I can definately see your point, Walt34, and I used to work for a municipality in the transportation division awhile back in Virginia, so I can also understand the need for continued maintenance on such systems. I guess my problem is twofold: 1. should we have been made to abandon a perfectly working system or could they have simply approved it by inspection and left it in operation (offering a later option for connection for a fee) and 2. should we be required to pay excess fees on a system that we are not fully utilizing. I would suspect that this would especially impact single individuals and families like mine that conserve or have secondary water sources (ie. wells, rain barrels, cisterns, etc.). I guess it was just a shock because I was working so hard to conserve and there was no monetary benefit. Although, in the interest of not being shallow, it was extremely satisfying to see the amount of water used in my household drop significantly simply for the benefits to the environment. Just because we can consume something doesn't mean we should. Upon further inspection, I guess the same could be said of our garbage collection. I have reduced our trash output to one 13-gallon bag a week for a family of four, but I still pay the same fee as my neighbor who sometimes has as many as six cans at the curb.
I'm not sure about the health hazard for the community as a whole since I'm not aware of any problems near me. We live in a significantly rural community with a lot of farm land, so it would not have been a case of a neighbors septic system impacting our property and vice versa, but I'm sure you are likely correct about the rationale. I suspect that I would get explanations like you have presented if I would ask for the reasons.
I consider this a form of taxation in the guise of a monthly bill. I imagine others would believe the same. I suddenly feel like I have many hands in my pocket.....