[Durham INC] 1 correction to my last email --

[Melissa Rooney]

Please psychologically omit the excerpt below from my previous email response regarding the SWCD and the city's Stormwater Services. I believe I initially misunderstood what John Cox was saying by his statements (quoted below). 
Sleepy time for me now...Thx,M
__________________________________
8) "At the same time, City stormwater staff is also working to expand the range of measures for which credits are available, including stream restorations, ... backyard rain gardens, fertilizer management plans, and other non-structural measures.  This includes promoting or funding research to provide the data needed to establish credits..."
The SWCD has been doing this for years, apparently in parallel to you guys. You all really need to get together on this. You may not have to expand with regard to these services. Perhaps the city can just give the SWCD a bone and take advantage of their expertise here.
--- On Sat, 11/5/13, Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] City/County Budget and Stormwater Services/BMPs
To: "Durham INC listserve" <inc-list at rtpnet.org>
Cc: "JohnCox" <John.Cox at durhamnc.gov>, eculberson at durhamcountync.gov
Received: Saturday, 11 May, 2013, 12:25 AM


Warning: this is a long one, but I hope everyone will read it over their glass (or 3) of wine, beer, or, if you are healthier than I, tea this weekend.
I am pleased that John Cox and Stormwater Services has responded to my earlier email to the INC.  Though I was late
 for Tuesday's
 Soil
 and Water Conservation District board meeting on Tuesday, I was glad to hear from the two SS attendees that the SS was preparing a response.

I would love to get a real, back-and-forth conversation with Stormwater Services (SS) on the INC listserv, so that INC members (including myself) can learn about (and discuss) what Stormwater Services does and how it differs from what the Soil and Water Conservation District does.

A number of thoughts:

1) Despite the fact that Durham citizens elect SWCD Supervisors every 4 years (can't remember if the term is shorter than that), I bet a majority of us don't even know the SWCD exists. In fact, I knew nothing about the SWCD before I became the Grants
 Chairperson of Creekside Elementary School (about 4 years ago) and came upon the SWCD's CCAP program when I was looking for some local funds to level the dry-river-bed of an athletic field at
 that DPS school. At
 the time, I didn't care what the SWCD was, I was just glad it was so eager to help me fix our field :-)

2) I qualified in my initial email that I did not have much experience with County Stormwater/etc. Services (I don't even remember what the county department(s) are called). This is because 1) I get lost in a Target store, so I desperately try to avoid having to navigate my way around bureaucratic systems (I just know how certain depts have worked, in practice, for me); and 2) unlike the city, the county partially funds a position in the SWCD to assist with BMP programs, etc., so I usually call the SWCD when I have any questions/concerns.
3) I want to ensure that my opinions/concerns/suggestions here have nothing to do with me being an Associate
 Supervisor on the SWCD, although
 I thank John for reminding me that I am one. It is so new to me (and I have so little time to contribute to it beyond emails and monthly meetings) that I completely didn't think to include this information in my initial email. 
History in this regard: I was asked to become an Associate Supervisor because I had learned so much about the SWCD through previous projects at DPS schools, my house in South Durham and my rental property in Northgate Park. It was obvious to all that I  thought the SWCD was an incredibly under-utilized resource, and I was trying to get the word out to everyone I knew that the SWCD exists and may very well be able to help them. 
Before I agreed to be an Associate Supervisor (which, incidentally, is a non-voting board member), I specifically ensured
 that accepting the position would not inhibit me from freely (and at all times) speaking my mind as a citizen. (I also made it clear that, if they were hoping for a prospective SWCD supervisor, they were barking up the
 wrong tree.)
Do I understand all the inner bureaucratic workings or fine details of the city-county and inter-organizational politics involved? Absolutely not. Do I really want to understand them? Not really.
4) All I know is my personal experience, which, in the interest of full disclosure, I really should detail for the INC listserv.
After doing one DPS project with the SWCD, the SWCD helped me (via CCAP matching) install a 1000-gallon cistern at my primary residence (which is in the county). After this, they helped me (by finding/providing matching funds and assistance) with a quite significant stream-bank restoration on one of the 3 rental properties I own in Northgate Park
 (which is in the
 city, which people seem to forget is also in the county). This stream (a.k.a. intermittent storm-water course), which was literally eating my property, continues another ~500 yards beyond my property before flowing directly into Ellerbe Creek (opposite the Northgate Dog Park).
I turned to the SWCD after I reached a very quick dead-end with SS. (Note: Although the city's "discretionary assistance program to assist property owners with specific types of severe drainage problems" may not have been applicable to the situation on my property, the people I talked to at SS never mentioned anything to me about any other possibility for funding (or matched
 funding). I would think a stream-bank restoration like this one, which involved at least two dangerous sinkholes (reminding our consultant of the situation at NaNa's and University)) should have been consistent with the intentions of the Ellerbe Creek Raincatcher's program; plus, I'd have been happy to match a significant portion of the cost. Many months later, when the Raincatcher's program for the Ellerbe Creek watershed finally got underway, those involved actually contacted me about my Northgate-Park property; but, of course, with the stream-bank restoration complete, it was no longer a high priority. 
On the other hand, the SWCD found the funds to match me ~50% of the cost of the stream-bank restoration. SWCD could have said,
 "sorry, we are funded by the county, not the city" (or maybe they couldn't have said this because the city is in the county), but they very happily assisted me with the stream-bank restoration, inspected the property several times before and during the restoration, and required that I commit to 5 years of annual site visits to ensure everything is working as planned and is being maintained (you can time your seasons by these annual inspections).
The above stream-bank restoration is a BMP (in the Ellerbe Creek Watershed) for which the county would get credit, but if the city had been able to help me, they'd have gotten the credit. 
5) I apologize that my
 earlier email "indicated that Stormwater Services receives stormwater fees from residents located outside city boundaries." I live in the county but purchase water and sewer from the city (at double city residents' rates).  I also pay significant fees to the city via my water bills; but, though I have always associated these fees with fulfilling the Jordan/Falls lake rules (and, therefore, obviously dealing with stormwater), I don't even know exactly what these fees are used for: perhaps someone can elaborate (in bullet-list, rather than pamphlet form, please). 
In addition, because I have apparently (and for years) underestimated the significance of what is in the city versus what is in the county, I didn't attribute enough significance to this in my first email.
6) I don't understand how 'any such [stormwater fees] misunderstanding [would need] to be resolved in
 order for the City to further a working relationship with
 SWCD'. 
If
 there are
 means by which both SS and the SWCD can accomplish more by sharing/differentiating rather than duplicating services, then whether or not SS gets stormwater fees from non-city residents is beside the point.  
7) The Credit System: This whole credit system thing is incredibly time-consuming and is completely counterproductive to its intentions.
The 'engineered stormwater control measures for which we can establish nutrient credits' are just that -- Engineered (and, therefore, financially assisting those who do that kind of thing). I have yet to discover a human derivation/process that is actually superior to what it is trying to replace in Nature. But I digress.
Furthermore, based on the current 'credits' system,
 neither the county nor the city can get credits for reductions in
 Nitrogen and Phosphorous resulting from reduced suburban/urban lawn-fertilizer use. Meanwhile, Durham farms are rapidly becoming single-family residences, and most engineered (and, therefore, credit-worthy) initiatives/BMPs are a drop in the bucket compared to what could be achieved by simply but determinedly reducing lawn-fertilizer use in Durham county (which includes the city). 
At the very least, we
 should absolutely require (right now, it's voluntary for the most part) landscapers and lawn-service providers to be certified in 1) the recommended application amounts -- most are over-fertilizing because they have not taken into consideration the increasingly high N and P levels in our rainwater, and 2) application procedures (like actually taking the next few days' weather
 into account and ensuring that applied fertilizer isn't washed into our creeks and streams due to stormwater runoff or carelessly placed or timed sprinklers). 
I hope to write an article with some hard numbers in this regard soon.
8) "At the same time, City stormwater staff is also working to expand the range of measures for which credits are available, including stream restorations, ... backyard rain gardens, fertilizer management plans, and other
 non-structural
 measures.  This includes promoting or funding research to provide the data needed to establish credits..."
