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

Septic tank charges

1356735

Comments

  • Registered Users 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.


  • Registered Users 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.


  • Registered Users 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?


  • 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


  • Registered Users 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
  • Registered Users 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.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users 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.


  • 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    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
  • Registered Users 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    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).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    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.


  • Registered Users 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?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,639 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.


  • Registered Users 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?


  • 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...


  • 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:


  • Registered Users 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?


  • Registered Users 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
  • Registered Users 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


  • 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.


  • Registered Users 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


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users 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?


  • 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


  • Registered Users 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.


  • 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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,639 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
  • Registered Users 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.


Advertisement