Working Together Pays Dividends

The Partnership for Sustainable Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System Management Reports on 2009 Achievements

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: The best thing that has happened to pumpers in a long time was the invitation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to NAWT to join the Decentralized Wastewater Memorandum of Understanding. The MOU, a cooperative relationship between 14 national organizations and the EPA, addresses issues pertaining to onsite and decentralized systems, giving pumpers a voice at the national level in issues and regulations affecting their livelihood.

It’s still somewhat amazing to sit at the table with representatives of these organizations and be treated like an equal partner. That the pumper perspective was deemed valuable enough to be included is delightful, especially since some organizations requesting to participate were rejected.

It’s even more delightful to have every partner believe that onsite systems are a sustainable technology and a viable means of sewage disposal for rural America. That’s 95 percent of the country, according to the EPA. In another study, the U.S. Census Bureau 2007 American Housing Survey stated that more than 20 percent of 55,000 polled households and 22 percent of new housing developments used onsite systems, which discharge 4 billion gpd. The country has an estimated 26 million onsite systems.

Consequently, the partnership developed three work groups — Awareness and Outreach, Training and Professional Development, and Support and Information — and four goals: Promote education of the public and industry; expand the knowledge level by creating national standards; provide a unified voice for the partners; and support and promote EPA’s Voluntary Management Guidelines.

Each year, the partnership reports its key accomplishments to the EPA. The 2009 report states that six more partners joined, bringing the total to 14. Four new organizations are regulatory or regulatory-like, and this is big. If we want regulators to understand the technology that enables us to install onsite systems anywhere, they must be at the table. Of course, these people are the leaders in their groups and have the most open minds.

I find it interesting that the State Onsite Regulators Alliance and Association of State and Territorial Health Officers joined, but the National Association of County and City Health Officials did not. NACCHO was in the first group invited in 2008, but leaders couldn’t agree on what to do. Some other organizations declined because they wanted to watch how the partnership unfolded.

Positive achievements

Another new partner is the Water Environmental Research Foundation, a funding organization. Jeff Moeller is in charge of the decentralized funding program, and with his guidance, the partnership developed a list of 26 research needs. At the partnership’s November annual meeting in Washington, D.C., one of the more important things we did was to prioritize those needs. It was amazing how quickly we reached a consensus, demonstrating again that we are all on the same page. The top five research needs received 30 to 40 votes and are presented here in no particular order. The runners-up had 12 votes or less.

1) Evaluate the costs of operation and maintenance for onsite technologies, coupled with treatment expectations over the life of the systems. The comprehensive analysis will assist in selecting systems used by small communities.

2) Develop reuse opportunities beyond groundwater recharge, especially the better use of greywater. This also includes developing water conservation and energy efficiency measures.

3) Evaluate the effectiveness of long-term maintenance contracts on individual onsite system performance. Evaluate financial and social acceptance of contracts to maintain systems.

4) Develop a simple protocol for estimating risks presented to water quality in a given receiving environment, then assign appropriate performance criteria including soils as part of the treatment train.

5) Develop a readily applied standard protocol for identifying the relevance of onsite systems in watershed pollution problems using GIS mapping, water-quality testing, and source-tracking techniques.

Septic Sense

The partnership is sending the message that onsite is here to stay and we need to manage it. To that end, the EPA hired MDB, a strategic consulting firm in Washington, D.C., to develop a third-party verification program. Called Septic Sense, it will confirm what pumpers tell homeowners about industry professionals inspecting and managing their onsite systems. The program has a mascot: a service man wearing gloves and boots. I think someday we’ll see national public service announcements promoting Septic Sense. The good news is that NAWT reviews and comments on all this material before it is produced.

One thing I’d like to see come out of Septic Sense is an awareness of cost comparisons between municipal sewer rates and onsite inspection and maintenance. People complaining to politicians that they can’t afford to pay $300 to have their tank pumped every three years is ludicrous, when sewer charges average $150 or more per year. The cost of repairing or replacing a system is another story.

Homeowners with a wet spot in their back yard have ignored it forever, knowing it is not a $500 fix. Put management into the picture and owners can no longer do nothing. An onsite inspector isn’t going to tolerate a wet spot, and people fear that. This is where the government can help through low-interest loans for onsite repair.

We’ve all heard of the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund. That money goes to the states, but they seldom use it to repair onsite systems. I heard at the meeting that the EPA is now pushing the states to do so. Furthermore, the stimulus money requires 20 percent spent on green projects, and onsite is considered one of them. In 2010, if the states can’t come up with that 20 percent, they don’t get the money. The partnership sees this as a great opportunity to persuade legislators to designate the money for onsite decentralized projects.

The Poor Card

The truth is, most people can afford an onsite system repair. It’s just like paying off a new vehicle, snowmobile, HDTV or the family’s monthly cell phone bill. To condemn inspection and maintenance because of a few legitimately cash-strapped individuals is irresponsible. Playing the poor card is a common political ploy because it replaces intelligence with emotion.

I hear pumpers buying into the poor card when they talk about their cheap prices. They always give me the example of this widow or elderly couple who can’t afford $300 for a pump-out, so they charge everybody $150. Emotion pushes their sound business sense out the window. I tell them that most people can afford the $300. Charge the correct rate, then service the few exceptions for free. That would be a great thing to do.



Discussion

Comments on this site are submitted by users and are not endorsed by nor do they reflect the views or opinions of COLE Publishing, Inc. Comments are moderated before being posted.