Drought town hall wrap-up: The venue runneth over ('cuz our water doesn't)

A crowd of at least 300, maybe 400 Durhamites squeezed in to the Sarah P. Duke Gardens visitor center (including overflow attendance out on the back patio) to hear a panel of experts share their thoughts on the Bull City's ongoing drought situation. It was a packed crowd, and one that included the mayor and three City Council members plus Ellen Reckhow.

Nicholas School dean William Chameides noted that water shortages aren't just a Durham issue, but a global issue -- with the availability of clean water being the natural resource that will be most under pressure in the coming decades.

But the evening's forum, though about thinking globally, is certainly at heart about acting locally. So what did the night's experts suggest?

Jerad Bales from the US Geological Survey noted that the drought happened fairly quickly; though much of the state was under average drought conditions in August, by October the drought had advanced to the most severe category across the entire state. In particular, the Flat River -- which feeds Durham's reservoirs -- has been producing its lowest flows in recorded history (since 1927) in the late summer and fall months.

Though we've had extended dry and wet periods in the last hundred years, Bales noted, some past periods of low rainfall and stream flow have actually been more extended than the present challenge in terms of variance from average. Most of the droughts last about four years, Bales noted.

Still, through the early months of 2006 Durham saw the steepest drop-off in water in-flow in history, a factor that has set up the Bull City for today's crisis. (Not that it couldn't get worse -- 1,600 years of tree-ring records have found regional megadroughts that have lasted for decades.)

Ted Voorhees, Durham's deputy city manager, noted that the long-term prognosis from climatologists suggests that the drought is likely to persist for some time. The current demand is down, on the bright side, and Voorhees added that the 2001-02 drought actually saw lower reservoir levels, but got far less attention than today's situation.

Currently, the City's "risk of failure" model for water shows a 100% chance for meeting Durham's water demand through the end of April -- but what happens after that point is not as clear, Voorhees noted to (rather nervous) chuckles from the audience. Voorhees noted the City thought about moving to Stage V restrictions after the holidays, but decided to defer the decision due to the burst of rainfall around the new year.

Voorhees also noted the City is actively working to get more water through the interconnections with Cary to draw the full entitled 10 MGD draw by this summer, as we talked about here last night. The deputy manager also noted the plan to get NC DENR permission for the use of Teer Quarry as a permanent storage facility.

Rain will still come in the future, Voorhees noted, but will likely be less predictable due to climate trends -- meaning that the city will need more reservoir capacity to better take advantage of water's windfall when it rains by capturing it in savings for the downtimes.

Kemel Dawkins from Duke's Auxiliary Services department spoke next on Duke's reaction to the drought, including a giveaway of 5,000 low-flow showerheads to Duke's affiliates (all of which are now gone -- the university's ordering more.) Dawkins notes the university is also looking to change out industrial and plant equipment, with a $50 million investment in the campus' chilled water system contributing to a reduction in water usage.

Robert Jackson, a Nicholas School and biology professor at Duke, connected the current challenges to broader themes of climate change. "What made this drought such a wicked one?" Jackson asked. He noted that the dry summer and fall was part of it, as Bales noted -- but that the high temperatures in August through October this fall, which were at or among the highest temperatures on record in the Triangle, played a key role as well, adding to greater evaporation of water from the surface.

Jackson noted that climate change is predicted to lead to much greater variability in rainfall and temperatures, leading to greater expenses through extremes -- be it cleaning up after floods and stronger hurricanes, or being ready to weather the droughts that may come more frequently as well.

What can we predict over the next three to six months? Jackson noted we will likely not get the 15-20 inches of rainfall we need over the next three months, due to the formation of a La Nina pattern in the Pacific.

Relative to other parts of the country, Jackson noted, the Triangle still is a wet area, receiving twice the rainfall as many cities in the western U.S. even in a dry year. The real question, he noted, is whether the region will take the lessons of the drought seriously this time -- something that Durham and other cities in the area didn't act on strongly enough after the 2001-02 drought. (Jackson did point to Cary's use of tiered water rates and other conservation measures as an exception to that regional trend.)

Syd Miller from the Triangle J Council of Governments brought a regional approach to the problem. He praised Durham for the steps it's taking this year to increase supply, but he emphasized that Durham and other cities have to see conservation as a strong future trend, not a one-time activity. "We need to maintain the current level of demand, or lower, though the spring -- and there's going to be enormous pressure ... to allow people to green up their lawns," Miller added.

Miller noted the Triangle J COG's interest in seeing more region-wide cooperation, suggesting that towns and cities should look increasingly to share their water supplies to spread out the risk of deep drought by allowing water supplies to be used across the current municipality/water system demarcations. (Think of it as a re-insurance plan for water.)

Miller's big fear? "This drought will end, and you will all forget, and you will not be interested in funding the data collection and the analysis... to make sure we do a better job managing the next drought."

Bill Holman, senior visiting fellow at the Nicholas School, tackled water use and public policy. Holman noted that Durham has one of the lowest rates for water -- 90% of cities of its size in N.C. charge more for water. Lake Michie and Little River represented inexpensive, forward-thinking investments that were ahead of their time, allowing the city to deliver water cheaply... and pass the savings along to the consumer.

Conservation pricing rate structures in Greensboro, Orange Co., and other areas are working to reduce usage, Holman says. He noted it's not an easy decision to raise water rates, politically -- but, he emphasized, today's low rates are a part of the problem.

Holman also encouraged better capture of stormwater, noting that it's a resource we allow to go to waste today; redevelopment and new development should take into account this source. Treated waste water could also serve for industrial and other uses where potable water is overkill. N.C.'s lack of topsoil also suggests improved and stricter landscaping standards, Holman added.

...

Dean Chameides opened the floor to questions and a panel discussion at this point. Among the more interesting questions of the night (paraphrased below):

"Can anybody tell me how many inches of rainfall in the relative watershed we need to add 1 billion gallons to the storage reservoirs?" Voorhees noted that there isn't good modeling available to answer this, given the porous nature of the ground. A rule of thumb Voorhees noted, though, is two good rains in the watershed are needed to 'prime the pump' and allow, on a third rainfall, for water to bypass the saturated ground and run into the reservoirs.

"Why did we decide not to go up to the next restriction level just because we had a small amount of rainfall in December?" Voorhees responded by arguing that Durham has been among the leaders in North Carolina at balancing actual growth with the need to grow, with the county growing at what Voorhees called a 'responsible' level of 2% growth per annum, versus Wake County's much more aggressive level of growth. Voorhees also noted that the urban growth boundary limits the extension of utility services beyond fixed limits, and the role of the Comprehensive Plan in helping to limit growth against the ability to deliver resources.

The next level of conservation, Voorhees added, would have "very undesirable" economic impacts that local government leaders want to delay implementing until necessary.

Chameides added that just because there had been more severe droughts in the past doesn't mean that this isn't a crisis, given the addition of 1-2 million people into the area over the past century.

Voorhees went into more detail on water reclamation; he agreed that this could have some benefits and is widely used in western states, but is something which North Carolina has less experience using. Gray water -- the form coming out of sinks and bathtubs -- is one thing to re-use (though technically a state violation to use, Voorhees added that no one in the City of Durham will bother you about that -- to raucous applause from the audience.) Waste water coming from human waste plumbing is another, though, and requires significant treatment. Voorhees noted that major changes to building codes are needed to accommodate such changes, and that state-level action is required to have an impact.

"Do we need more smaller reservoirs?" Miller stated that he felt that there were enough water sources in the Triangle to meet needs now and for fifty years in the future -- but that depended on local utilities reaching out to use Jordan Lake via a new intake; Jordan Lake's large watershed and massive size has meant it has barely been impacted despite the current drought, Miller emphasized.

One inquisitor, from our neighboring Chatham County, suggested our society's obsessions with taking showers instead of washcloth-based cleansing and with planting traditional landscapes both need to change. (It is worth noting that this speaker, this vox populi, got far more applause on the topic of landscape than the topic of hygiene.)

"Raleigh is looking at a suggested limit of 25 gallons per person per day, and we're looking at tiered pricing in the summer. What about the authority of the City to take more immediate action?" Voorhees stated that the City hadn't seen much in the literature and best practices to suggest that tiered pricing played much of a role in impacting a drought (versus long-run conservation), and that the current billing system really didn't have the ability for nuanced tiered charges until this summer's upgrade.

"What percentage of water uses goes to flushing toilets?" Best guess from the panel: 40%.

Melissa Rooney closed the session with a development-related question: "In South Durham, we have a number of plots clear-cut and mass graded with sapling trees that require irrigation. What is the City/County going to do to require developers to use water conservation development practices?" Ellen Reckhow stepped up to answer, noting that the City and County have raised these questions to staff and have asked for recommendations on low-impact stormwater designs, improved conservation-sensitive development techniques, landscaping requirements, green-building, and other sustainable practices. Reckhow also noted that the staff have been asked to revamp the City/County regulations on 'conservation subdivisions,' and to check new development against the carrying capacity for water and other resources.

"What do we do if we do run out of water?" Voorhees notes the City would be at the highest stage of response in the conservation ordinance, which calls for rationing. Retailers would be asked to set up their supply lines to bring bottled water into local grocery and convenience stores. Durham would operate the water system in a non-potable manner, turning it off most of the day... re-enabling it to turn on the pumps to put out a fire or for other life-safety needs. Voorhees stated there is enough retail capacity to bring in bottled water for drinking -- but "if you want to take a bath, that's another matter." Voorhees relayed other hypothetical questions on rationing to FEMA -- eliciting the predictable laughter from the audience.

"Over 10% of the water disappears without being accounted for, largely through leaks. What is Durham doing about this?" Voorhees described the challenges in accounting for all the water in a system, given faulty meters, use of water for line testing and fire prevention, etc. He added that a line rehabilitation has become a priority over the past two years, and that City Council has supported efforts to improve the reliability of meters and to refresh them frequently. Voorhees argued that, adjusting for the age of the system, Durham's leakage rates are roughly in line with what would be expected.

Comments

[steve bocckino]

I cringed when I read Ted Voorhees's line taking credit for our "responsible" 2% growth. The rooster takes credit for the dawn! Developers drive our growth rate, which is not managed in any way. In my experience, our pols have not rejected a single rezoning in order to manage our growth rate. A development moratorium policy supposedly kicks in if school enrollment exceeds 120% of capacity systemwide, but it hasn't ever been implemented. Zoning decisions sometimes hinge on road capacity, but not on growth rate per se.

I am increasingly in favor of a policy—Barry Ragin's idea—that we should have a guaranteed 6-month supply of water. I think you'd have to add "with 98% probability." I wonder if we have sufficient weather data to calculate those probabilities?

[Dave W.]

Hey, let's rezone some more Southern Durham land, take out some more countryside/rural character, and drop in some more suburban crappy development and encourage more sprawl.

see story in today's N&O here..

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/durham/story/869693.html

Let's hope the Planning commission nixes this project quickly and repeatedly, and others that further the Southpointification of south Durham.
This certainly seems to make it harder to think about water supply meeting demand into the future, and preserving development/water quality buffers at a major reservoir.

[Kevin Davis]

Dave -- no time to post detailed thoughts on the Boylan Co. plan here today but I will do so tonight and we'll have coverage of Thu. night's meeting.

Until I can put something longer here, I think it's worth separating out two factors about developments like the Boylan proposal (1,200 homes on ~165 acres).

1) Is this type of development good? What's proposed here isn't -- independent of geography -- suburban sprawl. Back of the envelope, we're probably talking about .1 acres/house when you factor in open space. That's equivalent to or higher than residential density in the urban core. And (again, the particular Jordan Lake watershed issues aside), it's growth on the edge of RTP, meaning it's growth that's close to employment centers, leading to less road impact, less use of gas, etc.

2) Is this particular _location_ the right one for this much density? The paragraph above applies to, say, Davis Park in RTP as easily as it does to this location. The challenge with the latter will come down to (a) Jordan Lake watershed issues and (b) the fact that existing plans already call for much lower density here. Best guess: a developer would need to be prepared to deliver oodles upon oodles of elements like on-site stormwater management/re-use in order to have a prayer of getting entitlement on this one.

Reckhow and Brown coming out so pessimistic in the N&O gives these developers a long shot out of the gate.

More tonight.

[steve bocckino]

I'm not easily shocked, but this proposal floored me.

If Boylan's project is approved, Durham might as well tear up its Comprehensive Plan. This land is just feet away from Jordan Lake, hardly "on the edge of RTP." Why does south Durham need another 1200 apartments? Why does south Durham need even more retail? The rapacious development that south Durham has endured over the past 7 years would not be tolerated in other neighborhoods in Durham.

[barry]

"Why does south Durham need even more retail?"

Sales tax revenue from all of those new Chatham County shoppers.

[Dave W.]

I think urban density is a great thing...in urban areas.

Not in one of the few remaining bits of rural character Durham county has. Large picture, it is still sprawl, even if dense —it encourages way more crap (okay development) out there instead of preserving a valuable local resource, rural character (plus water issues).

No doubt tax revenues are appealing to local governments but hopefully lots of citizens remember the govt. works for them and needs to begin taking heed of quality of life issues (and reminding them we are decades behind in maintaining what infrastructure is already in place).

Preserving rural character isn’t as much of a driver as sales tax into the coffers...unless hundreds of citizens speak up and remind planning commission and city government that rural character and smart development is something that citizens DO WANT. Hopefully there are folks who this displeases enough to holler at the appropriate peoples.

...otherwise in the end the country mouse and the city mouse will be made extinct, and we'll just be left with the rats.

[Bull City Rising]

Steve, Dave -- Just to be clear, as I noted above, there clearly are real issues and questions around the fit of the proposal with the Comprehensive Plan, in terms of _this_ project at _this_ location. So, in the following thoughts, I'm not necessarily speaking to this particular proposal.

That said -- I want to touch on South Durham as a whole for a moment, leaving aside this particular project. Steve, I gotta disagree with the idea that we define this part of South Durham as "feet away from Jordan Lake" instead of "on the edge of RTP." Both are accurate descriptions. Of course, by being 'on the edge' of RTP I'm speaking in terms of relativity, but it's important to keep in mind:

751 & Fayetteville Rd. to RTP (*) -- 8.7 miles
North Durham (Infinity & Rox) to RTP -- 15.1 miles
Wake Forest to RTP -- 27.4 miles
Raleigh, NC to RTP -- 15.7 miles
Holly Springs to RTP -- 24.1 miles
Carrboro to RTP -- 16.1 miles
Clayton to RTP -- 33.7 miles

(* - Defined as corner of Davis Dr. & NC-54, since that's near the new Research Tri. Foundation HQ.)

Again, setting aside the current project and its merits or lack thereof... I think it's just not reasonable to think that southern Durham makes sense to be 'shut off' from more development entirely. Ultimately, population rises no matter what, as you noted over at Barry's place; in fact, the U.S. can expect another 100 million people within most of our lifetimes.

I'd love to see Durham put tighter limits on growth in the northern part of the County, where any growth encroaches on old rural settlements like Bahama and Rougemont. If this were fifty years ago, I'm sure I'd make the same argument about South Durham. But at the end of the day, RTP is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

And I'd rather see growth in close proximity to it. After all, South Durham commuters who travel to RTP have shorter commutes, using less gas and road capacity. And in general, a commuter choosing to live in Durham and commute to RTP or Raleigh makes use of the excess capacity on our roads that we have in one direction each day.

Dave: I guess my question would be, what other ways would you propose we support population growth? Urban in-fill is great, and something I support... but it also drives gentrification. Still, the City is getting behind DDI's concept of 10,000 residents downtown as a long-term goal, which is great. In the end of the day, though, the idea of S. Durham remaining at the status quo when it's so close to what I believe either Steve or George Brine noted was the real "monster in the room" of I-40 just isn't all that likely.

[steve bocckino]

Kevin---look at a map! This property is literally feet from Jordan Lake---it abuts Army Corps of Engineers land-- and 9 miles from RTP.

Recent history convinces me that a lot of downtown folks would cry mightily if someone plopped this abomination anywhere near their neighborhoods---and they would have the full support of the Durham blogger community. It's easy to support development in someone else's part of town.

[Barry]

I-40's already been through 3 widenings in the 15 years i've been here, and i suppose with more development it'll just have to be widened again.

what's that you say? there's no more right of way to make it wider?

good heavens. whatever will we do?

[Bull City Rising]

Steve: Like I said, this development is _both_ close to RTP and close to Jordan Lake. Is nine miles next door? No. But outside of some locations in eastern Durham, Morrisville, and parts of Cary, there aren't a lot of areas in the Triangle that are closer to the economic center of the region.

What makes my blood boil is seeing the meteoric growth of places like Johnston County as "bedroom communities" for the Triangle -- a trend that simply sets all of us North Carolinians up to pay the financial and environmental burden of stupidly-planned exurban growth in the years to come.

Where we disagree, I think, is that I *don't* agree that 1,200 houses on 165 acres is necessarily an abomination, if it's in the right location. What's inherently wrong with a dense mixed-use community, assuming proper siting? Isn't this how we encourage more sustainable development?

FWIW, I was one of the folks on the front lines saying that the level of density for The Chancellory at Trinity Park was a good thing. Downtown is a perfect location for higher-density residential. I'm certainly not opposed to this happening in "my neck of the woods." In fact, T.P. is home to a block of apartments that represents densest-single area in Durham, by Caleb Southern's calculation.

Barry: I'm the first person to agree that we need transit-oriented solutions. But the idea that we can just stick our fingers in our ears and say "LA LA LA" until the cows come home. I'd rather figure out ways to grow sustainably and convince our civic leaders to move us in that direction.

But sustainable growth isn't the same as no growth, in my book. If there's better ideas, I'm all ears.

[steve bocckino]

I have lived in an apartment complex with the density of TCATP in the midst of less dense uses (it was an eyesore). I have also lived in other housing far denser than 8 du/acre. I like high-rises and voted for them when I was on the zoning committee, but they don't belong everywhere. Existing development has to be taken into account. The development tiers were very carefully constructed to feather the most dense uses and I don't think TCATP or the Boylan development respect that agreement.

