Gormley to introduce Septic Tank tax

Kashkai

Mods, this isn't a rant but will be of interest to all with septic tanks.

To all those at the planning stage where a septic tank will be used onsite or even to those of us who have an existing septic tank (thats 440,000 households according to the Indo), the Minister for the Environment is planning to introduce a septic tank tax or licence as he calls it (it was put into the renewed Programme for Government).

Local authorities will have the power to enter onto your land to inspect the septic tank, to see if it is operating efficiently and to order you to upgrade or even replace it if it is found to be not working correctly/causing pollution. A proposed fine of up to €5,000 will be levied for non compliance.

Personally, I have the sludge in my tank emptied once a year and the wastewater itself is treated in a puraflow mound at the top of my garden. This wastewater is filtered back down through my own site by gravity so I don't believe that I am causing pollution to anyone. However, depending on how strict your local authority officials are, these proposed new septic tank licences may cause a lot of grief to some people who don't meet the new criteria due to poor tank design, poor percolation etc etc.

I find this new proposal galling because I pay about €300 to have my tank emptied every year by a licenced firm who bring the sludge to the local wastewater treatment works for treatment and now I'll have to fork out for a licence that will probably cost about €100 (another way to plug the hole in the Council's finances), while those connected to public sewers will continue to pay nothing. Looks to me like the Green Party is in a hurry to fulfil their wishlist before they get annihalated at the next election.

gman2k

Dave any link to this info?

sydthebeat

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

...... I don't believe that I am causing pollution to anyone. However, depending on how strict your local authority officials are,............

humm....

a lay persons 'opinion' or a local authority calibrated standard....

which is the proper yardstick to measure the performance of a septic tank by i wonder.....??

Kashkai

Whats with the sarcasm Syd. Just to clarify your comment re: "Layman's opinion" - I worked on the planning, design and construction of wastewater treatment plants and collection systems for 8 years so I know "a bit" about them and have a more informed opinion than 99% of the general population. With regard to the "high standards" of our local authorities, I can point you towards the annual reports of the Environmental Protection Agency that show time and again that many poorly operated and maintained local authority run wastewater treatment plants cause immense pollution of our rivers and lakes and thus water supplies. In my case, my puraflow system treats the grey wastewater whereby 99% of harmful bacteria are filtered out through the peat bed system and the remainder is treated in the soil and I'm pretty sure that I'm causing far less harm to the environment than many local authority and group sewerage schemes around the country. These should be tackled first before castigating individual householders.

Here is a link to the article in question:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/440000-must-buy-septic-tank-licence--gormley-1929083.html

Esmeralda34

Hi Prosperous Dave

Thanks for the info..

My folks live in the country. Over twenty years ago they sold their existing house, having erected a wall on their land and built a new house next door. Unfortunately the septic tank for the existing house remained on their new site and they looked after the upkeep of it for years. Therefore my parents have 2 septic tanks on their site - their own and their neighbours.

My parents are elderly and over the past two years have approached the younger couple next door asking that they take over the upkeep of their septic tank. They have been given empty promises time and time again. The neighbours septic tank is now not working properly, is leaking into the field behind and has caused shrubs and grass to die in my parents' garden.

What rights do my parents have in this instance and would an inspector consider them to be responsible for the tank as it's on their land?

PaddyThai

In principle it makes sense to do something about old septic tanks and soakpits that pollute ground water. But I wonder how this will work. Many old septic tanks may appear to work fine but soakpit drains the 'treated' water quickly to ground water. I can't see how you would investigate this without digging up the outlet from the septic tank.
Briefly, septic tanks in locations where percolation is too fast may look fine but be causing pollution to ground water.
Septic tanks in areas with poor percolation will show visible signs of surface pollution (which may then run off to streams etc.).
I just wonder how the LAs will investigate.

RKQ

IMO if the Government seriously wanted to resolve the issue of faulty septic tanks / perclation areas, they would introduce a grant to upgrade same.

A license sounds like a tax to me.

Prosperous Dave is correct when he says "the annual reports of the Environmental Protection Agency that show time and again that many poorly operated and maintained local authority run wastewater treatment plants cause immense pollution of our rivers and lakes and thus water supplies". It is a fair point.

Rather than some stupid tax (yet another one to add to the list), it would be better to make it manditory for all owners of septic tanks to have some form of maintainance contract in place to ensure that they don't fail and pollute the local environment.

I would object strongly to having to pay twice for the "privilage" of having such a system.

tinofapples

This lark is just getting to be a huge pain in the arse. I had to install the BnM Puraflo system at a cost of over 6k as well as my septic tank and for what ? To be potentially hit with another tax ??

Fcuk off you shower of p****

Joey the lips

I personally think that while you are argueing about the new "Tax" you are missing the point. This is not a tax on septic tanks. This is a tax designed to fund local govt. Can you not see that. There is laws for the operation of local authority schemes and guess who is going to pay for it.... You.

I have been saying for many years. The future system of govt funding is designed that local authorites will be self funding. If you really whant to see what lies ahead just look at the cost estimates in your local authority accounts.

Ask yourself this!

If the plastic bag tax was to fund an anti waste campagn why is the money not used to provide alternatives.

If the bin tax is used to recycle waste why incineration the prefered method

If the preposed water tax is to save water why is it going to take 12 years to charge by use and do you honestly think that once we start paying a certain amount local govt wont always rely on it..


I honestly think that this is why going forward any questions you are asking on the subject of septic tanks will fail because you are focused on its operation and the govt is focused on its income generation status. I bet you still have a licence fee even if yours is perfect.... You see!

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

I personally think that while you are argueing about the new "Tax" you are missing the point. This is not a tax on septic tanks. This is a tax designed to fund local govt. Can you not see that.

Yes that's crystal clear (to me), the councils have recently been relient on "development" charges, with the collapse in new building, they now look elsewhere for their funding!

seclachi

The tax is very annoying, at a time when people are looking at wage cuts and even more general tax hikes. There are probably plenty of non compliant septic tanks up and down the county, and I can imagine repairs to these causing a fair bit of hardship to people.

Speaking to some friends about it, they were actually surprised you had to empty an septic tank at all, so I can imagine there are plenty of tanks out there people barely know exist.

Its hard to argue with the concept though, human waste is a pretty dangerous thing, and if you have a septic tank it may be possible you have a well or are near a group water scheme or even just a stream / river. The right way to approach this though would have been the carrot on a stick approach with grants, rather than just the stick, but I guess with the current state of things you`d be lucky if they paid for the stamp on the fine.

sydthebeat

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

Whats with the sarcasm Syd. Just to clarify your comment re: "Layman's opinion" - I worked on the planning, design and construction of wastewater treatment plants and collection systems for 8 years so I know "a bit" about them and have a more informed opinion than 99% of the general population. With regard to the "high standards" of our local authorities, I can point you towards the annual reports of the Environmental Protection Agency that show time and again that many poorly operated and maintained local authority run wastewater treatment plants cause immense pollution of our rivers and lakes and thus water supplies. In my case, my puraflow system treats the grey wastewater whereby 99% of harmful bacteria are filtered out through the peat bed system and the remainder is treated in the soil and I'm pretty sure that I'm causing far less harm to the environment than many local authority and group sewerage schemes around the country. These should be tackled first before castigating individual householders.

Here is a link to the article in question:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/440000-must-buy-septic-tank-licence--gormley-1929083.html

dave, its not sarcasm....

i know well what your level of knowledge is regarding septic tanks etc by your previous posts, but you missed completely the point of my post....

expecting private individuals to police these simply has not worked.... necessary upgrading is never done unless as a last resort... its time LAs actually did what they are remitted to do and examine these systems to determine their performance...

fishfoodie

sydthebeat wrote: »

dave, its not sarcasm....

i know well what your level of knowledge is regarding septic tanks etc by your previous posts, but you missed completely the point of my post....

expecting private individuals to police these simply has not worked.... necessary upgrading is never done unless as a last resort... its time LAs actually did what they are remitted to do and examine these systems to determine their performance...

But Syd; don't the LAs have all the powers they need already to fine individuals with polluting tanks !

This tax is nothing but more optics. If there was a real intent stop the pollution, the first step wouldn't be to put a tax on tanks, would it ?

No; it would be to prosecute the offenders to send a message to the rest.

A considered approach would be to first off start with the oldest tanks & provide a set of grants to upgrade. Then on a phased basis inspect existing tanks over 25, 20, 15 years of age & discover what the state of play actually is, as opposed to assumptions.

Either the Planning officers have been doing their jobs over the last 10 years, or this set of tanks ought to be, by & large, okay.

What's the point of creating more Public Sector jobs to inspect 440,000 tanks when you know that once the problematic ones are fixed, they'll probably be fine for the next 10 years ?

What will the inspectors do once all these tanks are inspected once ?

gman2k

Why should we need a tax/ licence imposed every year?
I'd have no problem in the LA inspecting my septic tank - say once every ten years to ensure it complies. Then revisit in ten years.
To charge on a yearly basis is patent nonsense, the system will either work or it won't.
If it's compliant this year, then it will be compliant next year assuming you are emptying at the necessary periodic intervals.

The other major problem facing LAs regarding funding is also down to Gormley and Co.
Motor Tax was/is a massive source of revenue for them, but with the new system, everyone is replacing their car with low emissions models (and rightly so) but the financial benefit to the LA is greatly reduced.
I bet 10 euro to your 1 that the car tax rates will be massively hiked in Decembers massacre budget

contilla

Hi Guys,

Another TAX..

When I built my house in 2004 (in the Country) I was, under the planning permission grant obliged to enter into a Maintenance Contract and a copy was sent to the Planning Authority, it cost €700 for 5-years maintenance, this extra charge I feel is not on, however I know of a few neighbouring properties (mainly pre 1980 dwellings) that have poor tanks and are ineffective, I feel this Tax is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water... (treated or not!!)

Cuauhtemoc

You're required to have an annual maintenance contract on all new systems anyway, usually a condition of planning.
Obviously there are many systems in place before those conditions came in but where that contract is in place you are effectively paying twice for an annual inspection.

I'd expect some sort of annual check/inspection of people with private wells next, so those people do not fall outside water usage charges when they're introduced.
Maybe i'm being paranoid:)

C.

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&jurcdj=jurcdj&newform=newform&docj=docj&docop=docop&docnoj=docnoj&typeord=ALLTYP&numaff=&ddatefs=26&mdatefs=10&ydatefs=2009&ddatefe=2&mdatefe=11&ydatefe=2009&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100&Submit=Rechercher

It submits that the Commission’s reasoning in support of the assertion that the national law in force has not enabled pollution to be reduced in practice, like the arguments which the Commission devotes to water pollution in Ireland, is outside the scope of the present action. In any event, the Commission has not proved a link between the use of septic tanks and other IWWTS and groundwater pollution.

the Greens spin the EU ruling so they can bring in a tax!

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/environment_minister_responds_to_ruling_on_septic_tanks

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&jurcdj=jurcdj&newform=newform&docj=docj&docop=docop&docnoj=docnoj&typeord=ALLTYP&numaff=&ddatefs=26&mdatefs=10&ydatefs=2009&ddatefe=2&mdatefe=11&ydatefe=2009&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100&Submit=Rechercher




the Greens spin the EU ruling so they can bring in a tax!

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/environment_minister_responds_to_ruling_on_septic_tanks

blindjustice.. !!! you are well named...

All you have done is reproduced the argument made by the irish government in defence of its stance on septic tanks..... thats either a seriously foolish oversight on your behalf or a very cynical attempt to try to introduce a skewed view point.

This is an argument that was completely rejected by the european commission.

Perhaps you should have read the conclusions and final determinations by the court:

81 It must, consequently, be held that the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878 neither applies, at first sight, to IWWTS nor satisfies, in any event, the objectives of Directive 75/422, that the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, 1977 and 1990 do not provide for an appropriate system of inspection, that the Building Control Acts 1990-2007 apply only to IWWTS built after 1992 and do not guarantee that they conform to the objectives of Directive 75/442, and that the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2006 apply only to IWWTS built after 2000, they subject the construction of septic tanks to rules which are not suited to the objectives of the directive and they do not provide for an appropriate system of inspection.

and

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:
Declares that, by failing to adopt, save in County Cavan, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, as regards domestic waste waters disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;




case closed.

fishfoodie

Has Cavan ceded from the Republic then ? I never would have suspected them, I'd always figured on the feckers from Cork splitting off first.

I'm confused as to how one county in the state could have a set of laws & regulations which are compliant, & the rest not. That to me suggests that their is no deficit in the laws & regulations, but rather that the implementation & most importantly, the enforcement of them is lacking !!

I doubt that would be news to many on this forum.

Kashkai

In my experience the chief causes of groundwater pollution are, in order:

1. Agricultural - whether from animals themselves or from excessive slurry spreading

2. Poorly maintained or overloaded wastewater treatment plants

3. Industry/commercial premises

4. Septic tanks that are poorly maintained, too close to groundwater or have insufficient percolation


In true style, Gormley goes after the soft option to get funding for the local authorities because:

1. The farming lobby is immensely strong in this country and the establishment are terrified of upsetting them. When they tried to bring in stricter controls on slurry spreading, these were relaxed to placate the farmers - many of whom go on to complain that their drinking water is polluted with e coli :rolleyes:. I know as my in laws (Mayo farmers!) spread slurry like their lives depend on it but moan when they have to boil their water due to an e coli outbreak in the local water supply.

2. Gormley's department funds the construction of wastewater treatment plants and he's not going to want to bring unwanted attention to the fact that many of these are poorly maintained and cause pollution of water with e coli which ironicly they are supposed to prevent. There was a great emphasis put on public/private partnerships to build these wastewater treatment plants which would then be operated by a private contractor, supposedley to save the txpayer money. However, these private contractors want to get the maximum profit by spending as little as possible on running/maintaining these plants with the result that many are operating very poorly.

3. While larger industries have their wastewater metered and monitored, smaller industries are not and they can discharge god knows what into sewers, some of which are combined sewers in that they take rain water and sewage and can overflow onto streets during periods of intensive rain.

4. Septic tanks that were given approval despite percolation problems on site.

So here's my solution for Gormless Gormley:

Make it mandantory for all septic tanks to be desluged on an annual basis by the local authority (or a contractor appointed by them). This will have 3 benefits:

1. The septic tanks will be desludged on an annual basis making them work more efficiently, i.e. they won't be getting clogged up with fats, grease, detergents, shampoos etc etc, which feed into the soil and literally make it waterproof, i.e. the soil cannot percolate the wastewater due to the amount of greasy residue in it and thus the wastewater comes to the surface and makes its way to the nearest water source.

2. The sludge will be taken to the local wastewater treatment works for proper treatment (providing the wwtp is up to the job and is not one of the poorly performing ones). This will eliminate the practice of rogue contractors/local farmers desludging septic tanks for cash and discharging the sludge God knows where.

3. The annual charge for desludging the septic tanks will provide a steady reliable income for the local authority.

Now that would be a useful way of protecting the environment while funding the local authority. And seeing as you should desludge your tank annually, you'd end up not paying any extra money - well in my case the €300 I pay to a private contractor would just go to the Council instead.

But thats probably just a simple idea that wouldn't wash with Gormley and his ulterior motive of hitting us horrible one off housing types for harming his environment.

fishfoodie

I like your proposals Dave. I'd even add one I think most people could agree with.

Given the now guaranteed source of sludge, build powerstations powered by burning the dried sludge. Anyone who claims to be interested in the environment should see that this is a win-win.

Kashkai

This is why we'd never be politician material as we have too much in the way of common sense

sydthebeat

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

.....

Make it mandantory for all septic tanks to be desluged on an annual basis by the local authority (or a contractor appointed by them). This will have 3 benefits:

1. The septic tanks will be desludged on an annual basis making them work more efficiently, i.e. they won't be getting clogged up with fats, grease, detergents, shampoos etc etc, which feed into the soil and literally make it waterproof, i.e. the soil cannot percolate the wastewater due to the amount of greasy residue in it and thus the wastewater comes to the surface and makes its way to the nearest water source.

2. The sludge will be taken to the local wastewater treatment works for proper treatment (providing the wwtp is up to the job and is not one of the poorly performing ones). This will eliminate the practice of rogue contractors/local farmers desludging septic tanks for cash and discharging the sludge God knows where.

3. The annual charge for desludging the septic tanks will provide a steady reliable income for the local authority.

Now that would be a useful way of protecting the environment while funding the local authority. And seeing as you should desludge your tank annually, you'd end up not paying any extra money - well in my case the €300 I pay to a private contractor would just go to the Council instead.

But thats probably just a simple idea that wouldn't wash with Gormley and his ulterior motive of hitting us horrible one off housing types for harming his environment.

a tax by any other name would smell so sweet.....

The issue here is whether the onus for the upkeep of these systems should be left to teh private individual... and in too many previous cases it always bears out that joe public will only do the necessary when the necessary arises... septic tanks / ETS are below ground out of sight out of mind....

the minister is simply stating that they will do what they should have been doing since 1991....

prior to 1991 there was no standards of any real merit enforced by county councils on applications which involved septic tanks. Local authorities have powers of inspection, investigation and enforcement in cases of infringement of section 3 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, 1977 and 1990. Under the Building Control Acts 1990-2007 new Building Regulations have, since June 1992, governed the construction of new buildings. To be considered compliant with those Regulations, specific to septic tanks and ETS, building projects must comply with Part H of the Building Regulations and Technical Guidance Document H. Part H 2 of the regulations requires a septic tank to be: ‘(a) of adequate capacity and so constructed that it is impermeable to liquids;
(b) adequately ventilated; and
(c) so sited and constructed that –
(i) it is not prejudicial to the health of any person,
(ii) it does not pollute, so as to endanger public health, any water (including ground water) which is used as a source of supply for human consumption,



Local Building Control Authorities are responsible for enforcement of the Building Regulations.

Leaving the reliance on Joe Public to maintain and upkeep their septic tanks has failed!!!... miserably....

Look, i agree that this is a tax, im not disputing that fact. i also have huge doubts that (in my experience) a lazy undermanned and ignorant building control section of LAs can adequately inspect all the septic tanks in their counties. they cant even do what they are supposed to do at the moment!! But thats not a reason why it should not be done.

No6

When the local authority wastwater treatment plants are fully compliant and working perfectly then they would be justified in bringing in a tax, licence fee, whatever they want to call it but we all know that this will never happen. If they really want to reduce green house gasses emmissions from Ireland as they claim they should reduce the number of cattle or failing that try to stop them farting so much, I can just picture it the minister with his fist up some poor cows ass trying to save the planet, brave soul that he is!!!:D

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

blindjustice.. !!! you are well named...

All you have done is reproduced the argument made by the irish government in defence of its stance on septic tanks..... thats either a seriously foolish oversight on your behalf or a very cynical attempt to try to introduce a skewed view point.

jeez do you not see. are you blind!
The Govt on one had say there is NO LINK - septic tanks are grand.
Then when they lose its all "septic tanks bad" and want to tax us!!

gman2k

No6 wrote: »

When the local authority wastwater treatment plants are fully compliant and working perfectly then they would be justified in bringing in a tax, licence fee, whatever they want to call it but we all know that this will never happen. If they really want to reduce green house gasses emmissions from Ireland as they claim they should reduce the number of cattle or failing that try to stop them farting so much, I can just picture it the minister with his fist up some poor cows ass trying to save the planet, brave soul that he is!!!:D

IIRC it's a common misconception, cows belching (not farting) is the problem!

fishfoodie

sydthebeat wrote: »

a tax by any other name would smell so sweet.....

The issue here is whether the onus for the upkeep of these systems should be left to teh private individual... and in too many previous cases it always bears out that joe public will only do the necessary when the necessary arises... septic tanks / ETS are below ground out of sight out of mind....

the minister is simply stating that they will do what they should have been doing since 1991....

prior to 1991 there was no standards of any real merit enforced by county councils on applications which involved septic tanks. Local authorities have powers of inspection, investigation and enforcement in cases of infringement of section 3 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, 1977 and 1990. Under the Building Control Acts 1990-2007 new Building Regulations have, since June 1992, governed the construction of new buildings. To be considered compliant with those Regulations, specific to septic tanks and ETS, building projects must comply with Part H of the Building Regulations and Technical Guidance Document H. Part H 2 of the regulations requires a septic tank to be: ‘(a) of adequate capacity and so constructed that it is impermeable to liquids;
(b) adequately ventilated; and
(c) so sited and constructed that –
(i) it is not prejudicial to the health of any person,
(ii) it does not pollute, so as to endanger public health, any water (including ground water) which is used as a source of supply for human consumption,



Local Building Control Authorities are responsible for enforcement of the Building Regulations.

Leaving the reliance on Joe Public to maintain and upkeep their septic tanks has failed!!!... miserably....

Look, i agree that this is a tax, im not disputing that fact. i also have huge doubts that (in my experience) a lazy undermanned and ignorant building control section of LAs can adequately inspect all the septic tanks in their counties. they cant even do what they are supposed to do at the moment!! But thats not a reason why it should not be done.

I think we're all broadly in agreement Syd that there's a issue we should be working on, & we should have been working on it without the EU having to kick us up the hole to spur us (i.e. Our Elected Officials ) on.

I'm fundamentally of the opinion that the Public Service is wrong group to fix it. And that this will result in more taxes with little improvement.

One of the most interesting facts in the GPs own press release spinning the event is this paragraph:

While septic tanks and other similar on-site wastewater treatment systems are used in other countries their numbers appear to be much lower. For example there are approximately 100,000 septic tanks in
Scotland and an estimated 800,000 in England.

So Ireland in 2006 had ~440,000 tanks, & England a vastly larger country, only 800,000.

That is the crux of our problem. The woeful lack of public sewerage facilities, despite a building boom which at one stage was building 90,000 dwellings in a year. And of course years of ribbon developments.

It would be worth the money to get an independent committee to recommend a policy. Because it may well decide that when you factor in all the costs, it would be cheaper to tie in 200,000 of those tanks into a mains sewer system.

muffler

fishfoodie wrote: »

So Ireland in 2006 had ~440,000 tanks, & England a vastly larger country, only 800,000.

That is the crux of our problem. The woeful lack of public sewerage facilities, despite a building boom which at one stage was building 90,000 dwellings in a year. And of course years of ribbon developments.

Just bear in mind that, unlike here, rural housing developments in England are pretty rare so there would naturally be a lot less septic tanks.

fishfoodie

muffler wrote: »

Just bear in mind that, unlike here, rural housing developments in England are pretty rare so there would naturally be a lot less septic tanks.

Isn't that a kind of Chicken & Egg thing ?

England was once very rural, but houses became villages, & then towns. Much of this organically without any planning.

Its just that the English LAs when housing densities got to a certain level put municipal sewerage schemes in place to replace the individual tanks, or just pipes into watercourses.

How many stretches of road are there in Ireland, with maybe 100 houses over a stretch of a few km, all of them with its own separate septic tank ?

Poor Uncle Tom

I can't see the LA's here putting in treatment systems just because there is a bunch of houses together. The LA's here will not put treatment systems into villages where they are long needed.

I have a case where planning permission is going to be refused because the existing village treatment system (septic tank only) is not good enough to take 7 more houses, an independant treatment system is not an option for the LA. The site is zoned for housing development.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

jeez do you not see. are you blind!
The Govt on one had say there is NO LINK - septic tanks are grand.
Then when they lose its all "septic tanks bad" and want to tax us!!

what you presented as fact was incorrect.. it was our useless government taking the "it wasnt me sir" attitude... but when found out they are, correctly, taking action.

wheres the problem??

No6

gman2k wrote: »

IIRC it's a common misconception, cows belching (not farting) is the problem!

Rude Beggars!!:D He'll have to kiss the cow so!!!:D its a bit like the misconception he has that septic tanks cause most of the water polution!!!!

kmick

I cant believe I voted for these people last time around. They wont get a sniff next time out. I heard Gormley on the radio attempting to defend his carbon tax on the basis that it was revenue neutral. Businesses who can at this time barely keep head above water to be hit with another tax is mindless vandalism. This septic tank tax is again more red tape for something that should already be covered by existing legislation but was never enforced.

Kashkai

We had (maybe still have??) the "Serviced Land Initiative" (S.L.I.) that was introduced on foot of the Bacon report circa 2000, whereby the Dept of the Environment funded 40% of the costs of laying watermains and sewers from the existing networks to a site to enable the construction of new houses and thus bring down the overall cost of housing which was increasing at an exponetial rate (and didn't it just work out fine as house prices did fall post 2000 :rolleyes:). In effect, all this scheme did was to increase the developer's profit margin as there was a massive demand for his new housing anyway and the taxpayer was partly funding the new infrastructure that pre-Bacon would have been paid for entirely by the developer.

What should have been done with this money, was to expand the existing watermains and sewerage networks to connect up one off houses on the fringes of villages and towns which would have had 2 benefits, i.e.

1. the elimination of a lot of septic tank usage

2. the elimination of a lot of private wells that are at risk of contamination from e coli whether from animal or human excrement.

The householders concerned could have contributed the 60% of the cost (that the developer contributed under the SLI) and so there wouldn't have been any additional expenditure by the State. In my experience the average cost of connecting up a single unit of housing to a mains sewer (i.e. increasing the size of the existing wastewater treatment plant to cope with the additional loading, the new sewer to be laid along a road, pumping stations if required and the individual house connection) was €5,000 of which 60% is €3,000. In my case as I pay €300 per annum to desludge my tank, in 10 years my payment for connection to the public sewer would have been paid for anyway in "desludging fees".

Instead the taxpayer expended 10's if not 100's of millions of euro on a scheme to enrich developers who were creaming it anyway and the sole aim of the SLI scheme, i.e. to increase the supply of housing and thus bring a halt to the house price increases, obviously failed miserably.

socelirigh

While I am not in favour of another tax, I can see the problem with existing septic tank systems. I recently purchased a house, and the wastewater treatment system consists of a septic tank followed by a pecolation area or soakaway. Without going into details, I have decided to upgrade the system. I have looked at all of the units available on the market today and they all seem to have loads of moving parts and pumps with compressors and use electricity. All I can see is the money I currently spend on septic tanks every year increasing when I put in a new unit due to the electricity costs to run it in addition to maintenance and replacement of moving parts - which seems to be non stop according to my friends. I came across a syetem recently called the biorock. Allegedy it can treat wastewater better than any system on the market today, and has the new european certification to prove it. I am meeting one of their reps, who says the system has only come to Ireland in the last few months, to see one of the systems in operation. To be honest, it looks too good to be true, but they do seem to have the certification to back up their claims. I was just wondering if anyone has any info on the system or if they have had one installed. If I have to pay a septic tank tax in the future, at least this system may provide the possibility of saving on maintenance costs, electricity, etc!

riccol1966

I thought that septic tanks should not be emptied, the whole point was that de-sludging them removed the very bacteria that helped them work efficiently. I'm sure if you check there are arguments both for and against, I'm not taking sides here but would be interested to know where the basis for a yearly "de-sludge" comes from. Obviously companies involved in this will tell you must empty your tank yearly, but talking to others, and going back to my fathers generation, they only emptied tanks if they were faulty or at risk of overflowing. Also, many of the household products today are labelled "septic tank" friendly. Anyone care to comment?

socelirigh

Good point. However, the main idea with the desludging is to remove the large volumes that accumulate over time (dependent on occupancy of house, etc). The smaller the volume in the tank, the smaller the residence time for wastewater in the tank , which consequently affects treatment eficiency.

Irregular de-sludging can therefore reduce the quality of the effluent, can result in a clogged percolation area - by having poorer quality effluent with higher amount of suspended solids, and can eventually even block the inlet to the tank if the situation gets bad enough! When desludging, a small amount of sludge should be left in the tank alright.

It is anticipated that every homeowner will eventually have to keep a logbook detailing desludging and maintenance records.

put simply if you don't de-sludge, they eventually fill up and there is nowhere for the "solids" to go except straight out the discharge pipe and block the percolation area pipes.

Then you endup with untreated water seeping out the top of the tank into the garden.

edit: what socelirigh says as well

RKQ

riccol1966 wrote: »

Also, many of the household products today are labelled "septic tank" friendly. Anyone care to comment?

Bleach kills all bacteria. A popular brand kills 99% of all known germs.
Yearly desludging is a requirement to comply with S.R.6:1991

Older generations may not have desludged unless there was a problem. However, prior to S.R.6:1991 most kitchen sinks would go to a separate soak pit and not to the septic tank. These soak pits would have a grease trap installed.

The outcome of not desludging has been well described in this threat. Blocking pipes can be a major problem and you rarely know there is a problem until its too late - ie it backs up :eek:. Not pleasant!

Kashkai

I had an old septic tank on my site when I bought it and when I went to empty it the sludge was so thick that the suction pump on the desludging tanker couldn't suck it up. It was practically a solid for all intents and purposes - although I didn't test this out by stepping on it . I had to run a hose into the tank and soak the sludge to liquify it enough so it could be sucked up. The guy emptying the tank said he'd never seen sludge so thick and he thought the tank probably had never been emptied.

As a consequence of this, the percolation area was one big greasy mess and the wastewater just sat on top of this non permeable grease layer.

I removed all of the above, i.e. pipes, septic tank and contaminated soil (which stank and was black from grease, detergents etc) and put in a brand new puraflow system which is working very well.

I'd agree that a layer of sludge should be left in a tank to ensure that the bacteria continue to do their job of breaking down the solids but leaving a tank to fill up with sludge that isn't broken down (i.e. grease, fats, detergents, shampoos etc) and then clogs the percolation area will be very costly to rectify in the future, especially if this new licensing system is introduced and enforced rigorously.

muffler

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I'd agree that a layer of sludge should be left in a tank to ensure that the bacteria continue to do their job of breaking down the solids but leaving a tank to fill up with sludge that isn't broken down

A sheep's head will reactivate the process again. :pac:

No6

Yes in the old days they used to throw any dead small animal in to get the bacteria going.

Kashkai

muffler wrote: »

A sheep's head will reactivate the process again. :pac:

There's a sheep farm next door so I'm off to behead one now so - mwa ha ha ha (evil laugh )

Carpe Diem

As Co. Cavan seem to have gotten their act in order, why doesnt everyone else do the same.....

So what did they do? i hear you ask.!!!!!

The co. Council brought out a by law in 2004 where every septic tank and treatment system must be inspected by "independent assessors" with a view to establishing existing onsite wastewater treatment systems that were not compliant with a guidance document known as EPA wastewater Treatment manual, Treatment systems for single houses 2000.

Nice idea.....
Well until the council realised that given the poor soils in this marvelous county of Cavan, circa 90% of the houses hadn't a hope of ever complying with this standard.
So what happened....
The "independent" assessors went out to those law abiding citizens who felt they had a duty to get their systems assessed. The inspection which cost around 100euro consisted principally of a site visit by a pre-authorised "expert" who walked the site to establish if the system was ponding, or discharging into the local watercourse. If it was, they were told to carry out improvement works at their own cost!!

Fearing a monumental political backlash, the assessors were told to go easy on persons who they felt could not afford to solve the problem. (Clearly these assessors could also means test you with a glance) Furthermore... only half the landholders in Cavan even got this assessment carried out (despite numerous advertisments by the council in the papers outlining legal recourse if you failed to do so).. Some people ended up paying twice the charge of others, depending on who you got out to visit the site etc etc

No consistency, No transparancy, No equality!

Finally the criteria to become an "assessor" involved an interview with the Co. COuncil were the Co. council offical deemed your fitness to practice. Many assessors on the list had minimal experience in the area of wastewater technology, and some had virtually none. At the same time many environmental engineers who would actually know something about the subject were precluded from working under the by-law if they were not on the panel.


It was a complete shambles and knowing this area very well, i would say counties such as Cavan are probably still contributing hugely to septic tank problems compared to other counties which are blessed with more permeable soils!!!!!!

So dont panic if this comes in... but remember the following:
Take your chances of not getting it done,
If you do have to , hide your expensive car when the assessor comes around,
Haggle him as much as possible ( probably get a cash deal!!!!) and finally apply to become an assessor yourself... you might get a handy few quid in these recessionary times!!!!!!

gman2k

While we are on about septic tanks, do you need a grease trap from kitchen sink, or would it just be good practice?
(PS, all soil water and grey water is going to septic tank - no soakaways whatsoever.
Rainwater is going elsewhere....)

Poor Uncle Tom

It is good building practice to include a grease trap. Some treatment systems advise that it is necessary to include one.

seanieton

Just read your post
the whole thing makes me laugh, how they come up with ways of screwing more money out of us. but on the topic of your tank causing pollution is probly a realistic problem, my tank i think needs to be emptied im afraid it is going to back-up and block the pipes. question who do you get to do yours and do they do a good service

Round our way, one of the local farmers will do it and spray it onto his land.

fishfoodie

Deleted User wrote: »

Round our way, one of the local farmers will do it and spray it onto his land.

Isn't that completely illegal ?

samb

It is illegal unless the farmer has a waste collection permit, which is highly unlikely.
<snip> empty septic tanks in the Midlands and you get a cert saying exactly where your waste is brought to. They bring it to a composting plant under EPA control.


Edit: No manes please.