The mound was "needed" because our watertable comes to within 12" of surface in the first 100' of our backyard, and within 30" in the second 100'. With the pump system, they want 48" of spacing between the groundwater and the field output..so hence the mound. The aerobic system would only need half that height...so it would save money and materials...but they just dont get that. Our old system was at least 30 years old, so they cant tell me that the water table really had anything to do with it. (and no, our drinking water doesnt show any Ecoli or bacteria contamination...so that argument has no weight.)
The way I understand it, they want the outflow to be treated and be 90% clean water before it hits the drainfield. The aerobic system is supposed to be 95% clean.
They want the pump installed so the "dose" is distributed over a larger area within the drainfield, instead of just within the first few feet of it (typical gravity-fed system). It has something to do with a scum-mat forming in the area where the water sets, which stops that part of the system from working...then the water has to move farther into the system to drain correctly. I think its a waste, as the whole system will eventually fail no matter how you get the water to it in the first place. Also, if the pump fails, its $1000 to replace it. The siphon system is similar to a gravity-fed, which again seemed to work just fine for the 30 (or more) years that the old system was here. But, you know how it is with engineers and politicians....common sense is the farthest thing from their minds.
I hope I explained that so it makes sense???
The way I understand it, they want the outflow to be treated and be 90% clean water before it hits the drainfield. The aerobic system is supposed to be 95% clean.
They want the pump installed so the "dose" is distributed over a larger area within the drainfield, instead of just within the first few feet of it (typical gravity-fed system). It has something to do with a scum-mat forming in the area where the water sets, which stops that part of the system from working...then the water has to move farther into the system to drain correctly. I think its a waste, as the whole system will eventually fail no matter how you get the water to it in the first place. Also, if the pump fails, its $1000 to replace it. The siphon system is similar to a gravity-fed, which again seemed to work just fine for the 30 (or more) years that the old system was here. But, you know how it is with engineers and politicians....common sense is the farthest thing from their minds.
I hope I explained that so it makes sense???
Last edited: