Effective April 1, legislation passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly requires municipal treatment plants to charge an extra $1 per 100 gallons for disposal of septage. Pumpers must pay the fee, then collect it from their customers. The Department of Environmental Management expects the increase to put about $500,000 a year in its Bays, Rivers and Watersheds Fund. The agency uses the money to do better testing and monitoring of Narragansett Bay.
Government officials predict the fee could hike the cost of a pump-out by $10 or $12. Based on experience, septage haulers are concerned that the financial impact will be much worse than forecasted, prompting some customers to avoid pumping their systems regularly because of rising costs. The rule also puts pumpers in the hot seat, as customers blame them for the rate increase.
Rhode Island has about 50 haulers, who do not have a state association because they never saw the need for one. For years, the charge for a pump-out from most contractors had remained about the same, says Darlene Gardner, president of Superior Septic Service Inc. in Saunderstown. But since 2004, increased disposal fees have forced Gardner to raise her rates four times, for an overall increase of $60 per job, not including the $10 per 1,000 gallon monitoring tax.
In addition to known rising costs, haulers are concerned that plants will charge a little extra to cover the cost of collecting the money, keeping records, and paying the DEM.
Gardner, a registered septic inspector for Charlestown and North and South Kingstown, is a team instructor for the University of Rhode Island Inspection 100 course. As a member of the URI Onsite Wastewater Steering Committee, she took part in the development, testing and training of the RIDEM Septic System Checkup handbook, which helped establish inspection guidelines throughout the state.
Pumper:
Who proposed this monitoring fee to the legislature?
Gardner:
When the Department of Environmental Management didn’t get the funding it wanted for its Narragansett Bay research, it decided that taxing the disposal of septage would be the least problematic. The department can’t even identify whether these septic tanks are polluting the waterways. It’s been my experience that most homeowners are maintaining their systems. Now they’re being penalized for doing the proper thing.
Collecting the tax from customers can be a big if for pumpers. The DEM hasn’t considered many factors. The department’s financial estimations are based on residential tanks pumped every two or three years. Their average capacity is 1,250 to 1,500 gallons. But if large commercial tanks are cleaned more than once a year, the tax will add up to quite a bit of money for business owners.
When the DEM introduced the proposal, it asked some pumpers for their reactions. It apparently was a formality, as our responses had no affect on the outcome. Afterward, the DEM supplied literature that we could give to customers if they asked what is going on, but made no effort to tell the public that it was the department behind the rate increase, not the pumpers. As my customers call, I inform them of the new rule.
Pumper:
Will the tax have a significant impact on septic business?
Gardner:
It’s hard to say. Pumpers have raised their prices because of escalating fuel costs, discharge fees, and now this monitoring tax. I think people who had their tanks pumped routinely will try stretching the pump-out for yet another year. My biggest concern is that by postponing routine maintenance they’re inviting bigger problems, which could require replacing their systems.
Pumper:
What is the condition of the state’s pumping industry?
Gardner:
We’re mostly small, family-run businesses. The monitoring tax comes at a time when the state is imposing new requirements that make replacing cesspools more costly. Also, communities are creating wastewater management districts that require homeowners to pay more for monitoring and pumping their systems. Therefore, it’s difficult to tell what will happen. We have a lot of issues against us, but rising costs are the biggest. I can see some pumpers running one truck instead of two, so customers won’t be serviced as quickly because they aren’t on a given route.
The DEM and URI Onsite Wastewater Training Center have come a long way in educating homeowners that onsite systems need regular maintenance. However, I feel both agencies are taking giant steps instead of baby ones. Moving too fast and requiring too much from residents will cause a backlash. Homeowners won’t cooperate and say, “Take me to court. I can’t afford to install a $30,000 system.”
Pumper:
What is the new septic regulation?
Gardner:
Before the first of this year, homeowners living in the southern end of Rhode Island could upgrade their cesspools with conventional systems. However, anyone upgrading a system and living a certain distance from the water had to install nitrogen-reducing technology.
The new rule states that residents in the Narrow River watershed and South County salt ponds must install innovative systems. They have no choice. The watershed and salt ponds encompass an enormous area, and I don’t think homeowners in North and South Kingstown, Charlestown, Westerly, and Narragansett realize its extent.
When the DEM proposed the new regulations, it held public hearings, but homeowners were unaware that the rules pertained to them so drastically. Last October, I notified my customers as to what was happening and recommended that, if their system needed upgrading, have plans for a conventional one approved before the end of the year. Some people asked their town officials what was going on, and they had to scurry to find answers.
Many residents are middle aged or elderly, and want to sell their property. They can’t afford an upgrade. If a home is sold with a cesspool or failed system, the buyer has one year to replace it. Adding $30,000 to the purchase price is no way to stimulate our economy or energize a sagging real estate market.
Pumper:
Isn’t there a state revolving fund for those meeting the financial requirements?
Gardner:
Yes, but no elderly person wants to repay a $30,000 loan, even at 2 percent interest.
As an installer, I understand denitrification and the need for it, but think the DEM has gone to an extreme. It estimates that the state has 50,000 cesspools of which 3,000 are in the designated area and must be replaced within five years. The repair rules provide no middle ground.
Homeowners with cesspools should be allowed to upgrade to conventional systems, if they meet certain requirements. If the footprint of the house changes after that, then the owner should be required to upgrade to an innovative system.
While the technologies are good, everything has to work together. The state doesn’t have enough maintenance companies to service denitrification systems, and they require a lot more attention than conventional systems. One concern is that once all these properties have advanced systems and only some are serviced properly, the others will fail. That will be worse for the environment and give denitrification technology a black eye.
Pumper:
Will stiffer rules clean up the ponds?
Gardner:
Not necessarily. They will just minimize further nitrogen impact.
I understand the DEM’s thinking. Cleaning up the environment is good, but it’s difficult during economic slowdowns to dictate that people must spend $30,000 to bring their systems up to code. Some sites, such as those with potable wells, do need denitrification systems, but the regulations are too broad. We need to specify where exceptions, such as living two miles from water, can apply, but the DEM gives no leeway and rejects common sense. It used a shotgun approach instead of judging each site individually.
The new rules slam homeowners from two directions, and those hits on their pocketbooks will reverberate down to the pumpers.
Darlene Gardner of Superior Septic Service Inc. may be reached at 401/789-9360.