The SWCD has been doing this for years, apparently in parallel to you guys. You all really need to get together on this. You may not have to expand with regard to these services. Perhaps the city can just give the SWCD a bone and take advantage of their expertise here.
9) a) "The
 issue of possible redundancy between City and County stormwater programs has been addressed by a memorandum jointly prepared by Durham County Engineering and Environmental Services and City of Durham Stormwater and GIS Services Division for the Joint City-County Committee, December 29, 2010..."
Here we go, into the bureacratic quagmire...Certainly, the city and county can share (and fund appropriately) a position at the SWCD. As John (and others) explained at the latest SWCD board meeting, the SWCD doesn't get nutrient credits for anything it does. If they do it for the county, the
 county gets the credits. If they do it for the city (as demonstrated by city-funding toward this end), the city should get the credits. Otherwise, it appears the city gets the SWCD's services, but the county gets the credits. John, or anyone else, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting anything here. (As John pointed out, I am new to this rigamarole.) 
John/SS, please feel free to elaborate regarding why any of the separate city-county orgs' responsibilities you outlined in your response should prohibit the above
 suggestion from being implemented. 
b) "...Merging or combining the [city and county] programs doesn't make sense at this time. ..." I don't think the city and county need to merge anything. But I do think it would be a great idea for each to pay for
 1/2 a SWCD
 position so that the SWCD can oversee the cisterns, rain-gardens, stream-bank restorations, and education and public outreach arms of both the city and the county, thereby avoiding merging or redundancy of these city vs. county responsibilities.
10) a) "The City, through its stormwater permit, is required to meet “minimum measures” for public outreach and public involvement..."
The old 'Minimum Measures' problem... I've seen this in multiple gov't depts. Just
 b/c you are required to meet 'minimum measures' for public outreach and public involvement (and just b/c the state is trying to prohibit you from doing anything more than such 'minimum measures' elsewhere) doesn't mean you should ignore the benefits of using the SWCD, which is already doing fabulous 'public outreach and involvement' for the county in which the city resides. Both the city and SWCD will get more bang for their bucks. It's a Win-Win situation, as the politicians so often like to say. 
John, you yourself have told me how overtaxed SS is with all the Jordan and Falls rules and everything else that you all do (only a portion of which you mention
 in your response to the INC listserv). If you encourage the city to
 fund part of a SWCD position to cover public outreach and involvement, that should free you guys up a little so you can concentrate on your other (immense) responsibilities. 
Besides, is it written in the stars somewhere that Durham is doomed to the bare minimum? (I don't think so, and I know a lot of people who agree with me.) It's this sort of thinking that damages public relations.
b) "Services provided by SWCD do not address the range of target pollutants, pollutant sources, and target audiences listed in the City’s Stormwater Management Plan.  They also do not meet the City’s permit requirements for implementation, tracking, and performance outcome measurement."
A brief visit to the projects (cisterns,
 raingardens, stream-bank restorations, etc.) overseen by the SWCD
 demonstrates that, given their unique
 holistic approach and regardless of any legislation legalese, these SWCD projects would be hard-pressed not to address the target pollutants of which John speaks. Why can't the city use the SWCD to plan and implement these bmps and have the SS (which is all too familiar with the mess of legal requirements) available to interpret the bureaucratic legal-speak and ensure that all the i's are dotted in this regard? 11)
  "However, the City has three pilot programs to help develop information needed to establish water quality benefits and nutrient reduction credits for these types of measures", including "Raingarden installations" via "the Ellerbe Creek Watershed" and "the Mayor's Summer Youth Program".
How has the city implemented these programs, and have they had to hire additional staff to do so (particularly wrt rain-garden
 installations)? 
The SWCD has the expertise for all 3 of the above city programs and would be happy to provide their services toward this end. But the SWCD needs appropriate funding from the city to do so. You can't get blood from a stone, though the SWCD people have been trying hard to prove otherwise; and, of course, the city wants and would deserve any nutrient credits resulting from these city programs.
Is the primary problem that the city and county want to keep all
 lines clearly delineated between them at all
 costs? 
If so, then we need to start changing that mind set to save Durham time and money. (I think everyone will agree that, when it comes to fixing a water problem, time is at least as important as money.)
12) "City Council created a discretionary assistance program to assist property owners with specific types of severe drainage problems.  The intent of this program is to assist property owners with compromised drainage systems that are negatively impacting a structure or the primary entrance/exit of a structure.  The typical eligible project for this program involves an older home built over a storm drainage system where the system has aged and is compromising the foundation of the home.  This assistance program is completely discretionary and is not required as part of the City’s municipal stormwater permit and Stormwater Management Plan." Clearly, the SWCD also assists property owners in this regard (even city property owners, though via the city-county connection). The SWCD funded and oversaw an entire stream-bank restoration on a stream that completely traversed my 1950's property in Northgate Park and even offered to write a grant to do a
 much bigger restoration (if I could just get my downstream neighbors to agree to be a part of it).
13) Finally (I can actually hear the sighs of relief, including my own): John/SS, it would be great if you could tell us, point blank, the number of employees (or fractions thereof) dedicated to each of the headings below, so that we can discern how many people we are paying to do these things at SS and compare it to how many the SWCD assesses would be needed to do the task(s), particularly given that the latter is currently doing these tasks and likely needs only to expand their service range:
Raingardens and Cisterns (including the Raincatcher's program)Streambank RestorationsPublic Education and OutreachGrants Writing for
 and implementation/installation of BMPs
** Thanks, everyone, for bearing with me, particularly John Cox and others at SS. I look forward to SS's response and continuing a transparent and constructive conversation ...
SincerelyMelissa (Rooney)
P.S. (Couldn't help it!)"The NC Division of Water Quality’s
 Nutrient Science Advisory Board is expected to complete
 work to
 establish initial nutrient credits for stream restoration by the end of this year, allowing the City to make informed management decisions."
I wish the city would just walk around my suburban neighborhood (and others like it throughout Durham) during a rain event when all the spring lawn treatments are taking place, and watch the greenish-yellow fertilizer runoff that is directed (across impervious sidewalks, roads and pipes) directly into our streams, and then I wish the city would pass measures to ensure the drastic reduction of this fertilizer runoff. Regardless of whether or not the state gives them any credits, it's the rational and right thing to
 do. 

 --- On Fri, 10/5/13, Cox, John
 <John.Cox at durhamnc.gov> wrote:

From: Cox, John <John.Cox at durhamnc.gov>
Subject: [Durham INC] City/County Budget and Stormwater Services/BMPs
To: "Durham INC listserve"
 <inc-list at rtpnet.org>
Cc: "Melissa Rooney" <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
Received: Friday, 10 May, 2013, 2:51 PM

Dear Inter-Neighborhood Council,  On April 23, 2013, Melissa Rooney sent a message to the listserv entitled “City/County Budget and Stormwater Services/BMPs.”  The general tenor of the message is that City of Durham Stormwater and GIS Services Division in the Public Works Department should provide funding to the Durham Soil and Water Conservation District.  The City of Durham Public Works Department (the City) appreciates and values the efforts and accomplishments of the Durham Soil and Water Conservation (SWCD) in obtaining grants to restore stream segments; hosting a cost share program for rain gardens,
 cisterns, and other best management practices; coordinating outreach events; and more. The City cooperates with SWCD by attending monthly SWCD Board of Directors meetings, working with SWCD on numerous outreach efforts, and providing grant support for a green roof on the SWCD building on Foster Street. The City has expressed an interest in furthering cooperation through a contract or Memorandum of Understanding with SWCD to initiate a pilot program for specific performance-based services that meet the City’s permit needs and implementation criteria. The City has and will continue to request input from SWCD on the proposed South Ellerbe Wetlands. The City will continue to invite SWCD staff to meetings to discuss what the City is required to do as a preliminary step to establishing how SWCD can help the City meet its obligations.    The City of Durham is the most
 heavily
 regulated municipal stormwater program in the state.  The City’s legal stormwater mandates include a federal municipal stormwater permit and Stormwater Management Plan, six federal industrial stormwater permits for City facilities, state water supply watershed protection regulations for five drinking water sources, and three sets of state regulations for nutrient sensitive waters.  All of the City’s stormwater efforts are and must be guided by these mandates.   The message writer is new on the SWCD Board of Directors.  The message raises numerous issues that appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the programs and mandates under which the City stormwater program operates.  For example, the message incorrectly indicates that Stormwater Services receives stormwater fees from residents located outside city boundaries.  Certainly any such
 misunderstanding needs to be resolved in order for the City to further a working relationship with SWCD. The responses below are provided to clarify the City’s stormwater program.  Issues raised include the following:  ·         Concern that City of Durham Stormwater Services is heavily focused on developing cost-effective nutrient credits. This is true.  The City is working to meet unprecedented reduction mandates for Falls and Jordan Lake rules. Plans include using engineered stormwater control measures for which we can establish nutrient credits.  At the same time, City stormwater staff is also
 working to expand the range of measures for which credits are available, including stream restorations, pet waste collection, fixing failing septic systems, backyard rain gardens, fertilizer management plans, and other non-structural measures.  This includes promoting or funding research to provide the data needed to establish credits, participation in NC Division of Water Quality’s Nutrient Science Advisory Board, and participation in the Upper Neuse River Basin Association’s Path Forward Committee.    ·         General redundancy and lack of coordination between three programs: Durham County Engineering and Environmental Services, City of Durham Stormwater and GIS Services
 Division, and Durham Soil and Water Conservation District.The issue of possible redundancy between City and County stormwater programs has been addressed by a memorandum jointly prepared by Durham County Engineering and Environmental Services and City of Durham Stormwater and GIS Services Division for the Joint City-County Committee, December 29, 2010.  Merging or combining the programs does not make sense at this time.  Because the City owns and operates a municipal stormwater system, it must fund repair and maintenance as well as comply with a federal municipal stormwater permit.  In unincorporated areas of Durham County, streets and the associated stormwater system are owned and operated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, which is also required to comply with a stormwater permit.  Durham County does not own and operate a municipal stormwater system and is therefore not
 required to obtain and comply with a stormwater permit under the Clean Water Act.Although County and City stormwater programs currently have different needs, both programs recognize the need to coordinate efforts and to support each other.  Durham County operates the Erosion and Sedimentation Control program in both City and County.  Durham County Environmental Health regulates on-site wastewater systems in both City and County.  City and County often hold coordinating meetings to share data, discuss approaches, and share concerns.      ·         Possible redundancy of service in stormwater education programs between SWCD and
 City of Durham.The City, through its stormwater permit, is required to meet “minimum measures” for public outreach and public involvement.  The City and SWCD coordinate with each other and with Keep Durham Beautiful to sponsor Big Sweep and Creek Week cleanups. There is no duplication. The team approach allows us to reach more residents and clean up more creeks and litter than through one group alone.Services provided by SWCD do not address the range of target pollutants, pollutant sources, and target audiences listed in the City’s Stormwater Management Plan.  They also do not meet the City’s permit requirements for implementation, tracking, and performance outcome measurement.    The City is required to implement a detailed set of programs specified in the City’s
 approved
 Stormwater Management Plan.  The City’s stormwater education audiences range from city staff to target business sectors to industrial facility managers, teachers and schools, and residential property owners.  In the past year the City conducted 86 outreach events and numerous other internal presentations. Festivals, workshops, public meetings, engineering seminars, and presentations to school and community groups are a regular part of the City’s program.  The City has also prepared videos that are available on the City’s cable channel and on YouTube on various topics including stream buffers, household hazardous waste disposal, vehicle car washing, and disposal of cooking grease. All stormwater communication products intended for general audience are reviewed by technical writers, stormwater managers, and the City’s Public Affairs Office.To facilitate continual improvement, the City’s
 stormwater education efforts are coordinated with its water quality assessments, industrial inspections, and illicit discharge detection and elimination program.  Community groups that have received presentations from the City’s stormwater staff can attest to the staffers’ responsiveness, willingness to accommodate schedules, level of knowledge, and level of professionalism. ·         Possible redundancy of programs to retrofit existing residential properties with cisterns, rain gardens and other small stormwater control measures.Currently SWCD operates a program to routinely implement these types of measures with
 funding provided through the Community Conservation Assistance Program.  The City itself does not have a program to routinely implement these measures, in part because nutrient credits have not been approved by state regulators.  However, the City has three pilot programs to help develop information needed to establish water quality benefits and nutrient reduction credits for these types of measures.  (1)    The City contracts with Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association on a pilot program to install residential rain gardens and cisterns.  (2)    The City received a grant from the state’s 319 stormwater
 program to install 40 rain gardens using workers from the Mayor’s Summer Youth Program.  For this project the NC Botanical Garden provided plants for fall planting and helped with plant selection, garden design, planting, homeowner education, and maintenance.  (3)    To document credits, the City has undertaken Rain Catchers, an innovative research project funded by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund.  Rain Catchers includes a year of pre-installation monitoring to establish baseline conditions of water quality and hydrology in South Ellerbe Creek. Rain Catchers will install approximately 50 rain gardens, 120 cisterns, 50 backyard trees, and 68 street trees at over 100 residences in the South Ellerbe Creek watershed. After installation, Rain Catchers monitoring will assess the
 cumulative effect of these measures.  Rain Catchers also includes a separate research component by North Carolina State University to evaluate the benefits of rooftop disconnection.  Installation of practices uses contractors selected through the City’s competitive bid process. Homeowners signed a 10-year maintenance agreement and will have follow up inspections.The results of these programs will be used to guide future deployment of these stormwater control measures.  Once the results from Rain Catchers are available, the City can advocate for credits and can make an informed decision about expanding the current pilot programs.  ·        
 Stormwater funding availabilityDespite being the most heavily regulated municipality in North Carolina, the City’s water quality programs represent less than 20% of the stormwater budget.  The largest fraction of the budget is devoted to operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of existing drainage infrastructure located within street rights-of-way.  The City’s Public Works Department operates a lean stormwater program, with City Council approving anything extra such as the two feasibility study contracts to evaluate innovative nutrient treatment systems (Aqualutions and Algal Turf Scrubbers).  ·         Lack
 of funding by the City to repair drainage on private property, including unstable stream banks City Council created a discretionary assistance program to assist property owners with specific types of severe drainage problems.  The intent of this program is to assist property owners with compromised drainage systems that are negatively impacting a structure or the primary entrance/exit of a structure.  The typical eligible project for this program involves an older home built over a storm drainage system where the system has aged and is compromising the foundation of the home.  As of 2009, the City had completed 395 private drainage assistance projects at an average cost of $11,500 per project.  This assistance program is completely discretionary and is not required as part of the City’s municipal stormwater permit and Stormwater Management Plan.
  ·         Stream Restoration Projects and Large Projects The City has a history of working with neighborhood groups, nonprofit organizations, other City and County departments, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program and interested residents when it comes to siting, planning, and maintaining stream restorations and other large stormwater projects. Staff members have worked to address neighbors’ concerns about buffer plantings, land use, and safety.   The NC Division of Water Quality’s Nutrient Science Advisory Board is expected to complete work to establish initial nutrient credits for stream
 restoration by the end of this year, allowing the City to make informed management decisions.  More information is available on the City’s web site at www.durhamnc.gov/stormwater. Click on the “Technical Reports” link on the right side of the main stormwater page to view the annual compliance reports for the City’s stormwater permit, the Stormwater Management Plan and the other documents referred to above.   Sincerely,         John  John H. CoxWater Quality ManagerStormwater and GIS Services DivisionCity of Durham Public Works Department101 City Hall PlazaCity of Durham, NC 27701(919) 560-4326 ext 30212www.durhamnc.gov/stormwater 
www.facebook.com/DurhamNCStormwater“Keep it neat. Leaves and grass off the street.”  (Whitespace has been removed from following message)From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
Date: April 23, 2013, 12:28:46 PM EDT
To: INC <inc-list at rtpnet.org>
Subject: [Durham INC] City/County Budget and Stormwater Services/BMPsI
 apologize that I cannot make the INC meeting tonight to bring this up in person (I have the kids on my own again and they have commitments this evening). However, I wanted to ask the INC to consider making some collective suggestions regarding the city and county budgets, particularly regarding stormwater management.Please bear with me -- I tried to make the correspondence below as brief as possible, but there are many important things to consider here. Right now the following 3 entities deal with stormwater issues in Durham city and county (I hope there aren’t
 more, but these are all I know of):  Durham County : Engineering and Environmental Services (EES)City of Durham - Stormwater & GIS Services (SS)Durham County : Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) To the best of my knowledge, the SWCD receives only a nominal amount of county funding (it is likely the smallest budget line item), though I know of many rain-garden/cistern installations and stream-bank restorations that the SWCD has done in the city (largely because the city residents involved did not receive assistance from SS).  At any rate, it is quite apparent to me that the 3 Durham entities above do not work together as they should and sometimes even compete with one another, resulting
 in redundancy, inefficiency, and increases in time,
 human resources, and $ spent (for both the city and the county). See the ‘Examples’ section under my signature for specific examples. I recently wrote several people in city and county government about the need for the city and county to cooperate and collaborate in this regard, and I suggested that they do so by using (and appropriately funding) the SWCD for the purposes of cistern/rain-garden/small BMPs (best management practices), stream-bank restorations, and public education/awareness, as well as requiring SWCD’s true input and PR skills for bigger projects like the Duke Fitness Wetland project. I have personally communicated with SS and SWCD (though I don’t
 have much experience with Durham county’s stormwater/environmental services), and I am well aware of the SWCD’s superior responsiveness, customer service, education, and installation and maintenance of bmp’s. (After receiving nothing but a pat on the shoulder from SS, I was assisted by the SWCD with a residential stream-bank restoration, 2 cistern installations, sedimentation and erosion solutions/plans at a public school, a rain-garden installation, and a few other projects at public schools and private residences – see below my signature for a brief but more detailed description of my experiences with the SWCD in this regard). As a result of these experiences, I am convinced that the city and the county should, at the very least, divert the responsibilities of education and small-BMPs and streambank
 restorations from SS to the SWCD and should fund the SWCD accordingly. I have absolutely no doubt that we will see more bang for our bucks in a more timely fashion than what is happening currently via the separate city and county storm-water management organizations. Furthermore, I have heard SS insist to the public (i.e. at INC meetings and other public outreach meetings)
 that the Trinity Wetland installation is in addition to smaller BMPs that are ongoing. However, I have also become aware of individual comments among SS staff to the effect that 'we shouldn't have to do [this or that] because the Wetland will take care of it'.  This is exactly what nearby neighbors are afraid of...that SS is going to use the Wetland installation merely as a water-filtering/cleaning facility rather than a truly and aesthetically maintained Wetland that is habitat to vegetation and wildlife and truly used for the purpose of public education. I guarantee you that these nearby neighbors would be much more amenable if the Wetland were required to pass
 the scrutiny of the SWCD and to have to adhere to their strict maintenance and follow-up guidelines over the long-haul.  It seems to everyone I talk to (except SS staff) that the SS just wants credits (as quickly as possible), whereas the SWCD wants long-term, sustainable solutions. Given the above considerations, the SWCD is the perfect entity for addressing storm-water problems and BMP installations at least on private properties (though public/gov’t-owned properties and projects would greatly benefit from the involvement of the SWCD), not to mention for conducting public awareness and education programs, in BOTH the city and the county. If the SWCD were utilized in the above fashion, we would reduce redundancies resulting from separate (but, nonetheless, parallel) city and county storm-water programs, Jordan/Falls lake programs/installations, etc. Admittedly, the resources of the SWCD (particularly human resources) are stretched to the limit
 (particularly given their miniscule funding from the county (and no funding from the city)). They will need additional funding to truly be able to put their expertise to work on BMPs, stream-bank restorations and other projects in the city (and to increase their involvement and oversight in the county). In this regard, Stormwater Services receives tens of millions from the water
 fees charged to Durham citizens (city and county) via their water bills. Some of this money should be diverted from Stormwater Services directly to the SWCD -- to fund an additional position (or positions) to expand the work that SWCD's Mike Dupree and Eddie Culberson have been doing to research, install, and follow up and ensure proper maintenance (something most Durham citizens think is lacking with Stormwater Services) for BMPs and Streambank restorations.  ** This is not only a request for more city and county funding for expanded SWCD services, it
