19.4°C Cloudy 
MAKE HOMEPAGE
I wish to respond to Charles Shepard's treatise on sewage disposal systems (Journal, Dec. 16/09).
He states that many rural subdivisions have sewage ejectors, polluting their own and their neighbours' wells. Most multiple-lot subdivisions provide lot sizes of four acres or less. A sewage ejector, according to the laws of Manitoba, requires a lot size of 10 acres. In fact, it is illegal to install a sewage ejector within a half-mile of a village, hamlet or multiple-lot subdivision. Mr. Shepard should certainly know this if he is in the sewage handling or advisory business.
As for the quality of the effluent from a septic tank, it has undergone the same bacterial digestion process that occurs in a sewage lagoon, but without the benefit of sunlight. The effluent from a lagoon is usually released directly into a river. From a septic tank, which normally serves only three or four people, there are two methods of release: 1. It may be trickled out, about 50 gallons at a time, through a sewage ejector on the soil surface, where it receives sunlight treatment. Most of it evaporates. The small amount that soaks into the soil surface is absorbed by the vegetation of the treed or grassed area surrounding the ejector site. Very little, if any, will reach the ground water. 2. Releasing the effluent into a disposal field. It is two to four feet below the major root zone of plants, so only a small percentage will be absorbed therein. Unless the underlying soil is quite impervious, very little will percolate to the surface to evaporate in the sunlight. Most of the effluent will soak into the ground water. Out of sight, out of mind. But still a scary thought in a multi-lot subdivision, where both your own and your neighbour's septic field may be as close as 50 feet to your well.
Which brings us to holding tanks, as recommended by Mr. Shepard. They catch all of the solids and liquids that emanate from your plumbing. When fell, the contents are sucked out by a vacuum tanker truck and transported to a licensed sewage lagoon. If you are lucky enough to live close to the lagoon, the service will cost about $75. But if you live 15 or 20 miles from the lagoon, the charge will more likely be $150. So if we use Mr. Shepard's figure of 300 gallons per day per household and a truck capacity of 2,000 gallons, obviously this will be a weekly expense. That's $4,000 to $8,000 annually to get rid of your flush, bath, laundry and dishwater. Bet you'll quickly learn to conserve water. I wonder if Mr. Shepard's company, Sep-Tech Enviro, just happens to operate a fleet of those sewage sucker trucks?
New sewage disposal rules announced this fall by the Manitoba government require that all sewage ejectors in the province be changed to either septic fields or holding tanks. The cost will range from about $5,000 to more than $50,000, depending on soil type, for every farm or smallholding presently using an ejector. In the non-absorptive soils of the Red River Valley, the homeowner will need to haul in more than 10,000 cubic yards of sand to build a sand mound to contain his field. The cost of hauling the sand may well exceed the value of some properties. Thus, the government has reduced the value of most rural properties by $5,000 to $50,000 — all for the avowed purpose of protecting the environment and cleaning up Lake Winnipeg.
In the RM of Lansdowne, as in much of Westman, the number of people using onsite wastewater treatment systems amounts to a population density of 2.5 people per square mile. I ask Mr. Shepard and/or any member of the Manitoba government to demonstrate how the body waste, bath, laundry and dishwater from 2.5 people per square mile poses any hazard to the environment, locally or to Lake Winnipeg.
Leonard Paramor
Arden, Man.
