Today, Ed and I spent the better part of the afternoon in Whatcom County's class on 'How To Inspect Your Own Septic System.' After all the brouhaha in late 2009 about everyone having to lay out $200-$300 to have a 'professional inspection,' the County revised the law to permit anyone who took the County's class in inspections to do the inspection on his/her own septic system. We had already had our septic system inspected, but the law requires that it be inspected regularly (every 1 or every 3 years, depending upon the kind of system it is). So, having taken the class, we could do it ourselves next time.
I know that because I took the class. But, frankly, I wouldn't, at least not yet, trust me to inspect our septic system. First of all, you have to be able to take the lid off and it's way too heavy for me to move, so I am stymied at the very first step.
The class, held here in Point Roberts, attracted 60-65 folks, most of them guys, but there were at least a dozen women in the room, as well, most of them of the elderly (like me) class. I don't know whether any of those other ladies could lift their lids, either. But it wasn't just the first step that was the problem. The guy from the County who was explaining to us how to do this work was really very good, but he really didn't expect to be dealing with people like me, people who don't know the first thing about the subject, including the language that one uses to talk about it. For example, there was much talk of baffles. I could never quite get it into my mind what he was talking about. At one point he actually showed me a baffle, pulling it out of a piece of PVC pipe (I do know what PVC pipe is; there's that). But then, the next time he referred to the baffle and how it needed to be dealt with, I had forgotten about the thing he pulled out of the pipe and that it was called a baffle and thus had no idea what he was talking about. This was definitely not his fault. But the class effectively had pre-requisites, classes I had not taken.
It just got worse for me. By the end of the second hour, when he was warning us about 'ponding' in the drain field, I was not sure whether ponding meant 'ponds of water,' or whether it had some special technical meaning that was obscure to me. Thus, as Ed learned how to do it, I ended up knowing less than I knew at the beginning. At least I suspect that at the beginning, I would have been pretty confident that ponding meant water gathering in small ponds.
Now, Ed knows how to do it and we are both certified by having been at the class. Ed, however, assures me that he will walk me through it with our system so that I will see what it is the instructions were talking about and then my certification will have more content. That would be good. I learn that kind of thing better if I'm seeing the real practice. Otherwise, I'm just likely to hear the word 'baffle' and immediately think of myself as baffled.
Showing posts with label septic systems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label septic systems. Show all posts
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Septic Tank Inspections
Now that we have (temporarily) wound up the trash collection/recycling matter, it is time to (temporarily) wind up the septic tank inspection system matter, with the hope that we can have some release from dealing with Whatcom County for awhile. The County, I am told, thinks we are a bunch of whiners up here, and we think they are indifferent to our concerns down there. So perhaps we could use the interval to establish ourselves as some kind of tea party organization: YOU DON'T HEAR US, is the slogan, I believe.
Last week, the County Council approved amendments that more or less put the previous inspection system on hold. But they have to revote on it next month because the amendments they voted on were not exactly the ones that were being proposed. You can imagine the embarrassment experienced when the item on the agenda was a draft version rather than the final version. So maybe next month they'll vote on the final version instead. But in any case, the essence of the change seems to be that they will eliminate the requirement for professional inspections. You will have to have the inspections still (the State requires them), but the state didn't require that you pay $250-$300 to a 'professional' to have that done.
Incidentally, to be a professional requires one to profess something. What septic tank inspectors profess would be a mystery to me. Additionally, professionals usually have codes of ethics, are required to act on behalf of their clients, have a large degree of self-regulation but also have extensive education requirements placed upon them. Physicians, nurses, dentists, and psychologists are professionals. Professional status, once lost, cannot be regained. I suspect that professional septic tank inspectors are not professionals.
Here's a link to the Bellingham Herald's article on this matter.
Last week, the County Council approved amendments that more or less put the previous inspection system on hold. But they have to revote on it next month because the amendments they voted on were not exactly the ones that were being proposed. You can imagine the embarrassment experienced when the item on the agenda was a draft version rather than the final version. So maybe next month they'll vote on the final version instead. But in any case, the essence of the change seems to be that they will eliminate the requirement for professional inspections. You will have to have the inspections still (the State requires them), but the state didn't require that you pay $250-$300 to a 'professional' to have that done.
Incidentally, to be a professional requires one to profess something. What septic tank inspectors profess would be a mystery to me. Additionally, professionals usually have codes of ethics, are required to act on behalf of their clients, have a large degree of self-regulation but also have extensive education requirements placed upon them. Physicians, nurses, dentists, and psychologists are professionals. Professional status, once lost, cannot be regained. I suspect that professional septic tank inspectors are not professionals.
Here's a link to the Bellingham Herald's article on this matter.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Report Card
Yesterday, the septic tank inspectors came to inspect the septic tank. We're a little behind the curve on this, but not too much. And now it's done.
