The Leelanau County Board of Commissioners has once again come close to adopting a long-awaited set of regulations requiring inspections of older wells and septic systems – but without success.

For several years, the county board’s “septic regulation subcommittee” – which includes several distinguished engineers and scientists – has been recommending that the county adopt environmental health regulations requiring the inspection of older septic systems that may be threatening to pollute surface water.

For several years, however, the county board has consistently rejected adopting the regulations – often by narrow margins – with opponents citing problems with how much the inspections might intrude on private property rights and cost taxpayers.

Last week, the county board acting as its executive committee voted 4-2, with District No 1 commissioner Jean Watkoski absent, to recommend that the county board adopt the regulations. District No. 7 commissioner Melinda Lautner and District No. 3 commissioner Will Bunek, as expected, voted in opposition.

The regulations might not have survived the executive committee vote had District No. 5 commissioner David “Chauncey” Shiflett not amended his motion by adding that inspections would not be required if a property is the subject of an “interfamily transfer” and as long as septic “mound systems” will be allowed with new construction.

Hope that some form of the new septic inspection regulations would be adopted at the county board’s regular monthly meeting Tuesday evening faded when District No. 2 commissioner Mark Walter was absent and Watkoski was present. Walter had voted in favor of adopting the regulations last week, while Watkoski has long expressed reservations about the program.
During a public comment opportunity at the Aug. 14 meeting, five members of the public spoke up in favor of adopting the regulations. Four more “pro-septic inspection” advocates offered public comment Tuesday evening while two members of the public spoke out against adoption of the proposed regulation.

Shiflett moved to adopt the regulation, seconded by District No. 4 commissioner Mary Tonneberger. Following discussion, however, it became clear that the motion would likely fail in a 3-3 tie. Tonneberger then moved to table the question until next month’s executive committee meeting.

In the meantime, Tonneberger said, the septic regulation subcommittee could meet again to possibly “tweak” language of the regulation before bringing it back to the full county board for further consideration. The date of the subcommittee meeting had not yet been posted Wednesday morning before this newspaper’s deadline.

Lautner, who has been a staunch opponent of the regulation – and voted against it at the most recent meeting of the septic regulation subcommittee, of which she is a member – suggested that she might be inclined to support the regulation if it focuses more clearly on “riparian” or “shoreline” property owners whose older septic systems may be threatening surface water quality.

Watkoski expressed concern about an estimated $42,000 pricetag to conduct an initial study to determine which properties may require a septic inspection. Adoption of the ordinance does not involve approving the expenditure in next year’s budget, however.

Assuming the inspection program is ever put into place, most costs would be covered by inspection fees of about $300 each on approximately 400 properties per year over the next 20 years, according to the subcommittee’s recommendation.