lostntexas
Junior Member
The Trinity River Authority acting as an agent of the Texas Commission On Environmental Quality mandates that the owner of an Aerobic Septic System maintain a license to operate the system. The license is renewed each year and a renewal fee of $20.00 is charged. They also require a maintenance contract be purchased from a certified licensed “maintenance provider” (average cost $200.00 per year).
After researching thoroughly I have discovered that the so called “maintenance contract” has nothing to do with maintenance on the aerobic septic system and everything to do with the testing and reporting of the affluent being discharged into the environment, this information is needed by TRA for entry into their data base for tracking compliance of Texas clean water standards.
I have no problem being held accountable for compliance with the law.
I do have a problem with being forced to pay a third party to report back to the authority’s on my compliance or noncompliance.
Why not just hire someone to ride along with you when you drive an automobile to monitor your speed and report back to the authority’s when you exceed the speed limit?
Paying the salary of the policeman is one thing but paying a third party to report you to the policeman is something else.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that the fifth amendment is being violated in this arrangement.
My number two concern with this regulation is it is deceptive. The aerobic septic system owner is lead to believe he is paying for and receiving maintenance on his equipment when he is not. TCEQ dictates the terms of the contract, they provide the “professional maintenance provider” with a check list of components to check off, beside each component you check off as operative or inoperative.
The filter on an air pump for instance will remain operative long after it is due for cleaning or replacement.
Being operative has nothing to do with maintenance and falls under the category of inspection. The air pump filter on my system went for over three years being checked off as operative and became so clogged that I decided I’d risk going ahead and violating the law by replacing it myself. When the air pump fails due to a dirty filter guess who pays the $800.00 to $1,000.0 cost to replace it. It's not TRA and it's not the professional maintenance provider.
The deceptive nature of the contract in my opinion should render it unconscionable and unenforceable by the courts.
I am now in violation of TRA Order R-1048-1 a class C misdemeanor punishable by fines of $500.00 a day for refusing to renew my aerobic system maintenance contract.
Any ideas as to what I should say to the judge? Any comment will be appreciated.
After researching thoroughly I have discovered that the so called “maintenance contract” has nothing to do with maintenance on the aerobic septic system and everything to do with the testing and reporting of the affluent being discharged into the environment, this information is needed by TRA for entry into their data base for tracking compliance of Texas clean water standards.
I have no problem being held accountable for compliance with the law.
I do have a problem with being forced to pay a third party to report back to the authority’s on my compliance or noncompliance.
Why not just hire someone to ride along with you when you drive an automobile to monitor your speed and report back to the authority’s when you exceed the speed limit?
Paying the salary of the policeman is one thing but paying a third party to report you to the policeman is something else.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that the fifth amendment is being violated in this arrangement.
My number two concern with this regulation is it is deceptive. The aerobic septic system owner is lead to believe he is paying for and receiving maintenance on his equipment when he is not. TCEQ dictates the terms of the contract, they provide the “professional maintenance provider” with a check list of components to check off, beside each component you check off as operative or inoperative.
The filter on an air pump for instance will remain operative long after it is due for cleaning or replacement.
Being operative has nothing to do with maintenance and falls under the category of inspection. The air pump filter on my system went for over three years being checked off as operative and became so clogged that I decided I’d risk going ahead and violating the law by replacing it myself. When the air pump fails due to a dirty filter guess who pays the $800.00 to $1,000.0 cost to replace it. It's not TRA and it's not the professional maintenance provider.
The deceptive nature of the contract in my opinion should render it unconscionable and unenforceable by the courts.
I am now in violation of TRA Order R-1048-1 a class C misdemeanor punishable by fines of $500.00 a day for refusing to renew my aerobic system maintenance contract.
Any ideas as to what I should say to the judge? Any comment will be appreciated.
Last edited: