Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Septic tank charges

24567…21

Comments

  • #52
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    http://www.antaisce.ie/Portals/0/Newsletters/dec2011/dec2011.html#Article7
    The stark reality is that the major drinking water crises of recent years are linked to inappropriately sited or poorly maintained septic tanks. For example, Galway's large-scale outbreak of cryptosporidium in 2007 (where more than 250 people became seriously ill) was traced in large part to sewage from poorly-maintained and wrong-sited septic tanks getting into Lough Corrib, from where drinking water is sourced.


  • #53
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    n97 mini wrote: »
    http://www.antaisce.ie/Portals/0/Newsletters/dec2011/dec2011.html#Article7

    Nobody in Galway would believe an taisce if they told you today was Friday.

    The EPA, Galway City & County councils have never actually traced the cause of the outbreak - which would be included in the an tasice propaganda if there were any evidence of it.

    Also Gormless would ahve stuck the boot into septic tanks if he got the chance but when asked
    In reply to questions from the media, the Minister would not be drawn on who was to blame for the cryptosporidium outbreak

    The so called link to the sewerage tanks was brought up as a way of distracting from the fact that Galway City council were sitting on money to upgrade the ancient treatment plant in Terryland (no not the new one beside terryland park, the smaller old one near the QB) when the crypto outbreak happened.

    It also distracts from the fact that GCC weren't testing the water often enough. They were testing it once a month, when they should have been testing the raw water once a week and the processed water daily.

    Can anybody tell me if there's a treatment plant in Moycullen, Oughterard, Cong, Clonbur or any of the other towns/villages near the Corrib River/Lake system as these places would be far more likely sources of the pollution.


  • #54
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Firstly, I'd accept that An Taisce is neutral in that it non funded by government.
    However it mentioned rights to water. No right is absolute, as per the rulings on the consitituion and must be balanced on other rights, such as that of the mentioned right to the enjoyment private property mentioned in said constitution which is being chipped away by such government interference.

    From a google seacrch, the following answers and rebuts the An Taisce arguement.
    A key point being:
    "
    Several investigations have failed to find the source of the outbreaks but there are a number of facts to be taken into consideration. Chief among these is that many towns and villages in Co Galway have either inadequate or non-existent wastewater treatment plants, and the now upgraded Terryland treatment plant in Galway city was inadequate at the time of the cryptosporidium outbreak.
    "


  • #55
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Phil Hogan also attributed Galway's water pollution to septic tanks, on Newstalk earlier this week.

    However there are always people who will argue otherwise.


  • #56
    Solidchrome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Solidchrome


    ardmacha wrote: »
    The usual bleating. It is no more unreasonable to have a septic tank inspection charge than a charge for a NCT inspection or a driving test.

    Great attitude. I bet you would soon bleat yourself if Hogan sent you a bill for over 5000 euros to upgrade your sewage pipes and charge you an inspection fee on top.


  • #57
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Solidchrome wrote: »
    Great attitude. I bet you would soon bleat yourself if Hogan sent you a bill for over 5000 euros to upgrade your sewage pipes and charge you an inspection fee on top.

    If the NCT said you had 4 bald tyres and a defective headlight would you be bleating on about Leo Varadkar is trying to screw you?


  • #58
    Solidchrome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Solidchrome


    n97 mini wrote: »
    If the NCT said you had 4 bald tyres and a defective headlight would you be bleating on about Leo Varadkar is trying to screw you?

    Duh. I would if there was nothing wrong with my tyres and 'defective' headlight and that rule only applied because I live in the country.


  • #59
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Phil Hogan also attributed Galway's water pollution to septic tanks, on Newstalk earlier this week.

    So, what was he basing it on - any actual facts or a plausible theory that people unfamiliar with the area will accept as fact.

    Can anybody indicate a report that has been published (as opposed to politicians stating something in the media) that blames it on sewage tanks?


  • #60
    wiseguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭wiseguy


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Phil Hogan also attributed Galway's water pollution to septic tanks, on Newstalk earlier this week.

    However there are always people who will argue otherwise.

    Where is the proof


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Solidchrome wrote: »
    Duh. I would if there was nothing wrong with my tyres and 'defective' headlight and that rule only applied because I live in the country.
    They'll still charge you €50 to tell you nothing is wrong! This is the same as the septic tank tax remember!

    And anyway, isn't the NCT anti-rural dwellers to begin with? It only applies to cars, and rural dwellers need cars to get around as they have no public transport. Lots of people in cities, Dublin especially don't need cars at all.


  • #62
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    antoobrien wrote: »
    So, what was he basing it on - any actual facts or a plausible theory that people unfamiliar with the area will accept as fact.
    I'm happy enough just to accept it at face value.

    But for you I'd suggest you listen back to the interview (Breakfast with Ivan Yeats), satisfy yourself that he said it, and then write to him and ask him what's he basing it on.


  • #63
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I'm happy enough just to accept it at face value.

    But for you I'd suggest you listen back to the interview (Breakfast with Ivan Yeats), satisfy yourself that he said it, and then write to him and ask him what's he basing it on.

    I know he's basing it on nothing because it'd be plastered all over the papers that this report or that report said it.

    That's why I'm not willing to accept it at face value and neither should you.


  • #64
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    antoobrien wrote: »
    That's why I'm not willing to accept it at face value and neither should you.
    You're not accepting it because you don't want to believe it.

    But you're not providing any evidence to prove anything to the contrary. He's a minister, An Taisce said it too, but you're some anonymous bloke on an internet forum who says otherwise. Who should we believe?


  • #65
    wiseguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭wiseguy


    n97 mini wrote: »
    You're not accepting it because you don't want to believe it.

    But you're not providing any evidence to prove anything to the contrary. He's a minister, An Taisce said it too, but you're some anonymous bloke on an internet forum who says otherwise. Who should we believe?

    When debating the person that is one making a claim is the one who has to offer proof


  • #66
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Manach wrote: »
    Could you link on those studies, thanks.

    Here is such a study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1985.tb01506.x/abstract

    Here are some direct quotes from the study:
    Septic tanks contribute the largest volume of waste water, 800 billion gallons per year to the subsurface, and are the most frequently reported cause of ground-water contamination associated with disease outbreaks.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated areas with septic tank densities of greater than 40 systems per mi2 (1 system per 16 acres) as regions of potential ground-water contamination. Numerous cases of ground-water contamination have been reported in areas of high septic tank density

    Note that this is a study from the USA in 1985, so this is hardly new information.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    n97 mini wrote: »
    You're not accepting it because you don't want to believe it.

    But you're not providing any evidence to prove anything to the contrary. He's a minister, An Taisce said it too, but you're some anonymous bloke on an internet forum who says otherwise. Who should we believe?

    I'm not accepting it because I know of a more likely cause. It was a wet winter, but we've seen wetter (e.g the 2009 flooding didn't cause widespread water problems)

    Besides why accept the word of one politician over another, as Manach pointed out earlier Marian Harkin MEP has a very different view:
    Several investigations have failed to find the source of the outbreaks but there are a number of facts to be taken into consideration. Chief among these is that many towns and villages in Co Galway have either inadequate or non-existent wastewater treatment plants, and the now upgraded Terryland treatment plant in Galway city was inadequate at the time of the cryptosporidium outbreak.

    Minster hogan states that it's septic tanks, MEP Harkin states that despite several investigations nobody knows and points out that everyone is ignoring the sub standard sewage systems of the urban areas around the lake & river.


  • #68
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Manach wrote: »
    Could you link on those studies, thanks.

    Google yourself. First page returns references to two dead tree US EPA studies, for instance - and I can't post a physical library on here.

    Asking people to "link" things you can find yourself in twenty seconds is an utter timewasting attempt.


  • #69
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Marian Harkin MEP has a very different view:
    Marian Harkin is in the same category, she doesn't want to believe either. Along with that eejit Eamonn O Cuiv.

    Septic tanks pollute. There is no debate.


  • #70
    Atilathehun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 521 ✭✭✭Atilathehun


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Marian Harkin is in the same category, she doesn't want to believe either. Along with that eejit Eamonn O Cuiv.

    Septic tanks pollute. There is no debate.

    Question!!! How is the public waste treatment system funded?


  • #71
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Solidchrome wrote: »
    Duh. I would if there was nothing wrong with my tyres and 'defective' headlight and that rule only applied because I live in the country.
    The inspections are for septic tank owners, not rural dwellers. The fact that the vast majority of rural dwellers have no other option but to use septic tanks to dispose of their waste is their choice. Nobody forced anyone to build in the countryside. My gas appliance in my flat in Berlin must be inspected each year by the district inspector in case it poisons my neighbours. Someone with their own gas appliance in their home in rural Germany is exempt from such inspections as they wouldn't poison anyone but themselves if it malfunctioned. Am I being punished for my choice to live in a city?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I'm not accepting it because I know of a more likely cause. It was a wet winter, but we've seen wetter (e.g the 2009 flooding didn't cause widespread water problems)

    Besides why accept the word of one politician over another, as Manach pointed out earlier Marian Harkin MEP has a very different view:


    Minster hogan states that it's septic tanks, MEP Harkin states that despite several investigations nobody knows and points out that everyone is ignoring the sub standard sewage systems of the urban areas around the lake & river.

    I suppose it's theoretically possible that despite the identification of septic tanks as point sources of pollution in multiple scientific studies, the half a million Irish septic tanks are all miraculously non-polluting. And perhaps the fact that we have a much higher density of septic tanks than many countries (England has 800,000 septic tanks to our 500,000, for example) has nothing to do with out E.coli levels being, in turn, 28 times those of England and Wales, even though E.coli is a regular product of septic tank pollution.

    Perhaps we can truly say that "Irish conditions are different", and "our fundaments are sound"?

    Or, you know, not. Because, to be honest, the idea that Irish septic tanks are not like septic tanks anywhere else is such a stretch that it deserves to be given the same derision as the famous "soft landing" - and indeed deserves a soft landing itself in one of our miraculously never-polluting septic tanks.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #73
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Atilathehun wrote: »
    Question!!! How is the public waste treatment system funded?
    Through contributions from taxpayers. Urban areas generate more taxes than are spent in them. The rest is spent in non-rural areas. FACT. Ergo, urban dwellers pay for their own waste treatment systems and will actually be subsidising these inspections too (the real cost of a single inspector will be much more than the number of inspections he/she carries out per annum times the inspection fee). (Urban property owners actually pay a hefty connection fee to the public system which is usually hidden in the cost of their flat/house as the developer pays a bulk fee for a new estate).


  • #74
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Atilathehun wrote: »
    Question!!! How is the public waste treatment system funded?

    The same way small rural schools, or stretches of road with only one or two houses on them are.


  • #75
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    LK_Dave wrote: »
    I still have elderly relatives who do not have plumbing in their cottage. The hedge still servers them.

    Do you consider that acceptable in 2012?
    I built a new house 5 years ago in accordance with the planning permission given to me . The co. council asked that an approved person that was on some list they had , had to pickout the bio cycle treatment system I was to use and design the percolation area before they would grant planning he also had to oversee the installation of the unit and the construction of the percolation area .Upon completion he then had to write a report stating that all was as it should be. My planning also required i sign up for a 5 year maintenance agreement with the supplier of the system.
    So the Co. Council know what system I have installed , what regulations it was designed to and when it was installed .They also know i have a maintenance agreement that runs out this summer.

    My question is will they want to inspect my sewage treatment set up eventhough they know all there is to know about it and it was built and installed by a person approved by them?

    Dunno, let's think...to make sure that it is working as designed and that maintenance has been done properly and that you don't have a local farmer pumping our sledge for a few quid..perhaps??

    Don't you want to know it is working properly yourself?


  • #76
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    MYOB wrote: »
    Google yourself. First page returns references to two dead tree US EPA studies, for instance - and I can't post a physical library on here.

    Asking people to "link" things you can find yourself in twenty seconds is an utter timewasting attempt.
    That is complete nonsense, if you wish to advance a claim to a proposion then it behoves people to have access to the same set of data. Logic 101. That or manage to have some measure of experise in question to the topic at hand - that means putting in a lot more time than 20s.


  • #77
    bbsrs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 943 ✭✭✭bbsrs


    [/QUOTE]

    Dunno, let's think...to make sure that it is working as designed and that maintenance has been done properly and that you don't have a local farmer pumping our sledge for a few quid..perhaps??

    Don't you want to know it is working properly yourself?[/Quote]

    Well , it's cleaned once per year , serviced once per year by the manufacturer and has a warning system built in should it stop working for any reason. Also it a fairly simple system when you see the design of it .
    How would an inspector know if a farmer was emptying a tank for someone on a regular basis?
    What I don't get is what an inspection will be able to determine because without digging in the area around the tank how can they know if it's polluting or not?


  • #78
    wiseguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭wiseguy


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I suppose it's theoretically possible that despite the identification of septic tanks as point sources of pollution in multiple scientific studies, the half a million Irish septic tanks are all miraculously non-polluting. And perhaps the fact that we have a much higher density of septic tanks than many countries (England has 800,000 septic tanks to our 500,000, for example) has nothing to do with out E.coli levels being, in turn, 28 times those of England and Wales, even though E.coli is a regular product of septic tank pollution.

    Perhaps we can truly say that "Irish conditions are different", and "our fundaments are sound"?

    Or, you know, not. Because, to be honest, the idea that Irish septic tanks are not like septic tanks anywhere else is such a stretch that it deserves to be given the same derision as the famous "soft landing" - and indeed deserves a soft landing itself in one of our miraculously never-polluting septic tanks.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    Ah now
    What is the population of cows, sheep, horses and pigs that roam our fields (and poop there) as compared to UK

    consumers want organic farming that means animals out in fields doing their thing, and fields being fertilised with their waste...


  • #79
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    MadsL wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Will you be paying for an inspection of your taxpayer-provided urban sewage system ?

    And what if the level of inspection is the same calibre as the inspections of Priory House or the Financial Regulator ?

    Strawman nonsense.

    Just because you said so ? Right :rolleyes:


  • #80
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Just because you said so ? Right

    No, because your arguments don't have any bearing on your objections to paying a tiny charge to ensure your tank isn't polluting.

    They have already been tackled here but
    Will you be paying for an inspection of your taxpayer-provided urban sewage system ?

    My taxes cover the cost of inspecting and maintaining a mains sewer system...Do you think that the 50 euro will even cover the inspections?
    And what if the level of inspection is the same calibre as the inspections of Priory House or the Financial Regulator ?

    Whataboutery doesn't really cut it as an argument I'm afraid. If the inspections are subpar, then they'll be dealt with...what has Priory House or the banks got to do with it?


  • #81
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    bbsrs wrote: »

    Well , it's cleaned once per year , serviced once per year by the manufacturer and has a warning system built in should it stop working for any reason. Also it a fairly simple system when you see the design of it .
    How would an inspector know if a farmer was emptying a tank for someone on a regular basis?
    What I don't get is what an inspection will be able to determine because without digging in the area around the tank how can they know if it's polluting or not?


    ..and so you should be grand..We are talking about 50 quid to register for 5 years. You probably spend more than on bog roll in 12 months.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Manach wrote: »
    That is complete nonsense, if you wish to advance a claim to a proposion then it behoves people to have access to the same set of data. Logic 101. That or manage to have some measure of experise in question to the topic at hand - that means putting in a lot more time than 20s.

    Will you accept a Master's degree in environmental science and a couple of years working for the Geological Survey's groundwater unit? Plus regular contacts with colleagues still in the field.

    Septic tanks = pollution sources. Arguments based on them not being will fail to move the debate at the official level, because they're based purely on personal ignorance.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #83
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    MadSL wrote:
    Do you think that the 50 euro will even cover the inspections

    Who said that needed to be a criteria ? That's whataboutery.

    The cost can come out of the fines, since the problem is supposedly so prevalent.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Manach wrote: »
    That is complete nonsense, if you wish to advance a claim to a proposion then it behoves people to have access to the same set of data. Logic 101. That or manage to have some measure of experise in question to the topic at hand - that means putting in a lot more time than 20s.

    Will you accept a Master's degree in environmental science and a couple of years working for the Geological Survey's groundwater unit? Plus regular contacts with colleagues still in the field.

    Septic tanks = pollution sources. Arguments based on them not being will fail to move the debate at the official level, because they're based purely on personal ignorance.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I'd accept a "polluter pays" principle, like the Greens used to have.


  • #84
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Who said that needed to be a criteria ? That's whataboutery.

    The cost can come out of the fines, since the problem is supposedly so prevalent.



    I'd accept a "polluter pays" principle, like the Greens used to have.

    You own a potential source of pollution. It has to be inspected, and there's a cost to the inspection - so you're paying for the system of inspection. Nor is the system one of inspect and fine - it's inspect and require remediation. Fines will only be levied for refusal to improve the situation.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #85
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Manach wrote: »
    That is complete nonsense, if you wish to advance a claim to a proposion then it behoves people to have access to the same set of data. Logic 101. That or manage to have some measure of experise in question to the topic at hand - that means putting in a lot more time than 20s.

    When the data is easy at hand and the person you're dealing with is making improbable claims (e.g. that poorly maintained human effluent storage systems are not polluting), its entirely justifiable to leave the improbable claimant to find the easy at hand information.


  • #86
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You own a potential source of pollution. It has to be inspected, and there's a cost to the inspection - so you're paying for the system of inspection. Nor is the system one of inspect and fine - it's inspect and require remediation. Fines will only be levied for refusal to improve the situation.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Everyone who has a toilet or any waste system has a potential source of pollution.. If this is an environmental issue why are all sewage lines not being inspected regularily?


  • #87
    PARKHEAD67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭PARKHEAD67


    Welease wrote: »
    Everyone who has a toilet or any waste system has a potential source of pollution.. If this is an environmental issue why are all sewage lines not being inspected regularily?
    Its no more an environmental issue than the "go safe" campaign is a safety issue.Both easy ways of squeezing even more money from the minons.Now, I hear their discussing a site tax where they tax you annualy on the value of your site.This country is getting more disgusting by the day


  • #88
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Its no more an environmental issue than the "go safe" campaign is a safety issue.

    This is complete and utter nonsense. Pollution is an environmental issue and speeding etc is a road safety issue. No rational person can deny this.

    You can make the point that the operation of these measures is not optimal, although saying that they raise money is hardly a damning criticism in a state with a large deficit. In this case, I think that an EPA licence or similar approach might be better, where the same inspection regime applied to everyone, including council owned facilities.

    I sometimes despair for this country where any sort of nuanced criticism of something seems beyond most people, or at least most posters here.


  • #89
    PARKHEAD67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭PARKHEAD67


    ardmacha wrote: »
    This is complete and utter nonsense. Pollution is an environmental issue and speeding etc is a road safety issue. No rational person can deny this.

    You can make the point that the operation of these measures is not optimal, although saying that they raise money is hardly a damning criticism in a state with a large deficit. In this case, I think that an EPA licence or similar approach might be better, where the same inspection regime applied to everyone, including council owned facilities.

