Septic tank charges

murphaph · 10-02-2012 2:07pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

What is worrying is that people might actually look at that table and believe it

The table is accurate and correct.

Not all rural areas are abundant in natural resources that the evil cities are gobbling up gratis.

The only resource that at present is delivered to city dwellers free of charge that does not originate in the city is water.

What does (just for example) Laois or Offaly provide (free of charge!) to urban areas that makes them worthy of free social transfers back?

As Scofflaw has stated, this is not an urban/rural thing, it's a septic tank/no septic tank thing. Did septic tank owners believe that no changes would ever be needed to their systems? No maintenance? No inspections? Did they believe these installations would just continue to function properly ad infinitum?

If not, then who did you expect to pay for maintenance, upgrades etc?

(If I have a car that no longer meets the emissions requirements to get an NCT pass, do other motorists pay for my new engine?)

Tipp Man · 10-02-2012 2:35pm

murphaph wrote: »

As Scofflaw has stated, this is not an urban/rural thing, it's a septic tank/no septic tank thing. Did septic tank owners believe that no changes would ever be needed to their systems? No maintenance? No inspections? Did they believe these installations would just continue to function properly ad infinitum?

If not, then who did you expect to pay for maintenance, upgrades etc?

Well actually a properly functioning septic tank needs hardly any maintainence or changes - thats the idea of it. Messing around with it affects the levels of bacteria in it which can stop it working properly

Regarding the inspections - I still haven't seen anybody answer why the large number of people previously involved in the planning area cannot be reassigned to septic tank patrol with not further costs. What the hell are all these people doing now anyway??

there is maintainence and upgrading of urban sewage systems as well which individual urban people are not paying for - so people with septic tanks have to pay to have their excrement dealt with but urban people don't??

also I am going to have Tipp Coco inspect my tank - yet Tipp Coco are putting untreated sewage from my nearest village directly into the river - they are also sending raw sewage from another development (built in 50's or 60's) directly into the river - yet these are the same guys who are coming out to inspect my septic tank and make me pay for the priveledge?? And if my septic tank isn't up to scratch then i have to pay to change it while they continue to pump raw sewage into the river. It'd be funny if it wasn't costing me money and polluting the river at the same time

BeeDI · 10-02-2012 2:39pm

Tora Bora wrote: »

You forgot to mention, that the cost of food today, as a proportion to the average industrial wage, is lower than at any point in recent history.
The CAP, payments to farmers, are the key to this. Most food is produced at or below the cost of farm gate selling price. Without the CAP subsidies, food production would drop, prices would rice, the consumer would pick up the tab.
The direct CAP subsidies, to Irish farmers, are infact indirect subsidies to urban consumers.
You can rest assured, the "gurus", who run the global economies, including Europe and USA, who bless and allow these farm subsidies, do not do it, because of love for the rural populations. In fact they dont give a sh1tt about the rural population, simply because they dont make up the big portion of the votes cast at election time.
Their overwhelming focus is to ensure cheap food for the masses, who are largely in the cities and large town. The most effective way to do that is through farm subsidies.
When you say your prayers tonight, say one for the CAP, that keeps your steak and chips affordable.:cool:

You are bang on the money there! In practically all developed countries, the cost of food production exceeds farm gate price. The direct transfers to farmers, are primarily to prevent food price inflation, as farmers would cease or reduce production without such subsidies, leading to inevitable food price inflation at the consumer end.
You are also correct to state, that cost of food for the average consumer today as a proportion of say average industrial wage, is much less than it was say in the beginning to middle of last century.
CAP benefits, Scofflaw as much as it benefits, the farmer who produces the milk for his tea:cool:

Tipp Man · 10-02-2012 2:43pm

BeeDI wrote: »

You are bang on the money there! In practically all developed countries, the cost of food production exceeds farm gate price. The direct transfers to farmers, are primarily to prevent food price inflation, as farmers would cease or reduce production without such subsidies, leading to inevitable food price inflation at the consumer end.
You are also correct to state, that cost of food for the average consumer today as a proportion of say average industrial wage, is much less than it was say in the beginning to middle of last century.
CAP benefits, Scofflaw as much as it benefits, the farmer who produces the milk for his tea:cool:

People are in for a massive surprise/shock in the next 10-20 years as they will actually be spending a lot more of their wages on food. Especially in Western Countries where the majority have become accostemed to cheap food.

Liam Byrne · 10-02-2012 3:58pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Didn't expect strawmanning from you.

Comparing commercial rates and domestic charges to support your argument is absolutely farcical, as is dismissing the point saying that "there's no extra cost".

More sewage lines = more (time spent on) inspections = more cost.

No, there's no new costs associated with the inspections of sewage systems generally, because they've been inspected all along. The septic tank inspections, on the other hand, are entirely new - that is, they haven't been done before (except in Cavan).

In turn, that generates a new charge on the local authorities, who have to find that money somewhere. They could:

(a) raise their commercial rates,
(b) use the household charge,
(c) get more money from central government
(d) charge directly for septic tank registration

Of those:

(a) is difficult, because rural areas areas are the ones with septic tanks, while urban areas are the ones with businesses
(b) the household charge appears to be already earmarked for other things
(c) the central government doesn't have any spare money
(d) generates a lot of whinging

Now, of those options, (b) and (d) are obviously the most sensible, and (d) is obviously the fairer of the two.

As to the commercial rates - mine have gone up another €300 this year to €1500 on a relatively small office, so I find the brughaha over a €50 septic tank registration fee rather laughable. Commercial rates are currently what pays for local authority spending, but I doubt commercial rates in your local authority area are anything like mine. I'd obviously welcome a return of domestic rates if it meant commercial rates went down, because overall I'd likely gain.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yet again you're comparing commercial rates to domestic rates.

Someone could live in the countryside and still run a business in an urban area; they now have to pay both.

You're just dismissing it because it doesn't affect you.

Plus you're wrong in saying that the inspections are "paid for anyway".......most urban businesses are in industrial parks or main streets, with sprawling housing estates and their sewers being miles and miles longer than they would otherwise need to be. For each housing estate added, there could be 20 miles of extra inspections required - the inspection of that wasn't "paid for anyway" as it wouldn't be required if those dwellings didn't exist.

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 4:25pm

BeeDI wrote: »

You are bang on the money there! In practically all developed countries, the cost of food production exceeds farm gate price. The direct transfers to farmers, are primarily to prevent food price inflation, as farmers would cease or reduce production without such subsidies, leading to inevitable food price inflation at the consumer end.
You are also correct to state, that cost of food for the average consumer today as a proportion of say average industrial wage, is much less than it was say in the beginning to middle of last century.
CAP benefits, Scofflaw as much as it benefits, the farmer who produces the milk for his tea:cool:

Does it? In the absence of CAP, would we not simply import our food from cheaper countries, as we already do in the case of foods not grown here?

Food imports to Ireland soared by 50pc between 2002 and 2007 and we now import €4.7bn worth -- some 3.7 million tonnes in all.

That means it accounts for nearly half of all the food we eat in this country, which Safefood said was down to changing consumer tastes and a desire for a wider variety of foods.

But the most crucial issue is cost, as many foods can be produced more cheaply overseas.

Cereals, fruit and vegetables, prepared food such as chocolate, and drinks such as coffee and tea, are our main food imports.

We also import over €1bn worth of meat and dairy products despite being a major exporter of these products ourselves.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 4:26pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yet again you're comparing commercial rates to domestic rates.

Someone could live in the countryside and still run a business in an urban area; they now have to pay both.

You're just dismissing it because it doesn't affect you.

Plus you're wrong in saying that the inspections are "paid for anyway".......most urban businesses are in industrial parks or main streets, with sprawling housing estates and their sewers being miles and miles longer than they would otherwise need to be. For each housing estate added, there could be 20 miles of extra inspections required - the inspection of that wasn't "paid for anyway" as it wouldn't be required if those dwellings didn't exist.

In fact, the extra work there would be subsidised by the developer levy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob · 10-02-2012 4:33pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

also I am going to have Tipp Coco inspect my tank - yet Tipp Coco are putting untreated sewage from my nearest village directly into the river - they are also sending raw sewage from another development (built in 50's or 60's) directly into the river - yet these are the same guys who are coming out to inspect my septic tank and make me pay for the priveledge?? And if my septic tank isn't up to scratch then i have to pay to change it while they continue to pump raw sewage into the river. It'd be funny if it wasn't costing me money and polluting the river at the same time

I mentioned this logic bomb long ago. Unsurprisingly the urban 'pro inspection' mob in this thread went straight to ground and never answered any of it.

In your case the worst polluter probably is the council so.

1. Your 'fixing' your septic tank will do nothing to fix local pollution.
2. You must pay, through YOUR taxes to eventually fix the council schemes.
3. The people on the council schemes will not have to pay any more than you will to fix their problem and will not be subject to annual charges for maintaining the fix thereafter...which fix will probably be a group septic tank.

The whole thing stinks, highly inequitable and discriminatory.

And if you have a well instead of a public water scheme, Tipp Man...You will have to meter it or pay flat rate water charges next year.

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 4:35pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

You have completly avoided my point about reallocating the current resources in county councils to provide for inspections

I have never said anything about wanting inspections or not - so not sure what you are accepting

Sorry - the general "you" rather than you particularly!

As to re-allocating council resources - I didn't start discussing that because it's rather obviously an option.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 4:42pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I mentioned this logic bomb long ago. Unsurprisingly the urban 'pro inspection' mob in this thread went straight to ground and never answered any of it.

In your case the worst polluter probably is the council so.

1. Your 'fixing' your septic tank will do nothing to fix local pollution.

It will, it just won't fix all pollution.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2. You must pay, through YOUR taxes to eventually fix the council schemes.

True, although the council will still almost certainly be receiving a large subsidy from central government which will primarily be produced by taxation of urban areas.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

3. The people on the council schemes will not have to pay any more than you will to fix their problem and will not be subject to annual charges for maintaining the fix thereafter...which fix will probably be a group septic tank.

Except whatever council charges they're paying, obviously.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The whole thing stinks, highly inequitable and discriminatory.

And if you have a well instead of a public water scheme, Tipp Man...You will have to meter it or pay flat rate water charges next year.

And that one's just wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BeeDI · 10-02-2012 4:42pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Does it? In the absence of CAP, would we not simply import our food from cheaper countries, as we already do in the case of foods not grown here?

cordially,
Scofflaw

CAP is paid to all farmers in the EU. US government, pays similar subsidies to it's farmers. Russia and the federated union countries, do not produce enough to feed themselves. Australia is a net importer of food, particularly due to ongoing and increased frequency of drought. Africa is a basket case. Highly populated countries in Asia, barely cover their own needs at a push. There have been food riots in Philippines, Malaysia, and indeed in parts of China over the past 5 years.
Now you are left with NZ, Brazil, Argentina, and I don't know who else, to supply the rest of the world with food which does not attract some form of direct subsidy.
Do you still believe, you would not have to part with more of your urban dosh, to feed yourself, if the subsidies to farmers dried up?

PS: The food produced in the likes of Brazil, Argentina, etc, which does not attract subsidy from central government, is also produced under a totally unregulated regime.
The use of pesticides, hormones, etc, is uncontrolled. Hence the recent ban on the importation of oranges and orange juice from Brazil into USA, due to persistent
findings of residues of banned substances, from unregulated pesticide application.

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 4:46pm

Tipp Man wrote:

also I am going to have Tipp Coco inspect my tank - yet Tipp Coco are putting untreated sewage from my nearest village directly into the river - they are also sending raw sewage from another development (built in 50's or 60's) directly into the river - yet these are the same guys who are coming out to inspect my septic tank and make me pay for the priveledge?? And if my septic tank isn't up to scratch then i have to pay to change it while they continue to pump raw sewage into the river. It'd be funny if it wasn't costing me money and polluting the river at the same time

This is a huge "so what?", I'm afraid. Nobody has forced the Irish councils to clean up their act on their own sewage facilities, but they are being forced to clean up their act on septic tanks. You're arguing that because they haven't fixed one pollution source they shouldn't fix another, and that's an idiotic argument, because you can equally well apply it the other way round - why should they start cleaning up sewage outfall when all those septic tanks are potentially polluting?

regards,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob · 10-02-2012 4:47pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

And that one's just wrong.

No it isn't. I have seen the EU Commission 'opinion' on the matter and 'Universal' Water Charges, including wells, were conceded last month by the Irish Government as I understand. See:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1433&format=DOC&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

On a separate issue your reliance on the Developer levy is erroneous.

1. Most are subject to clawback if not already spent ....since the Barna Bypass case last year.
2. Most sewage schemes come from Central Funds anyway and did even during the bubble.
3. What developer levies.

Have we any developers nowadays,???

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 4:48pm

BeeDI wrote: »

CAP is paid to all farmers in the EU. US government, pays similar subsidies to it's farmers. Russia and the federated union countries, do not produce enough to feed themselves. Australia is a net importer of food, particularly due to ongoing and increased frequency of drought. Africa is a basket case. Highly populated countries in Asia, barely cover their own needs at a push. There have been food riots in Philippines, Malaysia, and indeed in parts of China over the past 5 years.
Now you are left with NZ, Brazil, Argentina, and I don't know who else, to supply the rest of the world with which does not attract some form of direct subsidy.
Do you still believe, you would not have to part with more of your urban dosh, to feed yourself, if the subsidies to farmers dried up?

Sure, and I'm not even slightly alone in that view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne · 10-02-2012 4:49pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, the extra work there would be subsidised by the developer levy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Connecting, yes.

But ongoing ? Every year for the 50 or 100 or 150 years that the estate might be in existence ?

Even glossing over the fact that this completely contradicts what you claimed earlier about there being no extra cost, are you telling me that the developer paid for all that up-front ?

200 houses x €50 inspection charge x 100 years = €100,000 extra ?

Of course, given the Priory House level of building - ahem - standards that were used for most urban identikit "housing", they might have only had to pay €10,000 extra to cover 10 years.

Liam Byrne · 10-02-2012 4:51pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is a huge "so what?", I'm afraid. Nobody has forced the Irish councils to clean up their act on their own sewage facilities, but they are being forced to clean up their act on septic tanks. You're arguing that because they haven't fixed one pollution source they shouldn't fix another, and that's an idiotic argument, because you can equally well apply it the other way round - why should they start cleaning up sewage outfall when all those septic tanks are potentially polluting?

a) they're legislating for the one that doesn't cost THEM
b) people usually fix the biggest problems first, if they have any sense - particularly if they are being fined by Europe based on the level of pollution

Would you seriously stick a plug in a dripping tap without fixing the leak in the mains behind it that was gushing water around your ankles as you were fixing the tap ?

murphaph · 10-02-2012 4:51pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well actually a properly functioning septic tank needs hardly any maintainence or changes - thats the idea of it. Messing around with it affects the levels of bacteria in it which can stop it working properly

The bolded bit is of course key!

Tipp Man wrote: »

Regarding the inspections - I still haven't seen anybody answer why the large number of people previously involved in the planning area cannot be reassigned to septic tank patrol with not further costs. What the hell are all these people doing now anyway??

Totally agree yith you-the councils have an abundance of arse scratchers who could be redeployed and if not happy should be made redundant.

Tipp Man wrote: »

there is maintainence and upgrading of urban sewage systems as well which individual urban people are not paying for - so people with septic tanks have to pay to have their excrement dealt with but urban people don't??
This is one of the economies of scale that us urban dwellers have. If people want the rural idyll lifestyle then they have to accept that this will result in a loss to them of the economies of scalle broaught about by living in close proximity to your fellow man. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it...it's one or the other. I choose urban living for the public sewers, public transport and easy access to thousands of amenities on my doorstep. You (I presume, correct me if I'm wrong) choose not to live in a city because you don't want these things or at least don't want them at the "expense" of having to live in close proximity to others or because of other downsides (perceived or real) of urban living (increased crime, more pollution and litter for example).

I put up with the downsides of urban living to avail of the benefits, one of which is a communally funded sewage system. The Romans have been doing this for several thousand years-it's not a new concept.

Tipp Man wrote: »

also I am going to have Tipp Coco inspect my tank - yet Tipp Coco are putting untreated sewage from my nearest village directly into the river - they are also sending raw sewage from another development (built in 50's or 60's) directly into the river - yet these are the same guys who are coming out to inspect my septic tank and make me pay for the priveledge?? And if my septic tank isn't up to scratch then i have to pay to change it while they continue to pump raw sewage into the river. It'd be funny if it wasn't costing me money and polluting the river at the same time

Tipp Co Co should not be pumping any untreated sewage into any rivers, but they (or a competent, perhaps contracted and efficient body) should be inspecting your tank, given the internationally proven risks of septic tanks to water quality. It's not an either or, it's a both!

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 4:55pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

No it isn't. I have seen the EU Commission 'opinion' on the matter and 'Universal' Water Charges, including wells, were conceded last month by the Irish Government as I understand. See:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1433&format=DOC&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

I don't have an objection to being corrected, but I don't see that in there, and can't find any source stating that this is the case - Citizen's Information, which is generally kept pretty up to date, definitely states the opposite:

Private wells

If you sink your own well, you are not liable for water charges. You are entitled to a grant for the drilling of the well. However, the grant may not cover the full costs of the drilling or any further costs you may run into, for example, filtration. Your water must be tested for pollutants before you can use it.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

On a separate issue your reliance on the Developer levy is erroneous.

1. Most are subject to clawback if not already spent ....since the Barna Bypass case last year.
2. Most sewage schemes come from Central Funds anyway and did even during the bubble.

And those come from...?

Sponge Bob wrote: »

3. What developer levies. Have we any developers nowadays,???

Hence the rise in commercial rates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 5:00pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

a) they're legislating for the one that doesn't cost THEM
b) people usually fix the biggest problems first, if they have any sense - particularly if they are being fined by Europe based on the level of pollution

Would you seriously stick a plug in a dripping tap without fixing the leak in the mains behind it that was gushing water around your ankles as you were fixing the tap ?

I wouldn't, personally, but Irish councils, left entirely to their own devices, probably wouldn't fix either, and would then apply for flood relief.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob · 10-02-2012 5:00pm

Here is an example of how Dublins drinking water is being compromised by an over reliance on developer levies that simply do not exist. Why are the users of public schemes not required to contriibute to fix issues like this one.

http://www.kildare.ie/ballymoreanglers/2009/03/ballymore_eustace_proposed_new.html

Re: Proposed New Sewage Treatment Plant at Ballymore Eustace

Dear Minister,

Since it was founded in 1974 the above Association has been asking Kildare County Council to upgrade the overloaded, antiquated and disgraceful Sewage Treatment Plant at The Strand, Ballymore Eustace to prevent it polluting the River Liffey.
In the mid 1980’s Kildare County Council informed us that Ballymore Eustace would be connected to the Upper Liffey Regional Sewage Treatment Plant at Osberstown, Co. Kildare. This never materialized and then the Council informed us that they would construct a separate Sewage Treatment Plant in Ballymore Eustace but this never materialized either.
In 1998 Kildare County Council gave Planning Permission to a Private Developer to construct a new Sewage Treatment Plant on the site of the County Council Plant but when An Bord Pleanala refused planning permission for the proposed huge development that the Private Developer wished to construct in Ballymore Eustace, the Developer, naturally, did not construct a new Sewage Treatment Plant in Ballymore Eustace. By this time raw sewage was overflowing into the Liffey from the Council’s glorified septic tank.

Oh and there never were any developer levies because there was no real committment to build a treatment plant hence developments were prevented by an Bord Pleanala.

And yet the users of this septic tank pay nothing!!!

Tipp Man · 10-02-2012 5:32pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is a huge "so what?", I'm afraid. Nobody has forced the Irish councils to clean up their act on their own sewage facilities, but they are being forced to clean up their act on septic tanks. You're arguing that because they haven't fixed one pollution source they shouldn't fix another, and that's an idiotic argument, because you can equally well apply it the other way round - why should they start cleaning up sewage outfall when all those septic tanks are potentially polluting?

regards,
Scofflaw

I am paying to have a known polluter inspect my tank which "Potentially" might be polluting

That is hypocrisy of the highest order if ever i have heard it and is typical of this state - like the state bodies are somehow above the law

The volume of pollution created by the Coco is many times, maybe even hundreds of times higher than individual septic tanks

Tipp Man · 10-02-2012 5:35pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, and I'm not even slightly alone in that view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your behind the times Scofflaw - Irish beef, milk and grain are now at the same levels as prices in NZ, Brazil and Argentina etc. The world price for these commodities has rocketed in the last couple of years and is going to continue to do so

Nowhere in the world is now selling "cheap" commodities onto the world market

Tipp Man · 10-02-2012 5:40pm

murphaph wrote: »

This is one of the economies of scale that us urban dwellers have. If people want the rural idyll lifestyle then they have to accept that this will result in a loss to them of the economies of scalle broaught about by living in close proximity to your fellow man. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it...it's one or the other. I choose urban living for the public sewers, public transport and easy access to thousands of amenities on my doorstep. You (I presume, correct me if I'm wrong) choose not to live in a city because you don't want these things or at least don't want them at the "expense" of having to live in close proximity to others or because of other downsides (perceived or real) of urban living (increased crime, more pollution and litter for example).

I put up with the downsides of urban living to avail of the benefits, one of which is a communally funded sewage system. The Romans have been doing this for several thousand years-it's not a new concept.

Economies of scale don't make something free to do/use. There is still very significant costs associated with dealing with urban sewage.

how exactly are you contributing to your sewage treatment?? It's not communally funded as you state as there is no sewage treatment levy in this country

Tipp Man · 10-02-2012 5:48pm

murphaph wrote: »

Tipp Co Co should not be pumping any untreated sewage into any rivers, but they (or a competent, perhaps contracted and efficient body) should be inspecting your tank, given the internationally proven risks of septic tanks to water quality. It's not an either or, it's a both!

Its easy say they should not be doing it - but they ARE doing it - as is nearly every Coco in the country i would say

In fact the Coco are probably the biggest polluters in the country - if you want to talk about risks to water quality then start talking to Coco to see the damage they are doing - its a hell of a lot more than septic tanks could ever do

n97 mini · 10-02-2012 6:19pm

A very simple solution to this argument would be a federal system, where every county has to fund itself by and large out of taxes collected within the county.

I would welcome this as I live in a county that's a net contributor, and my taxes would pay for fantastic amenities. Even in time there would be scope for a tax reduction as the county would continually be running a huge surplus.

Counties that are currently running on subsidies would have to scale back, which would ultimately benefit them too, and their amenities. Councils wouldn't be granting PP for houses on boreens as they wouldn't have the funds to maintain those boreens (as is the case now). Bungalow blight might finally be eradicated, restoring the beautiful Irish countryside! Land could be used for farming, not building houses. Land prices would devalue making farming more cost effective. And so on. Naturally the people whose lifestyles are being subsidised currently would have a problem with this.

Sponge Bob · 10-02-2012 6:42pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

In fact the Coco are probably the biggest polluters in the country - if you want to talk about risks to water quality then start talking to Coco to see the damage they are doing - its a hell of a lot more than septic tanks could ever do

Heres one beauty.

Country Folks out in Eyrecourt co Galway have to get their septic tanks inspected. The local Council sewage scheme has been inadequate for 20 years and is due an upgrade....since 1995. It drains into the Shannon.

The population of the general area, on public and private schemes is around 5000....but HARK.!!!

http://archive.galwayindependent.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12488&Itemid=82

Doctor 'appalled' woman inhaling faeces 22 April 2009.

Treated sewage from Mutton Island is being blamed for the serious illness of at least one local person who lives near Lisbeg Farm in Eyrecourt, where it is being stored, treated and spread on private farmland by a company contracted to Galway City Council. The County council had previous maintained that no planning permission was needed at the facility. However, a spokesperson told the Galway Independent: "The spreading of sludge on lands at this location is being carried out in accordance with the relevant regulations.

