Montana's growth is placing too many
septic tanks too close to too many wells

By Tim Davis
for Headwaters News

In our arid state, water has always been in short supply and has always determined where we can live, work and play. So why are we letting out-of-control development poison and drain this precious resource?

"Poison" may seem a strong word to some people. But what else do you call the septic waste seeping into drinking-water wells on the outskirts of nearly every major town and in every fast-growing county in Montana?

From Billings to Bozeman, Great Falls to Helena, and Missoula County to Silver Bow County, high levels of nitrates are showing up in water wells. Nitrates can kill children and the elderly, and research shows they may be linked to cancer.

But even more important, nitrates act as the "canary in the coal mine": They tell us other poisons may be present, usually from septic waste that has polluted ground water.

Sprawl is also draining our precious aquifers, which causes wells to run dry, which forces homeowners to drill deeper wells, which isn't cheap. Then it happens all over again, a cycle without end.

We rarely know for sure what those other pollutants are because the state doesn't test for them. But when nitrates are up, it's possible that the contents of your neighbors' toilets are finding their way to other neighbors' and maybe your own drinking water, for instance, in the form of fecal coliform bacteria.

A few examples of Montana's rising ground-water contamination:

• In 1973, the U.S. Geological Survey found a median nitrate concentration of 1.0 mg/l in the Helena Valley -- a safe level. After nearly three decades of suburban sprawl, readings have jumped to between 7.89 and 20.10 mg/l, well above the 5.0 mg/l the state deems threatening enough to limit septic use.
  
  
• In the Upper and Lower River Road area outside Great Falls, more than 700 homes, most with septic systems and wells, have been scattered over three square miles in recent decades. After studying the area's ground water, state and local governments found the pollution so great they recommended that homeowners shell out for a community water and sewer system. The cost would run into the millions of dollars.
  
  
• A 1996 study of septic systems and wells in the Missoula Valley found that between 9.4 percent and 15.3 percent of sampled wells had bacteria contamination from septic wastes. The contamination, warned the report, puts several parts of the valley at risk of waterborne disease outbreaks.
  
  
• Other areas that have shown high levels of nitrates include the Summit Valley area in Silver Bow County and the Four Corners area in Gallatin County.
  
  
• One septic system is no big deal, especially if the homeowner knows enough, cares enough, and has money enough to maintain it. However, with thousands of these systems ringing our towns, it doesn't matter how vigilant homeowners are. Our water gets poisoned, and then somebody has to pay for community sewer and water lines.

On Helena's west side, 840 homeowners with severely deteriorating water quality are learning this the hard way. It will cost them $11 million to $14 million -- $13,000 to $17,000 per home -- to install city water and sewer. And these homes are near town in relatively compact neighborhoods. Installing sewer lines in truly sprawling neighborhoods could easily cost $25,000 per home or more.

In addition to poisoning us, sprawl is also draining our precious aquifers, which causes wells to run dry, which forces homeowners to drill deeper wells, which isn't cheap. Then it happens all over again, a cycle without end.

Wells have gone dry in Sypes Canyon on the west slope of the Bridger Mountains, in the North Hills of the Helena Valley, in the Pine Hills area near Miles City, in the Larson Creek area in the Bitterroot, and in the Yellowstone Valley west of Billings.

Drought has played a role, but so has development. And anyway, in our arid state we should, but don't, plan for drought when deciding how many homes can go in an area. We should also, but don't, look at the cumulative effects of development on an aquifer, instead of just approving individual subdivisions and pretending they don't impact water.

If we're willing, it's pretty easy to protect our water from the impacts of sprawl: Just direct most growth to areas served by city sewer and water. We could start by putting our limited dollars into infrastructure in or near towns, instead of scattering infrastructure inefficiently over sprawling areas.

Such fiscal responsibility would have the added benefit of saving homeowners and taxpayers millions of dollars -- money that could be spent on schools and affordable housing.

We could also fully fund state and local agencies to look at the cumulative effects of growth on our ground water and to help communities create plans to protect water before problems arise.

Finally, we could put moratoriums on growth in areas with poisoned or depleted waters; once plans are established to clean and protect those waters, the moratoriums could be lifted.

Doesn't our health and our pocketbook deserve as much?

Have an opinion? Join the discussion in this week's forum.

Or click here to view all our forums.

click here for a printer-friendly version of this column

| |

Link between growth and water
becomes painfully apparent

By Greg Lakes, editor
Headwaters News
Dec. 4, 2002

The West's explosive growth has strained most resources, and evidence is mounting that water supplies in some areas may be stretched about as far as they can go.

In northern Colorado, the Front Range, and around Reno and Santa Fe, experts say even if water doesn't prove to be the limit on growth that has eluded planners and politicians, communities will sacrifice something to cope.

Along northern Colorado's South Platte River, cities and some farmers are fighting in a legal battle with farmers who draw water from wells. About 4,000 of those wells draw enough ground water to supply Denver for a year, and they also siphon off the subterranean supplies of the South Platte.

Irrigators who draw their supplies from the river, and fast-growing cities such as Denver, Boulder, Highlands Ranch, Thornton and Englewood, say the well pumps must be cut back or stopped. But entire agricultural communities depend on those well-irrigated farms and would suffer if water and production dropped.

The drought brought the situation to a crisis, but it's been building for a decade. Since 1980, more than 1.4 million additional people moved into Front Range cities, and the growing demand for water erased the surplus along the South Platte that had allowed competing interests to coexist.

The area's population is expected to grow another 1.2 million by 2020, not necessarily from in-migration as much as from reproduction: Most of the new residents will be the children of the current residents.

Some experts say a lack of water won't stop growth.

"Across the country, you can't find a case where water - or the lack of water - has played into a decision on growth," said Bill Travis, a University of Colorado geographer who studies development, quoted in a Denver Post article. "I see growth continuing, and I don't see water as a limit."

Others say if growth doesn't adapt to increasingly scarce water, something else will have to go.

Former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm said it will be suburban lifestyles: "The price we're going to pay for this is a brown, sprawling metro area where we're not going to water our lawns."

Curren Gov. Bill Owens said it will be agriculture that suffers: "What we're going to get instead of the big, brown sprawl are wide-open brown spaces."

Most observers, including water attorney David Robbins, conclude something must yield:

"The entire metropolitan Front Range is competing for water now. Cities are paying top dollar for any water they can find. How could these farmers go out and compete against Thornton and Aurora for new water? It's not possible. There isn't enough money. And even if there were money, there isn't enough water."

Outside Reno, about 20,000 new homes will eventually be built in Truckee Meadows, although local officials debate whether the area first will run out of room or water. While some county officials called for a moratorium on new taps until water plans are finished, the main local water supply company says it can feed demand through 2025.

But those plans require cutting into supplies that had been reserved for drought. The current plan requires a buffer that would provide enough water for a 10-year-long drought. But water officials say the longest drought in recent memory has only been seven years, and by saving enough for eight years, they can free up another 14,000 acre feet to supply more growth until those long-range plans are done.

Across Nevada, wells went dry last summer and farmers were cut off from their irrigation supplies, and while drought was the primary cause, development and greater demand for waning resources made situations worse, and left some officials wondering whether the state had literally run out of water.

Greater Santa Fe's population will likely increase from 96,336 this year to 131,300 by the year 2020, according to state projections, but water supplies will fall 4,100 acre-feet short within the city limits and 1,484 acre-feet in the surrounding county.

Elise Jones, executive director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition, quoted in the Denver Post, could have been speaking about the region as a whole: "What the current drought is emphasizing, she said, "is a critical link between land-use planning and planning for water supplies. We're not doing much of either."

| |

Headwaters News is a project of the Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana.