Agenda - 10-07-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS Page 2 20 Protection of water supplies through prevention of pollution at its source is much better, much cheaper, and much more certain than clean up or treatment after the fact. Just bemuse W5- IV waters are axpeptable to use and drink with appropriate treatment does not mean that all watersheds should be allowed to degrade to that level. .0104( c) Standard for Classification: The Commission should use the criteria of "highest and best use" for classification as originally proposed rather than the proposed "most appropriate" standard. .0104(1) Exemptions: Proposed changes in the this section give the EMC the power to grant exemptions to any section of the rules on a case -by -case basis for any reason. While exemptions may be necessary in certain cases, such sweeping power is unwise and runs counter to the goals for these rules. Criteria for considering exemptions should be retained, as in the current provision that varian&s are to assist in obtaining a higher classification. The exemption authority could be used as a reason for adopting a stricter set of rules, knowing that exemptions can be made upon a reasnable showing, rather than settling for the "lowest common denominator ". However, if this section is adopted as proposed, it is more likely that it will be seen as an open invitation for interests unhappy with even minimal restrictions on land use in the name of protecting water supplies. The ENC can expect a flood of politically motivated requests for exemptions. .0104( g) Agricultural Activities: As a basic principle of fairness, we believe that agricultural activities should be treated the same as other activities which have the potential for threatening surface water supplies. The proposed change., unnecessarily favor special agricultural interests and subject water supplies to unnecessary risk. It is unwise and inadequate to rely on existing conservation programs to assure protection of surface water. Conventional agriculture is a - -by some measures the - - leading contributor to non -point pollution despite substantial efforts to reduce runoff. Compliance with the 1985 and 1990 farm bills is important, but their provisions are not designed to protect water supply watersheds. It is, for example, folly to presume that such measures are sufficient for pristine WS -1 and predominantly undeveloped WS -II watersheds. Even when conservation plans are adequate, compliance and enforcement often are not. Some operators may be too small to be affected by farm bill provisions. And, as we noted last year, many conservation programs designed to reduce soil runoff involve substantial increased use of pesticides, especially herbicides, which put ground and surface water at risk. This is hardly a trade -off that the EMC should seek.. We wholeheartedly support the NC Agricultural Cast Share Program (ACSP) and encourage farmers to participate in it. It is, however, important to note its limitations. Despite great interest and support from the General Assembly, the program is voluntary, underfunded, and unable to serve all the farmers who seek to participate. in some areas it is essentially a demonstration program. "Encouraging" use in the program, which is all the proposed rules would require, is inadequate and does nothing to protect watersheds from those unable or unwilling to participate. Performance is what is needed. If the goal to protect water supplies is to be met, there must be stronger incentives than just "encouragement" for farmers in water supply watersheds to use effective BMP's: The rules should require demonstration that agricultural activities provide the equivalent protection of the 100 foot buffer which is required for other activities. If that can be achieved with a smaller buffer, and with cost - sharing, so much the better. We urge expansion of the cost -share program with an emphasis on the reduction of the use of ag chemicals which threaten water supplies.