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

Tue May 5 09:57:34 EDT 2009

I was asked to forward this to the INC listserv, as it has not yet come through for some reason. Interesting response about Jordan Lake Rules below -- Durham does great with it's own drinking water sources, but the time has come to pay the piper for the pollution of Jordan Lake from the rampant development in South Durham. 

Too bad we can't get those developers, their planners and attorneys to pay for their environmentally irresponsible development practices now. And Byker says that the 751 Assemblage will not further damage Jordan Lake in any way -- no one can say they haven't heard this before, and no one can attest to its accuracy.

Melissa

--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Tina <tinamotley at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: Tina <tinamotley at earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [Durham INC] Fw: Urgent -Jordan Lake -- by 5 PM today   (Mon, April 4)
To: "'Mike Woodard'" <mike at mikewoodard.com>, "'Melissa Rooney'" <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>, durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com, inc-list at rtpnet.org, northeastcreekstreamwatch at yahoogroups.com, Fairfieldspeaksout at yahoogroups.com, chiosso at hawriver.org
Cc: msaldana at indyweek.com, jim.wise at nando.com, "'Rich Gannon'" <Rich.Gannon at NCMail.net>, mike.randall at ncmail.net, "'Bill Diuguid'" <bill.diuguid at ncmail.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 8:14 AM

Yes, Durham is a leader in environmental protection for Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir: 6% impervious surface max. in both
critical and protected areas of those lakes (and no high-density option).  

In the protected areas for Jordan and Falls, it’s 24% max. for low
density projects and 70% for high-density projects.  

When this is told to elected official in other
municipalities and NC legislators, they don’t believe it and one has to
provide proof to them. 

I do think the City Council is also taking
leadership… on fighting the Jordan Lake rules.   

The City Council has combined forces with Greensboro to share some of the costs for hiring Steve Levitas, a former Deputy
Secretary of NCDENR, now with the law firm, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP.  

It doesn’t seem quite right to snub
our regional neighbors who are dependent on Jordan Lake, and partner with Greensboro,
a municipality which will never (or highly unlikely to) get their water from
Jordan Lake.   

Here is a link to a Durham memo about it: http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/agendas/2009/cws20090406/167294_6030_211695.doc.PDF 

Note: The initial contract was for
$29,500, just under the threshold of $30,000 which requires a City Council
vote. Then, surprise, another $100,000 was needed. 

The mention of NCDENR leads me to the next
sound bite from the Work Session on 
Jan. 8th, 2009, starting about 2:00:35 into
that meeting’s recording.   

In this sound bite, Paul Wiebke is
presenting on the proposed stormwater regulations (“donut hole”), Paul
is talking about the Jordan Lake Rules and the TMDL rules for Falls Lake (which has been postponed).   

I find it interesting that Councilman
Woodard refers to “fun leaks at DENR”; besides Steve Levitas (no
longer with DENR), who else in DENR is helping municipalities with loop holes
and workarounds for the rules put in place to protect our sources of drinking
water? 

Scott Pearson 

-----Original Message-----

From: Mike Woodard
[mailto:mike at mikewoodard.com] 

Sent: 
Monday, May 04, 2009 
11:26 PM

To: Tina; 'Melissa
 Rooney'; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com; inc-list at rtpnet.org;
northeastcreekstreamwatch at yahoogroups.com; Fairfieldspeaksout at yahoogroups.com

Cc: msaldana at indyweek.com;
jim.wise at nando.com

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

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  Alice.Bordsen at ncleg.net

 Orange : Verla Insko Verla.Insko at ncleg.net
and Bill Faison Bill.Faison at ncleg.net

 Greensboro : Pricey Harrison 
Pricey.Harrison at ncleg.net

 Durham : Paul Luebke Paul.Luebke at ncleg.net

 Chatham : Joe Hackney Joe.Hackney at ncleg.net

Wake:  Grier Martin 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. 

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/20090505/004af02a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 03 Fun Leaks at DENR 2009-01-08 2h00m35 to	2h02m50.wav
Type: audio/wav
Size: 876688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090505/004af02a/attachment-0001.bin>