Agenda - 08-26-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

C. New Provisions for Agriculture and Transportation Essentially, the new rules proposed in this area replace current language encouraging the use of "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) in water supply watersheds with new language that is stronger. The Department of Transportation will be required to use BMP's in providing sufficient areas for spill containment, using riprap as opposed to concrete ditches, limiting grading operations and inspecting all devices at least annually. Of more interest to rural areas are the provisions for agriculture. The new proposed rules require agricultural activities to comply with existing Federal laws. In addition, all agricultural activities within critical areas of a water supply watershed would be required to have a 10 -foot vegetated buffer along all perennial waters. Further, all animal operations greater than 100 animals in critical areas must employ BMP's recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The agricultural measures have generated substantial comment. Beyond the questions of inflexibility and expense for farmers is another issue - what governmental entity has the power to enforce these regulations for agriculture? (Agricultural operations are exempted from county zoning powers by state law). D. Wastewater Discharge Flexibility The proposed rules have added a section that would allow expansions of existing dischargers in a water supply watershed where new dischargers are prohibited - provided there is no increase in pollutant loading. The primary issue here seems to be how pollutant - loading would be measured. 3. "NEW" INTERPRETATIONS OF WATERSHED RULES The watershed "minimum rules" adopted by the EMC in December 1990 and new provisions added on June 14 are both written with a significant level of flexibility that can inhibit specific interpretation of the rules. There are two areas where a "different" interpretation of the intent of the rules has been recognized or put forward. One such interpretation resulted from a unintended deletion on an initial summary of the rules, and the other has been recently suggested by a staff person from the Division of Environmental Management. Neither interpretation was known at the time of the staff report. The first position relates to the linkage of density of development and impervious surface controls in WS -II (Predominantly Undeveloped) watersheds. Original summary rules indicated that new development in WS -II watersheds would be required to have an