Erthal v. Wynne

35 Pa. D. & C.2d 65, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
DecidedSeptember 25, 1963
DocketNo. 63-7815
StatusPublished

This text of 35 Pa. D. & C.2d 65 (Erthal v. Wynne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Erthal v. Wynne, 35 Pa. D. & C.2d 65, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1963).

Opinion

Forrest, P. J.,

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in which they seek to enjoin the Commissioners of Hatfield Township from requiring any residents of the township, except in particular areas, to use and pay rental for a public sewage disposal system. The issues raised by the complaint and answer áre:

1. Whether the individual sewage disposal systems of plaintiffs are individually and collectively functioning so as to cause no menace, threat or burden on the public health.

2. Whether the individual sewage disposal systems in the township which are presently unsatisfactory, can be corrected by the individual land! owners.

3. Whether, except for the provisions of ordinance no. 85, the township authorities have neglected to take the necessary steps to require the owners of unsatisfactorily functioning individual sewage disposal systems to make the necessary connections.

4. Whether the action of the township commissioners in ordaining the connection by abutting owners with a public sanitary sewage system, as distinguished from the construction of the sewer system itself, was so unrelated to the requirements for public health as [67]*67to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and an abuse of discretion and hence illegal. The legality of the construction of the sewer system itself is not questioned.

5. Whether the lack of public sewers in adjoining municipalities with its resultant effect upon at least part of Hatfield Township is such as to make it useless and unreasonable to install a sanitary sewer system in Hatfield Township.

Findings of Fact

1. Hatfield Township, Montgomery County, Pa., is a township of the first class. The township generally has soil of poor porosity, which tends to deter liquids from being absorbed.

2. Hatfield Township Municipal Authority is a corporation duly created on May 13, 1960, under the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945, Act of May 2, 1945, P. L. 382, sec. 1, et seq., 53 PS §301, et seq.

3. As of April 15, 1959, the Hatfield Township Commissioners voluntarily surrendered their authority over matters of local health.

4. On May 29, 1959, Harry G. Frey, Supervising Sanitarian, Montgomery County District, Pa., Department of Health, wrote to the Secretary of said township commissioners, inter alia:

“Inspections have revealed that problems with sewage disposal are extensive throughout the entire Township. Many individual sewage systems are illegally constructed whereby sewage is discharged on the surface of the ground, or in roadways and gutters.
“... the extent of the sewage problem at the present date is such that reasonable doubt exists whether or not the problem can be solved on individual basis.
“4 would like to recommend that positive planning be initiated now to provide public sanitary sewers within the Township. If this is not done, the alternative will be to seek individual connections which may prove to be costly and at best, provide only temporary relief. In-. [68]*68vestigation into conditions in the Orvilla Park Section and initial efforts for abatement started on this date.”

5. On July 19, 1968, Mr. Prey, sanitarian, as aforesaid, in his capacity as such, wrote to the solicitor for Hatfield Township, as follows:

“This letter is written to explain why the Pennsylvania Department of Health advocates the prompt installation of sanitary sewers in Hatfield Township.
“The general nature of the soils found in the township, as confirmed by information developed through the County Soil Survey as well as individual studies by professional registered engineers, indicates that the soils are unsuitable for sub-surface disposal of sewage effluent due to poor porosity.
“This fact is evidence by the many overflowing septic tank systems and direct discharge of laundry wastes to the surface of the ground. These insanitary, unsatisfactory conditions can be easily noticed by observing lawns, fields, and roadside storm drainage ditches throughout most of the Township; specifically, sections of Oak Park Road, Orvilla Road, Koffel Road, School Road, Bergey Road, Hatfield Valley Road, Broad Street, Vine Street, and Souderton Pike, as well as perhaps other places not fully documented. Illegal discharges directly into the Neshaminy Creek have also been noted. Conditions in the Orvilla Park development remain uncorrected and the situation is the same as recorded in the past.
“On those properties where soil stratas do allow sewage effluent to be absorbed into the earth, or where deep pits have been installed to accomplish this, sewage may not be noticeable on the surface of the ground, however, the underground water supply is then endangered by contamination. In the North Penn area many private homes, public establishments and industries rely upon water supplied by wells, and even the public water supplies in the neighboring communities do the same.
[69]*69“Communicable diseases such as typhoid and paratyphoid fever, amebiasis, bacillary dysentary and infectious hepatitis can often be directly related to water supplies contaminated with human feces. Many food-borne and other intestinal diseases can be attributed to bacteria being transmitted by human feces to another person either directly, or by flies. The Department of Health is interested in trying to prevent such cases from happening by encouraging proper development of sanitary facilities.
“The only permanent solution to such problems is by providing public sanitary sewers and water supply systems, rather than by trying to build bigger and better septic tank systems. Such planning is a necessity to meet the growing demand for more homes, more schools, more industrial and recreational facilities. The local government developing such plans does so in the best interests of the people living in the municipality. While the initial cost may seem high to install sewers it may prove to be more economical than to waste the same amount of money trying to make a septic tank system work.
“Abatement of individual insanitary conditions through enforcement of State regulations can be costly to the individual property owner, and at best, usually provide only temporary relief. Pumping of cesspools is not the answer, for the material pumped out must also be disposed of somewhere, and in many instances this material is also illegally discharged into streams or clandestinely deposited and left to remain upon the surface of the ground.
“In any sewer plan there are usually some areas in the municipality where sewers can not be installed either for engineering or economical reasons. Charges for sanitary sewers can be apportioned to those furnished the service and the resale value of the' property is usually increased by having sewers.. .
[70]*70“It is expected that Hatfield Township will continue to show an active growth pattern and good planning for both public water and sewer systems are essential to the health of the present and future population.”

6. On June 24, 1963, at the request of the Hatfield Township Municipal Authority, Tracy Engineers, Inc., made a detailed report of the proposed sewage project “designed for a flow from an equivalent population of 9.000 .. .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Parker v. Philadelphia
137 A.2d 343 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Hileman v. Borough of West Elizabeth Council
179 A. 786 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Fair v. City of Philadelphia
88 Pa. 309 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1879)
Michener v. City of Philadelphia
12 A. 174 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1888)
Hyam v. Upper Montgomery Joint Authority
160 A.2d 539 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
Siegfried v. South Bethlehem Borough
27 Pa. Super. 456 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Lower Merion Township v. Becker
42 Pa. Super. 203 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Commonwealth v. Roberts
16 L.R.A. 400 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Pa. D. & C.2d 65, 1963 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erthal-v-wynne-pactcomplmontgo-1963.