Agenda - 11-19-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7. The City of Durham and Durham County encourage the Environmental Management Commission to modify the proposed rules to provide for shared responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater controls required under the high density option between the regulated jurisdiction and the jurisdiction(s) benefitting from the water quality protection. Local governments that are regulated under the proposed rules and benefit from the high density option have some responsibility to prevent the pollution of downstream water supplies. However, the local jurisdiction that benefits from the higher water quality offered by stormwater controls have the most interest in seeing that those controls operate as they were designed. Therefore, those jurisdictions should share the cost and responsibility. For example, Durham would share with Person County the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater control facilities located in Person County to protect the Lake Michie water supply. Likewise, Raleigh would share with Durham the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater control facilities in Durham to protect the Falls Reservoir water quality. 8. The City of Durham and Durham County support the proposed WS-11 classification for Lake Michie and Little River reservoir watersheds. These two reservoirs offer high quality water and are clearly appropriate for the WS-II classification as defined in the proposed rules. This is supported by the information submitted by Durham County in March, 1991 to the Division of Environmental Management Commission on its Watershed Protection Questionnaires. The proposed rules are generally compatible with the watershed regulations currently enforced by Durham County in this area, which were based on the technical recommendations from the Camp, Dresser and McKee Watershed Management Study. 9. The City of Durham and Durham County encourage the Environmental Management Commission to a) consider allowing a 1110 percent at 70 percent" impervious surface credit in WS -1V watersheds, b) consider allowing a local government to transfer some or all of its "10 percent at 70 percent" impervious surface credit to other jurisdictions within the same watershed, and c) consider allowing a local government to transfer some or.all of its "10 percent at 70 percent" impervious surface credit from WS -111 areas to WS -1V areas in the same watershed. In Durham County's case, for example, some portion of the development potential represented by the "10 percent at 70 percent" provision in the Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir watersheds may be unused, because of low density land uses envisioned by our comprehensive land use plans. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider transferring "unused" impervious surfaces to upstream jurisdictions. In this example, this provision would enable the transferring of that impervious surface credit farther away from the water supply reservoirs. Similar transfer of impervious surface credit could apply to the Falls Reservoir and to the Jordan Reservoir. This type of transfer addresses equity issues related to benefits and burdens, objections based on land use plans and infrastructure investments as well as protection of water quality. 3 11_