e d a n d d i l u t e d
b y the w a t e r p u m p e d a l l the w a y d o w n to the d e p t h of the
w e l l . If after this m i x i n g the c o n c e n t r a t i o n increase is 1 p p m
N or l o w e r , the j u r i s d i c t i o n w i l l a p p r o v e the s u b d i v i s i o n .
See if the f o l l o w i n g tract c a n be a p p r o v e d . U s e the g i v e n
data a n d assumptions.
Tract X X X X X m e a s u r e s 1320 feet east to w e s t a n d 660 feet
n o r t h to s o u t h . It has 70 s i n g l e - h o m e lots. T h e s o i l is v e r y
sandy. Data p r o v i d e d by reputable hydrogeologists give
basic i n f o r m a t i o n : D a r c y v e l o c i t y = 0.24 feet/day m o v i n g i n
a 239° southwest direction; aquifer saturated thickness =
938 feet. T h e n u m b e r of r e s i d e n t s is 269. Y a r d s (lawns) w i l l
o c c u p y 567,000 ft , or 5.25 h a .
2
C o n s e r v a t i v e l y , a s s u m e that a l l of the 6 k g of n i t r o g e n
excreted p e r p e r s o n p e r y e a r r e a c h a n d m i x w i t h the p o r t i o n
of the a q u i f e r p e n e t r a t e d b y the w e l l s . ( A c t u a l l y , i n this case
1 0 - 2 0 % m a y be lost v i a d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n a n d septage p u m p -
i n g s , a n d m o s t of the N w i l l r e m a i n i n u p p e r a q u i f e r strata
for m a n y m i l e s of travel.) T h e d i l u t i o n p r o v i d e d b y the a b o u t
3 to 4 feet/year of l a w n i r r i g a t i o n percolate p l u s septage that
percolates d o w n to the a q u i f e r is n e g l i g i b l e , since the a q u i f e r
w e t t e d d e p t h exceeds 900 feet. ( N o t e that since the f o l l o w i n g
c a l c u l a t i o n s use the D a r c y k, the 900 feet of d e p t h is treated
as that of a " l a k e " of p u r e w a t e r : for a l l practical p u r p o s e s ,

the s o i l that h o l d s the w a t e r has z e r o v o l u m e or d e p t h . T h e
r o u g h estimate of 3-4 feet p e r year of i r r i g a t i o n percolate is
b a s e d o n p a n e v a p o r a t i o n of 5-6 feet p e r y e a r t i m e s 0.80
equals e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n , a n d 50% of the i r r i g a t i o n is
l e a c h e d d o w n as percolate. F o r m o r e p r e c i s i o n , o n e s h o u l d
c o n s u l t the l o c a l A g r i c u l t u r a l E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e . T h e feet of
s e w a g e percolate are c a l c u l a t e d b y c o n v e r t i n g the e x p e c t e d
d i s c h a r g e of s e w a g e to acre-feet of s e w a g e a n d d i v i d i n g b y
the acreage of the tract.) A s s u m e that the best a p p r o x i m a t i o n
available for the a m o u n t of N i n l a w n leachate d e r i v e s f r o m
the data i n T. M o r t o n et a l . ("Influence of o v e r w a t e r i n g a n d
f e r t i l i z a t i o n o n N losses f r o m h o m e l a w n s , " J. E n v i r o n . Q u a l .
17:124-130, 1988). ( A p e r m e a b l e , o v e r w a t e r e d a n d o v e r -
f e r t i l i z e d L o n g I s l a n d s o i l l e a c h e d u p to 32 k g N p e r h a p e r
year.)
CALCULATIONS for Tract XXXXX
1. Volume of dilution
a. Wetted depth of aquifer is 938'.
b. Since the flow is i n a direction 239° toward the
southwest, the w i d t h of the tract projected onto the
perpendicular to the direction of flow is about 1320'
cos 59° = 680'. (Note that 2 3 9 ° - 1 8 0 ° = 59°.) See
Figures U.5(a) and U.5(b).
c. Darcy velocity is 0.24 feet/day.
d. 1 m equals 33 ft ; 1 year equals 365 days.
3 3
Hence, 938 x 680 x 0.24 x 365/33 = 1.69 million m /yr 3
= 1690 million kg/yr
2. A m o u n t of N
a. A t 6 kg N/person/year, 269 people discharge 1614
kg N/year. Q
b. 5.25 ha of lawns leach d o w n a maximum of 168 k g
N/year. Q
c. Total maximum N = 1782 k g N/year (8000 kg of
nitrate/year). Q
APPENDIX U 415
Figure U.5(a) Bird's-eye view of the nitrate plume moving in the

direction of flow. Flow is 239° southwest.
3. Increase in concentration
1782 kg N/1690 million kg water = 1.0 ppm N (4.74
ppm nitrate). (One part per million, ppm, is virtually
the same as one milligram per liter, mg/L)
P R O B L E M 13. Lot size and cost effectiveness of

pollution control strategies
T h e r e are m a n y strategies to r e d u c e septic s y s t e m s ' nitrate

