Pond Boss Forums POND CONSTRUCTION Soil questions Septic system close to Pond

Well, they're baaaack! Phase II of Brettski's pond construction has kicked into gear. I spent 3 hours in chilly pouring rain on Saturday with my contractor, walking the perimeter and discussing all the elevations that the boss and I shot, the areas marked for clearing, and the planned improvements. Besides the actual pond and dam, the building site is of next importance. That is where this thread is heading.
The entire project is surrounded by fairly thick timber. We are cutting out a hole in the woods, about 1/2 acre, directly adjacent to the east end of the pond (yellow area, right side). This will be the building site. It is a decent slope in this area, dropping about 16' over the 180' overall depth of this site. The plan is to push dirt out of the pond basin that afronts this zone and build up a huge knoll within this new clearing. I calculate about 5000 cu yds total. A man-made bumpout peninsula will project out into the natural basin. It will project about 50 feet out past the natural shoreline and be part and parcel of the entire filled-in building site. It will be part of the entire 1/2 acre zone.
The future plan is to have house, garage, out-buildings built nearer the rear of this zone (to the east end/right) in order to allow the foundations to reach thru thinner fill dirt and reach undisturbed soil for support integrity. This will leave a beautiful, wide expanse of lawn area to look across to the pond and the dam some 700+ feet away. This lawn area will be the septic zone.
I have had conversations with the county health dept and they are OK with a septic in fill dirt, so long as it perc's OK. They said the guidelines are 25' min from any water body and usually include a perimeter drain for my kind of project. I also spoke with a popular septic guy from the area and he said that the perimeter drain is likely going to be required and a good idea. Because of the lousy perc in my area (due to clay), the fields are pretty big for a 1200 gal tank. He told me to allow about 70' x 120' for the entire system. My plan will do this and still keep it more than 25' from the pond...maybe 40 feet p/m?
What's the Pond Boss forum consensus on this septic plan. Does anybody else have systems close to their ponds? Am I settin' myself up for disaster?...or...any outside the box thinkin'? (for the record, I have nix'd the idea of a mechanical system since this will be a second home for many years. From what I have read, mechanical systems need to be used and watched regularly...or am I off base?)

Personally, Brettski, I would place the septic system as far from the pond as possible. I know of several ponds with septic systems above them, but I don't know if anyone eats fish from the ponds or even really worries about them. Assuming there were no problems when everything works OK, what happens when everything's not OK? Septic systems can suffer breakages, leaks, overflows, and (insert your own horrible sounding thing to do with apple butter here).

In keeping with your basic excavation/house pad plan, how about placing the septic system on the far side of the house from the pond rather than in the yard between the pond and the house? I suppose you might have to move the house a tad closer to the pond - think how many steps that will save you when you are retired!

I can testify that leach fields leave a nice dark, lush green pattern in the grass ("The Grass is Always Greener over the Septic Tank" - my cows' favorite Erma Bombeck). By moving the septic system you would keep this out of your view of the pond.

Definitely avoid an aerator septic system if at all possible. The motors invariably cause more trouble than everything else combined, and when they're not aerated properly, they reek. When we were looking for property, we nixed one place because it had an all-aerator septic subdivision next door, none of which seemed to work.

There's not much that can break with a septic tank and a leach field - if they work when they are put in, they're good for decades.

...to put it behind the structures would push the buildings to a point where the footings will not hit undisturbed soil. I have tried to overcome this logistical constraint, and I keep coming back to the original formula. This, combined with the overall appeal of the planned layout as it stands now. Keep takin' shots...my little brain is still twistin' on this one.

Brettski- I may be completely off base because of elevations, but have you considered using solid PVC to carry the water further away from the septic to a leach field? If you can keep the pipe level or with a small amount of fall you can move the leach field hundreds of feet away from the septic tank.

Brettski - 25 feet from the water is all that is required on Fill? I design Engineered Septic Feilds in SE Michigan and we can't even get within 50 feet of the water on native ground let alone fill. At least around here septic fields placed on fill tend to fail at the point where the fill meets the native ground. If I understand your project correctly, that would be at the shoreline of the pond. Prior to filling does the ground slope to the pond site or away from it? I tend to agree with PFF except that I would even entertain the addition of a small effluent pump. They don't use much electricity, have a good track record as far as longevity goes, and would allow you to place the field a significant distance away. I am also curious what they call a perimeter drain. If this is a drain placed around the outside of the septic field to lower the existing ground water, doesn't it have to have an outlet? (pond) If so, and the field fails, isn't that more or less a direct connection to the surface water? What is the cleared area to the right being used for?

I would look at a wet lands system. Not difficult to build and very effective. Look at www.vetiver.com I don't know if the plant is available in your area, but if it is it could be your solution.

Think about using a pump tank and get the septic system as far a possible from the pond. I design septic systems for a living and have seen many fail. Ask yourself, would you drink sewage filtered by only 25' of soil. If not, don't build the system near the pond.

Personally I would place the septic downstream on the dam. The cost of a good pump and pump tank is less than $2k plus a couple of bucks a foot for the force main.

As you can see the area of the property where I built the house and pond at my place is pretty tight. I was required to put in a curtain (perimeter) drain, shown in yellow, due to a marginal perk test. The septic tank and leach bed, shown in blue, are very close to the pond. The septic system is buried in fill from the pond and the grass grows about twice as fast and much greener where the leach tiles were placed. I haven't seen any ill effects (odor or overfertilization of the pond) from my set up but it is only a couple of years old.


My only other options required some sort of mechanical mechanism/maintenance to operate which I didn't want any part of. There are many lakes where hundreds of homes dump "aerated" sewage into that the fish are perfectly safe to eat. I am no expert but it seems unlikely that a significant amount of anything unwanted would make it into your pond from your proposed layout.

Alot depends on where the system is located. down in Texas or in one of the dryer states its probably ok. Up where I live in Western New York, we get alot of rain and have cold wet ground conditions for half of the year. These systems work great in the summer but not so good in the fall, winter and spring.

Coliform bateria can travel hundreds of feet in grounbdwater and where there are coliforms there is a host of other nasty microbes. I have gone scuba diving in some of the lakes around here where there are no sewers. Typically there is a sludge blanket dozens of feet thick on the bottom.

Eating fish from water like that likely won't kill you in the short term, but I for one don't find it too appealing.

get a good water filter/cleaning system for the house. and cook the fish reeeaaallyy good. how 'bout that! i never seen any patients come in complaining of "my septic was put too close to my pond and it leaked and drained into the lake, and now i am contaminated and think i'm dying." hypothetical...yes.. does it happen? never seen it, probably never will.. just get it as good as you can for a reasonable cost and i don't think it will be that big of a deal. my pond is smack dab against my septic field, even the gray water drains into my pond. i don't sweat it. i'll die of heart dz or stress before i'll die of a situation related to my septic too close to my pond. mark

Brettski,
My septic is 28 yards from my pond.
I have owned property in the past that was on a septic system and leeched into the ocean which was 110 yards away. It also was leeching into small fresh water pond about the same distance away. The government arrived several years later and shut me down until I installed, either a sealed system that required periodic pumping or an approved wetlands system. We opted for the wetlands system and coral again grew and the lagoon cleared of the plant growth that had covered it.
This time I have opted for the pump out periodically, it is not too expensive and the wetlands would just about take up all of my useable space.

Brettski,

Is it possible to set up a grade such that you can flow the septic to the area north of the yellow area( parallel to the pond for a short distance) and then away from the pond? All you need is gradual slope...and a backhoe can give you slope for the lines, relatively easily. If it were me, I would not go for the 25 foot guideline. Too close for comfort.

i'd satisfy the regs, put the septic as far as you can away from the pond, reasonably, if not, i don't think it will be a horrible deal.

i believe the pond in question is a private pond. i could understand more strict guidelines if you were near a public body of water, ocean, lake etc...however for a private pond..i don't think it is as critical

...been on the road; sorry for the slow feedback from my end. Many thanks for the input and ideas.
The topography won't cooperate with routing it further away. The entire wooded area is a "bowl" that slopes in from the surrounding farmland. Ironically, it was this topography that made this such a great pondsite. There is a potential, tho, to run a line from the tank due east into the 1.75 ac meadow area. About 1/2 way across the meadow, the slope flattens and runs downhill as it goes east. By memory, I fear that the uphill from the building site to the meadow is going to be too much for conventional gravity...and I really don't want pumps and the like if I can avoid it. We will be out there soon. I expect that the building site is cleared by now (been working on it all week, I hope)and "things" should be much clearer. I'm gonna get a(nother) hole in my head from scratchin' it on this one. When ya look at an aerial, it seems so simple. Then ya walk the project and face reality.

