03-13-2016, 04:28 AM
Isn't there already hundreds of miles of sewer pipe through solid rock for centralized water treatment throughout the islands? I don't see what the big deal is, other than a generalized lack of enthusiasm for the first world development of Puna in general on the part of County and State. But hey, they permitted all these substandard subdivisions and seemingly are more than happy to collect the taxes from everyone that's filled them up so they should follow through and put in place first world infrastructure. As to cost, if I remember right, wasn't there a substantial hookup fee the last time the sewage system was upgraded in Hilo?
Regarding the overall effect of our cesspools, especially with the way our island's rock was initially laid down layer upon layer with its myriad of cracks and tubes all leading makai, it's very easy to imagine how a concentration of untreated sewage would effect everything 'down wind' of it as if it was an unabated plume of pollution. During dry periods I can see the point made by the opposing politicians about the waste remaining localized but with our periodic heavy rains there's no need to identify an aquifer (though I am not minimizing our need to protect our aquifers) to be a point of concern when fluids run through the subterranean substrate all the way to the sea with considerable ease. The politicians that suggested otherwise are just being silly methinks.
As to this change in the law hasn't there been a requirement for septic systems on smaller lots (under five acres?) for some time already?
Regarding costs I think the opposing politicians, in their letter as posted on Civil Beat, do themselves an injustice by jacking the cost up as they did to the higher end of possible systems. As others have pointed out the average open system (leach fields) is nowhere near the 20k to 30k they quote. Whereas there are closed systems already being required in other places that are very pricey indeed so the numbers exist though those are in sensitive areas such as at sea level etc. The use of the higher numbers by the politicians as if they are the standard is a bit cheesy methinks.
Overall, considering our large and ever growing population, I think that other than their low cost cesspools are a bad idea. What (I think) would be a good idea would be to encourage the creation of an organic product that could be flushed into them that would expedite the digestion of the sewage being stored into an environmentally friendly mass. With that in hand an argument might be made for the effectiveness of cesspools. Baring that I suspect the only environmentally sound approach is to upgrade our system as this law is attempting to do.
ETA the clarification of the aquifer issue. They're everywhere, underlying us all, and the way the opposing politicians attempted to minimize them is shameful methinks
Regarding the overall effect of our cesspools, especially with the way our island's rock was initially laid down layer upon layer with its myriad of cracks and tubes all leading makai, it's very easy to imagine how a concentration of untreated sewage would effect everything 'down wind' of it as if it was an unabated plume of pollution. During dry periods I can see the point made by the opposing politicians about the waste remaining localized but with our periodic heavy rains there's no need to identify an aquifer (though I am not minimizing our need to protect our aquifers) to be a point of concern when fluids run through the subterranean substrate all the way to the sea with considerable ease. The politicians that suggested otherwise are just being silly methinks.
As to this change in the law hasn't there been a requirement for septic systems on smaller lots (under five acres?) for some time already?
Regarding costs I think the opposing politicians, in their letter as posted on Civil Beat, do themselves an injustice by jacking the cost up as they did to the higher end of possible systems. As others have pointed out the average open system (leach fields) is nowhere near the 20k to 30k they quote. Whereas there are closed systems already being required in other places that are very pricey indeed so the numbers exist though those are in sensitive areas such as at sea level etc. The use of the higher numbers by the politicians as if they are the standard is a bit cheesy methinks.
Overall, considering our large and ever growing population, I think that other than their low cost cesspools are a bad idea. What (I think) would be a good idea would be to encourage the creation of an organic product that could be flushed into them that would expedite the digestion of the sewage being stored into an environmentally friendly mass. With that in hand an argument might be made for the effectiveness of cesspools. Baring that I suspect the only environmentally sound approach is to upgrade our system as this law is attempting to do.
ETA the clarification of the aquifer issue. They're everywhere, underlying us all, and the way the opposing politicians attempted to minimize them is shameful methinks