Homeowners ignored environmental costs their septic systems imposed on others

Evidence

For the homeowner, the performance of a waste-disposal system was basically a consumer issue, yet the consumer’s perspective only took in a handful of environmental problems. If everything worked well, the benefits of a septic tank were often considerable: With a septic tank, a house might cost less and be in a more desirable location. If a septic tank failed, the result might be a nasty inconvenience, a family health hazard, perhaps even a serious financial blow – but, even in the worst case, the typical homeowner did not worry about the long-term environmental costs of septic-tank use. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 438

Categorization

• XREF: The classic private-vs-social cost externality story one gets in law-and-economics; connects to the idea that property-based market signals fail to price diffuse pollution. — connects to: Septic systems fail from complex site-specific ecological conditions — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 378; Septic failure forced sprawl residents to pay twice for waste disposal — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 391; Septic-tank regulation was hard because the technology served growth and homeownership — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 441 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Postwar housing development sharply raised environmental costs that people then politicized #corroborates (0.82) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 15