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.
