what scrutiny they will be subjected to because they have a once legal
outhouse, and also carry water in by hand but have a once legal gray
water drain out of the house. These systems may seem crude by suburban
standards but make great use of the land's ability to deal with waste
if it is not concentrated (i.e. too many per acre). All of these
people's systems are far enough from creeks, lakes, wells, and
neighbors to once be considered "okay". People with these systems are
among the most environmentally concerned people out there: they don't
discard of inappropriate chemicals or drugs in their toilets, they use
biodegradable soaps, and they don't waste water. The proposed ordinance
doesn't say so but it seems that the writing is on the wall trending
towards getting rid of these simple, inexpensive, but effective systems
in favor of systems that are merely convenient for inspectors, and
profitable for pumpers and installers.
Don't get me wrong, I totally believe in protecting surface and
groundwater, and the health of the public, but isn't there room for the
tried and true? If so, why aren't outhouses and gray water systems even
mentioned in the proposed ordinance? Did I miss it? Even composting
toilets are not mentioned. Did I miss that too? And I know it makes
some people cringe, but what about the so called "humanure" systems
(used effectively around the world)? What about a system for allowing
"experimental" systems such as small wetlands, or others? Write in some
standards if need be, but let people continue to use "nature's way" to
deal with waste when appropriate as an alternative to expensive, water
wasting/polluting, energy intensive, and often short lived systems.
It's not appropriate for everybody and every place, but where it is, it
should be officially sanctioned.
Thanks,
Mouse