Septic tank charges

Atilathehun · 21-02-2012 6:00pm

n97 mini wrote: »

There are all sorts of rules under the REPS scheme. e.g. lakeshores must be fenced to keep cattle out, and must be prevented from getting closer than 1.5m to any watercourse.

Plus, the wise ones, passed a great and far seeing law, requiring the jarvies in Killarney, to put nappies on the horses:D

MadsL · 21-02-2012 11:55pm

Blindjustice, what are you smoking?

[Deleted User] · 22-02-2012 9:49am

n97 mini wrote: »

There are all sorts of rules under the REPS scheme. e.g. lakeshores must be fenced to keep cattle out, and must be prevented from getting closer than 1.5m to any watercourse.

Exactly what I mean, a septic tank kept away from running water & lakes
wont do any harm whether its working or not once your well is drilled to correct depth and was installed correctly - i.e no seepage from shallow depths.

Soil is a filter, deep enough it filters bacteria

[Deleted User] · 22-02-2012 9:53am

MadsL wrote: »

Are you just ranting now?

MadsL wrote: »

I suggest you find a nice cabin in Arizona where you can fulminate about 'da Man' trying to force you to send your kids to school...and practice your banjo.

MadsL wrote: »

Blindjustice, what are you smoking?

Great debating style,

reported

Sponge Bob · 22-02-2012 7:08pm

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

murphaph · 22-02-2012 10:30pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

I believe income taxes should be reduced nationally and that (reformed) local authorities should levy their own taxes and and spend it in their own areas-more populated areas obviously generating more taxes and receiving the required infrastructure and maintenance. The cities have more than enough wealth to cover their costs, including waste water treatment, it's the problem of the tax revenues generated in urban Ireland not being spent in urban Ireland that is at the heart of the matter.

People often deride urban living, but if only urban areas could keep their taxes to improve urban life, things could be very different.

The rates should never have been abolished. Reformed yes, completely abolished-no way. I pay annual service taxes (app. €400 a year) directly to the city of Berlin as a property owner here. I know that my sewage treatment costs €67 of that a year.

n97 mini · 22-02-2012 10:37pm

blindjustice wrote: »

Exactly what I mean, a septic tank kept away from running water & lakes
wont do any harm whether its working or not once your well is drilled to correct depth and was installed correctly - i.e no seepage from shallow depths.

Soil is a filter, deep enough it filters bacteria

Until they are actually inspected we won't know how many are poorly sited.

n97 mini · 22-02-2012 10:38pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

My local sewege treatment plant is AAA rated, so I won't acknowledge polluting rivers because I don't.

As for paying. My taxes already cover everything in my local area, and then the surplus goes to subsidise others.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-02-2012 11:52pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

That's not the case, read the thread!

MadsL · 23-02-2012 12:04am

blindjustice wrote: »

Great debating style,

reported

Thanks for that. Nice of you.

Now do you mind explaining what the problem with animals is?

And if your tank is as follows;

Exactly what I mean, a septic tank kept away from running water & lakes
wont do any harm whether its working or not once your well is drilled to correct depth and was installed correctly - i.e no seepage from shallow depths.

Soil is a filter, deep enough it filters bacteria

Why you object to having it inspected??

MadsL · 23-02-2012 12:49am

murphaph wrote: »

The rates should never have been abolished. Reformed yes, completely abolished-no way. I pay annual service taxes (app. €400 a year) directly to the city of Berlin as a property owner here. I know that my sewage treatment costs €67 of that a year.

They weren't abolished, just the burden of them was transferred to local businesses and developers kicked in the shortfall (Development Levy) - I heard of one hotel paying 10k a week in rates.

murphaph · 23-02-2012 1:18pm

MadsL wrote: »

They weren't abolished, just the burden of them was transferred to local businesses and developers kicked in the shortfall (Development Levy) - I heard of one hotel paying 10k a week in rates.

I know all about commercial rates. It's a farcical system that needs reform (rates are payable by commercial tenants, BUT if they don't pay them, then they are attached to the property and the next tenant becomes liable!). The whole thing should have been reformed when they chose to abolish rates (for homeowners).

micosoft · 24-02-2012 7:46pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

You don't represent all rural people and neither do the other "rural" posters who are attempting to argue that we don't want inspections and if there are we want free new septic tanks. I live in the country and have land (not to be smug, but yes, I actually do have a connection with the countryside and a reason to live there). I pay my way and I don't appreciate neighbours arguing that they have the right to literally crap in my water supply. The idea the state would pay for inspection, maintenance and replacement of septic tanks is bizarre. I also note that the lowest s**t stirring rabble rousers in the locality are the ones organising the local meetings in conjunction with "opposition" populist parties. Shame on those who support them on the one hand and on the other hand wonder why the country is in such a state. The same fools got rid of rates to buy an election.

