Septic tank charges

Burt Lancaster · 05-07-2012 8:32pm

KTurtle wrote: »

You are mistaken, I have only posted you one link - once.
In any case there is information there that applies to treatment systems be they new or old.

Most of these are also repeated on the Dept of Environments site

1. Know where your tank is located;
2. Visually examine your tank every year;
3. Ensure only domestic waste water is treated in your tank;
4. Ensure your tank only discharges from those points for which it was designed to discharge from;
5. Ensure the effluent is not discharged to or does not rise to the surface of the ground;
6. Ensure your tank is not discharging into streams/ditches;
7. Desludge your tank when necessary, using an authorised waste collector;
8. Ensure that your tank is not polluting and operation and maintenance is in compliance with the manufacturer’s manual, as appropriate.

I dont want speculation, I don't want cut and paste, I don't want the question avoided, I don't want another shill's answer.

WHY HAVE THE OFFICAL STANDARDS THEY WANT PEOPLE TO COMPLY WITH FOR EXISTING TANKS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET ?

KTurtle · 05-07-2012 8:45pm

Its more than a little cynical to suggest that the solution identified is automatically going to be buy a new system. In any case, local authorities don't dictate where/who you buy your treatment system from or you take out a maintenance contract with.

Burt Lancaster · 05-07-2012 8:54pm

Answer the question

MOD EDIT:

This poster has been banned for a week, so he won't be able to engage with any responses until then.

southsiderosie · 05-07-2012 9:09pm

MOD NOTE:

Please note that accusing other posters of being shills, liars, etc is not on. If you think someone is shilling or spamming then report their posts, but do not engage with them on thread because you will be the one getting infracted.

Also keep in mind that this is an anonymous board, and people are under no obligation to disclose their affiliations in real life, whether it comes to parties, trade union membership, public service employment, etc.

oscarBravo · 05-07-2012 9:37pm

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

I do maintain and empty my tank, that won't mean it, or a percolication meets current standards...

I'm a wee bit puzzled by this philosophy.

If a waste treatment system doesn't meet current standards - the standards that are designed to ensure that human effluent isn't polluting groundwater - then that means that the waste treatment is jeopardising the quality of drinking water for you and others.

Why would you have a problem with the owner of such a system being required to ensure he or she isn't polluting drinking water?

recedite · 05-07-2012 10:59pm

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

WHY HAVE THE OFFICAL STANDARDS THEY WANT PEOPLE TO COMPLY WITH FOR EXISTING TANKS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET ?

Burt does have a point though. IMO they will not try to introduce retrospective standards at all, because politically that would require a system of grants to be set up, to fund the upgrades.
On the other hand, if you were found to be polluting a stream for example, the EPA could prosecute you and require you to desist, which would necessitate an upgrade at your own expense.

06-07-2012 11:18am

Deleted User wrote: »

Are birds, bats, mice, rats, sheep, cattle, pigs, horses, dogs & cats going to be toilet trained ? Or will they be allowed to crap all over the countryside ?

Thargor wrote: »

As I said on the previous page, human waste incubates and spreads human diseases, cholera, typhoid etc all started disappearing from the worlds cities and towns the minute proper sewers, sanitation and septic tanks started being built.

Most animals waste is fertiliser, especially herbivores, thats why farmers can spread it on their land, gardeners can fertilse their soil with it etc, human excrement in septic tanks has to be treated like it was toxic or nuclear waste, zero seepage into groundwater. The EU are horrified about Irelands casual attitude to it as they should be, anyone objecting to this should be humiliated that Brussells has to step in with threats and fines to get us to clean up our act like spoiled children.

Are you really tryin to say that other animals crap doesnt stink?
Where is your back up evidence?

Did you know that Cattle dung is a source of cryptosporidium?
http://www.gsi.ie/NR/rdonlyres/0A77FB0B-DFD4-4529-B734-37EEB2338169/0/No42.pdf

DNA typing techniques showed that farm manure from a cattle farm was the main E. coli source.
In late April, cattle manure was spread on land to within 80 m of the water supply well that is mainly implicated with the problem. It was applied at a rate of 12 tons per hectare. Fresh manure can contain between 106 and 109 faecal coliforms per gram dry weight. The farm was following “best management practices”.

The problem with spreading dung near a water supply was that the supply was at surface level! Idiotic.

If you know anything about sourcing water properly you will know that a well must be deep enough for the soil to filter out bacteria. Septic tanks must not be near streams, rivers, lakes.

But if a well is deep enough and the sidewalls intact you could run a herd of dairy cattle with perfectly safe water beside it. As people have done in Ireland for hundreds of years.

Thargor · 06-07-2012 12:48pm

Not saying its not dangerous and of course it needs to be controlled and regulated but its nowhere near as bad as human waste.

06-07-2012 2:39pm

Thargor wrote: »

Not saying its not dangerous and of course it needs to be controlled and regulated but its nowhere near as bad as human waste.

Both make people sick when they mix with water sources.

Which begs the question.......why are septic tanks being inspected when we have millions of cattle & sheep crapping all over the countryside not to mention all the other creatures?

Tanks should already be a safe distance from water sources already via planning permission - a one off check on this would be welcome.

What should be inspected is that wells are deep enough to allow filtering.
But ultimately this should be a concern to the consumer. Let them source their own water supply & treat it if they want. No need to involve the state. The state can`t provide clean public water!

Sponge Bob · 07-07-2012 1:59am

KTurtle wrote: »

From what I've read, you're only going to be looking at having to upgrade if your system its not functioning or you're in what is considered a high risk area and the type of system you have is unsuitable.

Or UPSTREAM of a high risk area....eg the mouth of the Shannon.

alfa beta · 23-09-2012 11:59pm

I just find it annoying that even though I already have a 5-year contract in place with Bord na Mona requiring them to come out annually and inspect the wastewater treatment system they installed when we built our house (and that 5 year contract setting me back €400 but necessary as part of planning conditions), it now seems I have to register for someone else to come out and do exactly the same thing....

...you'd think with Bord na Mona being a semi-state and all that, that their inspections could simply be passed on to whoever the new gang of inspectors will be...dunno, seems a bit daft....

...soon I'll have more septic tank inspectors calling round than jehovah's witnesses....

crusher000 · 24-09-2012 6:51am

alfa beta wrote: »

I just find it annoying that even though I already have a 5-year contract in place with Bord na Mona requiring them to come out annually and inspect the wastewater treatment system they installed when we built our house (and that 5 year contract setting me back €400 but necessary as part of planning conditions), it now seems I have to register for someone else to come out and do exactly the same thing....

...you'd think with Bord na Mona being a semi-state and all that, that their inspections could simply be passed on to whoever the new gang of inspectors will be...dunno, seems a bit daft....

...soon I'll have more septic tank inspectors calling round than jehovah's witnesses....

It's not about enviroment or inspections it's about the money, money. Policies of all our governments are a joke. Fund raising is all they're at.

Ellen Rose · 02-10-2012 10:33am

Perhaps someone can help me as I'm a little confused about this septic tank requirement.
Is this an EU requirement across all member states? If so why aren't other countries like UK & France implementing this?

Also could someone post the direct link to the EU directive please

bbam · 02-10-2012 10:48am

I don't understand the problem people have with this...

If your neighbour was dumping bags of dirty nappies and waste along the road most people would be disgusted and up in arms, calling in the Garda and whoever to have it stopped or the person prosecuted...

For many systems, essentially the same thing is happening, just under the ground where you can't see it... Some systems are not working properly and discharging waste into the environment, day after day. This is pollution plain and simple, it needs to be identified and corrected. the interesting thing will what standards will be imposed on older systems..

OssianSmyth · 02-10-2012 11:38am

Ellen Rose wrote: »

Perhaps someone can help me as I'm a little confused about this septic tank requirement.
Is this an EU requirement across all member states?

Yes

If so why aren't other countries like UK & France implementing this?

They are. In France you get registered and inspected by SPANC http://www.spanc.fr/page.php?action=page&lk=technique1&lg=fr&tp=h

In Scotland you go to The Scottish EPA http://apps.sepa.org.uk/WfdReg/pages/welcome.aspx

Also could someone post the direct link to the EU directive please

European Commission referral of Irish case to the ECJ http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/592&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Current waste directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:EN:PDF

The commission says we have been in breach of prior waste directives since 1993.

OldNotWIse · 02-10-2012 11:42am

murphaph wrote: »

It's an EU directive we've (with the exception of Cavan CC) been ignoring for 20 years. We are facing fines for not implementing it.

The NCT is not a revenue raising exercise. They actually check things are in order with stadardised testing (better than the UK MoT). It was implemented at a time when no extra revenue was needed. It was implemented under pressure from the EU who had passed the directive years before. This is no different except that we are broke at the same time.

What about all themwho cut the bogs illegally in Roscommon? Look at all the money they are going to cost the state when the EU fines us for their actions :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse · 02-10-2012 11:44am

alfa beta wrote: »

...soon I'll have more septic tank inspectors calling round than jehovah's witnesses....

Ah but they wont be talking as much sh1te as the JW's

recedite · 02-10-2012 11:44am

There are references earlier in this thread to whole towns in Ireland pumping raw sewage into rivers. There may also be septic tanks releasing small quantities of untreated or semi-treated effluent locally into the ground. The EU wants it all stopped.
The government responds by asking law abiding people to pay a registration fee if they have a septic tank.
Its a classic "displacement activity" ie what happens when you are asked to do a job that you think is too difficult, so you do something else just to make it look like you are doing something. But if Ireland Inc. manages to avoid being fined by the EU, then the scam will have worked.

flutered · 02-10-2012 11:52am

the biggest polluters in the past few years have been both galway and limerick co.councils, if there were private indivudals they would have been before the courts, have any action been taken against the employees who are responsible for the above.

