[Durham INC] The Bull City a bully...or DENR Dominating Durham?
Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 27 21:54:12 EDT 2009
Thanks to Mike and all others who are weighing in on the Jordan Lake Rules issue. I attended Clean Water Lobby day and learned a lot about the misinformation and exaggeration regarding the rules pertaining to 'existing development'/'retrofitting.'
1) First of all, the estimated costs are the most expensive estimates -- a worst case scenario, if you will. And these estimated costs assume that the required pollution reductions must be achieved within 20 years. This is not true. (see below).
2) Secondly, there is a lot more flexibility to the plan than opponents are giving it credit for. In fact, NC legislators last week suggested that it is this flexibility, which was deemed a plus for the plan, that seems to be causing local gov'ts the most stress -- in the past they have received specific requirements to check off the list, and though there have been complaints in this regard, the parts of the Jordan Lake Rules which are the most flexible are also receiving the most opposition. Fear of the unknown, perhaps?
3) On another, related matter... Mike wrote:
>"In fact, the water in the lower New Hope arm of the lake is now used
> as a source of drinking water for a number of communities, and Durham
> is working with other local governments to make Jordan Lake a regional
> water source. Thus, the City is invested in the water quality of
> Jordan Lake.
According to the Hunter Survey, which may very well be accepted by the BOCC on April 13, there IS NO New Hope Arm of the lake... this is the area in question/contention. DWQ has informed that there is question as to whether this arm of the lake exists -- the current USGS maps say it does, the Hunter survey says it doesn't. Very disturbing...
Please attend the April 13 meeting of the BOCC and help prevent the unjust acceptance of this developer-provided survey (which will move his project out of the watershed)...
For sources for my input above, please see below.
Melissa (Rooney)
1) From the NC Conservation Network, March 18. 2009:
"Existing Development: This is one of the most controversial and misunderstood parts of the rules. Jordan Lake cannot become healthy again unless local governments take steps to control polluted runoff from existing development. The rules give local governments 3 1/2 years to develop a plan; the target for the plan is to control half of the required pollution reductions within ten years. However, if that's not practicable, the local governments can propose what they think they can do. The local governments have another year to begin to implement their plan. There is no timeline to
finish it. Local governments can receive credits for measures they’ve taken to control runoff since 2001.
Some local governments have offered estimates in the billions of dollars. In creating them, staff assumed that local governments would have to pay for all pollution reductions, and would use the most expensive techniques available. That's not what the rules require; the rules only demand a feasible plan and do not even set an end date by which time reductions must be achieved. There are various federal and state programs that pay for stormwater retrofits; these projects can further help to reduce any costs to local governments."
2) As stated in the FAQ documentation written by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ):
Existing Development Rule (.0266)
10. Does the Existing Development Rule require local governments to retrofit all previously developed areas? Will this result in the condemnation of private property? (See ROP Comments #141-145)
"No, the Existing Development Rule does not require retrofits. The rule is not prescriptive as to what practices are to be used to achieve reductions. Structural stormwater retrofits are only one of the many ways that reductions can be achieved under the Rule. Many other more cost-effective options are available.
The rule is broad in its methods of achieving reductions, which include, but are not limited to: street sweeping, improvement of existing ponds and stormwater structures, removal of existing built-upon areas, treatment of runoff in redevelopment projects, over-treatment of runoff in new development projects, source control activities such as fertilizer and pet waste ordinances, alternative stormwater practices such as rain barrels, cisterns, downspout disconnections, and stormwater capture and reuse, restoration of ecological communities such as streams and riparian buffers, and wastewater activities such as the creation of surplus allocation through advanced treatment, expansion of surplus allocation through regionalization, collection systems improvements, removal of illegal discharges, and connection of
onsite wastewater systems and discharging sand filter systems to central sewers An accounting tool will be developed prior to implementation to determine percent reductions for many of these alternative options.
Addressing the second part of the question, condemnation should be avoidable in most circumstances by using government owned land, willing landowners, and utilizing the alternative options to structural retrofits listed above."
If you've read all this -- thanks!
Melissa
--- On Fri, 3/27/09, marc <marc at theforestfoundation.org> wrote:
From: marc <marc at theforestfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [durhamenviro] The Bull City a bully...or DENR Dominating Durham?
To: mike.woodard at durhamnc.gov
Cc: durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 6:17 PM
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the response. We do need cool heads and well-informed
dialogs. There are a lot of people upset that we have spoiled yet again
our "nest" and the reason for why we love to live in the Triangle.
I would question our understanding of the concept of "cost," as the cost
of polluting the Lake may be high indeed, and the longer we wait the
higher the costs may climb. Also, the term "balance" implies two sides:
the environment and humans? But we know that this word itself is
"pejorative," and that we are, rather, a part of the environment-- no
"balance" required.
My suggestion is for Council to agree to the Rules, but demand more
flexible time lines and cost effective and efficient mechanisms for
existing source cleanup. Amazing things are being done in constructed
wetlands, wetland restoration, green roofs and reduction of impervious
surfaces. Many of these
systems can be low cost and can employ people in
green jobs, training them in important fields of the evolving green
economy. Thus, the "costs" may provide beneficial multipliers to the
community and stimulate economic activity that can fix the poor vision
and planning that has impaired our natural world.
Marc Dreyfors
Mike Woodard wrote:
>
> The protection of Jordan Lake is too important to ignore. As a way to
> engage in this critical issue, I would like to suggest that residents
> do a couple of things to assist your elected and appointed officials
> in our fight for Jordan and the watershed surrounding it.
>
> First, learn more about the proposed Jordan Lake rules. I appreciate
> Melissa sharing the Environment NC site. However, the information
> presented there is not balanced, and the tone is pejorative and
> exaggerated. On the website you will
read: "Even more dismaying, city
> officials are arguing that part of the lake shouldn't really have to
> be clean." Where's the documentation to support that wild claim?
>
> And even the original subject of this email ("The Bull City a bully?")
> is grossly unfair.
>
> Please take time to familiarize yourselves with the City Council's
> position on this issue. Here is a website that provides a lot of
> information:
> http://durhamnc.gov/departments/wm/jordan_lake_rules.cfm
> <http://durhamnc.gov/departments/wm/jordan_lake_rules.cfm>
>
> I've pulled out these three paragraphs as a summary:
> "The Durham City Council, which has many members who are consistent
> supporters of
environmental groups and initiatives in the region, has
> determined that not all of the Jordan Rules are in Durham's interest.
> The Council has endorsed many of the rules -- for example, the "new
> development" rule. That rule will raise the cost of stormwater
> controls for new housing and commercial and institutional construction
> in Durham to the highest in the state. However, the Council opposes
> some of the rules, particularly the "existing development" rule, given
> the outrageous costs which will fall on Durham citizens. This would
> force the City to pay an estimated $570 million, could require
> condemnation of private property, and take property out of the City’s
> tax base. The "science" behind Jordan Lake’s condition can certainly
> be argued both ways, but it is a fact that the lake is successfully
> serving uses that many experts thought would be
impossible when it was
> constructed.
>
> "In fact, the water in the lower New Hope arm of the lake is now used
> as a source of drinking water for a number of communities, and Durham
> is working with other local governments to make Jordan Lake a regional
> water source. Thus, the City is invested in the water quality of
> Jordan Lake.
>
> "A compromise approach is needed to strike a reasonable balance. The
> "existing development" rule is prohibitively expensive and should be
> substantially modified. Some rules need to be fine-tuned and others
> should remain as is. The result of such a compromise will continue to
> protect Jordan Lake at a more reasonable cost for citizens."
>
> Even Environment NC acknowledges Durham's leadership ("The Bull City
> has been an environmental leader over the years.."), and the City has
> worked hard to be
ahead of many of the issues raised with the Jordan
> Lake rules. However, as proposed, the rules are punitive, especially
> for a community that has been so far ahead of our neighbors on water
> protection.
>
> On Monday evening, there will be a presentation on the Jordan Lake
> rules at City Hall, in the Committee Room on second floor. It begins
> at 7 PM. Please come join me (and a lot of other folks from across the
> region, I suspect) to learn more from the various groups who will be
> represented.
>
> Second, once you've gotten a handle on these issues, please contact
> the City Council, the County Commissioners, and our legislators. All
> of us have pieces of this issue we're wrestling with. Let us know how
> you feel.
>
> The myriad issues around Jordan Lake are complicated and deserve
> informed conversation.
>
> Mike
Woodard
> One of the City Council members cited above as a "consistent supporter
> of environmental groups and initiatives in the region"
>
>
> At 12:58 PM 3/27/2009, Melissa Rooney wrote:
>
>> FYI --
>>
>> Melissa (Rooney)
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 3/26/09, Elizabeth Ouzts, Environment North Carolina
>> State Director <ElizabethO at environmentnorthcarolina.org> wrote:
>>
>> From: Elizabeth Ouzts, Environment North Carolina State
>> Director <ElizabethO at environmentnorthcarolina.org>
>> Subject: The Bull City a bully?
>> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 9:43 PM
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> The Bull City has been an environmental leader over the years
>> -- on curbing global warming, on recycling.
>>
>> But now, Mayor Bill Bell isn't just opposing new rules to
>> protect Jordan Lake and New Hope Creek, he and the city
>> council are trying to recruit other local governments in the
>> Triangle
to join him. [1]
>> That's not just bad news for Jordan Lake -- it's also bad
>> news for New Hope Creek, which feeds into the part of the
>> reservoir that Durham officials contend isn't worth
>> protecting [2].
>> Isn't worth protecting?
>>
>> Send an e-mail to Mayor Bell
>> <http://www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/action/clean-water/durham?id4=ES>.
>> Let him know you support protecting Jordan Lake.
>>
>> This
just isn't right. Durham officials have long known that
>> they'd need to reduce pollution from their wastewater
>> treatment plants, since both state and federal laws require
>> them to do so.
>>
>> The Mayor's actions simply don't jive with his history, and
>> with Durham's history, of leading when it comes to the
>> environment.
>>
>> Send an e-mail to Durham Mayor Bill Bell. Let him know you
>> support protecting all of Jordan Lake.
>>
>>
www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/action/clean-water/durham?id4=ES
>> <http://www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/action/clean-water/durham?id4=ES>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Elizabeth Ouzts
>> Environment North Carolina State Director
>> ElizabethO at environmentnorthcarolina.org
>> http://www.environmentnorthcarolina.org
>> <http://www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/>
>>
>> P.S. Our records show that you're a resident of Durham. If
>> you're not, you can still help! Send this message to your
>> friends that do live in Durham. And if you haven't already,
>> send an email to your legislator to let them know you support
>> protecting Jordan Lake.
>>
>> 1.
>> http://www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/in-the-news/clean-water/clean-water/mayor-seeks-jordan-lake-accord
>> <http://www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/in-the-news/clean-water/clean-water/mayor-seeks-jordan-lake-accord>
>>
>> 2.
>> http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/03/26/4/a/4a8-durham_letter_and_resolution.pdf
>> <http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/03/26/4/a/4a8-durham_letter_and_resolution.pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Durham INC Mailing List
>> list at durham-inc.org
>> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html <http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/durhamenviro/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/durhamenviro/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:durhamenviro-digest at yahoogroups.com
mailto:durhamenviro-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
durhamenviro-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090327/23c14282/attachment.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list