Written 12/10/2006
To Fix Barber Creek, Add Some Treated Sewage Water
Barber Creek is so dirty that even treated sewage water cannot hurt it, Oconee County officials have been saying for the last two years.
In fact, according to those officials, a little treated sewage water would do the Creek some good.
The story, as it turns out, is more complicated than that.
Little is known about the quality of water in Barber Creek, largely because the Georgia Environmental Protection Division does not take into consideration the actual quality of the water in a stream in making its decision about the ability of the stream to handle sewage plant discharge!
In fact, the state of Georgia has not studied Barber Creek and has only general notions about how clean or dirty Barber Creek is where Oconee County plans to discharge 1.0 million gallons per day of sewage water from its Rocky Branch plant.
The state made its decision about waste load allocations–the preliminary and controlling decision in drafting a permit to discharge into Barber Creek–without even gathering data on the quality of water in the stream or requiring Oconee County to submit data of that sort.
The EPD used maps and descriptive data on the Creek’s size and volume of flow to estimate, based on theoretical models, how much dirty water the Creek can handle.
Then the EPD told Oconee County that Barber Creek could handle more pollutants–based on those theoretical models, not on a knowledge of how dirty or clean the Creek actually was.
The EPD informed Oconee County it had to design a plant that would produce discharge that would not exceed set standards for 10 characteristics: flow, biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, total residual chlorine, fecal coliform bacteria, pH, total phosphorus, and turbidity.
Oconee County has designed its planned expanded sewage treatment plant on Rocky Branch road with these requirements in mind, and the EPD has issued a draft permit for the County.
Citizens will get a chance to ask questions about that draft permit in a meeting scheduled by the EPD for 7 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at the Oconee County Civic Center on Hog Mountain road.
Citizens can ask what the state really knows about the quality of water in Barber Creek and why it believes it can handle reuse quality water–also called grey water–from a sewage plant.
Citizens also can ask the state to begin taking action to actually clean up the Creek if the Creek is as dirty as Oconee County officials say it is.
Paul Lamarre, an expert on the modeling the EPD uses to make the decisions about sewage plant discharges, was kind enough to explain the process to me in detail in two different telephone conversations I had with him the week of November 27, 2006. He also referred me to documents on the models used to make the allocation.
The modeling process, he emphasized, involved "no raw data" based on samples of water taken from Barber Creek.
Mr. Lamarre said he expects to attend the hearing the EPD has scheduled for December 12.
Even if Barber Creek is as dirty as County officials claim, part of the logic of the argument that a little more dirty water will do it some good is wrong, according to the information Mr. Lamarre gave to me.
A big focus in the waste load allocation decision, he said, is the theoretical amount of dissolved oxygen in a stream. Dissolved oxygen, up to a point, is good, since the bacteria in a stream that break down biodegradable materials that enter the stream require oxygen to do their work.
Water coming out of a sewage plant usually is high in dissolved oxygen, since part of the treatment process involves stirring the water. Oxygen is dissolved in the water through contact with the air.
The amount of oxygen in a stream also is affected by temperature, and a slow-moving stream low in volume in warm weather would benefit from the addition of water high in oxygen. But a colder stream, which holds more oxygen naturally, with a higher volume isn’t as likely to gain as much from the addition of water high in dissolved oxygen.
Yet Oconee County officials have been clear in saying they plan to discharge into Barber Creek from the Rocky Branch plant when they cannot sell the reuse water for irrigation. They won’t put the water in the Creek when it might do some good, in other words, but only when the Creek isn’t like to benefit much from the additional dissolved oxygen.
The other contaminants that are in sewage water–such as fecal coliform and ammonia–will only add to the amount of contaminants in the stream. Because of the increased volume, these contaminants will be diluted.
The County actually began the process that will come to a head with a decision on a discharge permit in September of 2004 when it asked the EPD for a Waste Load Allocation for Barber Creek. It was granted the allocation in August of 2005. Since that time, it has gone forward with the permitting process, filling out forms and submitting information about the plant.
The County, however, has not provided the state with data on the quality of water in Barber Creek in applying for the Waste Load Allocation or in any of the documents released to the public prior to a March 14 hearing.
The assertion that Barber Creek is currently so dirty comes from sampling data included in separate report produced by consulting firm Jordan Jones and Goulding in September of 2005.
At the hearing the County held on March 14, 2006, officials made reference to the data from those samplings and the characteristics of effluent from the County’s only other sewage treatment plant, now operating on Calls Creek. The Rocky Branch plant will be similar to the Calls Creek plant in design.
The charts showed that Total Suspended Solids and Fecal Coliform levels were higher in Barber Creek than in the effluent from the Calls Creek plant.
Chris Thomas, assistant director of the Oconee County Utility Department, acknowledged that there is a lot of variation in samplings from Barber Creek. "It’s your discretion as to whether your children play in the Creek," he said. "I was born and raised in Oconee County. I played in creeks my whole life. Getting in them now, I kind of think twice about it because I see samples like that."
Wayne Provost, long-time County official and planner, told those at the hearing that the new treatment plant would allow the County to put water back into Barber Creek that "would be a better quality of water than what’s in Barber Creek upstream from the facility."
Jimmy Parker, senior project manager at Precision Planning Inc., another consulting firm aiding the County, pointed to a jar of water from Barber Creek and a jar of water from the treatment plant. "I mean, it’s crystal clear," he said of the latter.
Even if it is true that Barber Creek is now polluted–and it would be a surprise if it were not given that it now flows through so much urban sprawl in the County--the addition of "crystal clear" water won’t help the kids playing in the Creek unless the County changes its plans.
Kids don’t play in the Creek when the water is cold, but that is when the County plans to discharge its treated effluent.
When the Creek is low and hot and flowing slowly, the "crystal clear" water is going to be used on spray fields and for irrigation of lawns and recreation facilities.
It is just another part of the confusing story surrounding the County’s plans for sewage treatment and discharge into Barber Creek.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Written 12/09/2006
Conflicting Statements about Demand for "Reuse Quality" Water
At the same time that Oconee County officials were telling citizens the County rarely will discharge treated sewage water from the County's Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek because the County expects such strong demand for reuse water from customers in the County, they were telling state officials just the opposite.
In filing the application for the permit to begin discharging treated sewage water into Barber Creek, Oconee County rejected a "No Discharge Alternative," saying it could not rely on the demand for the discharge water and needed to be allowed to put the water into the Creek.
The County even expressed doubt that customers ever would be willing to accept reuse quality water.
I’ve filed two open records requests and asked specifically for evidence of contracts the County had signed or even discussed with reuse customers. I was provided no evidence any such contracts even record of discussion exist.
Despite this, Gary Dodd, Oconee County Utility Department director, and Chris Thomas, assistant director, have continued to reassure residents who live along Barber Creek that the County will only infrequently discharge treated sewage water from its Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek.
In an article in the September 7 issue of The Oconee Leader, Mr. Thomas is quoted as saying:
"There’s a chance we would discharge some into the creek, but not on any regular basis, and it would be a slow release over a 24-hour period," Thomas is quoted as saying. "We’re not going to open up a gate and let 1 million gallons" into the Creek.
The draft permit, however, would allow the County to discharge exactly that amount–1 million gallons of water per day, into Barber Creek. The County could release that amount every day once the plant is in operation. The County also has discussed expanding the plant to 4 MGD of discharge at some point in the future.
County officials have acknowledged they will be most likely to discharge into the creek in periods of heavy rains, when there will be little demand for reuse quality water and when the County’s spray fields will be unable to handle discharge. Of course, that is when the creek will be high and prone to flooding, and extra water from the sewage plant will only increase the water volume.
The EPD has refused to consider the issue of water volume in drafting the permit for Oconee County for its Rocky Branch plant. That permit is still under review and will be the subject of a public hearing at 7 p.m. on December 12 in the Oconee County Civic Center on Hog Mountain road.
At a March 14, 2006, hearing on the expansion of the Rocky Branch plant, the County estimated that 1 MGD of discharge would amount to less than an inch of increase in the height of water flowing down the creek–in a dry period. The increase in height would be less when the creek is flooding, the officials said, since the water would already be outside its banks!
The County officials seemed to think that was reassuring, but adding any water to a flooded creek only increases flooding.
In December of 2005, as part of the application for the permit to discharge into Barber Creek, Oconee County completed an Antidegradtion Review. Such a review is designed to show what is being done to prevent degradation of state waters.
In seeking to expand the Rocky Branch plant, one option is termed No Discharge, meaning that no water from the treatment plant would be discharged into any state water. Oconee County rejected this option, stating that the county has "just recently" begun putting into place a system of distribution of nonpotable reuse water.
"It will probably be a number of years before there is enough infrastructure and customers to use a substantial quantity of reuse water produced at the proposed facility," according to the Antidegradation Review produced for Rocky Branch.
