The importance of on-site wastewater regulations.

In the winter 1998 issue of Pipeline, a publication of the National Small Flows Clearinghouse, the article "Why Onsite Regulations are Important" caught my eye.(*) I thought the subject pertinent also to JEH readers, and I couldn't resist comment. The article noted a growing public feeling that regulations are excessive or unnecessary. I absolutely agree that on-site regulations are necessary but that we are still faced with the task of convincing a skeptical public. I've worked as a regulator and as a designer/monitoring professional, and I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly from both sides of the counter. The public perception that regulations are not useful stems from the accurate observation that the process often doesn't work well and the individual pays the resulting high price. The unfortunate conclusion that regulations are not needed is poorly drawn. Modern on-site system issues are complex and beyond many people, but there are many who are competent enough to discern that better decisions could be made. In any case, people are angered when "the system" fails.

The difficulties of effectively administering on-site regulations are too numerous to discuss here, but a few topics are worth mentioning. It has been my experience that some local health jurisdictions in Washington are undersupported in the legal arena. Lack of support can take the form of weak laws and unresponsive prosecutors. When clear-cut cases of failure (with surfacing sewage) are given to the local prosecutor and nothing happens, the environmental health specialist is left holding the bag. Some of my fellows have resorted to threatening letters or other forms of intimidation, including illegal inspections. The results are modest at best. By and large, when local health officials are unsupported, the general public reduces them to paper tigers, which they ignore. This dynamic fuels the lack of trust between all parties. This situation does not occur in all jurisdictions, but where it does, public health suffers. I could show you, today, numerous long-term septic system failures that I attribute to this malady.

A second difficulty stems from the arduousness of the journey required for approval of new technologies. Approval really should receive top priority from administrative agencies. Although proactive jurisdictions promote proven innovations, many do not. Rejection of progressive ideas stems from general mistrust of the private sector, lack of trained reviewers, and perhaps political interference. I shall speak only to the issue of trust.

Mistrust between the public and private sectors (to which players on both sides contribute) is destructive. All of us need to maintain professional objectivity to prevent the "bad and the ugly" among us from spoiling it for the rest. As a result of the distrust, valuable technologies remain unused in many jurisdictions. We must struggle to maintain objectivity and personal credibility in all our dealings and base our decisions on fact, not fancy. If professionals in public or private service cannot maintain trust, the public will know and eventually respond by damaging our public health laws and agencies (e.g., through funding cuts).

To heal the rift, we need to put aside our own personal agendas and think about what value our service brings to the customer. For instance, it is well established that pump-out frequency for septic tanks may be as long as 10 years. Many people on both sides of the counter still promote a three-year pump-out cycle, some because of ignorance, others for economic reasons. Another example to consider is that of the administrator who drags out the process of accepting new technology. If a homeowner learns that he or she paid $15,000 for a septic system when a better system would have cost $7,000, will that homeowner appreciate the services of the administrator?

These issues are difficult, but we must address them. Often we don't wish to air our dirty laundry in professional journals, and I agree we shouldn't fall into unproductive finger pointing. Nevertheless, we need to discuss examples of things that are working. We must be candid about our failures so we can learn from them, and we must explain and discuss the details of how to do it better. How many current examples can you cite in which the status quo didn't serve the public good? We must ask "Which is more worth protecting - the status quo or public health?"

When we find ourselves promoting our best professional ideals, we will discover that we often achieve our own personal goals as well.

* The article to which Mr. Morse referred is reprinted on page 26 with permission from Pipeline, Winter 1998.

Corresponding Author: Ken Morse, R.S., Accelerated Septic Designs & Monitoring, PO. Box 1385, Olympia, WA 98507-1385.