PHLT 8040 Week 7 Septic Bill Testimony Example

Course	PHLT 8040 Advanced Public Health Policy and Advocacy
Week	Week 7
Paper type	Testimony draft
Length	About 810 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PHLT 8040 Week 7

Testimony in Support of Senate File 1187 With One Amendment: A Three-Minute Spoken Statement and a Written Version for the Committee Record on Defining a Failing Septic System by What Reaches Groundwater

Student Name

Walden University

PHLT 8040: Advanced Public Health Policy and Advocacy

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title states the position and the single amendment, which is what a committee member needs to know before the speaker reaches the microphone.

Spoken Statement (Three Minutes)

[0:00] Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. I am Dana Whitfield. I live in Pine Lake Township in your county, and I work in public health. I am here in support of Senate File 1187, with one amendment.

[0:30] The amendment is to Section 1. As written, the bill defines a failing septic system mainly by what you can see: sewage on the surface or backing up into the house. I ask you to add one more condition: a system whose drain field sits too close to the water table to treat wastewater before it reaches groundwater.

[1:00] Here is why that matters. A septic system cleans wastewater by letting it trickle through dry soil. When the water table is too close, there is no dry soil to do the work, and wastewater reaches groundwater almost untreated. Nothing shows on the surface. The yard looks fine. The neighbor's well does not.

[1:30] Studies of septic systems show that bacteria, viruses and nitrate travel farthest where soils are sandy and groundwater is shallow, which describes much of our lake country. In Wisconsin, children living where septic systems were densest had more diarrheal illness. Those are the systems this bill should find, and under the current definition, many would pass.

[2:00] This bill is good public health because it finds problems before anyone gets sick, instead of waiting for a complaint or a failed well test. The amendment keeps that promise for the failures you cannot see.

[2:30] So I ask you to pass Senate File 1187 with one change to Section 1: treat a drain field as failed when it sits closer to the water table than our code allows for a new system. Thank you; I welcome your questions.

What this page is doingTiming marks every thirty seconds show the statement was built to fit the clock, which is how testimony is actually delivered.

Written Testimony for the Committee Record

Position

I support Senate File 1187 and ask the committee to amend Section 1 so that the definition of a failing system includes inadequate separation between the bottom of the drain field and the seasonal high water table, measured against the separation the state code already requires for new installations.

The Problem the Amendment Addresses

Septic systems rely on unsaturated soil beneath the drain field to filter and treat wastewater. Bacteria are removed largely by filtration and die-off, viruses by adsorption to soil particles, and nitrogen is partly converted as water moves through. When the water table rises close to the drain field, the treatment zone shrinks or disappears, and wastewater enters groundwater with little treatment. A review of the fate of septic system contaminants describes this loss of unsaturated soil as a principal reason pathogens and nitrogen reach groundwater (Lusk et al., 2017). Such systems often show no surface symptoms. A homeowner may never know the system has failed in this way.

The bill's current definition, which relies on surfacing effluent and backups, catches hydraulic failures but not treatment failures. The federal onsite manual distinguishes the two and notes that systems can fail to protect groundwater while appearing to function normally (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2002).

The Health Rationale

Groundwater contaminated by septic effluent has been linked repeatedly to enteric disease. Across studies published between 1948 and 2015, contaminated groundwater turned up again and again as a cause of gastrointestinal illness, and septic effluent was often the suspected source (Murphy et al., 2017). Among central Wisconsin children, diarrheal illness of viral and bacterial origin was more frequent where septic systems were packed more densely (Borchardt et al., 2003). Many households in the state's lake country draw drinking water from shallow private wells, which no public program tests. Inspection at transfer is primary prevention: it finds the source before exposure, rather than relying on illness or a failed well test to reveal it. The amendment extends that prevention to the failures most likely to affect wells.

Feasibility

The amendment adds no new inspection method. Licensed inspectors already assess soil conditions and separation distance when a new system is permitted, and the state code specifies the required separation. The inspection form created under Section 4 can include a separation measurement or a review of existing soil records. Where records show adequate separation, no extra work is needed.

Requested Language

In Section 1, after the definition of a failing system, add: "or a system in which the vertical separation between the bottom of the soil treatment area and the seasonal high water table is less than the separation required for new systems under state rules."