 also presents a means for providing that funding by omitting current redundancies and inefficiencies in city/county storm-water maintenance and diverting a portion of current storm-water fees to the SWCD, which actually installs effective BMPs in a timely and truly sustainable fashion and in a manner that visibly benefits fee-payers and improves public relations.  Thus far, I have been a bit of a lone wolf, hoping someone with influence will hear me howling and sincerely consider what I’m howling about. I now need other Durham citizens (individual members of this listserv and the INC collectively) to back me up by emailing/calling your city and county officials and managers and showing your support at upcoming
 budget public hearings.  This is going to require some serious communication b/w the city and the county about how to ally their stormwater services, their BMP installations, and their resulting stormwater credits as well as regarding how much each should budget for the SWCD for their services. Thanks, as always, for seriously considering my suggestions and for making your concerns and
 recommendations/support known to your elected officials and city/county managers. I don’t have time to initiate a big public movement in this regard, but I hope that the INC and those who are on this listserv will insist on increasing collaboration, reducing redundancies and increasing our use (and funding) of currently existing entities for services in which they have demonstrated success (which is the case with the SWCD).Sincerely,Melissa Rooney  * After quite a bit of push-back (which I have
 personally observed), SS finally appears sincere in their efforts to collaborate with the SWCD on small BMPs (raingardens and cisterns and the like), but the verdict is still out on how much SS will involve the SWCD in larger projects, like streambank restorations and the wetland project at the Duke Diet and Fitness site. Certainly, SS and SWCD still compete (rather than collaborate) for federal (and other) funding, as can be seen with their two competing projects at Southern high-school (these projects should be combined to get the most bang for our buck, but SS politics appears to be getting in the way of collaboration here). The following links may delineate this a bit:Southern High School Received $30,714 for - Durham County Farmland Protection Program The regular monthly ... - Durham Count (search for 'southern highschool') (I could not find info on the separate funding given to Stormwater Services for their project at Southern, but you can see
 a smaller example via the link immediately
 above, in which it is stated that SS 'was going to buy [rain-garden] plants from Southern High School [via the BETC project of Southern and the SWCD] but now they have decided to purchase them from the [North Carolina] botanical gardens.' Why wouldn’t the city’s SS support a county project when it is clearly synergistic and beneficial to both?) * SS has its own bmp (i.e. raingarden)-installation program (separate from anything done by the SWCD): Durham rain gardens are green in more ways than one - The News ...  As a result, SS hired and trained (at taxpayers’ expense) its own personnel to implement the program(s). Meanwhile, the SWCD already had the expertise and experience (and a stellar record) for installing and maintaining rain-gardens and other such
 bmp’s on private land:Durham County : Community Conservation Assistance Program Why not just give the SWCD more funding and use the expertise that is already available to us
 (particularly when the SWCD offered their services in this regard)? The latter would have saved quite a bit of $ and time. It appears the reason is because of politics and unproductive competition between SS and the SWCD. * Brief recount of my personal experiences of SWCD’s superior responsiveness, customer service and education:After receiving a run-around from SS, it was
 the SWCD that did the stream-bank restoration on my property on Gresham Ave (in the city). The SWCD also installed a 1000-gallon cistern at Creekside Elementary School and at my personal residence at 301 Spring Garden Drive, and the SWCD advised Grounds and Maintenance Superintendent Allen Bailey with regard to the tremendous irrigation problems at Creekside Elementary (we are slowly implementing their suggested long-term (that's a key word) solutions). Furthermore, Mike Dupree (from the SWCD) is working with Jin Ellington, the coordinator of Citizen Schools (afterschool program) at Lowe’s Grove Middle School, to organize a 1/2-semester (at least) workshop for the Citizen Schools that focuses on sustainable food production and environmental sustainability (including education about stormwater and water resources). Two other SWCD employees had a table regarding the same at Creekside Elementary's Science Night this month (and they weren't even being
 paid for their time). I could make an extensive list of the altruistic, non-paid hours that SWCD staff put into education of children and the public._______________________________________________
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://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20130510/f32fbf01/attachment.html>