I could post hundreds of these types of articles; county and state officials requiring people to pump septic tanks to protect groundwater. .
CHESTERFIELD, VA (WWBT) -
Many homeowners in Chesterfield are shelling out big bucks to get rid of their waste under county law.
Some think the rule stinks!
Reminder letters went out to homeowners last month to pump their septic tanks, meaning a busy time at the wastewater treatment plant.
While one homeowner sees the necessity, he thinks the requirement is a burden.
As Stemmle Plumbing drops a hose into Mike Philips' septic tank, he writes a $250 check.
"Another expense brought upon by a law that I believe needs to be reviewed and decided by the people it's affecting," said Philips.
There are more than 22,000 septic tanks in Chesterfield.
Since January, more than 6200 homeowners have received letters from the county health department to get them pumped.
It's a requirement every five years.
The county has the ordinance because of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, which recommends pumping every five years to keep sewage from contaminating ground water.
But Stemmle said it also prolongs the life of the septic system.
Could someone please describe to me exactly how the act of removing sludge from a septic tank protects groundwater? It just makes no sense to me. I am pretty sure that the county guy knows that pumping the septic does nothing to protect groundwater, so why do they actively force the proliferation of this myth?
I have a feeling this silliness is part of a broader plan to firmly implant the thought in people's minds that onsite systems are bad. The goal of course is for local and state governments to belly up to the federal trough and get their hands on tax dollars to build sewage treatment plants. Big centralized sewage treatment plants bring in a ton of money to the county government and also transfer a lot of control to them. So, if they can make you believe that your septic system is a polluter, they can also get you to fork over some money to connect to their system.
Do onsite system manufacturers share some of the responsibility that allows regulatory agencies to advance the notion that even advanced onsite systems are inadequate? I think so.
Once an advanced system has received, for instance, NSF approval, it is simply rubber-stamped by most states as being approved for unlimited installation. Most of the state programs never bother to test the systems being installed so, essentially, state-wide approval is granted based on a single data point, NSF approval.
Under the vastly different conditions encountered in the field, compared to NSF test conditions, most of these systems do not meet the numerical standards set by the state. This is when the shenanigans begin. Maryland, for instance, must have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars developing numerical nitrogen standards necessary, in their opinion, to protect and rehabilitate Chesapeake Bay. New onsite systems were required to meet these standards and Maryland selected several brand-name systems and identified them as "Best Available Technology." These systems were paid for, at least in part, with tax dollars. Well, apparently, the Best Available Technology could not meet the legal numeric standards for nitrogen in actual field conditions. Did the state de-certify the manufacturer? Did the state require the manufacturer to bring the systems into compliance? Did the state require the manufacture to do anything? No, No and No. The state of maryland simply ignored, discarded or othewrwise turned a blind eye to the standards that they spent so much time, tax payer money and effort developing and simply raised the legal standard to one that manufacturer could meet. Therefore, because the Best Available Technology could not meet the standard that was found to be necessary to protect the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, the state of Maryland simply adjusted the standard to allow the onsite system to discharge 50% more nitrogen.
Because this system carries the designation BEST , it must be the best onsite treatment technology available. And, if the best available onsite technology cannot even come close to meeting the standard necessary to protect the Bay, then NO onsite technology exists that can meet the standard. Right?
Since no onsite technology is capable of meeting the standard.....the public gets to pay more and more money for big pipe sewers, massive lift stations, back-up generators, huge treatment plants and hundreds of additional personel to provide full time operation and maintenance. Pretty clever, don't you think?
This is why Maryland, and other states, are reluctant to consider systems that actually meet the regulations. If they allow affordable onsite systems producing compliant effluent at an affordable price, they lose the argument that no systems can meet the standards and the only way to save the groundwater is to build expensive, revenue generating sewage treatment plants.
I am not taking issue with a requirement to maintain an onsite system. What bothers me is that the regulatory agencies choose to use fear as motivation. If they can convince you that you are in danger, you are more likely to surrender to them in return for their protection. Many manufacturers play directly into this opting for the quick buck rather than developing systems that will function reliably for long periods of time.
The most favorable conditions for an advanced onsite system would be warm temperatures and elevation at or near sea level. Warm temperatures increase the activity of the microorganisms that are responsible for treating the wastewater and, because these microorganisms need oxygen, lower elevations translate to higher oxygen concentration. In contrast, the harshest conditions for an onsite system is cold temperature and high elevation. I have compared Eliminite systems operating in Montana and Colorado(cold climate, high elevation) to Best Available Technology operating, for example in Maryland(warm climate, low elevation) and found that the Eliminite systems in the harsh conditions discharge less than half the nitrogen of the systems operating in the favorable climate.
With Eliminite systems operating in warmer climates, we see about five times less nitrogen being discharged. Also, and this is important, the Eliminte system costs thousands less.