The comp plan, a painfully crafted consensus document, puts the highest densities downtown and near planned transit stops. Since apparently those transit stops aren't going to happen, we should rethink those densities. The whole point of the comp plan exercise was to focus density in appropriate areas and not at the fringe of the urban growth area, on the very shores of our water supply. And why on earth should 500,000 sf of office and retail be sited here?

If you lived in south Durham, you might be as sickened as I am by the sight of endless clearcutting for yet another glorified strip mall or apartment complex. It might be instructive for you to visit.

[Bull City Rising]

Steve,

Just to reiterate -- because I don't think I've been clear on this, it seems -- I'm not advocating for this much density on this particular site. I completely, wholeheartedly agree that development has to be coherent with the adjacent site uses.

Clearcutting and mass grading are also, yes, abominations. A few developers, such as those working on the Brightleaf at the Park development of US 70, are preserving topography and developing houses on existing slopes while preserving as much of the native tree stand as possible.

More developers should do this -- and local officials should try to require it wherever possible.

My point of raising the initial response to Dave was to make two points--

1) Whether or not this is an appropriate match between density and location, some of the folks talking about development in South Durham (not you, Steve) seem to imply that there should be an absolute limit to any new development or growth in South Durham. I don't think that position is tenable.

2) Assuming the right location can be found for it, this level of density is perfectly OK. I disagree strongly with the assertion earlier that this type of mixed use project is "suburban crappy" development. (Well, it could be crappy, but it's far from what I think of as suburban.) If we're going to have new development, we should darn sure push for density and mixed-use precisely to avoid the mistakes of more suburban development patterns.

Ultimately, denser development lets us meet the expected population growth over time with lower impact on transforming greenfield to development. But that's an overarching philosophy for me, and doesn't mean this kind of project is right "everywhere."

Worth noting that TCATP was, IMHO, not really a debate about density, but about class. And, I suspect, about the fears of some single-family homeowners that, somehow, condo dwellers didn't reflect the character of the neighborhood. Not that the density or height were perfect with that project -- they weren't -- but there were more issues than development best practices going on there.

[Blue Moon]

There's another commentary about the meeting at the new www.bullcityblue.net.

[Locomotive Breath]

Still, through the early months of 2006 Durham saw the steepest drop-off in water in-flow in history, a factor that has set up the Bull City for today's crisis. (Not that it couldn't get worse -- 1,600 years of tree-ring records have found regional megadroughts that have lasted for decades.)

Robert Jackson, a Nicholas School and biology professor at Duke, connected the current challenges to broader themes of climate change. "What made this drought such a wicked one?" Jackson asked. He noted that the dry summer and fall was part of it, as Bales noted -- but that the high temperatures in August through October this fall, which were at or among the highest temperatures on record in the Triangle, played a key role as well, adding to greater evaporation of water from the surface.
-------------------
What caused the megadroughts then?

Beware of academics promoting their own areas of research.

[barry]

Kevin - it's still a bit of a chicken and egg thing, as we've discussed before. but i think it's a mistake to say that the I-40 corridor is OK for additional developmentas is, unless we come up with some transportation options. The interstate itself is pretty close to maxed out, and NCDOT acknowledges that adding more lanes is no longer an option. Creating an elevated, double decker freeway is ridiculously expensive.

Without a transit alternative, that 9 mile commute from this new project to RTP will be a 40 minute ride before too long. And while i don't think congestion, in and of itself, is a very big problem, there's a whole host of problems that a couple of thousand cars sitting on the freeway not moving cause all by themselves.

[Michael Bacon]

I posted a tongue-in-cheek response in the new topic (I think I was low on the figure, though), but in all seriousness...

This project is just terribly done. Yes, we need new greenfield development in Durham, but it really ought to be NORTH OF I-40!

Durham's road budget is ridiculously huge, because we have major roads and infrastructure spanning areas with massive green areas in the middle of the city. I've talked about the 'great leap south' before, where Durham annexed aggressively for a couple of decades in order to embrace the growth along the new I-40 corridor -- this is the problem. Pop open Google Earth or Google Maps with the satellite imagery turned on and look at the massive swaths of greenspace on the southeastern hip of the city, right next to RTP, particularly around the Ellis Rd. exit. THAT is where new development should go, not racing towards Jordan Lake.

Note to the inevitable knees jerking about destruction of greenspace. Yes, I'm completely in favor of preserving it. But the greenspace I'm talking about is highly ecologically fragmented and degraded and not accessible or designed for anyone to use or enjoy. It would make some lovely back yards, though.