3 ms·
> but maybe every 5 houses or whatever share one? The space requirements are actually a decent amount lower than I originally expected [0, 1], so it could be p
by aw1621107 6y ago
> but maybe every 5 houses or whatever share one?
The space requirements are actually a decent amount lower than I originally expected [0, 1], so it could be plausible for individual lots to have their own septic systems (unless the area above the drainfield can't be used for safety/other reasons). Not sure if there are other factors that make centralized waste treatment systems preferable over individual septic systems.
[0]: https://www.washtenaw.org/1722/Sewage-System-Sizing https://www.washtenaw.org/1722/Sewage-System-Sizing
[1]: https://inspectapedia.com/septic/Septic-Drainfield-Size.php https://inspectapedia.com/septic/Septic-Drainfield-Size.php
- titanomachy 6y ago"Not sure if there are other factors that make centralized waste treatment systems preferable over individual septic systems" Capacity is the main thing I can think of. If you get dense enough (e.g. 8-story apartment blocks) you'd need a pretty big septic field right next to the housing. Now that's land you can't use for housing or offices. At some point it's more cost-effective to whisk that waste away to some low-value land to do the processing. I don't know at what level of density that's true, though. It could be pretty high.
- aw1621107 6y agoYeah, density was the main concern that led me to make my original comment in this thread. I was thinking of a more suburban setting when I wrote the comment you're responding to, but you do have a point (unless local zoning laws allow septic drainage fields to be used for other things, but that I know too little about). If you can't build on top of drainage fields or dual-purpose them, then you'll need to sacrifice some building space, which isn't optimal from a make-the-most-of-a-land-parcel view.