See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274287342

Do septic tanks pose a hidden threat to water quality?

Article  in  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · March 2014

DOI: 10.1890/130131

CITATIONS READS

151 4,448

5 authors, including:

Paul Withers Phil Jordan

Bangor University Ulster University
193 PUBLICATIONS   12,375 CITATIONS    155 PUBLICATIONS   5,135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Linda May Helen Jarvie

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology University of Waterloo
122 PUBLICATIONS   5,074 CITATIONS    180 PUBLICATIONS   12,234 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LANDMARK: Land Management Assessment Research Knowledge base ( EU H2020 project) View project

The Agricultural Catchments Programme View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Withers on 16 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWS

Do septic tank systems pose a hidden threat 123

to water quality?
Paul JA Withers1*, Philip Jordan2, Linda May3, Helen P Jarvie4, and Nancy E Deal5

Aquatic ecosystems are being degraded by anthropogenic pollution on a global scale. Septic tank systems (STS),
which are widely distributed in rural and peri-urban areas, are one potential source of water pollution. Although
generally regarded as the most efficient method for onsite treatment of domestic wastewater, we question
whether current regulation and management of these systems is sufficient to guarantee that they function effec-
tively. Here, we present watershed-specific examples that illustrate some of the problems that arise when many
years of inadequate regulation and management result in a legacy of failing STS that can become long-term,
chronic sources of nutrient pollution. Our data suggest that more accurate accounting of the location, perfor-
mance, and degree of failure of STS, and more research into their impacts on water quality, would improve source
attribution of pollutants within rural watersheds. This would ensure that education of homeowners, mitigation,
interdisciplinary research, and technological innovation could be targeted in a cost-effective way.
Front Ecol Environ 2014; 12(2): 123–130, doi:10.1890/130131 (published online 11 Nov 2013)

A quatic ecosystems provide valuable goods and services

– including clean water for drinking and irrigation,
sources of food and energy, and recreation – that benefit
human society. They also support a diverse range of
microbial, plant, and animal communities, and biogeo-
chemical processes that regulate water quality.
Maintaining these ecosystem services is critical for
human and environmental well-being (MA 2005), and
actions are required to halt the endemic declines in water
quality and aquatic biodiversity that have occurred over
the past century due to human interference and impacts
(Vörösmarty et al. 2010). Identifying and addressing the
numerous threats to water quality at their source is criti-
cally important for maintaining ecosystem health.
In a nutshell:
• Accurate identification and targeted control of pollutant
sources that degrade water quality is vital for the sustainable
management of water resources
• Septic tank systems can be a major, and potentially underesti-
mated, source of water pollution
• The performance of septic tank systems varies widely from site
to site, and there is little or no integrated regulatory control of
these systems in many locations
• Septic tank systems must be better maintained and monitored
so that they remain effective and do not threaten water quality
in environmentally sensitive areas
1
School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor
University, Bangor, UK *(p.withers@bangor.ac.uk); 2School of
Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine, UK;
3
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Penicuik, UK; 4Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK; 5Department of Public
Health On-Site Water Protection Branch, North Carolina Division
of Public Health, Raleigh, NC
Pollution is a major threat to the ecological integrity of
aquatic ecosystems, water security, and human health.
Urbanization and agricultural intensification have greatly
increased the amount of organic matter, nutrients, pesti-
cides, pharmaceuticals, and pathogens in the world’s
rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and coastal zones. This
has promoted eutrophication (Smith 2003) and the
spread of infectious diseases (Patz et al. 2004), and raised
concerns over the long-term effects of persistent micro-
pollutants (pollutants that exist in trace amounts in water
bodies) on aquatic life and human health (Schwarz-
enbach et al. 2006). Further human population growth
and climate change will place increasing pressure on
water resources, reducing their capacity to dilute these
pollutant inputs, especially in vulnerable headwaters
where flow volumes are low.
Septic tank systems (STS), the most common form of
onsite domestic wastewater treatment, are one potential
source of water pollution in headwater catchments.
However, in many areas of the US and Europe, STS are
usually not considered a sufficiently important source of
water pollution for policy-driven regulatory controls at
the national or watershed scale, or for adequate policing
where these controls already exist. This is most likely
because STS have long been considered an effective and
permanent solution to the treatment of domestic waste-
water in rural areas. They offer several advantages over
more centralized systems in terms of energy efficiency and
cost, and have very low greenhouse-gas emissions (US
EPA 2002; Weiss et al. 2008; Diaz-Valbuena et al. 2011).
However, there is now a growing body of evidence link-
ing STS discharges to water-quality impairment (Carrara
et al. 2008; Katz et al. 2011; Macintosh et al. 2011;
Withers et al. 2011; Mallin and McIver 2012). New strin-
gent controls on phosphorus (P) inputs to already
eutrophic waters, for example in the Baltic Sea, are also

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 Septic tanks and water quality
124 now drawing attention to uncertainties over the long-
term effectiveness of STS and their contribution to
eutrophication (Eveborn et al. 2012).
Here, we consider whether current regulatory and
maintenance standards for STS are sufficient to ensure
that they are operating effectively and not presenting a
pollution threat to aquatic ecosystems. We compare the
regulatory controls and functioning of STS in the US,
UK, and the Republic of Ireland (hereafter referred to as
Ireland) and review reasons for their failure. We then
examine the nature of STS impacts on water quality in
rural headwaters in these three countries and discuss how
inadequate regulation and maintenance can result in
conditions that impede the restoration of aquatic ecosys-
tems. Our analysis indicates that the degree of regulatory
and management failure, and the resulting threats to
water quality and human health, may be underestimated
because locally administered and variably enforced regu-
lations cover only the planning and installation of STS
and not their subsequent performance, unless specifically
permitted. We argue that more research into STS func-
tioning in different environments is needed to inform
modeling of their potential contribution to nutrient loads
and effects on water quality in rural watersheds.
n Septic tank systems
Septic tank systems are used worldwide to treat domestic
wastewater from individual or small groups of dwellings in
rural (and some peri-urban and urban) areas that are not
connected to a main sewage network. For example, it has
been estimated that 26% of households across Europe
(Williams et al. 2012), 25% in the US (US EPA 2002),
and 20% in Australia (Beal et al. 2005) rely on STS for
onsite sanitation. Following on from an early French
prototype, the septic tank was first introduced into the
US in 1883 and into England in 1895; the basic design
has changed very little since then, although the need for
an adjacent drainfield (or “soakaway”) was only recog-
nized some 50–60 years later. Today, STS typically com-
prise a one- or two-chamber septic tank, where solids set-
tle out and undergo anaerobic digestion, and a piped
drainfield, where abiotic and biotic processing (eg filtra-
tion, adsorption, nitrification, denitrification) within and
below a biomat zone (the zone of organic matter build-up
in a drainfield soil) purifies the tank effluent. This treated
effluent then disperses naturally into groundwater. In
some STS with advanced nutrient removal, drainfield
effluent may be allowed to discharge directly into the
nearest surface water. While the tank reduces the loading
of organic solids, it is the slow percolation of the tank
effluent through the drainfield soil and underlying strata
that attenuates most of the nutrients, micropollutants,
and pathogens that are present in household wastewater
(see comprehensive reviews by EPRI 2001; Beal et al.
2005; WERF 2009).
Septic tank systems are usually buried underground and
www.frontiersinecology.org
PJA Withers et al.
therefore hidden from view and assumed to be working
effectively. When STS are planned, designed, installed,
operated, and maintained properly, rates of pollutant atten-
uation are indeed very high (70% to >90% of pollutants are
removed). For instance, Robertson (2012) documented one
domestic STS where close to 100% of the lifetime P loading
to a STS over 20 years was completely retained by the sand
filter bed within 2 m of the infiltration pipes. Nitrogen (N)
attenuation is naturally more variable (20–80%) given the
restricted opportunities for denitrification of nitrate
(NO3–) or anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) to
occur within the subsoil. This means that NO3– enrichment
of nearby groundwater wells is often related to the density
of STS in the area (Gill et al. 2009; Katz et al. 2011). While
research has indicated where systems work best, not all STS
are installed in optimal conditions, and design specifica-
tions may be circumvented where sites are unsuitable, lim-
ited by a lack of available land, and/or by cost constraints.
According to US EPA (2002), one-third of soils in North
America may not meet modern drainfield design require-
ments, as reported by Day (2004). In rural areas of the UK
and Ireland, STS are typically clustered adjacent to water-
courses because of topographical restrictions on house loca-
tion, a historical need for access to water, and high stream
densities. Some older systems still receive stormwater in
addition to wastewater and may also be undersized for
modern levels of water usage.
Suboptimal conditions may lead to lower pollution atten-
uation rates and more rapid system deterioration over time,
with a resulting increase in the risk of water pollution; for
example, P attenuation can fall to 10–30% in subsoils with
low P retention capacity (Robertson et al. 1998; Eveborn et
al. 2012). Poor STS performance commonly occurs where
effluent loading rates to the drainfield are too high; if the
drainfield soil type is unsuitable; or if the drainfield area is
inadequate, too close to a watercourse (ie high water table),
or absent altogether; and where systems are not maintained
properly (Butler and Payne 1995; Beal et al. 2005).
Although tanks should be emptied when more than 30%
full of solids (or “sludge”; US EPA 2002), this recommenda-
tion is often ignored. Tanks do not function properly when
damaged or full of sludge, and this can result in tank over-
flow and higher levels of organic matter in the tank effluent,
which in turn can clog the drainfield and lead to poor infil-
tration, soggy drainfields, and surface runoff (Figure 1b).
Deliberate discharge of so-called “foul drainage” – used water
from domestic sink, bath, shower, toilet, washing machine,
and dishwasher waste pipes – directly into watercourses
(termed misconnections) can also occur (Dunk et al. 2008).
Thus, there is broad variation in STS performance (eg
EPRI 2001; US EPA 2002), ranging from very effective
systems with good subsurface drainage and retentive sub-
soils (or with filtering media) that disperse treated efflu-
ent into groundwater, to defective systems that discharge
partially treated effluent to a surface waterbody, either
directly (eg misconnection) or during storm events (eg
blocked or slowly permeable drainfield). However, the
© The Ecological Society of America
PJA Withers et al. Septic tanks and water quality

number of defective systems (a) (b) 125

is unknown because most
STS are not systematically
inspected; only those larger
systems that require a specific
permit to discharge are rou-
tinely monitored for dis-
charge quality. For most sys-
tems, failure is cataloged only
when an acute water-quality
or odor problem arises. The
most accurate information on
STS failure rates is collected
via field performance surveys
of randomly selected systems.
In the US, such county sur-
veys suggest low failure rates
(< 7–13%; eg Lynn et al.
2005; Deal et al. 2007; Jordan
2013), with failure defined as
surfacing effluent, graywater
discharge, or sewage backup
Sewage discharges (permit)
into the residence. In the UK
Sewage discharges (exempt)
and Ireland, similar water-
shed surveys suggest that a
much greater proportion
(~70%) of STS are failing Figure 1. Siting of STS and potential points of failure. (a) Location of consented (142) and exempt
due to poor tank mainte- (1079) domestic wastewater discharges in the watershed of the River Conwy in North Wales, UK,
nance, defective drainfields, following the introduction of a compulsory registration system for STS in 2012 (data supplied by
and surface-water discharges Environment Agency Wales, with permission). The clustering in valley bottoms and the close
(Arnscheidt et al. 2007; May proximity of STS to headwaters is very marked in an area with shallow stony soils over bedrock. (b)
et al. 2010; Withers et al. In failing systems, a (1) full or (2) damaged tank, (3) stormwater connections, or (4) a blocked
2012). Generally, lower fail- biomat or lack of onsite drainage (hydraulic failure) leads to reduced effectiveness, storm overflows,
ure rates might be expected and increased risk of runoff to nearby streams via (5) surface and (6) subsurface pathways. (7)
in the US because STS densi- Some older systems lack a drainfield and discharge directly into a watercourse (misconnection).
ties will be lower and because
systems can be located farther away from, and are there- in the US, state and local authorities set their own regu-
fore less connected to, watercourses. latory targets in relation to N and P emissions from STS
When STS fail to work effectively, nearby groundwater (and other onsite wastewater treatment systems),
and surface waters can become contaminated with polluted depending on whether they are considered a water-qual-
leachate or surface runoff, which may have direct conse- ity problem or not (SORA 2012). In a recent survey car-
quences for human and environmental health. Such ried out by the State Onsite Regulators Alliance (SORA,
impacts may include NO3– enrichment of aquifers (Katz et a professional organization of government regulators of
al. 2011), fecal contamination of water supplies (Ahmed et STS), 25 out of 49 US states reported that regulations
al. 2005), disease outbreaks (Borchardt et al. 2003), antibi- were in place for N discharges, whereas only 10 states reg-
otic resistance in aquatic microorganisms (Graves et al. ulated P discharges (Figure 2). A further eight states and
2002), eutrophication of surface waters (Mallin and McIver four states were considering introducing regulations for N
2012), loss of biodiversity (Short and Burdick 1996), and a and P discharges, respectively, in problem or eutrophica-
decline in the ecosystem services provided by aquatic tion-sensitive areas (eg those with high amenity value).
resources (Palmer-Felgate et al. 2010). The type of regulation, the size of the system it pertains
to, and whether it was regulated statewide or adminis-
n Regulatory controls tered by local counties also varied widely. In many cases,
regulations did not apply to small residences and fewer
The widespread perception that STS are very effective in than 10 states kept a register of permits required for the
treating domestic wastewater is reflected in the absence installation of larger systems that use advanced treatment
of standardized regulatory controls over their discharges, technology to improve nutrient removal.
which consequently vary from good to poor. For example, A similar survey of relevant UK authorities conducted

