Calhouns Can(n)ons

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

An On Site First

Anyone interested in a first for on-site sewer systems, please go to www.courant.com There's a story, "State Agrees to Sewer Alternatives," Decision Means Users, Not Town, Will Pay For Sewage Systems," ;by Claudia Van Nes, Courant Staff Writer, Dec 17 2005

Seems Connecticut has agreed that ". . . Old Saybrook [ 1,800 properties] will be the first decentralized wastewater managment district .. ." in the state. "Such new technology includes 'aerobic systems, recirculating trickling filters, attached growth, suspended growth and combinations thereof," said Steve luckett, the town's water pollution control authority coordinator.

Most of the properties which will now install on-site wastewater treatment systems, are beach communities near Long Island Sound formerly using septics.

Sound familiar? Well, read all about it.

13 comments:

Shark Inlet said...: For a current link, see:
http://www.courant.com/news/local/sr/hc-osbsewer1217.artdec17,0,5566167.story.

One key bit of info is that it will cost about $15k per property owner. If a property owner had to borrow that at about 6.5% interest over, say, 20 years the total monthly bill for P&I would be about $110. If we add to that cost, the monthly costs (see your posting on the "gizmo") of about $100 it seems that your fancy idea is a bit more expensive than the TriW project you just encouraged us to reject. Once you add to these costs, the repair bills and the fact that this machine has a lifecycle that is considerably shorter than a centralized sewage treatment plant, it becomes quite clear that this option is less preferable to the TriW project.

Two nice things about this idea would be the greywater for gardens and the lack of pipes in the ground ... but those niceties are more than made up for by the excess cost.

But, please remember that Ann wanted us to reject the inexpensive TriW plant and pay for an out of town plant. Maybe this would save us considerable cash compared to the alternative being cooked up by the current board.; 9:25 PM, December 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Nice math Shark... are you forgetting about the hookup fees that the old CSD was planning to charge to connect to the Tri-W Sexer. Theye were in the same neighborhood of what you qouted for P&I of this system.

So for many in Los Osos they were going to be faced with a large up front connection fee, or financing as you have described... and that would eb in ADDITION to the $200-$300 per month sewer bill.

Run those figures through your calculator and spin it around.; 10:12 PM, December 20, 2005
Churadogs said...: Inlet: The Bay News story noted, "He [Murphy} estimated the initial cost at $15,000 per home or business -- installed. With capital costs and maintenance, he said monthly bills would be about $100." So it's not clear to me whether that monthly cost estimated includes principal and interest. Usually, when you're figuring monthly costs on a mortgage, for example, that always includes ALL costs. So I would presume the same here. Also, the Courant story notes that federal grants and loans are availabloe, so the interest on those might be less than open market. Again, we don't yet know the final figures, so it's impossible to figure anything except as a "guestimate."

Also, (sigh) I wish you would stop misquoting me. I don't know whether it's a matter of your not reading what I've written carefully enough? Or dyslexia? Or. . .?? For example, when have I ever refered to Tri W as "inexpensive?" And what I have called for from day one is that the voters be given several viable options on systems and sites with ACCURATE COMPLETE TOTAL COSTS (none of this deferred or Oh, Did we forget to mention O,M.& Rs??)then allowed to vote on which one they want to buy.; 8:05 AM, December 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: $15,000. Wow. I'll believe it when I see it. (include engineering for EACH house, inspection and maintainance by the CSD, reporting requirements for 5000 homes, up to $9,000 for some tank installations only, it's a regulatory nightmare - it'll sure be fun working with the waterboard on this one)

Suggest you go get an estimate by someone who has done an on-site system in Region 3, and meets nitrate requirements. You're looking at $20,000 easy and up.

Grants - ah, yes, another promise in theory. For a 100 home project, the odds are really, really good.

For a 5000 home project, the odds are not so good - just the way goverment works.

It should be looked at - but anyone that believes it'll only be $15,000 per house isn't much of a healthy skeptic.

The key is whether Region 3 would relax the nitrate disposal requirement for a system since the disposal is more widely distributed.

Ann, ya got $20,000 burning a hole in your pocket?; 8:46 AM, December 21, 2005
Shark Inlet said...: Not even a "thanks" for pointing to the actual link?

Boy, I must have burned my bridges here!

Okay ... in order.

anonymous

Yes, I had forgotten about the $4k to hook up. If one were to finance that over 20 years the cost would be about $30/month. If you want to talk "shocking" monthly figures, just remember that cancelling the TriW project and losing the SRF cost us an additional $70/month ... minimum. Yes, Ann tells us that we can simply get another loan but if you believe that you are clearly high on crystal meth. Along those lines, I cannot believe that Gail and Lisa and the rest actually think the actions we've taken will actually result in a sewer project at lower cost ... I think they are liars and not idiots. Ann ... if you are going to say that I have a double standard because of my refusal to call the previous group liars, I would suggest that the evidence that we were going to lose the SRF was far more clear than any evidence back in 1997 that step-steg, partial sewering and a ponding system was not going to fly. Sure, it's all a matter of perspective, but one cannot deny that Katz and the SWRCB were pretty darn clear in January and if it's been clear all along that the SWRCB is out to get us (as you all now claim), shouldn't this board have been a bit more careful than to go piss in their front yard?

Ann

Now on to Ann's suggestion that the $100/month for the gizmo might include P&I to borrow the $15k to put the system in ... maybe you are high as well. The text you quoted says quite clearly that the initial cost is $15k and that after that cost it would be an additional $100/month. Just give Jack Beardwood a call ... I am sure that he would be happy to verify from his notes or give you the phone number of the guy that gave him the figures.

About the Federal loans and grants ... um ... we just had one that we turned down.

You do have an excellent point about these numbers just being guestimates. On the other hand, it seems rather unfair of you to pump the guestimates that seem to match up with your point of view but to downplay those that make your board look somewhat silly.

I thought I would get you with the comment that TriW was "inexpensive". Well, no it's not, but it will seem very inexpensive compared to what we will be getting some 5 or 10 years down the road if this board has its way.

As to your suggestion that we ought to be allowed to vote on which plan we wanted after we were told all the real costs ... hahaha. You supported Measure B which took away from us the option of building at TriW. Please also admit to us that the actual costs of an out-of-town were not clearly given to us by the recall supporters. In particular, no SRF was a huge hit that this group denied would happen. As to your suggestion about ignoring O&M costs ... Rob and Lisa told us that the O&M on the out-of-town ponding option would be about $10/month per household less than the TriW plan. Is it really worth paying an addtional $70/month just to save $10/month? Not in my book.

I apologize for "misquoting" you. Perhaps there has been some confusion. If you can point to a specific comment I've made which mischaracterizes your opinion and if you would like to clarify your opinion, I would be happy to make clear my errors.

Along those lines, I don't feel that I've quoted you at all ... I've just been stating what I believe your position to be. This is much the same as you seem to have continually done with the previous board ... you calls em like you sees em. AIf you can't handle people boiling your arguments down to their essence and noting that there are rocks in the kettle ... you might want to start writing a more balanced column instead of one which has been acting as a shill for this board.

madeadecision

Yes ... that is a good point ... that new septics will be required for a sizable fraction of this community which raises the costs considerably.

The key point here is that we've each got an individual alternative to avoid individual fines but it does seem that such a fancy system will not help us lower our costs.; 10:24 AM, December 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: If you want some information on "green septics" and grey water systems that are affordable please look at Oasis located in Santa Barbara. If you look at the true cost of the tri w design compared to individual water and waste management it is quite clear which way we should go. Wake up sheeple.; 10:34 AM, December 21, 2005
Shark Inlet said...: Thanks for the tip. I just looked this up (see http://www.oasisdesign.net/design/consult/specialties.htm#gs for full info) and found the info ... um ... somewhat incomplete.

They did not really (on this page, I'm willing to look at more stuff if you'll simply point me in the right placre) address the issue of cost and the nitrate levels in the effuluent. Interestingly enough, they do say (on this page) that "this system doesn't usually make sense where you're obligated to hook up to a sewer." This raises the question of whether we are really required to hook up or whether there is simply an effluent prohibition. If it is the second, I suspect that there would be some sort of highly intrusive monitoring that would need to go on before any such system would be approved for Los Osos residents.

By the way ... "sheeple"? That's pretty funny! I trust that you won't mind it at all if I were to call the followers of this board sheeple (including and especially those who actively campaigned for Measure B telling us that we won't be fined and that we won't lose the SRF).; 7:16 PM, December 21, 2005
Mike Green said...: Sheeple? Goatple? Sharkple?
Question, Why would there have to be intrusive monitoring after a system is put in but not before?
You would think that the "Water Gods" (if they really cared about water) would want to know if it worked.
My experience with pollution people lends me to believe that if a system is approved, that good enough. (Smog laws); 10:10 PM, December 21, 2005
Shark Inlet said...: I don't actually see why we don't have monitoring now ... other than the fact that it would be next to impossible to do. If some are promoting such a device as a solution to the nitrate problem, it would be necessary to verify that these systems are not producing nitrates.; 10:17 PM, December 21, 2005
Mike Green said...: No, it would only be necessary that the system could be demonstrated that it "could" work. Do you drive a car? if it was built after 1996 it has a system that monitors its emissions. It checks continualy the parameters that were set by the SMOG GODS. It is very difficult to circumvent it because it has to pass its own onboard tests and report that its successful.
Does it work flawlesly?-
Nope
Ask any mechanic about the On Board Diagnostic System 2.
Does it decrease SMOG.
Absolutely.
The reason we don't have monitoring now?
Go ask the proffesional politicians that fine communities to insure a financial base for their own kingdom.; 10:45 PM, December 21, 2005
Churadogs said...: Re "verifying" water output. If the onsite system has an exit pipe and is supposedly putting out "potable" water, it's a simple matter of collecting a sample and having it tested. I don't think it costs gazillions to run one sample? Also, the newer models supposedly have moniters on them to adjust the oxygen levels and sensors to "phone home" if they're in need of repair so Mr. OnSite Repair Guy shows up and fixes it. One interesting thing about the onsite systems would be their life-cycle. In talking to Frank Freiler, he said we have low sulpher water which means that concrete tanks can last for a very, very long time (apparently sulpher eats away at concrete over time so communities with sulpher in their water can't use such tanks for very long; they crumble) Anyway, the life cycle of the system would have to be taken into account. The sensors and pumps & etc. would have to be replace every so often, the tanks pumped every so often, but eventually, you would "pay off" the initial capital costs and only be left with O&M and equipment replacement. Which means your original cost would drop over time (like paying off your mortgage and being left with taxes and ins. only) A regular in-street sewer's cost would never drop but would keep rising as energy and salary costs rose to run the plant & etc.

In either case, it's something to look at and consider. And interesting that certainly other towns are actually going to be using such systems. As I said before, what's really cool to me if IF -- IF -- you actually do end up with potable water (potable has to meet legal nitrate numbers) you could use it to water your petunias, thereby cutting your water bills (nice) but more important cutting water use in a community already in overdraft.; 6:08 AM, December 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Shark Inlet brought up an interesting point. Are we required to hook up or is there simply an effluent prohibition? If I install a compost toilet and branched drain grey water system I am no longer polluting the bay or ground water. The most efficient waste treatment is composting. Check out Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken.; 1:02 PM, December 22, 2005
Churadogs said...: Dear Anon, I spoke with Bob Semonsen who installed an on-site system some years ago. I asked him, "Are you legal?" And his reply was, "Welllllll, that's an interesting question. . . . ." In short, he doesn't know, he can't get anyone from RWQCB to "sign off on him" so to speak, he understands that the only way to compel them to sign off on him is for HIM to take them to state or federal court and FORCE them to sign off on him. So, they've got him in a catch 22,even though they test his output and he's under the required nitrate output. So, once again, a regulatory agency with no accountability, no clear operating rules has a poor citizen in limbo. And a whole town.

I sent a letter to Briggs asking him if sus systems as described in the recent Bay News story did, indeed, work, why couldn't citizens on their own just go buy the thing and would that then get them out from under RWQCB's control since theyr'e not discharging anything and so not violating 83-13?

To date, I have received no answer.

If a regular citizen wants to install whatever, they'd need county permits, public health permits (make sure the system isn't a health danger), some method of "proving" to RWQCB there is no nitrate discharge (so as to not violate 83-13) and then HOPE they won't be forced to court to defend something they're NOT doing . . .

In practical reality, before any on site sysstems ever get used, I would presume some local governmental agency (CSD for example) would have to pass an ordinance allowing them to be installed and used as part of a Sanitary District, for example, then stand ready to go into court against RWQCB to defend the citizens.; 6:33 AM, December 23, 2005

Pages

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

13 comments: