Jun 1, 2011 10:41 AM
Southampton Town officials and community members are seeking to fight water pollution through new legislation aimed at monitoring onsite sewage disposal systems. From left, Glynis Berry, Bob DeLuca, Anna Throne-Holst and Tip Brolin. ROHMA ABBAS
Southampton Town officials and community members are drafting new legislation to require property owners to maintain and update septic systems and cesspools, viewed as the first step in fighting nitrogen pollution in groundwater and bays on the local government level.
The draft legislation, if enacted, would mandate property owners to have their septic systems inspected at least once every five years, or whenever the ownership of a property is transferred, according to a copy of the proposed law, which was authored primarily by Bob DeLuca, president of the Bridgehampton-based environmental organization the Group for the East End.
The goal behind the measure, Mr. DeLuca said this week, is not only to help the town protect its drinking water supply, along with its freshwater and marine ecosystems, but also to raise each property... more
The draft legislation, if enacted, would mandate property owners to have their septic systems inspected at least once every five years, or whenever the ownership of a property is transferred, according to a copy of the proposed law, which was authored primarily by Bob DeLuca, president of the Bridgehampton-based environmental organization the Group for the East End.
The goal behind the measure, Mr. DeLuca said this week, is not only to help the town protect its drinking water supply, along with its freshwater and marine ecosystems, but also to raise each property... more
Most septic servicing companies are really crooked in my experience.
How much did Norsic charge for the inspection and were there chemical tests done to determine the nitrogen output? How high is it above the water table or from tidal waters (doesn't seem to matter to this new regulation)?
We've already seen people post here that septic systems and cesspools, seemingly withut exception, are "deadly" and "dangerous and polluting". ...more It makes you wonder how they deal with their household waste; maybe we could learn something about waste disposal...or hypocrisy.
If all of us homeowners who are unhappy about this should not own a home, what do you think the value of homes is going to go to when they sell? You think the tax base would be large enough after?
The Hamptons are simply too populous now for a septic system that worked just fine when the only folks out here were farmers. We have now uniformly poisoned the aquifer and there are thousands of cesspools along the shoreline whose contents rise and fall with the tide.
The ...more only effective solution which our political masters don't want to acknowledge because of the cost, is a sewage system that discharges NO effluent into the ground, (i.e. holding tanks or a linked sewer system w/ treatment plant.)
The current proposal just nudges folks towards that conclusion. After the "inspections" finds that cesspools do indeed pollute the aquifer and bays, regardless of their efficiency, the next step will be to call for proposals to "replace" them.
Obviously if you have a pool you should have a choice if you heat it and how you heat it. That would not have been so had ATH had her way.
Now it seems we are being told fix your septic system or else...
Its difficult to argue against doing something to fix a problem that would be beneficial to the environment and ourselves. However, most homeowners have septic systems that where built according the codes that were ...more established by the town and for which the town provided the certificate of occupancy or approval for. Now we are being told that the standards established by the Town were originally wrong or inadequate bu we have to correct the problems or face fines. This is burdensome and unfair to the homeowners.
As someone has pointed out the town is also suggesting putting the foxes in charge of the hen house with septic companies determining the adequacy of our septic systems. Please. Someone else pointed out other waste water problems associated with our homes. Are we going to be expected to retrofit everything in our homes?
Obviously the issues being contemplated here are not issues particular to only Southampton. They certainly are Peconic, Suffolk and State related issues. If not national in scope. The solution has to be larger in scope than burdening the least common denominator, the local homeowner.
The solution should be forward looking. Impose new standards on new construction. For existing homes, the town has to share in the burden. It cannot be dictatorially imposed. A system of subsidized loans or tax incentives or credits could be used. There are programs for transitioning to solar power after all. Why not for better septic systems?
What about the sacrosanct CPF? Isn't its mission to environmental preservation? Couldn't funds from CPF be used to finance the upgrade. Come on share the love here...
As well intentioned as Group for the East End is, I suspect that money flowing into this organization is streaming into to the political system, to use a water metaphor. Its a power that most homeowners don't have and the only alternative is to vote for candidates that may not be as amiable to environmental concerns. It is in their interest to find means of financing this transition other than imposition. Additionally, they should not come across as being partisan. Their message gets drowned out.
"We took a look at your cespool and figure it will cost $10,000. to bring it into full compliance." x 10,000.
Are they just naive or did the campaign cash touch the right people????
As for the data collection - yes every home (at least the ones built in the last 30 years or so) lists the location on surveys. But in order to get all of that information in 1 searchable location would require absurd amounts of labor and would have a low level of accuracy. This is an accurate way of doing it.
All that being said, it's a stupid idea. The fine is so minimal that it does not encourage anyone to comply. I'd take the $350 fine every 5 years for a long time before ponying up the $10,000 to replace the whole system.
Further, even if a sanitary system is operating properly, the nitrogen is still being put into the groundwater. The only change that will have a noticeable effect is creating sewer districts, but who's willing to foot THAT bill?
At long last, attention is being directed towards devising state-of-the-art technologies to better manage both septic waste and stormwater runoff. Ultimately, a degraded environment will have impacts on ALL residents.
If it were up to folks like you everyone would just do whatever the ____ they choose until ...more all resources are simply used up.
Go to governmentisgood dot com and see just how different your life would be without it
Wanting to limit the growth of government is not the same as dismantaling it.
You take reasonable opinions to the extreme and then argue with the position you create out of thin air.
Si Se Pueda!
If we really want to save our open waters, we have to clean them. For bodies like Mill Pond, that means eliminating neighboring cesspools and ...more preventing runoff. For Shinnecock Bay, a strategy that includes elimination of waterfront cesspools and opening the bay via another inlet to more effective tidal flushing may be the answer.
But if we do nothing, our open waters will die and, then, will stink. This process is well under way in Mill Pond. The likelihood is that nothing will be done until the noxious odor becomes so strong that the general public becomes concerned that their property values are being depressed. Then the cost of upgrading sewage disposal, even if $10k a pop, will seem quite reasonable.
Once again you start off by offering false information for your sheep. You said this year brought the "first invasion ever of the toxic red tide into Shinnecock Bay".
In an article about the toxic red tide, the following is stated: "This was the fourth year that the organism had been found in the western portion of Shinnecock Bay. " Hmm... is it really that hard to do your research?!
Secondly, you claim that cutting another inlet into Shinnecock "may be the answer". ...more Your lack of knowledge about marine biology is quite evident. Where do you propose this cut be made? Who is going to pay for it? You know you'd be the first person to cry about the amount of $$ being spent on such a project.
Do you how much energy results from tidal flushing through a new inlet? It would have huge environmental impacts and likely result in heavy flooding. Maybe we should just get rid of the locks @ the shinnecock canal and let the water rush in and out - perhaps that will solve our problem.
Stick to your police mantra - don't try and opine about stuff you are clueless on.
You make a meal out of the fact that I mistook the recent red tide infestation to be the first of its kind, apparently overlooking the fact that its being the first or the fourth is largely irrelevant. The only germane fact is that it is a symptom of the bay's pollution according to the DEC. (Do you suppose you could post a citation to the article which stated it to be the fourth? If you are vague enough, the Press may not censor you.) Thank you, nevertheless, for your correction ...more (pending the citation.)
I don't know whether or not cutting a second inlet is viable as a solution to the bay's death nor do you since it hasn't been studied. It should be. I do recall that another poster noted that following the Pike's Peak breach there was an extraordinary set of scallops. Moreover, it doesn't take a "marine biologist" (or a hydrologist) to recognize that two inlets in a bay promote flushing.
As far as the cost is concerned, since the cost of replacing the cesspools on the East End with holding tanks or a linked sewer system would run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, mitigating that cost by cutting a second inlet (at the cost of, perhaps, fewer millions of dollars) doesn't seem outrageous.
Finally, I am not opposed to spending tax money for such an important objective as saving the bays. What I AM opposed to is wasting tax money on stupendously over-paid, insubordinate and unprofessional public servants.
Speaking of the STPD, I think that it would be wrong herein to mention that their compensation averages $150K/yr. with some taking in well over $200K (some of whom have not even reached the rank of lieutenant); that none of them were "retired" during the current budget crisis in contrast to other much less munificently paid Town employees (nor did they forgo their annual pay raise); or that they have embraced fascist mob tactics at each Town Council meeting where their vested interests were discussed. To mention these facts would be to hijack the thread. Ergo, I will not take you up on your suggestion.
No worries about it being censored, since it was in this very paper. See: http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/East-End/385073/Toxic-Red-Tide-In-Southampton-Spurs-Seafood-Consumption-Warnings. Of course, you won't actually be able to read it due to the locking by the Press.
Your idea of cutting another inlet to solve the algae problem is the classic: "The solution to pollution is dillution". By flushing the bay more, you want to dillute the nitrogen that is present. ...more That method really worked well in our past!
While a second inlet promotes flushing, the effects on other biological systems in the bay are enomorous. The salinty levels increase, especially in easturaine systems that contain fish and other organisms that are not adapted to such heavy loads of salt. With salt water being more dense than freshwater, it alters the thermocline, which can affect everything from migratory fish to eel grass.
Your willingnesss to hijack a thread is noted. Maybe you should call up the Repubs and inquire about running? Then you can finally rein in the STPD spending. . . put your money where your high hat is.
Quite right. I do not subscribe to the Press so I could not read the citation. I do not patronize news media that shelter preferred groups from criticism.
That's a compelling picture that you paint of the deleterious effects of another inlet. However, as I said previously, it has NOT been studied. You cite no references, nor, I believe, do you yourself have the credentials to provide an informed opinion. I do recall that the dual flushing of the bay during the ...more existence of the Pike's Beach inlet had only beneficial effects.
I will wait for the opinion of experts and the result of a scientific study before I dismiss a solution that could save us millions of dollars while saving the bays rather than rely on the impressions of a layperson. Making decisions on the basic of fact rather than presupposition is always so much more fruitful.]
My apologies for walking through the door to irrelevancy that you opened with a puerile personal dig. I will change my behavior. Will you change yours?
We all should be following this high moral ground guideline, but when local news is so limited, there is little choice. Sigh.
The boats can be (and are) pumped out by the Town's pump out boats, free of charge. It's against the law to dump the contents into ...more the bay and/or nearby ocean (not to say it's never happend but it's easy enough to have the pump out boat come and take care of it.
Any petroleum particulates left after combustion do go into the water at some point. Remember, not everyone has the newest, tightest engine on the dock.