Even when the reuse market exists, according to the report, "it is foreseen that some of these applications (e.g. turf irrigation) will experience short-term drops in demand due to rain and other weather conditions." For this reason, the County said, it needs a discharge permit.
Oconee County officials have talked frequently about large-scale users, such as golf courses and parks, of its reuse quality water. But in the Antidegradation Review, the County says these are not likely to develop:
"(I)t is questionable whether or not potential large-scale users would be willing to accept a water supply at reuse standards vs. drinking water standards. In addition, the pattern of land use projected for Oconee County through 2015 and 2025 preclude the development of such water users...(I)t is clear that development in Oconee County, and the resulting increase in wastewater flows to Rocky Branch WRF (Water Reclamation Facility), will come before substantial demands for reuse water are realized. Therefore, urban reuse is not considered to be an acceptable NDA (No Discharge Alternative) for this project."
Oconee County specified in another document it produced for the application process, Rocky Branch WRF Environmental Information Document, that it proposed to treat sewage at the Rocky Branch plant to "water reuse standards as outlined in EPD’s Guidelines for Water Reclamation for Urban Water Reuse."
That document is in the Library (5/3/06 entry) of the Friends of Barber Creek web site, http://www.barbercreek.org./ The document discusses possible use of reuse quality water and specifically recommends against any use that brings the water in contact with the skin. The document, on page 13, gives the following guideline for use of the water:
"The customer shall not allow reclaimed water to be used for consumption (human or animal), interconnecting with another water source, sprinkling of edible crops (gardens), body contact recreation, filling of swimming pools, or sharing a common reclaimed service between properties."
Oconee County passed an ordinance in March of 2005 stipulating that reuse water should NOT be used for the following: "drinking, food preparation, hand washing, automobile washing, or irrigation of fruits and vegetables."
Despite this classification, Utility Department Director Dodd was quoted in The Oconee Enterprise on September 21, 2006 as saying:
"You wouldn’t want to drink it (the water from the proposed Rocky Branch plant) because of the implications, but we are planning dual water lines in new subdivisions that want them, ‘grey’ water suitable for lawns, washing cars and dogs and such benign uses."
This is another example of conflicting statements from government officials about Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, or, as the County prefers, Water Reclamation Facility.
In an open records request I filed with Mr. Dodd on February 24, 2006, I stated:
"Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Law (O.C.G.A § 50-18-70 et seq.) (the "Law"), you are hereby requested to make available for review and copying all files, records and other documents in your possessions that refer, reflect or relate to reuse of water from the Rocky Branch Waste Treatment Facility or any other waste treatment facility in Oconee County."
Mr. Dodd provided no evidence that any company or organization has actually discussed using water from the treatment plant.
I filed the following request on August 11, 2006:
"Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Law (O.C.G.A § 50-18-70 et seq.) (the "Law"), you are hereby requested to make available for review and copying all files, records and other documents in your possessions that refer, reflect or relate to the County’s request for a permit to discharge wastewater from the Rocky Branch Waste Treatment Plant into Barber Creek and that were produced after February 24, 2006."
It also did not produce any written evidence of any discussion with any potential user of water from the Rocky Branch plant.
Conflicting Statements about Demand for "Reuse Quality" Water
At the same time that Oconee County officials were telling citizens the County rarely will discharge treated sewage water from the County's Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek because the County expects such strong demand for reuse water from customers in the County, they were telling state officials just the opposite.
In filing the application for the permit to begin discharging treated sewage water into Barber Creek, Oconee County rejected a "No Discharge Alternative," saying it could not rely on the demand for the discharge water and needed to be allowed to put the water into the Creek.
The County even expressed doubt that customers ever would be willing to accept reuse quality water.
I’ve filed two open records requests and asked specifically for evidence of contracts the County had signed or even discussed with reuse customers. I was provided no evidence any such contracts even record of discussion exist.
Despite this, Gary Dodd, Oconee County Utility Department director, and Chris Thomas, assistant director, have continued to reassure residents who live along Barber Creek that the County will only infrequently discharge treated sewage water from its Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek.
In an article in the September 7 issue of The Oconee Leader, Mr. Thomas is quoted as saying:
"There’s a chance we would discharge some into the creek, but not on any regular basis, and it would be a slow release over a 24-hour period," Thomas is quoted as saying. "We’re not going to open up a gate and let 1 million gallons" into the Creek.
The draft permit, however, would allow the County to discharge exactly that amount–1 million gallons of water per day, into Barber Creek. The County could release that amount every day once the plant is in operation. The County also has discussed expanding the plant to 4 MGD of discharge at some point in the future.
County officials have acknowledged they will be most likely to discharge into the creek in periods of heavy rains, when there will be little demand for reuse quality water and when the County’s spray fields will be unable to handle discharge. Of course, that is when the creek will be high and prone to flooding, and extra water from the sewage plant will only increase the water volume.
The EPD has refused to consider the issue of water volume in drafting the permit for Oconee County for its Rocky Branch plant. That permit is still under review and will be the subject of a public hearing at 7 p.m. on December 12 in the Oconee County Civic Center on Hog Mountain road.
At a March 14, 2006, hearing on the expansion of the Rocky Branch plant, the County estimated that 1 MGD of discharge would amount to less than an inch of increase in the height of water flowing down the creek–in a dry period. The increase in height would be less when the creek is flooding, the officials said, since the water would already be outside its banks!
The County officials seemed to think that was reassuring, but adding any water to a flooded creek only increases flooding.
In December of 2005, as part of the application for the permit to discharge into Barber Creek, Oconee County completed an Antidegradtion Review. Such a review is designed to show what is being done to prevent degradation of state waters.
In seeking to expand the Rocky Branch plant, one option is termed No Discharge, meaning that no water from the treatment plant would be discharged into any state water. Oconee County rejected this option, stating that the county has "just recently" begun putting into place a system of distribution of nonpotable reuse water.
"It will probably be a number of years before there is enough infrastructure and customers to use a substantial quantity of reuse water produced at the proposed facility," according to the Antidegradation Review produced for Rocky Branch.
Even when the reuse market exists, according to the report, "it is foreseen that some of these applications (e.g. turf irrigation) will experience short-term drops in demand due to rain and other weather conditions." For this reason, the County said, it needs a discharge permit.
Oconee County officials have talked frequently about large-scale users, such as golf courses and parks, of its reuse quality water. But in the Antidegradation Review, the County says these are not likely to develop:
"(I)t is questionable whether or not potential large-scale users would be willing to accept a water supply at reuse standards vs. drinking water standards. In addition, the pattern of land use projected for Oconee County through 2015 and 2025 preclude the development of such water users...(I)t is clear that development in Oconee County, and the resulting increase in wastewater flows to Rocky Branch WRF (Water Reclamation Facility), will come before substantial demands for reuse water are realized. Therefore, urban reuse is not considered to be an acceptable NDA (No Discharge Alternative) for this project."
Oconee County specified in another document it produced for the application process, Rocky Branch WRF Environmental Information Document, that it proposed to treat sewage at the Rocky Branch plant to "water reuse standards as outlined in EPD’s Guidelines for Water Reclamation for Urban Water Reuse."
That document is in the Library (5/3/06 entry) of the Friends of Barber Creek web site, http://www.barbercreek.org./ The document discusses possible use of reuse quality water and specifically recommends against any use that brings the water in contact with the skin. The document, on page 13, gives the following guideline for use of the water:
"The customer shall not allow reclaimed water to be used for consumption (human or animal), interconnecting with another water source, sprinkling of edible crops (gardens), body contact recreation, filling of swimming pools, or sharing a common reclaimed service between properties."
Oconee County passed an ordinance in March of 2005 stipulating that reuse water should NOT be used for the following: "drinking, food preparation, hand washing, automobile washing, or irrigation of fruits and vegetables."
Despite this classification, Utility Department Director Dodd was quoted in The Oconee Enterprise on September 21, 2006 as saying:
"You wouldn’t want to drink it (the water from the proposed Rocky Branch plant) because of the implications, but we are planning dual water lines in new subdivisions that want them, ‘grey’ water suitable for lawns, washing cars and dogs and such benign uses."
This is another example of conflicting statements from government officials about Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, or, as the County prefers, Water Reclamation Facility.
In an open records request I filed with Mr. Dodd on February 24, 2006, I stated:
"Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Law (O.C.G.A § 50-18-70 et seq.) (the "Law"), you are hereby requested to make available for review and copying all files, records and other documents in your possessions that refer, reflect or relate to reuse of water from the Rocky Branch Waste Treatment Facility or any other waste treatment facility in Oconee County."
Mr. Dodd provided no evidence that any company or organization has actually discussed using water from the treatment plant.