i m p a c t o n g r o u n d w a t e r . O n e strategy is to c o n t r o l l o t s i z e .
T h i s strategy is v e r y i n v o l v e d a n d is still n o t w e l l d e v e l o p e d .
A n o t h e r strategy is to decrease t h e nitrate o u t p u t of septic
s y s t e m s w i t h d e v i c e s s u c h as r e c i r c u l a t i n g s a n d filters, b a t c h
n i t r i f i c a t i o n / d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , d o s i n g r e g i m e s , etc.
0.24 ft/day = 87 ft/yr
Figure U.5(b) Dimensions of the water parallelepiped.
To m y k n o w l e d g e , w h e r e i n d i v i d u a l septic s y s t e m s are
u s e d , the m o s t s i m p l e a n d elegant d e v i c e r e q u i r i n g m i n i -
m u m m a i n t e n a n c e , is the e x p e r i m e n t a l R U C K s y s t e m . It is 1
v e r y e x p e n s i v e , b u t it m i g h t r e m o v e u p to 90% of the n i t r o -
g e n if a l l c o n d i t i o n s are o p t i m a l ( w h i c h is n o t a l w a y s the
case). A 90% r e m o v a l w o u l d c o m e close to r e d u c i n g the
nitrate i n the percolate to a b o u t the c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n d r i n k i n g
w a t e r s t a n d a r d s , 45 m g / L of nitrate. I n a n i n d e p e n d e n t test
b y L a m b et a l . a R U C K s y s t e m r e m o v e d o n l y a b o u t 5 0 % of
2
the n i t r o g e n . H o w e v e r , e f f i c i e n c y is n o t the o n l y c r i t e r i o n to
be c o n s i d e r e d . B e n e f i t / r i s k a n d benefit/cost a n a l y s e s are the
important criteria.
If a l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n d e t e r m i n e s that the b e n e f i t of a l l o w -
APPENDIX U 417
i n g a n area to d e v e l o p ( o n septic s y s t e m s w i t h i n n o v a t i v e
n i t r o g e n r e d u c t i o n devices) exceeds t h e r i s k s a n d costs
i n v o l v e d , the developer a n d his consultant m a y use simple
benefit/cost r u l e s to d e t e r m i n e if t h e project is feasible. F o r
i n s t a n c e , a s s u m i n g that a g i v e n i n n o v a t i v e s y s t e m w i l l
r e m o v e n o t less t h a n 4 0 % of t h e n i t r o g e n , w o u l d it be m o r e
cost effective to i n s t a l l that s y s t e m at $10,000-$15,000 p e r
h o u s e o r to s e w e r the d e v e l o p m e n t ? W o u l d the d e v e l o p m e n t
still leave t h e e x p e c t e d m a r g i n o f p r o f i t to m a k e it
worthwhile?
Question
D e t e r m i n e h o w m a n y i n n o v a t i v e s y s t e m s h a v e to be
i n s t a l l e d i n a 40-lot tract w i t h 15,000-ft lots. T h e l o c a l j u r i s -
2
d i c t i o n r e q u i r e s 20,000 ft p e r lot. T h e j u r i s d i c t i o n asserts that

2
20,000-ft lots d o n o t result i n g r o u n d w a t e r d e g r a d a t i o n b y

2
nitrates. S o , calculate h o w m a n y i n n o v a t i v e s y s t e m s w o u l d
be r e q u i r e d to r e d u c e t h e i m p a c t of t h e tract to t h e l e v e l it
w o u l d h a v e h a d if its lots w e r e 20,000 ft ; a s s u m e the i n n o v a -
2
tive s y s t e m is capable of r e m o v i n g 4 0 % of t h e n i t r o g e n ( i n
the septic e f f l u e n t ) . S i n c e t h e soils are s a n d y , a s s u m e 0 to
10% n i t r o g e n r e m o v a l i n t h e s o i l , as r e p o r t e d e l s e w h e r e .
3
Answer
L e t " A " be t h e a m o u n t of nitrate p r o d u c e d b y 40 d w e l l i n g

u n i t s , each i n a 20,000-ft l o t . L e t t h e average a m o u n t of
2
d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n be (0 + 10%)/2 = 5 % . A n d 1 - 0 . 0 5 = 0.95.
T h e n , t h e relative a m o u n t of nitrate p r o d u c e d o n a p e r - u n i t -
area basis i n a n o r m a l tract w i t h 20,000-ft lots is 2
(40 x 0.95 A)/20,000 = 0.0019A
S i m i l a r l y , t h e relative a m o u n t of nitrate g e n e r a t e d b y 40
15,000-ft lots c o n s i s t i n g o f X lots w i t h i n n o v a t i v e s y s t e m
2
( a n d 4 0 % N loss) p l u s Y lots w i t h n o s y s t e m ( a n d 5 % N loss)

