|
Written by Art Ludwig •
Tuesday, 24 February 2009 22:42
|
Here is the first official draft of the new standard, with suggested changes and the rationale behind them:
 ch._16_only_integrated_text_2-2-09b.pdf 1.25 Mb 02/25/2009, 00:17
I have only responded to part of it so far.
The general response among stakeholders to this draft is that adopting this language would set greywater regulation back to the stone age...that it is definitely worse than the code we have now and possibly worse than the pre-1997 revision appendix J.
Apparently this is by requirement, not design. That is, DHC is required by statute to use the IAMPMO language as its starting point, regardless of it's known shortcomings.
The best course of action would be to throw this language out at the first stakeholders meeting and start from scratch using Arizona's code or our improved version of the Arizona code, , as a base.
This is legally possible, and is in fact the intent of SB 1258. What DHC needs to be able to go this far is for you to TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION, as described above, so they can defend this course of action against the entrenched greywater resistance in the state health department.
I hope to add an improved version of our improved Arizona code (Model Greywater Ordinance (doc)) to this space, incorporating your input. Please E mail us your suggestions and supporting data!
– Art Ludwig
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comment form