unsewered the implications

'Unsewered' areas continue to pose dilemma … By Cindy Barks … The Daily Courier …Thursday, March 27, 2008 … PRESCOTT - For nearly a decade, the city has grappled with how to handle the hundreds of north-Prescott homes that still use septic systems to treat their household waste. Since the late 1990s, myriad studies, surveys, and discussions have taken place in an effort to get the homes near the Taylor Hicks Elementary School on the city's sewer system. So far, however, the efforts have been unsuccessful. Mayor Jack Wilson maintained this week that the time has come for a decision. "The charge is to decide this issue," he said Tuesday during a council workshop on the city's policy on "unsewered" areas. "We've got to decide this time; we cannot let it fester for another two years." For the city and the residents in the area, much of the issue comes down to money. Officials have long debated whether the city should pay a portion of the cost for installing a system that would benefit private homes - especially when most other Prescott homeowners paid for their sewer hookups without city assistance. And for residents, the rising cost of hooking into the city sewer system - estimated at about $7,000-per-home in the early 2000s, and now possibly exceeding $20,000 - has been a major stumbling block. During their goal-setting retreat earlier this year, City Council members rated the development of a "citywide sewer policy" as their top goal. Since then, city staff members have been working to narrow down the issue and come up with policy choices.For instance, Deputy City Manager Craig McConnell presented a number of financing options for the council this week, along with mandatory connection alternatives. While the workshop attracted a handful of residents, Councilwoman Mary Ann Suttles expressed concerns about the relatively small crowd. "I'm afraid we're going to make a decision and then have a backlash from the neighborhood saying 'we don't want this,'" she said. McConnell pointed out that because the city was still working on the "policy framework," it had not done any large-scale meeting notification. Councilman Robert Luzius suggested that notifying the residents now would be beneficial. "If there is no buy-in, then we're just spinning our wheels," he said. Residents who did attend continued to voice concerns about projected cost. Council members expressed some frustration that they were discussing the same points that had come up in previous meetings. We're right back where we were three years ago," Suttles said. Maintaining that council members were "chasing our tails," Councilman Bob Roecker suggested putting the matter to the public to decide. The only solution is to ask the 16,000 (current customers) to pony up for the rest of the folks," Roecker said, pointing out that the city's water and sewer customers would end up paying, should the city decide to help pay for retrofitting in unsewered areas. Councilman Jim Lamerson, who has long emphasized the "public health and safety" aspect of allowing sometimes-failing septic systems to continue to operate, repeated his concerns this week, asking for a health assessment of the situation. The issue likely will come up again on April 1, when the council will conduct a workshop on water and sewer rates. Contact the reporter at cbarks@prescottaz.com


'Unsewered' areas continue to pose dilemma … By Cindy Barks … The Daily Courier …Thursday, March 27, 2008 … PRESCOTT - For nearly a decade, the city has grappled with how to handle the hundreds of north-Prescott homes that still use septic systems to treat their household waste. Since the late 1990s, myriad studies, surveys, and discussions have taken place in an effort to get the homes near the Taylor Hicks Elementary School on the city's sewer system. So far, however, the efforts have been unsuccessful. Mayor Jack Wilson maintained this week that the time has come for a decision. "The charge is to decide this issue," he said Tuesday during a council workshop on the city's policy on "unsewered" areas. "We've got to decide this time; we cannot let it fester for another two years." For the city and the residents in the area, much of the issue comes down to money. Officials have long debated whether the city should pay a portion of the cost for installing a system that would benefit private homes - especially when most other Prescott homeowners paid for their sewer hookups without city assistance. And for residents, the rising cost of hooking into the city sewer system - estimated at about $7,000-per-home in the early 2000s, and now possibly exceeding $20,000 - has been a major stumbling block. During their goal-setting retreat earlier this year, City Council members rated the development of a "citywide sewer policy" as their top goal. Since then, city staff members have been working to narrow down the issue and come up with policy choices.For instance, Deputy City Manager Craig McConnell presented a number of financing options for the council this week, along with mandatory connection alternatives. While the workshop attracted a handful of residents, Councilwoman Mary Ann Suttles expressed concerns about the relatively small crowd. "I'm afraid we're going to make a decision and then have a backlash from the neighborhood saying 'we don't want this,'" she said. McConnell pointed out that because the city was still working on the "policy framework," it had not done any large-scale meeting notification. Councilman Robert Luzius suggested that notifying the residents now would be beneficial. "If there is no buy-in, then we're just spinning our wheels," he said. Residents who did attend continued to voice concerns about projected cost. Council members expressed some frustration that they were discussing the same points that had come up in previous meetings. We're right back where we were three years ago," Suttles said. Maintaining that council members were "chasing our tails," Councilman Bob Roecker suggested putting the matter to the public to decide. The only solution is to ask the 16,000 (current customers) to pony up for the rest of the folks," Roecker said, pointing out that the city's water and sewer customers would end up paying, should the city decide to help pay for retrofitting in unsewered areas. Councilman Jim Lamerson, who has long emphasized the "public health and safety" aspect of allowing sometimes-failing septic systems to continue to operate, repeated his concerns this week, asking for a health assessment of the situation. The issue likely will come up again on April 1, when the council will conduct a workshop on water and sewer rates. Contact the reporter at cbarks@prescottaz.com
“UNSEWERED” areas have been and will continue to pose a dilemma providing “we” – that’s you and me – remain attached to the “big-pipe” solutions universally posed as the ultimate solution by government regulators, giant engineering firms and contractors and purveyors of municipal wastewater products and their interlocking revolving door employment policies.

I find it interesting that our Congress as well as our state government has been provided some years ago with data from studies indicating that properly operated residential onsite wastewater treatment and effluent disposal systems (septic systems) are equally viable long term solutions.

The painfully salient operative words are – properly operated – therein lays the heart of the dilemma “we” face respecting all these septic systems.

In Arizona, the homeowner is the sacrosanct sacred cow and untouchable, “we” loath making any homeowner accountable and responsible for any act on his property while under his care, custody or control. In Arizona, our currently promulgated ADEQ rules, regulations, bulletins governing the design, installation, construction, O&M and re-sale of any residential property which is served by a septic system are treated with “kid-gloves.” Why then, should “we” be surprised to learn and find that in the vast majority of these installations there are any number of conditions, problems or circumstances which need to be corrected.

Those advocating the “big-pipe” solution often do so under the mistaken belief that “bigger is better” with truly no concept of the long term issues and implication of this tentative course of action. “Bigger” is not always, better. Were you to ask the folks in Lake Havasu City, today, whether they would currently vote to install and finance the “big pipe” solution forced on them by ADEQ, I do believe the vote would overwhelmingly be in opposition. Or ask the folks in Bullhead City about the cost and implications of their “big pipe” solution, also forced on them by ADEQ.

Moreover, universally “big-pipe” solutions are leading to control by a few selected multi-national for-profit corporations and given the implications and conditions imposed by WTO, GATT, World Bank, NAFTA – WE – that’s you and me – do not have the right to challenge or infringe on these corporations “rights.”

It’s your choice, your decision. I invite you to stop, look, listen then ask all the questions you choose accepting nothing less than 100% clear concise and understandable replies from those whom you are questioning. To accept anything less is foolish. Remember under all conditions and circumstances – government and government regulators – work for us, they are our employees, “we” hold the ultimate power authority, accountability and responsibility.