Ellen Rose · 02-10-2012 11:59am

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Yes

They are. In France you get registered and inspected by SPANC http://www.spanc.fr/page.php?action=page&lk=technique1&lg=fr&tp=h

In Scotland you go to The Scottish EPA http://apps.sepa.org.uk/WfdReg/pages/welcome.aspx

European Commission referral of Irish case to the ECJ http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/592&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Current waste directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:EN:PDF

The commission says we have been in breach of prior waste directives since 1993.

Thank you for the information & link.

Welease · 02-10-2012 12:43pm

bbam wrote: »

I don't understand the problem people have with this...

If your neighbour was dumping bags of dirty nappies and waste along the road most people would be disgusted and up in arms, calling in the Garda and whoever to have it stopped or the person prosecuted...

For many systems, essentially the same thing is happening, just under the ground where you can't see it... Some systems are not working properly and discharging waste into the environment, day after day. This is pollution plain and simple, it needs to be identified and corrected. the interesting thing will what standards will be imposed on older systems..

The issue for many people is the manner in which pollution is being addressed..

According to the media/reports (which depending on source will have their own agenda) septic tanks account for around 7% of water quality deterioration, Inadequate municipal systems account for about 30%, with Industial effluent accounting for around 10%..

So for many.. questions such as why are we primarily focussed on the the smallest primary area of pollution first? Will those connected to municipal systems have to pay for their own remedy (and will their response of it needs to be tackled at the owners/users cost continue to be the solution they propose when suddently they are being asked to pay the bill).. Why are municipal systems not being addressed in the same manner? etc etc..

As you say.. I am not happy for my neighbour to dump effluent into the land.. but that applies to all neighbours.. not just the ones with septic tanks.. and in fairness to those with septic tanks there should be an equitable system of payment for those services across both municipal and unconnected systems.

(I personally don't have an issue with the system or requiring payment for those services.. once those payments fund a system that makes sense in a cost effective & environmental manner..)

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-10-2012 2:04pm

Welease wrote: »

The issue for many people is the manner in which pollution is being addressed.

I’m not sure it is. Some rural dwellers sound like they are perfectly happy for pollution to continue – they’re not really demanding that everyone cleans up their act. The campaign is really just about the fact of a charge – and the prospect of having to replace inadequate systems.

Welease wrote: »

in fairness to those with septic tanks there should be an equitable system of payment for those services across both municipal and unconnected systems.

What do you mean by “equitable system of payment”? I’d take it that the cost of a municipal system, per head, is much lower than the cost of stand-alone systems. Presumably, given the complications and risks, it’s at least arguable that people who don’t want to live where they can connect to the municipal system should have to pay through the nose.

Black Smoke · 02-10-2012 2:18pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I’m not sure it is. Some rural dwellers sound like they are perfectly happy for pollution to continue – they’re not really demanding that everyone cleans up their act. The campaign is really just about the fact of a charge – and the prospect of having to replace inadequate systems.What do you mean by “equitable system of payment”? I’d take it that the cost of a municipal system, per head, is much lower than the cost of stand-alone systems. Presumably, given the complications and risks, it’s at least arguable that people who don’t want to live where they can connect to the municipal system should have to pay through the nose.[/QUOTE]

What a statement:( Farmers, who were born and reared on the farm, and continue to live there, and hopefully pass it on to the next generation, in your mind, just stubbornly refuse to up sticks, and live in the next village, which is connected to the municipal system. That's the D4 kind of thinking, which sows the sees of dissent, against these "revenue gathering", charges, dressed up as "green, environmental measures":rolleyes:

Welease · 02-10-2012 2:19pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I’m not sure it is. Some rural dwellers sound like they are perfectly happy for pollution to continue – they’re not really demanding that everyone cleans up their act. The campaign is really just about the fact of a charge – and the prospect of having to replace inadequate systems..

There is likely an element of people that fall into each and every camp..

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What do you mean by “equitable system of payment”? I’d take it that the cost of a municipal system, per head, is much lower than the cost of stand-alone systems. Presumably, given the complications and risks, it’s at least arguable that people who don’t want to live where they can connect to the municipal system should have to pay through the nose.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make..

Those who are unconnected systems already pay the full and total cost of their systems for the existance of the system but thats not the point I am making... The new charges for checking/administration can be borne by the owners, but given the €5 initial cost its likely that the council will be bearing a considerable cost of providing the service (people can argue if thats fair/unfair to owners/council etc as part of a discussion on an equitable payment system).. If we aim to minimise pollution then a similar system should be implemented for municipal/industrial etc. systems.. and a similar equitable payment system should be implemented. As to what form that payment system should take.. well thats open to discussion and much like the pollution element, I'm sure there will be 1000's of differing opinions.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-10-2012 2:42pm

Welease wrote: »

There is likely an element of people that fall into each and every camp.

Perhaps, but the only ones making a noise are people incensed about the inspection fee – although, I’d expect their real problem is an expectation that their systems will fail inspection, leaving them with an obligation to incur significant cost to replace them.

Welease wrote: »

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make..

Those who are unconnected systems already pay the full and total cost of their systems for the existance of the system but thats not the point I am making... The new charges for checking/administration can be borne by the owners, but given the €5 initial cost its likely that the council will be bearing a considerable cost of providing the service (people can argue if thats fair/unfair to owners/council etc as part of a discussion on an equitable payment system).. If we aim to minimise pollution then a similar system should be implemented for municipal/industrial etc. systems.. and a similar equitable payment system should be implemented. As to what form that payment system should take.. well thats open to discussion and much like the pollution element, I'm sure there will be 1000's of differing opinions.

But where’s the point of comparison? Users of municipal systems don’t need to be individually inspected, so the situation doesn’t really arise. There’s no need for an individual inspection, such as would require a fee to be paid.

Welease · 02-10-2012 2:57pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Perhaps, but the only ones making a noise are people incensed about the inspection fee – although, I’d expect their real problem is an expectation that their systems will fail inspection, leaving them with an obligation to incur significant cost to replace them. .

And equally, there are 1000's of people not complaining, so one can assume they have little issue with the system proposed at present.. We tend to not have that many rallies formed in support of new taxes or process's

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But where’s the point of comparison? Users of municipal systems don’t need to be individually inspected, so the situation doesn’t really arise. There’s no need for an individual inspection, such as would require a fee to be paid.

But there is a need for inspection and removal of the source of the municipal pollution issues. Individual or not would depend on the individual issues. In fact a much greater need according to the stats in the media.
If the source of the payment issue/discussion for septic tanks is that owner/user should pay, then shouldn't the same process apply to municipal systems? (and we both know if such a system were proposed the strongest supporters of such a payment process would not support a similar payment that hits them in the pocket)

Personally, I'm happy with any proposed payment system once it solve the issue in the most cost effective manner possible.

recedite · 02-10-2012 3:22pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Perhaps, but the only ones making a noise are people incensed about the inspection fee – although, I’d expect their real problem is an expectation that their systems will fail inspection, leaving them with an obligation to incur significant cost to replace them. But where’s the point of comparison? Users of municipal systems don’t need to be individually inspected, so the situation doesn’t really arise. There’s no need for an individual inspection, such as would require a fee to be paid.

There is no inspection fee. There is a registration fee. Paying the registration fee does not get you an inspection.
You are mixing up 3 different issues; registration, inspection, and problem fixing.
Suppose you were in a municipal system like Arklow town, where all the sewage goes into the nearest river, untreated. If everyone in the town who had a toilet was asked to pay a fee to register their toilet, would that in itself solve the problem?

The way to tackle all these problems is to first search for and detect water/groundwater pollution through general water testing.
Then fix the problems ASAP, on a "polluter pays" principle.

bbam · 02-10-2012 3:38pm

Welease wrote: »

The issue for many people is the manner in which pollution is being addressed..

According to the media/reports (which depending on source will have their own agenda) septic tanks account for around 7% of water quality deterioration, Inadequate municipal systems account for about 30%, with Industial effluent accounting for around 10%..

So for many.. questions such as why are we primarily focussed on the the smallest primary area of pollution first? Will those connected to municipal systems have to pay for their own remedy (and will their response of it needs to be tackled at the owners/users cost continue to be the solution they propose when suddently they are being asked to pay the bill).. Why are municipal systems not being addressed in the same manner? etc etc..

As you say.. I am not happy for my neighbour to dump effluent into the land.. but that applies to all neighbours.. not just the ones with septic tanks.. and in fairness to those with septic tanks there should be an equitable system of payment for those services across both municipal and unconnected systems.

(I personally don't have an issue with the system or requiring payment for those services.. once those payments fund a system that makes sense in a cost effective & environmental manner..)

So there are bigger polluters out there, does that mean people have no responsibility to their own systems?
Yes pressure needs to be applied to the councils to have their systems in order, that however doesn't negate the responsibility of individuals to register and ensure their systems are correct.
The €5 or even €50 per five years charge will go nowhere regarding the execution of the system. I'd imagine if it were free people wouldn't register as a protest against the government, just like the household charge.

People who pollute have a responsibility to correct the defects or face the consequences. Pollution is pollution, if it be fly tipping, leaking tanks, or council treatment systems.

Welease · 02-10-2012 3:46pm

bbam wrote: »

So there are bigger polluters out there, does that mean people have no responsibility to their own systems?
Yes pressure needs to be applied to the councils to have their systems in order, that however doesn't negate the responsibility of individuals to register and ensure their systems are correct.
The €5 or even €50 per five years charge will go nowhere regarding the execution of the system. I'd imagine if it were free people wouldn't register as a protest against the government, just like the household charge.

People who pollute have a responsibility to correct the defects or face the consequences. Pollution is pollution, if it be fly tipping, leaking tanks, or council treatment systems.

To be honest, I'm not sure why you are quoting me.. I have said the system needs to be implemented, and it needs to be implemented for council/industrial based systems also...

OssianSmyth · 02-10-2012 3:58pm

recedite wrote: »

There is no inspection fee.

The inspection regime has not been announced. It is the legal responsibility of the EPA to draw up the inspection scheme - not Phil Hogan's department. The Waste directive requires that "the costs of waste management shall be borne by the original waste producer". It also requires that inspections be "periodic" (every x years) rather than risk based.

So I don't see how it is possible for Phil Hogan to keep his promise that inspections will be free and will only apply to 10% of high-risk septic tanks.

Maybe I'm missing something.

recedite · 02-10-2012 10:17pm

Politicians should be banned from using the word "free" :pac:

MadsL · 02-10-2012 10:24pm

Black Smoke wrote: »

What a statement:( Farmers, who were born and reared on the farm, and continue to live there, and hopefully pass it on to the next generation, in your mind, just stubbornly refuse to up sticks, and live in the next village, which is connected to the municipal system. That's the D4 kind of thinking, which sows the sees of dissent, against these "revenue gathering", charges, dressed up as "green, environmental measures":rolleyes:

Good job trying to paint this as a rural/urban farmer/D4 conflict, a fine diversionary tactic. Perhaps a bit transparent though. Why not throw in some turf cutting cod-ology about tradition and rights whilst you are at it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-10-2012 10:27pm

Welease wrote: »

And equally, there are 1000's of people not complaining, so one can assume they have little issue with the system proposed at present.

I'm sure Phil will be glad to hear that.

Welease wrote: »

But there is a need for inspection and removal of the source of the municipal pollution issues.

But isn't still a different slate of issues. I doubt there's much difficulty in discovering where Arklow's waste water is going, if there's a will. Trying to bring order to a few hundred thousand domestic systems, though, seems like a different proposition.

Welease wrote: »

Personally, I'm happy with any proposed payment system once it solve the issue in the most cost effective manner possible.

But I'm still not clear what it is you envisage as being in the scope of this payment system. I mean, fine if urban dwellers cover the cost of their water systems - the cities are probably already doing it out of their general income. But I still don't get what significant issue you see as being at stake here.

And isn't the substantial issue with rural dwellers really what they will do if their systems are condemned. A registration fee of €5 or an inspection fee of €50 might be an annoyance. But the real issue is what happens if you are instructed to spend thousands on a new system.

recedite wrote: »

The way to tackle all these problems is to first search for and detect water/groundwater pollution through general water testing.
Then fix the problems ASAP, on a "polluter pays" principle.

OK, there are likely to be existing problems to be fixed. But isn't the hope to be a bit more proactive than that, and maybe identify risks before they become problems?

And is it that easy to trace a source? Did they ever find who caused the problem with Galway's drinking water supply? (For some reason, I'm getting flashes of that scene from "Spinal Tap" when Nigel says "you can't dust for vomit").

In all this, can I agree there's no reason to ignore any source of pollution, and fix it on a polluter pays principle. I'm just confirming that none of us sees this as a reason to stop implementing regulation of domestic septic tanks.

recedite · 02-10-2012 11:28pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm just confirming that none of us sees this as a reason to stop implementing regulation of domestic septic tanks.

I agree, but why put the cart before the horse? As a priority the EPA should be dealing with the well known mega polluters first, then establish an inspection regime for the small fry; the faulty septic tanks, all the while collecting some fines, and only then, finally, ask for money from the innocent majority of the responsible septic tank owners (who are already well used to fully paying all their own costs).

Also this idea that people in a city are entitled get all their services "free" would only apply if they were individually paying rates. Free municipal bin collections have gone, free municipal water is on the way out. Perhaps the toilet tax is not so unlikely after all.

MadsL · 02-10-2012 11:33pm

recedite wrote: »

I agree, but why put the cart before the horse? As a priority the EPA should be dealing with the well known mega polluters first, then establish an inspection regime for the small fry; the faulty septic tanks, all the while collecting some fines, and only then, finally, ask for money from the innocent majority of the responsible septic tank owners (who are already well used to fully paying all their own costs).

