Ledger-Dispatch

By Jerry Budrick (jbudrick@ledger-dispatch.com= )=20

Mike Israel, director of the Amador = County=20 Environmental Health Department, authored a letter expressing the = county's=20 concerns about impending septic tank regulations at the state = level. The=20 letter was approved by supervisors Tuesday.

Photo by: Raheem=20 Hosseini
The California State Water = Resources=20 Control Board is facing a massive revolt by septic tank owners = throughout=20 Northern California.

Assembly Bill 885, passed by the legislature = in=20 2000, has been making its way slowly toward implementation of = regulations that=20 will have to be followed in all 58 California counties. Opposition to = the=20 regulations has been mounting exponentially, moving the water board to = decide to=20 extend the comment period to Feb. 23. So many turned out to speak = against the=20 regulations at a public hearing in Santa Rosa that the city was forced = to=20 reschedule.

On Tuesday, a draft comment letter proposed to be = sent to the=20 water board was presented to Amador supervisors by county environmental = health=20 director Mike Israel. As stated in the letter, "the Amador County Board = of=20 Supervisors strongly opposes adoption of regulations and waiver in their = present=20 form." The supervisors unanimously approved sending the letter, as soon = as it's=20 ready and signed by the chairman of the board, Ted = Novelli.

District 2=20 Supervisor Richard Forster cautioned that the county lobbyist sagely = predicted=20 that the "green" nature of AB 885 will virtually guarantee its = implementation.=20 "We have a green governor and a Democratic legislature," Forster = paraphrased the=20 lobbyist as saying, "and we're not going to get this bill killed. We = might be=20 able to get it modified."

"The regulations exceed the statutory = authority=20 of AB 885," Israel declared, pointing out that the bill states that only = newly=20 installed or repaired systems or systems known to be causing = contamination are=20 intended to be included in the regulations. Groundwater sampling, Israel = noted,=20 would be unfairly imposed. "There is an obvious unfairness in that only = people=20 with both wells and septics must monitor," he said.

"Isn't there = a=20 provision that, if you don't have a well, you have to install a = monitoring=20 well?" asked District 4 Supervisor Louis Boitano.

Israel stated = in the=20 draft letter that "there is no explicit language in AB 885 about = groundwater=20 monitoring. The criteria for siting and installation of monitoring wells = is=20 tightly defined but the owner could elect to sample an existing water = well=20 regardless of distance or gradient."

The letter asserts that AB = 885=20 regulations will not protect impaired waters, which was the bill's = original=20 intent. They fail to deal with the nitrogen removal standard and have no = great=20 options for siting and design of septic systems within 600 feet of an = impaired=20 body of water. "The mandated five-year septic tank inspection frequency = will=20 result in increased pumping," the letter predicts. Israel estimated that = increased pumping frequency could double the impact on already scarce = waste=20 facilities.

Soil depth requirements were discussed. The letter = warns that=20 the absence of an avenue for variance or deviation from soil depth and=20 composition requirements "could constitute a taking if heretofore = useable=20 parcels are rendered unbuildable by the regulations."

"I would = like you=20 to stress the 'taking' issue," Forster said. "My constituents in the = Camanche=20 area could be forced to install a community system."

A community = system=20 has been in a study phase for some time, but ongoing tests for the = presence of=20 the California tiger salamander in the Camanche area can not be = completed=20 without many more days of rain.

Costs for implementation are = downplayed=20 in the draft environmental impact report, Israel noted. "The DEIR = ignores the=20 cost to the county. No regulations are self-implementing. That's an=20 oxymoron."

"The state should give room for flexibility," District = 5=20 Supervisor Brian Oneto said. "For instance, one person living on a = septic system=20 shouldn't be treated the same as a house with 10 children."

Since = AB 885=20 was adopted in 2000, the regulations have been nine years in the = development=20 stage, with input from community service districts, county environmental = health=20 departments, state environmental protection agencies and board, water = districts=20 and associations. "They were supposed to be completed in 2004," Israel=20 said.

They are clearly not done yet. On Feb. 4, the state Water = Resources=20 Control Board said that it will redraft the regulations. "The state = Water Board=20 is sensitive to the concerns raised at the public workshops, and the = regulations=20 will be revised following consideration of the public comments, as = appropriate,"=20 the board said in announcing the changes.

Amador County's letter = may add=20 fuel to the fire of resistance from the Regional Council of Rural = Counties,=20 which represents the interests of 31 California counties, including = Amador.=20 RCRC, on Monday, sent a letter more than 30 pages long to the water = board,=20 outlining numerous objections to the proposed regulations.

Jerry = Budrick