|
Nearly 50 people turned out for a public hearing in Millsboro calling for state officials to approve a Pollution Control Strategy for the Inland Bays – but sharply criticizing the document in its current form. Several residents said a document that does not contain a strategy for buffers along Inland Bays waterways is not complete.
Others said the cost of implementing the strategy, an estimated $25 million annually, is excessive.
The fight to protect the sensitive Inland Bays ecosystem dates back to the 1960s. The pollution control strategy was intended to be a comprehensive measure to protect the bays from all types of pollution: agricultural runoff, increased development, stormwater and sediment control and wastewater.
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and the Center for the Inland Bays have been working on the strategy since 2000. They have developed numerous drafts, none of which has been signed into law by DNREC Secretary John Hughes. The most recent draft, published in April 2007, is similar to the previously published August 2006 version - except it excludes controversial requirements to establish buffers bordering new developments and to protect waterways and wetlands.
Buffers protect sensitive areas from runoff from farmland and new development. Environmentalists and developers have debated how wide buffers must be to protect sensitive areas.
Members of the Coalition, a development-interest lobbying group, argue that a 50-foot-wide buffer is sufficient, while members of the Center for the Inland Bays want a range of buffer options, including 100-foot buffers. The center also says it’s critical to regulate the organic material that can be planted in the buffer area.
Chris Bason, science and technical coordinator for the center, argues that the size of the buffer is not always the most important element of a buffer strategy. A forested buffer, he said, may be more effective than a turf grass buffer, regardless of width.
During the public hearing held Wednesday, June 13, in Millsboro, the buffer issue, although it is not part of the hearing document, remained the most contentious issue.
Ed Jestice, president of the Delaware Farm Bureau, said he does not want to see the strategy get signed into law without a section on buffers.
“The Farm Bureau is trying to find a workable solution to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus,” said Jestice. “We were first in searching for ways to reduce (these pollutants). For many months we have worked to create a new pollution control strategy that will protect the bays, while still preserving individual property rights. We preferred the August 2006 draft.”
Jestice said if the current draft is approved, it will not represent all of the work done by many people over the past months and years. He suggested DNREC keep the record open until the agency completes a revised strategy, including a buffer section. Then the document should be presented to Senate and House committees, prior to implementation.
“Buffers are a critical part of Hearing
Continued from page 9
this strategy,” said Jestice. “We have been at the table throughout this pollution control strategy process and we look forward to working through this.”
David Yeager of Selbyville said he is also concerned the buffer section has been excluded. He said he thinks it will just keep being put off and the bays will not get as much protection as they need.
“I know the (buffers) have been put on hold … but the bottom line is the longterm health of our water system,” said Yeager. “The Center for the Inland Bays has done a great service in studying this and has found we need 100-foot buffers. I know that upsets people, but there is an enormous difference between 50- and 100-foot buffers.”
Growing concerns
Besides buffers, there are other concerns with the current draft of the pollution control strategy, including costs of implementation and loss of private control.
Rich Collins of the Positive Growth Alliance and a member of the Coalition, said even without the problems associated with buffers, the document has other glitches.
In the Inland Bays watershed, there are approximately 18,212 septic systems, which discharge about 523 pounds of nitrogen and 44.5 pounds of phosphorus to the groundwater daily, assuming the septic systems are functioning properly.
Improvements to these systems and conversions from private septics to central sewer are estimated to cost more than $13.4 million.
“These costs will be entirely covered by those 18,000 residents,” said Collins.
DNREC is working to find federal grant money and currently has a program to help low-income families with sewer costs, said Kathy Bunting-Howarth, program manager for DNREC. But, the costs to homeowners will be significant.
In Appendix F of the document, Collins pointed out that cost estimates for on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems will be more than many residents can handle.
According to the document, septic conversions for advanced nitrogen removal could cost between $3,500 and $6,000 per system.
On top of that cost, residents will still need to maintain that system, which includes inspection and pump-out costs, said Collins.
Strategy outlines costs
“These technologies are believed to last for approximately 20 years and will be financed for the same amount of time. Using this time span and the average installation cost ($4,750), this figure capitalizes to $319/system/year,” reads the strategy.
“These technologies require a service contract by a certified service provider with an estimated annual cost that ranges from $150 to $300, with an average cost of $225/system/year, and they will need periodic mechanical parts repaired, estimated to cost $50/system/year and the electrical cost of running the systems is likely to also cost about $50/system/year.”
All of these costs amount to an average cost of $708 annually for each system. On average, that is $113 per pound of total nitrogen reduced.
“Is all this cost worth it?” asked Dan Wien.
“After spending all this money, are we going to get a report card that shows us exactly what that money bought us?”
John Schneider, water manager for DNREC, said it would take time for improvements to be noticed in the bays. Pollutants tend to stay in the ground and groundwater for five to 10 years, but all the tactics outlined in the strategy will help improve the overall quality of the Inland Bays watershed, he said.
Collins said he is not so sure, because it is nearly impossible to say exactly what a pollutant does when it enters the ground. He said the tactics outlined for septic systems could allow DNREC officials to walk onto a private resident’s property at any time for inspection.
In Appendix G of the strategy, it states “the Groundwater Discharges Section reserves the right to collect and analyze samples to ensure proper treatment levels and system performance.
“The permittee shall allow, at reasonable times, the Secretary of the DNREC, or his authorized representatives…to enter the permittee’s premises to inspect the on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system.
The Groundwater Discharges Section may increase inspection frequencies as warranted.”
Collins said these statements seem to allow DNREC to change mandatory inspections from every two years to more often. Inspections are costly to homeowners and it takes away their property rights if DNREC is allowed to walk in whenever they want, said Collins.
Another problem, Collins said, arises when a homeowner decides to sell.
Under the strategy, it requires a permit to be obtained 30 days before the property is transferred.
“This might hold up a sale,” said Collins, who said some homeowners like to sell quickly and should be able to, but would not be able to if the strategy is passed as it is written.
After the public hearings are completed on the strategy, it will go to Hughes, who can choose to sign it and implement the strategies or make changes.
A consulting firm has also been hired by DNREC in an attempt to resolve the buffer controversy.
For more information, visit www.dnrec.state.de.us
Contact Rachel Swick at: rswick@capegazette.com
|
