Laserfiche WebLink
IV. Conclusion <br />A study of the lot sizes and locations of existing improvements in <br />the Crystal Bay area indicates that in 21 of 83 properties, the existing <br />sewage treatment facilities cannot be replaced within the confines of <br />the minimum acceptable City and State code requirements. An <br />additional 38 (or 45%) would experience major difficulties in <br />repairing or replacing existing systems. There are 24 (or 29%) which <br />appear to have substantially �dequate area available for future <br />repairs and permanent usage of septic systems. <br />A total of 11 existinc ,ems are either now failing or have <br />exhibited signs of failure ring 1984 and 1985. Two properties <br />currently use holding tanks as their only acceptable means of sewage <br />management, and one commercially zoned property has no septic system <br />and no possible place to locate one. <br />Many existing septic systems in the Crystal Bay area are <br />substandard in construction, design, and location. There is a <br />relatively high potential for future failures to occur. <br />even optional methods for managing sewage in the Crystal Bay area <br />wer, studied and evaluated. Each option has certain limitations in <br />technical and economic fasibility. From a technical standpoint, <br />municipal sewer provides the most permanent sewage disposal method for <br />this area, and resolves existing and potential problems in a single <br />effort. From an economic standpoint, septic system problems on some <br />properties can be solved less expensively than the cost of municipal <br />sewer, but on a substantial number of properties municipal sewer is the <br />only possible alternative other than cost -prohibitive holding tanks <br />or actual condemnation and demolition. <br />17 <br />