as bad as the law allows our state's environmental legacy

As bad as the law allows our state’s environmental legacy…

WHITE PAPER … OBSERVATION, EVALUATION & OPINION ON THE CURRENT CONDITIONS FACING ARIZONA’S RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER . . . EUPHEMISTICALLY TERMED – “SEPTIC SYSTEM”

For me this has been a true work in progress as I began writing this upon my return from the AzOWRA seminar held in early June 2008 in Flagstaff and cautiously I reflect upon what I heard and saw It is I need to own difficult to completely remove my ego, my bias from entering into this writing I present to you. I, like a number of individuals from Arizona who attended some years ago the NOWRA conference in Albuquerque, met and contemplated the formation of what was to eventually become AzOWRA. I am a charter founding member of AzOWRA and served on its initial Board of Directors resigning as I was unable to honestly carry the message AzOWRA leadership espoused. A hero, goat or martyr that does not make of me, only one who chooses to believe and live as Abraham Lincoln so succinctly noted … “a house divided against its self can not stand” … For AzOWRA leadership to present in a unified manner its positions, its Board need honestly reflect, espouse, embrace the positions majority votes stipulate. I was honestly unable in all cases to do that.

The “prime directive” motivating the development of AzOWRA was as I understood and recall was to “be” that voice uniting all those comprising the “stakeholders” within the Arizona Residential On-Site community. Just who might those stakeholders be…? Envisioned were academia, regulators from city, county, state, engineers, residential wastewater treatment and effluent disposal system designers, installation contractors, operation and maintenance providers, real estate agents, septic pumpers, vendors, product manufacturers, suppliers and last but certainly not least John Q. Public – the citizens of Arizona.

Today some years later, Arizona remains without a united voice capable to honestly speak for the Arizona Residential On-Site community. That fault most assuredly does not solely fall upon AzOWRA inability to provide an umbrella and the leadership necessary to unite us all. For more than 30 years I have worked in the residential wastewater treatment and effluent disposal arena through out Arizona. I do not claim to have all the answers. What I do claim is have the experience to begin to ask some of the right questions. Perhaps some of you receiving this can also recall the numerous attempts others have made in a manner similar to AzOWRA to evolve into that single voice honestly and honorable resonating for the express long term benefit of all those comprising the Arizona onsite community. Unsuccessful they were, too. To amalgamate, integrate a conglomeration as diverse as that which comprises the Arizona onsite community, it seems to me to require uncanny leadership ability coupled with the wisdom Solomon is reputed to possess.

It struck me as I listened to the presenters at this seminar, in microcosm the messages presented to us represent and reflect the same disconnect I believe exists through out our nation, perhaps our world, too. In Arizona, we remain, firmly entrenched protecting our selected proprietary “turf,” unable and/or unwilling to see or embrace a larger world view. Understandably if you have been trained and daily held accountable to stipulate and believe the truth of a single point of view, those espousing another most assuredly must be wrong.

It occurred to me that several pieces of information presented at this seminar upon first blush seemed to be extremely divergent, lacking any common interface. I offer them to you as FYI and I trust later in this presentation I will be able to successfully integrate them.

Hauled Water - I must admit I was unaware to learn that over 50% of the new construction within Coconino County is on property to which the owner must haul water for all forms of consumptive use. And moreover that hauled water cost about 45 cents per gallon commercially delivered to one’s home and storage tank. Currently generated national averages note Americans use about 60 gallons of water per day per person. Does that really hold true if one hauls water…? Even if we arbitrarily choose to reduce that figure by 50%, it could easily cost $15 per day per person for water, if one relies solely upon hauled water. Year 2000, US census data, notes in Arizona a “household” consists of 3 persons. If one utilizes this census data, it would suggest we in Arizona believe a person hauling water to his site pays on the average $1,350/month for water…? Count me as a “doubting Thomas” but I have a most difficult time giving credence this extrapolation represents fact, fiction maybe…? The reality appears to me to be those hauling water for their consumptive use, use water most judiciously not only advocating, but living, the motto … “waste not” ….

Greywater – The presentation on grey water exposed for all of us, the multiplicity of layers of which on the surface appear to be isolated. As was quite effectively presented, Arizona’s current method to address grey water is to simply not deal with its long term ramifications upon our environment. ADEQ, (Arizona Dept of Environmental Quality) the state governmental agency charged with … serving & protecting …us and all aspects of our water and air, chose to take a politically expedient course of action. Designed principally to placate those living in Pima county, Tucson and surrounding environs, who have for many, many years utilized, as governmental regulators at all levels conveniently looked the other way, all kinds, types, homemade and commercially installed forms of greywater apparatus. Over the years in Pima County and the surrounding locale many, many thousands forms of greywater uses have been installed. What to do, why clearly ADEQ does not address the situation head on, they chose to obliquely bury it out of sight, camouflaging it of course.

Hoops you must jump through - A succession of presentations at this referenced seminar exposed a line in the sand as one compares the “hoops” any applicant must jump through when the vaunted standard conventional septic tank and gravity leach field can not be installed on that owner’s site. Those sites successfully meeting the subjective criteria permitting the installation of the proverbial standard conventional septic tank and gravity leach disposal system obtaining the necessary certificate to construct is like … “a walk in the park, a piece of cake” …. But pity that homeowner whose site does not meet the subjective criteria allowing installation of such a system for they quickly learn to obtain all the necessary permits enabling them to construct their “alternative” form of residential onsite wastewater treatment system moves with the speed of pouring molasses in winter. Moreover they quickly discover, or should; their “alternative” system is subjected to approx. 143 pages of governmentese language often in conflict between the referencing rule specifications. Moreover, though the governing ADEQ rules are to be incorporated and uniformly applied “state-wide” as a result of choice, ADEQ allows their Unified Permit Rule of 2001, to be implemented pursuant to 15 separate county rule interpretations, most without meeting the legal requirement of becoming part of their respective county ordinance.

At this juncture, I invite you to consider the implications on how and what the utter lack of ADEQ oversight, implementation and enforcement has on the permit process statewide…? As a direct result of ADEQ abject failure to implement, enforce and provide oversight, ADEQ subjects every applicant of an “alternative” residential onsite wastewater system to the whims of either specific county regulators or private contract personnel acting in behalf of the specific county. Though illegal and unsanctioned by state law, some counties allow their private contract oversight personnel to arbitrarily and capriciously stipulate they will only review applications which meet submittal protocols stipulated solely by them. For the homeowner and their designer/engineer caught in this “ego-game” it becomes do you have the time and money and are you willing to fight these draconian policies or do you choose the more typical course of action and meekly submit to these “Nazi” like demands to enable the homeowner to obtain as quickly as possible the necessary certificate of approval to construct. Bear in mind often meekly submitting to their demands means the “alternative” system in question will cost more money and frequently subjects the owner to the need to utilize costly long term private third party operation and maintenance (O&M). The tentacles surrounding O&M are quite sordid and deserve separate discussion. For the record, I am fully in support of O&M for ALL forms of residential wastewater treatment and effluent disposal systems from pit privies, to standard septic system, to the more elaborate forms of propriety alternative systems marketed and installed. The “key” for me is there must be accountability and responsibility of all the players, with public third party oversight.

Cleverly composed words – When used at this seminar words such as – “standard” system vs. “alternative,” sustainability, mandatory checklists, greywater, rock, soils, “perc,” O&M, watertight, homeowner accountability – clearly resonate how cleverly we choose to use and to define words such as these. Though definitions are provided at the beginning of the ADEQ rule noted in state statue, today, each of Arizona’s 15 counties choose to alter these definitions to conform to subjective definitions of their choosing. More importantly the definitions in rule were made for the convenience of government and are NOT intended to be clear concise and easily understood by you or me. I rise to especially question the choice of terms like “standard septic system” vs. “alternative systems”…? Most folks as a result of hearing these terms choose what is deemed standard as opposed to that labeled alternative. Our choice of terms is not clear, nor concise, nor understandable. And, yet, we expect all those comprising the Arizona onsite community to be not only conversant with these terms, but understand their subtleness, especially John Q. Public – the citizen of Arizona. At a most fundamental level as a result of our choice not to educate we lay the foundation and plant the seed for the ensuing chaos in our Arizona residential onsite community.

Rural water vs. metro Phoenix – Presenters at this referenced seminar made us aware of the total disconnect between rural community water policy and that currently imposed in metro Phoenix. Flagstaff residents today operate under a residential water policy wherein currently they can water every other day and one day on the weekend. Residential water costs about 7 cents per gallon from the water meter provided by the city. As summer progresses, more restrictions will be placed on water use in Flagstaff. Routinely, if not daily, the “water” police roam Flagstaff streets searching for violators. In metro Phx we turn on the water facet and tap and forget about any aspect of the lingering drought all of Arizona continues to be under. The average man in the street in metro Phoenix is completely unaware if any restrictions are in place. Are there any….? I know of none.

Increased “septage” should we be concerned – Honest uniform state-wide application and enforcement of operation and maintenance provisions for all residential onsite wastewater treatment and effluent disposal systems will very significantly increase the amount of “septage” generated. An ancillary consideration is the fact today the number of municipally operated legal and lawful “septage” receiving and disposal sites are diminishing significantly. One question becomes, what are we going to do about this factor and are we even willing to address it….?

So what might be the common interface of these information pieces…? I choose to begin that for the past 30 years that I have been aware of we have clearly been unable and/or unwilling as it requires “guts” to hold any homeowner accountable for anything. Interesting as every presenter at this conference loudly and clearly stipulates the absolute importance and requirement the homeowner is aware, complies and conforms to all those aspects of the rule affecting their onsite system, whether or not ADEQ chooses to note and/or enforce. Though we speak in seminars such as the one I recently attended of holding the homeowner accountable and responsible, we lack the “guts” to provide the level of information and education they require. And moreover we really do not want to actively bring them to the table whenever their interests are being discussed, which is every time water in any form is on anyone’s agenda.

Tentacles surrounding hauled water - It strikes me beginning with the tentacles surrounding the issues of property developed on sites clearly devoid of onsite water (individual water wells or municipal water to site) – hauled water - the demands of our rules are unjustified, without any scientific validity and draconian. Moreover, one can make the case, these are the very sites where forms of greywater use and other forms of reuse will be employed and utilized. The “hoops” we demand these folks jump through are the same as those to which one installing a “standard” septic system must jump through. Why, when clearly such a divergence stares us in the face…?

Are we stating that we are unable or unwilling to write rules understandable to everyone, eliminating the convoluted “governmentese” language and simply stipulate that if at some time in the future onsite water is made available to those now utilizing “hauled water” sites, they must immediately install residential wastewater treatment and disposal systems meeting an applicable standard determined at that time and place…? If on the other hand, we are permitting homes to be build on land which absolutely lack any practical means or methods to ever, under any circumstance, install and operate a viable form of wastewater treatment and disposal, then we ought to have the GUTS to simply inform everyone that should you choose to purchase and live on this site you will ALWAYS have to agree ALL your sewage SHALL be hauled away and verified by methods we devise. Or else do not let this land be sold for humans to dwell upon.

As one begins to peel away - the layers of the regulatory onion we quickly see how integrated these seemingly divergent aspects become. Leaving the “hauled water” aspect on the back burner for a moment, let’s turn our attention to greywater use. I need to own my personal bias is to promote the use of greywater in any reasonable fashion or form for any property anywhere in Arizona. Having said that I must then take note of the “holistic” (sustainability) implications using greywater creates. There are at least two paths which greywater can take; one is use on sites where the house is connected to a municipal sewage collection, treatment and disposal modality. The second is use of greywater when an individual residence is served by its own residential onsite wastewater treatment and effluent disposal system.

Conditions common to both greywater uses include:

§ An increase in the “strength” of the sewage reaching the treatment portion of each system

§ Requires immediate and clear evaluation of what changes in the treatment aspect of each system this increased strength requires

§ What are the implications on the effluent disposal aspects of each system

§ Who pays for the upgrades and modifications to the system greywater use creates

§ What is a realistic time line to implement the changes we by consensus generate

§ Is the process we choose to implement sustainable

Industrial & Municipal - Traditionally, change affecting the municipal and industrial portions of a sewage waste stream is easier for government regulators to implement and enforce as the sheer number of units affected is significantly reduced. And of equal if not greater importance is the regulators ability to utilize the “bully-pulpit” on other governmental agencies raising the ire of their constituents their system is alleged to be out of compliance and potentially liable to significant monetary fines. Moreover the cost to provide the changes stipulated are spread out over a large number of users thereby reducing one’s individual financial contribution. There is at the moment an unknown, unquantified cost associated with what new “widget” forms we need to add to the treatment portion of the sewage treatment to handle the significantly increased strength of the sewage received while dealing with an equally smaller amount of liquid received.

Awareness of the implications in treating residential sewage - In Arizona any regulation affecting all residential wastewater treatment and effluent disposal systems number according to ADEQ spokesperson, Edwin Swanson, today over 550,000 separate individual installations through out our State spread unequally over 15 separate counties. Moreover the cost of any change mandated would be borne by each individual homeowner irrespective of their ability to pay. Likewise increased use of greywater requires us to address the immediate as well as long term implications on the treatment portion of our residential wastewater systems. Factors complicating this analysis and evaluation, is, how on an individual homeowner basis we address and resolve the issues respecting the pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and endocrine interrupters and other chemical, toxic and carcinogenic forms routinely found in our residential sewage. Increased greywater use correspondingly almost automatically increases as a percentage of volume these constituents. On an individual homeowner basis, currently we do not know if we even have the technology “widgets” capable of adequately addressing this condition. We therefore do not have even a “WAG,” as to the cost an individual homeowner could face to achieve compliance. “WAG” is a scientific term defined as wild ass guess.

Before we leave the greywater and re-use topic, it would be worthwhile to consider for a moment a portion of its political implications. Were Arizona, and specifically Phoenix, to embrace expansion of greywater use what might the implications be…? In as much as clothes washing and bathing wastewater comprise about 70% of the total amount of water consumed in the average residence, based on 2000, US Census figures of approx. 3 persons per household x 60 gallons per person per day = 180/gallons per day. Based on these figures greywater use could amount to over 125 gallons per day per dwelling. In Phoenix proper in 2000, census figures noted there were approx. 500,000 households in Phoenix x 55/gallons per day (amount remaining less greywater) will be sent to municipal sewage treatment systems, totally approx 28 million gallons per day. This represents about 1/3 of the “normal” Phoenix sewage influent and would enter these facilities at a significantly increased and elevated strength potentially creating enormous treatment challenges.

Sale of sewage effluent and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Plant - Moreover, one needs to be aware of the existing contractual constraints some local governments are operating under as a result of their eagerness to enter into the sale of effluent to Palo Verde Nuclear Generating facility west of Phoenix during the late 1980’s. A 35-mile pipeline carries treated waste water from a City of Phoenix sewage treatment facility to Palo Verde, where the 90 million gallons of sewage effluent each day is used for cooling at both Palo Verde and Redhawk. It would appear to meet this contractual agreement ALL the sewage from the 500,000 residential units in Phoenix are continuously required on a daily basis.

End run to protect “turf” - Historically in Arizona those who comprise the “stakeholders” of the residential onsite community have consistently chosen to believe the only way change will occur is by working with and through the established regulatory process as presented to us by ADEQ. There is I believe rather incontrovertible evidence that over these last 8 years since this new millennium began and ADEQ evoked its – Unified Permit Rule in 2001 - that our collective state environment has been dealt an increasing disservice. In 2001, we permitted ADEQ to make its politically motivated “end run” to beat the upstart Unified Plumbing Code (UPC) to GRRC thereby into rule, simply to establish its claim to “turf,” though at the time this ADEQ rule had holes and problems large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Rather than stand up to the political juggernaut driving ADEQ, (i.e. mines, developers, utilities, corporate agriculture) we acquiesced primarily because we did not in opposition know what to do. Politically naïve were we then and perhaps remain still now.

Developing consensus “buy-in” - I have raised at numerous times and under different conditions the notion that only when we choose to make and grant the time necessary to honestly educate and seek input from every corner of our state from individuals everywhere will the rules and regulations by consensus promulgated there under achieve the voluntary “buy-in” necessary to accomplish the status of voluntary compliance implementation and enforcement of rules and regulations governing how we use and treat all forms of water in Arizona. In most every case where I have given this notion “voice” it is met by some with the reaction its too far out, I just don’t understand how the game is played, it can't be done this way, no one will support this approach, it’s politics and you are not in tune. If that is the paradigm to which you adhere, believe and are held accountable then most assuredly any other paradigm can only be seen as false, untrue and unattainable.

During my collegiate days in the mid-1960’s era, I recall reading about a study conducted to evaluate and potentially quantify the amount of “change” we can endure before we freak out. As I recall, I was surprised to learn this study revealed we are able to accept “changes” not exceeding ten-percent (10%), before our individual fear of the unknown raises its specter overwhelming us. Assuming there is even marginal validity to these results, this seems to suggest that for a “complete” change cycle to occur would require at the minimum ten years. In the 33 years I have been active within the Arizona onsite community, I question whether we have even achieved a one time complete change in the paradigm of our beliefs.

Anticipation of a new era vs. current reality - There was great anticipation the ADEQ – Unified Permit Rule of 2001 – was to usher in a new era eliminating the haphazardly applied guidelines of the then governing standard – Engineering Bulletin 12 (covering residential onsite systems). The most notable aspect of these newly promulgated rules was to mandate their uniform application on a state-wide basis coupled with provisions quantifying and objectifying under force of rule and law, what previously was largely guideline and a regulator’s subjective opinion. The stark reality in 2008 is these once vaunted rules which were to be uniformly applied across every nook and cranny of Arizona have “morphed” into evaluations and opinions hap hazardously applied in sovereign manner by each of Arizona’s 15 county environmental health departments. We simply re-created the once much maligned ADEQ/Engineering Bulletin 12 in a different form essentially granting “carte-blanche” to the respective regulators and/or their contract minions.

Substantive change - Still we cling to the belief that substantive change can only come about by working through ADEQ. It was notably demonstrated at this AzOWRA sponsored seminar I recently attended that only if one adheres and presents positions placating the “status-quo” will they be allowed to have “voice.” Notably absent was any actual presentation or questions raised by John Q Public – for and in behalf of Arizona citizens. I find it so very interesting the Arizona onsite community stakeholders – fear inviting, receiving and giving voice to John Q Public. Why is that…? The questions which John Q Public might and most probably will raise, we fear we can no longer idly brush aside, or give glib answers to, sweep under the rug, dance around, but the simple truth is, we don’t honestly know how to answer their concerns. In these seminars, like this AzOWRA reference, wherein “practioneers” dwell, attendees can all faithfully espouse the words and terms deliberately chosen to be foreign, convoluted and unclear to Arizona’s average man. And we continue to buy into the “crap” that rule development language demand it be so. That’s simply not true. But you and I are free to believe as we choose.

Clear & concise vs. “gobble-de-gook” - I am reminded here of a statement made by William Tiller, Ph.D., Stanford, physics who, some of you may have seen in the movie … What the Bleep … who noted at a seminar I attended about a year ago that he found until he truly understood, his explanation to others were protracted and convoluted. When he attained true knowledge, wisdom some might say, he could then articulate his explanation to others in a voice clear, concise and understandable. Might it be the “gobble-de-gook” terms we espouse are nothing more than camouflage for our failure to have made the time and/or commitment to attain the level of knowledge from where wisdom flows…? Are we so emotionally devastated and/or diminished that we are simply unable or unwilling to say … “I simply don’t know, but I’ll look into it, and get back to you”…?

Where do we want to go from here…? – One point we might consider and ponder is how to create a safe haven wherein, in the manner of an honest broker we can contemplate aspects surrounding the safety and quantity of our water available to us, to day, tomorrow. Within this realm from a place of our ‘enlightened’ self-interest we can choose to evaluate all the societal costs – externalities – our actions around water create. And from within this atmosphere contemplate the implications of rules and regulations we promulgate which clearly suggest … “as bad as the law allows and do no more” … the essence of our State’s environmental legacy today.