Septic tank charges

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

A good one Going forward! Lol

Going Forward wrote: »

Jealous??

It's revealing when you see what makes the issue comprehensible to some.

I see that our neighbours across the water have sensibly decided to review the requirements to register small septic tanks.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/118753.aspx

As usual, our lot dumbly swallow every little thing the EU bureaucrats suggest without any questions, derogations or reviews. Thats why we are the best boys and girls in Europe.

I'm really beginning to see that we now are as we always were, easily led and easily conquered by any country that felt like it over the years. Sad.

Going Forward wrote: »

I'm really beginning to see that we now are as we always were, easily led and easily conquered by any country that felt like it over the years. Sad.

I'm not sure you've detected the slight irony, in that you're taking your lead from the UK.

In any event, I think this part of their document is significant, as it suggests you might need to think of some other things we might have followed the UK on.There are some 300,000 septic tanks in England and Wales which treat the sewage from about a million people.

The population of England and Wales is about 56 million. Less that 2% live in homes that require a septic tank.

According to Census 2006, we've nearly 420,000 households connected to a septic tank - more than 28% of all households. We've less than one tenth of their population, but about 40% more septic tanks.

If we followed the example of the UK, which you seem to be vaguely hinting at, we'd only have 30,000 households using septic tanks. Everyone else would be living in a town, connected to a public system. And, maybe, in that situation it wouldn't matter.

Instead, we sort of know that we've overbuilt in rural areas and destroyed the environment as a result. And, thankfully, there are enough rural dwellers who are honest enough to admit they know that there's a problem; because they are washing in it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure you've detected the slight irony, in that you're taking your lead from the UK.

In any event, I think this part of their document is significant, as it suggests you might need to think of some other things we might have followed the UK on.There are some 300,000 septic tanks in England and Wales which treat the sewage from about a million people.

The population of England and Wales is about 56 million. Less that 2% live in homes that require a septic tank.

According to Census 2006, we've nearly 420,000 households connected to a septic tank - more than 28% of all households. We've less than one tenth of their population, but about 40% more septic tanks.

If we followed the example of the UK, which you seem to be vaguely hinting at, we'd only have 30,000 households using septic tanks. Everyone else would be living in a town, connected to a public system. And, maybe, in that situation it wouldn't matter.

Instead, we sort of know that we've overbuilt in rural areas and destroyed the environment as a result. And, thankfully, there are enough rural dwellers who are honest enough to admit they know that there's a problem; because they are washing in it.

The UK also understand the concept of a Green Belt planning zone.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure you've detected the slight irony, in that you're taking your lead from the UK.

In any event, I think this part of their document is significant, as it suggests you might need to think of some other things we might have followed the UK on.There are some 300,000 septic tanks in England and Wales which treat the sewage from about a million people.

The population of England and Wales is about 56 million. Less that 2% live in homes that require a septic tank.

According to Census 2006, we've nearly 420,000 households connected to a septic tank - more than 28% of all households. We've less than one tenth of their population, but about 40% more septic tanks.

If we followed the example of the UK, which you seem to be vaguely hinting at, we'd only have 30,000 households using septic tanks. Everyone else would be living in a town, connected to a public system. And, maybe, in that situation it wouldn't matter.

Instead, we sort of know that we've overbuilt in rural areas and destroyed the environment as a result. And, thankfully, there are enough rural dwellers who are honest enough to admit they know that there's a problem; because they are washing in it.

Yes it is ironic I know that.

(But as far as I can see they are not blindly pro-EU and nor have they lost their sovereignty to the same extent that we have.)

Back to the point though, surely the systems which were installed in the last 10 years were of a high enough standard to be expected to last at least a couple of decades without causing pollution.

I dont believe anyone deliberately wants to pollute, but here is a genuine fear amongst a lot of people that they are going to be saddled with an enormous bill for remedial work to be done on tanks thrown into the ground by builders.

But we have all heard the stories of what happened during the boom and what engineers were signing off on. I presume they have professional insurance to meet any claims arising from negligence. Yeah sure!

There is no registration fee in the UK as far as I can see.

Going Forward wrote: »

.... nor have they lost their sovereignty to the same extent that we have.

Did they sign some alternative Treaty of Rome?

Going Forward wrote: »

.... surely the systems which were installed in the last 10 years were of a high enough standard to be expected to last at least a couple of decades without causing pollution.

.... a genuine fear amongst a lot of people that they are going to be saddled with an enormous bill for remedial work to be done on tanks thrown into the ground by builders.

With respect, now you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Which are you saying? That you think systems built in the last ten years aren't a problem, as they are modern, or that they are a problem, as they were badly installed?

Are you just slapping out any old post, so long as it vaguely seems to be sticking up for people with septic tanks? I mean, this is an issue about the environment of this State that we share. It's not a GAA match, where you just cheer on your side as they gouge their way to victory.

Going Forward wrote: »

There is no registration fee in the UK as far as I can see.

It's less than 2% of people in the UK. Here it's more than 28% of households. Can you think of any reason why that might influence how things proceed from here?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There are some 300,000 septic tanks in England and Wales which treat the sewage from about a million people.

If you are going to use statistics, use them in a meaningful way.
For example, you could compare the number of septic tanks per square Km of countryside (greenbelt) area in England V Ireland.
Or the number of people using the tanks per sq km.
The number of people living in cities is irrelevant to the argument as to whether the tanks are polluting the countryside, or not.

Similarly, the septic tanks are irrelevant to the argument as to whether municipal systems are up to scratch. ( BTW I doubt you will find any town in England that is allowed to pour raw untreated sewage into their river).

ednwireland

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

According to Census 2006, we've nearly 420,000 households connected to a septic tank - more than 28% of all households. We've less than one tenth of their population, but about 40% more septic tanks.

If we followed the example of the UK, which you seem to be vaguely hinting at, we'd only have 30,000 households using septic tanks. Everyone else would be living in a town, connected to a public system. And, maybe, in that situation it wouldn't matter.

Instead, we sort of know that we've overbuilt in rural areas and destroyed the environment as a result. And, thankfully, there are enough rural dwellers who are honest enough to admit they know that there's a problem; because they are washing in it.

there are quite a few houses in the town i live in (around 5000 people ) that have septic tanks in a number of instances the council refused to connect more houses to the mains sewers (mainly because there was no sewage treatment just pumped straight to see) now there is a sewage treatment works the council still refuses to connect up estates to mains sewage - go figure

(some of these need pipework extensions but some have the main going past there front doors)

recedite wrote: »

The number of people living in cities is irrelevant to the argument as to whether the tanks are polluting the countryside, or not.

Similarly, the septic tanks are irrelevant to the argument as to whether municipal systems are up to scratch. ( BTW I doubt you will find any town in England that is allowed to pour raw untreated sewage into their river).

Oh, I’m sure there’s any amount of ways the data might be interpreted; but, bear in mind, I’m responding to someone else’s suggestion that the UK is a relevant comparison. And it certainly is relevant to point out that the UK doesn’t have the same planning free-for-all that we have; anecdotally, people do notice that you can travel through sparsely populated countryside in UK or France. They don’t really do the bungalow every few hundred yards thing.

Plus, am I right in saying that the degree of pollution has to do not just with the density of tanks, but whether they’ve been correctly sited. Ireland has them in karst areas, where its just a bad idea.

Anyway, if you’ve value to add to the analysis, please do.

ednwireland wrote: »

there are quite a few houses in the town i live in (around 5000 people ) that have septic tanks in a number of instances the council refused to connect more houses to the mains sewers (mainly because there was no sewage treatment just pumped straight to see) now there is a sewage treatment works the council still refuses to connect up estates to mains sewage - go figure

'tis true. There's a lot of lost opportunity in what we've done.

The comparison with England is a fair one. They responded early to the same EU directive that we are being taken to court for ignoring.
They have 300,000 odd septic tanks, and we have 400,000 odd.
Now they are abandoning the same knee-jerk reaction that we are just starting to experience.
Its a bit like being short of cash and arriving at the banklink machine, only to be told by the guy already at it that the ATM isn't working.
You can still put your card in, and go through the motions, but in the back of your mind you just know it won't solve your problem.

recedite wrote: »

The comparison with England is a fair one. They responded early to the same EU directive that we are being taken to court for ignoring.
They have 300,000 odd septic tanks, and we have 400,000 odd.
Now they are abandoning the same knee-jerk reaction that we are just starting to experience.
Its a bit like being short of cash and arriving at the banklink machine, only to be told by the guy already at it that the ATM isn't working.
You can still put your card in, and go through the motions, but in the back of your mind you just know it won't solve your problem.

There were 26.3 million households in the UK in 2011. And 300k tanks, less than 1%.

In Ireland there are 1.46million households and 400k tanks. 27% of households.

It's a bit like saying that banks in the UK should react in the same way if one ATM goes down as Irish banks react when almost a third of ATMs across the country are down.

Patent nonsense.

We were referring to England, which is part of GB, which in turn is a part of the UK. The issue with septic tanks is one of possible pollution in the countryside.
I think the land area of England is slightly bigger than Ireland, but more of it is concreted over. It has slightly fewer septic tanks as discussed earlier. It has similar climate and soils. Construction methods for houses and septic tanks have been historically very similar. All in all its a fair comparison.
If you can come up with statistics to contradict these general observations, feel free.

recedite wrote: »

We were referring to England, which is part of GB, which in turn is a part of the UK. The issue with septic tanks is one of possible pollution in the countryside.

I'm in awe of your geographical knowledge.

I think the land area of England is slightly bigger than Ireland, but more of it is concreted over.

Wow, really. I guess having large cities with populations the size of the population of Ireland will do that. It also has large areas where sticking up a bungalow is not considered appropriate and where 18th and 19th century stone built houses are considered worth doing up and living in, rather than a handy yoke for keeping a few bales in.

It has slightly fewer septic tanks as discussed earlier.

Per head of population it has 27 times fewer.

It has similar climate and soils. Construction methods for houses and septic tanks have been historically very similar. All in all its a fair comparison.

It has a miniscule problem with septic tanks compared to Ireland. Comparing the two is like comparing mosquito control approaches in Spain and Ireland.

If you can come up with statistics to contradict these general observations, feel free.

Posters have done. You appeared to ignored them.

Alun

recedite wrote: »

I think the land area of England is slightly bigger than Ireland ...

Try nearly twice as much

Alun wrote: »

Try nearly twice as much

England;129,720 sq Km, less the 21% concreted over, equals 102,478 sq Km of countryside. source
Ireland; 84,421 sq Km
Republic of Ireland; 70,273 sq Km.

Its a mistake to get caught up in these statistics anyway. If you knew anything about septic tanks, you would know that construction methods, climate and soil type are more important than densities.

recedite wrote: »

Its a mistake to get caught up in these statistics anyway. If you knew anything about septic tanks, you would know that construction methods, climate and soil type are more important than densities.

Population density is pretty damn important when it comes to the economics of providing waste water treatments systems.

If you are going to try and argue that allowing random dots of households all across rural areas hasn't contributed to the water pollution issues across Ireland, I think you'd be wise to reconsider.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Did they sign some alternative Treaty of Rome?With respect, now you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Which are you saying? That you think systems built in the last ten years aren't a problem, as they are modern, or that they are a problem, as they were badly installed?

Are you just slapping out any old post, so long as it vaguely seems to be sticking up for people with septic tanks? I mean, this is an issue about the environment of this State that we share. It's not a GAA match, where you just cheer on your side as they gouge their way to victory.It's less than 2% of people in the UK. Here it's more than 28% of households. Can you think of any reason why that might influence how things proceed from here?

I'm not sure what part you're having difficulty understanding.

You do realise that many people who have septic tanks had them installed during the "building boom".
In normal circumstances, one could expect that construction standards would comply with regulations.

However recent reports of evidence to the contrary such as the quality of workmanship on the Priory Hall complex, the methane problems in the Longford housing estate, pyrite, and other issues which appear to be unresolvable and general anecdotal evidence of labourers, builders and developers cutting corners would suggest that homeowners may well not have septic tank systems which through no fault of their own may not be compliant and will need to be rectified, and they will be left footing the bill for any work which may be required-work which they originally paid for in good faith.

Here's a question- If they were badly installed, who should foot the bill? The installer or the occupier?

The main resistance to registering in my opinion is mainly down to a fear of being told that a system will now require work which the owner cannot afford, and the perception that the fee is another stealth tax.

If have no time for anyone knowingly polluting.
Nor have I time for those who built dishonestly knowing that the inexperienced buyer would be left with something that would half-work for a few years.

I accept your point about the difference in the amount of tanks in the UK versus Ireland and the relative potential for pollution but are you suggesting that the UK as a country with its own currency and which is not accepting loans from the lenders of last resort and taking orders from the ECB IMF and the EU and which has a healthy EU scepticism has the same sovereignty issues as the Ireland?

Points have also been made elsewhere in this thread about "monstrosities" and lifestyles of rural areas etc.

From my experience at least they are far more socially preferable any day to the equally poorly planned future ghettos that have now been built in almost every town in Ireland.

Going Forward wrote: »

Points have also been made elsewhere in this thread about "monstrosities" and lifestyles of rural areas etc.

From my experience at least they are far more socially preferable any day to the equally poorly planned future ghettos that have now been built in almost every town in Ireland.

Future ghettos? Such as?