Marco Island BLOG: Sewer & Septic Debate ...

Today is: Click here:Today's Meditation

Friday, May 05, 2006

Sewer & Septic Debate ...

Section: Sewer & Septic Comments!

One of Marco Island's most pressing and divisive issues. This section contains many commentaries as well as statements from the experts on all sides of the issue.

20 Comments:

I am on Marco 6 months of the year for 20 years now. I can't understand what's happening.

There is no absolute proof that the septic tanks are poluting the canals - at least that is what was not said by the experts reported in the local paper.

With this information I got information from city hall. The sewers are not being installed because of the septics failing but because that was the decision. What?

I heard that there is money needed to build the processing plant on a park on the island. That is why we are being charged $20,000.

I admit I am not clear so I am not taking sides. I will say this that the city and the managers there have made this problem as clear as ... sewage.

Please HELP clarify.

John T. from Ohio.

By Anonymous, at Friday, May 05, 2006 4:27:00 PM
Hi John,

Maybe I can help, I'm Chairman of CARES (Citizens Advocating Responsible Environmental Solutions, Inc.). We have been the foremost opponents of the City's plan to expand the sewer system throughout the island. Sewers have their place in high-density areas like Collier Blvd with its condos and hotels, but many of us would like to retain the small-town single-family nature of our island.

Sewers are not necessary for single-family residences on a sand island like Marco that provides an excellent filter medium. Both the US EPA and the Florida Department of Health approve the use of managed onsite (septic, etc.) systems as permanent solutions to wastewater treatment.

There is no evidence that septic systems are polluting our canals ... the City finally admits that ... and the City Council has agreed that the sewer project is not being undertaken as a matter of public health. So why is it being done? Good question!

I'm not sure anyone knows the answer for sure, but I can make a couple of comments: sewers encourage high-density development. Those with a financial interest in high-density development will naturally support sewers.

Furthermore, the existing sewer plant is worn out ... so are the sewer lines along Collier. This was known when the City bought the Utility. The City needs to rebuild the plant and replace the lines but they don't want to charge those who have used the system for the past 30 years ... the business and condos along the beach. So the City seems intent on placing most of the cost to rebuild the plant and replace the lines on the "new users." That is unfair and contrary to Florida law.

The City has asked the court to "validate" their bonds on May 15. Towards this end, the City brought suit against the State of Florida, all citizens and property owners on Marco affected by the bond issue, CARES and two specific people who are directly affected. Most people don't know they are being sued by the City because they weren't served with papers and no one seems to have seen the advertisement the law requires be placed in the newspapers. As a named defendant, CARES was served and we intend to oppose the validation through our attorney.

You may wish to contact the State Attorney General to defend your interests. The State of Florida is named as a defendant in the suit specifically so that the State Attorney can defend the public. That's his job but he has to know that there are people who object! If you can't find the appropriate person in the AG's office, call or e-mail the Governor at jeb.bush@myflorida.com. I've found the Governor's office to be EXTREMELY effective at getting action. But remember, time is of the essence; the validation hearing is on Monday, May 15!

One word about the dangers of sewers on a barrier island like ours. The sewer plant is at 11 feet elevation, on a canal, near the Gulf. Should it flood, the environmental damage will be enormous. Millions of gallons of raw sewage spill into Florida waterways and communities each year ... about 55 million in 2004. Beaches all over the country close regularly because of sewage spills. Ever hear of a beach closure caused by a septic tank overflow?

You will find a lot more information on the CARES website www.marcocares.com. We encourage you to join us in our effort to stop the City from engaging in a 10-year, extremely expensive and disruptive project that is unnecessary and dangerous to the environment.

Hope this helps,

Ed Foster
Chairman, C.A.R.E.S., Inc.
www.marcocares.com
e-mail address: cares@marcocares.com

By Anonymous, at Sunday, May 07, 2006 11:21:00 AM
Somebody's making very big money on these projects. jst call me "landsakes"

By Anonymous, at Sunday, May 07, 2006 8:32:00 PM
The lift station on Tigertail has again gotten a face lift.

Second time in 6 months.

Who is paying for this?

Guess who, you the tax payer.

Seems like the person in charge at city hall should get his check book out and pay for it. Who ever approved the first one should also pay up.

Big mistakes with big $ to fix.

What a sham by city hall.

By Anonymous, at Monday, May 08, 2006 11:50:00 AM
Though I came in a bit late to this issue I quickly “learned” the ropes.

Thinking that the push for sewers was based on certain pollutants entering our waterways, I asked the city to provide all of the scientific evidence it had supporting this claim. I received a good amount of information to review.

The studies and scientific evidence purporting to support the contention that septic systems pollute the waterways is non-existent. These “studies” and scientific evidence are nothing of the sort. There is nothing conclusive, truly scientifically based, or supported by verifiable facts. What is contained in the “evidence” is but a plethora of anecdotes, weak hypothesis and wishful thinking. With statements such as “pollutants may…” or “it can …” or “suspect” I realized that I was sent on a wild goose chase.

As a researcher, scientist and university professor I would fall into instant disrepute if I wrote anything like what was given to me as information. I would not even accept these class of papers – which is tantamount to speculation – from first year college students.

