Home » From The Readers, Letters to the Editor » Fix Defective Septic Systems Regulations

Fix Defective Septic Systems Regulations

adeq logoSedona AZ (October 13, 2014) – The following is a letter to the SedonaEye.com editor:

Sent via email … Monday … 13 Oct 14
Greetings Ed Swanson & Joelle Wirth
Re: A316
Attn: OWAC members, ADEQ management, Interested Parties

I address this to the two of you as you were actively involved in the discussions of the pre-2001 GRRC approval of the original “rule” … whose foundation remains largely unchanged save application of multi-colored band-aids liberally applied in 2005.

GRANDFATHEREDBlack’s Law Dictionary defines “grandfather clause” as “an exception to a restriction that allows all those already doing something to continue doing it even if they would be stopped by the new restriction.” Thus, “grandfathering” is allowing an existing operation or conduct to continue legally when a new operation or conduct would be illegal.

USUAL & CUSTOMARY Black’s Law Dictionary … defines usual as habitual, customary, ordinary, according to usage or custom, commonly established, observed or practiced…

I draw your attention to these two words as they appear to loom as major points for each of you, as well as OWAC Chairman Garrett, in the last A316 phone conference … especially in reference to ‘WATER TIGHT”.

It was projected by government regulators there were about 150,000 – 200,000 plus/minus septic systems in the ground prior to 2001 rule … precisely what “water tight” standard do you feel authentically can be applied to those septic tanks…? And moreover what “standards” do you choose to be authentically applied to the installation, rock, “cinders” used, blasted leach lines, etc. all usual and customary installations practices liberally utilized in virtually all counties in Arizona at the time, slope of site, burial depth, access to system, etc…?

Note… to the best of my knowledge, this type of information (education and sharing) is not currently provided as part of our education, training, certification, yet by application of ADEQ rule these folks are declared “qualified”…? How is this possible…?

As I attempted to note on the most recent A316 call … I have in my files pictures of tanks I installed prior to 2001 in many parts of Arizona in different counties noting substantive damage to the integrity of the tank prior to it being off-loaded and placed in the ground subsequently approved by the county regulator who was either on site at the time or made aware of the situation.

What is objectionable is the arbitrary choice today to apply a “standard” not usual nor customary prior to 2001 to septic tanks mfr and installed in Arizona … by choosing to “cherry-pick” to what “grandfather” applies…

An example of a home septic and drainage system

An example of a home septic and drainage system

When I first began installing septic systems in the early 1970’s … there were few concrete septic tank mfr and they were under absolutely NO “declared” written quality control standards imposed by state or county … in fact most of the pre-cast forms used by these vendors utilized three components … floor … oval shaped walls … top lid … (there was no partition as these were single chamber vessels) these vessels were not sold nor installed as being “water tight “as it was “customary” to conclude that over time and usage leaks would be “naturally” sealed. Moreover we were fortunate to get concrete tanks delivery to many of the more remote or rocky sites … these conditions were well known to state and county regulators…

It is “chicken-shit” on the part of government regulators state/county to continue to fall on the “water-tight” sword while on the other hand … and to use one of Ed’s favorites … “wink, wink”… to refuse to authentically address the CESS(P)OOL issue … We know they are there, they are being used and in many cases on sites by “standards” too small to support what “we” today define as a legal septic system and often in areas at one time marginally economically viable or in a similar condition today. Why are “we” afraid to address and resolve this issue, IF, in fact it is a bona-fide health issue…?

This is disingenuous as on the other hand county regulators simultaneously and steadfastly sanction the viability of SEEPAGE PITS … many in excess of 80 feet deep…

QUALIFIED INSPECTOR … As I recall this topic was an ignition point for discussion in meetings prior to 2001 and as I recall little common ground was attainted …

Much of this consternation was generated by the prevailing open hostility between ADEQ and the UPC Commission.

Please recall the directive of GRRC at the first hearing to ADEQ and UPC to resolve their differences… As you recall, Ed, both you and I and Chuck Graf and Doug Cullinane, et. al. were members on that joint commission…

Today’s discussion about qualified inspector harkens back to our collective unwillingness to come to grips with who controls education and training. As I recall this field was wide open and initially Kitt as well as Trotta chose to step in … over time Trotta chose to bow out leaving Kitt perhaps by default at the helm …

Perhaps NAWT is not the best education and training tool, but so far I don’t see anyone coming to the plate with anything better… though not because they have been denied opportunity…

NOWRA was offered and they conducted meetings here and in Albuquerque and many of us supported this effort initially.

This topic education, training, certification was on the burner prior to 2001 and is now on-going for more than 14 years and instead of leaving prejudices at the door and starting anew … fingers are pointed … judgments made … no substantive change occurs …

Given the current complexion of OWAC and ADEQ management it is highly unlikely any substantive change will be made in this area as we simply do not have that caliber of leadership…

Put on the HAT of the buyer … what qualifications of an inspector are paramount and fundamentally important to him/her…?

· After going through the dance about education, training, certification they want to know IF there is a problem … who can they hold accountable and how fast and for how much …$$$… remember America is a very litigious society…

· Of all A316 categories classified as qualified inspectors who can the buyer hold legally accountable in a reasonably timely fashion…?

o And please do not tell me a P.E. … R.S. … as I am familiar with this process as I witness individuals who did not get a hearing for more than 18 months and the hearing was a joke as the Board of Technical Registration operated as a kangaroo court.

o SEPTIC PUMPERS … not hardly … as they normally do not have any errors and omissions insurance policies covering their actions and/or their employees … moreover they have no performance type bond which an owner can go after.

o REALTORS … NO … as they write the sales/purchase agreement to eliminate anyone holding them accountable …

o REGULATORS … thanks to rule, ADEQ excluded themselves from being a party to any agreement between buyer-seller thereby eliminating accountability…

o CONTRACTORS … currently holding bona-fide license with ROC … YES … as they have insurance and a bond and regulatory agency with legacy of being rather “pro” consumer in the residential arena…

The qualification arena has for me not only been a “stacked” deck but an area where the Az Onsite industry chooses to “wink, wink” play games not being willing to acknowledge that likely in 8 out 10 cases the first call any homeowner with a septic problem makes is to the septic pumper … and yet you on OWAC choose to arbitrarily and capriciously throw them under the bus … I wonder how this will play out at GRRC…? Or does OWAC/ADEQ expect the SEPTIC PUMPERS to allow a significant portion of their income to be taken without a fight…?

You can hide this for the time being but at some point OWAC/ADEQ will have to at least put on their proverbial “dog & pony” show allegedly obtaining and answering the public’s comment about their RULE and this topic and its associated tentacles will be exposed…

You are unquestioningly aware the tentacles of A316 touch upon a host of other unaddressed and unresolved issues in our current onsite rule.

There are answers, but, without full disclosure, transparency and authentic input from “we” – the people – expecting compliance from the public with any rule REVISION is simply not going to happen.

CHANGE is needed and though it is comfortable to cling to those processes utilized, and successfully in the past, the change required today necessitates a willingness to leave our comfort zones and stretch. In fact stretch far beyond that which we feel we are capable to embrace thoughts, ideas, people, science, strange, perplexing, contrary …

Einstein noted it better and more succinctlyNo problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it

Regards.

Paul F. Miller

PO Box 47146

Phoenix, Arizona 85068-7146

 

For the best Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

For the best Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

1 Comment

  1. Ryan says:

    we know it runs downhill right??? beware Cottonwood!!!

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·