By Cindy Alia 9/11/25
On Site Sewer Systems (septic system) owners and prospective owners face up to 265% increases in fees that have no proportional benefits. You can read the justification in this document produced by the State Departmen of Health (DOH). Which states the need for dramatic fee increases to be passed "to address existing program deficits, increased program expenses, reductions in funding from General Fund State (GFS) and Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS) accounts, and cost-of-living adjustments made in the 2025-2027 state budget (ESSB 5167)." The purpose of fees is to enable an agency to provide services, it is not clear the stated reasons for increases are legitimate for covering services but rather to cover for agency and state budget management and salary increases.
Because all people dependent on OSS or LOSS are already dealing with cost of living challenges based on legislation and budget decisions made in Olympia, Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights is objecting to the increases proposed by the state DOH caused by legislation and budgetary decision making in the last legislative session.
CAPR has provided written comment to the state DOH as follows, you can provide comment as well addressed to zehra.siddiqui@doh.wa.gov
Public Comment on Proposed Fee Increases for WAC 246-272-6000 and WAC 246-272-4000To: Washington State Department of Health
Date: September 11, 2025
Subject: Opposition to Fee Increases for On-Site Sewage System Additives and Tanks
To the Washington State Department of Health
I strongly urge the Department of Health (DOH) to reconsider the proposed ~265% fee increases for on-site sewage system (OSS) additives (WAC 246-272-6000) and tanks (WAC 246-272-4000), with particular concern for the severe financial burden these hikes place on individual OSS owners, especially in rural and unincorporated areas. While I recognize the need to fund regulatory oversight for public health and environmental safety, the dramatic increase in fees—particularly the tank fees critical to individual OSS owners—disproportionately impacts small businesses and rural households, who lack the funding leverage available to urban residents. The economic impacts, coupled with insufficient evidence of proportional benefits, necessitate a reevaluation of these increases. Below, I outline key concerns, emphasizing the impact on individual OSS owners.
- Severe Impact on Individual OSS Owners, Especially in Rural Areas
Approximately one-third of Washington households (~1.2 million residents) rely on OSS, predominantly in rural and unincorporated areas where municipal sewer systems are unavailable. The fee increases for tank design and construction plan reviews (WAC 246-272-4000) are particularly burdensome for individual OSS owners, who often directly bear these costs when installing or repairing septic systems. The base fee for tank review/approval has risen from $408 to $1,489 (a 265% increase), with additional review time beyond four hours now billed at $372 per hour (up from $102). - These fees, embedded in the $15,000–$25,000 average cost of OSS installation or repair in Western Washington, add $500–$1,000 per system, totaling $10–$28 million annually for 10,000–20,000 installs/repairs. For rural households (median income ~$70,000, vs. ~$100,000 statewide), a single repair exceeding $20,000 can be financially crippling, and added fees may force delays, increasing risks of system malfunctions and maintenance costs.
- Urban households, such as the ~40,000 OSS users in King County, have access to municipal sewer systems, with connection costs often subsidized by city bonds, utility rates, or programs like King County’s Habitat for Humanity grants or Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). In contrast, rural unincorporated areas lack such funding leverage, as counties face high per-capita costs for sewer expansions due to sparse populations. Statewide programs like Craft3’s Clean Water Loans or USDA Rural Development grants (up to $15,000 at 1% interest) are underfunded and prioritize low-income applicants, leaving many rural OSS owners without relief.
- This urban-rural divide exacerbates economic disparities, with rural poverty rates 2–3% higher than urban ones. For example, a rural OSS owner requiring a 6-hour tank review now faces $1,489 + (2 × $372) = $2,233, compared to $612 previously—a $1,621 increase that could delay essential repairs.
- Burden on Small Businesses in the OSS Sector
The OSS sector, serving Washington’s ~950,000 OSS users, relies on small businesses (<50 employees) that face disproportionate regulatory costs. The fee hikes for additives (from $350 to $1,278, with hourly rates from $75 to $274) and tanks (as above) could erode 5–10% of annual revenues, as small firms absorb 20–30% of compliance costs due to limited economies of scale. Nationally, environmental regulations impose up to 10x higher per-employee costs on small firms, risking industry concentration and reduced competition. - Barriers to Innovation
The increased fees deter new entrants, particularly startups developing sustainable additives or tank designs. A 10–20% reduction in new product applications could hinder Washington’s role in the $1.12 trillion global green market, reducing sector productivity by 2–5% and costing $50,000–$100,000 per 10 firms in lost R&D investment. This undermines DOH’s mission to promote innovative OSS solutions. - Uncertain Cost-Benefit Justification
DOH cites funding shortfalls and program complexity, estimating $200,000–$400,000 in additional annual revenue from 100–200 applications. However, the short-term net societal cost is $15–$30 million, driven by compliance burdens and delayed repairs, particularly for rural OSS owners. While OSS failures may pose environmental risks, reliable statewide data on impacts (e.g., groundwater contamination) are limited, and the projected $20–$50 million in prevented costs is speculative without clear evidence of improved enforcement outcomes. Prior DOH analyses for Large OSS fees suggested a 2–3:1 benefit-to-cost ratio, but without transparent data linking these fees to tangible improvements, the increases appear excessive for individual owners facing direct costs. - Alternatives to Mitigate Impacts
To balance regulatory needs with economic fairness, I urge DOH to consider:- Tiered Fees: Exempt or subsidize small businesses (<$500,000 revenue) and rural OSS owners (<$70,000 household income) through grants or loans, similar to Ecology’s OSS Regional Loan Program or USDA’s Section 504 Home Repair Program.
- Streamlined Reviews: Cap review hours at 4 for simple tank and additive cases and use digital tools to reduce review time by 20–30%, prioritizing rural applications.
- Incentives: Offer tax credits for compliant OSS products and expand partnerships with the Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts for rural rebates to address the urban-rural funding gap.
- Post-Implementation Review: Conduct a Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS) post-2025 to assess impacts on small businesses and rural OSS owners, per the Regulatory Fairness Act.
In conclusion, the proposed fee increases, particularly the 265% hike in tank review fees (from $408 to $1,489, with hourly rates from $102 to $372), impose a severe and inequitable burden on individual OSS owners in rural areas, who face direct cost increases of $500–$1,000 per system and lack the funding options available to urban households.
Small businesses and innovation in the OSS sector are also at risk, with uncertain benefits to justify the hikes. I urge and request that DOH freeze these fee increases and explore alternative funding mechanisms or mitigation strategies to support rural OSS owners and the broader OSS sector while maintaining regulatory standards.
Thank you for considering this comment.
Sincerely,
Cindy Alia
Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights
718 Griffin Avenue #7
Enumclaw, WA 98022
September 11, 2025