So, I went back to the city and wrote the city manager an email. I wanted to ensure that there was not one piece of evidence that I missed or was just not sent my way. I asked simply: can the city produce one piece of scientific evidence that demonstrates where any septic tank has contributed any level of pollutant to any waterway on Marco Island? The answer was an emphatic NO.

So why the ruse? Its not clear to me why. Why then proceed with such an expensive and controversial project? I was informed that since the decision has already been made and contracts signed, the city has to go ahead. Oh, and by the way, sewers are a good thing.

Really? And were does all that sewage from sewer systems go? Are there equally meritourious “scientific studies” showing adequate processing of all that sewage? Will that system be clean? Environmentally safe? Financially sustainable? I can’t wait to see that evidence.

Some time later there was a forum at a local hotel where purported experts came and gave speeches and answered questions. The paper covered it. My reading of these alleged experts – assuming that the paper did not edit beyond comprehension – is that they are probably the same folks that wrote the papers I read because they too offered nothing of substance.

Clearly, there is no scientific basis for indicting septic tanks on Marco Island to the tune of $20,000 per house. There are reasons – and they aren't science.

Mario R. Sánchez, Ph.D.
Marco Island Full Time Resident

By Anonymous, at Monday, May 08, 2006 7:48:00 PM
Just wanted to set the record straight on Lift Station #30 (the one at Tract K).

Late last year, a picture was taken of me staring up at the control panel. The picture appeared in an ad CARES ran in both papers; it also appears on our website www.marcocares.com . When the picture was taken, the lift station was pretty much as it should have been except for lacking a protection fence, which is required by Florida code.

Apparently the picture incensed the powers that be because they lowered the control panel to the ground. Mr. Moss now says that they did this because CARES "complained" about the station. We didn't complain to anyone; we just showed everyone what a properly sited lift station looked like. Others may have complained to Mr. Moss, but not CARES and I wish he would stop spreading this blatant untruth.

When the City lowered the control panel, CARES filed a complaint with FDEP because what was done was illegal and unsafe. The City hadn't an FDEP permit to change the station; they didn't even inform FDEP. They just did it. For that matter, Mr. Joel did not obtain a permit from the City itself to change the electrical wiring and used non-licensed personnel to make the change. The City's electrical inspector has refused to sanction the work; there's a memo in the file to that effect.

When CARES complained to FDEP, they called Mr. Joel in for a hearing and mentioned possible fines of $10,000 a day. (It is not CARES' intention to get the City fined but just to force them to follow the law!) In a carefully worded letter to the City, the Fort Myers FDEP Director stated that the City provided FDEP with "new" FEMA maps suggesting that the panel is in compliance, that the City would not be fined and the case was closed ... but the City should advise FDEP in the future of any changes. Privately, FDEP gave me assurance that all lift stations would be properly located in the future.

The height of each control panel is determined by the 100-year flood plain at the location of the station. Elevations on Marco are referenced to COL15, a marker at the corner of Collier and Bald Eagle. Mr. Joel told me he finds the FEMA maps "confusing," which is rather bothersome because a professional engineer should be able to read a FEMA map and not be "confused."

In its latest configuration ... the third to date ... the control panel is still on the ground. To meet code, it must be pretty much where it was to start with. (The original height was a trifle conservative ... but only by 8.4 inches. The new panel has been lowered by more than 4 feet!)

The City says that the new panels "telescope." Before each storm, a crane will go around, lift the panels to where they should be and bolt them in place. After the storm has passed, the crane will go around and lower them. There will be well over 70 lift stations on the island when the sewer project is complete. Go figure!

It's not clear how these panels telescope since the electrical connections appear to be fixed. CARES has asked for drawings explaining how this is done and for test and other technical data to ensure that the panels will be safe in a hurricane. Oh yes, Lift Station #30 still lacks a fence!

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 09, 2006 5:08:00 PM
dear marco island citizens;
i wrote to Gov. Bush re. the lawsuit and here is the exchange:

Dear Dr. Sanchez:

Thank you for writing to Governor Bush. The Governor appreciates your questions and asked me to respond on his behalf.

For more information in this regard, I encourage you to contact the clerk of courts in the local jurisdiction where the lawsuit was filed.

You may also wish to contact your county and city commissioners and your local legislative delegation.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Warren Davis
Office of Citizens' Services

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Mario R. Sanchez
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 8:40 PM
To: Governor Jeb Bush
Subject: [*] city of marco island
Importance: High

dear governor bush

it has come to my attention that the city of marco island has sued the state of florida and its citizens on marco island. i believe that there is a hearing on the 15th hence time is of the essence.

can you please have your office direct me to where i can get information on this suit - since i am a citizen of marco island?

thanking you in advance

Mario R. Sanchez, Ph.D.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:37:00 AM
From the Collier County Clerk of the Courts.

Marco Island's citizens taxes at work ... in case you did not know.

go to http://www.dbiq.com/misuit.jpg

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:52:00 PM
When my family and I migrated here across the deserts and plains of America to escape the chaos and torture and degradation and myriad natural disasters in that dystopic nightmare known as California, we find ourselves here facing down the same problems. It appears that worthless government is a pandemic problem. I use the word “dystopic” because of its definition: “characterized by extreme governmental tyranny and an exploitation of the people.” And this is exactly what is happening – the sewers in question are symptoms of a greater ineptitude and a frank disregard for the people who support the structure in the first place. But let us begin with what we know.

It can be argued that we live in a democratic system – or, more precisely, a nested democratic system – for the City of Marco Island is in and of itself a democracy, resting inside the greater democracy of Collier County, which in turn rests inside the greater democracy of the State of Florida, etc. With that in mind, we must ask ourselves this question: what exactly is a democracy? And the definition is as follows: “rule by the many, with the needs of those many prevailing over the needs of the few.” But our governmental superiors wish to impress upon us fees of disgusting magnitude, all in the name of at best specious pseudoscience. Our claims to justify the cost or reasoning for this move are met with the rebarbative grunts and whistles we know to be typical of politicians – for that is what they do: they politicize. Thus, we are forced to come to the conclusion that we live in a society that is a democracy in body, but not in spirit. And therein lays the source of our problem(s).

It has been typical of societies in the past, in their final wretched hours, to impress upon the citizens strange and bizarre demands which really have no meaning – at least, no meaning pertinent to a higher goal. This is because the powers that be within the government have come to the realization that the soul of their city cannot be saved, so they compensate for repairing what body remains. But by then it is too late, for the soul gives the body the dexterity, the mind the inspiration, and the heart the vigor to do the impossible. Once the soul is lost, having been traded for money, power, wealth, or some other fleeting nonsense, the twilight comes, and from that twilight the frightening demons and monsters – the wrongs committed in vanity – spring forth to bring terror and despair. But there is hope.

It has been said in the mind-bogglingly brilliant work The Republic, authored by Plato, that the democracy is the last step before tyranny – the twilight hour. So why is democracy considered to be such a terrible thing? Because it gives equal precedence to every issues – and thus nothing is decided. More importantly, this whole process of doing nothing is presided over by people who order themselves in much the same way – they give equal precedence to earning money as to raising their children, or to buying a house, or caring for a pet. In their own homes, nothing gets done. In their own minds, nothing gets done. And the whole system, from the macrocosmic to the atomic, simply stops dead. And this is why the residents of our city (or polis, if you will) are being saddled with this monstrous project – a project which, by the way, has been given a nebulous date of completion (if any at all), and thus gives the builders the excuse to work on this project (theoretically, at least) until Armageddon – or until the sun dies from fuel exhaustion. But there is hope.

We may begin to rectify our situation by first ordering our own selves – essentially, deciding for our own selves, without the influence of others, what is important to us. I must make clear at this point that the final result should resemble a hierarchy; that is, raising children could be a higher goal than making money. Once this is completed, we may then begin to offer stiff but nonviolent resistance to the plans to construct the sewers. We simply refuse, in all politeness and truth, to refuse to pay the bill foisted upon us. Without the money, the project cannot begin. And if our duly elected superiors decide to become angry and throw us into a courtroom, we can bring our case before the world – and shame our opposition into silence. Judgment is the greatest weapon against those who live in shame. And then we can make a solemn promise to boot these people out of office and never reelect them again, so long as they are alive.

But who should govern in their absence, you ask? Those who have no vested interest in their own personal wealth or power. Most politicians immediately present themselves this way, but it is a sham. We must carefully weed out the irrationals in our midst and elect only those who will do what is just – defined by Plato as the action which benefits the common good. In the end, it is only the consent of the citizens that determines the twists and turns our melodrama will take – and I say melodrama because they can have either a sad or a happy ending. It is up to us which ending we choose.

By Anonymous, at Friday, May 12, 2006 10:03:00 AM
So, during the wild goose chase the city put me though in researching the sewer issue, I came across the fact that the city had been contemplating the sewers since 2001.

So, I posed the following question to the city manager "Since the city new about the sewer issue since 2001, and I bought my house in mid-2004, why didn't the city require, by code, the developers to proffer full disclosure?"

{{I equate this issue to having a developer build a house on an abandoned dump knowing that the city was going to require the owner to clean up the dump at a cost of $20K.}}

So, what was the answer? "Oh, no, the city didn't decide to go ahead with the sewers until 2005."

So, if the denizens of Marco Island weren't like sheep, herded around by their noses buried deep in real estate capital appreciation, they would smell a scam.

So, having tried unsuccessfully (not enough bandwidth) to get to the documents proving the city had already decided the sewer plan well before 2005, I was hoping some concerned Marco Island citizen (one of the 18 that live here) would help with the
challenge.

So, we'll see - as we are herded to financial blind servitude.

AIM
Amazed In Marco

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:11:00 AM
In case someone is interested on how to make their septic tanks clean - cleaner than the treatment plant or the potable water we now get ...

http://www.biosafeone.com/

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:44:00 PM
The Marco Island Parks and Recreation Department is pleased to help promote "In The Round Lectures" presented by the Orion Bank. This series will cover a wide variety of issues important to Marco Island residents.

For additional information, please call the Orion Bank at 239-403-5169.
Orion Bank presents...
"In The Round" Lecture #2
Join us as Bill Moss, Vince Cautero and Rony Joel present a detailed update on issues critical to our
Islands future including:

- Collier Boulevard construction
- Septic tank replacement program
- Legal challenges facing our city
- Water supply and facilities
- Hurricane planning and more.....

