Septic tank charges

MadsL · 05-03-2012 4:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Far more efficient and simple to test those near water.

Hard to get away from a water table.

Tipp Man · 05-03-2012 4:41pm

MadsL wrote: »

Hard to get away from a water table.

Even harder for towns and villages across the country to get their sewage away from rivers

Cedrus · 05-03-2012 6:33pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Even harder for towns and villages across the country to get their sewage away from rivers

This thread is about septic tank charges not the town wastewater treatment plants that the NIMBYs keep objecting to.

MadsL · 05-03-2012 7:44pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Even harder for towns and villages across the country to get their sewage away from rivers

When you can post some evidence that the septic tank problem has been improving in the same way that water treatment plants across the country have been steadily improving -

The EPA carried out 83 audits of water treatment plants in 2010. Improvements were found across all key indicators examined with the exception of source protection and reservoir security which were identified as areas for further improvement. The EPA issued 9 legally binding Directions to 7 local authorities in 2010.

http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/enforce/pa/drink/quality/

Is there any evidence that improvements have been made with regard to pollution from septic tanks?

Tipp Man · 05-03-2012 8:04pm

MadsL wrote: »

Tipp Man wrote: »

Even harder for towns and villages across the country to get their sewage away from rivers

When you can post some evidence that the septic tank problem has been improving in the same way that water treatment plants across the country have been steadily improving -

The EPA carried out 83 audits of water treatment plants in 2010. Improvements were found across all key indicators examined with the exception of source protection and reservoir security which were identified as areas for further improvement. The EPA issued 9 legally binding Directions to 7 local authorities in 2010.

http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/enforce/pa/drink/quality/

Is there any evidence that improvements have been made with regard to pollution from septic tanks?

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that councils have 2 problems, 1 is current treatment plants not working properly and 2 is towns and villages across the country having NO treatment plants. It would take thousand upon thousands of poorly functioning septic tanks to cause as much pollution as 1 town dumping untreated sewage into a river. The concentration of pollution that the councils are doing couldn't possibly be equalled by septic tanks even if every tank in the country wasn't working due to the huge area across which septic tanks are spread ie the whole country

MadsL · 05-03-2012 8:51pm

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that councils have 2 problems, 1 is current treatment plants not working properly and 2 is towns and villages across the country having NO treatment plants. It would take thousand upon thousands of poorly functioning septic tanks to cause as much pollution as 1 town dumping untreated sewage into a river. The concentration of pollution that the councils are doing couldn't possibly be equalled by septic tanks even if every tank in the country wasn't working due to the huge area across which septic tanks are spread ie the whole country

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself. Read that last sentence again and tell me why we must wait until every last townland has a world-class water treatment system before looking at septic tanks??

MadsL wrote: »

You are aware that businesses in urban areas pay rates, so the cost of repairs is covered by rates paid by businesses frequented by urban dwellers.

Why would additional charges be necessary in your view?

County councils will be forced by EU law to improve standards, and in fact the EPA report that says half of systems are substandard that everyone is spouting to beat the councils with states the vast improvements in monitoring that have been made in recent years.
Since the last report, there has been significant improvement in the monitoring of waste water treatment plants. In 2007, 112 plants did not take sufficient samples; this figure has reduced to 38 in the current report.

If monitoring is important for urban areas, then naturally inspection is important for rural areas on individual tanks.

Bear in mind the EU Water Framework Directive requires member states to take a holistic approach to managing their water resources. It applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters. Member States must aim to achieve good status in all waters by 2015 and must ensure that status does not deteriorate in any waters.

Therefore we cannot simply wait until urban councils are in compliance, it has to be done hand-in-hand.

Tipp Man · 05-03-2012 9:14pm

MadsL wrote: »

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that councils have 2 problems, 1 is current treatment plants not working properly and 2 is towns and villages across the country having NO treatment plants. It would take thousand upon thousands of poorly functioning septic tanks to cause as much pollution as 1 town dumping untreated sewage into a river. The concentration of pollution that the councils are doing couldn't possibly be equalled by septic tanks even if every tank in the country wasn't working due to the huge area across which septic tanks are spread ie the whole country

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself. Read that last sentence again and tell me why we must wait until every last townland has a world-class water treatment system before looking at septic tanks??

MadsL wrote: »

You are aware that businesses in urban areas pay rates, so the cost of repairs is covered by rates paid by businesses frequented by urban dwellers.

Why would additional charges be necessary in your view?

County councils will be forced by EU law to improve standards, and in fact the EPA report that says half of systems are substandard that everyone is spouting to beat the councils with states the vast improvements in monitoring that have been made in recent years.
Since the last report, there has been significant improvement in the monitoring of waste water treatment plants. In 2007, 112 plants did not take sufficient samples; this figure has reduced to 38 in the current report.

If monitoring is important for urban areas, then naturally inspection is important for rural areas on individual tanks.

Bear in mind the EU Water Framework Directive requires member states to take a holistic approach to managing their water resources. It applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters. Member States must aim to achieve good status in all waters by 2015 and must ensure that status does not deteriorate in any waters.

Therefore we cannot simply wait until urban councils are in compliance, it has to be done hand-in-hand.

So what is the objective here, charge septic tank owners or actually improve our water pollution. If its the later then we know the councils are the main problem. It makes sense to treat the biggest aspect of a problem first, or at least simultaneously, if you want to fix the problem.

recedite · 05-03-2012 9:59pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So only owners of septic tanks near rivers or lakes should have to pay an inspection fee? Or only owners of broken tanks? Or only owners of broken tanks near rivers or lakes?
The point is that we don't know which tanks are causing problems without inspecting them, and that means inspecting them all.

This is not an inspection fee. This is a registration charge. There is no connection between the two. When you pay to register, it does not mean somebody comes out to inspect your tank. If you don't register, the legislation states that the inspector can come onto your property and inspect your tank anyway (without permission) and then gives you a certain number of days to register or be fined.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say it was sudden. I noticed a problem and got it fixed. An outlet filter was clogged, causing the tank to overflow. The tank is on a slope, so I noticed effluent leaking from under an exposed edge of the lid. If the tank had been buried flush with level ground, I mightn't have seen it as soon as I did.

Your outlet was clogged because the sludge level had got too high. If you had inspected the tank for that earlier, then it might have been cheaper for you. If the tank had been on level ground, you would have noticed the problem quicker, because the effluent would have pooled around the tank instead of escaping down the hill. Your experience is very typical; it shows how the owners of septic tanks are forced, by the very nature of septic tanks, to maintain them and to take action when the time comes.

Contrast this with the many Irish towns where thousands of toilets flush straight into rivers or seas with no treatment whatsoever. Those "systems" never give any bother to the householders, and are totally maintenance free.

oscarBravo · 05-03-2012 11:38pm

recedite wrote: »

This is not an inspection fee. This is a registration charge. There is no connection between the two. When you pay to register, it does not mean somebody comes out to inspect your tank. If you don't register, the legislation states that the inspector can come onto your property and inspect your tank anyway (without permission) and then gives you a certain number of days to register or be fined.

Semantics. It's a registration charge that contributes to the cost of inspection. Tanks need to be inspected.

Your outlet was clogged because the sludge level had got too high. If you had inspected the tank for that earlier, then it might have been cheaper for you.

Much more to the point, if someone was mandated to inspect the tank on a regular basis, then the problem almost certainly wouldn't have arisen in the first place.

Leaving aside the fact that there's much about my situation that you're not aware of (and that I'm not going to bother going into, as it's not relevant), the key learning point is that people don't routinely inspect their own septic tanks. That's a good reason to have the inspections mandated.

MadsL · 06-03-2012 4:00am

Tipp Man wrote: »

So what is the objective here, charge septic tank owners or actually improve our water pollution. If its the later then we know the councils are the main problem. It makes sense to treat the biggest aspect of a problem first, or at least simultaneously, if you want to fix the problem.

Err, they are treating the problem simultaneously, which is why you need to register. That's the point I'm making. Read the EPA reports.

Would you disagree with that approach now, as you just suggested it?

Tipp Man · 06-03-2012 10:52am

MadsL wrote: »

Err, they are treating the problem simultaneously, which is why you need to register. That's the point I'm making. Read the EPA reports.

Would you disagree with that approach now, as you just suggested it?

The hell they are

The approach was to get builders to build treatment plants as parts of the developments they were going to build - builders gone bust now and no treatment plants. And there won't be any treatment plants either as the councils don't have the money to pay for them

MadsL · 06-03-2012 4:30pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

The hell they are

The approach was to get builders to build treatment plants as parts of the developments they were going to build - builders gone bust now and no treatment plants. And there won't be any treatment plants either as the councils don't have the money to pay for them

..and that excuses septic tanks from their part of the equation how?

Most of the ghost estates are practically empty anyhow...

n97 mini · 06-03-2012 5:13pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

the key learning point is that people don't routinely inspect their own septic tanks.

When I was growing up the septic tank only got any attention when it was over-flowing at the end of the garden, for the nth time. The funny thing is the tank was shared with the house next door, so it was always a source of contention.

recedite · 06-03-2012 7:39pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Semantics. It's a registration charge that contributes to the cost of inspection. Tanks need to be inspected. Much more to the point, if someone was mandated to inspect the tank on a regular basis, then the problem almost certainly wouldn't have arisen in the first place.

Leaving aside the fact that there's much about my situation that you're not aware of (and that I'm not going to bother going into, as it's not relevant), the key learning point is that people don't routinely inspect their own septic tanks. That's a good reason to have the inspections mandated.

I'm just saying that you could pay your registration fee to the council, but you might not see an inspector for 10 or 15 years. Your fee will probably go towards inspecting someone who hasn't registered. In the meantime it's up to you to arrange your own inspection/maintenance regime and pay for it separately. Or else wait for your tank to overflow into your back garden, and then try to remedy the situation.
In my own case, a septic tank was installed about 11 years ago, and was de-sludged once, last year. The council have all the details of the system, its percolation area, reserve perc area, certification to SR6 standard etc. all recorded as part of the planning permission conditions. It's not in a particularly environmentally sensitive area either, so I would not expect to see an inspector any time soon. They will most likely prioritise septic tanks near streams and those older systems without percolation areas first. That's how they did it in Cavan anyway.
I am in favour of these spot checks BTW, to catch the minority of people with malfunctioning tanks, and a registration fee to fund the inspections.
But these dispersed "offenders" are small fry compared to the big municipal authorities who are pouring the raw sewage from whole towns of maybe 15,000 people (eg Arklow) straight into rivers and seas. Even towns with basic primary treatment need to get better secondary treatment plants.
What's really needed is a waste treatment charge for anyone connected to a mains sewage system, and that money ring-fenced to pay for the installation and maintenance of proper treatment plants. Because of the economies of scale, they should still end up paying less than someone who maintains their own septic tank system.

oscarBravo · 06-03-2012 8:00pm

Your argument seems to be against paying for the registration of septic tanks, because that payment won't lead to inspection of the tanks. In the same post, you argue that users of sewers should pay a fee for the use of them, and that such funds would lead to upgrading of sewage works.

It seems to me that what's needed is a regime of septic tank inspections and a program of sewage plant upgrades, both of which will actually be carried out. I don't see the logic in arguing that a fee should not be paid for one because it will be ineffectual, while a fee should be paid for the other because it won't.

Shouldn't you be arguing for both charges, and for both to be used effectively, rather than arguing for one and against the other? Or is that what you're arguing for? I'm losing track.

MadsL · 06-03-2012 10:23pm

Some local (well, to me anyway) news....

Another way of prioritising inspections would be on age. How hope the registrations will actually record the age of the system.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - New Mexico's most populous county is considering making changes to its rules for septic systems in an effort to stop groundwater pollution.

Bernalillo County has had three meetings to discuss the proposed changes, and another four are planned next week.

The proposal would require the county's oldest septic systems to be inspected and repaired or replaced, if necessary, to stop pollution.

Roughly 450 septic systems in the county are at least 30 years old and would be subject to inspection beginning in July. About 750 systems would be affected by 2020.

The proposal applies to systems on lots three-quarters of an acre or smaller.

County officials say household septic tanks are a major source of groundwater pollution in New Mexico.

The County Commission is expected to vote on the proposal March 13.

Incidentally inspections run $300-$400 in fees. This against a property tax of 2k-5k a year.

recedite · 07-03-2012 12:02am

oscarBravo wrote: »

It seems to me that what's needed is a regime of septic tank inspections and a program of sewage plant upgrades, both of which will actually be carried out.

I'd agree with that. But I don't agree with putting the cart before the horse, so I pointed out that it is ridiculous for county councils to complain about minor deficiencies in individual septic tanks, while town councils continue to pollute on a massive scale.

Also I pointed out that you will not necessarily be receiving an inspection or a report on the payment of this fee, as you would with an NCT test; I think some people were under that misapprehension.

Finally, if charges are to be brought in, they should be brought in for mains sewage connections simultaneously with the septic tank registration fees.

MadsL · 07-03-2012 12:27am

recedite wrote: »

Finally, if charges are to be brought in, they should be brought in for mains sewage connections simultaneously with the septic tank registration fees.

grand - you pay your 5 euro, I'm sure 'townies' won't mind their 5 euro.

Or was that not what you had in mind???

recedite · 07-03-2012 12:06pm

We all know €5 is just the introductory special offer for septic tanks. And we know that €5 is a pittance compared to the installation and maintenance costs anyway. Which domestic users in towns are being billed even the token amount of €5?

oscarBravo · 07-03-2012 12:23pm

recedite wrote: »

Which domestic users in towns are being billed even the token amount of €5?

None. Businesses are paying for them through their commercial rates.

If you're arguing for urban domestic service charges to cover the cost of sewage and water, I won't disagree.

Cedrus · 07-03-2012 12:30pm

As some septic tank owners seem to be so obsessed with sewage treatment plants, perhaps they should pool together and build their own network of plants for secondary sludge treatment (raw sludge to biosolids).

A major stumbling block to completing WWTPs is planning objections, one of the myriad reasons for these objections is the fear that "there'll be tankers coming in at all hours" and "our town" will become the regional processing plant for septic tank sludge. My local county council plant had to have a private access road built so that the tankers could come and go without being noticed.

oscarBravo · 07-03-2012 12:35pm

NIMBYism isn't exactly anything new.

recedite · 07-03-2012 1:31pm

Cedrus wrote: »

As some septic tank owners seem to be so obsessed with sewage treatment plants, perhaps they should pool together and build their own network of plants for secondary sludge treatment (raw sludge to biosolids).

You are correct that sludge from septic tanks is taken by tanker to the same secondary plants for conversion to fertilizers etc. The difference is that septic tank owners have to organise and pay for that, but urban users don't. And very often the waste from urban users doesn't go there at all, it goes straight into the river instead.

Cedrus · 07-03-2012 2:08pm

recedite wrote: »

You are correct that sludge from septic tanks is taken by tanker to the same secondary plants for conversion to fertilizers etc. The difference is that septic tank owners have to organise and pay for that, but urban users don't. And very often the waste from urban users doesn't go there at all, it goes straight into the river instead.

The point is, that it is the additional load of the sludge tankers that often prevents LAs from getting planning permission to build the badly needed WWTPs in the first place. If there is any indication that a plant is any bigger than absolutely necessary (for future development or sludge tankers) and the NIMBYs declare it a Super Sewage Plant and it gets held up for years if not decades. Protestors in each small town resist being the first to build a plant as they fear that all of the surrounding towns will tanker in their waste from septic tanks and primary treatment plants.

Septic tank owners pay another party (tanker company) to fund the WWTPs just as Urban users have paid other parties (property developers) do do so.

It would be a reasonable expectation that when the household charge is changed from a flat charge to a valuation system, the sewage disposal will be part of the valuation and householders who have piped connections will pay more than those who deal with their sewage on site.

recedite · 07-03-2012 6:05pm

Cedrus wrote: »

The point is, that it is the additional load of the sludge tankers that often prevents LAs from getting planning permission

I can't see the logic of this. You could just as well say it is the additional load from the town that causes the nimbys to get upset. The treatment plant is most likely going to be on the outskirts or just outside the town.

Septic tank owners pay another party (tanker company) to fund the WWTPs just as Urban users have paid other parties (property developers) do do so.

Not quite;
Developers pay a one off levy per new house, and the house gets free serviced treatment thereafter.
New one off rural houses also pay a development levy, and then have to pay for the infastructure anyway (their septic tank system) and then pay ongoing maintenance costs, and now are being asked to pay registration charges as well.

Older pre existing urban houses paid no levy, and get a totally free service.
Older rural houses paid no levy, but paid for their own primary treatment infastructure (septic tank) and continue to pay for their own secondary treatment (via the tankers) and now they will pay a registration charge as well.

it would be a reasonable expectation that when the household charge is changed from a flat charge to a valuation system, the sewage disposal will be part of the valuation and householders who have piped connections will pay more than those who deal with their sewage on site.

Maybe, but that's the first I've heard of it.

Cedrus · 07-03-2012 7:09pm

recedite wrote: »

I can't see the logic of this. You could just as well say it is the additional load from the town that causes the nimbys to get upset. The treatment plant is most likely going to be on the outskirts or just outside the town.

I'm referring to actual objections either made at public meetings or reported to me by public representatives, I have never heard of an objection to a towns waste going to a towns WWTP.

recedite wrote: »

Maybe, but that's the first I've heard of it.

I am speculating based on the principle of rate rebates used in the past both here and in the UK.

MadsL · 07-03-2012 7:18pm

recedite wrote: »

And very often the waste from urban users doesn't go there at all, it goes straight into the river instead.

Could I have a source for that please and a definition of 'very often'.

perhaps they should pool together and build their own network of plants for secondary sludge treatment (raw sludge to biosolids).

We have a very effective system where I just bought in New Mexico. 100 houses gravity feeding a large aerobic biodigester tank. Treated water is then pumped back up the hill where it is sprayed onto Bemuda grass as a last stage in eating up the nutrients.

Costs us approx $40 a month including our water supply from two 300' wells.

recedite · 08-03-2012 12:21pm

MadsL wrote: »

Could I have a source for that please and a definition of 'very often'.

I'll rephrase that, I mean "In some cases", such as Arklow, Killybegs and others.

MadsL · 09-03-2012 6:06am

recedite wrote: »

I'll rephrase that, I mean "In some cases", such as Arklow, Killybegs and others.

Just to be pedantic, aren't they both on the coast?

With regard to the provision of wastewater services to developed area or areas proposed for development, in order to comply with relevant EU and national legislation, the Sanitary Authority have detailed data available on the current status (capacities, performance etc) of all wastewater systems and therefore can evaluate with certainty whether services are or will be available for any proposed development.
The Local Authority as a matter of course and in recognition of its obligations under the Water Services Acts, the Habitats Directive and other legislation monitors the cumulative effect of grants of planning permission on available waste water treatment capacity under the terms of the relevant Waste Water Discharge Licence and where
adequate capacity is not available, does not grant permission unless additional capacity is to be provided during the lifetime of any permission.
Arklow currently does not have a wastewater treatment plant and

Objective W3 of the draft plan addresses this identified environmental problem:
W3 Proposed developments within the plan area will only be permitted where it can be adequately demonstrated that sufficient waste water treatment infrastructure with adequate capacity is available or proposed to be available, capable of servicing the proposed development without causing any adverse environmental impacts

http://www.wicklow.ie/apps/wicklowbeta/Publications/Planning/ArklowTownAndEnvirons/Sea%20Addendum%201.pdf

It has been confirmed today that €16million has been approved to allow work begin on the Killybegs Sewerage Scheme.

The main pumping station, outfall and industrial collection system contract can now proceed under the Water Services Investment Programme.

The tendering process is now complete with Ascon Ltd having been selected to carry out the work.

The new will be welcomed locally as earlier this month concerns were expressed about the level of untreated waster entering Killybegs Harbour and a lack of progress in moving the project forward.

http://www.killybegsonline.org/Article_Details.aspx?article_id=281&tscategory_id=57

recedite · 10-03-2012 12:04am

A lot of towns are built on rivers close to the coast, at the first point upstream where the river was narrow enough to build a bridge. So the sewers of Arklow spew into a tidal part of the Avoca river.
That quote re Arklow seems to be a long-winded way of saying that they won't be allowed to build any more houses in the town because of the pollution problem. And that is supposed to be "addressing this identified environmental problem"??

Nice to see that Killybegs got PP for a treatment plant..... last year was it?Hopefully they have started building it by now.

I think your point is that these towns are aware of the problem and slowly trying to do something.
Not good enough IMO. They should have had even some basic primary treatment decades ago. Then they would have been be at the same level as the very worst septic tanks were. Except that the fact of so much waste being concentrated in one spot is always going to have a worse impact anyway.

When all of these towns have stopped pumping the raw sewage of thousands of people per town, into our rivers and seas, then come back and we'll start talking about fine tuning the septic tanks.

MadsL · 10-03-2012 12:47am

recedite wrote: »

When all of these towns have stopped pumping the raw sewage of thousands of people per town, into our rivers and seas, then come back and we'll start talking about fine tuning the septic tanks.

That's like treating a patient with a stab wound in the chest and saying we will sew up the visible wound and then think about dealing with the internal bleeding later.

Why on earth would you not deal with septic tanks now, instead of long-fingerism?

antoobrien · 11-03-2012 11:39pm

MadsL wrote: »

That's like treating a patient with a stab wound in the chest and saying we will sew up the visible wound and then think about dealing with the internal bleeding later.

Why on earth would you not deal with septic tanks now, instead of long-fingerism?

Because they are the scape goats not the real problem. The EPA has outlined its oncenres about the the shockingly high amount of urban water reclamation systems (big septic tanks) that are not working well enough - which do directly affect the local environments.

I noticed when talking about Galway nobody mentioned the city dump as a possible source of concern. It's built in a raised bog, and the runoff empties into the watercourses that feed the Clare river, which empties into the Corrib a few hundred yards north of the water treatment plant. But hey, an taisce didn't care to mention this when listing their possible causes as part of their crusade against rural housing in co galway, so it must be okay.

Sponge Bob · 12-03-2012 2:57am

It is not OK, all sorts of crap went in there for years until a High Court judge had it closed in a veritable panic. But that is a CITY dump and City=Good in An Taisces eyes.

So they will blame septic tanks upstream on the Clare and not the substandard Milltown/Dunmore/Claregalway sewage schemes ...2 of whcih I gotta pay to replace this year and next as a taxpayer. The scheme users pay nothing even though all 3 schemes are basically septic tanks.

antoobrien · 12-03-2012 12:46pm

Article in todays indo

The Irish Independent can reveal that up to half of all tanks located near the River Shannon -- or almost 84,000 -- pose a pollution risk.

The Dubs want the shannon water, better "clean" it up guys.

MadsL · 12-03-2012 8:59pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Because they are the scape goats not the real problem. The EPA has outlined its oncenres about the the shockingly high amount of urban water reclamation systems (big septic tanks) that are not working well enough - which do directly affect the local environments.

I noticed when talking about Galway nobody mentioned the city dump as a possible source of concern. It's built in a raised bog, and the runoff empties into the watercourses that feed the Clare river, which empties into the Corrib a few hundred yards north of the water treatment plant. But hey, an taisce didn't care to mention this when listing their possible causes as part of their crusade against rural housing in co galway, so it must be okay.

Sorry, but you actually have no clue about what An Taisce have said on this. Just your prejudices clouding your view.

Disposal
Landfill should only be used as an interim disposal solution, but it must be
designed and engineered to the highest technical and environmental standards. Landfills should only be sited in areas that will have the least impact on people.

http://www.galwaycityforum.ie/TheSixPolicyDocsCombined2.pdf
That document was formulated back in Michael Smith's time - so at least back ten years I'd say.

Perhaps you might also want to look at the SWAN group, including An Taisce who have been vigorously campaigning on these water pollution issues.
http://www.swanireland.ie

Or you could just grab a pitchfork and join the An Taisce witchhunt...

antoobrien · 13-03-2012 7:54am

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, but you actually have no clue about what An Taisce have said on this. Just your prejudices clouding your view.

The dump wasn't mentioned (that I heard) when referring to the crypto outbreak in 2007 (the point under discussion in this thread wrt Galway).

An Taisce decided that they could ignore the EPA & both LAs reports - which couldn't find a source (wonder how hard they looked) and blame it on septic tanks.

Lack of evidence of something happening doesn't prove anything, yet an taisce can use it as proof of such. That strikes me as a serious prejudice of their views.

According to the article in yeserdays indo there are less than 3,000 septic tanks being targeted as being at risk in Co Galway (I'm assuming it's the county because it states there's about tanks total 1,000 in the city area).

When one considers that there are tens of thousands of septic tanks in co Galway and the large scale outbreak of crypto a few years back, which AT blamed on something they are ideologically (in Galway at least) opposed to, one would image that, if there was a grain of truth to the AT belief, there would be a lot more that 3k septic tanks being targeted for inspection.

So can you see why one might be leery of the AT propaganda?

MadsL · 14-03-2012 5:46am

antoobrien wrote: »

The dump wasn't mentioned (that I heard) when referring to the crypto outbreak in 2007 (the point under discussion in this thread wrt Galway).

An Taisce decided that they could ignore the EPA & both LAs reports - which couldn't find a source (wonder how hard they looked) and blame it on septic tanks.

Lack of evidence of something happening doesn't prove anything, yet an taisce can use it as proof of such. That strikes me as a serious prejudice of their views.

Care to post some links there? Rather than "I didn't hear them say it" conspiracy theory.

I believe the EPA reports (which I admit I haven't read in a while) indicated the source was Lough Corrib. I also believe that An Taisce have been campaigning for cleaner water in lough Corrib for years

According to the article in yeserdays indo there are less than 3,000 septic tanks being targeted as being at risk in Co Galway (I'm assuming it's the county because it states there's about tanks total 1,000 in the city area).

When one considers that there are tens of thousands of septic tanks in co Galway and the large scale outbreak of crypto a few years back, which AT blamed on something they are ideologically (in Galway at least) opposed to, one would image that, if there was a grain of truth to the AT belief, there would be a lot more that 3k septic tanks being targeted for inspection.

So can you see why one might be leery of the AT propaganda?[/QUOTE]

Propaganda?

You drew that conclusion from the fact that the CoCo are targeting only 1000 Septic tanks, and therefore An Taisce have some kind of vendetta? Did it occur to you that after all the badgering the Minister for the sake of €50 there may not be the resources to do anything else.

Really, this is tin foil hat stuff. Really extraordinary stuff.

I pay for my sh1te, and appropriate treatment...shame on you trying to duck responsibility for yours.

antoobrien · 14-03-2012 11:17am

MadsL wrote: »

Care to post some links there? Rather than "I didn't hear them say it" conspiracy theory.

LOL, I didn't hear them say it is not a conspiracy theory, it's a statement of fact - I never heard AT reference the Galway City Dump in relation to the crptyo outbreak in Galway. that might be evidence of me not reading newspapers, environmental journals or just ignoreing AT, but most definately not a conspiracy theory.

The only reference I could find (no mention of the city dump here) was this article from AT. It cites a 2005 letter to Michael D from the EPA citing several issues that affect water quality in Galway:

While, in a reply to Michael D. Higgins TD (Jan 7th, 2005) the Director General of government sponsored Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Dr. Mary Kelly said that in regard to water conditions in the Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra and in the Owenriff river, “losses from agricultural activities, septic tanks, sewage treatment works and forestry are considered to be the most important in the catchment of these three lakes”.

I presume this but is from AT (doesn't sound like a scientist wrote this bit)

The changing climate, by reason of global atmospheric pollution (Global Warming), is leading to us having warmer, wetter, winters and dryer summers.
This, leading to longer drawn-out incidence of flooding around the lakes with greater opportunities for pollution, such as dead animals being occasionally disposed of in rivers and the general dumping of rubbish on riverbanks

MadsL wrote: »

I believe the EPA reports (which I admit I haven't read in a while) indicated the source was Lough Corrib. I also believe that An Taisce have been campaigning for cleaner water in lough Corrib for years

I could have fun with that and interpret that as the EPA saying that the lake itself is the source of the contamination, with no human involvement but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

When you think about it that explanation is about the lamest cop out ever, and does not preclude in any way the GCD from being at lest partially culpable. The River Corrib is fed from Lough Corrib with very few direct tributaries, therefore any pollution is likely to come from the lake basin.

The Clare river (which the GCB feeds into via water courses) empties into the bottom of Lough Corrib, near where the rvier starts (it's a coin toss whether it opens into the river or not, the lcoals say it's the bottom of the lake.

I haven't read them wither (haven't been able to find them). All I have seen about the matter is press reports

MadsL wrote: »

Propaganda?

You drew that conclusion from the fact that the CoCo are targeting only 1000 Septic tanks, and therefore An Taisce have some kind of vendetta?

I'm from Galway, I have to listen to them complain about the the whole time. Plus I'm not the poster on here that has referred to ATs "vehiment dislike" of septic tanks.

Here's part of the evidence that at have a vendetta against septic tanks

From this report produced by AT:

The surface waters and groundwater into which badly sited or maintained sewage treatment plants and septic tanks discharge their effluent has become the 20th century equivalent of the medieval street

I'll have you know the back yard of my family home does not resemble a medieval street (where the estate I live in in Dublin does occasionally smell like one).

An Tasice appear to have gotten their evidence from this report regarding a series of public meetings in Co Galway in 2007:

Up to 80% of septic tanks in the country are faulty.

Up to 80% of septic tanks in the country are faulty.

There's no citation of where this figure was arrived on, which automatically makes it suspect as it could have been picked out of this air (seriously if figures like that are going to be produced expect to get asked where & how).

For the sake of argument lets assume a grain of truth: if 80% of the septic tanks in Co Galway are faulty a question must be raised:

Does 3,000 sound like a sufficient number to be inspected.

Personally I believe it reflects a belief in the councils that septic tanks are not as big an issue as is being made out.

MadsL wrote: »

I pay for my sh1te, and appropriate treatment...shame on you trying to duck responsibility for yours.

The building & maintenance of a septic tank is directly paying for the problem (upfront in the case of the construction, maintenance is ongoing), unlike public systems which in Ireland are not paid for by the people that use them. Since my father built the septic tank attached to the family home, he's already laid out the capital cost of doing it and pays the (current) costs of maintaining it. In the meantime I, using a public scheme (in Dublin City where I work), pay nothing and have no responsibility to maintain it.

Your comment shows your utter ignorance of how things work in Irealnd, maybe you should remove your blinkers and learn a little bit.

Public sewerage systems are paid for by rates, which private households don't pay (yet, bring in the household charge). Consumers indirectly pay business rates through buying goods/services off them, so the people coming to Galway from the wilds of Connemara to do their shopping are subsidising Mutton Island & Terryland (without getting any benefit I might add) while Letterfrack and Rosmuc are under a boil notice since 2008

MadsL · 14-03-2012 6:34pm

LOL, I didn't hear them say it is not a conspiracy theory, it's a statement of fact - I never heard AT reference the Galway City Dump in relation to the crptyo outbreak in Galway. that might be evidence of me not reading newspapers, environmental journals or just ignoreing AT, but most definately not a conspiracy theory.

FFS, I've never shook Buzz Aldrin's hand, but I believe men walked on the moon. :rolleyes:

I'm from Galway, I have to listen to them complain about the the whole time.

Shame no-one listened, the place is wrecked with poor development, and ribbon development.

I'll have you know the back yard of my family home does not resemble a medieval street (where the estate I live in in Dublin does occasionally smell like one).

They said "the 20th Century equivalent" - learn to spot an analogy.

An Tasice appear to have gotten their evidence from this report regarding a series of public meetings in Co Galway in 2007:

Up to 80% of septic tanks in the country are faulty.

And look who chaired that meeting - Tom Hernon, Director of Service, Environment Section, Galway City Council. You would assume he agrees with that figure. He didn't dispute it it seems.

Personally I believe it reflects a belief in the councils that septic tanks are not as big an issue as is being made out.

Here's where we differ, I suspect they have just calculated the cost of inspections.

The building & maintenance of a septic tank is directly paying for the problem (upfront in the case of the construction, maintenance is ongoing), unlike public systems which in Ireland are not paid for by the people that use them. Since my father built the septic tank attached to the family home, he's already laid out the capital cost of doing it and pays the (current) costs of maintaining it. In the meantime I, using a public scheme (in Dublin City where I work), pay nothing and have no responsibility to maintain it

Except that urban users pay for the building and maintenance through rates paid by businesses. So, urban users are paying, albeit not directly. That has been well discussed in this thread. As for responsibility, do you not think domestic rates would be reintroduced if business rates didn't cover it?

Your comment shows your utter ignorance of how things work in Irealnd, maybe you should remove your blinkers and learn a little bit.

If that is some jab at the fact I have emigrated, shame on you. Maybe you should learn more about An Taisce before throwing unfounded accusations around.

coming to Galway from the wilds of Connemara to do their shopping

If the water infrastructure there doesn't suit them, move or sink a well. If the ground water is polluted then you will know where to look for the blame in the 'wilds'.

I've just moved to a rural county - there is neither city water nor city sewage. People here accept the fact that living here involves either $12 a foot well drilling (with no guarantee) or trucked in water. I have liitle sympathy for those 'in the wilds' of Connemara to be honest.

Tipp Man · 14-03-2012 8:11pm

MadsL wrote: »

Except that urban users pay for the building and maintenance through rates paid by businesses. So, urban users are paying, albeit not directly. That has been well discussed in this thread. As for responsibility, do you not think domestic rates would be reintroduced if business rates didn't cover it?

How on earth does this mean that urban users are paying???

Businesses are paying NOT bloody urban dwellers. Rural people use these same businessess as well you know. How many times does this have to be pointed out

n97 mini · 14-03-2012 8:55pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

How on earth does this mean that urban users are paying???

So if urbanites aren't paying, who exactly is paying?

MadsL · 14-03-2012 10:32pm

How on earth does this mean that urban users are paying???

Well they are not not paying if they are using these businesses. Some business rates in Dublin are 5 figure sums a week!

Tipp Man are you arguing for the re-introduction of domestic rates? Seriously?

recedite · 14-03-2012 10:45pm

MadsL wrote: »

I've just moved to a rural county desert - there is neither city water nor city sewage. People here accept the fact that living here involves either $12 a foot well drilling (with no guarantee) or trucked in water. I have little sympathy for in common with those 'in the wilds' of Connemara to be honest.

FYP

Enjoy the sunshine there in New Mexico!

recedite · 14-03-2012 11:15pm

n97 mini wrote: »

So if urbanites aren't paying, who exactly is paying?

Urban businesses pay "rates" to local authorities, as do rural businesses.
Their customer base could be local, or it could be global. Either way, this has nothing to do with septic tanks or treatment plants for domestic users.
Unless you think a business located in a rural area should be sponsoring all the septic tanks in the area?

OssianSmyth · 14-03-2012 11:27pm

There's an art to bringing in new taxes without starting a revolt so I think Hogan's plan is roughly:
a) charge a fiver for 'registration'
b) say that only a few will be inspected
c) watch the EPA use their power under section 70K of the new act to determine that all 440,000 tanks should be inspected every 5 years
d) look surprised but say it's out of your hands
e) in 5 years time let the next administration set the registration fee at €50
f) start charging for inspections at cost
g) start charging fees for well inspection/registration/abstraction

The policies on inspection and cost recovery are not the government's to determine now - they have already been set by multiple directives into which the state had input:
Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive 2000 requires full recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs. This means that both urban and rural dwellers will have to pay full cost for their water supply and sewage facilities. The directive allows for a period during which the state pays for corrective action from general taxation before reverting to a polluter pays model.

Article 13 of the Waste Directive 2006 requires that septic tanks be subject to periodic rather than risk based inspections.

MadsL · 14-03-2012 11:28pm

recedite wrote: »

FYP
Enjoy the sunshine there in New Mexico!

You'd be surprised how much tax you have to pay to enjoy the sunshine.

Point is you don't hear moaning here about 'oh there's no facilities' - they just get on and do it. Trucking water in if necessary. If they don't like it they move.

Septic tank inspection here is in the region of $300-$400. All private contractors/inspectors.

All this moaning about a nanny state wanting to take a look at the septic tanks, and with the same breath bemoaning the lack of urban-class facilities in the arse end of Connemara.

Tipp Man · 15-03-2012 11:10am

MadsL wrote: »

Well they are not not paying if they are using these businesses. Some business rates in Dublin are 5 figure sums a week!

Tipp Man are you arguing for the re-introduction of domestic rates? Seriously?

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between Business and individuals?? The amount that some Dublin businesses (or anywhere for that matter) are paying in rates is irrelevant to this arguement

Do you want businesses to pay even higher rates so that your excrement can be treated properly??

n97 mini · 15-03-2012 1:33pm

recedite wrote: »

Urban businesses pay "rates" to local authorities, as do rural businesses.
Their customer base could be local, or it could be global. Either way, this has nothing to do with septic tanks or treatment plants for domestic users.
Unless you think a business located in a rural area should be sponsoring all the septic tanks in the area?

I didn't ask you. By definition there is little to no business in rural areas. Aside from farming which doesn't pay rates, and is itself hugely subsidised by the EU.

Tipp Man · 15-03-2012 1:59pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I didn't ask you. By definition there is little to no business in rural areas. Aside from farming which doesn't pay rates, and is itself hugely subsidised by the EU.

WTF??

do you think the shops where i buy my clothes and food don't pay rates?

Do you think the nightclub I'll be in on Saturday night doesn't pay rates? Or the hotel I have Sunday lunch in??

WOW is all i can say

n97 mini · 15-03-2012 2:27pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

WTF??

do you think the shops where i buy my clothes and food don't pay rates?

Do you think the nightclub I'll be in on Saturday night doesn't pay rates? Or the hotel I have Sunday lunch in??

And they're all in the countryside. Must be some countryside where you live! Who needs towns!

Tipp Man wrote: »

WOW is all i can say

Indeed!

Septic tank charges

Comments