| 
|
By Elizabeth Dietzmann
Point-of-sale inspections of septic systems are productive. These programs bring septic systems into compliance gradually without creating a huge financial burden on all property owners in a community. This “repair through attrition” doctrine is more politically acceptable than programs that mandate that all septic systems be inspected and fixed by a certain date, and they impose a far lighter burden on local health departments, who would otherwise be required to hire additional staff in order to do mass inspections under such a program. Point-of-sale inspections, much like termite inspections, help the home-buyer make a wise choice in selecting a home system and are good “insurance.” They are an effective indicator of operational problems with a septic system, and they level the playing field of the real estate transaction. A point-of-sale inspection of the septic system will indicate whether or not the system is working properly and will insure that the buyers are not unexpectedly saddled with the cost of replacing a nonfunctioning septic system after they close on the purchase of a house. A point-of-sale inspection program also increases property values within a community and encourages lenders and mortgage companies to make loans, because they generally require such an inspection and a formal inspection program with trained inspectors alleviates many of a lender’s concerns.
Point-of-sale inspections of septic systems are pointless. Only a handful of states mandate them statewide, such as Massachusetts and New Mexico. The states that do mandate them still wrestle with inspector qualifications. The majority of point-of-sale inspection programs are left in the hands of local health departments, who do not have the manpower or training to perform them effectively and are reluctant to become involved in the liability issues surrounding a noncompliant system either before or after the home is sold. Many communities do not even have inspection programs, but local lenders may require an inspection as a condition of the loan. This then leaves point-of-sale inspections in the hands of private contractors who may have little or no training and who may be under considerable pressure from realtors and home sellers to write favorable reports. The inspections can be circumvented as well even when the inspector tries to do a good job. Even when an inspector is trained and experienced and performs a thorough inspection, there is not an agreed-upon inspection standard in the industry that guarantees uniform inspection results. Point-of-sale inspections have a chilling effect on local real estate markets and can contribute to abandonment of homes when septic systems become too costly to fix. They protect neither the public health nor the homebuyer.
So which is it? Are point-of-sale inspections of septic systems productive or pointless? Like most things in the on-site wastewater world, it depends on whom you ask, and, as I have learned over the past few weeks, this is a controversial topic. So, who opposes point-of-sale inspections? Lots and lots of folks, it seems. In states as diverse as California, Maryland, and Michigan, state realtors associations, homeowners, and county health officials, to name a few, have aggressively opposed state-mandated point-of-sale inspections. In the 2005 Maryland legislative session, a bill was defeated that would have required point-of-sale inspections each time a property was sold. The bill was actively opposed by the Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors, in part because statewide point-of-sale inspections were deemed undesirable. California continues to struggle with the onsite regulations called for by Assembly Bill 885, passed in 2000, which mandated statewide standards for septic systems. Stakeholders in California, including homeowners, septic system consultants, local governments, and county health agencies, have repeatedly shown concern over the fact that homes are often purchased before inspections can be performed, so implementing mandatory inspections could slow the buying and selling of homes as well as leave new homeowners stuck paying for expensive problems discovered after closing.
Interestingly enough, the March 2006 version of the draft onsite regulations does not contain any point-of-sale inspection provisions, but instead deals with standards for new and repaired onsite systems and merely requires that local officials be notified in the event a system needs to be repaired.
The Michigan Association of Realtors is also lobbying hard against a bill in the current legislative session which would prohibit the transfer of property containing an onsite disposal system unless the system has been inspected and a written copy of the inspection report is provided to the prospective transferee.
Do point-of-sale inspections contribute to the abandonment of homes and have a chilling effect on local real estate markets? According to a July 2006 article in the Tribune Chronicle, officials in the Warren, OH, township are concerned that the hefty cost of replacing septic systems is causing residents to walk away from their homes. This adds to the overall property abandonment issues that are an increasing problem in this part of the Rust Belt located between Cleveland and Pittsburg. The point-of-sale inspection program was implemented in 2003 as a political compromise with Ohio DEQ, which wanted the county to address septic system pollution that had largely been ignored since the 1970s.
The point-of-sale program was seen as a kinder, gentler way in which to bring septic systems into compliance. Unfortunately, decades of neglect cause nearly all septic systems in Trumbull County to fail the tests.
Ohio is not alone in dealing with the problem of abandonment. I have spoken with septic system inspectors, both public and private, in numerous states, who have all informed me that it is not uncommon for homes to be abandoned by sellers after sales fall through. At a minimum, when home sales fall through because of failed septic system inspections, those homes are repossessed by the lender and may sit vacant for long periods of time. As local regulations make it harder to install traditional septic systems and states increasingly use septic system repairs as a way to force the upgrade of older systems and address nutrient issues, it is entirely possible that more and more homeowners may not have enough extra equity in their homes to pay for septic system repairs.
Are point-of-sale inspections effective at either protecting the home-buyer or at protecting the public health? Again I have heard from many installers and system designers on this topic. The consensus seems to be that point-of-sale inspections are better than nothing and will detect grossly inoperable septic systems, but that few thorough inspections standards are followed and many inspectors have no standardized training.
According to Matt Harper, senior environmental planner with the Atlanta Regional Commission, a survey was conducted recently on septic inspections. An inspection, like the ones typically conducted in the 16 counties that make up the metro Atlanta area, consists of a property walk and observation of the drainfield area for standing water, septage, or landscaping that could divert water onto a drainfield. County environmental health personnel acknowledged that rarely does the inspector check any plumbing fixtures inside the house, so there is no way to tell if the system has backed up into the house or if there are water leaks in the house. If the septic tank has been pumped recently, the system can appear normal for a few months and then back up again. When this type of visual evaluation is performed on a vacant house, it is very difficult to determine if there are problems. Realistically, this type of inspection only proves that the system appears to be working on the day of the inspection.
I would also like to add that it is pretty simple to “beat” this type of inspection. Waiting to put a house on the market until the dry season, doing laundry outside the home for a few days, disconnecting the washer from the main sewer line and diverting the flow elsewhere, and, as mentioned above, pumping out the tank are just a few of the ways that less-than-scrupulous homeowners can make it appear their septic system is functioning properly.
And, of course, the ultimate reality is that the quality of the inspection may depend upon who is paying the inspector and whether the inspection is performed by a public or a private inspector.
The sellers are not going to want to pay an inspector who fails their system. I know Danny Kleinpeter, of Ranger Sewer.com, an installer from Suffolk County, NY (Long Island), a private inspector who works for buyers only. He has been physically and legally threatened by sellers for failing systems, and he is routinely denied complete access for an inspection. Many public inspectors are also nervous and reluctant to do much more than complete an inspection with so many disclaimers, qualifications, and waivers that is it essentially meaningless. Who can blame them?
With all these problems and inconsistencies, it is clear that a typical point-of-sale inspection alone will not do much more than detect blatantly nonfunctioning septic systems.
Without trained inspectors following set inspection criteria, and without including point of sale inspections in the context of a broader septic system management program, point-of-sale inspections may not be that useful.
In the next installment on this topic, I will discuss some communities that use point-of-sale inspections in conjunction with other management practices. I will also discuss the nitty-gritty aspects of point-of-sale inspections. Who should perform them? Public, or private inspectors? How should they be trained? Should they be P.E.’s or installers?
Elizabeth Dietzmann is an attorney in Rolla, MO. She can be contacted at edietzmann@earthlink.net.
OW
- November/December 2006
|