Well, the boss and I went and dropped off the 6" PVC pipe for the drain. This will be the first visit since phase II kicked in this past week. The building site is cleared, along with a .22 ac. south-facing picnic/beach area. This along with clearing out an emergency spillway, cutting in more driveway, clearing more pond perimeter in preparation for the peripheral driveway, and other various diggin' and prunin'....Ka-ching! Anyway, I wanted to share a pic taken right from the spot within the "yellow" building site where a home will someday reside. This is the zone that will eventually be filled in with basin soil, creating a short, wide peninsula projecting directly out/away, reaching out side-to-side.
For reference, the white "patch" at the far end is 300 ft of 20' sections of 6" PVC pipe. The truck and 16' utility trailer are parked to the right of the PVC pile, directly in the center of the damsite.
...don't mean to bore ya'll...just kinda buzzed on the progress. I'm still stuck on the septic field thing

How close do you guys think a aerobic septic system's spray heads should be froma pond? I am not sure if they are used up North because of freezing.

Brettski,my own septic field is 35 feet from our swimming pond. There has been no seepage, leakage, or transfer of water from our septic system into the pond. Think about what goes into your septic tank. Used steak, potatoes, toothpaste and some laundry detergent. Then, microbes break it down, and gray water makes its way into the lateral lines, where soils absorb it. There is no fear from what you put into the septic tank, unless you flush pcb's or something else toxic. The fear comes from microbes harmful to human health. As mentioned above, e. coli is the main concern. If I were in your shoes, and didn't have peace of mind, I would further test the perc rates of your soils, and move the field further from the pond. One client of mine built a septic system in clay soils and chose to excavate a much larger ditch, backfill with many yards of crushed rock, add his lateral line pipe, add more rock, then fill the ditch with topsoil. He has the prettiest grass in the yard, shaped like the letter "F". You can see where it obviously starts, and where it ends. His family doesn't use lots of water. I suspect if we were raising 13 kids and running lots of stuff through the system, I would pay closer attention to it.
On another note, in 27 years in the pond management business, I have yet to come across a pond where septic fields have caused any identifiable problems. That's not to say ponds won't get e. coli. That can come from sources other than human ones, as well. But, I have not seen one where the septic system was an issue.
I did come across one situation years ago, in a larger community lake, where a number of houses were built, and one guy ran his gray water straight into the lake. There was a localized bluegreen algae bloom with some strange looking filamentous algae, too. It took about three minutes to see the pipe at the edge of the lake. Community enforcers took care of that, pronto. They tested the entire lake via random samples, and this one guy's indiscretions didn't damage the lake.
If I'm in your shoes, I put in the system, as far away from the pond as practical, and have confidence in it. I vote with the advice you got from the county.

I too have the "F" effect from the from an installation very similar to what Mr. Lusk described. Pea gravel was used instead of crushed rock. I wish the grass in my entire yard was as nice as the leach bed. We are careful of what we put down the drain for both septic system and pond health. No harsh cleaning chemicals, grease or cooking oil and we avoid "antibacterial" products that go down the drain as well. I'm not sure if the antibacterial products harm the break-down process but it sure seems like they could.

Yes indeed, we are also all too familiar with the "F" thing. Our principal residence leach bed has a stutter; there are 11 Le,Le,Legs x 100' each. I can get over this two-tone issue on the pond project. Our ban of anti-bacterial products includes bleach. I have had two opposing opinions on this subject. The county health dept says it's an overreaction. The guy that owns the hunney truck says keep it out or minimized. He also added to try using single ply TP (sorry, couldn't go to that level) and stressed the importance of NOT using tissue like Cottonelle...says it's like flushing a cotton T-shirt. I insisted on staying and watching the entire process of our first pump-out. It was uncharted territory for me and I wanted to learn and make sure of a good job. Whoa...!

Brettski:

I work at a health department. I'm in management so not an expert at anything and can't provide good advice on this. I can say that most health department environmental health people will try use common sense to provide you guidance as to the best system for your particular situation if you ask and provide the specifics. They have no profit motive and many deal with a lot of systems.

As an aside, there has been a major battle waging for some time over the septic system issue. Here are some background links. Basically, environmental groups have sued the federal EPA to require Illinois EPA to prevent surface discharging septic systems. Their argument is that discharging systems are prohibited by the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act as it applies to all surface discharges.

There are approximately 150,000 existing septic systems in Illinois. With mandatory maintenance / inspections / soil testing / new systems, there is a LOT of money at stake.

Many local health departments are opposed to this change due to the cost involved for homeowners, due to the fact that non-discharging systems do not work well in many of our soil types, and recognition that too stringent regulations result in more raw sewage discharges (i.e. can't afford or don't want the hassle of a "legal" system so sneak in a 55 gallon drum with a pipe). I could rant about forever; but here are some related links.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2006/general-private-sewage/index.pdf

http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2006/general-private-sewage/draft-permit.pdf

http://www.owpi.net/

http://www.prairierivers.org/

A couple representatives from IEPA (the one writing the regs and his boss) came to a meeting I attended last week to provide more info. This thing is still pretty fluid; but headed down a bad path. We've stopped it before; but most of the surface discharging systems are downstate and most of the legislators are upstate. The comment period expires July 10th.

This is important for you because I don't remember the language providing any grandfathering provision. IEPA has verbally said that existing systems won't have to comply until major renovation; but...

In total fairness, I think most of the IEPA staff would rather this whole issue go away. Certain "environmental" groups and others who stand to gain are the ones pushing it.

Thanks, Ranger...I have to curl up by a fire and get in some quality linkage reading.
Please clarify some thoughts you have provided. When you say "surface discharging septic systems", are you talking about a conventional closed field or a mechanical system that discharges a stream of biologically clean effluent? Then, when you say approx 150K total units in Illinois, that doesn't seem like alot, comparatively. This leads me to believe you mean the latter noted in previous question.

Brettski:

My understanding is that surface discharging includes any system that discharges ANY effluent to the ground's surface. The top of the following links states 140K units; but article is dated 2004. The IEPA rep stated 150K last week. I have heard the 150K number from other IDPH and IEPA reps in the past year.

http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/news/stories/news2956.html

This is more interesting reading that the public notices.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/conservation-2000/lake-notes/septic-systems/septic-systems.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/pdfs/septic.pdf

As Mark pointed out, illnesses related to septic systems are rare. Very rare. If memory serves, at a meeting I attended a couple years ago IEPA and the Prairie Rivers Network were challenged to provide one documented case of a fatality or serious illness and did not. My understanding is that the City of Chicago is occasionally allowed to release untreated sewage into a river up there. I don't know if that is true, but seems like I heard it from some health official.

All that said, I'm not about to drink out of one of those systems which discharges a "clean" effluent like I've heard some claim you can and I'm not about to eat fish caught out of that Chicago river.

Pragmatically, we should probably all worry more about that extra Twinkie we eat and the exercise we don't get than the septic system discharges.

Ranger:

Undoubtedly, the city of Chicago does, at times (and it's allowed, to a certain extent) discharge raw, untreated sewage to the river. This is mainly because of what's known as "combined sewer overflow". Storm water drains that (years ago) were connected with the sanitary sewers.

You get a big rain, and the sewage treatment plants cannot handle (nor were they designed for) this huge surge of rainwater and sewage combined. They are forced to then discharge directly to the river.

I'm on a septic system and it's a surface discharge. I'd love to install a drain field and may be forced to do so in the future. For now, it discharges into a drainage that feeds directly into my newest pond. Next summer, I plan to have that pond's water analyzed for E coli, fecal coliform and maybe some other things. I'm in the ENV. field, so I've got the contacts and it's pretty cheap.

Assuming the dang pond ever fills, I feel that the amount discharged by my wife and I will have little impact on the quality of the water, but I'll confirm that...but probaby won't swim there.

If I ever sell the house and a small acreage, I'll be forced to install a sand mound, as I'll not risk letting anybody else discharge to my pond. We damn careful about what goes down the tube here, others might not be. Got a buddy with the backhoe, trackhoe and mini excavator, so really the cost would be the pipe, stone, sand and fuel (maybe $1000). It's just that our lawn only just got back to normal after the major excation of 4 years ago (new basement) and I'm not looking forward to digging the dang thing back up just yet.

Direct surface discharge is far from ideal, but the alternative is beyond the means of many. I'd be in for about $4000 or more if I had to pay for all of it.

Matt: The cost / benefit tradeoff is my major gripe with the proposed changes. The county in which I live and work is rural and has a very low per capita income. I don't want to be in a position where I force a single parent living in a $3,000 trailer trying to make ends meet or an elderly person debating whether to pay for medications vs. utilities to pay $4,000 for a new septic system - especially one that may not work as well in our soils as one that does have some surface discharge - when the risk of serious illness is low.

I think gov. regs are getting out of control. In a county next to me, the new code is all new construction must include a safe room. That adds about $10,000 to the builders cost. Alot of builders are are leaving the county to build now.

Ranger:

I understand your issue quite well. I'm in the enviro field, and know the risks...and that they are actually quite small, from any individual home. The reason most states are trying to do away with direct discharge septic systems is that, as they are quite common, the aggregate of the discharge is big. I think it's unfair to impose these restrictions retroactively...Iowa allows homes to be grandfathered. No large changes and you don't need to retrofit. Major work or bath additions and you need to go with a sand mound or similar. It's quite expensive, and beyond the means of many. That's why most don't even bother to tell the county officials when changes are made...

** UPDATE, 2 + years later **
It's just about the end of October, some 26 months after I presented this thread for consideration. I just spent the morning at the LNP project with a certified soil analyst, performing a perc test.
We walked out onto the building pad and he quizzes me where the septic field is going to be located. I quickly describe my grand plan for structures and then point out to the area of the building pad that ends at the edge of the pond. We talk a little and he asks me if this is undisturbed soil. I tell him it's fill from the pond construction. He decisively responds "you can't put a septic field into fill". To this I respond "that's not what the county health department told me 2 years ago"....and summarize my thorough inquisition with the county health department, and how I double checked by asking another source within the department. He says the state would likely take issue with their decision, but admits that counties can make judgement decisions that fly in the face of the state. I'm sure my sudden uneasiness was apparent. He agrees to take a quick core sample from the approx center of the target zone. As he prepares, he's asking me questions about how it was prepared. I tell him it was the silty loam processed with some clay within the pond basin. He asks how it was deposited. I tell him "with a rubber tired scraper" and asked him if that was an issue. He shakes his head and warns that it is very possible that it is packed too hard to be perc correctly. At this point, he has this core sampling probe set up and starts to push it into the ground. It is a 3/4" dia tube that is sharpened at the business end. The first 4" of the tube is totally intact. After and above that, 1/2 of the tube perimeter is cut away so you can see the soil plug as it pushes up along the tube body. The probe has 2 foot stands, like a pogo stick, that he jumps on to push it straight down into the soil. He goes in about 24" and pulls it out and looks it over and flicks it with his finger. He shows me the different layers of soils from laying it in as fill. He's not sounding very positive. About 12" down, theres a 1" length of blue clay, then back to processed clay/silt. It's not super consistent. He assures me that the best processed soils that are filled are easily identified. These soils are classic. He pushes the probe back into the same hole and pulls up the handle, extending a wratchet mechanism to allow continuing deeper into the same hole. He's really jumping on it now, then it slides in kinda easy for 6 more inches, then he's gotta jump on it again. He pulls it out, shaking his head. He tells me that it isn't gonna matter whether the state would approve of putting septic field in fill or not....this area won't work anyway. I start to do a controlled adult whine. It doesn't work; he won't budge. He assures me that putting a septic field in this soil would be a catastrophy, probably failing within a year and spilling into the pond. The soils would refuse correct absorbtion and the effluent would move laterally. Fuggedaboutit.
-
CRAP! (how apropos, eh?)
-
Now, sensing I need a little calming assurance and assistance, he starts to look around for options. I already know "plan B", but refused to consider it necessary....until now. Yep, we're gonna have to pump it somewhere else. Yep, out to my field to the east.
-

-
Well, I'm feelin' kinda sick as I take him thru the woods and out to the field. My whine has now shifted to unanticipated costs and the work to clear the timber to make this work. He stops and explains that this is not a huge change in the program, but will include a little more equipment and related cost. He says that instead of putting the septic tank out in front of the house, on the pond side, we will put the tank behind the house, on the field side. A second, smaller tank with a pump is right next to (and after) the main tank. The effluent fluid that would normally leave the main tank and head for the field will take a slight detour. They go into the pump tank. A 2" or 3" pipe (he was unsure on the size) runs from this pump tank and thru the woods to the off-site septic field. In our case, this is uphill...that's why a pump would be required. He thinks the collateral damage to the woods is minimal since it's just a pipe trenched in to carry the fluids to my field.
-
Now....the blessing and silver lining. All is not lost...
-
OK, this still sucks, but it's not sounding like a catastrophe. he continues to try to calm me, reassuring that this is no biggie. OK...OK...now I gotta go thru this one more time in the new field.
We get out there and he stands and looks. He quizzes me on the property lines and (for the first time) starts to sound positive. He likes the topography, finding nothing wrong with the field. Then he walks to the closest, likely area to put in a septic field....an area just past the tree line and heading east into the field. As good a place as I could hope, considering my recent loss of "Plan A". OK, it's probe time.
-
Now, I gotta tell ya, I'm nervous now. You see, I have drilled post holes in a field at the the other end of this property and the soil findings were unbelieveably hard clay. The augur goes thru the top 10" of silty loam and would hit rock hard clay. This is all I can think of as he sets the probe onto the soil and climbs up on the foot pedals (that second cup of coffee this morning has become a mistake as I wait for him to hit a brick wall at 10" deep)...
It never happens. In fact, it's slipping into the soil consistently and without alot of jumping on the foot pegs. He pulls out the first 24" long plug, turns the probe horizontal and flicks at the plug along the sample length. He shows me difference from the first sample; the loamy and consistent texture of the plug. He is pleased....I guess I am too. He pushes the probe back in for another 2 footer. He says that we are now down to 48" and pulls it out. He looks at the sample and notes that we have probably hit the impervious layer. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out a small bottle of clear liquid. It's hydrochloric acid and he puts a few drops on the end of the plug (the deepest sample on the probe) and says that it should fizz. He says that the carbonate in the soils will react with the HCL; carbonate created by the water that hits this zone and can no longer permeate. No fizz. He is pleasantly surprised and says this is good, indicating that we still have percolation at 48" deep. He assures me that this is definitely where we want our septic field....I tell him to do the complete test.
He takes 3 samples, spaced apart about 60'. The center sample is done with an augur that pulls up a sample about 4" in diameter. He lays the augur sample on the ground for examination and to show me the good news. I stare at this larger plug, crumbled and stretched out on the ground and ask him to put it in layman's terms. I tell him that I am very familiar with the 1 - 10 scale, where 10 is the best. He quickly replies that we are a 7 and have no worries.
He completes the test by sketching a map using a nearby property marker, documenting a couple of GPS coordinates, and asks me where he should send the $225 invoice.

That's just a crappy subject to begin with, Brettski.

I'm glad plan B worked...at least now you can have peace of mind that you'll never have septic issues with the pond.

AND you and Dski will own a "Mystery Spot"

"Liberty Nature Preserve: Where Crap Flows UPhill"

Part of my whiney reaction to this altered plan included the anticipation of having to go back home and explain to the boss how my brainstormy planning for a simple septic system has failed. Having a quick response for all my woes, he tells me to remind her that she will have no fears for driving on the front yard AND won't have the dreaded "F" pattern in the lawn during the summer.
Lucky duck.

The worst part to me, Bski, is that I strongly suspect your area septic system requirements are set up for cramming houses in to subdivisions on 1/2 acre lots, and would have little relationship to your fitting one in to a parcel the size of LNP.

If you were just talking about an out building (shop, cabin, etc) then I would suggest another possiblilty. A propane fired incinerator toilet. There are 12 volt propane fired incinerator toilets (Eco John is a notable one) that basically incinerates the waste into a sterile ash. One five gallon tank of propane is good for approximately 200 "flushes." It is not real cheap to buy (approx $4,000 complete with all of the chimney parts) but it is completely self contained. Four grand sounds expensive but by the time you are done with the cost of the septic field installation the cost of a incinerator toilet (at least in our neck of the woods) begins to make a lot of sense.

