Here are a few quotes from the EPA regarding decentralized septic systems:
“On June 28, 2013, EPA released a model program for onsite wastewater treatment systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to help states more effectively prevent nutrients from entering the Bay from onsite or septic systems, which will improve water quality. When properly designed, sited and maintained, decentralized systems like septic systems can treat wastewater effectively and protect surface water and groundwater.” (http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic/index.cfm)

Nearly one in four households in the United States depends on an individual septic system (also referred to as an onsite system) or small community cluster system to treat their wastewater.

These various types of decentralized wastewater treatment, if properly executed, can protect public health, preserve valuable water resources, and maintain economic vitality in a community. EPA concluded in its 1997 Response to Congress (PDF) (101 pp, 5.8MB, About PDF) that “adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long-term option for meeting public health and water quality goals, particularly in less densely populated areas.” (http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic/index.cfm).

Not only can well maintained septic systems treat effluent just as effectively as centralized systems, for far less investment, but they offer the unique benefit of returning the cleansed effluent to the watershed from which it was obtained. Centralized sewer systems, on the other hand, alter the natural distribution of water flow by withdrawing water from one watershed and introducing it to another.

Central sewer systems are necessary in areas of high population density, but the EPA has concluded that well designed and maintained decentralized systems are just as effective in treating effluent and far more cost effective in low density areas, like Northampton County. Decentralized systems also offer benefits like maintaining the recharge rates of individual aquifers, that aren’t feasible in centralized systems.

Finally, it is important to note that where studies have been done to document what pollution was found to be present in local creeks (bacterial source testing), only a very small percentage of that pollution was human in origin — for example, 14% in King’s Creek according to the TMDL plan for that watershed. In every local watershed that has been tested, wildlife has been the primary contributor to fecal coloform readings.

We don’t have a big septic problem in Northampton County — let’s not invent one.

Let’s look at what the EPA says on the mater: EXCESSIVE ENGINEERING and REGULATORY OVERKILL (EPA 832-R-97-001B). In short the EPA made a report to Congress that recognized that onsite disposal systems can often protect the environment as well or better than centralized systems. There are many advantages to DECENTRALIZED treatment systems, especially for LOW DENSITY COMMUNITIES. Our option at this time is to realize our assets as a community and help those that are driving our community instead of punishing them with this idea that a centralized sewer is going to bring us prosperity. It did not work with the SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES PARK with a treatment facility in the same Park! Going forward with this project could have as much negative impact as a positive one at this time. STOP WASTING TIME AND MONEY — dissolve the PSA!