Two guys came. They opened the two lids, poked around with measuring sticks, measuring the top and the bottom. Then they turned the hose on into the opening for awhile and checked to see whether there was any water coming up to the surface of the drain field (which they said was in a place that we would not have expected it to be, indeed, did not think it was: level with the tank, rather than downhill from it). There was no surface water. Everything was as it should be, given that it is a septic tank here rather than a sewer connection.
And then they measured some here and there, presumably for the County's records. At the end of about a half hour, they went away with their check for $225, the going rate here on the Point, $35 of which, as I recall, goes directly to the County for its good services, whatever they may be in this case: perhaps for keeping the records.
It seemed quite a lot of money for such a brief amount of work. But, opening the tank does expose one to a noticeably unpleasant smell. Maybe that's why they get the big bucks.
Also, as a side benefit, now we know not to build on where the drain field is, as opposed to our previous belief that we should not build on where the drain field isn't..
Two guys came. They opened the two lids, poked around with measuring sticks, measuring the top and the bottom. Then they turned the hose on into the opening for awhile and checked to see whether there was any water coming up to the surface of the drain field (which they said was in a place that we would not have expected it to be, indeed, did not think it was: level with the tank, rather than downhill from it). There was no surface water. Everything was as it should be, given that it is a septic tank here rather than a sewer connection.
And then they measured some here and there, presumably for the County's records. At the end of about a half hour, they went away with their check for $225, the going rate here on the Point, $35 of which, as I recall, goes directly to the County for its good services, whatever they may be in this case: perhaps for keeping the records.
It seemed quite a lot of money for such a brief amount of work. But, opening the tank does expose one to a noticeably unpleasant smell. Maybe that's why they get the big bucks.
Also, as a side benefit, now we know not to build on where the drain field is, as opposed to our previous belief that we should not build on where the drain field isn't..
Sunday, November 22, 2009
How Did I Get Here?
'Once more into the breach, dear friends,' I'm thinking as I start to write this entry, or, more mundanely, once more into the septic system. I warned myself that the issue of the septic system inspections would have legs, but I am already feeling I know more (and yet less) about this topic than is good for me. But I trust that the paragraphs below might be helpful for us all. Councilwoman Brenner has asked someone of expertise to offer advice about inspections. This is what he has written, and she has forwarded to us.
You asked what might be helpful for a property owner to ask and do when working with an O&M (operation and maintenance) Inspector. . . .
First, ask the O&M Inspector if the inspection fee includes the reporting fee charged by the Health Department. Also, if an approved design is not on file with the Health Department, will the inspector charge an additional fee and, if so, how much?
Ask the inspector if they are also a licensed pumper or a licensed installer. This may affect any recommendations that an inspector makes . . .
Ask the inspector how he or she performs the actual inspection! Ask how they measure the levels in the tank--do they use a sludge judge?
Ask what else they inspect and what they are looking for. Ask if they perform a dye test.
From a property owner's perspective, one of the most important things to be aware of is that there is a difference between recommendations and requirements!!! Some inspectors have a tendency to try and sell "extras" such as replacement tank lids and risers. If a tank lid is no longer structurally sound then it needs to be replaced. You don't want someone falling into a tank and you don't want water running into a tank BUT if the existing lids are doing their job then a property owner is NOT required to replace them. Of course the new lids and risers may look better and make it easier for future inspections but they are an additional expense and some inspectors charge small amounts for the initial inspection and hope to make a large profit from the "extras". Broken baffles are required to be replaced. Inspectors should look for an outlet filter. Outlet filters protect your drain field so it is prudent for an inspector to recommend one if a septic system does not already have one. Another note: If you are aware that you have an outlet filter, ask the inspector if and how they clean it. It is critical that an inspector takes care to make sure effluent is not released into the drain field during the removal and cleaning of an outlet filter.
Another thing to beware of is unnecessary pumping recommendations. If an inspector recommends pumping BEFORE the levels in the septic tank have been checked then beware! Although the guidelines recommend pumping every 3-5 years, the number of people in a household and the homeowner's practices can dramatically affect the condition of the septic tank. We have seen systems that have went over 10 years without pumping because of homeowner's practices and I know of other systems that require pumping annually! So make sure the levels in the tank are properly measured before determining whether or not a tank needs to be pumped.
Also, make sure the inspector gives you a copy of the report that is filed with the Health Department.
I'm hoping that is all for awhile on this topic.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sign Still Becoming
And another sight on Point Roberts that took me aback. The farm house on APA Road is being spiffed up after all these years of abandonment. As I was driving by (without my camera), I saw there was new white paint on the siding and new dark red trim on the windows. But subsequently a blog commenter (Hi, Fun Guy!) said he thought that there was a new foundation and a new deck. Which makes it sound as if the building might actually be being restored. If that is true, I truly apologize (today is the apology edition of the blog, I guess) for my sharp comments about the ‘No Trespassing’ sign that was put up on the property. I still don’t think it’s necessary, but I would have balanced that conclusion with the good work of the restoration.
And, finally (although totally unrelated), Whatcom County Council member Barbara Brenner has not yet sent me her amendments to the septic inspection program, but she has requested that those of us with Point Roberts mailing lists clarify a matter at the meeting last Monday. Specifically, there was some dispute about expensive new systems and their costs and particularly about Glendon systems. Brenner suggests caution if an inspector tells you that you need an expensive new system, and says: ‘Try to get a second opinion, heck even your first opinion, from someone you trust a lot.’ Which seems like good advice in any case. Although, it’s hard to know exactly whom to trust ‘a lot.’
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Septic System Meeting, Part II
The back story to the septic inspection program is this. The State put forth a requirement that septic systems needed to be inspected annually. They didn’t say how those inspections were to be done. They want them done to improve/protect water quality in Puget Sound. The counties were each responsible for implementing this requirement. In Whatcom County, there was a division on the Council as to whether inspections should be done professionally or by homeowners themselves. Brenner (who was at the meeting Monday night) favored the homeowners being allowed to do it themselves; Weimer (also at the meeting) thought that at least the initial inspection should be done by professionals. We know who won.
There are 30,000 septic systems in Whatcom County but, according to Weimer, they don’t know where 10,000 of them are. I think what he meant by that is that they don’t know anything about the kind of septic system that is in place in 10,000 property parcels. Having a professional do the first inspection, he said, would provide the County with a data base. The reason they don’t know anything about these 10K is that until sometime in the 60’s (don’t have a note on the exact date, so I’m working from memory), you didn’t need a septic system permit. Whatever system was put in prior to that time was legal, but there were no standards. You’d could have been using a ’36 Ford for a tank. Then, sometime later (1975? 1976?), Bellingham had a flood and a lot of records were lost, including existing records about septic systems. So those two would presumably account for their not knowing about 10,000 septic systems.
The obvious question is why are we choosing between professional inspections and homeowner inspections? Why aren’t we using county inspectors, in the same way that we have county building inspectors? The short answer is ‘no money.’ And the longer answer—reading between the lines of their comments somewhat--is that, in order to get enough money, you’d have to raise taxes, and they’re not going to do that because, well you know why they’re not going to raise taxes. So this is yet another example of services that would probably be better done by government (because there is less conflict of interest) but have been privatized because some elected officials prefer privatization and because some elected officials are unwilling officially to suggest raising taxes. And they don’t want to do it because they fear they’ll be punished by the electorate at election time. And much of the electorate wants services but doesn’t want to pay for them; but much of that portion of the electorate being required to have this service didn’t actually initiate any request for the service. It’s an understandably messy political problem in a tight budget period.
The standards for the inspections appear to be somewhat unclear, leading to uneven outcomes. The initial failure rate of the inspection regimen in Whatcom County is either 3-4% (Brenner’s figure) or 4-5% (Weimer’s figure). Both said they got their numbers from the Health Dept. (It did not appear to me that the Council and the Health Department (which operates under Kremens) were happily working together on this problem.) In Kitsap County, by contrast, the initial failure rate is 1%. There might be some reason for that, but nobody had one on offer. The implication was that different counties and different inspectors might well be using somewhat different standards. For example, according to Brenner, any system that is not failing is acceptable, even if it requires maintenance; but some people at the meeting had been told that some systems (wooden boxes commonly used historically) are on the face of it unacceptable and therefore considered to be failing merely by existing. That is, that they didn’t even need to be inspected beyond that fact that they are a currently unacceptable system.
The most irritating (for me) part of the discussion was Weimer’s insistence on describing private inspectors who are in the building trades--specifically in the installation and repair of septic systems—as having a ‘potential conflict of interest.’ Of course they have a clear and present conflict of interest. They may be able to steer a careful path around that conflict, but neither the public nor the county has any way of knowing whether they are doing so. The inspection system appears to have no transparency as far as I could determine. And the people from Point Roberts at the meeting were outspoken about their fears of conflict of interest: both under-inspecting for friends and relatives and over-inspecting in order to generate more business for the inspectors themselves and their colleagues.
Bottom line: There’s a lot of money at stake in these 30,000 inspections, all of which are to take place within a year. Replacing tanks was discussed at some length because new tanks cost about $1500, but Whatcom County charges $950 for a permit to install a new tank. Maybe in the situation where the County is requiring a new tank, that permit fee ought to be eliminated? But the County needs money, so I doubt if that is going to happen. (If 4% of systems are failing and need new tanks, that’s $1.25 million in permit money to the County, and almost $2 million to the septic tank replacement business.) The inspectors are getting about $200-$250 per inspection, of which $35 goes to the County (but which we would never refer to as a tax). So the County nets $1 million plus on the permits, and the inspectors net $5.7 million on the inspections. And then you have to include also all the additional costs rising from the inspections, money going to those building trades. In an initial study, the County found that 20% of the systems inspected required maintenance work of some kind. The millions keep rolling by.
Final info: the classes so that homeowners can, if they choose, do their own inspections after the first inspection, have been slow to start. Currently, the only classes are for above ground systems (pump? Pressure mound? I know little about the different kinds). Eventually there will be classes for the gravity systems, which continue to be acceptable systems, per se. Classes will probably be offered in Point Roberts itself. And if you do not long to do your own inspections, you can hire certified inspectors. And the Health Dept. is said to be doing random inspections on the inspectors’ inspections. But who will be inspecting the Health Department’s inspectors’ inspections of the certified inspectors’ inspections? We’ll need another meeting to get that nailed down.
There are 30,000 septic systems in Whatcom County but, according to Weimer, they don’t know where 10,000 of them are. I think what he meant by that is that they don’t know anything about the kind of septic system that is in place in 10,000 property parcels. Having a professional do the first inspection, he said, would provide the County with a data base. The reason they don’t know anything about these 10K is that until sometime in the 60’s (don’t have a note on the exact date, so I’m working from memory), you didn’t need a septic system permit. Whatever system was put in prior to that time was legal, but there were no standards. You’d could have been using a ’36 Ford for a tank. Then, sometime later (1975? 1976?), Bellingham had a flood and a lot of records were lost, including existing records about septic systems. So those two would presumably account for their not knowing about 10,000 septic systems.
The obvious question is why are we choosing between professional inspections and homeowner inspections? Why aren’t we using county inspectors, in the same way that we have county building inspectors? The short answer is ‘no money.’ And the longer answer—reading between the lines of their comments somewhat--is that, in order to get enough money, you’d have to raise taxes, and they’re not going to do that because, well you know why they’re not going to raise taxes. So this is yet another example of services that would probably be better done by government (because there is less conflict of interest) but have been privatized because some elected officials prefer privatization and because some elected officials are unwilling officially to suggest raising taxes. And they don’t want to do it because they fear they’ll be punished by the electorate at election time. And much of the electorate wants services but doesn’t want to pay for them; but much of that portion of the electorate being required to have this service didn’t actually initiate any request for the service. It’s an understandably messy political problem in a tight budget period.
The standards for the inspections appear to be somewhat unclear, leading to uneven outcomes. The initial failure rate of the inspection regimen in Whatcom County is either 3-4% (Brenner’s figure) or 4-5% (Weimer’s figure). Both said they got their numbers from the Health Dept. (It did not appear to me that the Council and the Health Department (which operates under Kremens) were happily working together on this problem.) In Kitsap County, by contrast, the initial failure rate is 1%. There might be some reason for that, but nobody had one on offer. The implication was that different counties and different inspectors might well be using somewhat different standards. For example, according to Brenner, any system that is not failing is acceptable, even if it requires maintenance; but some people at the meeting had been told that some systems (wooden boxes commonly used historically) are on the face of it unacceptable and therefore considered to be failing merely by existing. That is, that they didn’t even need to be inspected beyond that fact that they are a currently unacceptable system.
The most irritating (for me) part of the discussion was Weimer’s insistence on describing private inspectors who are in the building trades--specifically in the installation and repair of septic systems—as having a ‘potential conflict of interest.’ Of course they have a clear and present conflict of interest. They may be able to steer a careful path around that conflict, but neither the public nor the county has any way of knowing whether they are doing so. The inspection system appears to have no transparency as far as I could determine. And the people from Point Roberts at the meeting were outspoken about their fears of conflict of interest: both under-inspecting for friends and relatives and over-inspecting in order to generate more business for the inspectors themselves and their colleagues.
Bottom line: There’s a lot of money at stake in these 30,000 inspections, all of which are to take place within a year. Replacing tanks was discussed at some length because new tanks cost about $1500, but Whatcom County charges $950 for a permit to install a new tank. Maybe in the situation where the County is requiring a new tank, that permit fee ought to be eliminated? But the County needs money, so I doubt if that is going to happen. (If 4% of systems are failing and need new tanks, that’s $1.25 million in permit money to the County, and almost $2 million to the septic tank replacement business.) The inspectors are getting about $200-$250 per inspection, of which $35 goes to the County (but which we would never refer to as a tax). So the County nets $1 million plus on the permits, and the inspectors net $5.7 million on the inspections. And then you have to include also all the additional costs rising from the inspections, money going to those building trades. In an initial study, the County found that 20% of the systems inspected required maintenance work of some kind. The millions keep rolling by.
