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

Tue May 5 11:25:45 EDT 2009

The rules are based on the best science we have.  The construction of the lake, on the other hand, ignored clear warnings that water quality in the lake would be technically difficult and expensive to maintain.  

I agree that seeing how much thing improve on their own has some merit.  However, I have big concerns about cost benefit studies (killing you in 20 years has a really low cost in these calculations and they tend to become "he said / she said" contests between expensive "hired guns" on both sides -- and, hey, here's a reason they aren't called "benefit cost analyses" because you KNOW what comes first!).  I also wonder if some vague promise to worry about it later will keep anyone's eye on this ball. I find it hilarious that we just celebrated winners on drinking water posters -- wonder what these kids are going to be drinking when they grow up!Finally, People's Alliance is having a forum on the subject next week -- assume public is welcome.5/13/09 (Wed);     6:30 - 8:30 pm ( * brief membership meeting following)Herald-Sun Building Community Room2828 Pickett Rd.Regards, pat 

Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:26:02 -0400
To: tinamotley at earthlink.net; mmr121570 at yahoo.com; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com; inc-list at rtpnet.org; northeastcreekstreamwatch at yahoogroups.com; Fairfieldspeaksout at yahoogroups.com
From: mike at mikewoodard.com
CC: jim.wise at nando.com; msaldana at indyweek.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

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090505/40b1668b/attachment.htm>