Costly Jordan Lake clean-up rules hit an interesting speed bump

North Carolina's Rules Review Commission met Thursday to look over the state Environmental Management Commission's proposed rules for cleaning up Jordan Lake -- a key part of state government's initiative to force clean-up of the manmade lake, an effort that's drawn criticism from local governments for shifting the cost (hundreds of millions of dollars in Durham's case) back to cities and counties as an unfunded mandate.

According to the Burlington Times-News, which has the story as its lead article in today's paper (the H-S and N&O, oddly, don't appear to have covered this)--

The state Rules Review Commission Thursday sent the Jordan Lake proposals back to the Environmental Management Commission for revision. The panel questioned the authority of the proposed rules to require local governments to adopt certain ordinances. It also cited ambiguity in the environmental proposals.

The Environmental Management Commission will have the opportunity in coming weeks to tighten up the rules and bring them back for further review. That would likely come at the Rules Review Commission's September meeting.

Most of the speakers, including representatives from the City of Durham and other local governments, opposed the proposed rules. (One speaker in favor was Elaine Chiosso, of the Haw River Association, an organization that's been a strong advocate for Haw River and Jordan Lake clean-up.)

Two other interesting pieces of data in the Times-News article:

• Because over 10 letters of protest have been received on this administrative rule, the issue must be reviewed by the General Assembly in their 2009 session; the legislature could choose to disapprove the rules or work out alternative regulations, something the body did with coastal stormwater issues last year.
• According to the Durham representative, 50% of the stormwater systems in Durham are not owned by the municipality. That includes, we presume, many neighborhoods whose stormwater management systems are under the aegis of homeowners' associations, and whose dues are intended in part to be used for system maintenance and improvement. Should these rules come to pass, with the City fund improvements -- or will residents of many neighborhoods face surprising assessments to complete the work? Pure speculation on our part, but an issue to watch as this one moves through the legislative grinder.

Comments

[tina]

Kevin, how does a Durham resident determine if they are in the 50% of the stormwater system not owned by Durham? Are all city residents part of the other half (stormwater systems owned by the municipality? )

And if your presumtion is true that some neighborhoods have stormwater mgmt systems under HOAs, then I wonder if this issue will be impetus for some of these neighborhoods to request annexation by the city (assuming they are not already in the city).

[southdurhamite]

Stormwater management systems are rarely the problem. More often it is the management of development that creates the types and volume of runoff that cause pollution. Runoff from clearcut construction sites and mass grading, runoff from thousands of acres of paved streets and parking lots and chemically treated lawns and rooftops are the culprit.

To the extent that Durham City and County have not properly managed development over the past almost thirty years, they have contributed to the problem even if the stormwater system was the natural creek system. To the extent that the City and County have allowed degradation of those stream functions, such as wetlands, that mitigate the effects of runoff by slowing and cleansing it, they have made the situation worse.

Trying to put the issue off on homeowners associations that own a few culverts and storm drains is a smoke screen to avoid City and County responsibility for poor decisions.

[Bull City Rising]

@Southdurhamite: As I mentioned in my post, the question of HOAs was pure speculation on my part, based on what I admit is a partial knowledge at best of how the stormwater system works. (I'm actually hoping some of the many readers here more erudite on the subject than I can fill in the pieces.)

I did find odd the emphasis of the City official on 50% of the stormwater systems not being owned by the city in the article. That would tend to sound to these ears like the city's saying, "We can't control all of this problem." If they can't, then who?

In some subdivisions I understand that HOAs are responsible for the stormwater management systems, whether the neighborhoods are in the city or not. In fact, I believe this has in some (many?) cases been a requirement on the city's part. (Which means, @Tina, that it's not clear to me whether this is a matter with distinction between annexed and non-annexed developments. I suspect that at some point the City started requiring HOA responsibility for subdivision stormwater systems but I don't know when or if that's the case.)

Here, for instance, is some text from the articles of incorporation and bylaws of one HOA created for an affordable housing builder creating a subdivision within city limits:

"The affairs of the Association shall be managed by the Board of Directors in accordance with the provisions of applicable law, the Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation and these bylaws. The Board of Directors shall have the power to: ... (e) cause the Open Space Area and the on site engineered stormwater control facility to be maintained as required by the City of Durham."

"The Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, shall enter into one or more agreements with unaffiliated third-parties to provide for the maintenance of the Common Property and, in particular, the Open Space Area and the on site engineered stormwater control facility, as required by the City as the same may be modified, amended or supplemented from time to time."

"[T]he Association shall be responsible for maintenance, inspection and repair of the Open Space Area and the engineered stormwater control facility, and responsible for enforcing the restrictions imposed by the City respecting the Open Space Area and the engineered stormwater control facility."

From the City's stormwater regulations:

"Storm water services means the city program for protection of storm water quality and for the partial control and conveyance of storm water. It includes, without limitation, public education; monitoring, removing, and regulating stormwater pollutants; other activities described in the state-issued NPDES permit; mapping; planning; regulating, reviewing and inspecting private stormwater infrastructure; and operating, cleaning, and maintaining the city's storm water system. The existence of storm water services does not extend the city's ownership or responsibility to portions of the storm water system that are privately owned, nor does it allow the city to control the conveyance of storm water so as to prevent property damage from flooding."

The CleanJordanLake.org web site ascribes responsibility for the pollution in Jordan Lake to two different sources:

"The bad news is that we're all partly responsible for the pollution from sewage treatment plants and runoff from streets and buildings....

We should require that wastewater treatment plants upstream from the lake reduce nitrogen by 2011. A proposal that would allow water treatment plants to wait until 2016 to make deeper reductions in nitrogen is far too slow. Many cities have worked hard already to improve wastewater treatment. Phosphorus reductions are in the works already, and scheduled to take effect by 2009. We can do more.

We support controls on polluted runoff from existing development. Scientific models show Jordan Lake will never be healthy unless runoff from current development is reduced. These controls consist of various sizes of biological and engineered filters that slow down the flow of rain water, filter out soil suspended in it, and allow natural processes to clean up the water before it flows into a stream."

Most of what I've heard in the Jordan Lake discussions has been the need for the former; I haven't heard much about the latter. Are these filters items that get installed after the stormwater retention system, by the city/county? Are these items that require retrofit to existing SWM systems within neighborhoods?

Of course, it's also worth noting that we all pay a stormwater fee with our water bill based on the amount of impervious surface we have -- which could make a good argument for a mechanism already being in existence to fund any cleanup, on a city-wide basis.

And, again, I'm not trying to "put the issue off" on HOAs or defend the city/county history with permitting development. It's a big clean-up price tag, and there's a genuine point of public interest, it seems to me, in where these controls will get interspersed.

It seems like there's an interesting question that hinges on what part of SWM systems require retrofit. Perhaps a reader can provide more details?

[hurley]

The Environmental Management Commission essentially wants zero nitrogen and zero phosphorus in the runoff to Jordan Lake. The Rules Review Commission said go back and think about this. This is how state government should work in my view.

A lot of the nitrogen. phosphorus and E. Coli in Jordan Lake actually comes from wildlife (bears in the woods, and all that). Asking homeowners associations to assess everybody a couple thousand or more to mitigate Bambi and Smokey seems a bit much to me.

[Barry]

"A lot of the nitrogen. phosphorus and E. Coli in Jordan Lake actually comes from wildlife (bears in the woods, and all that)."

Really?

[Michael Bacon]

And just how many bears do you think are living in the woods around Jordan Lake?

The nitrogen and phosphorus is coming from lawn fertilizing and possibly from agricultural spreading. There's simply no way wildlife can keep up with that sort of nutrient loading and contribute anything but a rounding error.

[durhamresident]

Simple question: Just how clean do we really need Jordan Lake to be? And at what cost?

** Isn't the water clean enough now to be treated by cities for household use??

** Has the lake ever been closed to swimmers in the summer? How many times?

** Are the fish taken out of Jordan Lake edible?

** How often is there a massive fish kill at Jordan Lake?

** What other wildlife is impacted by water that's not bottled Evian?

** Should we expect a man-made resevoir to be as blue as California's Lake Tahoe?

** What's this clean-up going to cost? Is it worth it?

[HW]

"The Environmental Management Commission essentially wants zero nitrogen and zero phosphorus in the runoff to Jordan Lake. The Rules Review Commission said go back and think about this. This is how state government should work in my view.

A lot of the nitrogen. phosphorus and E. Coli in Jordan Lake actually comes from wildlife (bears in the woods, and all that). Asking homeowners associations to assess everybody a couple thousand or more to mitigate Bambi and Smokey seems a bit much to me."

I'm sorry, but these comments show your complete misunderstanding of this issue. Because of well documented water quality issues, Jordan Lake is currently listed as impaired on the EPA 303d List under the Federal Clean Water Act. This listing requires the EMC to take action. The EMC is not looking for ZERO Nitrogen input into the reservoir. They are looking to reduce the amount of nitrogen input between 8%-30% compared to a baseline year. The amount of reduction required depends on which arm of the reservoir you are referring too. These reductions are to be achieved through a set of rules that address nutrient loading from:

1) Stormwater Runoff from New Construction
2) Stormwater Runoff from Existing Development
3) Municipal Wastewater Dischargers
4) Runoff from Agriculture operations

In addition to requiring nutrient reductions from the sectors listed above, the Jordan Rules will require the protection of maintenance of 50 foot vegetated buffers along streams.

If you think animals in the forest are the ones causing the problems in Jordan Lake you are very sadly misinformed. That could not be further from the truth.

I enjoy this website and usually find the comments posted well informed. I am a bit saddened by your comments Kevin, as you have publicly demonstrated how little you know about this issue. I think the citizens of Durham have a responsibility to educate themselves on this topic and not just blindly buy into everything the City says about this.

If you want factual information on the proposed Jordan Rules they can be found here.

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/JordanNutrientStrategy.htm

[Barry]

HW - if you check the format of the comments closely you'll see that the commenter's name appears below the dotted line, and references the comments directly above the name. The comments to which you refer, and which i referred to earlier, were made by someone called "hurley," not by Kevin.

Kevin's comment is the one that starts: "As I mentioned in my post, the question of HOAs was pure speculation on my part, based on what I admit is a partial knowledge at best of how the stormwater system works."

I know it's a little confusing, but it's something to keep in mind.

[HW]

Barry,

Thanks for explaining that to me. I was confused by the author name placement in the blog. My bad. Kevin, I apologize. I should have known that post wasn't from you since you are known for providing informed opinions. Thanks!

[durhamresident]

I'm reading a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo which means nothing to me.

Jordan Lake "impaired"... excuse me, but so what?

"They are looking to reduce the amount of nitrogen input between 8%-30% compared to a baseline year."

Huhh?

Again..

Simple question: Just how clean do we really need Jordan Lake to be? And at what cost?

** Isn't the water clean enough now to be treated by cities for household use??

** Has the lake ever been closed to swimmers in the summer? How many times?

** Are the fish taken out of Jordan Lake edible?

** How often is there a massive fish kill at Jordan Lake?

** What other wildlife is impacted by water that's not bottled Evian?

** Should we expect a man-made resevoir to be as blue as California's Lake Tahoe?

** What's this clean-up going to cost? Is it worth it?

[HW]

"Simple question: Just how clean do we really need Jordan Lake to be? And at what cost?

** Isn't the water clean enough now to be treated by cities for household use??

** Has the lake ever been closed to swimmers in the summer? How many times?

** Are the fish taken out of Jordan Lake edible?

** How often is there a massive fish kill at Jordan Lake?

** What other wildlife is impacted by water that's not bottled Evian?

** Should we expect a man-made resevoir to be as blue as California's Lake Tahoe?

** What's this clean-up going to cost? Is it worth it?
"
All of the answers you seek are in the documents I provided a link to. If you don't understand the documents, perhaps you should have attended one of the many public hearings that were held on this topic to educate yourself.

"A pound of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

What's clean water worth to you?