Private well question

[daddymem]

Hi, I am working on an issue regarding dog kennels and their proximity to private wells. The Town Regulations state that kennels:
"Not less than 250’ from the high water mark of any source of drinking water supply or any tributary thereof or less than 250’ from the high water mark of any open waters flowing directly or ultimately into any source of water supply."

The argument is that this does not include private wells since it mentions high water mark. However, there is no other regulation mentioning wells and a setback required for kennels so it is assumed the intent was to include wells.

Any experience/advice on this? Interestingly, I have seen this exact regulation (verbatim) in other Towns, so I assume it must have been authored somewhere and copied by the Towns. If I could find the source, then perhaps it would be clearer.

Thanks in advance....

Check our progress:

http://schluterhomestead.blogspot.com/

 

[daddymem]

I should add, the Board of Health is researching this as well. One of the elder members thinks they intended wells when they wrote it, but couldn't remember for sure.

Check our progress:

http://schluterhomestead.blogspot.com/

 

[bpattengale]

Wells are usually regulated by the state department of health. They should list setback requirements for the wells. The link below is for the Minnesota Department of Health, but it should give you an idea of what is required.

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/whp/index.htm

The state pollution control agency will also likely have rules about setback requirements for wells.

 

[daddymem]

Thanks, have been there already. Our state leaves the Towns the responsibility of regulating private wells unfortunately...

Check our progress:

http://schluterhomestead.blogspot.com/

 

[cvg]

"high water mark" is not a term normally used for wells but rather surface waters such as lakes and streams. Well heads are generally set above the ground to prevent contaminated surface water from entering. Many wells also have a cement sanitary seal near the top to prevent shallow ground water from penetrating into the well casing. Thus a horizontal setback is normally an issue.

 

[GeoPaveTraffic]

The plain language of the rule would seem to indicate that wells are not included.

Additionally, I would say that wells should not be included. By the time runnoff from the kennel passes through the soil and/or rock strata natural filtering should accomplish all that is needed. At that point the kennel is really no different than wild animals or pasture land.

 

[theCorkster]

Surface water infiltration into wells through poorly constructed well sanitary seals does happen. Depending on the age of well, it's often difficult to evaluate the seal without reviewing the well drillers log of construction (assuming a reasonable log of construction was maintained) and in some cases exposing the seal. If it's your clients well that might be affected, educate him so he's in the decision process.

 

[daddymem]

I admit, I could use a little additional education on this topic.

This area is sand with groundwater around 15 feet down from the surface. The kennel fenced in area is maybe 5,000 sf and is permitted for 10 dogs. 10 Dogs urinating on sand (there is no lawn cover or topsoil) in this small area wouldn't be a higher risk than wild animals or pasture land with much less animal per sf density? Does well type make a difference? This area has shallow wells in the 20-40 range drawing from the aquifer in the sandy soil lens sitting over the bedrock. This aquifer feeds the kettle hole ponds in this area.

It seems to me that there is some point where number of animals and type of soil makes a difference and a regulations leans towards the worst case scenario. Isn't time a factor too? We've hit high nitrogen levels during groundwater testing on project sites and found out that chicken coops were operated nearby many years before so it seems to me there could be a cumulative issue. Also, all the literature I have on siting wells suggests to beware of nearby septic systems, golf courses, and kennels which indicates to me there is some level on concern.

The nature argument sounds similar to the argument that "dogs relieve themselves on our front lawns, why can't we humans?" (usually in arguments that septic system regulations are too strict and provide protections that are not needed). I've never really heard a good explanation of that statement that made sense to me.

I'd love to be convinced either way on these issues, actually. This area is building up rapidly and issues such as this are coming up more and more often and the regulations are having a hard time keeping up with the poulation density increases. Usually the work we do doesn't get to question the regulations, just why a variance should be granted and typically that is because there is no other alternative and we are meeting maximum feasible compliance.

Thanks in advance for clearing this up in my head.

Check our progress:

http://schluterhomestead.blogspot.com/

 

[bimr]

If you do not have a municipal ordinance to follow, then you will fall under what is commonly known as good engineering practice. Here is a good engineering practice recommendation for you:

Recommended distance from a buried sewer, septic tank, subsurface disposal field, or building = 50 ft. If the soil is coarser than fine sand and the groundwater flow is greater than 0.03 ft/day then the recommended distance is 100 ft (AWWA, 1983). These distances are minimal and larger separations betweens the well and contaminating sources are strongly recommended. The recommended distances do not apply when the terrain consists of coarse gravel, or disintegrated rock near the surface. Contaminants can travel great distances in these types of formations.

From the book: Groundwater and Wells 2nd Edition 1995.

 

[daddymem]

Thanks bimr, I will look up that reference book. I guess then it would come down to is a kennel equivalent to any of those structures.

 

[bimr]

ISBN 0-9616456-0-1

 

[dicksewerrat]

Look at the local regs for seperation between wells and septic drain fields. Then add 50 feet. 10 dogs can do a lot of waste production.

Richard A. Cornelius, P.E.

http://WWW.amlinereast.com

 

[daddymem]

Yeah, that is what I was leaning towards that they should at least apply the same setback as a SAS which would be 150' in our area and your logic brings it to 200'...pretty close to the 250'. I also have been thinking....there are no surface drinking water supply sources in Town. That leads me to believe there was an oversight in thinking it was clear wells were intended, or this was just copied from somewhere else.