[Durham INC] Fw: Urgent -Jordan Lake -- by 5 PM today (Mon, April 4)

Mon May 4 23:26:02 EDT 2009

And the answer is that Durham has been a leader 
in environmental protection for decades...and will continue to be.

Durham's position on the Jordan Lake rules is 
responsible and environmentally sound. That's why 
we have more and more allies in our struggle 
against those rules that are based on poor 
science and will prove burdensome to taxpayers 
with little or no benefit. For instance, re-read 
Orange County's position. An earlier post on this 
subject suggested that Orange County supported 
the rules. When I read the County's position, I 
see a carefully nuanced statement reflects 
responsible leadership and does not embrace the rules as a package.

Mike Woodard

At 08:30 PM 5/4/2009, Tina wrote:
>The big question is, how environmentally 
>responsible is Durham’s Staff and City Council?
>
>Listen to the interesting clip from the City 
>Council Work Session on March 5th, 2009.  City Council sounds amused
>that they are going to use DWQ’s words against them!
>
>This segment is from 2:50:15 into the meeting’s 
>recording (a public recording), it runs for about a minute.
>It’s Paul Wiebke (Asst. Manager for Stormwater) 
>explaining their solution for the stormwater regulations
>regarding the “donut hole” area.
>
>For some reason, the state failed to notice that 
>Durham was without stormwater regulations in the “donut hole” for a
>number of years (since 2001?).  How much 
>retrofitting is needed for the projects built between then and now?
>The donor parcels (referred to in the clip) 
>allows land that is already 94% protected (critical watershed).
>
>****************************************************************************
>
>Below are a few comments of my own regarding the 
>weakening of the Jordan Lake Rules:
>
>As Durham has pointed-out in their resolution 
>regarding the Jordan Lake rules that:
>
>             “Prior to construction of Jordan 
> Lake by the Army Corps of Engineers,
>water quality problems were predicted by scientists from UNC-Chapel Hill,
>NC State, and Duke
”
>
>Well, regardless of the prediction, this region 
>is very dependent on Jordan Lake.  Durham is also dependent on Jordan
>during times of drought and for future 
>growth.  That is, if they don’t raise the dam at Lake Michie, which the state
>would prefer that Durham not--because it could 
>affect Falls Lake which has problems during droughts.
>
>This region must work hard to use this valuable 
>resource as a source for drinking water.  What are the other options?
>
> From Durham’s website listed below:
>
>“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.”
>
>This seems like a scare tactic.  Only 50% of the 
>reduction is required in 10 years, no time limit for the rest,
>and “could” is awfully vague.
>
>Here’s an interesting fact.
>
>[from: Frequently Asked Questions on the Jordan Lake Nutrient Strategy]
>
>“The chlorophyll a standard used by the state of NC is actually
>much less stringent (almost ten times less stringent) than
>what the EPA suggests for this ecoregion.”
>
>Scott Pearson
>Citizen
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org 
>[mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike Woodard
>Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 11:55 AM
>To: Melissa Rooney; 
>durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com; 
>inc-list at rtpnet.org; 
>northeastcreekstreamwatch at yahoogroups.com; Fairfieldspeaksout at yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Fw: Urgent -Jordan 
>Lake -- by 5 PM today (Mon, April 4)
>
>I respectfully disagree with Melissa's 
>assessment of the status of the rules ("watered 
>down"; great pun, Melissa) and ask that you 
>review the City's website that presents more 
>balance to this discussion, outlines the City's 
>position (a far more responsible position than 
>that being presented by some environmental 
>groups), and discusses some of the implications 
>for Durham taxpayers if all of the rules are implemented.
>http://durhamnc.gov/departments/wm/jordan_lake_rules.cfm
>
>I attended a dinner with Speaker Hackney 
>Saturday and was surprised to learn how little 
>information he has received about the potential costs to taxpayers.
>
>I also talked with two elected officials from 
>Orange County governments yesterday, and I was 
>pleased to learn from them how much support 
>there is for Durham's position in other local 
>governments all along the Jordan watershed.
>
>Before you contact your legislators, please read 
>more about this issue and make up your own mind. 
>This issue requires clear minds and steady hands, not jerking knees.
>
>Mike Woodard
>Durham City Council
>
>At 10:36 AM 5/4/2009, Melissa Rooney wrote:
>
>Please see below. And please take the time to 
>write your reps (all email addresses below). The 
>Jordan Lake Rules have already been watered down 
>significantly. Please help stop additional 
>loopholes from being put in -- it's long past 
>due to have REAL rules to protect our water.
>
>And keep in mind that Jordan Lake Rules set the 
>stage for rules for other bodies of water in 
>NC...we don't want to start with weak, meaningless regulations.
>
>Thanks!
>Melissa
>
>
>--- On Sun, 5/3/09, Haw River Assembly <info at hawriver.org> wrote:
>From: Haw River Assembly <info at hawriver.org>
>Subject: Urgent -Jordan Lake
>To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com
>Date: Sunday, May 3, 2009, 4:38 PM
>URGENT ACTION NEEDED (please excuse us if you 
>received a similar message earlier)
>ASK YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE TO PROTECT JORDAN LAKE
>
>The Jordan Lake rules are now before the House 
>Environment and Natural Resources Committee and 
>opponents of the rules (led by Durham and 
>Greenboro) have placed a "Proposed Committee 
>Substitute"  (PCS) for H239 before the Committee 
>that will really weaken the chances of cleaning 
>up Jordan Lake. The existing development rule 
>could become a rule in name only if we don't get some teeth back into it.
>
>The Haw River Assembly believes that the 
>substitute bill (PCS) does not have adequate 
>measures to restore water quality in Jordan 
>Lake. The PCS greatly delays the start of 
>efforts to control pollution from existing 
>development, and dangles the possibility, 
>through cost benefit analysis, of walking away 
>and giving up before the lake complies with 
>water quality standards. The current substitute 
>bill could allow a water quality variance for 
>the Upper New Hope Arm if it does not seem 
>"feasible" to meet the nitrogen target by 2025. 
>In reality this could mean never fully cleaning 
>it up. We do not think that it is ever 
>appropriate or perhaps even legal, under the 
>Clean Water Act, for that to be allowed in a 
>water supply reservoir like Jordan Lake.
>
>A Vote is expected on Tuesday by the Committee. 
>Let members of the House ENR Committee, sponsors 
>of the bill and the Speaker of the House know we 
>need their help to get language in the 
>substitute bill H239 that will contain costs for 
>the cities for reducing stormwater pollution - 
>but not by sacrificing water quality in Jordan Lake.
>
>Please send an email before 5 p.m. Monday, May 4.
>Send to the Representative for your district:
>Alamance: Alice 
>Bordsen 
><http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Alice.Bordsen@ncleg.net>Alice.Bordsen at ncleg.net
>Orange: Verla Insko 
><http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Verla.Insko@ncleg.net>Verla.Insko at ncleg.net 
>and Bill Faison 
><http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Bill.Faison@ncleg.net>Bill.Faison at ncleg.net
>Greensboro: Pricey Harrison 
><http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Pricey.Harrison@ncleg.net>Pricey.Harrison at ncleg.net
>Durham: Paul Luebke 
><http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net>Paul.Luebke at ncleg.net
>Chatham: Joe Hackney 
><http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Joe.Hackney@ncleg.net>Joe.Hackney at ncleg.net
>Wake:  Grier Martin 
><http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Grier.Martin@ncleg.net>Grier.Martin at ncleg.net
>
>
>PLEASE DO THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE--AND THANK 
>YOU FOR HELPING PROTECT THE LAKE!
>
>Elaine Chiosso
>  Haw RIVERKEEPER
>  Haw River Assembly
>P.O.Box 187 Bynum NC 27228
>  (919) 542-5790
>www.hawriver.org
>
>This message was sent from Haw River Assembly to 
>mmr121570 at yahoo.com. It was sent from: Haw River 
>Assembly, P.O. Box 187, Bynum, NC 27228. You can 
>modify/update your subscription via the link 
>below.<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>
><http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=32897948&l=61166&s=LQR9&m=464074&c=286201>Manage 
>your subscription
>
>_______________________________________________
>Durham INC Mailing List
>list at durham-inc.org
>http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090504/be9b9ab9/attachment.htm>