Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Certain faults with existing water laws leave many practices open to question. <br />0n tracts 35 acres or larger, up to three households can be served by a single <br />domestic well. This has led some to advancing the logic that a well should be <br />granted for each 12+ acre tract. At the same time, a single well in many areas <br />does not have the capacity to serve three units, <br /> <br />On the forefl'ont is a totally new technology that may eliminate many land use <br />planning axioms that are based upon soil capability limitations and water re- <br />source constl'aints. For example, a system called "Pure Cycle" purifies domestic <br />wastewatel' to the point of being completely potable and, thus, totally recyclable. <br />The system is currently approved for use by the State Health Department. This means <br />that, in effect, a user may not even require a well nor is effluent discharge a prob- <br />lem. A large cistern periodically filled by a water truck could make a development <br />self-sufficient in these areas, <br /> <br />Essentially, all of these concepts centering around water resources lead one to <br />believe that it is unwise to regulate land use on the basis of impacts to water <br />resources. The burden of proof for such a regulation may rest with the regulator <br />if taken to court. Instead, the solution must lie in discouraging development in <br />3n area with known sensitivities, yet providing the potential developer with the <br />opportunity to prove how he may respond to and overcome potentially, but not cer- <br />tain, adverse conditions, <br /> <br />Individuals seeking a well permit should, therefore, provide an adequate assess- <br />ment of the impact of the proposed well on underground and surface resources. <br /> <br />Hhere an <br />pa red by <br />attached <br />:)Ort and <br /> <br />individual on-lot water supply system exists or is proposed, a report pre- <br />a qualified ground-water geologist should be required. The report should be <br />to the Envi ronmenta 1 Revi ew Report Format presented in Part II of thi s re- <br />should at minimum include the following: <br /> <br />Probability of success of wells <br />Expected long term yield of such wells <br />Expected depth to usable water <br />Water recharge and right of acquisition <br />1) Tri buta ry <br />2) Nontributary <br />Estimated size and yield of well <br />Restrictions on well placement due to geologic hazards, easements, <br />streams, pollutant sources, etc. <br />Expected quantity, quality, dependability and pressure <br />Impact of well on Parkville Water District <br />1) Diversion of water <br />2) Pollution <br /> <br />a. <br />b. <br />c. <br />d. <br /> <br />e. <br />f. <br /> <br />g. <br />h. <br /> <br />Related to this is the septic tank/leach field system frequently used in low den- <br />sity developments. If the system is properly engineered, few problems would be en- <br />countered. Adequate regulations currently exist to control the construction of these <br />systems. Factors to consider in the layout are as follows: <br /> <br />a. Hydraulic absorption capacity <br />b. Topography <br />c. Location to wells <br />d. Subsurface characteristics of the leaching field. <br /> <br />Should consideration not be given to design, ground water contamination may result. <br /> <br />12 <br />