Septic rule - California Assembly Bill 885 a concern

RANCHO TEHAMA--Legislation that would require septic tank inspections every five years has retired and low-income residents worried that the state is asking more than they can afford.

Addressing a packed community center Saturday morning, Tehama County Director of Environmental Health Tim Potanovic explained what effect Assembly Bill 885 could have on the county.

California currently has no inspection requirements for septic tanks, Potanovic said.

AB 885, which would require a 3-foot vertical separation from exiting chemicals to groundwater and tests from state certified professionals every five years, was signed into law in 2000, but has yet to be adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board and is available for public comment until Feb. 9.

According to the board, these inspections should cost about $325 each. If a domestic well is on the property, another $325 inspection of the well water will be required.

Tehama County law already holds septic tanks to a stricter, 5- foot standard.

The law is also designed to prevent the leaking of effluent, or sewage, from the septic tanks into bodies of water that have been declared impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency, none of which are present in the county.

No new septic tank would be allowed within 600 feet of any impaired body, and any existing tanks would be subject to inspection and, if found responsible for impairing the nearby water, could be subject to a $45,000 retrofit, according to board estimates.

Aside from the five-year inspection requirement, very few existing systems will be affected initially by the new regulations, Potanovic said.

Our setbacks aren t really going to change, he said. Some counties are going to have a problem with that. Not us.

With no systems in violation of the new law, concern at the meeting centered around not only the added expense created by inspections but the expenses professionals would have to expend earning state certification.

Resident and former Rancho Tehama Association Board member Bill Massey said the bill s failing is that its requirements do not change depending on soil or geography. In its current form, the law makes little adjustment for whether a tank is surrounded by nearly solid clay or loose, penetrable sand.

Every rural county in California is upset about this, making it unlikely for the board to approve it in its current form on the Feb. 9, he said.

With only 1.2 million septic tanks in California, the people affected by the law are a minority, Massey said. He encouraged the audience to write to board members but not to downplay the importance of protecting ground water.

We re probably not going to get a lot of sympathy out of the folks of Los Angeles, I suspect, he said. But it s important that they understand that we are interested in protecting our ground water, maybe even more so than those who live in an urban area, because we re going to drink it ourselves.

The key is to recognize both the need for regulation of septic tanks but to make the case for aid for low-income areas which need financial assistance, he said.

The bill does not specify what the penalties will be for not getting a septic tank inspected every five years nor does it specify how the law will be enforced.

Massey suspects that will play into property title transfers.

Also appearing as a speaker was Charles Husome, a Chico resident and septic tank owner.

As an environmentalist Husome said he approved of the legislation in principal but condemned its broad nature and encouraged the audience to write as many officials as they can.

The more noise they get in Sacramento, the more they re going to be forced to address this, he said.

Sharon Easton, president of the Rancho Tehama Reserve Homeowner's Association, said she feared the bill could lead to the collapse of Rancho Tehama, now in its 40th year, if no financial assistance is provided to pay for inspection fees and potential retrofitting or repairs.

There s going to be a lot more homeless people, she said. There s going to be no Rancho Tehama left.