[Durham INC] Fw: Urgent -Jordan Lake -- by 5 PM today (Mon, April 4)
Tina
tinamotley at earthlink.net
Thu May 7 09:23:37 EDT 2009
This next sound bite is also from a Durham City Council work session.
Paul Wiebke is explaining Durham's position on water quality.
Weibke says Durham is a resource for other cities.
Wiebke states,
"As for the Jordan rules, we are taking the lead on those.
We seem to be the leading edge, for better or worse, bleeding edge
for water quality issues."
The words "bleeding edge" are echoed by Durham City Council.
"Essentially the State is a surrogate for EPA, and we are grateful that
they are.
They have done things that are helpful to us."
Who is us? Us certainly doesn't refer to the hundreds of thousands of
people who drink water
from Jordan Lake. What are the additional costs those people will have
to pay to make this
water drinkable?
Is this the environmental leadership Councilman Woodard is referring to?
The rules are
delayed, then watered down.
The sound bite is from the work session on March 5, 2009 (3:15:10 into
the recording).
Tina
-----Original Message-----
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
On Behalf Of Tina
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:14 AM
To: 'Mike Woodard'; 'Melissa Rooney'; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com;
inc-list at rtpnet.org; northeastcreekstreamwatch at yahoogroups.com;
Fairfieldspeaksout at yahoogroups.com; chiosso at hawriver.org
Cc: 'Rich Gannon'; jim.wise at nando.com; msaldana at indyweek.com; 'Bill
Diuguid'; mike.randall at ncmail.net
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Fw: Urgent -Jordan Lake -- by 5 PM today
(Mon,April 4)
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.d
oc.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>
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
<http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Alice.Bordsen@ncleg.net>
Orange: Verla Insko Verla.Insko at ncleg.net
<http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Verla.Insko@ncleg.net>
and Bill Faison Bill.Faison at ncleg.net
<http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Bill.Faison@ncleg.net>
Greensboro: Pricey Harrison Pricey.Harrison at ncleg.net
<http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Pricey.Harrison@ncleg.net>
Durham: Paul Luebke Paul.Luebke at ncleg.net
<http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net>
Chatham: Joe Hackney Joe.Hackney at ncleg.net
<http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Joe.Hackney@ncleg.net>
Wake: Grier Martin Grier.Martin at ncleg.net
<http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Grier.Martin@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 <http://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>
Manage
<http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=32897948&l=61166&s=LQR9
&m=464074&c=286201> 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/20090507/afbd8e9e/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 02 State is helpful 2009-03-05 3h15m10 to 3h17m36.wav
Type: audio/wav
Size: 1028392 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090507/afbd8e9e/attachment-0001.bin>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list