Closing

With this amendment, Senate File 1187 would find the septic failures that threaten drinking water as well as those that are visible. I respectfully urge the committee to adopt the amendment and pass the bill.

What this page is doingThe written version supplies the evidence and exact amendment language that three spoken minutes cannot hold.

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.

What the PHLT 8040 Week 7 instructions ask for

The seventh assignment usually asks for legislative testimony on a bill related to the student's issue, often in two forms: a spoken statement timed to a committee's limit and a written version for the record. Faculty expect the spoken text to open with name, residence and position, state any amendment immediately, explain the key mechanism in plain language and close by restating the request. The written version carries evidence, feasibility and, where relevant, exact amendment language. Testimony is graded on clarity and fit to the clock as much as on content, so a spoken statement that runs long or opens with background loses its close. Sources belong in the written version. Supporting a bill with a specific amendment is common and shows the speaker has read the bill closely.

How this PHLT 8040 Week 7 example is built

The spoken statement runs about three minutes with timing marks every thirty seconds. It opens with the speaker's name, township and position, states the amendment to the bill's definition section, explains in a few sentences how a drain field too close to the water table fails without surface signs, cites the Wisconsin study in plain words and restates the request. The written testimony follows under headings: position, the problem the amendment addresses, citing a review of septic contaminant transport and the federal manual's distinction between hydraulic and treatment failure, the health rationale with a groundwater disease review and primary prevention framing, feasibility using existing inspector practice and code separation distances, and exact language to insert in Section 1, closing with a request to adopt the amendment and pass the bill.

Where the marks sit in the PHLT 8040 Week 7 rubric

Graders weigh fit to the clock and clarity first. A spoken statement that opens with credentials and background, or runs past three minutes, loses its request. The position and amendment should appear in the first thirty seconds, and the mechanism should be explained in words a legislator would repeat. The written version earns credit for evidence tied to the amendment, a feasibility argument that anticipates objections and exact language a drafter could use. Accuracy about how septic systems treat wastewater is checked. Credit also goes to framing the bill as primary prevention without overstating the evidence. The two versions should agree. Sources should be accurate and limited to the written statement, and the tone should be respectful and constructive throughout.

PHLT 8040 Week 7 help from the desk

Testimony drafts often spend the first minute on the speaker's background. Lead with your name, where you live and your position, then the amendment if you have one. Explain the core mechanism in two or three plain sentences. Rehearse against a timer and cut until you finish with time to spare. Put evidence, feasibility and exact amendment language in the written version. Keep both versions consistent. Spoken and written testimony on your own bill can be produced together, timed to your committee's limit.

Get a PHLT 8040 Week 7 example written to your instructions

Give the desk your hearing's time limit and the committee involved, plus the Week 7 prompt and rubric. The PHLT 8040 testimony draft comes back timed, spoken text and written record kept separate, in 24 to 48 hours, with no fee on a first order. The epidemiologist and her county were created for the example, and the support she voices is the draft's own.

More PHLT 8040 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PHLT 8040 Week 7 questions, answered

How long should a spoken statement be for three minutes?

Roughly 350 to 400 words at a steady pace, though speakers vary, so a read-through against a clock is the only reliable measure. The example runs about 390 words with a margin mark every thirty seconds. Many committees cut witnesses off at the limit, so a draft that runs long loses its close. Your written statement can be longer, since it enters the record without being read aloud.

Where can I find a free PHLT 8040 Week 7 sample paper?

This page reproduces the complete Week 7 testimony, a timed three-minute spoken statement and a written version supporting a septic inspection bill with an amendment on separation from groundwater.

Why support the bill with an amendment rather than simply support it?

The bill's definition of failure would miss systems that discharge to groundwater without surface signs. A supporter who notices that gap strengthens the bill by naming it while keeping the overall position clearly in favor.

What does primary prevention mean for septic systems?

It means finding and fixing failing systems before wells or lakes are contaminated, rather than waiting for illness, a failed well test or a beach advisory to reveal the problem.

Why include exact amendment language in the written version?

Committee staff can use it directly, which makes the amendment easier to adopt. A request without language leaves the drafting, and its interpretation, to others.