is
(X x 0.6 A)/15,000 + (Y x 0.95 A)/15,000
E q u a t i n g the t w o p r e v i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d s i m p l i f y i n g ,
w e o b t a i n E q u a t i o n 1:
0.6X + 0.95Y = 15,000 x 0.0019 = 28.5 (1)
a n d also w e h a v e that
X + Y = 40 (lots) (2)
S o l v i n g for X a n d Y i n the t w o l i n e a r e q u a t i o n s a b o v e , w e
obtain
Y = 13 lots with no system
X = 27 lots with system
T h u s , there s h o u l d be n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n
the extent of nitrate g e n e r a t e d b y 40 d w e l l i n g u n i t s i n 20,000-
ft lots v e r s u s 40 d w e l l i n g u n i t s i n 15,000-ft lots, p r o v i d e d
2 2
that 27 o u t of the latter 40 d w e l l i n g u n i t s are s e r v e d b y the

innovative system.
References
1. L a a k , R . 1987. R U C K s y s t e m s . C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t -
m e n t , U n i v e r s i t y of C o n n e c t i c u t , S t o r r s , C T .
2. L a m b , B . , et a l . 1987. E v a l u a t i o n of n i t r o g e n r e m o v a l
s y s t e m s for on-site s e w a g e d i s p o s a l . I n P r o c e e d i n g s of
the F i f t h N a t i o n a l S y m p o s i u m o n I n d i v i d u a l a n d S m a l l
C o m m u n i t y S y s t e m s . A S A E P u b . 10-87, p p . 151-160.
A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y of A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r s , St. J o s e p h ,
MI.
APPENDIX U 419
3. B r o a d b e n t , F. E . , a n d H . R e i s e n a u e r . 1984. Fate of w a s t e -
water constituents i n soil a n d groundwater. I n "Irriga-
tion with Reclaimed M u n i c i p a l Wastewater." Report N o .
84-1 w r . C a l i f o r n i a W a t e r R e s o u r c e s C o n t r o l B o a r d .
P R O B L E M 14. More complex calculations about

nitrate pollution
Question
S h o w that the n i t r o g e n c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n the u p p e r 100 feet

of a n a q u i f e r b e l o w a s u b d i v i s i o n tract w i l l n o t exceed 1 p p m
N a v e r a g e d o v e r the t o p 100 feet of the aquifer. T h e data are
as f o l l o w s :
• The average 3-bedroom home has 3 occupants and gen-

erates 300 gallons of sewage per day; i n this tract it w i l l
be assumed to generate 300 x (3.3/3) = 330 gallons per
day.
• The tract has 60 lots i n 13 acres.
• The N generated by 60 homes with 3.3 people each at 6
kg N/capita/year is 1190 k g .
T h e a m o u n t of s e w a g e g e n e r a t e d b y these h o m e s at 100
g a l l o n s p e r capita p e r d a y is 60 x 3.3 x 100 x 365 =
7,227,000 g a l l o n s p e r year, o r 970,000 f t p e r year, o r 1.7 feet
3
p e r y e a r o v e r the 13 acres. W i t h at least 1 foot of l a w n i r r i g a -

t i o n w a t e r leachate, t h e total p e r c o l a t i o n f l o w a d d s u p t o
a b o u t 3 feet p e r year, o r a bit m o r e . A s s u m e that t h e i r r i g a -
t i o n leachate c o n t a i n s a n e g l i g i b l e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of N .
A r e p u t a b l e h y d r o g e o l o g i s t has p r o v i d e d the f o l l o w i n g : a)
d a t a t o t h e effect that the aquifer m o v e s at a v e l o c i t y of 0.38
feet/day a n d b) a plate of m o u n d i n g p r o d u c e d b y 3 feet of
percolate p e r year; as s e e n i n F i g u r e U . 6 , t h e percolate
m o u n d s a n d spreads out over the aquifer w i t h a radius
e x c e e d i n g 6600 feet. (This is p e r a c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m b a s e d
o n H a n t u s h ' s f o r m u l a s p u b l i s h e d i n 1967 i n Water Resources
420
Figure U.6 Groundwater recharge mound after one year of recharging at a rate of 3 ft/yr. Groundwater depth is
in excess of 300 ft.
APPENDIX U 421
R e s e a r c h 3:227-234.) T h e a q u i f e r has a t h i n " v e n e e r " of h i g h -

N water o n top.
A s s u m e that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of N o v e r the surface of the
a q u i f e r is p r o p o r t i o n a l to the h e i g h t of the percolate m o u n d
o v e r it. If the calculations w e r e to average a l l the N i n p u t
o v e r the w h o l e s p r e a d of the m o u n d , this w o u l d result i n
two problems:
1. The "tails" at the tips of the m o u n d vertical cross section

are almost asymptotic. A very thin veneer extends over a
very large area. The average N content w o u l d appear to
be very low once it is averaged over the large area.
2. A t the same time, i n the aquifer closer to the center of the
m o u n d , the concentration of N w o u l d be much higher
than the gross average.
Procedure and answer
C a l c u l a t e the r a d i u s at w h i c h the v o l u m e of the m o u n d is

