This area is all sand dune. Water moves very easily through sand. It is not the great filter that some believe it to be, as there is nothing in sand to trap anything. Sand does not support wetland vegetation (it is not soil) and so areas where there is sand do not become designated wetlands in studies done when the land is dry if that is sole the criteria used for wetlands (it is not supposed to be the sole criteria, but it has been in the Chester permitting, with soils evaluations and wetland designations done when lake levels had receded and the area was dry). It is a catch 22. That this land is wet on a regular basis is no mystery- it is visible as such on aerial photos in use and is designated as "Pond Zones" on the DEP and GIS surveys of the area. We have told the town and the DEP countless times that the area is in the high water of Silver Lake. We have shown photos to those who would take the opportunity to view them (see the Phippsburg BOA's refusal to do so in their "objective" hearing on the matter, pages 8 and 15 in discussion of this permit here).

The town still has permitted these installations because it can point to the applicant's professional soil surveys as their excuse (relief from responsibility) and as a way to get the project initiated, as has happened here. I do not believe that these soil surveys are accurate as far as indicating the water table because so far they have NOT shown what I know to be the true level of the water table. The denial of the natural characteristics of the area by the town in accepting these untimely surveys is like looking at the ocean at low tide and using that observation in determining the edge of shoreline. The seasonal rise of water levels into this area is well documented, and was brought to the attention of the appropriate town officials on numerous occasions prior to the permitting.

The same approach was used with the Hill's septic installations. See here for a look at photos that show remedial efforts by the Hills after the septic tank permitted originally to Wyatt failed. I did a water test near the tank (from my property) and found e-coli present (see copy here). I have written the town CEO and asked that he determine the extent and scope of the failure. I have gotten no reply. The house is being actively rented.

Once these installations are permitted and then fail, the town attitude seems to be to allow the owner whatever remedial efforts need to be undertaken to fix the "problem". Further permitting, I am told, is not necessary since the installation is already in place and is exempt as a subsurface wastewater installation. The original assumption is that it is a subsurface earth installation when in fact both of these have been subsurface water installations, an installation which should not take place by anyone's standards and which I believe is (certainly should be) prohibited by the state plumbing code.

A recent call to a company that does this type of work revealed that the State plumbing code prohibits installations in areas which have experianced water levels above the low end of the installation in the last ten years. Both the Hill and the Chester sites have been under water in the last three years running. This year saw exceptional rainfall in April, May and June, but these sites were both UNDER WATER IN MARCH, before the worst of the spring rains. This was a result of heavy snowfall totals, and was indicative of the amount of water that becomes part of and causes the water levels of Silver Lake to rise in the spring. Look at the weather statistics from NOAA here on the amounts of rain over the last TWO springs. 2003 saw levels almost as high as this past year, though not as sustained. This year had a large amount of rainfall in April, May, and June, but last year saw very little snowfall, and yet, even with only one rainy month, the lake managed to rise enough to cause water levels above these installtions. Spring 2004 was THE DRIEST January, February and March on record and yet these areas were under water in April of 2004!

So, as a way to allow bogus and irresponsible permitting, the town rubber stamps the project based on soil evaluations submitted by applicants who contracted that they be done during low water months, and then, when the system fails, allows remedial efforts to fix what should never have been permitted in the first place. The town simultaneously claims to know of and then denies knowledge of the local conditions they are supposed to oversee and relies solely on information supplied by the applicant. I asked the CEO on March 3, 2004 about permits in the area and was told specifically that there were none for my neighbors. He had, in fact, signed the septic permit that day for the project. Some might say that this would have to mean that he was either not aware of what he was signing and had done no checking on the location of the permit, one might conclude, if one were of a suspicious nature in these things,that he had purposefully mislead me. It seems like a nice way to get around any common sense prohibition on a water side septic installation (my neighbors have seen fish swimming in the area permitted for the subsurface leach field installation), and it seems to me to be counter to State plumbing codes, if, as they have contended, the town authorities are aware of the water present in this location. As long as you can do all permitting at low water, you can install these systems in underwater areas which are connected to other peoples property and are the source of their water supply. This would seem to be a neat way to also apply for ocean or riverside direct overboard discharge installations since that is what this essentially amounts to.