    I sometimes despair for this country where any sort of nuanced criticism of something seems beyond most people, or at least most posters here.
    Its the same people being hit all the time. The average Joe soap who has a PAYE job. The people who built a house on a site-Site tax, septic tank tax, social charge, property tax...The list is endless.Travellers get free houses, free medical, and get paid for having kids!!!!(and never work a day in their lives)And we're shelling out for em. What a fcuked up country.


  • #90
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    To sum up Scofflaw's point, who being a geologist + environmental scientist has expert knowledge, he/she states that septic tanks cause pollution.

    My rebuttal is twofold.
    Firstly I've also have a geology background, though it has been a while. Can septic tanks leak, yes. Can they cause pollution, yes. But is the pollution of a magnitude to impact public health and is a nationwide scheme the answer? In the former, I'd reckon the probability is very low that leakage from such small amount of malfuncationing tanks actually reaching the water-transportation and hence causing an adverse to impact public health. Resources would be better spent on the filtration facilities at the water treatment system. To open the analogous floodgate argument - Smoking is also a pollutant. At a guess, within a domestic scenario it would cause a greater impact on public health than septic tanks. So are State inspectors, to monitor all homes to ensure that adverse pollution levels are within EU levels, needed?


    Secondly, having gone mad during the boom as least according to Mr. Kenny, I've also picked up a minor legal qualifiction. Thus from a civil law foundation, damage from such tanks can be tackled within the existing framework. On one hand, tort law would allow the effected part to seek damages/injunctions under the Rylands v Fletcher rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher). In essence, if party A makes dangerous use of their property, then A can be held strictly liability for this. On the other hand, there is principle of "The Polluter pays" as per Stooke's "Environmental Law", s2.30. This underpins the UK's environmental and criminal sanctions for pollution.


    These rely on stakeholders being aware of their rights, and being willing to act on them as citizens instead of relying on a government agency to protect them. It also saves money by the absence of inspectors.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Travellers get free houses, free medical, and get paid for having kids!!!!(and never work a day in their lives)

    There are many categories of people who seek to take without giving and do not accept their responsibilities as citizens.
    In essence, if party A makes dangerous use of their property, then A can be held strictly liability for this.

    You can make the argument that if my brakes fail on my car and run you over then you can sue me. But it makes sense to have an NCT test to ensure that I do not neglect my brakes. Likewise with septic tanks. They have the capacity to affect other people and some inspection to ensure that they are not neglected is appropriate. Smoking in domestic homes generally affects people in the home and might only be prohibited for the benefit of children.


  • #92
    PARKHEAD67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭PARKHEAD67


    [QUOTE=ardmacha;76782121]There are many categories of people who seek to take without giving and do not accept their responsibilities as citizens.



    You can make the argument that if my brakes fail on my car and run you over then you can sue me. But it makes sense to have an NCT test to ensure that I do not neglect my brakes. Likewise with septic tanks. They have the capacity to affect other people and some inspection to ensure that they are not neglected is appropriate. Smoking in domestic homes generally affects people in the home and might only be prohibited for the benefit of children.[/QUOTE]
    There sure are.And they keep getting paid money by our inept government to be as lazy and feckless as they want.


  • #93
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Will you accept a Master's degree in environmental science and a couple of years working for the Geological Survey's groundwater unit? Plus regular contacts with colleagues still in the field.

    Septic tanks = pollution sources. Arguments based on them not being will fail to move the debate at the official level, because they're based purely on personal ignorance.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw[/Quote]
    Then you would know

    1, some rivers worse affected than others and some of those more so by public schemes

    2, that there is insufficient sludge treatment capacity in ireland overall...
    ..so where does it go..to the sea until the urban waste water directive in 2015


  • #94
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    If ever there was an argument for inspections..
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0128/1224310868104.html

    THIS IS a true story. A deputy from the west related it to colleagues in the Members’ Bar this week. The TD told how he got a phone call from a constituent who has a small holding and was very worried about how the proposed new septic tank regulations might affect him. He went on to explain the type of tank he has been using for years for waste.

    “I dug a big soakage hole with stones on the bottom of it, and I have a pipe going into the car and another one coming out of the back, up at the window. It’s well sealed and covered up.”

    The deputy sought more information. “A car, you say?” “That’s right.” “What make of car is it?”

    “A Ford Cortina. Do you think I might be in trouble?”

    “Aah, I think you might be. . .”


  • #95
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    PARKHEAD67 wrote: »
    Its no more an environmental issue than the "go safe" campaign is a safety issue.Both easy ways of squeezing even more money from the minons.Now, I hear their discussing a site tax where they tax you annualy on the value of your site.This country is getting more disgusting by the day

    Yeah, you mean the way they keep introducing payments for things that other countries have been paying for years. Water charges, property taxes, sewage charges. Disgusting. Let's go back to pretending it's all free. :rolleyes:


  • #96
    Solidchrome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Solidchrome


    MadsL wrote: »
    If ever there was an argument for inspections..
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0128/1224310868104.html

    Cant dispute that for one minute. It came from an online news service and they ALWAYS tell the truth and are no way way politically motivated.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Came from Miriam Lord actually....but take it for whatever you think it is worth. I don't doubt that there are probably septic tanks around the country made from old water tanks, and other assorted junk.


  • #98
    PARKHEAD67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭PARKHEAD67


    MadsL wrote: »
    Yeah, you mean the way they keep introducing payments for things that other countries have been paying for years. Water charges, property taxes, sewage charges. Disgusting. Let's go back to pretending it's all free. :rolleyes:
    Ha ha.Nice one there.Let the PAYE man or woman pay for all the disgusting crap that Fianna Fail introduced.Why is it that only the PAYE worker is screwed over time and again?I'll tell you why-Coz we're an easy target.Let the "long-term unemployed"(and Im not including the poor misfortunes who have been recently let go) get a reduction in their payments.Make the wasters like the Dundons in Limerick work for their dole.Its all free to the wasters in Ireland.Isnt it?


  • #99
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    PARKHEAD67 wrote: »
    Ha ha.Nice one there.Let the PAYE man or woman pay for all the disgusting crap that Fianna Fail introduced.Why is it that only the PAYE worker is screwed over time and again?I'll tell you why-Coz we're an easy target.Let the "long-term unemployed"(and Im not including the poor misfortunes who have been recently let go) get a reduction in their payments.Make the wasters like the Dundons in Limerick work for their dole.Its all free to the wasters in Ireland.Isnt it?

    all the disgusting crap that Fianna Fail introduced

    Like what exactly?

    Rest is just a rant, tbh.


  • #100
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    MadsL wrote: »
    Came from Miriam Lord actually....but take it for whatever you think it is worth. I don't doubt that there are probably septic tanks around the country made from old water tanks, and other assorted junk.
    I know of at least one. An aunt and uncle of mine had a "system" that you could SEE was leaking (smelly-presume untreated) effluent as the ground in which it was buried was permanently soggy and stinking. I haven't been back there for 20 years but without a stick like an inspection regime, I don't see why they would have improved it.

    I also know other folks with tanks that they would maintain and keep in good running order. It's really no different to the NCT.


  • #101
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    murphaph wrote: »
    I know of at least one. An aunt and uncle of mine had a "system" that you could SEE was leaking (smelly-presume untreated) effluent as the ground in which it was buried was permanently soggy and stinking. I haven't been back there for 20 years but without a stick like an inspection regime, I don't see why they would have improved it.

    I also know other folks with tanks that they would maintain and keep in good running order. It's really no different to the NCT.

    But thats the point.. it is different.. The NCT/DOE applies to the vast majority of vehicles.. this "environmental" inspection doesn't, it applies to only one type of system. Akin to only having to NCT Ford's.

    What about main sewerage systems that are leaking due to subsidence, root invasion, age, damage etc. Why are they not being inspected? If there is an issue with pollution of water tables, then we should be inpecting all potential points of pollution.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement