| Course | PHLT 8040 Advanced Public Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Issue brief |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8040 Week 2
Issue Brief: Failing Septic Systems Near Lakes and Private Wells in a Composite Lakes-Region State, the Burden in Three Counts, What Repair Costs and Where the Gaps in Current Policy Sit
Student Name
Walden University
PHLT 8040: Advanced Public Health Policy and Advocacy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Issue Brief: Failing Septic Systems Near Lakes and Private Wells in a Composite Lakes-Region State, the Burden in Three Counts, What Repair Costs and Where the Gaps in Current Policy Sit
The Problem in Two Sentences
Thousands of aging septic systems in the state's lake country and rural well-water areas discharge partly treated or untreated wastewater, and nothing in current policy finds them until a neighbor complains or a well test fails. The result is avoidable exposure to fecal pathogens and nitrate in drinking water and to bacteria and algal blooms at swimming beaches, concentrated in places where older systems cluster.
The Burden, in Three Counts
Each count below is illustrative for this composite state and is paired with the real source a reader would check for an actual state.
The middle count deserves a caution. The 10% to 20% range comes from the federal onsite manual's summary of state reports and is old; it describes malfunction broadly, from slow drains to surfacing sewage, and applying it to one state yields a range rather than a number (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2002). It is included because no state inspects systems routinely, so no direct count of failures exists. The well count is likewise a lower bound on the problem's reach, since it reflects only households that chose to test.
Table 1
Three Counts Describing the Burden, With Their Sources
| Count | Illustrative figure | Where a real figure would come from | Date to report | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Homes served by septic systems | About 410,000 | State onsite program registry; American Housing Survey state tables | Most recent survey year | |
| Systems estimated to be failing or malfunctioning | 41,000 to 82,000 | Applying the 10% to 20% annual malfunction range in federal guidance to the registry count | Year of the registry count | |
| Private well samples positive for total coliform at the state laboratory | About 1 in 8 samples submitted | State public health laboratory annual report | Calendar year | |
Note. Figures are illustrative for a composite state and must be replaced with sourced values; the malfunction range is from federal onsite guidance (EPA, 2002).
Where Unknown Failures Likely Sit
Without inspections, the best available proxy is the age and setting of the housing stock. Systems installed before the state first required soil evaluations, a rule adopted in the composite state in 1978, were often sited without regard to the depth of groundwater, and many are now past their design life. American Community Survey counts of housing units built before 1980, mapped by census tract and overlaid on lakeshore zones and areas served by private wells, show where older systems and vulnerable water sources coincide. The proxy is imperfect: some older systems have been replaced, and some newer ones fail early. It indicates where to look first, not where failures are.
Why the Burden Matters for Health
Septic systems that function well remove most pathogens in the soil beneath the drain field. Those that fail, or that sit in sandy soil above shallow groundwater, can deliver bacteria, viruses and nitrate to nearby wells and surface water (Lusk et al., 2017). A review of outbreaks and studies across six decades found groundwater to be a recurring source of enteric disease, with septic systems a commonly implicated source of contamination (Murphy et al., 2017). In children in central Wisconsin, higher septic system density was associated with higher rates of diarrheal illness (Borchardt et al., 2003). Lakes add a second pathway: phosphorus from septic systems can contribute to nutrient loading that feeds algal blooms, a contribution that is easily overlooked because it is diffuse and hard to measure (Withers et al., 2014).
What Repair Costs, and Who Pays Now
Replacing a failed system with a conventional drain field typically costs in the low five figures, and sites near lakes or with high groundwater often require advanced treatment units that cost more and need ongoing maintenance contracts. A real brief would cite a cost range from the state's recent loan program records or installer bids filed with permits. At present the homeowner pays the full cost, usually at the moment of failure, and lower-income owners and retirees on fixed incomes are the least able to do so. That timing encourages owners to delay repair or to avoid inspection altogether.
Gaps in Current Policy
Four gaps stand out. First, the state requires no inspection at property sale or at any other trigger, so failures are discovered only by complaint. Second, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which federal law allows to finance decentralized systems, has not listed septic repair in the state's intended use plan. Third, no state data system links septic permits, complaints and well test results, so no agency can see where the problems cluster. Fourth, county health departments enforce on complaint but lack the staff to inspect proactively. Other states show that these gaps can be closed: Massachusetts requires an inspection of most systems before a property is sold, and several states have lent revolving fund money to homeowners through local banks.
What This Brief Does Not Do
This brief does not recommend a policy. Its purpose is to establish the problem, its burden and the gaps a policy would have to address, so that options can be compared next. Readers should treat every number marked illustrative as a placeholder for a sourced figure.
References
Borchardt, M. A., Chyou, P.-H., DeVries, E. O., & Belongia, E. A. (2003). Septic system density and infectious diarrhea in a defined population of children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(5), 742-748. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.5914
Lusk, M. G., Toor, G. S., Yang, Y.-Y., Mechtensimer, S., De, M., & Obreza, T. A. (2017). A review of the fate and transport of nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, and trace organic chemicals in septic systems. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 47(7), 455-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2017.1327787
Murphy, H. M., Prioleau, M. D., Borchardt, M. A., & Hynds, P. D. (2017). Review: Epidemiological evidence of groundwater contribution to global enteric disease, 1948-2015. Hydrogeology Journal, 25(4), 981-1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-017-1543-y
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Onsite wastewater treatment systems manual (EPA/625/R-00/008). Office of Water.
Withers, P. J. A., Jordan, P., May, L., Jarvie, H. P., & Deal, N. E. (2014). Do septic tank systems pose a hidden threat to water quality? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(2), 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1890/130131
The Walden PHLT 8040 Week 2 instructions
The second assignment usually asks for an issue brief that establishes a policy problem, its size and its context. Faculty expect a two-sentence problem statement at the top, a burden section with figures that each carry a source and date, and an honest account of what the figures can and cannot show. Where direct counts do not exist, a reasoned proxy, clearly labeled, is acceptable. The brief should explain why the problem matters for health, what it costs and who pays now, and where current policy leaves gaps. An issue brief normally stops short of recommending a policy, since that is the next document's job. Illustrative figures for a composite state must be marked as such and paired with the real source. Briefs typically run about three pages.
How the PHLT 8040 Week 2 example is put together
Two sentences of problem open the brief. A burden table follows with three illustrative counts, each paired with the real source and reporting date a reader would use, and a paragraph cautions that the federal malfunction range is old and broad and that well tests capture only households who chose to test. A proxy section uses census counts of homes built before the state's 1978 soil-evaluation rule, mapped against lakes and well areas, and states its limits. A health section explains how failing systems deliver pathogens and nitrate to groundwater, citing reviews of contaminant transport and groundwater disease plus the Wisconsin study. A cost section describes who pays now. Four policy gaps are listed with precedents from other states, and a closing section states that the brief makes no recommendation.
Where the marks sit in the PHLT 8040 Week 2 rubric
Credit rides on the burden section and the honesty of its sources. Figures without a source and date lose marks, and illustrative numbers presented as real data count heavily against a brief. Graders reward explaining what each count captures and misses, such as well tests reflecting only households that tested. A labeled proxy for unknown failures earns credit when its limits are stated. The health section should describe mechanisms and cite evidence by what it found. Graders also check that the brief stays in its genre: an issue brief that argues for a specific bill has skipped ahead. Policy gaps should be concrete and tied to the problem's mechanics, and precedents from other states should be described accurately. A clean APA table and complete references round out a strong brief.
PHLT 8040 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Issue briefs falter when they lead with a solution or bury the reader in unsourced numbers. Put the problem in two sentences at the top. For every figure, name the source and the date, and if a figure is illustrative, say so plainly. When no direct count exists, choose a proxy, explain why it points in the right direction and say what it misses. Describe how the problem harms health in concrete terms, then who pays and when. List gaps in current policy without arguing for one fix. Briefs sized and sourced for a different problem follow the same skeleton when you need one.
Get a PHLT 8040 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Along with the Week 2 prompt and rubric, list any state data sources your section has pointed to. The PHLT 8040 issue brief that returns keeps every figure traceable and arrives within 24 to 48 hours, without charge the first time. Its inventory counts are illustrative only, and the state they describe does not exist anywhere.
More PHLT 8040 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8040 Week 1: Septic Jurisdiction Post
- PHLT 8040 Week 3: Septic Policy Stakeholder Map
- PHLT 8040 Week 4: Septic Bill Policy Brief
- PHLT 8040 Week 5: Tools of Government Peer Replies
- PHLT 8040 Week 6: Septic Bill Clause Analysis
- PHLT 8040 Week 7: Septic Bill Testimony
- PHLT 8040 Week 8: Repair Lending Advocacy Letter
- PHLT 8040 Week 9: Septic Coalition Strategy Memo
- PHLT 8040 Week 10: Septic Bill Op-Ed
- PHLT 8040 Week 11: Septic Policy Proposal
- PHLT 8042 Week 2: Measles Isolation Ethics Case
- PHLT 8034 Week 2: Trihalomethane Routes Post
- PHLT 8032 Week 2: Variable Definition Paper
- PHLT 8006 Week 2: Research Habits Memo
PHLT 8040 Week 2 questions, answered
Should an issue brief recommend a policy?
Usually not yet. An issue brief establishes that a problem exists at a stated size, and the policy brief that follows carries the recommendation. The example ends on the limits of its data rather than a proposal. Where the prompt wants one anyway, a single closing sentence naming a decision maker keeps it short, and the burden case your section is grading this week stays intact.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8040 Week 2 sample paper?
The full Week 2 issue brief on failing septic systems is reproduced here, with a sourced burden table, a housing-age proxy, the health pathways, repair costs and four policy gaps.
Why use illustrative figures instead of real ones?
The state in this sample is a composite, so real counts do not exist. Each illustrative figure is paired with the real source a student would cite for an actual state, which models how to source a burden section.
Why report a range of failing systems rather than one number?
No state inspects septic systems routinely, so failures are unknown. Applying the federal malfunction range to a registry count gives a span, and presenting a single number would claim precision the data cannot support.
What makes housing age a reasonable proxy for septic failure?
Systems installed before soil evaluations were required were often sited without regard to groundwater depth and are now past their design life, so older housing near lakes and wells indicates where to look first, though not where failures are.