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 Septic tanks and water quality
126
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphorus (P)
Figure 2. Status of regulations covering N and P discharges
from onsite wastewater systems according to a survey of 50 US
states, US territories, Native American tribes, and Canadian
provinces conducted by the State Onsite Regulators Alliance in
2012. States shaded light blue are where survey respondents
indicated that N and P from onsite systems were not considered
to be a problem at this time. States shaded dark blue are where
respondents indicated that some problems due to N and P occur
in places, but regulations are not being considered at this time;
states shaded purple are those where respondents indicated N and
P regulations are being considered; dark green states are where
respondents reported that N and P is regulated and that
regulations may apply to smaller and larger systems; light green
states are where respondents indicated that N is regulated, but
regulations apply only to larger systems. No response was
received from Arizona. The survey shows that N discharges from
STS are more of a water-quality problem than P discharges,
reflecting the greater mobility of N in subsoils and groundwater.
in 1992 also showed large regional variations in the inter-
pretation of various national regulations governing STS
installation (Butler and Payne 1995). The survey found
that responsibilities for administering the regulations
were divided among four different government authori-
ties and that the absence of single authority control had
led to the installation of some STS with inadequate
drainfield designs, in unsuitable locations, and with no
common policy covering their registration or mainte-
nance. Some older systems were poorly maintained and
discharging directly into watercourses without authoriza-
www.frontiersinecology.org
PJA Withers et al.
tion, while some authorities reported that rural commu-
nities became tolerant of STS problems in areas where
they regularly occurred. More rigorous regulations are
now in force for new STS being installed in the different
parts of the UK, but hundreds of thousands of unregis-
tered older STS still remain, and their condition and
effectiveness are largely unknown. The lack of integra-
tion between the different regulatory authorities is clearly
illustrated by a recent compulsory STS registration
scheme in Wales, which revealed that the location of
only 12% of STS in the River Conwy catchment was
known to the water regulators (Figure 1a).
A relatively large number of STS installed in the
1970s serve the rural populations of Ireland and
Northern Ireland (part of the UK). The degree of regula-
tion over their design, location, and discharge has largely
been decided at the county level and therefore varies
considerably (Clenaghan et al. 2005). In October 2009,
following widespread public health concerns over the
contamination of local water supplies by STS, the
European Union (EU) Court of Justice ruled against
Ireland for failing to adequately regulate STS discharges
under the 1975 EU Waste Framework Directive (Case C-
188/08), an infraction that incurred large daily fines but
has also brought the issue of STS effectiveness and
impacts on water quality sharply into focus. The Court
found that only one rural county council (out of 28) had
a legislative framework in place (full registration and a 7-
year inspection program) that complied with the require-
ments of the Directive. The Irish Government is now
implementing legislation that will make homeowners
responsible for ensuring that their STS do not constitute
a risk to human health or the environment (water, air,
and soil) or to plants and animals. Importantly, the EU
fines were lifted in February 2013 and the case was closed
in May 2013, after the publication of a national risk
assessment method and inspection plan (Republic of
Ireland EPA 2013a, b). The risk assessment method
is used as a means of focusing inspections and estimates
the potential pollution (N, P, and bacteria) risk to
groundwater and surface water from the number of STS
in the watershed and the permeability of the soil and
underlying geology.
In Northern Ireland, the current STS effluent quality
standard is based on biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and suspended solids removal. In subwatersheds of < 2
km2, new installations can discharge directly into the
watercourse if 95% BOD removal can be achieved in the
STS effluent. This standard does not, however, account
for nutrient concentrations, which can be high even
in modern systems. Phosphorus concentrations, for
instance, are typically at least 2 mg L–1 in discharges from
modern STS, which may be high enough to cause
eutrophication of receiving headwaters under low flows.
Additionally, the standard does not account for the exist-
ing STS density, which can be as high as 15 systems per
square kilometer in some headwaters (Arnscheidt et al.
© The Ecological Society of America
PJA Withers et al. Septic tanks and water quality

(a) (b) 127

0.8 0.08 0.8 0.4
County Armagh County Monaghan
TP concentration (mg L–1)

TP concentration (mg L–1)

0.6 0.06 0.6 0.3

Flow (m3 s–1)

Flow (m3 s–1)
0.4 0.04 0.4 0.2

0.2 0.02 0.2 0.1

0 0 0 0

27-May-06 03-Jun-06 10-Jun-06 17-Jun-06 03-Apr-06 13-Apr-06 23-Apr-06 03-May-06

(d) (c)
0.15 0.08
0.4 County Louth
County Armagh

TP concentration (mg L–1)

TP concentration (mg L–1)

0.12
0.06

Flow (m3 s–1)

0.3
0.09
0.04
0.06
0.2
0.02
0.03

0.1 0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 11-Mar-10 15-Mar-10 19-Mar-10

Hour

Figure 3. (a, b, c) The impact of STS discharges on P concentrations in three headwater streams on the border between Ireland and
Northern Ireland under low-flow conditions. The flow and P time-series charts cover periods of low or zero rainfall when surface-
water runoff does not occur and baseflows become the major contributor to streamflows. Without exception, as baseflows decrease
(blue line), P concentrations increase (red line), indicating a direct source input and a loss of dilution potential. (d) Box-whisker plots
of hourly P concentrations over 6 days in the County Armagh watershed show diurnal signals associated with patterns of wastewater
discharge. TP = total phosphorus.

2007) and more than 30 systems per square kilometer in identification and targeting of the major sources of nutri-
larger watersheds (Douglas et al. 2007). ents responsible for the growth of nuisance algae and the
loss of aquatic biodiversity, but linking nutrient inputs to
n Wider watershed goals ecological impacts is complex, especially in rivers (Jarvie
et al. 2013). Source apportionment models tend to iden-
The SORA survey in the US identified emerging water- tify the main watershed contributions to annual nutrient
shed nutrient management goals as an important driver loads as the main sources to control (ie agriculture and
for more rigorous regulation of STS in the future. Nutrient large wastewater treatment centers), while STS are largely
pollution is one of the most widespread, costly, and chal- perceived to be small and dispersed units that contribute
lenging environmental problems in the US and, indeed, only a fraction to watershed nutrient loads and are there-
globally. Nutrient reduction goals (eg total maximum fore generally not considered to be important sources of
daily loads) have been identified for different regions (US nutrients. For optimally performing systems, this is usually
EPA 2008), and rigorous target nutrient criteria have been true. However, recent evidence from high-resolution (sub-
introduced in other countries in an effort to address hourly) monitoring of rural watersheds in Ireland and
eutrophication problems in different types of water bodies Northern Ireland has shown that, despite their small size,
(eg SI 272 2009; Defra 2010; Chambers et al. 2012); for clusters of poorly functioning STS can be a major source
example, target P concentrations typically range from 10 of nutrients during the ecologically active spring and sum-
to over 100 µg L–1 in different countries. These targets are mer periods (Macintosh et al. 2011).
well below the concentrations discharged from many Synchronous measurements of water discharge and
functioning STS (eg Robertson et al. 1998). stream chemistry in these watersheds revealed diurnal P
Achieving nutrient reduction goals requires accurate signals of varying phases and magnitudes during low-flow

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 Septic tanks and water quality PJA Withers et al.

128 sewage inputs in a rural chalkland

1.4 headwater, Jarvie et al. (2006) sug-
gested that the most likely source of
1.2
synchronous increases of P and B con-
1.0 centrations at higher flows was the
SRP (mg L–1)

0.8 flushing of STS effluent into the river

as rising groundwater levels came into
0.6 contact with the STS drainfields.
0.4 This will not hold true for all water-
sheds, however, especially where
0.2
other sources of B are present. The
0.0 effects of storm-driven transfers of
STS pollutants on stream concentra-
1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007
tions will also be more variable
because of the increased dilution
Figure 4. Improvement in water quality following decommissioning of STS. A sharp capacity afforded by the additional
decline in soluble reactive P (SRP) concentrations was observed in the River Chew at stormwater.
Litton, Somerset, UK, when a group of STS serving 500 residents, two public houses, To what extent such headwater
and a school was decommissioned at the end of 2002. From 2003 onward, wastewater nutrient enrichment from STS trans-
from these properties was pumped to a nearby wastewater treatment facility and the lates to downstream ecological im-
effluent from this was discharged into another river. The two SRP peaks in late 2005 pacts remains a major research ques-
and mid-2006 may have been caused by rainfall-driven runoff events flushing P out tion but, as headwaters typically
from the drainfields of decommissioned septic tanks. Data supplied by Wessex Water, represent more than 75% of the total
with permission. length of a river, they could poten-
tially impact the health and biodiver-
periods, which were superimposed on a general trend of sity of entire river systems (eg Finn et al. 2011). Reducing
rising P concentrations as baseflows decreased (Figure 3). only diffuse inputs from agriculture without considering
The diurnality is consistent with patterns of domestic the contributions of variably effective STS may therefore
water use, with increases in stream P concentrations undermine eutrophication control strategies in rural
apparent in the morning and early evening (Jordan et al. watersheds. The decommissioning of STS in a small
2007). The number and condition of STS upstream of watershed in England in 2002, for instance, resulted in a
low-flow monitoring points was correlated with the mag- 66% reduction in annual average in-stream P concentra-
nitude of the average seasonal or low-flow P concentra- tions, from 251 to 86 µg P L–1, and enabled the target P
tion (Macintosh et al. 2011), with values reaching over concentration of 120 µg P L–1 for eutrophication control
200 µg P L–1, which are well above the 35 µg P L–1 target in this stream to be achieved (Figure 4). This rapid recov-
required for eutrophication control in Ireland (SI 272 ery confirms that STS were impacting stream P status as a
2009). The failure of STS in these catchments was due to result of direct surface-water loading from failing systems;
a lack of maintenance and inadequate performance of if the P enrichment of the stream had been due to STS
drainfields in an area with soils of low permeability and contamination of the groundwater, a lag period of many
high water tables (Arnscheidt et al. 2007). The low soil years would have been required to observe any improve-
permeability precluded proper attenuation of the STS ment in stream P levels.
effluent, which consequently entered the streams directly
and at a time when their dilution capacity is at its lowest, n Conclusions
thus providing the conditions for maximum ecological
impact. Withers et al. (2011) reported similar problems in Research has shown that STS remain a cost-effective
a watershed in rural England. method of treating domestic wastewater in rural areas,
In addition to low-magnitude/long-duration STS dis- but with large site-to-site variation in their performance.
charges under baseflow conditions, at least some of what There is increasing evidence that a former lack of ade-
is assumed to be agricultural inputs at high flows may quate, consistent, integrated, and/or enforced regulatory
actually be inputs from STS acting as diffuse sources of control over STS design, installation, and monitoring
pollution. Separating the contribution of STS from agri- may be compromising water quality, with increased risk
cultural nutrient sources during short-duration storm to human health. Systems have often been located in
events is difficult without using specific effluent tracers, unsuitable areas and on unsuitable soils, or have been
and little information is available on the importance of improperly maintained or unaccounted for in relation to
this transport pathway. Stream enrichment has been doc- watershed nutrient carrying capacities. This situation has
umented following storm overflows from full tanks (eg arisen either because STS have not been considered an
Withers et al. 2009). Using boron (B) as a tracer for environmental risk, or because the data required for pro-

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

PJA Withers et al.
viding proper guidance have been lacking or poorly inter-
preted. Without national STS discharge limits and with
few regulatory requirements to monitor long-term system
performance, the extent of STS failure is difficult to
quantify accurately, may be underestimated, and may
increase over time as systems age. Local authorities may
be reluctant to set discharge limits because the absence of
technical guidance and federal support may increase the
risks of litigation.
We have demonstrated that failing STS may be far
more important and chronic pollutant sources than their
small contribution to stream nutrient loading would sug-
gest – at least some of what we assume to be nutrient
inputs from agriculture may in fact be inputs from STS.
This is an important message for policy makers as well as
regulatory and conservation agencies because, at the
moment, agriculture is often the sole focus of eutrophica-
tion control efforts in rural catchments. Failure to
acknowledge and address discharges from poorly main-
tained and leaking STS in rural (and some urban) land-
scapes may therefore lead to an overestimation of the
contribution of agriculture to eutrophication and to
delays or failure in achieving nutrient control targets in
sensitive ecosystems. The hidden threats to water quality
from failing STS will be watershed-specific and relate to
local combinations of scale, soil, geological, and rural
population factors, but may be exacerbated by climate
change. Forecast reductions in baseflow (in Western
Europe at least; Prudhomme et al. 2012) will diminish the
capacity of receiving streams to dilute STS inputs, and
the design criteria and performance of drainfields will also
become more critical if storm events grow more frequent
and extreme.
When developing watershed mitigation strategies aimed
at maintaining the important ecosystem services that fresh
waters deliver to society, resource managers clearly need to
recognize that STS must be better accounted for. This
requires more research into why STS fail and their impacts
on water quality, so that mitigation resources can be appro-
priately allocated. As pointed out by the US EPA (2002),
the integration of watershed stakeholders and regulatory
authorities, and links to management goals, remains a
major challenge. In the UK and Ireland, the legacy left
behind by a poorly monitored wastewater infrastructure,
and a rural population that is largely unaware of the poten-
tial water-quality and human health problems that STS can
cause, represents a huge societal and policy dilemma. The
EU endorsement of the risk assessment method adopted in
Ireland provides a sound basis for policy development and a
good benchmark for assessing and/or reassessing policies in
other countries where STS are a pollution risk. Full registra-
tion of all STS and increased public awareness of the issues
appear to be key prerequisites for acceptance of responsibil-
ity (Dunk et al. 2012; Withers et al. 2012). However, forcing
selected homeowners to face the cost of repairing failing
STS, which they may have inherited when they bought
their property (and arguably an unforeseen outcome of dis-
© The Ecological Society of America
Septic tanks and water quality
jointed past policies and lack of guidance), will continue to 129
be a thorny political issue.
n Acknowledgements
The location of consented and exempt wastewater dis-
charges in the River Conwy was provided by D Jones,
Environment Agency Wales, and the River Conwy map
(Figure 1a) showing their location was drawn by I Harris,
Bangor University. The STS schematic in Figure 1b was
drawn by H Byrne (DunseverickART). Stream P data for
the River Chew at Litton shown in Figure 4 were pro-
vided by R Barden, Wessex Water. We also acknowledge
data contributions from the Agricultural Catchments
Programme (Teagasc, Wexford, Republic of Ireland) and
from science/technical staff at the University of Ulster,
and funding from the Special EU Programmes Board
(INTERREG IIIa Project 020204).
n References
Ahmed W, Neller R, and Katouli M. 2005. Evidence of septic sys-
tem failure determined by a bacterial biochemical fingerprint-
ing method. J Appl Microbiol 98: 910–20.
Arnscheidt J, Jordan P, Li S, et al. 2007. Defining the sources of
low-flow phosphorus transfers in complex catchments. Sci Total
Environ 382: 1–13.
Beal CD, Gardner EA, and Menzies NW. 2005. Process, perfor-
mance, and pollution potential: a review of septic tank–soil
absorption systems. Aust J Soil Res 43: 781–802.
Borchardt MA, Chyou P, DeVries EO, and Belongia EA. 2003.
Septic system density and infectious diarrhea in a defined pop-
ulation of children. Environ Health Persp 111: 742–48.
Butler D and Payne J. 1995. Septic tanks: problems and practice.
Build Environ 30: 419–25.
Carrara C, Ptacek CJ, Robertson WD, et al. 2008. Fate of pharma-
ceuticals and trace organic compounds in three septic system
plumes, Ontario, Canada. Environ Sci Technol 42: 2805–11.
Chambers PA, McGoldrick DJ, Brua RB, et al. 2012. Development
of environmental thresholds for nitrogen and phosphorus in
streams. J Environ Qual 41: 7–20.
Clenaghan C, Clinton F, and Criowe M. 2005. Phosphorus regula-
tions national implementation report, 2005. Wexford,
Republic of Ireland: EPA. Report 12/05/500.
Day L. 2004. Septic systems as potential pollution sources in the
Cannonsville Reservoir Watershed, New York. J Environ Qual
33: 1989–96.
Deal NE, Lindbo DL, Rashash D, et al. 2007. Evaluating existing
BMP’s for site selection and septic system installation. In:
Mancl K (Ed). On-site wastewater treatment. Proceedings of
the Eleventh National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems; 20–24 Oct 2007; Warwick, RI.
St Joseph, MI: ASABE.
Defra (Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs).
2010. The river basin districts, typology, standards and ground-
water threshold values (Water Framework Directive) (England
and Wales) directions 2010. London, UK: Defra.
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/wfd/
documents/2010directions.pdf. Viewed 18 Oct 2013.
Diaz-Valbuena LR, Leverenz HL, Cappa CD, et al. 2011. Methane,
carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide emissions from septic tank
systems. Environ Sci Technol 45: 2741–47.
Douglas RW, Menary W, and Jordan P. 2007. Phosphorus and sedi-
ment transfers in a grassland river catchment. Nutr Cycl
Agroecosys 77: 199–212.
Dunk MJ, McMath SM, and Arikans J. 2008. A new management
www.frontiersinecology.org
 Septic tanks and water quality
approach for the remediation of polluted surface water outfalls
130 to improve river water quality. Water Environ J 22: 32–41.
Dunk MJ, Owen A, McMath SM, and Arikans J. 2012. Remediation
of polluted surface water outfalls – customer communication and
changes in behaviour. Water Environ J 26: 191–99.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2001. National research
needs conference proceedings: risk-based decision making for
onsite wastewater treatment. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI. US EPA
and National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity
Development Project: 1001446.
Eveborn D, Kong D, and Gustafsson JP. 2012. Wastewater treat-
ment by soil infiltration: long-term phosphorus removal. J
Contam Hydrol 140–141: 24–33.
Finn DS, Bonada N, Múrria C, and Hughes JM. 2011. Small but
mighty: headwaters are vital to stream network biodiversity at
two levels of organization. J N Am Benthol Soc 30: 963–80.
Gill LW, O’Luanaigh N, Johnston PM, et al. 2009. Nutrient loading
on subsoils from on-site wastewater effluent, comparing septic
tank and secondary treatment systems. Water Res 43: 2739–49.
Graves AK, Hagedron C, Teetot A, et al. 2002. Antibiotic resis-
tance profiles to determine sources of fecal contamination in a
rural Virginia watershed. J Environ Qual 31: 1300–08.
Jarvie HP, Neal A, and Withers PJA. 2006. Sewage-effluent phos-
phorus a greater risk to river eutrophication than agricultural
phosphorus. Sci Total Environ 360: 246–53.
Jarvie HP, Sharpley AN, Withers PJA, et al. 2013. Phosphorus mitiga-
tion to control river eutrophication: murky waters, inconvenient
truths and “post-normal” science. J Environ Qual 42: 295–304.
Jordan P, Arnscheidt J, McGrogan H, and McCormick S. 2007.
Characterising phosphorus transfers in rural catchments using
a continuous bank-side analyser. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 11:
372–81.
Jordan RS. 2013. Field survey of on-site wastewater systems in
Durham County, NC, April 2012 – Falls Lake nutrient man-
agement strategy. Durham, NC: Durham County Health
Department.
Katz BG, Eberts SM, and Kauffman LJ. 2011. Using Cl/Br ratios
and other indicators to assess potential impacts on groundwater
quality from septic systems: a review and examples from princi-
pal aquifers in the United States. J Hydrol 397: 151–66.
Lynn WE, Hoover MT, King LD, et al. 2005. Wake County field
performance and operation and maintenance survey of systems
installed 1982–2002. Raleigh, NC: Wake County Department
of Environmental Services.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and
human well-being: conditions and trends. Washington, DC:
World Resources Institute.
Macintosh KA, Jordan P, Cassidy R, et al. 2011. Low flow water
quality in rivers: septic tank systems and high-resolution phos-
phorus signals. Sci Total Environ 412: 58–65.
Mallin MA and McIver MR. 2012. Pollutant impacts to Cape
Hatteras National Seashore from urban runoff and septic
leachate. Mar Pollut Bull 64: 1356–66.
May L, Place CJ, O’Malley M, and Spears B. 2010. The impact of
phosphorus inputs from small discharges on designated fresh-
water sites. Final report to Natural England and Broads Authority.
Bangor, UK: Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Report C03655.
Palmer-Felgate EJ, Mortimer RJG, Krom MD, et al. 2010. Impact of
point-source pollution on phosphorus and nitrogen cycling in
stream-bed sediments. Environ Sci Technol 44: 908–14.
Patz JA, Daszak P, Tabor GM, et al. 2004. Unhealthy landscapes:
policy recommendations on land use change and infectious dis-
ease emergence. Environ Health Persp 112: 1092–98.
www.frontiersinecology.org
View publication stats
PJA Withers et al.
Prudhomme C, Young A, Watts TH, et al. 2012. The drying up of
Britain? A national estimate of changes in seasonal river flows
from 11 regional climate model simulations. Hydrol Process 26:
1115–18.
Republic of Ireland EPA (Republic of Ireland Environmental
Protection Agency). 2013a. A risk-based methodology to assist
in the regulation of domestic waste water treatment systems.
Wexford, Republic of Ireland: EPA. www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/
water/wastewater/dwwtriskranking.html. Viewed 9 Sep 2013.
Republic of Ireland EPA (Republic of Ireland Environmental
Protection Agency). 2013b. National inspection plan: domestic
waste water treatment systems. Wexford, Republic of Ireland:
EPA. www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/nationalin-
spectionplan.html. Viewed 9 Sep 2013.
Robertson WD, Schiff SL, and Ptacek CJ. 1998. Review of phos-
phate mobility and persistence in 10 septic tank plumes.
Ground Water 36: 1000–10.
Robertson WD. 2012. Phosphorus retention in a 20-year-old septic
system filter bed. J Environ Qual 41: 1437–44.
Schwarzenbach RP, Escher BI, Fenner K, et al. 2006. The challenge
of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science 313: 1072–77.
Short FT and Burdick DM. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss
in relation to housing density and N loading in Waquoit Bay,
Massachusetts. Estuaries 18: 730–39.
Smith VH. 2003. Eutrophication of freshwater and marine ecosys-
tems: a global problem. Environ Sci Pollut R 10: 126–39.
SORA (State Onsite Regulators Alliance). 2012. Onsite waste-
water nutrient regulation survey report. Morgantown, WV:
National Environmental Services Center.
SI (Statutory Instruments) 272. 2009. European communities envi-
ronmental objectives (surface waters) regulations 2009. Dublin,
Republic of Ireland: EPA. www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/
en.si.2009.0272.pdf. Viewed 18 Oct 2013.
US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Onsite
wastewater treatment systems manual. Washington, DC: EPA.
Report EPA625/R-00/008.
US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. TMDLs
to stormwater permits handbook. Washington, DC: US EPA,
Office of Water. Report EPA-822-F-01-010. http://water.
epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/tmdl-sw_per-
mits11172008.pdf. Viewed 9 Sep 2013.
Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, et al. 2010. Global
threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature
467: 555–61.
Weiss P, Eveborn D, Karrman E, and Gustafsson JP. 2008.
Environmental systems analysis of four on-site wastewater
treatment options. Resour Conserv Recy 52: 1153–61.
WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 2009. State of
the science: review of quantitative tools to determine waste-
water soil treatment unit performance. Alexandria, VA:
WERF. Decentralized Systems Final Report DEC1R06.
Williams R, Keller V, Voß A, et al. 2012. Assessment of current
water pollution loads in Europe: estimation of gridded loads for
use in global water quality models. Hydrol Process 26: 2395–410.
Withers PJA, Jarvie HP, Hodgkinson RA, et al. 2009. Characteri-
zation of phosphorus sources in rural watersheds. J Environ Qual
38: 1998–2011.
Withers PJA, Jarvie HP, and Stoate C. 2011. Quantifying the
impact of septic tank systems on eutrophication risk in rural
headwaters. Environ Int 37: 644–53.
Withers PJA, May L, Jarvie HP, et al. 2012. Nutrient emissions to
water from septic tank systems in rural catchments: uncertain-
ties and implications for policy. Environ Sci Policy 24: 71–82.
© The Ecological Society of America