Anyway the rural/urban argument is moot as water charges are going to be introduced (saying that Scofflaw is correct in his analysis, the pedants are not - what would be interesting would be to see an overlay of political representation (TD's) by population by transfer to see if a correlation is there). Water charges include the waste element (water in/waste out) and we will finally have a joined up authority responsible for water supply and waste treatment which if you think about it go hand in hand. (At least it should be!)

That said, some practical steps need to be taken. The issue is not the fifty or even five euro - it's the potential for a seriously high replacement cost. A low interest "Green" loan (through the Credit Union) should be made available for those that have to replace their installations over a decent period of time - say 10 years or even the ability to attach it to your mortgage (say 10k charge - bank required to add it to the mortgage with same terms, so 15 years left on mortgage means spread over 15 years plus relief) given it's part of your house.

The ridiculous Water from Wicklow argument is exactly that - Dublin Corporation pays for and maintains these facilities - Wicklow actually benefits as our water is supplied to our council for nothing (I'm from Wicklow). There are serious issues with one-off housing that need to be discussed beyond the "I'll live where I want and you're a Nazi if you won't let me" mentality in this country leading to all sorts of problems. Take the number of young people who die on our roads - most are in rural areas in the early morning where their parents bought a one off thinking "wouldn't this be a lovely safe area to bring up kids". Kids turn 17 and want a social life = drinking, driving, speeding on back roads. There are consequences to lifestyle choices and this is why Governments make policy decisions where the individual makes a bad decision (tragedy of the commons and all that)

Pete_Cavan · 25-02-2012 12:24pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

As I pointed out before, if you live in a rural area but work in an urban area, or use a pub/restaurant/hotel/leisure facility in a town, you get to use the public sewerage infrastructure, so if universal sewerage charges were introduced, the fairest solution would be to charge those with septic tanks and charge them again for public sewers (otherwise we stop them from using toilets connected to public sewers altogether!).

Liam Byrne · 26-02-2012 1:13pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Sponge Bob wrote: »

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

As I pointed out before, if you live in a rural area but work in an urban area, or use a pub/restaurant/hotel/leisure facility in a town, you get to use the public sewerage infrastructure, so if universal sewerage charges were introduced, the fairest solution would be to charge those with septic tanks and charge them again for public sewers (otherwise we stop them from using toilets connected to public sewers altogether!).

:rolleyes: Maybe the tourists should be prevented from using toilets connected to public sewers too ? After all, they didn't pay taxes.

And maybe those urbanites using the public sewers should be charged per person, i.e. based on the amount their household uses it.

That'd be the "fairest solution", right ?

Liam Byrne · 26-02-2012 1:14pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Sponge Bob wrote: »

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

As I pointed out before, if you live in a rural area but work in an urban area, or use a pub/restaurant/hotel/leisure facility in a town, you get to use the public sewerage infrastructure, so if universal sewerage charges were introduced, the fairest solution would be to charge those with septic tanks and charge them again for public sewers (otherwise we stop them from using toilets connected to public sewers altogether!).

:rolleyes: Maybe the tourists should be prevented from using toilets connected to public sewers too ? After all, they didn't pay taxes.

And maybe those urbanites using the public sewers should be charged per person, i.e. based on the amount their household uses it.

That'd be the "fairest solution", right ?

Welease · 26-02-2012 2:16pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

As I pointed out before, if you live in a rural area but work in an urban area, or use a pub/restaurant/hotel/leisure facility in a town, you get to use the public sewerage infrastructure, so if universal sewerage charges were introduced, the fairest solution would be to charge those with septic tanks and charge them again for public sewers (otherwise we stop them from using toilets connected to public sewers altogether!).

Isn't that what happens anyway? I pay for a septic tank, but I also pay taxes which fund public systems.

Pete_Cavan · 26-02-2012 4:23pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: Maybe the tourists should be prevented from using toilets connected to public sewers too ? After all, they didn't pay taxes.

And maybe those urbanites using the public sewers should be charged per person, i.e. based on the amount their household uses it.

That'd be the "fairest solution", right ?

You are making my point for me, it is not just those who live in houses connected to public sewers who use public sewers, so the charged should not be only on those who live in these houses. The "fairest solution" is to pay for public sewer through public taxation and those who choose to live somewhere not connected to public sewers can pay for their own septic tank (ie. the proposed situation).

Welease wrote: »

Isn't that what happens anyway? I pay for a septic tank, but I also pay taxes which fund public systems.

And whats wrong with that? You get to use public sewers, which your taxes help pay for, but why should anyone else pay for your septic tank*?

*And agruments about paying for roads, Luas, etc. in other parts of the country are not a similar situation, these things are available for you to use when you are there, when will your septic tank be available for the rest of the country to use?

Liam Byrne · 26-02-2012 5:14pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: Maybe the tourists should be prevented from using toilets connected to public sewers too ? After all, they didn't pay taxes.

And maybe those urbanites using the public sewers should be charged per person, i.e. based on the amount their household uses it.

That'd be the "fairest solution", right ?

You are making my point for me, it is not just those who live in houses connected to public sewers who use public sewers, so the charged should not be only on those who live in these houses. The "fairest solution" is to pay for public sewer through public taxation and those who choose to live somewhere not connected to public sewers can pay for their own septic tank (ie. the proposed situation).

Actually no. That's the CURRENT situation, not the proposed one.

People already pay for the installation, maintenance and emptying of their own tanks, while also paying tax towards the urban ones.

So I've no idea how you reckon I'm "making your point", as your point is completely incorrect.

section4 · 26-02-2012 5:26pm

murphaph wrote: »

While the old Cortina example is on the extreme side and I dare say unique, there will almost certainly be plenty of "improvised" systems out there. I know cousins of mine who had such an improvised system. They can't be alone.

There are many many systems out there which will fail the test and not just the old systems, there has been many systems pased by the Local Authorities during the boom and before which should never have passed, I have witnessed numerous instances over the last decade where the LA would not grant permission but the applicant wen to a politician and it was resublitted and then passed with the exact same application details.

In my area I have never witnessed a percolation area being installed, I would say that you would be lucky if 10% adhered to their permission and installed a percolation area, and a lot of people dont even know what a percolation area is, in fact the vast majority.

I have even seen politicians support applications in the last 6 months which have been refused by an bord pleanla on public health grounds previously being resubmitted with the support of politicians and being passed when a blind man could see that it would be virtually impossible to locate a percolation area on the site as it is a rocky outcrop with an almost 40 angle.

And these are a lot of the politicians leading these septic tank charge campaigns, yet they are supporting app which can never adhere to the conditions attached to the planning permission. The council know this site should have been refused, but they dont care.
Then there are the other sites which have been given permissoin which quite simply do not have the land to locate a percolation area, what will happen there, these sites would not have been given [permissin except for the intervention of a councillor or a TD, /
And as far as some of the site assessors are concerned they dont give a damm either, they are more intrested in getting a good name for helping you get permission regardless of the site, than telling you your site is not suitable and then getting a bad name for doing the job properly.

If the council are to check the sytem then nothing will change, all they will be interested in will be the money and fees.

n97 mini · 26-02-2012 7:37pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

People already pay for the installation, maintenance and emptying of their own tanks, while also paying tax towards the urban ones.

In the vast majority of case the tax does not even cover local services, like roads, schools, street lighting, and so on.

Please, once and for all can we stop this nonsense that rural septic tank owners' tax goes to subsidise urban wastewater treatment.

murphaph · 26-02-2012 8:41pm

section4 wrote: »

If the council are to check the sytem then nothing will change, all they will be interested in will be the money and fees.

Personally I think the actual inspection regime should be uniform and standard across the entire country, like the NCT. I think it should be contracted out so SGS, TüV etc. can do it (properly and independently)

Uncle Ben · 26-02-2012 9:59pm

The inspections will be done by private industry. Under the legislation, appropriate and professional people can, by paying a fee,of no more than €1000 I think,or as set out by the Minister, can register as an inspector. They will then have authority to enter the land, and take photos, drawings, samples, etc.etc. and if they are refused entry, the right to call the Gardai, as it is a criminal offence to obstruct the person making the inspections.

The Co.Co./L.A. are responsible for the upkeep of the register and for the taking of prosecutions if a person refuses or fails to upgrade/remediate any problems.

Welease · 26-02-2012 10:27pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

And whats wrong with that? You get to use public sewers, which your taxes help pay for, but why should anyone else pay for your septic tank*?

*And agruments about paying for roads, Luas, etc. in other parts of the country are not a similar situation, these things are available for you to use when you are there, when will your septic tank be available for the rest of the country to use?

I never said I had an issue with that.. Your point seemed to imply that it wasn't already the case... it is..

But to be honest your point is rediculous...

I won't get to utilise the pipe that runs over your private land (so your toilet is not also available for the country to use), and as per the original point (in environmental terms), that may be leaking effluent but we don't seem interested in assessing that..

bbam · 26-02-2012 10:44pm

Paying the charge and having the tank inspected isn't a big deal...
What is expected to happen if there is €3-4K to be spent and the householder doesn't have the means to pay??

Welease · 26-02-2012 11:07pm

n97 mini wrote: »

In the vast majority of case the tax does not even cover local services, like roads, schools, street lighting, and so on.

Please, once and for all can we stop this nonsense that rural septic tank owners' tax goes to subsidise urban wastewater treatment.

The problem with terms like "vast majority" is that it immediately demonstrates that its not true in all cases... So there are people (and counties) that do cover the cost of local services and subsidise the costs of urban wastewater treatment (in as much as we can tell because all funding comes out of a centralised bucket)..

So maybe people should deal with the actual facts.. and "stop the nonsense"?...

Welease · 26-02-2012 11:13pm

bbam wrote: »

Paying the charge and having the tank inspected isn't a big deal...
What is expected to happen if there is €3-4K to be spent and the householder doesn't have the means to pay??

If it costs 3-4K to remedy the situation then it needs to be paid.. .

The issue appears to be..
If it's a septic tank, then some posters believe that septic tank owners should pay the costs (which I have no issue with)..
However, as has recently come to light.. public systems have also been found to be (in some cases) in worse condition that private systems, and those very same posters believe everyone should be liable for the costs of fixing those systems..

There is where the discussions about fairness seem to lie.

I believe that the primary users of those systems should pick up the costs for those systems, and that those systems should be subject to the same inspection levels so that we sort out our issues for once and for all.

section4 · 27-02-2012 12:34am

Uncle Ben wrote: »

The inspections will be done by private industry. Under the legislation, appropriate and professional people can, by paying a fee,of no more than €1000 I think,or as set out by the Minister, can register as an inspector. They will then have authority to enter the land, and take photos, drawings, samples, etc.etc. and if they are refused entry, the right to call the Gardai, as it is a criminal offence to obstruct the person making the inspections.

The Co.Co./L.A. are responsible for the upkeep of the register and for the taking of prosecutions if a person refuses or fails to upgrade/remediate any problems.

well if the CC are responsible for the upkeep of the register and taking prosecutions then there will be very few prosecutions if their record of prosecuting rogue sewage systems in my area up till now is taken into account, they have no interest whatsoever in knowing about unauthorsied development or public health issues, all they are interested in is development fees. And the councillors will certainly not uspport this.

MadsL · 27-02-2012 6:57am

Welease wrote: »

The issue appears to be..
If it's a septic tank, then some posters believe that septic tank owners should pay the costs (which I have no issue with)..
However, as has recently come to light.. public systems have also been found to be (in some cases) in worse condition that private systems, and those very same posters believe everyone should be liable for the costs of fixing those systems..

There is where the discussions about fairness seem to lie.

I believe that the primary users of those systems should pick up the costs for those systems, and that those systems should be subject to the same inspection levels so that we sort out our issues for once and for all.

I have a shared private well for which I pay approx $41 a month for a base usage with an overage charge for high consumption, I also pay $2500 a year in local county taxes. Some of those charges go towards water costs for more urban areas than where i live.

Some of this nit-picking about charges at such a minimal level is beyond belief.

If your tank is broken, fix it. If you can't afford to fix it, borrow on the equity on your home - a working tank is essential. If there is no equity, then sell up and buy somewhere that you can afford to pay for basic maintenance.

Would you have any sympathy if decided I was going to burn my household rubbish in my back garden rather than pay bin charges?

Welease · 27-02-2012 9:08am

MadsL wrote: »

I have a shared private well for which I pay approx $41 a month for a base usage with an overage charge for high consumption, I also pay $2500 a year in local county taxes. Some of those charges go towards water costs for more urban areas than where i live.

Some of this nit-picking about charges at such a minimal level is beyond belief.

If your tank is broken, fix it. If you can't afford to fix it, borrow on the equity on your home - a working tank is essential. If there is no equity, then sell up and buy somewhere that you can afford to pay for basic maintenance.

Would you have any sympathy if decided I was going to burn my household rubbish in my back garden rather than pay bin charges?

Not sure why you are quoting me, and asking that question.. I have stated quite clearly that I support the owners paying for the maintenance of their own tanks.. I support a "polluter pays" policy, which is why I also believe that public systems should also have a levy attached (which is charged to connected householders) to pay for the inspection/upkeep of their systems.

Septic tank charges

Comments