Christmas orders: regulation of private users sewage << Il responsabile dell’area tecnica […]- A tutti i cittadini proprietari di immobili ubicati nelle strade e piazze comunali servite da pubblica rete di fognatura nera regolarmente in esercizio, ma non ancora serviti dal servizio di depurazione, a procedere, entro e non oltre 90 giorni dalla presente, all’attivazione di idoneo sistema di depurazione per l’allaccio degli scarichi di competenza alla rete fognante cittadina, comprensivo di tutti i trattamenti così come previsti per legge. - A tutti i cittadini dotati di sistema di smaltimento reflui domestici previsti dalla legge (fossa IHMOFF) di provvedere alla regolare e periodica manutenzione dell’impianto come previsto dall’attuale normativa con rilascio di regolare attestazione da parte della ditta specificatamente accreditata; […] >>
This is an excerpt of the Ordinance No. 48, December 22, 2010, issued directly by the municipal engineer, to clarify, in a peremptory way, the burden on the residents of San Vito Romano in the field of water management waste, regulated already sensitive issue since the mid-'70s with both national regulations, which, as a result, regional and European level.
dates back to 1977, and in fact exactly the February 4, the first decision of the Ministry of Public Works is currently in force regarding protection of waters against pollution, which lays down guidelines for wastewater, drinking water, aqueducts, springs and transmission networks. Thirty
years and then divide the city ordinance from the beginning of new era for the disposal of waste water and all the time spent, along with some cryptic passage of the Ordinance, open ideas, which deserve further investigation. First things first.
issue an order now, in 2010/2011 indicates that, despite the elapsed time for the adjustment of the exhaust, there are still homes in our community who deal incorrectly, or, at least, although adequate, is not certified, their waste water, with a consequent risk to the environment. The head of the technical, Geom. Enrico Micheli, heard about it, confirmed that the areas from by Sisto Jella avenue, heading towards Genazzano and some houses on Via Guido Baccelli are directly affected by the order, dispelling any doubt that the problems could only cover more rural areas.
The first legitimate question, then, is why in all these years has ignored this situation, leaving the area without proper control and protection.
The second, however, is why right now instead?
The most sensible assumption is that the advent of ACEA ATO2 in the management of municipal water has brought a wave of law and obligations that had previously been regularly ignored when everything was run by the City or entities closely related to it, see the CEP, and now we need to get away from any legal risks. An excerpt from the Rules
ACEA (Add 2009), in fact, directly recalls what may seem an anomaly of the order, which is the first point, one in which explicitly obliges themselves before those who are served by public sewers, but not linked to a municipal sewage treatment plant. Paragraph 7.4 of the Rules, in fact, prepared by the secretariat of Technical Operations said that << nelle zone urbanizzate servite da pubblica fognatura priva di depuratore finale ovvero recapitante ad un depuratore insufficiente, Acea Ato 2 S.p.A. non può accettare domande di allaccio in pubblica fognatura. >>
In fact, you are stating the irregularities and uselessness of such a public sewer, which joined at the head of the municipal above, casting a shadow, uncomfortable, on how it was possible to allow for residential purposes without having to tie up to standard water treatment pre-and post-discharge, or, as in past years has allowed the wastewater were deliberately made to flow in the territory without the necessary form of treatment.
can not justify the behavior to ignorance plausible, however, believe that someone has turned a blind eye, or perhaps both. This observation leads us straight to another question, ie why negligence / delay of others, must now be paid by ordinary citizens, however, over the years have regularly paid the costs of a treatment that did not have. Yes, because these costs are charged to the regular water bill at all, even those who have private septic system (if they have not received an exemption).
In this regard there are several judgments that govern the issue and that, since 2000, transforming the tax treatment of the provision in the tariff, thus tying the payment of a sum of the explicit use of a service, or, if it did not exist, forcing the receiver (the City of San Vito Romano in this case) to divert the proceeds into a trust fund linked with works to construct a sewage treatment plant.
recap: part of San Vito is not comply with the disposal of waste water and septic tank while the owners have to provide only to certify the regular maintenance, others not connected to municipal sewer connected to a sewage treatment plant, are forced, in 90 days, to ensure construction of a self-purification plant. Both, however, have paid an annual fee for water treatment, where the City has a fund explicitly tied to the creation of such works, had improperly received. Dwell on the need for verification of the existence of this fund, as well as whether to take collective action against the municipality is not the primary purpose of this article, only then will continue to ask questions, trying to stimulate free thought. Also linked to this, is, in fact, the question of who should be responsible for the quality of water discharged by public sewers and who, if it is not in accordance with, the one who should provide regularized. In this case the legislation is not clear, but by inference we can legitimately claim that the municipality itself or entity that manages the private system are at least co-responsible, along with the user, possibly not up to standard. If it is true that you can not establish a home calendar (or industrial area) to a public sewer is not served by a special treatment facility, it is also true that if this were the case, it has been deliberately allowed by the owner / operator and therefore is itself failing to the community.
Defect, this clear, that you are trying to remedy by provincial funds (something like € 250,000) for the construction of a sewage plant, expected to be installed in the south (by a location Accianesi) San Vito Romano, where already few years, we talk and write about it.
dates back to 2008, a partial admission of the then head of the Area 3, Dr. Urtesi, which, in some papers in our possession, declare the existence a municipal sewer in that area that reaches a site where, in future, will be installed by the company Acea ATO2 the second municipal sewage treatment plant, certifying, in fact, the existence of that part of the public sewerage system illegal and has no the measures required for water treatment and opening up a kind of full-bet for the identification of the land in recent years has been the subject of repeated and deliberate pollution.
ACEA ATO2, however, for its part, the same regulation quoted above, under "Purification purifying capacity greater than 2,000 population equivalents" includes two water treatment plants in our area, one at Pastine the location, but the other locations Accianesi. Unknown is who has surveyed these plants, it is certain that if they really existed two public and of such size, there would be no need to make another, just as there would be no need by the Province of Rome, to deliver the sum of 250,000 €. Meanwhile, we can say that in the same paper signed by Dr. Urtesi is highlighted the existence of a private sewage system, built by the Manufacturer CFC to serve new residential agglomeration Accianesi built right in town.
Now, since the amount of funding has already advertised in its electronic billboards coverage, probably only partial, however, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant, the discrepancy between reality and what is printed on paper allows us to make at least three cases, the best of which is reduced to a simple mistake. The second, however, the possible future annexation of private property to public management, although it is difficult to believe that it has the capacity stated in the document ACEA. The third and worst, however, left to the reader mischievous assimilate that document to a bureaucratic justification for the illegal connection made over the years that elusive collector illegal.
As we have seen, the implications and concerns that one can order Christmas Gifts can be manifold, as well as the implications that this case will provide the medium to long term. Meanwhile, we can not but denounce the inaction of successive municipal administrations in the past 30 years, which in fact failed to resolve or contain the problem, bringing it to the point where the comb reaches the nodes, now firmly as the negligence of all those individuals who, while knowing, have avoided the situation be corrected, despite a clear legal framework and tested.
We conclude that in the coming weeks we will transform our assumptions into certainties going to interview the people involved in order to remove any doubts about legality that may arise in conditions of partial information.
published in January 2011 Empolitana
The question: Why 
thank all those who have accompanied and supported as in Milan, Mantua. The intent of my 
thank all those who have accompanied and supported as in Milan, Mantua. The intent of my 
