Appendix C: County Survey Results

Survey questions

When applicable, counties were divided into six groups based on the more predominant soil features in the county. Soil groupings are approximate.

Group 1:

Soil Regions: Sandy And Loamy Lacustrine Deposits And Eolian Sand; Alluvial And Outwash Deposits; Eolian Sand Deposits

Counties: Elkart, Jasper, Kosciuko, Lagrange, Lake, Laporte, Newton, Porter, Pulaski, St. Joseph, Starke

Group 2:

Soil Regions: Silty And Clayey Lacustrine Deposits: Clayey Glacial Till

Counties: Adams, Allen, Blackford, Dekalb , Delaware, Grant, Huntington, Jay, Miami, Noble, Steubin, Wabash, Wells, Whitley

Group 3:

Soil Regions: Loamy Glacial Till; Moderate Thick Loess Over Loamy Glacial Till; Thin Loess Over Loamy Glacial Till

Counties: Benton, Boone, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Decatur, Fayette, Fountain-Warren, Fulton, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Henry, Howard, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Montgomery, Parke, Putnam, Randolph, Rush, Shelby, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Union, Vermillion, Wayne, White

Group 4:

Soil Regions: Moderately Thick Loess Over Weathered Loamy Glacial Till; Discontinuous Loess Over Weathered Sandstone And Shale; Discontinuous Loess Over Weathered Limestone And Shale

Counties: Bartholomew Brown, Clark, Clay, Crawford, Dearborn, Dubois, Franklin, Greene, Jackson, Jefferson, Jennings, Martin, Morgan, Ohio, Orange, Owen, Perry, Pike, Ripley, Scott, Spencer, Switzerland

Group 5:

Soil Regions: Thick Loess Deposits

Counties: Daviess, Gibson, Knox, Posey, Sullivan, Vanderburgh, Vigo, Warrick

Group 6:

Soil Regions: Discontinuous Loess Over Weathered Limestone

Counties: Floyd, Harrison, Lawrence, Monroe, Washington

to top

Records

Totals of Indiana

70 Counties Responded (76%)

Records Kept  
Repair or replace permit application

97%

Inspections performed

94%

Soil evaluation

91%

Drawing not to scale

86%

System design, type

84%

Complaint investigations

81%

Site evaluation

67%

Accurate lot diagram

51%

System design, detail

50%

Incidences of waterborne disease

36%

Topographic map

29%

Drawing to scale

23%

New permit application

100%

to top

Totals of Indiana

70 Counties Responded (76%)

Record Keeping Methods  
Current system used (average years)

12

Data entered into computer

63%

Computers used:  

IBM compatible

38

Macintosh

2

Other

6

Years computerized (average)

6

Records since (average)

1970

Improvement in last 10 years

91%

to top

Major Contributing Factors To Failure

Totals of Indiana

70 Counties Responded (76%)

Major Contributing Factors To Failure

% Reporting Contribution

Average Rank (1-4)*

Wetness problems

95%

1.5

Undersize system

78%

1.8

Age of existing system

74%

2.0

Limited space

72%

2.2

Limiting soil layers

68%

1.9

System depth

58%

2.6

Lack of maintenance/pumping

57%

2.4

Improper design

51%

2.4

Water usage

49%

2.7

Illegal discharge

48%

2.4

Improper construction

45%

3.0

Wet conditions at construction

42%

3.2

Compaction/destruction due to vehicles

32%

3.6

Topography

26%

2.9

Location of existing buildings

22%

3.1

* Sanitarians ranked problems from 1-15. One is the most common cause.

These were lumped as follows: 1 and 2=1; 3,4 and 5=2; 6,7 and 8=3; >9=4.

 

Soil Group 1

11 Counties Responded (100%)

Major Contributing Factors To Failure

% Reporting Contribution

Average Rank (1-4)*

Wetness problem

100%

1.3

Age of existing system

73%

1.4

Limited space

73%

2.3

Lack of maintenance/pumping

64%

2.1

Limiting soil layers

64%

2.3

Undersize system

55%

1.8

Wet conditions at construction

46%

2.2

System depth

46%

2.4

Water usage

36%

2.3

Improper construction

36%

2.8

Location of existing buildings

27%

2.3

Improper design

27%

2.3

Compaction/destruction due to vehicles

27%

3.7

Illegal discharge

7%

3.0

Topography

0%

 

* Sanitarians ranked problems from 1-15. One is the most common cause.

These were lumped as follows: 1 and 2=1; 3,4 and 5=2; 6,7 and 8=3; >9=4.

 

Soil Group 2

9 Counties Responded (64%)

Major Contributing Factors To Failure

% Reporting Contribution

Average Rank (1-4)*

Wetness problems

86

1.2

Lack of maintenance/pumping

71

2.0

Undersize system

71

2.0

Age of existing system

57

1.8

Illegal discharge

57

1.8

Limited space

57

2.8

System depth

57

2.8

Wet conditions at construction

57

2.8

Limiting soil layers

43

1.3

Improper design

43

2.3

Topography

43

2.3

Location of existing buildings

43

3.3

Compaction/destruction due to vehicles

29

2.5

Improper construction

29

3.0

Water usage

29

4.0

* Sanitarians ranked problems from 1-15. One is the most common cause.

These were lumped as follows: 1 and 2=1; 3,4 and 5=2; 6,7 and 8=3; >9=4.

 

Soil Group 3

27 Counties Responded (90%)

Major Contributing Factors To Failure

% Reporting Contribution

Average Rank (1-4)*

Wetness problems

96%

1.4

Undersize system

89%

1.8

Limited space

81%

2.1

Age of existing system

73%

1.8

System depth

73%

2.5

Lack of maintenance/pumping

62%

2.4

Limiting soil layers

54%

2.4

Improper design

54%

2.4

Illegal discharge

50%

2.4

Improper construction

46%

3.1

Water usage

39%

2.8

Wet conditions at construction

31%

3.9

Topography

23%

3.3

Compaction/destruction due to vehicles

19%

4.0

Location of existing buildings

12%

3.3

* Sanitarians ranked problems from 1-15. One is the most common cause.

These were lumped as follows: 1 and 2=1; 3,4 and 5=2; 6,7 and 8=3; >9=4.

 

Soil Group 4

14 Counties Responded (61%)

Major Contributing Factors To Failure

% Reporting Contribution

Average Rank (1-4)*

Limiting soil layers

100%

1.4

Wetness problems

93%

1.7

Undersize system

93%

1.7

Water usage

79%

2.9

Limited space

71%

2.2

Age of existing system

71%

2.3

Improper design

71%

2.4

System depth

50%

2.4

Illegal discharge

50%

2.6

Lack of maintenance/pumping

50%

2.7

Improper construction

50%

2.7

Compaction/destruction due to vehicles

43%

3.8

Topography

36%

2.8

Wet conditions at construction

36%

3.6

Location of existing buildings

21%

3.3

* Sanitarians ranked problems from 1-15. One is the most common cause.

These were lumped as follows: 1 and 2=1; 3,4 and 5=2; 6,7 and 8=3; >9=4.

 

Soil Group 5

6 Counties Responded (75%)

Major Contributing Factors To Failure

% Reporting Contribution

Average Rank (1-4)*

Limiting soil layers

100%

1.8

Wetness problems

100%

2.0

Age of existing system

100%

3.0

Undersize system

75%

2.0

Illegal discharge

75%

2.0

Water usage

75%

2.3

Improper design

75%

3.0

Wet conditions at construction

75%

3.0

System depth

75%

3.0

Improper construction

75%

3.3

Compaction/destruction due to vehicles

75%

3.7

Limited space

50%

1.5

Location of existing buildings

50%

3.0

Topography

50%

3.5

Lack of maintenance/pumping

25%

4.0

* Sanitarians ranked problems from 1-15. One is the most common cause.

These were lumped as follows: 1 and 2=1; 3,4 and 5=2; 6,7 and 8=3; >9=4.

 

Soil Group 6

3 Counties Responded (60%)

Major Contributing Factors To Failure

% Reporting Contribution

Average Rank (1-4)*

Wetness problems

100%

1.7

Age of existing system

100%

2.0

Water usage

67%

1.0

Limited space

67%

1.5

Limiting soil layers

67%

1.5

Wet conditions at construction

67%

3.0

Compaction/destruction due to vehicles

67%

3.0

Undersize system

33%

2.0

Lack of maintenance/pumping

33%

2.0

Topography

33%

2.0

Illegal discharge

33%

3.0

Improper construction

33%

4.0

Location of existing buildings

0%

 
Improper design

0%

 
System depth

0%

 

* Sanitarians ranked problems from 1-15. One is the most common cause.

These were lumped as follows: 1 and 2=1; 3,4 and 5=2; 6,7 and 8=3; >9=4.

to top

Septic Statistics

Totals of Indiana

70 Counties Responded (76%)

Septic Statistics  
Small communities without municipal sewage (sum)

470

% of county served by on-site systems

53%

% of new systems requiring a perimeter drain

59%

Primarily soil limitations contributing to failure:  
Seasonal water table

84%

Compact glacial till

52%

Fragipan

29%

Bedrock

20%

Coarse sand and gravel outwash

8%

Numbers are averages of counties unless otherwise specified.

 

Soil Group 1

11 Counties Responded (100%)

Septic Statistics  
Small communities without municipal sewage

67

% of county served by on-site systems

73%

% of new systems requiring a perimeter drain

34%

Primarily soil limitations contributing to failure:  
Seasonal water table

73%

Compact glacial till

46%

Coarse sand and gravel outwash

27%

Fragipan

0%

Bedrock

0%

Numbers are averages of counties unless otherwise specified.

 

Soil Group 2

9 Counties Responded (64%)

Septic Statistics  
Small communities without municipal sewage

64

% of county served by on-site systems

55%

% of new systems requiring a perimeter drain

88%

Primarily soil limitations contributing to failure:  
Compact glacial till

100%

Seasonal water table

88%

Fragipan

0%

Coarse sand and gravel outwash

0%

Bedrock

0%

Numbers are averages of counties unless otherwise specified.

 

Soil Group 3

27 Counties Responded (90%)

Septic Statistics  
Small communities without municipal sewage

208

% of county served by on-site systems

47%

% of new systems requiring a perimeter drain

59%

Primarily soil limitations contributing to failure:  
Seasonal water table

92%

Compact glacial till

62%

Bedrock

19%

Coarse sand and gravel outwash

8%

Fragipan

4%

Numbers are averages of counties unless otherwise specified.

 

Soil Group 4

14 Counties Responded (61%)

Septic Statistics  
Small communities without municipal sewage

77

% of county served by on-site systems

64%

% of new systems requiring a perimeter drain

75%

Primarily soil limitations contributing to failure:  
Fragipan

92%

Seasonal water table

69%

Bedrock

54%

Compact glacial till

46%

Coarse sand and gravel outwash

0%

Numbers are averages of counties unless otherwise specified.

 

Soil Group 5

6 Counties Responded (75%)

Septic Statistics  
Small communities without municipal sewage

44

% of county served by on-site systems

28%

% of new systems requiring a perimeter drain

51%

Primarily soil limitations contributing to failure:  
Seasonal water table

83%

Fragipan

50%

Compact glacial till

0%

Coarse sand and gravel outwash

0%

Bedrock

0%

Numbers are averages of counties unless otherwise specified.

 

Soil Group 6

3 Counties Responded (60%)

Septic Statistics  
Small communities without municipal sewage

10

% of county served by on-site systems

47%

% of new systems requiring a perimeter drain

14%

Primarily soil limitations contributing to failure:  
Fragipan

100%

Seasonal water table

100%

Bedrock

33%

Compact glacial till

0%

Coarse sand and gravel outwash

0%

Numbers are averages of counties unless otherwise specified.

to top

An Evaluation of On-Site Technology in Indiana: Table of Contents