Basically it looks much like a regular toilet. You do your business and then push a button. For the Eco John there are two different buttons one for urine and one for waste - it runs a more efficient burn cycle for just urine. The end result is a sterile ash. Once or twice a year you pull out the "ash tray" and scatter the ash, which is sterile so it doesn't matter where you put it, use it to fertilize your tomatoes, I don't care, I don't like raw tomatoes so I won't be eating them anyway. The unit is self contained and runs off of propane and a 12 volt battery - hook up a small (15 watts is more than enough) solar panel and you're good to go (no pun intended, however I did find the pun amusing, then again I'm easily amused).

There are several companies that make incinerator toilets: Eco John, Incinolet, Stor Burn. I prefer the Eco John in that it does not "store" waste. After each use it runs a small and efficient burn cycle. Others like the Stor Burn, store the waste in a larger tank and then, when the tank gets full, it will incinerate the tank full. The Eco John is more like a regular toilet. You use it, you "flush" it, end of story.

Incinerator toilets are, IMHO, good alternatives for an "off the grid" non septic system waste disposal system. There are also "composting toilets" but they get very mixed reviews and are more of a pain to maintain.

You obviously will need to check with local regulations, etc, etc, blah, blah, your mileage may vary, member FDIC.

Keep in mind that these are more cabin/out building oriented not for a full house system and so may not be applicable for your use. So once again you should probably ignore everything that I just wrote.

Why do you people keep paying attention to any advice I give? Jeez how many times do you have to hit your thumb with a hammer....

Brettski, for what it's worth: I had a similar experience with the soil and water department. The first lady came out and did a perc test and said no problem. After the house was built the original S&W lady retired and the new one said we had to do another test. The new lady didn't like the results so she said we had to install a curtain drain. My septic system was set into fill from digging my pond. It's pretty much nothing but clay with a little topsoil on top. One difference between mine and yours is that my fill was pushed in place with a track machine. It's been five years so far and we haven't had any trouble but I was taught that soil takes 7 years to settle, or at least before it's considered "undisturbed". In practical experience though I've seen it take 10 years to settle so I'll just be keeping an eye on my place.

Pumping would be a last resort for me. If I was in your shoes, I would continue to search for alternatives to mechanically lifting. Maybe the septic system installers will have some ideas.

Good info above, JHAP, even if it's not applicable for Bski.

YA HOO! I'm up to six good posts. Count'em 6.

Take than naysayers!

Plus I'm recently received a Theo rimshot. I'm on a roll I tell ya.

brettski have you considered an aerobic system?

Around Plain City the soil doesn't perc much either and the new houses have some sort of sand mounds behind them.

Bretski...

I agree with James. I have an aerobic system at my place and have had no problems in 6 years. The only problem you might have is the 20 amp circuit you would need for the pump and aerator.

What happens if you give a "Courtesy Flush"???????

I have heard of lighting a fart, but that takes it to the extreme!!!

aka; mound system. Often used for areas of very high water table. I can't go there (aesthetic issues for me and maybe zoning for the county...?), but thanks for kickin' in Ryan.

Of course, it's on the radar simply because it is an option....but a long shot for my desires.
The jury is still out on whether I am actually going to bring in utility power or go totally off-grid solar. In fact, the electric guru joined me at the same time as the perc-test guru. I should have utility powered shock-and-awe delivered in about 2 weeks (in the form of an installation quote).
As Ezlyman pointed out, there is a power requirement (that I believe is fairly constant...?) for aerobic. I am already having some power issues with the thought of an ejector pump running occassionally, but it will be infrequent and should not draw killer wattage. Unless someone can show me otherwise, the total avg. power draw should be considerably lower with the ejector system. Also, with the ejector system, it is something that I could service....should the stinkin' thing ever need it.

I am not sure of the power draw for the ejector system, but I am fairly confident that you could put together some solar panels with a battery to power the system. I don't know what the average monthly draw would be, but if you contact one of the manufacturers, I am sure they could let you know. With the aerobic system, the aerator runs constantly and the pump runs for a couple of minutes after every 100 gallons or so.

I have thought about hooking up two separate lines when I build my house with only the toilets going to the septic and everything else going to a gray water system that could be used for irrigation anywhere I want to put it. This would cut down MASSIVELY on the load that your septic system would have to deal with. Up front cost is probably around $1000 - $1500, but the decreased load on the septic system will help make that cost up by not having to pump out the tank as frequently. I am thinking of a 4 or 5 year payback if I put in a dual system. Send me a PM if you want to talk with me.

So, I call my septic contractor with the news about the soils analysis. He is immediately put out by the way it all played out. It became quickly apparent to me that I would have done much better by having him with us during the field inspection and soils analysis. OK, spilt milk. Now what?
My guy tells me he wants to get out to the site and take another look. The date is made.
He looks it over and still cannot believe how the soils guy bull dozed me right into a 2-tank pump system. He turns his focus on the area behind the house and is disappointed that the soils guy didn't suggest using that area.
-
He tells me that I want a conventional septic system if at all possible for simplicity of function and maintenance. Makes perfect sense to me, but how? He asks me why I don't want to put the tank and field behind the house. I thought that would be obvious. There isn't much real estate for a field and it's uphill from where a tank would be located. He kicks the dirt and chuckles. A little creativity can go a long way in achieving the system we seek. He suggests that I allow him to get the county health inspector to the sight to see what can be done. Whoa! Done deal; go for it. He does.
-
I get a phone call a couple weeks later. It's my contractor. He got the inspector out to the sight. He started verbally describing what the plan would be to salvage installation of a conventional system. It starts to confuse me a bit, and another date is set to meet at the site to lay it out.
It winds up that the inspector likes the area behind the house. It's close enough to the area that the soils guy approved out in the field so he will also approve the soils closer to the house. It also happens to be undisturbed soil; he likes that too. I'm still baffled on how he's going to work it into the uphill slope.
The inspector told him that we can't go down beyond 18" - 24" max. My contractor assures me that he can still sneak in a conventional field, reminding me that the tile and field does not have to be right up at the surface. He can artfully cheat it in with the proper slope, starting shallow nearer the house and going downhill and deeper as we move toward the uphill slope. I'm used to seeing septic fields as large, square'ish blocks. He laughs again, telling me they can be any shape that it takes to make it work. Mine will be very wide. The soil pipe will exit the gar/apt high and very near grade (to allow enough downhill trajectory as we move along thru the system).

This map of the building site is fairly accurate for scale. The only change would be the footprint for the structure grew to 28 x 44. The bottom curvature of the site is the shoreline of the pond. This is the larger zone where I originally wanted the septic field. The new plan puts the field at the top, stretched out left and right, between the structures and the timber behind them.
The tank will be buried between the garage/apt that we are building right now and the location of the future house. The field will be directly adjacent behind both buildings. The lay of the land and the uphill slope will force the field to not move very far in the uphill direction, but spread out to the left and right. We will have to pluck out a few more trees and open up the treeline at the back of the backyard area to make enough room, but he is confident it can be done.
The plan is to install a 1250 gallon tank with enough openings to allow for inlets from boths sides (to receive inflow from the gar/apt and also the future house). We will only hook up the gar/apt. Also, to save money, we will only install enough field to service the smaller gar/apt. The inspector wants 1200 sq ft of field for this beginner system (4 runs of 100' x 3' wide). The distribution box just past the septic tank will be selected as a type to allow expansion of the field size at a later date.
-
So....what did I learn? As always, work with a contractor that is known and has good reputation. Like my guy, he will know the right people and be able to secure the best possible results. If it costs a little more, pay the price to have him actively involved during the soils testing. I sure wish my guy was there for that one. Finally, don't assume knowledge of physics means the answers (and roadblocks) are obvious. Let the guy that has been doing it for years share a little bit of the art'sy end of getting a job done. He can bridge the gap between book smarts and street smarts.

The conventional system will be cheaper to operate in the long run as well, K.I.S.S. philosophy.

And there's darn little to break.

I have an aerobic and for breakage there is only the air pump. The area used is small, not fields, one in pipe and two out, air vent and waste water.

4 bathroom and 7 people.

The output is allowable for gardens.

I have 3 other non aerobic systems and they have only been in service since November, so I have no experience as yet.

This maybe off topic a bit but, I would recommend that you have a separate system for gray water. 5 of my 7 users are female and their hair causes more problems than any other single factor.