Cost to change from cesspool onerous
I object to the proposed wastewater treatment plan recently exposed in West Hawaii Today.
In 2004, I purchased a home that had been constructed in 2001. It is located in the Kona Vistas subdivision. It was some time after having taken residence that I learned that this house actually was permitted and, in fact, had a cesspool. I was flabbergasted. In the 21st century, the State of Hawaii and the County of Hawaii, permitted the use of cesspools in densely populated, residential areas in reasonable proximity to the Pacific Ocean. Was that possible? Could reasonably intelligent governmental entities allow such a thing? I guess … in the State of Hawaii.
Now comes the state Department of Health, having done who knows what since 1990, proposing to issue its first water quality plan in nearly 25 years. (How much shoreline is in this state?) It proposes to pass along the cost of the government ineptitude to those who happen to be holding the property at the present time.
Certainly, cesspools should no longer be permitted for new construction. I would sort of assume this is not the current practice but how can anything be ruled out in these circumstances? The cost of installing a septic system at the time of new construction, indicated in the article as $10,000, is not onerous, in my opinion.
However, the cost to retrofit a septic system into construction that has been in place for many years, in my case 15 but in many cases 30, 40 or more years, can be very onerous if possible at all without structural reconstruction. This issue should not be taken lightly, such as dismissing it by saying the retrofit should be done in conjunction with a property sale. This is an issue, the cost of which, should be absorbed by that government that performed so negligently over the past 25 years and longer. At the least, a tax credit should be provided in the amount of the cost to retrofit to those homeowners whose residences were lawfully constructed under the then existing permitting rules. What would be the precedent to impose retroactive permitting rules? It would seem to me to be a lawyer’s dream.
Finally, this issue is of significant enough economic importance to the taxpayers of the west side of Hawaii Island that a public hearing should be held in Kona in addition to the one already held inHilo.
Gerald A. Gruber
Kailua-Kona