Final info: the classes so that homeowners can, if they choose, do their own inspections after the first inspection, have been slow to start. Currently, the only classes are for above ground systems (pump? Pressure mound? I know little about the different kinds). Eventually there will be classes for the gravity systems, which continue to be acceptable systems, per se. Classes will probably be offered in Point Roberts itself. And if you do not long to do your own inspections, you can hire certified inspectors. And the Health Dept. is said to be doing random inspections on the inspectors’ inspections. But who will be inspecting the Health Department’s inspectors’ inspections of the certified inspectors’ inspections? We’ll need another meeting to get that nailed down.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Community Meet-Up
Tonight was the community meeting with two members of the County Council wherein we were to learn more about the septic inspection system that has been inaugurated for us by the County and the State. Alas, everything was not illuminated, although much was described. The Council Members described what they had done and the community members described how they thought and felt about the implementation of the Council's work. There was some meeting of the minds. At least it did not become a libertarian shout fest in which people expressed beliefs about how the County had no right to make them do anything, although there was one impassioned claim about the whole program being unconstitutional because it was a 'referendum tax' instead of an 'initiative tax.' About this, I will say no more.
Over a hundred people from Point Roberts showed up on a truly unpleasant weather evening: the rain was pouring down, the winds were blowing, and there are reports of bigger winds, bigger tides, and flooding by morning. So people might reasonably have had something else on their mind than showing up at this meeting. Lots of part-time residents were there, explaining their particular problems with this system. What was most notable, however, was that most everyone, and in fact perhaps actually everyone, agreed with the impetus for the system. That is, they did not disagree that research showed increasing coliform problems in shoreline waters and that human and agricultural sources both contribute to that problem. We need clean water. The issue was about how to get from here to there.
Unlike the Border Control meeting that was held last spring, the meeting (which lasted two full hours) did not end with a sense of hope that something had been heard that hadn't been heard before, and that, as a result, there was a distinct prospect of change. The border issues definitely improved subsequent to that meeting. But nothing is going to change as a result of this meeting, I think. Yes, there are many distinct problems with the implementation of the inspection system, but these problems are not a surprise to the Council members for the most part (although they did admit that they had not thought about houses occupied only on a part-time basis). But there you are: that's the system that the Council voted for, and that's how the system is being implemented by the Health Department, which is not a department that the Council controls. You got problems with that? Talk to Pete Kremens who is the County Executive.
The issue of conflict of interest captured most of the conversation. One suggestion that seemed to be accepted for immediate action was providing people with information about what an inspector should be doing when he comes to do an inspection. That information could be provided pretty quickly. If it's not at least in the All Points Bulletin's December issue, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. It was the one thing the Council members agreed could and should be done. And if they don't do it, they've lost their bona fides with me.
There is a proposed amendment to the inspection enforcement legislation coming before the Council at the end of January. It was introduced by Barbara Brenner (who was one of the two Council persons who drove the roads for us tonight--the other, Carl Weimer). The first hearings on that will be at the end of January. But nothing is going to change the problems that we already have before the deadline for inspections passes us by in early December.
There were lots of interesting details in the meeting, but I'll postpone that illustrative material until the next post, on Wednesday, since this is already long enough.
Over a hundred people from Point Roberts showed up on a truly unpleasant weather evening: the rain was pouring down, the winds were blowing, and there are reports of bigger winds, bigger tides, and flooding by morning. So people might reasonably have had something else on their mind than showing up at this meeting. Lots of part-time residents were there, explaining their particular problems with this system. What was most notable, however, was that most everyone, and in fact perhaps actually everyone, agreed with the impetus for the system. That is, they did not disagree that research showed increasing coliform problems in shoreline waters and that human and agricultural sources both contribute to that problem. We need clean water. The issue was about how to get from here to there.
Unlike the Border Control meeting that was held last spring, the meeting (which lasted two full hours) did not end with a sense of hope that something had been heard that hadn't been heard before, and that, as a result, there was a distinct prospect of change. The border issues definitely improved subsequent to that meeting. But nothing is going to change as a result of this meeting, I think. Yes, there are many distinct problems with the implementation of the inspection system, but these problems are not a surprise to the Council members for the most part (although they did admit that they had not thought about houses occupied only on a part-time basis). But there you are: that's the system that the Council voted for, and that's how the system is being implemented by the Health Department, which is not a department that the Council controls. You got problems with that? Talk to Pete Kremens who is the County Executive.
The issue of conflict of interest captured most of the conversation. One suggestion that seemed to be accepted for immediate action was providing people with information about what an inspector should be doing when he comes to do an inspection. That information could be provided pretty quickly. If it's not at least in the All Points Bulletin's December issue, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. It was the one thing the Council members agreed could and should be done. And if they don't do it, they've lost their bona fides with me.
There is a proposed amendment to the inspection enforcement legislation coming before the Council at the end of January. It was introduced by Barbara Brenner (who was one of the two Council persons who drove the roads for us tonight--the other, Carl Weimer). The first hearings on that will be at the end of January. But nothing is going to change the problems that we already have before the deadline for inspections passes us by in early December.
There were lots of interesting details in the meeting, but I'll postpone that illustrative material until the next post, on Wednesday, since this is already long enough.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Civic Matters (and a Little Weather)
Yesterday, it was supposed to be rainy, but the late morning was pretty sunny, with big blue sky and big puffy white cloud. And it was even pretty warm, relative to November and all that. I came back from cross the border around 2 p.m. and suggested to Ed that we put the tree sweaters on the first two trees. (There is about 35 meters of tree sweater currently waiting to be mounted upon the dogwood and maple tree.) But I had a couple of other things to do, so he went up on the roof to sweep leaves, while I did the dishes. And then, ten minutes later, it started raining hard. I went outside and saw that the sky was very dark, overwhelmingly dark, and while I stood there, I saw a flash of lightning, quickly followed by thunder. Ed came down off the roof, we went indoors, and the rain poured down and the thunder and lightning continued close by for maybe five minutes. And then, out of the sky, but of course it felt like out of nowhere, big balls of hail started pouring down, quickly covering the porch and all the pathways. Five minutes maybe, maybe more. And then for the rest of the day, it was very, very cold outside. I guess you drop a ton or so of ice in your yard, it chills everything down quite a bit. A surprising day. [Another view of how winter is coming at us here.] [This is Ed's photo, not mine, though.]
Then, today, I went to the library, partly to do my tidying work on the magazine exchange cart. Sadly, I found five catalogs (as compared to three last Saturday), and probably a dozen pieces of travel literature (clearly not magazines under the definition I’d think we’d be using). I confiscated the catalogues and some of the travel literature that was clearly just commercial stuff. But I’m open to ideas of how to communicate to magazine exchangers what we ought to be aiming for in order not to have this become overflowing with stuff that nobody wants.
Finally, this coming Monday, a couple of County Very Important People are coming up to hear us or probably for us to hear them talk about the septic system inspection program. (Community Center, 7 p.m.) The town is rife with various rumors about how this program is being conducted, mostly involving favoritism for low-standard inspections by the commercial inspectors. The County’s failure to set fee standards/ranges makes this an almost inevitable rumor, of course. Washington doesn’t have car inspections like many states do, so maybe this is how it learns the hard way how to do mandatory inspections. It does seem like it would be obvious that you’d want to eliminate or at least minimize the obvious conflicts of interest.
The Taxpayers Association has come up with a list of questions that they have sent to the County Councilwoman and County Counsel person in hopes that they will have some answers. Mark Robbins, who is heading up the TA right now, put together the list from a member discussion last week and I suggested to him that it might be useful to get the questions out to the public ahead of time, as well. So here they are:
1. Not enough time given to property owners. Need blanket extension (not consideration of individual requests. NB: The notification by the Health Department was issued in October, a few weeks after most of the many part-time residents had already closed up their summer cottages for the winter.
2. Annual inspections are too frequent and unnecessarily burdensome.
3. The inspection regime is not calibrated to usage or presence of inhabitants.
4. There may be conflicts of interest in requiring inspections by private inspectors, some of whom may be contractors with an interest in making repairs or replacing septic systems. The County employs inspectors for other purposes; why not for septic system?
5. If the system is to depend on private inspectors, the County should regulate the allowable fee schedule for inspections.
6. Couldn’t older systems be grandfathered in, at least to some degree related to usage and severity of the deficiency?
7. Isn’t it way past due to think about innovations that would reduce demand on septic systems, including composting toilets (are these allowed in Whatcom County?) and gray water systems?
8. County ordinances and health regulations that, if really unavoidable, will require huge capital expenditures by property owners for new, above ground septic systems, ought not to be imposed prior to establishing a fund or mechanism for low interest loans and assistance to people who cannot afford the repairs that will be necessary to remain in their homes. If there is a real environmental and public health problem, it has developed over decades; so why does it have to be fixed in months?
9. What is the experience of other Washington counties in meeting the state mandate on sanitary septic systems?
10. Can the county help Point Roberts (and similar unincorporated communities) to analyze the costs and benefits of endless individual investments in inspections and repairs vs community investment in a sewage and treatment system?
If we got answers/explanations from our visitors on all ten of those, I’d be impressed, but we can at least hope they will come prepared to address our concerns and not just to announce the wisdom of their previous actions. A good turnout would be helpful.
Then, today, I went to the library, partly to do my tidying work on the magazine exchange cart. Sadly, I found five catalogs (as compared to three last Saturday), and probably a dozen pieces of travel literature (clearly not magazines under the definition I’d think we’d be using). I confiscated the catalogues and some of the travel literature that was clearly just commercial stuff. But I’m open to ideas of how to communicate to magazine exchangers what we ought to be aiming for in order not to have this become overflowing with stuff that nobody wants.
Finally, this coming Monday, a couple of County Very Important People are coming up to hear us or probably for us to hear them talk about the septic system inspection program. (Community Center, 7 p.m.) The town is rife with various rumors about how this program is being conducted, mostly involving favoritism for low-standard inspections by the commercial inspectors. The County’s failure to set fee standards/ranges makes this an almost inevitable rumor, of course. Washington doesn’t have car inspections like many states do, so maybe this is how it learns the hard way how to do mandatory inspections. It does seem like it would be obvious that you’d want to eliminate or at least minimize the obvious conflicts of interest.
The Taxpayers Association has come up with a list of questions that they have sent to the County Councilwoman and County Counsel person in hopes that they will have some answers. Mark Robbins, who is heading up the TA right now, put together the list from a member discussion last week and I suggested to him that it might be useful to get the questions out to the public ahead of time, as well. So here they are:
1. Not enough time given to property owners. Need blanket extension (not consideration of individual requests. NB: The notification by the Health Department was issued in October, a few weeks after most of the many part-time residents had already closed up their summer cottages for the winter.
2. Annual inspections are too frequent and unnecessarily burdensome.
3. The inspection regime is not calibrated to usage or presence of inhabitants.
4. There may be conflicts of interest in requiring inspections by private inspectors, some of whom may be contractors with an interest in making repairs or replacing septic systems. The County employs inspectors for other purposes; why not for septic system?
5. If the system is to depend on private inspectors, the County should regulate the allowable fee schedule for inspections.
6. Couldn’t older systems be grandfathered in, at least to some degree related to usage and severity of the deficiency?
7. Isn’t it way past due to think about innovations that would reduce demand on septic systems, including composting toilets (are these allowed in Whatcom County?) and gray water systems?
8. County ordinances and health regulations that, if really unavoidable, will require huge capital expenditures by property owners for new, above ground septic systems, ought not to be imposed prior to establishing a fund or mechanism for low interest loans and assistance to people who cannot afford the repairs that will be necessary to remain in their homes. If there is a real environmental and public health problem, it has developed over decades; so why does it have to be fixed in months?
9. What is the experience of other Washington counties in meeting the state mandate on sanitary septic systems?
10. Can the county help Point Roberts (and similar unincorporated communities) to analyze the costs and benefits of endless individual investments in inspections and repairs vs community investment in a sewage and treatment system?
If we got answers/explanations from our visitors on all ten of those, I’d be impressed, but we can at least hope they will come prepared to address our concerns and not just to announce the wisdom of their previous actions. A good turnout would be helpful.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Economic Development Plan #3,000
On the schedule today was a visit to the monthly Taxpayers’ Association (TA) here in Point Roberts. I don’t often go to their meetings because I think they must meet when I’m not here. But they met and I’m here. And there is news, of sorts.
When I got there, a tad late, one attendee was waxing—well, not rhapsodic, but perhaps the opposite of rhapsodic: frenentic?—on the topic of Whatcom County’s desire to kill us all by urging us to get H1N1 vaccinations, even though the County doesn’t have many doses with which to target us, and even though we are feeling deprived about not having them. Just the gentleman’s point, though: the County was encouraging us to have shots that would risk our lives, and he wished the Association to protest this County action. If anyone produces minutes of the meeting, I imagine the gentleman’s views will be accurately recorded, if not in full detail.
It is very hard, I find, to know quite what to do when people up here—and not just a few of them—wish to convey their somewhat unusual views at considerable length to others. You nod (that’s the yes-yes nod), and then you think about responding but decide ‘not a good idea’ very quickly, and then you begin to nod (as in the dropping off to sleep nod). The only honest response I could make would be so profoundly impolite that I could not probably make it. So there you are. You just put it in the minutes.
And then we talked about trash (that is, trash collection or more specifically no-trash-collection) a bit. Is there light at the end of the tunnel? ‘None whatsoever,’ was the reply of the TA Director most attuned to the topic. But we talked about it some more anyway. One of the things I like about the trash collection problem is that we are stuck with a problem which appears to be so profoundly unique and complex that it can never be solved. Everyone wants to solve it but no one is able to solve it; not even the people who appear, more or less, to have the power to solve it. Perhaps it is actually insoluable; perhaps there is no actual trash collection anywhere else in the world and that is why the problem is so hard. I seem to remember that we used to have it, but then I get things wrong in my memories now and then. Perhaps it is only a dream; perhaps we have never had and thus very probably never will have trash collection. First, let us focus on going to the moon, say, or requiring people to have their septic systems inspected.
And thus did we segue into the TA's final topic of the evening. Some time ago, the County, along with other counties in Puget Sound, I was told, passed uniform enabling legislation requiring that everyone in those counties with septic systems be required to have a septic system inspection from a certified inspector beginning this year. Presumably, they’ve spent the last year getting those inspectors certified. They’re employees in the private sector and the County did not establish fees for this service, so you pay what they charge which, according to the street, is in the vicinity of $200-$250, which is a little steep for a simple inspection.
Up here in Point Roberts, there are no sewers; there are only septic systems, so every house and business on the Point must have this inspection. In mid-October, we got a letter saying we had till early December to get the inspections done and if we didn’t do it by then, our moms were going to be very disappointed and our dads were going to be very angry, and so just get it done. It also sent us a list of local certified outfits: four of them in Point Roberts. Now, there are maybe 1800 water hook-ups (at least that’s the number I got from the Water Board in 2004, and more have been added since then). I assume if you have a water hookup, you are likely also to have a septic system. Which means that in about sixty days, 1800+ inspections are to be conducted by four companies/individuals (none of them employ even tens of inspectors, certainly). That's going to be a scheduling nightmare, I'd think. And if you figure an average charge of $200 (which is underestimating, from what I've heard), that looks to me like almost half a million dollars of new spending in Point Roberts and on Point Roberts businesses in only two months. Merry Christmas, indeed!
Now that’s an economic development plan if I ever heard of one. Although it’s a little narrowly focused, I’d think. It will have spillover, of course, because if systems fail, then systems must be repaired or replaced. Good economic times in 2010, as well. This, I’d think, is an issue with very long legs. We have not heard the end of this.
And if the letters to us from the County were the first act, in two weeks we are going to get the second act when a member of the County Council and a member of the County Counsel’s office come to explain this to us in one of those big community meetings. Monday, November 16, 7 pm, Community Center. After that event, everything will be illuminated. If I were a betting person, I might believe we'd be illuminated, but I doubt if we are going to be pleased.
When I got there, a tad late, one attendee was waxing—well, not rhapsodic, but perhaps the opposite of rhapsodic: frenentic?—on the topic of Whatcom County’s desire to kill us all by urging us to get H1N1 vaccinations, even though the County doesn’t have many doses with which to target us, and even though we are feeling deprived about not having them. Just the gentleman’s point, though: the County was encouraging us to have shots that would risk our lives, and he wished the Association to protest this County action. If anyone produces minutes of the meeting, I imagine the gentleman’s views will be accurately recorded, if not in full detail.
It is very hard, I find, to know quite what to do when people up here—and not just a few of them—wish to convey their somewhat unusual views at considerable length to others. You nod (that’s the yes-yes nod), and then you think about responding but decide ‘not a good idea’ very quickly, and then you begin to nod (as in the dropping off to sleep nod). The only honest response I could make would be so profoundly impolite that I could not probably make it. So there you are. You just put it in the minutes.
And then we talked about trash (that is, trash collection or more specifically no-trash-collection) a bit. Is there light at the end of the tunnel? ‘None whatsoever,’ was the reply of the TA Director most attuned to the topic. But we talked about it some more anyway. One of the things I like about the trash collection problem is that we are stuck with a problem which appears to be so profoundly unique and complex that it can never be solved. Everyone wants to solve it but no one is able to solve it; not even the people who appear, more or less, to have the power to solve it. Perhaps it is actually insoluable; perhaps there is no actual trash collection anywhere else in the world and that is why the problem is so hard. I seem to remember that we used to have it, but then I get things wrong in my memories now and then. Perhaps it is only a dream; perhaps we have never had and thus very probably never will have trash collection. First, let us focus on going to the moon, say, or requiring people to have their septic systems inspected.
And thus did we segue into the TA's final topic of the evening. Some time ago, the County, along with other counties in Puget Sound, I was told, passed uniform enabling legislation requiring that everyone in those counties with septic systems be required to have a septic system inspection from a certified inspector beginning this year. Presumably, they’ve spent the last year getting those inspectors certified. They’re employees in the private sector and the County did not establish fees for this service, so you pay what they charge which, according to the street, is in the vicinity of $200-$250, which is a little steep for a simple inspection.
Up here in Point Roberts, there are no sewers; there are only septic systems, so every house and business on the Point must have this inspection. In mid-October, we got a letter saying we had till early December to get the inspections done and if we didn’t do it by then, our moms were going to be very disappointed and our dads were going to be very angry, and so just get it done. It also sent us a list of local certified outfits: four of them in Point Roberts. Now, there are maybe 1800 water hook-ups (at least that’s the number I got from the Water Board in 2004, and more have been added since then). I assume if you have a water hookup, you are likely also to have a septic system. Which means that in about sixty days, 1800+ inspections are to be conducted by four companies/individuals (none of them employ even tens of inspectors, certainly). That's going to be a scheduling nightmare, I'd think. And if you figure an average charge of $200 (which is underestimating, from what I've heard), that looks to me like almost half a million dollars of new spending in Point Roberts and on Point Roberts businesses in only two months. Merry Christmas, indeed!
Now that’s an economic development plan if I ever heard of one. Although it’s a little narrowly focused, I’d think. It will have spillover, of course, because if systems fail, then systems must be repaired or replaced. Good economic times in 2010, as well. This, I’d think, is an issue with very long legs. We have not heard the end of this.
And if the letters to us from the County were the first act, in two weeks we are going to get the second act when a member of the County Council and a member of the County Counsel’s office come to explain this to us in one of those big community meetings. Monday, November 16, 7 pm, Community Center. After that event, everything will be illuminated. If I were a betting person, I might believe we'd be illuminated, but I doubt if we are going to be pleased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)