[Durham INC] why South Durham is what is getting developed

[RW Pickle]

No doubt the I-85 corridor North toward Falls lake will soon be developed.
And my thoughts are that this is sort of a given considering the WWTP
facility just off I-85 on East Club (with room for expansion). But this
area (in square miles) is limited because of the Lake and we're not from
there already. The new Wallmart is only two exits from our County Line
(which for those who do not know, starts just as you come across Falls
Lake heading toward Durham from Butner).

The only way a buffer can be aquired these days (around Lake Michie for
example) is to "take it". There are many homes that border it and the
Little River. And to think about buying the buffer in this day and time
would be cost prohibitive. Even a small home there goes for half a million
dollars if sold.

Thanks for the study info.

Randy Pickle

> Yes, infrastructure is the guiding light for development.  Southeast
> Durham
> near Falls Lake is likely to see more growth as Durham has a contract for
> a
> master regional sewage pumping station about a mile from Falls Lake.
>
> North Durham is probably safe.  Back in the late 80's Durham was really
> concerned about development upstream of Lake Michie.  About 75% of Lake
> Michie's watershed is in Person County.  Durham commissioned a study
> called
> "Watershed Management Study:  Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir
> Watersheds" by Camp Dresser & McKee (June 1989).  Durham spent $100,000 on
> this thorough report. This is why Durham doesn't allow developments in its
> own watersheds of Lake Michie and Little River.  Here are a few
> interesting
> quotes:
>
> "If uncontrolled future development causes further water quality
> deterioration in Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir, it will be even
> more difficult and costly for Durham to meet the new EPA drinking water
> standards." (Executive Summary p. 1)
>
> "The watershed is the "first line of defense" for protecting a drinking
> water supply, and therefore effective watershed management is the logical
> first step to meet EPA's new drinking water standards.  This is because
> the
> watershed is the source of pollutants which can contaminate the water
> supply
> reservoir.  It is far preferable to implement an affordable watershed
> management plan that keeps contaminants out of the water supply reservoir,
> than to rely solely on water treatment plants to treat a contaminated
> supply
> to meet drinking water standards.  The watershed management approach
> offers
> a greater factor of safety because it is an additional pollution "barrier"
> deployed to ensure high quality drinking water at the source.  A watershed
> management plan is also desirable because it is a proactive approach which
> focuses on the cost-effective prevention of future water quality problems.
> In the absence of a watershed management plan, there is a greater risk
> that
> uncontrolled future development will result in water supply contamination
> of
> crisis proportions.  The likely result of such a reactive approach to
> water
> supply protection is the intervention by regulatory agencies when a crisis
> occurs and the requirement of remedial controls which may be much more
> costly than a proactive watershed management plan." (Section 1 P.4)
>
> "Finally, a WS-1 classification is likely to have significant economic
> development benefits for Durham County and the City of Durham since it
> means
> that the water supply is among the most highly protected in the State.
> With
> future growth placing increasing demands on high quality water sources
> throughout the State, those areas with well-protected high quality
> drinking
> water supplies are likely to have an "edge" in attracting new industrial
> development." (Section 1 p.4)
>
> "Because such a significant percentage of the watershed area is located
> within upstream jurisdictions, Durham County cannot effectively protect
> the
> water supply reservoirs without the cooperation of the other
> jurisdictions."
> (Section 1 p.5)
>
> "In summary, a positive relationship between density/imperviousness and
> nonpoint pollution loadings has been demonstrated by many studies." "In
> addition to producing greater per acre loadings of stormwater pollution,
> impervious areas are also a concern because they are the most likely
> contributing area for toxic contaminants found in urban runoff." (Section
> 3
> p.5)
>
> There are lots of other interesting quotes from this study, charts, and
> diagrams.   Anyway, that's why Lake Michie and Little River watersheds are
> limited to 6%-9% impervious surface.  Person County (upstream of Lake
> Michie) has development restrictions because of Durham's efforts.  One
> more
> quote related to that:
>
> "The fact that the upstream jurisdictions receive no direct benefit from
> water supply protection efforts is a major impediment to a watershed
> management program." (1-7)
>
> About 1/5 of Durham County is cut off from development.  The only place
> left
> for Durham to develop is the watersheds of Jordan Lake and Falls Lake.
> Durham allows up to 70% impervious surface in these areas and the soils
> are
> highly erodible and impermeable.
> All municipalities want to grow.  The geography and geology are
> unfortunate
> challenges for Durham.
>
> Tina
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
> Behalf Of RW Pickle
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:42 PM
> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Subject: [Durham INC] why South Durham is what is getting developed
>
> I've been meaning to write this for some time in a effort to sort of put a
> bigger picture on why South Durham is/has been a hotbed for development;
> not just today, but in the last 20+ years. This just didn't happen
> overnight. And it happened long before I arrived here. Because what
> brought me here 30+ years ago was a plan that had already been set in
> motion long before I arrived.
>
> I came here as a field engineer for a construction company out of TN that
> was the general contractor for what was then the newest and largest waste
> water treatment plant (WWTP) in the region. It is the main WWTP on
> Ferrington Road for Durham. Now is all of this getting a little clearer...
>
> With the additional upgrades and expansion to the County's WWTP on Hwy.
> 55, most of the treatment capacity of waste water is on this side of town.
> Hence, all of the development. Without a treatment plant to tie into, you
> can not have density because you have to rely on septic systems. And with
> the soils in South Durham being what they are, some land would never perk
> to even be allowed to be buildable.
>
> So as we were building this WWTP facility, Cary was just getting started.
> Hard to believe it was just a sleepy little crossroads 30 years ago. If
> Durham had not built this plant and Cary or Chapel Hill would have
> expanded their services, we may have lost part of Durham to another city
> as it annexed areas into it that it served with water and sewer. Water
> isn't much of an issue as long as you have it somewhere because it flows
> under pressure. But waste water generally flows downhill by gravity.
>
> Meanwhile, the Little River Resevoir was being built to add water to the
> plan. And as it all has unfolded, South Durham has grown. I-40 came
> through. And for the most part, it now borders Chapel Hill and Cary.
>
> So what's next as our visionaries look toward the future? One can only
> think that with everything closing in on 3 of our sides that North Durham
> is the next big growth area. And there's plenty of room to grow. But
> they'll need WWTP and water as well as some major roads. But one great
> thing that seems untapped about North Durham is there is an abandoned rail
> spur that runs to Roxboro that would make the first great connection of
> that area to downtown by high-speed rail. And all the density you could
> want to build around it is there for the building because most of that
> land is undeveloped. It would change Durham if this plan was executed. The
> geographic density base would shift outside of the City to an area that
> could be planned. They'd say... "you can even see Durham from out here on
> a clear day..." as the ride the high-speed rail into Durham in 12 minutes
> from Roxboro.
>
> Someone's already planning our future just like it was planned when I
> arrived he 30+ years ago to build infrastructure. Don't just sit back and
> fuss about somethings that are already pretty much predetermined. Get
> involved and write the future because that is what will change Durham.
>
> Randy Pickle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>


====================================================================
This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) or
entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this electronic  transmission in error, please notify
me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail (pickle at patriot.net)
immediately.
=====================================================================