[Durham INC] Fw: heraldsun.com article wrt Jordan Lake Rules and New Hope Arm

[Melissa Rooney]

See HS article below. Even before I read this, I heard that the NC legislature is gutting the J Lake rules.

Of particular interest is the part about the New Hope Creek arm, cut and pasted below. By all means, let's redraw the watershed boundaries to permit the 751 Assemblage mega-city in this part of the J Lake Watershed...maybe their argument that they won't cause any more damage to New Hope Creek portion of J Lake is b/c the damage is so bad already that any more will be hardly noticeable:

"The proposal also spells out a different tack for
the lake's Upper New Hope Creek arm, the one that reaches well into
Durham County just west of N.C. 751. 


Engineers and city officials contend the causeway that carries
Farrington Road across that portion of the lake slows water flow and
makes it far more difficult to deal with pollution there. 


If water there isn't meeting state and federal standards by 2025, state
regulators would have to decide whether additional pollution reductions
might be feasible. If the answer's yes, they'd work with a new
scientific advisory board to crate a reduction program that's
"practicable, taking into consideration cost and benefits." 


Should their answer be no, they could instead "initiate alternative
regulatory actions," among them measures requiring builders to secure
special permits or meet "site specific water-quality standards," Hudson
said."

-- Melissa Rooney



				
				
				
		

		
		
		
			
		
		
			N.C. House committee wants time on lake bill
			
		
		
		
			
		
	
		

		
		
		
			By Ray Gronberg
			
		
			
			 : The Herald-Sun
			
		
		
			
			
				
				
			
		
		
			
			
			
gronberg at heraldsun.com
			
		
		
			
			
Apr 30, 2009
			
		
		
		
		


		
		 
		 
		
		
		


		
		
		
			
			
		
		
			
				
					
			 
		
		DURHAM -- A compromise bill in the General Assembly would stretch out deadlines for cleaning up Jordan Lake and open the possibility of treating the part of the lake closest to Durham differently from the rest of it.    


But environmentalists, city officials and state legislators all agreed Wednesday that the proposal isn't quite ready for prime time.     


"The hope would be that it doesn't make it to the floor quickly and we have some time to work out incentives and financing methods to help communities clean up the lake," said Peter Raabe, Southeast director for government relations for a group called American Rivers that's involved in the bargaining over the compromise.    


The N.C. House Environment and Natural Resources Committee will take public comment on the draft compromise today, but are not expecting to vote, said state Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, a member of the panel.    


Luebke said city officials and environmentalists have been trying to work out a deal and have told legislators "progress has been made."    


The suggested compromise is a potential substitute for a bill that would rescind entirely the anti-pollution rules for the lake that the state Environmental Management Commission approved last year.     


Durham officials contend the rules -- specifically, a section that addresses runoff from existing development -- would cost residents here hundreds of millions of dollars and while having little practical effect on the lake's condition.    


The rules are meant to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous that reach the lake. The two elements are nutrients and promote the growth of algae that in turn chokes off fish and other aquatic life.    


The suggested compromise would rewrite the existing-development section of the rules.    


According to a memo from committee counsel Jeff Hudson, it would still target pollution from existing development but start by asking cities and counties to start by educating the public, mapping discharge sources and going after illegal discharges.    


If by 2017 that doesn't yield progress, state regulators could force cities and counties to step things up, requiring them to cut nitrogen deposits by 8 percent and phosphorus by 5 percent.     


The nitrogen target is less aggressive than the one in the rules approved last year.    


The compromise would give local governments a chance to show they've already hit the targets. It would also bar regulators from forcing them to add pollution controls to existing development "unless the area is being redeveloped," Hudson said in his memo.    


The proposal also spells out a different tack for the lake's Upper New Hope Creek arm, the one that reaches well into Durham County just west of N.C. 751.     


Engineers and city officials contend the causeway that carries Farrington Road across that portion of the lake slows water flow and makes it far more difficult to deal with pollution there.    


If water there isn't meeting state and federal standards by 2025, state regulators would have to decide whether additional pollution reductions might be feasible. If the answer's yes, they'd work with a new scientific advisory board to crate a reduction program that's "practicable, taking into consideration cost and benefits."    


Should their answer be no, they could instead "initiate alternative regulatory actions," among them measures requiring builders to secure special permits or meet "site specific water-quality standards," Hudson said.    


City officials think the compromise "probably improved" on the original rules but aren't ready to embrace it, Senior Assistant City Attorney Karen Sindelar said.    


"There needs to be a reasonableness limit on what local governments are required to do with existing development," she added, explaining what they'd like to see in the bill. "We really need some kind of cost-benefit analysis."    


Raabe said his group doesn't think the bill addresses cities' legitimate cost complaints and suspects the provisions on the Upper New Hope arm amount to a "get out of jail free card" that could exempt communities from "ever having to meet any decent clean-water standards."    


He added that environmentalists believe the state has to help cities and counties shoulder cleanup bills. But for now, there's "no funding mechanism" in the compromise.    


It's not clear legislators would support one. In debating such subsidies, "the only question is whether [the bill is] concentrated on the people who reside in the locality or spread to all the residents of the state," state Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham said. 
		
		
		


		
		 
		 
		
		
	
		

© 2009 by The Durham Herald Company. All rights reserved.

	
				 
				


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090430/7bc987c3/attachment.htm>