So 70,000 peoples worth of Galway City shíte was being dumped in a small part of the Shannon Catchment and the county council considered this kosher in 2009...and for many years before.

Because the development has not been assessed for planning purposes up to now, the council does not know whether it is suitable for storing and processing up to 7,000 tonnes of sludge per year. The treated sludge is spread on ten farms locally as part of a commercial arrangement.

And a county council that did not notice 7,000 tons of extra shíte for years and dumps raw sewage in a local river itself is now fit to inspect septic tanks in Eyrecourt ???? :eek:

In Dublin they got money to thermally treat their sludge and convert to fertiliser. THEN they spread it around Kildare and Wicklow and Carlow and Wexford and call it Biofert or Biocake.

The spreading is paid for by the Department of Agriculture rather than the Corpo all ye Dubs will be happy to hear.

http://www.quinns.ie/bio-fert-agriculture.htm

However mistakes ....happen.

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/county-council-agrees-to-carry-out-tests-on-several-private-wells-688382.html

For those unfamiliar with the intricacies of the sludge business, it was explained that one form of sludge is Biofert which is a dry material which has been treated at temperatures of up to 450 degrees Celsius producing a pasteurised organic material. Another form, Biocake, which was spread at Peppardscastle, is pasteurised, but does not go through the driers, so has a greater water content.
Ordinarily it is considered safe, but it was claimed that 132 tonnes of material transported to Peppardscastle in April had accidentally been mixed with untreated material.
Documents shown to the meeting indicated that the nutrient management plan for the farm allowed for the spreading of 1,015 tonnes of biocake per year. However, the sludge register indicated that 1,589 tonnes of biocake were delivered to the farm between February 26 and 28, and March 1 to 3.

Questions were raised at the meeting as to why the 132 tonnes of contaminated sludge delivered in April were spread before the remainder of the earlier loads had been spread.

Those Wexford people will have to get their septic tanks done too.

ardmacha · 10-02-2012 7:42pm

A very simple solution to this argument would be a federal system,

There is excessive division in Ireland already, thank you.

Excessive fragmentation of government is not desirable where everyone gets themselves into a small category that doesn't subsidise others. People get subsidies in different ways, graduates go to colleges funded by people who do not go to college, sick people attend hospitals funded by well people and so on.

Better to have good policies and stop trying to dump costs on to other citizens.

murphaph · 10-02-2012 8:39pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Economies of scale don't make something free to do/use. There is still very significant costs associated with dealing with urban sewage.

how exactly are you contributing to your sewage treatment?? It's not communally funded as you state as there is no sewage treatment levy in this country

Would you be happier if urban dwellers paid for all their infrastructure provision and maintenance and rural dwellers paid for all theirs?

Mr.Micro · 10-02-2012 9:59pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Its easy say they should not be doing it - but they ARE doing it - as is nearly every Coco in the country i would say

In fact the Coco are probably the biggest polluters in the country - if you want to talk about risks to water quality then start talking to Coco to see the damage they are doing - its a hell of a lot more than septic tanks could ever do

There are a lot of clowns employed by the Coco s and do little or nothing. The Executives sit in their plush offices and when contracts are tendered out, they are often given to the same old faces regardless of the tender price. Its all very well to be laying down septic tank and whatever regulations for the future, they will be futile, unless the CoCo s are sorted out in the way they operate and waste money. When is the Government going to streamline these money pits, so that the public get value for the money that is paid to these bloated unaccountable bodies?

Scofflaw · 10-02-2012 11:27pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

I am paying to have a known polluter inspect my tank which "Potentially" might be polluting

That is hypocrisy of the highest order if ever i have heard it and is typical of this state - like the state bodies are somehow above the law

The council's authority to inspect your septic tank is not based on their moral authority and stainless moral character.

Tipp Man wrote: »

The volume of pollution created by the Coco is many times, maybe even hundreds of times higher than individual septic tanks

Than individual septic tanks, sure. But there are half a million septic tanks in the country, and they're much wider spread. And it's still not an either/or.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Septic tank charges

Comments