I filed the following request on August 11, 2006:
"Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Law (O.C.G.A § 50-18-70 et seq.) (the "Law"), you are hereby requested to make available for review and copying all files, records and other documents in your possessions that refer, reflect or relate to the County’s request for a permit to discharge wastewater from the Rocky Branch Waste Treatment Plant into Barber Creek and that were produced after February 24, 2006."
It also did not produce any written evidence of any discussion with any potential user of water from the Rocky Branch plant.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Written 12/04/06
A Note on Breaching Dams and Draining Ponds
Just before Thanksgiving I posted a report about a request for a stream buffer variance pending before the state Environmental Protection Division. I indicated at the time that the action being proposed might actually help the creek, but I noted that the public notice made it impossible for citizens to even guess about the nature of the project.
When I wrote that note I had not yet reviewed the site plans in the Oconee County Planning Office. I now have, and the plans reveal the challenges facing us as we try to get stormwater runoff under control in the county. Earlier this year we were able to get the county to pass a tougher stormwater ordinance than developers wanted. Now comes the tricky part: enforcement. This buffer variance request illustrates why.
On June 15, 2006, Steve Hansford, senior code enforcement director for Oconee County, wrote to S&ME Inc., an engineering and environmental services company based in Spartanburg, S.C., in reference to Club Estates subdivision, being developed on Barber Creek road near the intersection with SR53 (Hog Mountain road).
According to Hansford’s letter, the property contained "two lakes which are spring fed and with no outlet structures" other than spillways. Hansford further wrote:
"Based on the fact that the lakes are spring fed and water leaves this property at certain times of the year, and the pond has a defined channel with wrested vegetation in some areas, it is the decision of the Local Issuing Authority that these lakes are considered state waters and therefor must be protected by a 25 ft. buffer." Oconee County is the Local Issuing Authority he was referencing.
The very next day, on June 16, 2006, Julie Mitchell Smoak of S&ME submitted an Application for a 25 Foot Vegetative Buffer Encroachment to the EPD on behalf of A. Fortner Construction Inc. of Loganville.
According to a letter submitted by Ms. Smoak with the application, the two dams on the streams "have large woody vegetation that can undermine the dam integrity." The letter further states: "The dams associated with these ponds have been destabilized and damaged due to age and are in need of repair."
The solution, according to Ms. Smoak, was installation of "outlet structures in both ponds." These structures, a "forebay system," would not allow the ponds to "function in water treatment" but would allow the ponds to hold stormwater. The plan, the letter said, is for the ponds to "function as stormwater detention, as well as amenities" for the subdivision.
"In order to install these outlet structures in the ponds, small portions of the State Water 25-foot buffers...may be disturbed," Ms. Smoak wrote.
The letter indicated that there was an alternative to this action. The developer could install detention ponds "adjacent to the existing ponds." But this would "decrease the developable land within the property, thereby decreasing the number of proposed lots."
In sum, the developer wanted to use the existing ponds for stormwater detention rather than build separate facilities for that purpose in order to generate more money.
The letter does not explain whether the existing ponds could handle the additional water from stormwater without the construction of the "forebay system." Nor does it explain what impact stormwater runoff might have on the quality of the water in the ponds.
On October 26, 2006, Peggy Chambers, environmental specialist with the EPD, wrote to Fortner Construction indicating that it was required to publish a "legal notice in the local newspaper" that contained a "description of the proposed buffer encroachment" as well as the location of the project, where citizens can view site plans, and to whom citizens can send written comments.
The letter was copied to Melvin Davis, chairman of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners, and Ms. Melissa Henderson, then head of Oconee County Code Enforcement. Ms. Henderson has since left that post, and Mr. Hansford is in charge of the office.
Here is the Public Notice exactly as it appeared in the November 9 issue of The Oconee Enterprise:
The proposed Barber Creek Road project involves the installation of outlet structures in two ponds. Proposed impacts to the 25-foot buffers associated with these dams include 2,807 square feet (64.32 linear feet) and 1,535 square feet (32.33 linear feet) of the 25-foot buffers adjacent to the open waters. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Barber Creek Road and State Road 53. The public can review site plans at the Oconee County Planning Department, located in Watkinsville, GA. Written comments should be submitted to the Program Manager, NonPoint Source Program, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Unit, 4220 International Parkway, Suite 101, Atlanta, GA 30354.
On November 8, 2006--one day before the public notice appeared in the Enterprise--Bill Noel, senior ecologist at S&ME, wrote to Justin Greer of Beall & Company in Bogart "summarizing the jurisdictional water services that have been performed" by S&ME regarding the Barber Creek road property.
According to that letter, Ms. Smoak and two colleagues of S&ME "carried out a jurisdictional waters determination" on the property on May 25, 2006, that is, about three weeks before Mr. Hansford wrote his letter.
According to the letter, however, at some latter date "subsequent observations were made on the property after both pond dams had been breeched (spelled incorrectly in letter) so that the jurisdictional waters determination could be refined..."
In a letter of November 17, 2006, also to Beall & Company, S&ME sought to "elucidate for you permitting and regulatory guidance for the proposed activities on the Club Estate development." The letter reported that the site had been "observed for the presence of ACE jurisdictional areas" at some unspecified time. ACE stands for Army Corps of Engineers.
According to the November 17 letter, "Two farm ponds were observed onsite. Both pond dams had been breeched (misspelled in original) and drained." The letter states that "jurisdictional wetland areas" were observed near both ponds.
For the record, a "breach" is a gap made in a wall or line of defense, and to "breach" is to make such a gap. "Breech" is either the buttocks or the rear part of a gun. There is no verb, "to breech."
OK. So the misuse of breech isn’t the issue.
I obtained the November 8 and November 17 letters from Krista Gridley, planner at the Oconee County Planning Office. She also showed me a series of maps, many of which show the ponds and a series of lines around them. She said other details would have to come from Code Enforcement.
I have decided to hold off visiting Code Enforcement. Instead I wrote to the EPD and asked it to require Fortner Construction to publish a second Public Notice–one that explains in simple English what it is proposing to do.
I’ve also asked the EPD to explain how it is possible that the two ponds in questions have been breached (I used that word) and drained in advance of issuance of a permit for encroachment on the buffer.
If one needs an encroachment variance permit to install a "forebay" system, it seems to make sense one would need an encroachment variance permit to breach a dam and drain the pond. But I’m no engineer. And I’m not an employee of the EPD.
If you are curious about these things as well, you might write and ask the EPD for clarification. I’ll let you know what I learn if you let me know what you learn.
I don’t think we have to ask where the water went from the ponds when they were drained. It isn’t called Barber Creek road by coincidence.
A Note on Breaching Dams and Draining Ponds
Just before Thanksgiving I posted a report about a request for a stream buffer variance pending before the state Environmental Protection Division. I indicated at the time that the action being proposed might actually help the creek, but I noted that the public notice made it impossible for citizens to even guess about the nature of the project.
When I wrote that note I had not yet reviewed the site plans in the Oconee County Planning Office. I now have, and the plans reveal the challenges facing us as we try to get stormwater runoff under control in the county. Earlier this year we were able to get the county to pass a tougher stormwater ordinance than developers wanted. Now comes the tricky part: enforcement. This buffer variance request illustrates why.
On June 15, 2006, Steve Hansford, senior code enforcement director for Oconee County, wrote to S&ME Inc., an engineering and environmental services company based in Spartanburg, S.C., in reference to Club Estates subdivision, being developed on Barber Creek road near the intersection with SR53 (Hog Mountain road).
According to Hansford’s letter, the property contained "two lakes which are spring fed and with no outlet structures" other than spillways. Hansford further wrote:
"Based on the fact that the lakes are spring fed and water leaves this property at certain times of the year, and the pond has a defined channel with wrested vegetation in some areas, it is the decision of the Local Issuing Authority that these lakes are considered state waters and therefor must be protected by a 25 ft. buffer." Oconee County is the Local Issuing Authority he was referencing.
The very next day, on June 16, 2006, Julie Mitchell Smoak of S&ME submitted an Application for a 25 Foot Vegetative Buffer Encroachment to the EPD on behalf of A. Fortner Construction Inc. of Loganville.
According to a letter submitted by Ms. Smoak with the application, the two dams on the streams "have large woody vegetation that can undermine the dam integrity." The letter further states: "The dams associated with these ponds have been destabilized and damaged due to age and are in need of repair."
The solution, according to Ms. Smoak, was installation of "outlet structures in both ponds." These structures, a "forebay system," would not allow the ponds to "function in water treatment" but would allow the ponds to hold stormwater. The plan, the letter said, is for the ponds to "function as stormwater detention, as well as amenities" for the subdivision.
"In order to install these outlet structures in the ponds, small portions of the State Water 25-foot buffers...may be disturbed," Ms. Smoak wrote.
The letter indicated that there was an alternative to this action. The developer could install detention ponds "adjacent to the existing ponds." But this would "decrease the developable land within the property, thereby decreasing the number of proposed lots."
In sum, the developer wanted to use the existing ponds for stormwater detention rather than build separate facilities for that purpose in order to generate more money.
The letter does not explain whether the existing ponds could handle the additional water from stormwater without the construction of the "forebay system." Nor does it explain what impact stormwater runoff might have on the quality of the water in the ponds.
On October 26, 2006, Peggy Chambers, environmental specialist with the EPD, wrote to Fortner Construction indicating that it was required to publish a "legal notice in the local newspaper" that contained a "description of the proposed buffer encroachment" as well as the location of the project, where citizens can view site plans, and to whom citizens can send written comments.
The letter was copied to Melvin Davis, chairman of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners, and Ms. Melissa Henderson, then head of Oconee County Code Enforcement. Ms. Henderson has since left that post, and Mr. Hansford is in charge of the office.
Here is the Public Notice exactly as it appeared in the November 9 issue of The Oconee Enterprise:
The proposed Barber Creek Road project involves the installation of outlet structures in two ponds. Proposed impacts to the 25-foot buffers associated with these dams include 2,807 square feet (64.32 linear feet) and 1,535 square feet (32.33 linear feet) of the 25-foot buffers adjacent to the open waters. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Barber Creek Road and State Road 53. The public can review site plans at the Oconee County Planning Department, located in Watkinsville, GA. Written comments should be submitted to the Program Manager, NonPoint Source Program, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Unit, 4220 International Parkway, Suite 101, Atlanta, GA 30354.
On November 8, 2006--one day before the public notice appeared in the Enterprise--Bill Noel, senior ecologist at S&ME, wrote to Justin Greer of Beall & Company in Bogart "summarizing the jurisdictional water services that have been performed" by S&ME regarding the Barber Creek road property.
According to that letter, Ms. Smoak and two colleagues of S&ME "carried out a jurisdictional waters determination" on the property on May 25, 2006, that is, about three weeks before Mr. Hansford wrote his letter.
According to the letter, however, at some latter date "subsequent observations were made on the property after both pond dams had been breeched (spelled incorrectly in letter) so that the jurisdictional waters determination could be refined..."
In a letter of November 17, 2006, also to Beall & Company, S&ME sought to "elucidate for you permitting and regulatory guidance for the proposed activities on the Club Estate development." The letter reported that the site had been "observed for the presence of ACE jurisdictional areas" at some unspecified time. ACE stands for Army Corps of Engineers.
According to the November 17 letter, "Two farm ponds were observed onsite. Both pond dams had been breeched (misspelled in original) and drained." The letter states that "jurisdictional wetland areas" were observed near both ponds.
For the record, a "breach" is a gap made in a wall or line of defense, and to "breach" is to make such a gap. "Breech" is either the buttocks or the rear part of a gun. There is no verb, "to breech."
OK. So the misuse of breech isn’t the issue.
I obtained the November 8 and November 17 letters from Krista Gridley, planner at the Oconee County Planning Office. She also showed me a series of maps, many of which show the ponds and a series of lines around them. She said other details would have to come from Code Enforcement.
I have decided to hold off visiting Code Enforcement. Instead I wrote to the EPD and asked it to require Fortner Construction to publish a second Public Notice–one that explains in simple English what it is proposing to do.
I’ve also asked the EPD to explain how it is possible that the two ponds in questions have been breached (I used that word) and drained in advance of issuance of a permit for encroachment on the buffer.
If one needs an encroachment variance permit to install a "forebay" system, it seems to make sense one would need an encroachment variance permit to breach a dam and drain the pond. But I’m no engineer. And I’m not an employee of the EPD.
If you are curious about these things as well, you might write and ask the EPD for clarification. I’ll let you know what I learn if you let me know what you learn.
I don’t think we have to ask where the water went from the ponds when they were drained. It isn’t called Barber Creek road by coincidence.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Written 11/20/06
Public Notices Hard to Decode
The November 9, 2006, issue of The Oconee Enterprise contains a Public Notice about a request for a permit for a stream buffer variance on protected state waters that feed into Barber Creek.
It is unlikely that anyone who saw the notice would have understood that this was the issue. The Public Notice does not use the words "variance" or give a clear indication that what is being proposed is an encroachment of the buffer the state has set up to protect state waters.
Because the Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest in Atlanta gets all notices of stream buffer variance requests, recognized that it involved Barber Creek, and knew of the existence of Friends of Barber Creek, Center staff informed me of the request. Through the efforts of the Center, I have obtained the actual variance request.
From what I can tell, this is a very minor matter that actually can help Barber Creek, rather than harm it. Georgia Club Estates, an 81-acre residential development project located on Barber Creek Road in Oconee County, wants to modify dams on two farm ponds on the property. At present, the ponds have spillways but no other drainage systems. Because the ponds are spring-fed, they have been designated state waters. To modify the dams, the developer will have to enter the existing 25-foot buffer around these waters. Thus, the developer needs a buffer variance permit.
The construction could help Barber Creek because the dams are old and this construction could improve them and decrease the chances of erosion.
The problem is that everyone who might be affected should have a chance to know what is being proposed and its consequences. That means all of us concerned about Barber Creek.
Fortner Construction Inc. of Loganville, which submitted the application, was told it had to post a legal notice that provided "A description of the proposed buffer encroachment." Here is what the public notice said:
Public Notice
The proposed Barber Creek Road project involves the installation of outlet structures in two ponds. Proposed impacts to the 25-foot buffers associated with these dams include 2,807 square feet (64.32 linear feet) and 1,535 square feet (32.33 linear feet) of the 25-foot buffers adjacent to the open waters. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Barber Creek Road and State Road 53.
If you can get any sense of what is being proposed by that description, you are way ahead of me.
I will write to the EPD and ask that they require another legal notice. If you know of others who needs to know about this request for a buffer variance, please let them know.
This is not the first time we have seen this problem of public notices that don't give needed information. Oconee County ran two public notices about the March 14, 2006, public hearing on its request to get a permit to begin discharging treated sewage water into Barber Creek. Neither one mentioned Barber Creek!
I have notified the EPD of this problem and will do so again at the public hearing we have been granted before the EPD at 7 p.m. on December 12. That meeting will be at the Oconee County Civic Center on Hog Mountain Road. Please plan to attend.
If you are someone who did not know that the County planned to dump treated sewage water into Barber Creek until after that March 14 hearing, please speak up at that hearing. If you know others in that position, please have them attend and speak up as well.
We're lining up speakers for that hearing, so please let me know if you can speak to this point or others regarding the Oconee County permit request.
If you are willing to write to the EPD to reinforce my point that the notice about the buffer variance request by Fortner Construction is not adequate to inform the public about the issue at hand, please let me know and I'll provide you with the details on how to write.
Public Notices Hard to Decode
The November 9, 2006, issue of The Oconee Enterprise contains a Public Notice about a request for a permit for a stream buffer variance on protected state waters that feed into Barber Creek.
It is unlikely that anyone who saw the notice would have understood that this was the issue. The Public Notice does not use the words "variance" or give a clear indication that what is being proposed is an encroachment of the buffer the state has set up to protect state waters.
Because the Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest in Atlanta gets all notices of stream buffer variance requests, recognized that it involved Barber Creek, and knew of the existence of Friends of Barber Creek, Center staff informed me of the request. Through the efforts of the Center, I have obtained the actual variance request.
From what I can tell, this is a very minor matter that actually can help Barber Creek, rather than harm it. Georgia Club Estates, an 81-acre residential development project located on Barber Creek Road in Oconee County, wants to modify dams on two farm ponds on the property. At present, the ponds have spillways but no other drainage systems. Because the ponds are spring-fed, they have been designated state waters. To modify the dams, the developer will have to enter the existing 25-foot buffer around these waters. Thus, the developer needs a buffer variance permit.
The construction could help Barber Creek because the dams are old and this construction could improve them and decrease the chances of erosion.
The problem is that everyone who might be affected should have a chance to know what is being proposed and its consequences. That means all of us concerned about Barber Creek.
Fortner Construction Inc. of Loganville, which submitted the application, was told it had to post a legal notice that provided "A description of the proposed buffer encroachment." Here is what the public notice said:
Public Notice
The proposed Barber Creek Road project involves the installation of outlet structures in two ponds. Proposed impacts to the 25-foot buffers associated with these dams include 2,807 square feet (64.32 linear feet) and 1,535 square feet (32.33 linear feet) of the 25-foot buffers adjacent to the open waters. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Barber Creek Road and State Road 53.
If you can get any sense of what is being proposed by that description, you are way ahead of me.
I will write to the EPD and ask that they require another legal notice. If you know of others who needs to know about this request for a buffer variance, please let them know.
This is not the first time we have seen this problem of public notices that don't give needed information. Oconee County ran two public notices about the March 14, 2006, public hearing on its request to get a permit to begin discharging treated sewage water into Barber Creek. Neither one mentioned Barber Creek!
I have notified the EPD of this problem and will do so again at the public hearing we have been granted before the EPD at 7 p.m. on December 12. That meeting will be at the Oconee County Civic Center on Hog Mountain Road. Please plan to attend.
If you are someone who did not know that the County planned to dump treated sewage water into Barber Creek until after that March 14 hearing, please speak up at that hearing. If you know others in that position, please have them attend and speak up as well.
We're lining up speakers for that hearing, so please let me know if you can speak to this point or others regarding the Oconee County permit request.
If you are willing to write to the EPD to reinforce my point that the notice about the buffer variance request by Fortner Construction is not adequate to inform the public about the issue at hand, please let me know and I'll provide you with the details on how to write.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Written 11/14/06
Oconee Sewage Plants Sometimes Fail
Oconee County has had at least five malfunctions or other problems with its two sewage treatment plants since February of 2003 that were serious enough to require notification of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD).
In one case, involving the Calls Creek plant in Watkinsville, the problem caused die offs in the creek and strong chemical odors. In another case, at the county’s only other sewage treatment plant, on Rocky Branch road, standing sewage was removed from a ditch leading to a creek that feeds to Barber Creek, but 200-300 gallons of sewage may have entered the creek before the sewage was removed from the ditch.
Evidence of these problems comes for an examination of the notices the county files with the EPD as required by law when it has a problem with operation of its plants. The EPD granted me access to those records after I filed an open records request.
For the most part, the five problems resulted from routine failures at plants that process sewage. The amount of contamination was relatively small. The cases illustrate, nonetheless, a simple point. Sewage treatment plants sometimes fail.
Vickie Yarbrough, environmental specialist with the EPD working out of its Northeast District Office in Athens, said she has found Oconee County to be "highly compliant" with EPD regulations. She has responsibility for monitoring the records provided to her by Oconee County as required by its EPD permits.
Oconee County has asked for a permit to expand its Rocky Branch plant from 0.4 million gallons per day (MGD) to 1.0 MGD. At present, the County does not have a permit to discharge water from Rocky Branch into any stream. The treated water is sprayed on hay fields at the facility.
The County wants to discontinue operation of its current system, called a Land Application System (LAS), and begin treating wastewater via a membrane filter system. The treated wastewater will be sprayed on the fields, sold to reuse customers, or discharged into Barber Creek. The permit being sought would allow the county to discharge the full amount into Barber Creek at any time. The County is most likely to actually discharge the full amount to Barber Creek in periods of heavy rain, when the spray fields will be saturated and when reuse customers don’t want any more water. Barber Creek at that time also is likely to be running full of water.
The draft permit spells out what the county must do if there is a malfunction at the plant. In essence, the County has to inform the EPD of the problem and indicate how it is going to fix it. The five reports filed by the County since 2003 illustrate the procedures.
According to one of those reports, the EPD met on March 11, 2004, with representatives of Watkinsville’s Ameripride Uniform Services to discuss evidence of elevated metals concentrations in the wastewater discharge from the Calls Creek plant. The details were in a letter of April 29, 2004, in the EPD files. Calls Creek in Watkinsville treats the discharges from Ameripride.
During February, June and November of 2003, according to the letter, the Calls Creek plant violated its discharge permit by causing "biological die offs" and producing "strong chemical odors."
On January 23, 2004, the Oconee County Utility Department sampled the Ameripride discharge, according to the letter, and test results indicated elevated levels of copper, lead and zinc.
The letter said Oconee County would receive approval from the EPD for a local pretreatment program to deal with the Ameripride discharge in the future.
The Ameripride case illustrates the added problems of treating waste from industrial sites. That is important because Oconee County earlier this year sought to lure a pharmaceutical manufacturer to the Orkin Tract on SR316 and US78 and has indicated it will continue to seek industrial manufacturers of this sort for the site.
Discharge from the sought-after pharmaceutical plant was to be directed to Rocky Branch for treatment. At present, the County has no plans in place for pretreatment of that waste, Chris Thomas, assistant director of the Utility Department, said in an email message to me this year. In fact, he said, at present the County doesn’t even have standards for treatment of industrial waste and relies on the EPD for such regulations.
The second documented problem with sewage treatment in the County occurred on July 2, 2004, when the County informed the EPD that it had experienced a sewer overflow at the Rocky Branch plant due to a "faulty air relief valve on the corner of Rocky Branch road and Malcolm Bridge road." Sewage entered a drainage ditch leading to a creek crossing under Rocky Branch road. An estimated 200-300 gallons of "sewage may have entered" the creek, according to the letter.
The manufacturer of the valve was asked to help determine the cause of the failure, the letter stated.
On March 9, 2005, the County informed the EPD that a sewer line repair on Calls Creek resulted "in leakage entering state waters." The estimated spill was 50 gallons. The problem was caused by erosion surrounding the concrete piers supporting the pipe.
On July 7, 2005, the County informed the EPD that the collection system for the Rocky Branch LAS "has experienced major infiltration due to the rainfall in excess of five inches" that occurred the night before. Three pump stations were underwater, though one continued to operate. The others were shut down until the water could be drained.
On February 14, 2005, the County reported a sewage spill in a pasture off SR316 near McNutt Creek road because of a blockage in the line. The county had to call in a pumper truck to suck up and remove the spillage. The County sampled waters in nearby Barber Creek above and below the site and found a small increase in colliform below the site.
Oconee County is not the only County planning to discharge wastewater in Barber Creek. Barrow County has received a permit to discharge up to 1.5 MGD of treated wastewater into Barber Creek several miles from where the Rocky Branch plant will make its discharge.
In addition, Oconee County has indicated it may eventually expand the Rocky Branch plant to 4.0 MGD of discharge, though it does not yet have a permit for that purpose. The County also is considering discharging from the Rocky Branch plant into the Apalachee. It has received Waste Load Allocations to discharge up to 2.0 MGD into the Apalachee, but it must obtain a permit before it can actually use the allocations.
The Rocky Branch plant is located on Rocky Branch road near the intersection with Hog Mountain road. The treatment plant is just behind the new high school.
The Calls Creek plant, in Watkinsville behind the Fire Station on SR15 near its intersection with US441, has a permit to discharge 0.67 MGD into Calls Creek.
The County is seeking to upgrade the Rocky Branch plant because it has promised sewage capacity to developers it does not currently have. According to a report by the Utility Department earlier this year, as of February 1, 2006, the county had commitments to treat 60,550 gallons per days of sewage beyond what its current plants can handle.
Oconee Sewage Plants Sometimes Fail
Oconee County has had at least five malfunctions or other problems with its two sewage treatment plants since February of 2003 that were serious enough to require notification of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD).
In one case, involving the Calls Creek plant in Watkinsville, the problem caused die offs in the creek and strong chemical odors. In another case, at the county’s only other sewage treatment plant, on Rocky Branch road, standing sewage was removed from a ditch leading to a creek that feeds to Barber Creek, but 200-300 gallons of sewage may have entered the creek before the sewage was removed from the ditch.
Evidence of these problems comes for an examination of the notices the county files with the EPD as required by law when it has a problem with operation of its plants. The EPD granted me access to those records after I filed an open records request.
For the most part, the five problems resulted from routine failures at plants that process sewage. The amount of contamination was relatively small. The cases illustrate, nonetheless, a simple point. Sewage treatment plants sometimes fail.
Vickie Yarbrough, environmental specialist with the EPD working out of its Northeast District Office in Athens, said she has found Oconee County to be "highly compliant" with EPD regulations. She has responsibility for monitoring the records provided to her by Oconee County as required by its EPD permits.
Oconee County has asked for a permit to expand its Rocky Branch plant from 0.4 million gallons per day (MGD) to 1.0 MGD. At present, the County does not have a permit to discharge water from Rocky Branch into any stream. The treated water is sprayed on hay fields at the facility.
The County wants to discontinue operation of its current system, called a Land Application System (LAS), and begin treating wastewater via a membrane filter system. The treated wastewater will be sprayed on the fields, sold to reuse customers, or discharged into Barber Creek. The permit being sought would allow the county to discharge the full amount into Barber Creek at any time. The County is most likely to actually discharge the full amount to Barber Creek in periods of heavy rain, when the spray fields will be saturated and when reuse customers don’t want any more water. Barber Creek at that time also is likely to be running full of water.
The draft permit spells out what the county must do if there is a malfunction at the plant. In essence, the County has to inform the EPD of the problem and indicate how it is going to fix it. The five reports filed by the County since 2003 illustrate the procedures.
According to one of those reports, the EPD met on March 11, 2004, with representatives of Watkinsville’s Ameripride Uniform Services to discuss evidence of elevated metals concentrations in the wastewater discharge from the Calls Creek plant. The details were in a letter of April 29, 2004, in the EPD files. Calls Creek in Watkinsville treats the discharges from Ameripride.
During February, June and November of 2003, according to the letter, the Calls Creek plant violated its discharge permit by causing "biological die offs" and producing "strong chemical odors."
On January 23, 2004, the Oconee County Utility Department sampled the Ameripride discharge, according to the letter, and test results indicated elevated levels of copper, lead and zinc.
The letter said Oconee County would receive approval from the EPD for a local pretreatment program to deal with the Ameripride discharge in the future.
The Ameripride case illustrates the added problems of treating waste from industrial sites. That is important because Oconee County earlier this year sought to lure a pharmaceutical manufacturer to the Orkin Tract on SR316 and US78 and has indicated it will continue to seek industrial manufacturers of this sort for the site.
Discharge from the sought-after pharmaceutical plant was to be directed to Rocky Branch for treatment. At present, the County has no plans in place for pretreatment of that waste, Chris Thomas, assistant director of the Utility Department, said in an email message to me this year. In fact, he said, at present the County doesn’t even have standards for treatment of industrial waste and relies on the EPD for such regulations.
The second documented problem with sewage treatment in the County occurred on July 2, 2004, when the County informed the EPD that it had experienced a sewer overflow at the Rocky Branch plant due to a "faulty air relief valve on the corner of Rocky Branch road and Malcolm Bridge road." Sewage entered a drainage ditch leading to a creek crossing under Rocky Branch road. An estimated 200-300 gallons of "sewage may have entered" the creek, according to the letter.
The manufacturer of the valve was asked to help determine the cause of the failure, the letter stated.
On March 9, 2005, the County informed the EPD that a sewer line repair on Calls Creek resulted "in leakage entering state waters." The estimated spill was 50 gallons. The problem was caused by erosion surrounding the concrete piers supporting the pipe.
On July 7, 2005, the County informed the EPD that the collection system for the Rocky Branch LAS "has experienced major infiltration due to the rainfall in excess of five inches" that occurred the night before. Three pump stations were underwater, though one continued to operate. The others were shut down until the water could be drained.
On February 14, 2005, the County reported a sewage spill in a pasture off SR316 near McNutt Creek road because of a blockage in the line. The county had to call in a pumper truck to suck up and remove the spillage. The County sampled waters in nearby Barber Creek above and below the site and found a small increase in colliform below the site.
Oconee County is not the only County planning to discharge wastewater in Barber Creek. Barrow County has received a permit to discharge up to 1.5 MGD of treated wastewater into Barber Creek several miles from where the Rocky Branch plant will make its discharge.
In addition, Oconee County has indicated it may eventually expand the Rocky Branch plant to 4.0 MGD of discharge, though it does not yet have a permit for that purpose. The County also is considering discharging from the Rocky Branch plant into the Apalachee. It has received Waste Load Allocations to discharge up to 2.0 MGD into the Apalachee, but it must obtain a permit before it can actually use the allocations.
The Rocky Branch plant is located on Rocky Branch road near the intersection with Hog Mountain road. The treatment plant is just behind the new high school.
The Calls Creek plant, in Watkinsville behind the Fire Station on SR15 near its intersection with US441, has a permit to discharge 0.67 MGD into Calls Creek.
The County is seeking to upgrade the Rocky Branch plant because it has promised sewage capacity to developers it does not currently have. According to a report by the Utility Department earlier this year, as of February 1, 2006, the county had commitments to treat 60,550 gallons per days of sewage beyond what its current plants can handle.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Written on 11/05/06
Candidate Forum a Success
The Candidate Forum on November 1 at the Oconee County Library was quite successful. More than 60 people showed up. The questions asked were excellent.
District 46 Georgia Senate candidates Bill Cowsert and Jane Kidd and District 113 Georgia House candidate Becky Vaughn spent more than two hours taking questions on topics such as education funding, preservation of the county’s natural resources, immigration, transportation and incentives given to businesses wishing to locate in the county.
After promising to either attend the Forum or send a representative, incumbent District 113 representative Bob Smith did neither. His son read an apology from Mr. Smith and then departed. The statement said Mr. Smith had a commitment to attend a meeting in Savannah.
I had spoken personally with Mr. Smith on October 12 when he failed to respond to my email message of October 9 inviting him and the other three candidates to the forum. Mr. Smith said he had received my email, but he had concerns about the open format. Yet he promised to attend the Forum or send a representative, and he said he hoped to attend in person. His campaign manager, Gabriel Sterling, raised additional questions about the format in a series of email messages in the next two weeks. The day before the Forum, Mr. Sterling relayed a message to me through a colleague that two hours was more than Mr. Smith was willing to commit, but he would attend.
In the apology for not attending read by his son, Mr. Smith said the Savannah meeting was of a legislative committee dealing with technical colleges in the state.
The Forum was organized by citizen groups Citizens for Oconee’s Future, Citizens for South Oconee County, Friends of Barber Creek, Friends of the Apalachee and Oconee Citizens for Responsible Growth. Representatives of these five groups posed the first questions.
I’ve listed the question posed by Karen Kimbaris for Friends of Barber Creek below as well as the full responses of the candidates. Karen’s question dealt with the state Environment Protection Division, which is very important for our work.
I’ve also listed a question by Charlie Baugh of Citizens for Oconee’s Future. Charlie’s question dealt with House Bill 218, which the 2005 General Assembly voted on but did not pass. The Bill, roundly attacked by news media and citizen groups around the state, would have allowed governments, including ours in Oconee County, to make secret developmental deals. This is a particularly important issue for us because of County efforts to lure businesses to Oconee. The Orkin tract at SR316 and US78 has been marketed extensively by the state and the County, including this spring when a pharmaceutical company was courted. Only after the fact did we hear what kinds of promises were made. Included in them was a promise of sewage services. The discharge was targeted for Barber Creek!
I wish I could provide a transcript of all of the questions and responses. That would take much more time than I have. I hope these two questions and answers are helpful.
Please vote on Tuesday. As these two questions indicate, it really will make a difference who is elected to represent us at the General Assembly in Atlanta.
Question by Karen Kimbaris from Friends of Barber Creek: Our group has found it very important to work with the state Environmental Protection Division in our efforts to get the stormwater ordinance passed and also to get hearings on a permit to discharge to wastewater into Barber Creek. What can you do as a representative of our county to assist us in working with the Envirommental Protection Division.
Jane Kidd
Well, we can make sure they are responsive. And if that is a problem then that is something you would call a state Senator or a state Rep about and try to make sure that that is taken care of. I think of lot of it is an education process for the community and for all involved. The rivers are so important that to use any river for that kind of intensive wastewater treatment is a very sensitive issue and I think you need to be assured of the technical assistance to make it work well or you need to look at other options and other locations for the wastewater treatment. It is very expensive and costly enterprise but it usually is handled with bonds and that is an option you have to look at and make sure it is done the way you need it to be. And complain. A lot of people don’t complain enough. I know you all have done it at lot and rightly so. I applaud your group for being as active as you have been and showing up at the meetings. Every T needs to be crossed and ever I dotted before you sign on to a plan that is potentially going to leave a river very dirty and maybe irreparable.
Bill Cowsert
I don’t really think from the state legislature level you can micro manage the EPD. There may be certain rules or regulations or laws that we have to pass that they have to live by. I think part of it is your priorities. That is really reflected as much in funding as anything. I don’t believe the EPD has been adequately funded. If you are sitting there voting on the budget and allocation of the resources, we need to fund the EPD so they can do their job and let those experts do their job. We have some very qualified people there that would like to enforce better than they are able to but they just don’t have the resources to do it. You learn when you sit at these forums. This is the sixth or seventh we have sat at. We have heard a lot of these questions before. But you learn a lot from other people’s answers and from the questions. One thing I picked up on last week is that there are certain impact fees paid by the developers that is dedicated to environment protection but doesn’t necessarily get there in the budget. That is something I would like to see and plan to do in the Senate. Let’s make sure that these funds, like trust funds we set aside, go to the EPD, in the case of your question.
Becky Vaughn
I very much agree with Bill on several things. It bothers me in the state legislature and I’ve seen it happen a lot that we pass these laws about what you can and can’t do and it sounds great. Especially when you go back home and you say I supported this and I supported that. But then they don’t fund the enforcement. So it looks good on the books but if there is nobody there to follow up then it might as well not have been passed. I learned a lot about the problems that the EPD in my work in as head of the Georgia Council on Substance Abuse. As many of you know, methamphetamine has gotten to be a huge issue in this state and obviously impacted a lot of the work I do. But it has become a serious environmental problem. They are being called constantly about cleanup and this kind of stuff. They don’t have the workforce they need to do what you are talking about much less jump into a new area. And we have kind of a history of doing that. In education we said what the schools can do and what the schools can’t do and yet we don’t fund the mechanism to make that happen. There are some dynamite, dedicated people at EPD. I mean just very dedicated to what they do but they cannot get to everything they know is out there and it is very frustrating to them too. I cannot micro manage EPD but I do think one of the roles of your representative and your senator is if you are having trouble getting a response as Jane said you do call them and say this is supposed to happen and I cannot get people to response. It is a time sensitive issue. You cannot file a complaint and they get around to it 18 months later. That goes along with the urgency. If we are going say that this is part of the state and say that these are the rules then you’ve got to fund the enforcement or quit and go home.
Question by Charlie Baugh, Citizens for Oconee’s Future: Last year there was a bill introduced in the House, House Bill 218, that would have allowed secret negotiations for development opportunities at the local level. It would have allowed totally secret negotiations to occur to the point of a deal being made before citizens would have had input. I would like to know how you would vote if that comes up again in the future.
Jane Kidd
I voted against 218...I always side on the need for the public to know especially when it is public money and private citizen’s money being spent. 218 went too far and shielded the information way too long and the deal was actually going to be done before the information was disclosed to the public and that was too far and too closed so I would not vote for it again...
Bill Cowsert
I think we need to reach a consensus as a community, as a state, as to what type of incentives we are willing to give to induce businesses to locate here. That is really what 218 was about when the state is offering incentive packages to industries to try to induce them to locate in the state of Georgia...As a general philosophy I believe in open government...In this particular area there has to be some level of privacy or you are tying your hands behind your back to be able to negotiate at all...We will never win in these competition unless we have some level of secrecy...
Becky Vaughn
I would have voted against that bill. It went absolutely too far in terms of keeping from public disclosure things likes records, agreements, impact assessments, those types of things...There is a fine line there, but when you look at other states, the ones that are willing to take it far down the line and keep things secret are ones that don’t have a lot to attract business and so they are trying to play the game this way in terms of making those types of offers...My standard answer is: masks are for Halloween, they are not for government.
Bob Smith voted for HB 218.
Candidate Forum a Success
The Candidate Forum on November 1 at the Oconee County Library was quite successful. More than 60 people showed up. The questions asked were excellent.
District 46 Georgia Senate candidates Bill Cowsert and Jane Kidd and District 113 Georgia House candidate Becky Vaughn spent more than two hours taking questions on topics such as education funding, preservation of the county’s natural resources, immigration, transportation and incentives given to businesses wishing to locate in the county.
After promising to either attend the Forum or send a representative, incumbent District 113 representative Bob Smith did neither. His son read an apology from Mr. Smith and then departed. The statement said Mr. Smith had a commitment to attend a meeting in Savannah.
I had spoken personally with Mr. Smith on October 12 when he failed to respond to my email message of October 9 inviting him and the other three candidates to the forum. Mr. Smith said he had received my email, but he had concerns about the open format. Yet he promised to attend the Forum or send a representative, and he said he hoped to attend in person. His campaign manager, Gabriel Sterling, raised additional questions about the format in a series of email messages in the next two weeks. The day before the Forum, Mr. Sterling relayed a message to me through a colleague that two hours was more than Mr. Smith was willing to commit, but he would attend.
In the apology for not attending read by his son, Mr. Smith said the Savannah meeting was of a legislative committee dealing with technical colleges in the state.
The Forum was organized by citizen groups Citizens for Oconee’s Future, Citizens for South Oconee County, Friends of Barber Creek, Friends of the Apalachee and Oconee Citizens for Responsible Growth. Representatives of these five groups posed the first questions.
I’ve listed the question posed by Karen Kimbaris for Friends of Barber Creek below as well as the full responses of the candidates. Karen’s question dealt with the state Environment Protection Division, which is very important for our work.
I’ve also listed a question by Charlie Baugh of Citizens for Oconee’s Future. Charlie’s question dealt with House Bill 218, which the 2005 General Assembly voted on but did not pass. The Bill, roundly attacked by news media and citizen groups around the state, would have allowed governments, including ours in Oconee County, to make secret developmental deals. This is a particularly important issue for us because of County efforts to lure businesses to Oconee. The Orkin tract at SR316 and US78 has been marketed extensively by the state and the County, including this spring when a pharmaceutical company was courted. Only after the fact did we hear what kinds of promises were made. Included in them was a promise of sewage services. The discharge was targeted for Barber Creek!
I wish I could provide a transcript of all of the questions and responses. That would take much more time than I have. I hope these two questions and answers are helpful.
Please vote on Tuesday. As these two questions indicate, it really will make a difference who is elected to represent us at the General Assembly in Atlanta.
Question by Karen Kimbaris from Friends of Barber Creek: Our group has found it very important to work with the state Environmental Protection Division in our efforts to get the stormwater ordinance passed and also to get hearings on a permit to discharge to wastewater into Barber Creek. What can you do as a representative of our county to assist us in working with the Envirommental Protection Division.
Jane Kidd
Well, we can make sure they are responsive. And if that is a problem then that is something you would call a state Senator or a state Rep about and try to make sure that that is taken care of. I think of lot of it is an education process for the community and for all involved. The rivers are so important that to use any river for that kind of intensive wastewater treatment is a very sensitive issue and I think you need to be assured of the technical assistance to make it work well or you need to look at other options and other locations for the wastewater treatment. It is very expensive and costly enterprise but it usually is handled with bonds and that is an option you have to look at and make sure it is done the way you need it to be. And complain. A lot of people don’t complain enough. I know you all have done it at lot and rightly so. I applaud your group for being as active as you have been and showing up at the meetings. Every T needs to be crossed and ever I dotted before you sign on to a plan that is potentially going to leave a river very dirty and maybe irreparable.
Bill Cowsert
I don’t really think from the state legislature level you can micro manage the EPD. There may be certain rules or regulations or laws that we have to pass that they have to live by. I think part of it is your priorities. That is really reflected as much in funding as anything. I don’t believe the EPD has been adequately funded. If you are sitting there voting on the budget and allocation of the resources, we need to fund the EPD so they can do their job and let those experts do their job. We have some very qualified people there that would like to enforce better than they are able to but they just don’t have the resources to do it. You learn when you sit at these forums. This is the sixth or seventh we have sat at. We have heard a lot of these questions before. But you learn a lot from other people’s answers and from the questions. One thing I picked up on last week is that there are certain impact fees paid by the developers that is dedicated to environment protection but doesn’t necessarily get there in the budget. That is something I would like to see and plan to do in the Senate. Let’s make sure that these funds, like trust funds we set aside, go to the EPD, in the case of your question.
Becky Vaughn
I very much agree with Bill on several things. It bothers me in the state legislature and I’ve seen it happen a lot that we pass these laws about what you can and can’t do and it sounds great. Especially when you go back home and you say I supported this and I supported that. But then they don’t fund the enforcement. So it looks good on the books but if there is nobody there to follow up then it might as well not have been passed. I learned a lot about the problems that the EPD in my work in as head of the Georgia Council on Substance Abuse. As many of you know, methamphetamine has gotten to be a huge issue in this state and obviously impacted a lot of the work I do. But it has become a serious environmental problem. They are being called constantly about cleanup and this kind of stuff. They don’t have the workforce they need to do what you are talking about much less jump into a new area. And we have kind of a history of doing that. In education we said what the schools can do and what the schools can’t do and yet we don’t fund the mechanism to make that happen. There are some dynamite, dedicated people at EPD. I mean just very dedicated to what they do but they cannot get to everything they know is out there and it is very frustrating to them too. I cannot micro manage EPD but I do think one of the roles of your representative and your senator is if you are having trouble getting a response as Jane said you do call them and say this is supposed to happen and I cannot get people to response. It is a time sensitive issue. You cannot file a complaint and they get around to it 18 months later. That goes along with the urgency. If we are going say that this is part of the state and say that these are the rules then you’ve got to fund the enforcement or quit and go home.
Question by Charlie Baugh, Citizens for Oconee’s Future: Last year there was a bill introduced in the House, House Bill 218, that would have allowed secret negotiations for development opportunities at the local level. It would have allowed totally secret negotiations to occur to the point of a deal being made before citizens would have had input. I would like to know how you would vote if that comes up again in the future.
Jane Kidd
I voted against 218...I always side on the need for the public to know especially when it is public money and private citizen’s money being spent. 218 went too far and shielded the information way too long and the deal was actually going to be done before the information was disclosed to the public and that was too far and too closed so I would not vote for it again...
Bill Cowsert
I think we need to reach a consensus as a community, as a state, as to what type of incentives we are willing to give to induce businesses to locate here. That is really what 218 was about when the state is offering incentive packages to industries to try to induce them to locate in the state of Georgia...As a general philosophy I believe in open government...In this particular area there has to be some level of privacy or you are tying your hands behind your back to be able to negotiate at all...We will never win in these competition unless we have some level of secrecy...
Becky Vaughn
I would have voted against that bill. It went absolutely too far in terms of keeping from public disclosure things likes records, agreements, impact assessments, those types of things...There is a fine line there, but when you look at other states, the ones that are willing to take it far down the line and keep things secret are ones that don’t have a lot to attract business and so they are trying to play the game this way in terms of making those types of offers...My standard answer is: masks are for Halloween, they are not for government.
Bob Smith voted for HB 218.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Written 10/23/06
County Eyes Apalachee for Wastewater
Oconee County has received a preliminary allocation from the state of Georgia to discharge up to 2 million gallons per day of treated waste water from the Rocky Branch sewage plant into the Apalachee River.
Such a Waste Load Allocation (WLA) is required before the County can seek permission to discharge into the Apalachee. So far, the County appears not to have followed up on the allocation. It has until June 13, 2007, to do so.
The request for the WLA for the Apalachee is one of at least four such requests the County has made of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) since 2003. The County has made two requests for WLAs for the Middle Oconee River and one for Barber Creek. One of the Middle Oconee requests also included a request for Calls Creek.
The County has used the WLA for Barber Creek by requesting an application to begin discharging 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated sewage water into the creek. The state EPD has drafted a permit for the County and sought public comment. At least 60 letters have been sent to the state asking for a hearing on that draft permit. No decision has yet been announced on the requests for a hearing.
Oconee County has refused to adopt a Waste Water Treatment Master Plan, though it has received two drafts of plans from its consultants, Jordan Jones & Goulding of Atlanta, and it indicated after the first draft was received that a plan would be adopted. The lack of a plan makes it difficult to understand exactly why the County is seeking WLAs for the Apalachee and other streams.
County officials have given conflicting statements about plans for future sewage treatment in the County.
The WLA given to Oconee County is the first given by the state for direct discharge into the Apalachee. Jeffrey Larson, manager of the Permitting, Compliance and Enforcement Program at EPD, wrote to me on August 18, 2006, saying that two permits for discharge into the Apalachee watershed already have been issued by the EPD, and that "two waste load allocations have been granted for direct discharges to the Apalachee River."
Both of the allocations Mr. Larson is referring would seem to be for Oconee County, as the WLA the County received is actually for two separate discharges, one of 1.0 MGD and the other of 2.0 MGD. The County could use one or the other.
The County wrote to the EPD back in April of 2005 requesting "two separate" planning level waste load allocations (PWLA) "for discharges of 1.0 and 2.0 MGD, respectively, into the Apalachee River."
The letter, written on behalf of the County by Jim Sunta of Precision Planning, Inc, of Lawrenceville (PPI), said that discharge into the Apalachee "may also be feasible as an alternate to Barber Creek." But the letter further said that "the County believes that future development may eventually require an ultimate expansion of the Rocky Branch WRF (Water Reclamation Facility) to 2.0 MGD."
In fact, PPI, in the Antidegradation Review it produced for the County in December of 2005, said that "Preliminary studies have indicated that once the proposed project (expansion of Rocky Branch to 1.0 MGD) is completed, the facilities can be upgraded to produce as much as 4.0 MGD of reuse quality effluent without requiring additional land or encroaching on existing buffer areas."
The discharge into the Apalachee would be "approximately 3,000 feet downstream of its crossing by U.S. Highway 78," according to the April 28 letter to the EPD. The waste water would be pumped from the Rocky Branch plant along Hog Mountain Road much of the way to the Apalachee.
Expansion of the Rocky Branch plant to 4.0 MGD is contrary to the recommendation of Jordan Jones & Goulding (JJG). In the March 2004 Draft Report Wastewater System Master Plan, JJG recommended the following:
* Construction of a new Middle Oconee Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) by 2012 that discharges treated flow to the Middle Oconee River. The initial capacity of the plant would be 2.0 MGD, with an expansion to 4.5 MGD by 2017.
* Expand the existing Calls Creek Water Pollution Control Plan to 1.0 MGD in 2009. When this capacity is exceeded around 2012 and the Middle Oconee WPCP is operating, Calls Creek would be decommissioned.
* Expand the Rocky Branch LAS to 0.9 MGD in 2008. By 2015, flows to Rocky Branch would exceed this capacity. At this time, it should be decommissioned or retained as a source of reclaimed water for secondary use in the surrounding area.
In February 2005, JJG released the Final Report Utility Department Long Range Wastewater Strategies. It recommended the following:
* Construction of a new Middle Oconee Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) by 2012 that discharges treated flow to the Middle Oconee River. The initial capacity of the plant would be 2.0 MGD (million gallons per day), with an expansion to 4.5 MGD by 2017.
* Expand the existing Calls Creek Water Pollution Control Plan to 1.0 MGD in 2009. When this capacity is exceeded around 2012 and the Middle Oconee WPCP is operating, Calls Creek would be decommissioned.
* Expand the Rocky Branch LAS to 1.0 MGD in 2008. Continue operation of this plant through 2025. Possibly decommission the Land Application System LAS portion of the facility when other capacity is available.
In a story in The Oconee Enterprise of Sept. 21, 2006, Gary Dodd, Oconee County Utility Department Director, said:
"One suggestion by our consultants was the phasing out of existing plants like Calls Creek. It was not acceptable because EPD will not allow any additional loading on the Middle Oconee."
Assistant Utility Department Director Chris Thomas, in an e-mail message he sent me on March 24 of this year, said:
"...(W)e will continue to pursue a regional wastewater plant on the Oconee River that will handle the needs of Oconee and Athens."
In that same message, Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the Antidegradation Review prepared by PPI for the County does indicate that the Rocky Branch plant could be expanded to 4.0 MGD of discharge. Mr. Thomas added:
"As far as we are aware it (the Review) does not mention that Barber Creek would be capable of receiving an additional 3 MGD of effluent and we have not requested a waste load allocation for the additional 3 MGD."
In late 2003, just before the JJG draft Master Plan was released, the EPD granted Oconee County WLAs of 0.67 MGD, 1.0 MGD and 2.0 MGD for Calls Creek and 1.0 MGD and 2.0 MGD for the Middle Oconee River. All allocations were valid until December 16, 2004. The Calls Creek plant was upgraded in 2004 and currently has a permit to discharge 0.67 MGD of treated water into Calls Creek.
In July of 2004, Oconee County sought WLAs of 2.0 MGD and 4.5 MGD for the Middle Oconee River. On June 15, 2005, the EPD wrote to the County, rejecting the requests. The letter states:
"Water Quality modeling results show that there is no available assimilative capacity for oxygen demanding constituents in the Middle Oconee and Oconee Rivers downstream of the proposed discharge. The results of the WLA indicate that a WLA cannot be granted to this new facility in the Middle Oconee River at this time."
Both the Middle Oconee River and the Oconee River border Oconee County. David Bullard of the EPD has indicated (in an email message of late September that was forwarded to me) that Oconee County’s second request was denied "because the Athens facilities have been allocated the permittable assimilative capacity in this section of the river."
If the EPD grants the request for a hearing on Oconee County’s request for a permit to begin discharging treated wastewater into Barber Creek, we can ask for an explanation of the on-again off-again WLAs for the Middle Oconee. We also should be able to get an answer on how much more treated sewage water the EPD believes Barber Creek can handle.
Barrow County has been granted a permit to discharge 1.5 MGD of treated wastewater into Barber Creek from a plant it is building in Statham.
The WLA for the Apalachee was granted to Oconee County on June 14, 2006, though this has not been discussed openly. I knew that a request had been made because of an open records request made regarding the Rocky Branch facility late last year.
I asked Chris Thomas of the County Utility Department on September 23, 2006, if the state had responded to the County’s request for a waste load allocation. He indicated three days later he would "look into it" for me. On September 29, he wrote back saying I could get a copy of the state’s response if I came to the Utility Department office to pay for the copying ($0.50). I did so a few days later.
In fact, I should have been given this document in response to an open records request I filed with the County for Mr. Dodd on August 11, 2006. In that letter, I wrote:
"Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Law (O.C.G.A § 50-18-70 et seq.) (the "Law"), you are hereby requested to make available for review and copying all files, records and other documents in your possessions that refer, reflect or relate to the County’s request for a permit to discharge wastewater from the Rocky Branch Waste Treatment Plant into Barber Creek and that were produced after February 24, 2006."
Clearly the WLA for the Apalachee is related to the request for the Barber Creek permit. The documents even say that. Clearly, County officials are not interested in helping citizens understand all the options being considered.
Let’s hope the EPD grants the request for a hearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)