50% of the total v o l u m e . T h i s v o l u m e c o n t a i n s 5 0 % of the N .
If this h i g h e r - t h a n - a v e r a g e N c o n c e n t r a t i o n ( w h i c h is m i x e d
or d i l u t e d o v e r a s m a l l a q u i f e r cross section) m e e t s the 1 p p m
n i t r o g e n c r i t e r i o n set b y the j u r i s d i c t i o n , the average (after
d i l u t i o n o v e r a large a q u i f e r cross s e c t i o n e x c e e d i n g 6600 feet
i n r a d i u s ) m u s t meet it too, since its c o n c e n t r a t i o n is b o u n d
to be l o w e r .
First p l o t the h e i g h t s of the m o u n d a n d t h e i r l o c a t i o n s ;
these c a n be o b t a i n e d d i r e c t l y f r o m the " c i r c l e s " i n F i g u r e
U . 7 . I n this p l o t construct g r a p h i c a l l y a cone ( d a s h e d lines)
w i t h h e i g h t = 0.18 = 0.2 feet a n d r a d i u s = 6600 feet. (See
F i g u r e U . 8 . ) C a l c u l a t e the relative v o l u m e of this c o n e , a n d
t h e n calculate the r a d i u s of the i n n e r part of the c o n e , w h i c h
y i e l d s h a l f the f u l l v o l u m e of the c o n e . T h i s t u r n s o u t to be
a b o u t 3350 feet f r o m the center.
T h e c a l c u l a t i o n s for the v o l u m e V of the cone i n F i g u r e
U . 8 . are b e l o w .
Let X = r a d i u s , a n d Y = h e i g h t of the cone

Figure U.7 Mound dimensions in feet. Note: Graph is not to scale.
and
Y = 0.2 - 0.2X/6600
S u b s t i t u t i n g the v a l u e of Y , w e h a v e that
C a l c u l a t i o n s for the v a l u e of X , w h i c h e n c o m p a s s e s 50% of

the v o l u m e of the c o n e :
1.5 x 10 = 2[(0.2X /2) - (0.2X /19,800)]

6 2 3
S i m p l i f y i n g b o t h sides,
14,850 x 10 = X (1980 - 0.2X)

6 2
S o l v i n g for X , X t u r n s o u t to b e about 3350 feet.

N o w , the m o r e t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h o d o l o g y . W e h a v e a p a r a l -
APPENDIX U 423
l e l e p i p e d 6700 feet w i d e (3350' x 2), 100 feet d e e p (per

c o u n t y r e q u i r e m e n t ) , m o v i n g at 0 . 3 8 7 d a y or 1377year. O v e r
this b o d y of w a t e r is half of the N i n p u t . T h i s b o d y of w a t e r
c o n t a i n s 6700 x 1 0 0 x 1 3 7 = 92,000,000 ft . ( A cubic foot of
3
w a t e r w e i g h s 28.3 kg.) H e n c e , this b o d y of w a t e r w e i g h s

2600 m i l l i o n k g .
H a l f of the N d i s c h a r g e d i n the tract w e i g h s 1200/2 = 600
k g . T h e r e f o r e , once d i l u t e d , the m a x i m u m average increase
i n c o n c e n t r a t i o n near the center of the m o u n d is
600/2600 = 0.2 p p m N (0.9 p p m nitrate)
(By l o o k i n g at F i g u r e U . 8 , w e c a n estimate that the average

h e i g h t of the cone above the Y , w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s to X =
3350, is b e t w e e n r o u g h l y 0.08 a n d 0.2, say 0.14 ± 5 0 % .
H e n c e , at the v e r y center of the cone, the m a x i m u m increase
i n n i t r o g e n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s h o u l d be 0.2 p p m N p l u s 50% or
0.3 p p m , w h i c h is s u b s t a n t i a l l y less t h a n the 1 p p m
criterion.)
P R O B L E M 15. Inadequacy of Uniform Plumbing

Code sewage disposal rates
T h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of the U n i f o r m P l u m b i n g C o d e
(1976-1988 e d i t i o n s ) for l e a c h i n g areas are c o n f u s i n g , c o n t r a -
d i c t o r y , a n d d e s i g n e d to e n s u r e short l o n g e v i t y .
F o r instance, i n the case of f i n e s a n d , the U P C Table 1-4
r e q u i r e s 25 ft of l e a c h i n g area " p e r 100 g a l l o n s " of w h o
2
k n o w s w h a t . S i n c e the s a m e table assigns f i n e s a n d a m a x i -

m u m a b s o r p t i o n capacity of 4 g a l l o n s / f t , a n d 100/25 = 4, o n e
2
m a y c o n c l u d e that " p e r 100 g a l l o n s " refers to actual f l o w of

s e w a g e e f f l u e n t . T h e s a m e c o n c l u s i o n c a n be a r r i v e d at b y
c o m p a r i n g the respective f i g u r e s for other s o i l textures i n
U P C Table 1-4. B u t i n U P C Table 1-5, o n e f i n d s that the
r e q u i r e m e n t is d e f i n e d as " p e r 100 g a l l o n s of Septic T a n k
Capacity." A former I A P M O Board president assured me
that this is the case for Table 1-4 as w e l l ; a n d t h i s s a m e inter-

p r e t a t i o n is g i v e n b y m o s t if n o t a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n s !
A s s u m e the f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n : three s i n g l e h o m e s w i l l be
b u i l t . T h e i r l e a c h l i n e s w i l l be i n s t a l l e d i n f i n e s a n d . H o m e A
w i l l have t w o residents a n d t w o bedrooms. H o m e B w i l l
have 4 residents a n d 4 bedrooms. A n d h o m e C w i l l have 6
residents a n d 6 bedrooms.
Question A
C a l c u l a t e the a m o u n t of a b s o r p t i o n area p e r r e s i d e n t
a c c o r d i n g to U P C r e q u i r e m e n t s . ( N o t e that r e s i d e n t s d o g e n -
erate s e w a g e . H o m e s , b e d r o o m s , or septic t a n k s of g i v e n
sizes d o not generate s e w a g e . )
Answer
G i v e n the n u m b e r of b e d r o o m s , the U P C r e q u i r e s the f o l -

l o w i n g septic t a n k s i z e s : h o m e A , 750 g a l l o n s ; h o m e B , 1200
g a l l o n s ; a n d h o m e C , 1500 g a l l o n s .
H e n c e , at 25 ft p e r 100 g a l l o n s of t a n k capacity, h o m e s A ,
2
B, a n d C w i l l h a v e , r e s p e c t i v e l y , the f o l l o w i n g square feet of

l e a c h l i n e a b s o r p t i o n area:
25 x 7.5 = 188
25 x 12 = 300
25 x 15 = 375
T h e r e f o r e , the p e r c a p i t a square feet of a b s o r p t i o n areas

are: h o m e A , 94; h o m e B , 75; a n d h o m e C , 62.
F r o m the a b o v e , it is e v i d e n t w h i c h septic s y s t e m w i l l be
m o r e p r o n e to septic s y s t e m f a i l u r e .
APPENDIX U 425
Question B
T h e U P C a s s u m e s that a b e d r o o m generates 150 g a l l o n s of

s e w a g e per d a y . If this f i g u r e is correct, h o w m a n y g a l l o n s
p e r d a y p e r square foot of a b s o r p t i o n area are d i s c h a r g e d i n
the leachlines s e r v i n g h o m e s A , B , a n d C ?
Answer
A: 2 x 150/188 = 1.6
B: 4 x 150/300 = 2
C: 6 x 150/375 = 2.4
Question C
W i n n e b e r g e r , L a a k , M a c h m e y e r , B o u m a , the E P A . . . just
about e v e r y b o d y b u t the U P C r e c o m m e n d s a m a x i m u m s e w -
age d i s p o s a l rate of about 0.8-1.2 g a l l o n s / f t / d a y f o r s a n d .
2
T h e 0 . 8 - g a l l o n f i g u r e is m o r e correct because t h e 1.2-gallon

f i g u r e refers to s e w a g e a p p l i e d i n about 4 doses p e r d a y , a n d
this u s u a l l y does n o t o c c u r i n m o s t i n s t a l l a t i o n s . C o m p a r e
the 0 . 8 - g a l l o n f i g u r e to the 1.6 to 2.4 g a l l o n s / f t / d a y d e r i v e d
2
i n Q u e s t i o n B . W o u l d y o u expect t h e septic s y s t e m s i n
h o u s e s A , B , a n d C to suffer p r e m a t u r e failure?
Answer
I certainly w o u l d !
Question D
W o u l d t h e a n s w e r to Q u e s t i o n C b e d i f f e r e n t if t h e s o i l
w e r e not s a n d ?
Answer
N o . T h e w o r s t t y p e of s o i l , " c l a y w i t h s m a l l a m o u n t of
g r a v e l , " is a s s i g n e d a d i s p o s a l rate of 0.83 g a l l o n s / f t / d a y p e r
2
the 1988 e d i t i o n of the U P C . B u t , p e r the a u t h o r i t i e s m e n -

t i o n e d i n Q u e s t i o n C , t h i s t y p e of s o i l s h o u l d receive r o u g h l y
a b o u t 0.4 to 0.2 g a l l o n s / f t / d a y or less. T h e U P C a l l o w s exces-
2
sive l o a d i n g i n a l l t y p e s of s o i l .
Question E
If o n e repeats the c a l c u l a t i o n s for q u e s t i o n s A , B , a n d C

a b o v e , a n d this t i m e o n e uses U P C rates " p e r 100 g a l l o n s of
actual f l o w " i n s t e a d of " p e r 100 g a l l o n s of septic t a n k capac-
ity," w o u l d a n y of the a n s w e r s c h a n g e ?
Answer
Yes. The U P C requirements w o u l d look even worse,

because the U P C rates w o u l d a l l o w e v e n m o r e g a l l o n a g e to
be d i s c h a r g e d p e r square foot of a b s o r p t i o n area.
Question F
If y o u w e r e a c o u n t y septic s y s t e m s specialist, w o u l d y o u
a l l o w d e s i g n s b a s e d o n the U P C s e w a g e a p p l i c a t i o n rates?
Answer
If I h a d the p o w e r to dictate a p p l i c a t i o n rates, I'd a n s w e r

w i t h a n e m p h a t i c " N o . " Please note that the U P C g i v e s m i n i -
m u m r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d that it a l l o w s y o u to i m p o s e m o r e
stringent requirements.
Question G
If y o u are a septic s y s t e m s c o n s u l t a n t , w o u l d y o u be liable

for a p r e m a t u r e septic s y s t e m f a i l u r e if y o u r d e s i g n a p p l i c a -
t i o n rate w a s b a s e d o n the U P C ?
APPENDIX U 427
Answer
T h e courts w i l l t e l l . L e g a l l y , o v e r a l l , the U P C is a g o o d
" s e c u r i t y b l a n k e t . " B u t b y n o w it is p u b l i c k n o w l e d g e that
the U P C rates are v e r y i n a d e q u a t e , a n d a c o u r t m i g h t f i n d
that y o u w e r e n e g l i g e n t if y o u u s e d the U P C a p p l i c a t i o n
rates.
P R O B L E M 16. Purely legal stuff
W i t h i n y o u r c o u n t y , there is a c o m m u n i t y w h e r e e a c h
h o m e has its o w n w e l l a n d septic s y s t e m . O n e of the m e m -
bers of this c o m m u n i t y is b e i n g t a k e n to c o u r t because h e has
b e e n u s i n g a septic s y s t e m w i t h l e a c h l i n e s that v i o l a t e the
m i n i m u m c o u n t y r e q u i r e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g the s e p a r a t i o n
b e t w e e n the b o t t o m of the l e a c h l i n e s a n d g r o u n d w a t e r , a n d
he has r e f u s e d to m a k e corrective c h a n g e s . Y o u are to be the
expert w i t n e s s for the p l a i n t i f f (for y o u r c o u n t y , or for the
defendant's neighbor).
A c r u c i a l p o i n t i n l a w is that the p l a i n t i f f has to s h o w that
the d e f e n d a n t ' s actions or i n a c t i o n s are c a u s i n g h a r m . Y o u
h a v e n o data r e g a r d i n g excess m o r b i d i t y or m o r t a l i t y n e a r
the d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p e r t y . Y o u d o n ' t e v e n h a v e data s h o w i n g
a m o u n t s of h a z a r d o u s m i c r o b e s i n w e l l s near the d e f e n -
dant's septic s y s t e m . T h e n e i g h b o r i n g w e l l s are at least 1000
feet a w a y f r o m the p r o b l e m a t i c septic s y s t e m , b u t the soils
are so coarse that there is a p o s s i b i l i t y of m i c r o b i a l
contamination.
Question
D u r i n g y o u r d e p o s i t i o n , the d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y asks

y o u : " C a n y o u p r o v e that m y client has c a u s e d a n y h a r m ?
D o y o u h a v e data o n h o w m a n y p e o p l e got sick after d r i n k -
i n g w e l l water? D i d y o u h a v e the w a t e r a n a l y z e d ? "
W h a t w o u l d y o u r a n s w e r be? G i v e it s o m e t h o u g h t .
H i n t : P u t the b a l l i n y o u r c o u r t .
Suggested Answer
T h e f o l l o w i n g a n s w e r has m a d e p l a i n t i f f ' s attorneys v e r y

happy:
Your questions are irrelevant. O n e can drive fast across a

street intersection while the red light is on, and not kill any-
one, but that's not the point. The point is that eventually
someone might get killed, and that's w h y traffic laws must be
obeyed. Your client's septic system might or might not harm
others, but it violates the m i n i m u m code requirements. If
everyone w o u l d be allowed to violate these requirements,
some septic systems w o u l d cause problems, some w o u l d not.
The only way to ensure safety for all is to ensure that every-
one obeys the law or the code.
Glossary
aerobic m e d i u m w i t h o x y g e n r e a d i l y available f o r m i c r o -
bial metabolism
alternative system a n y s y s t e m of s e w a g e d i s p o s a l o t h e r
than conventional sewers
anaerobic m e d i u m h a v i n g little o r n o o x y g e n available f o r
microbial metabolism
ASTM A m e r i c a n Society f o r T e s t i n g M a t e r i a l s
bedrock the r o c k u n d e r l y i n g soils
BOD B i o c h e m i c a l O x y g e n D e m a n d ; the a m o u n t of o x y g e n
c o n s u m e d b y s e w a g e m i c r o b e s u n d e r s t a n d a r d test c o n d i -
t i o n s . B O D m e a n s B O D m e a s u r e d after 5 - d a y i n c u b a t i o n
5
period
caliche a l a y e r of s o i l c e m e n t e d b y p r e c i p i t a t e d c a l c i u m
a n d / o r m a g n e s i u m carbonate, either i n n o d u l e s o r m a s -
s i v e ; clay a n d p r e c i p i t a t e d g y p s u m are also c a l l e d caliche,
t h o u g h n o t accurately
clay (mineral) a natural soil crystalline inorganic m i n e r a l
f o r m e d b y d e c o m p o s i t i o n of o r s y n t h e s i s f r o m o t h e r m i n e r -
als, a n d less t h a n 0.002 m m i n d i a m e t e r
clay (particle) a n y i n o r g a n i c s o i l particle less t h a n 0.002
m m i n diameter
clay (soil) s o i l w i t h > 4 0 % clay, a n d < 4 5 % s a n d a n d <
40% silt, o n a w e i g h t basis
COD C h e m i c a l O x y g e n D e m a n d ; a m o u n t of o x y g e n c o n -
s u m e d w h e n s e w a g e is o x i d i z e d b y c h e m i c a l m e a n s
denitrification b i o c h e m i c a l r e d u c t i o n of nitrate o r nitrite
to g a s e o u s n i t r o g e n o r n i t r o g e n o x i d e s
429
distribution box a b o x that receives s e w a g e a n d a l l o w s it

to escape t h r o u g h l e v e l outlets of the same size so that the
s e w a g e f l o w is split i n t o e q u a l f l o w s
drop box a m o d i f i e d d i s t r i b u t i o n box; it discharges e f f l u -
ent o n l y w h e n the l e a c h f i e l d that discharges i n t o it is f u l l
exchange capacity the total i o n i c charge of the soils that is
active i n the a d s o r p t i o n of cations or a n i o n s
EIS E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact Statement; a comprehensive
s t u d y a n d r e p o r t that m u s t be p r e p a r e d u n d e r the U . S .
E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y A c t for projects that m i g h t h a v e a
s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t o n the e n v i r o n m e n t
igneous rock rock formed by the cooling of molten
m a g m a , rock w h i c h has not c h a n g e d m u c h since it f o r m e d
incidence the n u m b e r of o c c u r r e n c e s i n a g i v e n p o p u l a t i o n
d u r i n g a given time period
infiltration m o v e m e n t of l i q u i d t h r o u g h a surface
invert a p i p e l i k e a n u p s i d e - d o w n J that directs o v e r f l o w
f r o m a f u l l l e a c h f i e l d to a l o w e r - l y i n g l e a c h f i e l d
isotropic h a v i n g the s a m e p r o p e r t i e s i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s . A s
u s e d i n this b o o k , " i s o t r o p i c " s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d to
mean "isotropic and homogeneous"
loam s o i l c o n t a i n i n g 7% to 27% clay, 28% to 50% silt, a n d
< 52% sand
mound a p r o t u b e r a n c e of w a t e r o v e r a layer of water, or
over a low-permeability stratum, or a p r o t u b e r a n c e of
i m p o r t e d s o i l materials o v e r s o i l (soil m o u n d )
morbidity i n c i d e n c e of illness
mortality p r e v a l e n c e (percent) of deaths i n a p o p u l a t i o n
pathogen a n y m i c r o o r g a n i s m that c a n cause disease
percolation m o v e m e n t of l i q u i d t h r o u g h a p o r o u s b o d y i n
r e s p o n s e to g r a v i t y
perk rate rate of w a t e r l e v e l fall i n a test h o l e u n d e r stan-
dard conditions
perk time the t i m e it takes for the w a t e r l e v e l i n a test h o l e
to d r o p o n e i n c h
perking w o r d that substitutes for the m i s n o m e r " p e r c o l a -
tion testing"
GLOSSARY 431
permeability the relative ease w i t h w h i c h gases or l i q u i d s

penetrate t h r o u g h the s o i l
p o r e space the v o l u m e not o c c u p i e d b y s o i l particles i n a
b u l k v o l u m e of d r y s o i l (also, " v o i d s " )
prevalence the percent of a p o p u l a t i o n that is affected at a
given time period
r e p l a c e m e n t area see reserve area
reserve area area i n a lot that is r e s e r v e d for f u t u r e l e a c h -
f i e l d s i n case the o r i g i n a l o n e s fail
s a n d (particle) a s o i l particle b e t w e e n 0.05 m m a n d 2 m m
i n diameter
s a n d (soil) soil w i t h more t h a n 85% sand, a n d i n w h i c h
percentage of silt p l u s 1.5 t i m e s percentage of clay does n o t
exceed 15
sesquioxides o x i d e s w i t h f o r m u l a M O , w h e r e M is a
2 3
m e t a l , c o m m o n l y i r o n or a l u m i n u m
s i l t (particle) a s o i l particle b e t w e e n 0.002 m m a n d 0.05
m m i n diameter
s i l t (soil) s o i l w i t h 80% or m o r e of silt a n d < 12% clay
step-down a v e r t i c a l barrier or " p l u g " at the e n d of a l e a c h -
l i n e , w i t h a h o l e near the t o p , that a l l o w s o v e r f l o w to fall to
a lower leachline
structure the t y p e of a r r a n g e m e n t of s o i l particles
TDS T o t a l D i s s o l v e d S o l i d s , or " s a l t s "
texture the relative p r o p o r t i o n of s a n d , silt, a n d clay i n a
soil
U trap a U - s h a p e d p i p e b e l o w a n y s i n k or d r a i n that h o l d s
w a t e r a n d f o r m s a seal so that gases f r o m s e w e r s or septic
t a n k s c a n n o t escape u p the s i n k or d r a i n (the correct trade
n a m e is " P t r a p " )
vector i n b i o l o g y , a l i v i n g o r g a n i s m or i n a n i m a t e object
capable of t r a n s m i t t i n g p a t h o g e n s
Index
aquifer 49 gradient 37
arbitration and mediation gravel packing 75
centers 303-306 greywater 1
groundwater degradation 133
biomat see clogging layer
blackwater 1 head
hydraulic 36
capillary flow 41 soil 37
capillary tension 44
clogging layer (mat) 17-18 infiltration 35
composting toilet 127
lawsuit cases 327-345
Darcy's permeability leachfield
constant k 37 function 17
distribution box 129 types 17
leachline
electro-osmosis 127 hypothetical size 22-26
ethics practical size 87-91
case histories 191-193, failure factors 93
358-371 fill 130
in general 352
eutrophication 142 microbial travel 134-138
evaporation from soil mounding
surface 48 in general 135,155
evapotranspiration (ET) under leachline 157-161
system 126 under seepage pit 161-164
expert testimony 311-324 over groundwater 167-168
433
nitrate control sewage

a saga 373-382 consequences of improper
solved problems 405-406, disposal 2
411-423 diseases 2-4,209-210
nitrogen cycle 145 clarified 12
nitrogen i n septic tank sewers vs septic systems
effluent 148-149 171-177
sludge 12
percolation 35 soil
perk report structure 31
development 201 textural separates
standards 249-261 (particles) 29
texture vs permeability 61
scum 11 textures 255-256
seepage bed 18 soil m o u n d system 127
seepage pit
described 18 transpiration 50
size 116-118
falling head test 111 U n i f o r m Plumbing Code
septic system 11 33,85,179-190
septic tank inadequacy of rates
defined 11 423-426
p u m p i n g frequency
14-15 wetting front 41

Septic Systems Handbook - KAPLAN, O. BENJAMIN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Septic Systems Handbook - KAPLAN, O. BENJAMIN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

COPYRIGHT © 1991 by LEWIS PUBLISHERS, INC.

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or trans-

LEWIS PUBLISHERS, INC.

Over the last decade, I have reviewed over 3,000 percolation

The first edition of this book emphasized technical knowl-

This second edition has benefited from insights provided by

2 THE SEPTIC SYSTEM 11

3 ECONOMICS OF LEACHFIELD SIZE 21

5 SOIL WATER MOVEMENT 35

6 THE PERCOLATION TEST, OR "PERK"

8 FACTORS AFFECTING FAILURE OF

9 SIZE OF SEEPAGE PITS 107

10 VARIOUS ONSITE SEWAGE

12 NITRATE IN GROUNDWATER 145

15 THE UPC, UNIFORM PLUMBING

18 STANDARD SITE SUITABILITY/PERK

Appendix C ...................... 215

Appendix D ........................ 219

Appendix E ....................... 235

Appendix F ........................... 237

Appendix G ....................... 239

1.1 Spread of disease; percent of

1.1 Derivation of benefit/cost ratios and

Why Public Health Agencies Control

I used to believe that everyone knew that sewage poses a

few such "experts."

1.1 CONSEQUENCES OF IMPROPER DISPOSAL

Ponded sewage near inhabited areas may afflict residents

half a million to a million cases per year worldwide

diseases propagated through direct or indirect contact with

1.2 CATEGORIES OF CAUSATIVE AGENTS A N D

Various Types of Tapeworms, Roundworms, and

Ancylostomiasis. The hookworm larvae penetrate the skin

Ascariasis. The roundworm eggs stay i n the

Dracontiasis. These unusual roundworm larvae are shed

Enterobiasis. The adult female roundworm, "pinworm,"

Strongyloidiasis.The roundworm larvae in contaminated

Somatic cysticercosis. The eggs of the tapeworm are

Schistosomiasis. The eggs of the flatworms are discharged

Trichuriasis. Eggs of the roundworm develop into embryos

Candidiasis. The yeast is transmitted by contact with feces

Amoebiasis, balantidiasis, and giardiasis. The protozoa or

Epidemic and sporadic viral gastroenteritis, hepatitis A, and

Allegedly, there are infectious agents even smaller than

Although sewage is a potential health hazard, some

agencies have implemented programs of immunization and

1.3 THE COST OF PREVENTION

One may ask, if the risk derived from improper sewage

difference is explained below by means of two hypothetical

Table 1.1 Derivation of Benefit/Cost Ratios and Determination of Most

Tons of fertilizer 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60

quite applicable to prevention of communicable disease, as

1. It pays to intervene as soon as possible. Prevention is simi-

Table 1.2 The Spreading of a Chronic Nonlethal Communicable Disease

Week Cumulative Number

3. It is generally wise to allow no exceptions to prophylactic

The hypothetical illustrations in the previous section are

1. Kaplan, O. B. 1978. Health input into land use planning:

4. Benenson, A . (Ed.). 1970. Control of Communicable Dis-

The Septic System

Sewers carry sewage away from its point of origin to a

2.1 THE SEPTIC T A N K

As seen in Figure 2.1, sewage drains out of a house