WHEN: - Wednesday, May 31st
- Refreshments served at 6:30 p.m.
- Presentations from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.
- Question/Answer session 8:00 to 8:30 p.m.
WHERE: - Orion Bank
605 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL. 34145

GUEST SPEAKERS:
- William A. Moss, Marco Island City Manager
- Vince Cautero, Community Development Director.
- Rony Joel, Public Works Director

R.S.V.P.: Seating is limited requiring reservations by calling
All Lectures are free to the public
Orion Bank, 239-403-5169

Dana A. Souza
Director
Parks and Recreation Department City of Marco Island, Florida
(239) 642-1666

By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:54:00 AM
Check this out - purely for the entertainment value ...

http://www.septicprotector.com/

By Anonymous, at Monday, June 05, 2006 10:14:00 PM
Lift Stations Suffer Hurrican Damage

I wonder if this is what we have look forward to in the event of the next hurricane....

County Damage Reports - Hurrican Wilma Aftermath.

Broward: Lift stations down.

Martin
80% lift stations inop.

Stuart
lift station are non functional

Miami-Dade
Water & Sewer – 500 lift stations out.

the entire report can be found at
http://www.tallytown.com/redcross/situation/wilma-ssr-36.pdf

Does anyone know to what extent these lift stations are hurricane tolerant?

And does anyone know what happens when the nearby lift station is inoperative? I mean, can one flush? If there is water pressure but no septic for a week or more are we allowed to urinate and deficate on our lawns? How about the canals?

If so, doesn't that defeat the purpose - and would we be subjected to a city or EPA fine for soiling (so to speak) our own lawns? And if so, why can dogs get away with it (or the owners of the dogs) but not people?

Uhm ....

Mario

By Anonymous, at Monday, June 05, 2006 10:32:00 PM
The entire report detailing the lift stations being down after hurricane wilma can be found at...

http://www.tallytown.com/redcross/
situation/wilma-ssr-36.pdf

in my original post the link got truncated... sorry..

Mario

By Anonymous, at Monday, June 05, 2006 10:35:00 PM
Ever notice that nobody swims in the canals? Ever wonder why? Maybe it's because C.A.R.E.S. really stands for Canals Are Really Effluent Sewage. Might as well take a refreshing dip in your septic tank.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:00:00 PM
from the EPA - City Requirements for Implementing a Sewer System - Can Anyone Comment if the City Complied?
=========

Amendment from February 23, 2004

§ 775.6 Planning considerations.

(a) An EIS must be prepared for proposed major Federal actions that will have significant impacts on the human environment. The agency decision in the case of an EIS is reflected in a ROD.

(b) Where a proposed major Federal action has the potential for significantly affecting the human environment, but it is not clear whether the impacts of that particular action will in fact be significant, or where the nature of an action precludes use of a categorical exclusion, an EA may be used to assist the agency in determining whether to prepare an EIS. If the agency determination in the case of an EA is that there is no significant impact on the environment, the findings will be reflected in a FONSI. If the EA determines that the proposed action is likely to significantly affect the environment (even after mitigation), then an EIS will be prepared. An EA also may be used where it otherwise will aid compliance with NEPA.

* * * * *

(e) A categorical exclusion (CATEX), as defined and listed in this regulation, may be used to exclude a proposed action from further analysis. Even though a proposed action generally is covered by a listed categorical exclusion, a categorical exclusion will not be used if the proposed action:

(1) Would adversely affect public health or safety;

(2) Involves effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain, involve unique or unknown risks, or which are scientifically controversial;

(3) Establishes precedents or makes decisions in principle for future actions that have the potential for significant impacts;

(4) Threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local environmental laws applicable to the Department of the Navy; or

(5) Involves an action that, as determined in coordination with the appropriate resource agency, may:

(i) Have an adverse effect on Federally listed endangered/threatened species or marine mammals;

(ii) Have an adverse effect on coral reefs or on Federally designated wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries, or parklands;

(iii) Adversely affect the size, function or biological value of wetlands and is not covered by a nation-wide or regional permit;

(iv) Have an adverse effect on archaeological resources or resources (including but not limited to ships, aircraft, vessels and equipment) listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; or

(v) Result in an uncontrolled or unpermitted release of hazardous substances or require a conformity determination under standards of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule.

(f) Categorical exclusions. Subject to the criteria in paragraph (e) above, the following categories of actions are excluded from further analysis under NEPA. The CNO and CMC shall determine whether a decision to forego preparation of an EA or EIS on the basis of one or more categorical exclusions must be documented in an administrative record and the format for such record.

(1) Routine fiscal and administrative activities, including administration of contracts;

(2) Routine law and order activities performed by military personnel, military police, or other security personnel, including physical plant protection and security;

(3) Routine use and operation of existing facilities, laboratories, and equipment;

(4) Administrative studies, surveys, and data collection;

(5) Issuance or modification of administrative procedures, regulations, directives, manuals, or policy;

(6) Military ceremonies;

(7) Routine procurement of goods and services conducted in accordance with applicable procurement regulations, executive orders, and policies;

(8) Routine repair and maintenance of buildings, facilities, vessels, aircraft, and equipment associated with existing operations and activities (e.g., localized pest management activities, minor erosion control measures, painting, refitting);

(9) Training of an administrative or classroom nature;

(10) Routine personnel actions;

(11) Routine movement of mobile assets (such as ships and aircraft) for homeport reassignments, for repair/overhaul, or to train/perform as operational groups where no new support facilities are required;

(12) Routine procurement, management, storage, handling, installation, and disposal of commercial items, where the items are used and handled in accordance with applicable regulations (e.g., consumables, electronic components, computer equipment, pumps);

(13) Routine recreational/welfare activities;

(14) Alteration of and additions to existing buildings, facilities, structures, vessels, aircraft, and equipment to conform or provide conforming use specifically required by new or existing applicable legislation or regulations (e.g., hush houses for aircraft engines, scrubbers for air emissions, improvements to storm water and sanitary and industrial wastewater collection and treatment systems, and installation of fire fighting equipment);

(15) The modification of existing systems or equipment when the environmental effects will remain substantially the same and the use is consistent with applicable regulations;

(16) Routine movement, handling and distribution of materials, including hazardous materials/wastes that are moved, handled, or distributed in accordance with applicable regulations;

(17) New activities conducted at established laboratories and plants (including contractor-operated laboratories and plants) where all airborne emissions, waterborne effluent, external ionizing and non-ionizing radiation levels, outdoor noise, and solid and bulk waste disposal practices are in compliance with existing applicable Federal, state, and local laws and regulations;

(18) Studies, data, and information gathering that involve no permanent physical change to the environment (e.g., topographic surveys, wetlands mapping, surveys for evaluating environmental damage, and engineering efforts to support environmental analyses);

(19) Temporary placement and use of simulated target fields (e.g., inert mines, simulated mines, or passive hydrophones) in fresh, estuarine, and marine waters for the purpose of non-explosive military training exercises or research, development, test and evaluation;

(20) Installation and operation of passive scientific measurement devices (e.g., antennae, tide gauges, weighted hydrophones, salinity measurement devices, and water quality measurement devices) where use will not result in changes in operations tempo and is consistent with applicable regulations;

(21) Short-term increases in air operations up to 50 percent of the typical operation rate, or increases of 50 operations per day, whichever is greater. Frequent use of this CATEX at an installation requires further analysis to determine there are no cumulative impacts;

(22) Decommissioning, disposal, or transfer of Navy vessels, aircraft, vehicles, and equipment when conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including those regulations applying to removal of hazardous materials;

(23) Non-routine repair and renovation, and donation or other transfer of structures, vessels, aircraft, vehicles, landscapes or other contributing elements of facilities listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places which will result in no adverse effect;

(24) Hosting or participating in public events (e.g., air shows, open houses, Earth Day events, and athletic events) where no permanent changes to existing infrastructure (e.g., road systems, parking and sanitation systems) are required to accommodate all aspects of the event;

(25) Military training conducted on or over nonmilitary land or water areas, where such training is consistent with the type and tempo of existing non-military airspace, land, and water use (e.g., night compass training, forced marches along trails, roads and highways, use of permanently established ranges, use of public waterways, or use of civilian airfields);

(26) Transfer of real property from DON to another military department or to another Federal agency;

(27) Receipt of property from another Federal agency when there is no anticipated or proposed substantial change in land use;

(28) Minor land acquisitions or disposals where anticipated or proposed land use is similar to existing land use and zoning, both in type and intensity;

(29) Disposal of excess easement interests to the underlying fee owner;

(30) Renewals and minor amendments of existing real estate grants for use of Government-owned real property where no significant change in land use is anticipated;

(31) Land withdrawal continuances or extensions that merely establish time periods and where there is no significant change in land use;

(32) Renewals and/or initial real estate in grants and out grants involving existing facilities and land wherein use does not change significantly (e.g., leasing of federally-owned or privately-owned housing or office space, and agricultural out leases);

(33) Grants of license, easement, or similar arrangements for the use of existing rights-of-way or incidental easements complementing the use of existing rights-of-way for use by vehicles (not to include significant increases in vehicle loading); electrical, telephone, and other transmission and communication lines; water, wastewater, storm water, and irrigation pipelines, pumping stations, and facilities; and for similar utility and transportation uses;

(34) New construction that is similar to existing land use and, when completed, the use or operation of which complies with existing regulatory requirements (e.g., a building within a cantonment area with associated discharges/runoff within existing handling capacities);

(35) Demolition, disposal, or improvements involving buildings or structures when done in accordance with applicable regulations including those regulations applying to removal of asbestos, PCBs, and other hazardous materials;

(36) Acquisition, installation, and operation of utility (e.g., water, sewer, electrical) and communication systems (e.g., data processing cable and similar electronic equipment) which use existing rights of way, easements, distribution systems, and/or facilities;

(37) Decisions to close facilities, decommission equipment, and/or temporarily discontinue use of facilities or equipment, where the facility or equipment is not used to prevent/control environmental impacts);

(38) Maintenance dredging and debris disposal where no new depths are required, applicable permits are secured, and disposal will be at an approved disposal site;

(39) Relocation of personnel into existing Federally-owned or commercially leased space that does not involve a substantial change affecting the supporting infrastructure (e.g., no increase in vehicular traffic beyond the capacity of the supporting road network to accommodate such an increase);

(40) Pre-lease upland exploration activities for oil, gas or geothermal reserves, (e.g., geophysical surveys);

(41) Installation of devices to protect human or animal life (e.g., raptor electrocution prevention devices, fencing to restrict wildlife movement onto airfields, and fencing and grating to prevent accidental entry to hazardous areas);

(42) Reintroduction of endemic or native species (other than endangered or threatened species) into their historic habitat when no substantial site preparation is involved;

(43) Temporary closure of public access to DON property in order to protect human or animal life;

(44) Routine testing and evaluation of military equipment on a military reservation or an established range, restricted area, or operating area; similar in type, intensity and setting, including physical location and time of year, to other actions for which it has been determined, through NEPA analysis where the DON was a lead or cooperating agency, that there are no significant impacts; and conducted in accordance with all applicable standard operating procedures protective of the environment;

(45) Routine military training associated with transits, maneuvering, safety and engineering drills, replenishments, flight operations, and weapons systems conducted at the unit or minor exercise level; similar in type, intensity and setting, including physical location and time of year, to other actions for which it has been determined, through NEPA analysis where the DON was a lead or cooperating agency, that there are no significant impacts; and conducted in accordance with all applicable standard operating procedures protective of the environment.

By Anonymous, at Friday, July 07, 2006 2:58:00 PM
Uhm ... Does it Apply to Us?
=============================
Amendment from March 07, 2006
Federal Statute (EPA) § 1.118-2 Contribution in aid of construction.

(a) Special rule for water and sewerage disposal utilities—(1) In general. For purposes of section 118, the term contribution to the capital of the taxpayer includes any amount of money or other property received from any person (whether or not a shareholder) by a regulated public utility that provides water or sewerage disposal services if—

(i) The amount is a contribution in aid of construction under paragraph (b) of this section;

(ii) In the case of a contribution of property other than water or sewerage disposal facilities, the amount satisfies the expenditure rule under paragraph (c) of this section; and

(iii) The amount (or any property acquired or constructed with the amount) is not included in the taxpayer's rate base for ratemaking purposes.

(2) Definitions—(i) Regulated public utility has the meaning given such term by section 7701(a)(33), except that such term does not include any utility which is not required to provide water or sewerage disposal services to members of the general public in its service area.

(ii) Water or sewerage disposal facility is defined as tangible property described in section 1231(b) that is used predominately (80% or more) in the trade or business of furnishing water or sewerage disposal services.

(b) Contribution in aid of construction—(1) In general. For purposes of section 118(c) and this section, the term contribution in aid of construction means any amount of money or other property contributed to a regulated public utility that provides water or sewerage disposal services to the extent that the purpose of the contribution is to provide for the expansion, improvement, or replacement of the utility's water or sewerage disposal facilities.

(2) Advances. A contribution in aid of construction may include an amount of money or other property contributed to a regulated public utility for a water or sewerage disposal facility subject to a contingent obligation to repay the amount, in whole or in part, to the contributor (commonly referred to as an advance). For example, an amount received by a utility from a developer to construct a water facility pursuant to an agreement under which the utility will pay the developer a percentage of the receipts from the facility over a fixed period may constitute a contribution in aid of construction. Whether an advance is a contribution or a loan is determined under general principles of federal tax law based on all the facts and circumstances. For the treatment of any amount of a contribution in aid of construction that is repaid by the utility to the contributor, see paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2) of this section.

(3) Customer connection fee—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a customer connection fee is not a contribution in aid of construction under this paragraph (b) and generally is includible in income. The term customer connection fee includes any amount of money or other property transferred to the utility representing the cost of installing a connection or service line (including the cost of meters and piping) from the utility's main water or sewer lines to the line owned by the customer or potential customer. A customer connection fee also includes any amount paid as a service charge for starting or stopping service.

(ii) Exceptions—(A) Multiple customers. Money or other property contributed for a connection or service line from the utility's main line to the customer's or the potential customer's line is not a customer connection fee if the connection or service line serves, or is designed to serve, more than one customer. For example, a contribution for a split service line that is designed to serve two customers is not a customer connection fee. On the other hand, if a water or sewerage disposal utility treats an apartment or office building as one utility customer, then the cost of installing a connection or service line from the utility's main water or sewer lines serving that single customer is a customer connection fee.

(B) Fire protection services. Money or other property contributed for public and private fire protection services is not a customer connection fee.

(4) Reimbursement for a facility previously placed in service—(i) In general. If a water or sewerage disposal facility is placed in service by the utility before an amount is contributed to the utility, the contribution is not a contribution in aid of construction under this paragraph (b) with respect to the cost of the facility unless, no later than 8 1/2 months after the close of the taxable year in which the facility was placed in service, there is an agreement, binding under local law, that the utility is to receive the amount as reimbursement for the cost of acquiring or constructing the facility. An order or tariff, binding under local law, that is issued or approved by the applicable public utility commission requiring current or prospective utility customers to reimburse the utility for the cost of acquiring or constructing the facility, is a binding agreement for purposes of the preceding sentence. If an agreement exists, the basis of the facility must be reduced by the amount of the expected contributions. Appropriate adjustments must be made if actual contributions differ from expected contributions.

(ii) Example. The application of paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section is illustrated by the following example:

Example.

M, a calendar year regulated public utility that provides water services, spent $1,000,000 for the construction of a water facility that can serve 200 customers. M placed the facility in service in 2000. In June 2001, the public utility commission that regulates M approves a tariff requiring new customers to reimburse M for the cost of constructing the facility by paying a service availability charge of $5,000 per lot. Pursuant to the tariff, M expects to receive reimbursements for the cost of the facility of $100,000 per year for the years 2001 through 2010. The reimbursements are contributions in aid of construction under paragraph (b) of this section because no later than 8 1/2 months after the close of the taxable year in which the facility was placed in service there was a tariff, binding under local law, approved by the public utility commission requiring new customers to reimburse the utility for the cost of constructing the facility. The basis of the $1,000,000 facility is zero because the expected contributions equal the cost of the facility.

(5) Classification by ratemaking authority. The fact that the applicable ratemaking authority classifies any money or other property received by a utility as a contribution in aid of construction is not conclusive as to its treatment under this paragraph (b).

(c) Expenditure rule—(1) In general. An amount satisfies the expenditure rule of section 118(c)(2) if the amount is expended for the acquisition or construction of property described in section 118(c)(2)(A), the amount is paid or incurred before the end of the second taxable year after the taxable year in which the amount was received as required by section 118(c)(2)(B), and accurate records are kept of contributions and expenditures as provided in section 118(c)(2)(C).

(2) Excess amount—(i) Includible in the utility's income. An amount received by a utility as a contribution in aid of construction that is not expended for the acquisition or construction of water or sewerage disposal facilities as required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section (the excess amount) is not a contribution to the capital of the taxpayer under paragraph (a) of this section. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, such excess amount is includible in the utility's income in the taxable year in which the amount was received.

(ii) Repayment of excess amount. If the excess amount described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section is repaid, in whole or in part, either—

(A) Before the end of the time period described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the repayment amount is not includible in the utility's income; or

(B) After the end of the time period described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the repayment amount may be deducted by the utility in the taxable year in which it is paid or incurred to the extent such amount was included in income.

(3) Example. The application of this paragraph (c) is illustrated by the following example:

Example.

M, a calendar year regulated public utility that provides water services, received a $1,000,000 contribution in aid of construction in 2000 for the purpose of constructing a water facility. To the extent that the $1,000,000 exceeded the actual cost of the facility, the contribution was subject to being returned. In 2001, M built the facility at a cost of $700,000 and returned $200,000 to the contributor. As of the end of 2002, M had not returned the remaining $100,000. Assuming accurate records are kept, the requirement under section 118(c)(2) is satisfied for $700,000 of the contribution. Because $200,000 of the contribution was returned within the time period during which qualifying expenditures could be made, this amount is not includible in M's income. However, the remaining $100,000 is includible in M's income for its 2000 taxable year (the taxable year in which the amount was received) because the amount was neither spent nor repaid during the prescribed time period. To the extent M repays the remaining $100,000 after year 2002, M would be entitled to a deduction in the year such repayment is paid or incurred.

(d) Adjusted basis—(1) Exclusion from basis. Except for a repayment described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, to the extent that a water or sewerage disposal facility is acquired or constructed with an amount received as a contribution to the capital of the taxpayer under paragraph (a) of this section, the basis of the facility is reduced by the amount of the contribution. To the extent the water or sewerage disposal facility is acquired as a contribution to the capital of the taxpayer under paragraph (a) of this section, the basis of the contributed facility is zero.

(2) Repayment of contribution. If a contribution to the capital of the taxpayer under paragraph (a) of this section is repaid to the contributor, either in whole or in part, then the repayment amount is a capital expenditure in the taxable year in which it is paid or incurred, resulting in an increase in the property's adjusted basis in such year. Capital expenditures allocated to depreciable property under paragraph (d)(3) of this section may be depreciated over the remaining recovery period for that property.

(3) Allocation of contributions. An amount treated as a capital expenditure under this paragraph (d) is to be allocated proportionately to the adjusted basis of each property acquired or constructed with the contribution based on the relative cost of such property.

(4) Example. The application of this paragraph (d) is illustrated by the following example:

Example.

A, a calendar year regulated public utility that provides water services, received a $1,000,000 contribution in aid of construction in 2000 as an advance from B, a developer, for the purpose of constructing a water facility. To the extent that the $1,000,000 exceeds the actual cost of the facility, the contribution is subject to being returned. Under the terms of the advance, A agrees to pay to B a percentage of the receipts from the facility over a fixed period, but limited to the cost of the facility. In 2001, A builds the facility at a cost of $700,000 and returns $300,000 to B. In 2002, A pays $20,000 to B out of the receipts from the facility. Assuming accurate records are kept, the $700,000 advance is a contribution to the capital of A under paragraph (a) of this section and is excludable from A's income. The basis of the $700,000 facility constructed with this contribution to capital is zero. The $300,000 excess amount is not a contribution to the capital of A under paragraph (a) of this section because it does not meet the expenditure rule described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. However, this excess amount is not includible in A's income pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section since the amount is repaid to B within the required time period. The repayment of the $300,000 excess amount to B in 2001 is not treated as a capital expenditure by A. The $20,000 payment to B in 2002 is treated as a capital expenditure by A in 2002 resulting in an increase in the adjusted basis of the water facility from zero to $20,000.

(e) Statute of limitations—(1) Extension of statute of limitations. Under section 118(d)(1), the statutory period for assessment of any deficiency attributable to a contribution to capital under paragraph (a) of this section does not expire before the expiration of 3 years after the date the taxpayer notifies the Secretary in the time and manner prescribed in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.

(2) Time and manner of notification. Notification is made by attaching a statement to the taxpayer's federal income tax return for the taxable year in which any of the reportable items in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section occur. The statement must contain the taxpayer's name, address, employer identification number, taxable year, and the following information with respect to contributions of property other than water or sewerage disposal facilities that are subject to the expenditure rule described in paragraph (c) of this section—

(i) The amount of contributions in aid of construction expended during the taxable year for property described in section 118(c)(2)(A) (qualified property) as required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, identified by taxable year in which the contributions were received;

(ii) The amount of contributions in aid of construction that the taxpayer does not intend to expend for qualified property as required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, identified by taxable year in which the contributions were received; and

(iii) The amount of contributions in aid of construction that the taxpayer failed to expend for qualified property as required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, identified by taxable year in which the contributions were received.

(f) Effective date. This section is applicable for any money or other property received by a regulated public utility that provides water or sewerage disposal services on or after January 11, 2001.

By Mario R. Sanchez, Ph.D., at Friday, July 07, 2006 3:50:00 PM
Septic Systems

Septic SystemState of Florida regulations refer to a septic system as an Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System or OSTDS. The septic tank is only one component of a properly designed OSTDS. By definition, an OSTDS can contain any one or more of the following components: septic tank; subsurface drainfield; aerobic treatment unit (ATU); graywater tank; laundry wastewater tank; grease interceptor; pump tank; waterless, incinerating or organic waste-composing toilet; and sanitary pit privy.

An OSTDS is not a “package plant.” The system must provide for subsurface effluent disposal and must not have any open tanks or open treatment units. In 1997, the US Environmental Protection Agency publicly recognized “onsite systems…as potentially viable, low-cost, long-term, decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment if they are planned, designed, installed, operated, and maintained properly.”

In Florida, the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs in the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) and the environmental health section of the County Health Departments regulate the use of OSTDSs. However, FDOH does not permit the use of an OSTDS where the estimated domestic sewage flow (as calculated in Table 1 of 64E-6.008, FAC) from the establishment is over 10,000 gpd or the commercial sewage flow is over 5,000 gpd; or where there is a likelihood that the system will receive toxic, hazardous or industrial wastes; or where a sewer system is available; or if any system or flow from the establishment is currently regulated by FDEP, unless a variance from these prohibitions has been granted by FDOH.

* For more information on permitting septic systems, you may wish to contact the Florida Department of Health’s Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs at 850-245-4070 or on the web at www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/ostds/index.html.

FDEP and FDOH Coordination

In 1983, the Department of Environmental Protection entered into an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Health to coordinate the regulation of onsite sewage systems, septage and residuals, and marina pumpout facilities. This agreement sets up procedures for addressing interagency issues including jurisdiction. For purposes of the Agreement, “Domestic Wastewater” includes waste from homes, portable toilets, holding tanks, boats and marinas and even wastewater from certain commercial and industrial establishments. “Commercial Wastewater” is similar to domestic, only stronger, such as wastewater from food service
operations (e.g., restaurants, school cafeterias, etc.), commercial laundries with no more than four washing machines, animal holding facilities (e.g., commercial kennels, veterinary hospitals, and animal grooming facilities), and beauty salons. Please note that “Commercial Wastewater” is not necessarily synonymous with wastewater from commercial businesses. All other wastewater, including those that are toxic and/or hazardous, is considered “Industrial Wastewater,” including wastewater from dairies, food processing plants, slaughterhouses, funeral homes, car washes, and commercial laundries with more than four washing machines.

Applicants for an OSTDS permit may request waiver of jurisdiction from FDEP to FDOH in cases where the estimated sewage flow is above the FDOH jurisdictional flow specified above or where there is a likelihood for toxic, hazardous or industrial wastewater.

First an applicant must obtain a letter from FDEP stating whether or not there is an objection to transferring jurisdiction to FDOH for the particular establishment. Then, the applicant must apply for an OSTDS permit from the Local County Health Department(CHD) and file for a variance through the local CHD. A Variance Review and Advisory Committee normally meets on the first non-holiday Thursday of every month in various locations around the state and makes a recommendation to FDOH’s State Health Officer, who in turn makes the final decision on whether FDOH will accept jurisdiction of the establishment’s wastewater for
purposes of permitting an OSTDS.

By Mario R. Sanchez, Ph.D., at Saturday, July 08, 2006 1:50:00 PM
Amazing.......

When you are ready for an affordable fix and are done with the red-tape, bashing and dead end comments, call one of our tech's and we will take care of the problem, solve the issue and clean up the mess with a 100% gaurantee that should hopefully be sufficient for the cranky islanders that seem to somehow enjoy, without resolution, the neverending-neverresolved septic issue. www.newtechbio.com

By Anonymous, at Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:36:00 AM

On Marco Island: Independent Reporting, Documenting Government Abuses, Exposing the Syndicate, Historical Records of Crimes Against the Environment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Sewer & Septic Debate ...

20 Comments:

About

Previous


On Marco Island: Independent Reporting, Documenting Government Abuses, Exposing the Syndicate, Historical Records of Crimes Against the Environment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click this BIG button for ... All the evidence in one place! The documentation in pictures, documents and video of what was done to Marco Island .. and more!