AWPCA

EDITOR …. AWPCA NEWSLETTER…. I want to give you the opportunity to reply before I forwarded this along with Mr. Bale’s article to my several thousand email list ………. Respectfully,

Greetings:

I write in response to an article submitted by Jack Bale, of WilsonBale Consulting, LLC which appears in the September 2008 issue, on page 50/51, entitled … On-Site Wastewater Treatment in Arizona. Before I begin I sincerely invite everyone to make the time to read Mr. Bale’s article and digest its implications. It is well worth your time. I have attached Mr. Bale’s article in a “pdf” format, see above.

I have known Mr. Bale for a number of years beginning when he was an active part of ADEQ management when they were still on Central Ave. And more recently when he was an active part of the formation of what was to evolve into AzOWRA.

As for my own bona-fides, I have been an active “player” in the Arizona On-site Industry for more than 30 years beginning in the early 1970’s. I have been part of the public “stakeholder” constituency at the rule development forums whenever these forums have been open to the public. I was co-chairman of the citizens Ad-Hoc group which met unpaid for approx. 2 years prior to ADEQ implementing its Unified Permit Rule in Jan. 2000..

Before writing this I made email contact with Mr. Bale, who noted to me his writing was submitted to AWPCA about two years ago. Reviewing the membership of AWPCA your membership, from my perspective, has a built in bias as it is comprised largely of those associated with “big-pipe” solutions and major municipalities and their utility personnel. It would not be surprising to find that most likely unknown to many in your organization, the tone and tenor of the rules and regulations governing the design, installation, O&M and other aspects of all residential onsite wastewater treatment and effluent disposal systems in Arizona has “morphed” appreciably and do not reflect the tidy package presented to the public by ADEQ or delegated county environmental dept personnel. Given my “anti-big-pipe” bias I want to thank AWPCA for publishing Mr. Bale’s article.

I write not to “mock” all – big pipe – solutions but rather to offer they have not in all circumstances been honestly nor fairly presented to the voters and the public. For example both Bullhead City and Lake Havasu are still today – 2008 – up to their eye-balls in alligators wrestling with the aftermath of disinformation by ADEQ personnel and “big-pipe” consulting engineers and contractors. I invite anyone to make the time to drive to either community and talk to the man in the street the one who has to pay the bill – the same people who will pay the bill for the Bush/Wall Street/Federal Reserve//Housing Mortgage debacle reputed as a WAG (wild ass guess) to be currently more than $700,000,000 dollars.

The real tragedy of the rules initially promulgated in 2000, is either by design or by fatal error far too many of those aspects affecting the design, construction and O&M of any residential onsite wastewater treatment and effluent disposal system was specified in rule. Once in rule, this language is treated by government as sacrosanct – though the regulators are by slight of hand permitted to interpret any rule specification in whatever manner they feel they need in that moment to force compliance as they solely deem appropriate. That same ability and latitude is not afforded to the designer, contractor, homeowner or John Q Public, who is mandated by law and rule to submit to the arbitrary and often capricious directives of these few self-anointed governmental regulators and/or their contract minions.

As Mr. Bale notes today in 2008, there are over 500,000 individual on-site wastewater treatment and effluent disposal systems, more affectionately known as – SEPTIC SYSTEM – and as Mr. Bale also notes an unknown, but significant, percentage of these 500,000 septic systems are well beyond the 20 year life expectancy initially intended for these types of systems. I can attest to a number of systems which I personally installed in the early 1970’s which are still in operation today and most of them, I suspect, have never had any formal O&M attention. That septic systems, or for that matter any system, with 20 years of age, operated without any formal O&M, could be the source of some form of water pollution is understandable, is it not…?

For me at this point the discussion gets cloudy and muddy as “politics” enter and define the conversation and direct the outcome. During the time ADEQ was promulgating its 2000 rule package a group of unpaid citizens – stakeholders – met for about 2 years prior attempting to develop clear, concise and understandable cradle to the grave guidelines for all residential septic systems. We, or more accurately, I did not understand the politics and was quite cleverly maneuvered to walk off the cliff not realizing it until hitting bottom. The work product of these folks was swept aside once ADEQ received word from the 9th floor of the State Capitol from then Gov Jane Hull that GRRC was prepared to vote in favor of their rule as they behind closed doors promulgated. ADEQ can no doubt note they followed relevant public disclosure protocol in the formation of their 2000 Unified Permit Rule, aware of how to manipulate them so as to produce the document they wanted without final public oversight. And ADEQ was able to follow this same format when they revised their rule in Nov 2005, gaining GRRC approval to implement a grossly flawed program.

I have always wondered why it is that – “we” – that’s you and me – are so afraid of actually making any owner of a septic system accountable and responsible for its care, custody, use and control….? The answer it appears to me to be that were “we” to choose to hold an owner of a septic system accountable and responsible, then logically those operating all municipal and quasi-municipal wastewater systems would also be accountable and responsible and organizations like AWPCA would not tolerate that…? As it stands all municipal and quasi-municipal wastewater treatment operators are able to “pass-the-buck” and “point-the-finger” of accountability and responsibility to others and that is and remains sacrosanct.

Moreover the playing field overseen by “lady justice” is deliberate skewed as the membership of organizations like AWPCA have their heavy hand on that balance beam whereby funds are always available to support and fund “big-pipe” solutions, while little or no funding is made available to support residential on-site industry needs.

Until “we” – John Q Public – choose to see through the smoke and mirrors and the shell game being deliberately perpetrated nothing will change and the “big-pipe” will remain as the regulators solution of choice for any water quality pollution and contamination issues Arizona encounters.

In a world environment in which many learned and scholarly individuals are advocating directing our attention towards those endeavors which honestly promote - “green” – Arizona stands firmly entrenched along a path adding only to the Midas creed and greed the economic mantra of our state’s leadership unrestrained and unsustainable growth.

On-site residential wastewater treatment and effluent disposal in Arizona has been set up to deliberately fail and “we” – that’s you and me – are the only ones who can do anything to change it. Current government rules and policies regulating on-site residential wastewater treatment and effluent disposal in Arizona are deliberately designed not to hold anyone accountable or responsible. Current reality is – if one has the tenacity, they can design, install and operate any form of on-site wastewater treatment and effluent disposal system (septic system) they choose (i.e. translates into cheapest with no accountability tail) and then we wonder why each day new reports surface detailing the most recently disclosed incidence of water contamination and pollution in Arizona…?

As Sir Issac Newton noted so long ago … “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” …

Yes, taking positive and corrective action will most definitely result in frustration, anger, displacement, in the end if that be the route we choose, our water will honestly be – safe – but the choice is one each of us is required to make.

And this will not occur until – “we” – devise clear, concise and understandable rules honorably promulgated in an atmosphere of consensus buy-in which is a process current governmental rule-making provisions clearly deny.

It is your water and if you want to control it, you have to make that decision and commit to a plan to achieve it. Understand this is not a path for the faint of heart.

Respectfully submitted,