With all that has gone on in the name of science and enforcement of the ESA, you would think that the soil is fertile for independent certification companies, companies that would have the capability of saying, "The science you used to justify all of those $30,000 septic systems is woefully inadequate." After learning more about the injustices done in the name of science and the enforcement of the ESA, I don't see how a requirement for better science could fail. In Ron Arnold's book, Undue Influence, work was halted by the anonymous activist's information that an endangered species lived there. No science involved, simply a foundation-fed activist being used by some guilt-ridden fatcat in New England. I agree that peer review would be unnessary with validated processes. Perhaps some foundation oozing money could be interested in taking up the cause for private certification? Many of them claim to be after what is good. And there certainly are disillusioned environmentalists around, aren't there?
The delay required for a review might be very destructive.
Look at the destruction caused now, with the lack of reviews. Farmers committing suicide in the Klamath.
There is even a well-orchestrated effort to convert much of the northeast to federal land.
You see, there is no motive in what you advocate to improve the performance of the system in absolute terms, much less its cost effectiveness of the system, indeed, quite the contrary. The worse it gets, the more they make.
So the soil is profoundly rich and ready for private certification! The motive is held by those whose property stands in the balance! We need to yell it from the rooftops because the average American has no idea how bad the situation really is. It will get worse if we don't take action soon. The amount of foundation money behind the movement is a big stinky jackass in the room that too many are trying to ignore. Then there is the majority that aren't aware of the big stinky jackass.