The primary role of the regulatory community is to administer the onsite sewage program fairly and consistently for the benefit of the public. For any state to permit their staff to provide siting, design and installation inspection services is inappropriate.

To date VDH seems unable to recognize it regulates a statewide program, and has no latitude to establish regions of enhanced or diminished competition. Indeed it has been admonished by every authority, study and report to remove it’s staff from the unmanageable conflicts of interest attendant to rendering design services in lieu of regulatory duties. VDH relies on stakeholders such as those populating SHADAC to support it’s failed vision.

The “hardship doctrine” distributed by Mr. Gregory is the latest insult to consulting firms established to serve clients in developing their private properties.  No rational person accepts the premise that VDH is entitled to continue it’s design monopoly in the face of overwhelming evidence; it’s unwilling to manage the responsibilities, or conflicts of interest regardless the level of General Assembly’s financial support. No other business in the Commonwealth is expected to compete with free, or render services in competition with a state agency which also renders approval of their certified work; tinkering with absurd formulas does not alter the fact that any percentage of no change, is no change.

In 2011 Dr. Richard Otis, PE closed the RD32 Orrock Report with this statement:

“VDH is apparently intending to reserve the right to provide these services where a homeowner's income is below the federal poverty guidelines. While NOWRA understands the concerns that VDH has in ensuring appropriate systems are properly sited, designed and installed where property owners might be unable to afford such systems unless the costs are subsidized, we believe that there are more appropriate approaches than using department staff to assist low income families with siting and design of suitable onsite systems.”

The Commissioner seem unable to reign in the anti-competitive effects which suppress the growth of competitive markets in half the state.  Inventory of marketshare shows the policies to date have done little to encourage the public to retain qualified private consultants. Exacerbated by local policies, fees and governmental agreements public seems to prefer the presumed convenience of one-stop state supported services. The state in competition with consultants who must pass on the increased cost, and delays attendant to the public sector are burdened with expenses not burdening the governor's staff in contracting to deliver onsite services. Yet we persist since we are called upon by the public to address the effects of failed systems which were built in reliance on “VDH de-minimus” services.

We see potential for a more efficient operating model, where landowners contract for all private services including assessment, design, construction and operations. Rather than including VDH in the decision tree we expect clear and consistent standards, uniformly applied and compliant with regulations and site restrictions. Whether VDH has any claim to market participation is uncertain, but the public’s reliance in certain localities is due to least cost incentives, and first refusal policies at the clerks desk, rather than quality of service.

The agency does not seem cognizant that the Hardship Policy which proposed a survey of cost for private services, and availability does not serve a regulatory function. Access to this data may be misused in fixing prices. Once again the unintended consequence of "good government" fails to pass the statutory construction requiring separation of the state from development of private property and contracts. Furthermore the concept of a check box for applicants to claim a property is or will be their principal place of residency is fraught with risk of fraud, absent any guidance toward the citizen who is simply attempting to secure least cost services. The criteria for household income and claims of property ownership already exist in statute, VDH is ill-advised to manipulate these requirements, or ignore requirements for documentation.

For these reasons I sustain my objection to a proposal which is unlikely to provide incentive for the agency to separate the design function from the ministerial duties. Thank you for your consideration of these public concerns.