Also this idea that people in a city are entitled get all their services "free" would only apply if they were individually paying rates. Free municipal bin collections have gone, free municipal water is on the way out. Perhaps the toilet tax is not so unlikely after all.

By that argument the Gardai should stop issuing speeding tickets until they have caught all the bank robbers.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-10-2012 12:42am

recedite wrote: »

Also this idea that people in a city are entitled get all their services "free" would only apply if they were individually paying rates. Free municipal bin collections have gone, free municipal water is on the way out. Perhaps the toilet tax is not so unlikely after all.

Ah, yeah, I'm not suggesting that there is any entitlement. I was just supposing that the financing issue would be less critical as they'd have a fairly substantial income in any event.

On septic tanks - I get the impression that the effort won't be wasted.

Welease · 03-10-2012 7:54am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm sure Phil will be glad to hear that..

Some of us genuinely want to see issues solved, and don't believe that its always someone elses job to pay...

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But isn't still a different slate of issues. I doubt there's much difficulty in discovering where Arklow's waste water is going, if there's a will. Trying to bring order to a few hundred thousand domestic systems, though, seems like a different proposition.

In relation to Arklow for example, yes there is an obvious problem that the untreated waste is being dumped at end point.. relatively easy (but costly) to solve and yes it could be considered "different".. But there are miles of connected pipework from each and every house which is also likely leaking which should arguebly be examined. In that manner it is very similar to septic tanks.. effluent will be removed from houses via a pipesystem to an end tank.. An average sized house will carry an average sized load irrespective of its municipal or country location and if we consider one area which contributes 7% of pollution as necessary of inspection, then why wouldnt we consider the other which contributes over 4 times the level of pollution as necessary also?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But I'm still not clear what it is you envisage as being in the scope of this payment system. I mean, fine if urban dwellers cover the cost of their water systems - the cities are probably already doing it out of their general income. But I still don't get what significant issue you see as being at stake here..

The significant issue is that we are only addressing 7% of the source of pollution.. Addressing the primary industrial and municipal sources is not currently underway, and requires both a plan and suitable funding. Argueably many of those who believe septic tanks owners should fund their issues (polluter pays) won't support a system which could see they themselves be landed with a large bill to rectify their own issues. If they don't support a global model, then I find it difficult to understand why they believe the current payment model is "fair".

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And isn't the substantial issue with rural dwellers really what they will do if their systems are condemned. A registration fee of €5 or an inspection fee of €50 might be an annoyance. But the real issue is what happens if you are instructed to spend thousands on a new system.OK, there are likely to be existing problems to be fixed. But isn't the hope to be a bit more proactive than that, and maybe identify risks before they become problems?.

I replaced my tank less than 5 years ago because I inspected it and found it below the standard I would expect when I purchased the house..
When did you last check the drains system across your property to ensure there was no leakage?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In all this, can I agree there's no reason to ignore any source of pollution, and fix it on a polluter pays principle. I'm just confirming that none of us sees this as a reason to stop implementing regulation of domestic septic tanks.

Absolutely.. My issue is we are currently addressing 7% of the issue with no plans to tackle the largest issues.

Ellen Rose · 03-10-2012 10:44am

Most people do not inspect their septic tanks to ensure they are working efficiently, with the amount of deterrents & chemicals that flow into tanks now days it destroys all natural bacteria needed to break down waste matter. Septic tanks tend to be emptied when it starts backing up into the house.

We built our house 4 years ago, the council signed off on the tank we installed, at the time they were more interested in the colour of our roof tiles than they were in our waste disposal system, I now understand that it does not meet EU requirements! How can I now trust local government!

I firmly believe we should pay for services, its our environment we need to take care of it, i believe we should likewise pay for water, but I disagree with a flat rate charge for water, as this does nothing to stop waste. Likewise I believe that the government should support those who aim to reduce green house gases, but I see the opposite happening, they do not want people to be self sufficient as this means less revenue in VAT & other taxes for them.

So my problem with paying septic tank charges, water rates, property tax is I don't have any faith in how the government go about imposing these taxes. The same agrument applies across the board to all taxes, it should be based more on pay as you go! For a greener environment people need to become more efficient in their daily life's

recedite · 03-10-2012 1:03pm

MadsL wrote: »

By that argument the Gardai should stop issuing speeding tickets until they have caught all the bank robbers.

I did say the EPA should be fining people while catching the polluters.

If you want to compare to it to the Gardai, it would be like having them stop every car, ask the driver for a fiver now or €50 later, while making vague promises to set up speed traps at some future date.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-10-2012 1:22pm

Welease wrote: »

The significant issue is that we are only addressing 7% of the source of pollution.. Addressing the primary industrial and municipal sources is not currently underway, and requires both a plan and suitable funding. Argueably many of those who believe septic tanks owners should fund their issues (polluter pays) won't support a system which could see they themselves be landed with a large bill to rectify their own issues. If they don't support a global model, then I find it difficult to understand why they believe the current payment model is "fair".

As I see it, there’s basically two parts to your argument.

One is that septic tanks are the least of our problems, if they only account for 7% of pollution. And, indeed, haven’t the EPA in the past said that agriculture is the greatest source of pollution. However, as I think has been acknowledged on the thread, statements are made as if of fact about the proportion of pollution to be traced to this or that source. And this in a context where no-one seems to know precisely what was the source of pollution of Galway City’s water supply – was it agriculture, domestic septic tanks or some municipal system? I don’t think anyone has been able to say.

At the same time, we know that there are an awful lot of domestic septic tanks out there. A lot of rural dwellers seem concerned – and, anecdotally, will tell you how they sort of know that the ground around them is too soggy for the system to work properly. I believe they say if you’ve built on a karst site, it’s a matter of when and not whether you’ll end up contaminating your water supply. So I’d hold off on confident statements about 7% being the figure.

The second issue is still around municipal systems, where again I don’t see the basis for comparison. As I understand it, the urban dweller is only responsible for the pipe from the house to the main. If it screws up, it is the homeowners problem. However, the issue that can happen is less likely to be a leak, and more likely to be a blockage. If you talk to anyone with the misfortune to be the last house on a mislaid connection, they’ll tell you that all they can do (short of forming a partnership with all their neighbours to relay the whole pipe) is to get Dynarod out to put a hose down the pipe to push the stuff into the main sewer.

If there’s a problem with a main sewer, the homeowner simply won’t have the legal right to fix it – it’s local authority property. Similarly, if Wicklow County Council just dump Arklow’s waste in the river, that’s nothing that inspecting individual households around Arklow will do for it – it’s a pointless process.

As for payment, the cheapest option for local authorities would be if everyone lived in locations that could be connected to the main. I’d expect you’ll find urban dwellers will be facing more charges in the years ahead – just like commercial users do at present. But the payments they’ll need to make will be substantially lower than the cost of running stand-alone systems.

Anyway, all that’s a bit wandering. But, I suppose, what I’m trying to get across is the simple “Aha, it’s not fair unless individual urban dwellers face the inconvenience and cost of an individual inspection system, despite not actually owning anything that needs to be inspected” doesn’t wash. It’s like saying that people who use public transport and don’t own a car should have to get an NCT.

recedite · 03-10-2012 4:06pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It’s like saying that people who use public transport and don’t own a car should have to get an NCT.

Not really. Its more like saying that people who use public transport
a) should purchase a ticket and
b) the ticket price should go towards maintaining the vehicles in a properly serviced condition.

If it turns out that the ticket is cheaper than having private transport, then that's great for the user. But if that bus is very obviously spewing oil out onto the road, then that should be addressed before whinging about the minority of private vehicles that may or may not have much more minor issues. Of course both should be serviced, but the polluting buses would be the priority.

Also, if you pay for an NCT you get your car tested.
If you pay the septic tank registration fee, you get nothing.
You still pay for your own periodic inspection and maintenance, just like before.

recedite · 03-10-2012 4:17pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

no-one seems to know precisely what was the source of pollution of Galway City’s water supply – was it agriculture, domestic septic tanks or some municipal system? I don’t think anyone has been able to say.

Is there really any appetite to find the culprits though? How would you apportion blame anyway if there are several polluters?

There is no doubt that if private water testing operatives were paid a bounty to catch polluters, in the same way that the traffic wheel-clampers operate, the fines €€ would come rolling in, and the courts would be inundated with prosecutions.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-10-2012 9:19pm

recedite wrote: »

Not really. Its more like saying that people who use public transport
a) should purchase a ticket and
b) the ticket price should go towards maintaining the vehicles in a properly serviced condition.

But that's fine - because my point is that the two situations don't equate. You don't buy a ticket every time you take your car on the road.

And some risks exist in some situations, and not in others. CCTV on public transport might be necessary to deter crime. You wouldn't see the same need to require private motorists to install CCTV in their cars.

On the other hand, if a private individual is running a septic tank, they are operating a potentially hazard installation. So, absolutely, there might be a need to regulate and inspect in respect of a risk that doesn't exist in other situations.

And, bear in mind, I'm working on the basis that the "7%" figure is probably based on wishful thinking. I don't think this is unreasonable, given the source

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0928/breaking48.html

The United Left Alliance’s Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes has urged people not to register their tanks. Owen Curran, a spokesman for the campaign in Donegal said households could not afford the potential upgrading costs.

“It is unsustainable to attempt to remedy any problems on an individual basis. It is also unfair that septic tank owners should be responsible for the cost, when you consider that septic tanks are only responsible for 7 per cent of ground water pollution throughout the State.”

recedite wrote: »

Also, if you pay for an NCT you get your car tested.

If you pay the septic tank registration fee, you get nothing.
You still pay for your own periodic inspection and maintenance, just like before.

But, sure, the NCT doesn't replace the need for independent inspection and maintenance of your car, and your motor tax goes into the Local Government Fund from whence it is distributed to local authorities. Some of it, who knows, may even end up being spent on roads. But, mostly, what you have to show for it is a pretty round disc to hang in your window.

So, while I don't want to get too lost in the analogy, I think the principles illustrated aren't that different.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-10-2012 9:25pm

recedite wrote: »

Is there really any appetite to find the culprits though? How would you apportion blame anyway if there are several polluters?

I'm not particularly talking about enforcement there - just about how they don't seem to have identified even the class of problem - i.e. agricultural, domestic septic tank, municipal system.

recedite · 04-10-2012 10:21am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But that's fine - because my point is that the two situations don't equate. You don't buy a ticket every time you take your car on the road.

I'm suggesting that the ticket price of public transport goes towards proper maintenance of the vehicles, and a similar contribution should be made by domestic users of municipal treatment systems.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And some risks exist in some situations, and not in others.........
On the other hand, if a private individual is running a septic tank, they are operating a potentially hazard installation. So, absolutely, there might be a need to regulate and inspect in respect of a risk that doesn't exist in other situations.

It is convenient to say that if you are connected to a group or municipal system, you have no direct control or interest in what happens to the waste once it leaves your house. That is an abdication of responsibility though. If your local authority or private group scheme is pumping it straight into the nearest river, your community bears a group responsibility. As a county council, it may well enjoy immunity from prosecution (at least from within Ireland) but that is not good enough IMO.
Badly run municipal systems are capable of doing far more damage than an equivalent number of septic tanks, simply because the pollution is concentrated into one place. By contrast, if certain kinds of waste are widely dispersed (nitrates, coliform bacteria) the environment can cope, absorbing it as nutrients.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 04-10-2012 2:14pm

recedite wrote: »

I'm suggesting that the ticket price of public transport goes towards proper maintenance of the vehicles, and a similar contribution should be made by domestic users of municipal treatment systems.

And I can agree that users of municipal systems are more akin to users of public transport than to owners of domestic septic tanks.

recedite wrote: »

It is convenient to say that if you are connected to a group or municipal system, you have no direct control or interest in what happens to the waste once it leaves your house.

Well, I have an interest. But it’s not convenient to say I’ve no direct control. It’s just the way it is. That means, however the issue is to be pursued, individual inspection of dwellings would be an irrelevance, as I can’t hijack the next bus and take it for an NCT.

recedite wrote: »

Badly run municipal systems are capable of doing far more damage than an equivalent number of septic tanks, simply because the pollution is concentrated into one place. By contrast, if certain kinds of waste are widely dispersed (nitrates, coliform bacteria) the environment can cope, absorbing it as nutrients.

Perhaps, although that sounds like an appeal for complacency on septic tanks. “We need to do more about municipal systems” is not an argument for ignoring septic tank pollution. Isn’t there an EU ruling demanding specific action on septic tanks? If a similar one comes on municipal systems, we should certainly take action.

recedite · 04-10-2012 6:25pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

individual inspection of dwellings would be an irrelevance

Correct; its a red herring. However, inspection of the municipal systems by independent experts from the EU would be welcome.

Isn’t there an EU ruling demanding specific action on septic tanks? If a similar one comes on municipal systems, we should certainly take action.

Yes, here's what they say.
"Irish legislation lacks in particular systematic periodic checks and inspections" (for septic tanks)
To me, that sounds like they want an NCT type regime for septic tanks. That would make good sense. The "register" that the govt. has come up with is more like just another tax.
I don't know why the EU is not concerned when whole towns pour their sewage straight into a river. Perhaps they have been told that all the municipal systems are already fully registered and inspected, which is probably true, technically.

Clareboy · 07-10-2012 3:51pm

Decades of bad planning which has allowed the widespread proliferation of one off houses has finally caught up with us as a nation and bit us in the ass. If people can afford to build a monstrosity in the open countryside and the lifestyle that goes with it, surely they can afford €5 or €50 to have their septic tank inspected.

Going Forward · 08-10-2012 10:55pm

Clareboy wrote: »

Decades of bad planning which has allowed the widespread proliferation of one off houses has finally caught up with us as a nation and bit us in the ass. If people can afford to build a monstrosity in the open countryside and the lifestyle that goes with it, surely they can afford €5 or €50 to have their septic tank inspected.

Jealous??

Ellen Rose · 08-10-2012 11:02pm

A good one Going forward! Lol

Septic tank charges

Comments