environment
Friday, January 27, 2012
Orange County talks trash, next steps when landfill closes in 2013
The Orange County Board of Commissioners are committed to closing the local landfill, a burden that the Rogers Road-Eubanks community has been saddled with for 40 years now, in June 2013.
But, at last night’s Assembly of Governments meeting, leaders from the three Orange municipalities who dump garbage there as part of an interlocal agreement said they want to work together but differ on how to move forward. They have just 17 months to decide.
Chapel Hill is hiring a consultant, hopefully next month, to study its options and wants to consider keeping trash local and converting it to energy.
Carrboro is balking at the cost, both in dollars and in pollution, of the county’s plan to transport waste to Durham’s transfer station and then onto a landfill in Virginia. The Board of Alderman unanimously supports studying the feasibility of building a waste transfer station in Chapel Hill near the northwest intersection of N.C. Hwy 86 and I-40.
Hillsborough is OK with whatever everyone else decides so long as it doesn’t cost significantly more than what is being done now.
All want to offer remediation for Rogers-Eubanks and agreed to form a task force to work on creating a lasting community center for the neighborhood and on providing the water and sewer connections for neighbors that were promised when the site was built in 1972.
Friday, January 20, 2012
An attorney for plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit over the controversial 751 South development filed a notice in court Friday that they'll appeal a judge's ruling in favor of Durham County and the developers.
Property owners near the land to be developed, including the Chancellor's Ridge Homeowners Association, sued the county in 2010 over the county's decision to rezone the proposed site of the development. The 167 acres along N.C. 751 in the southwestern part of Durham County is in the watershed of Jordan Lake, a source of drinking water for several communities in the region. Neighbors and other opponents say they don't want to see such a dense development near the lake, arguing it will cause further environmental harm and traffic jams on N.C. 751.
Earlier this month, Superior Court Judge Henry Hight dismissed the lawsuit at the request of the defendant, Durham County, and Southern Durham Development, which had intervened in the case as an interested party.
It's unclear whether the appeal could cause additional hearings before the case heads to the N.C. Court of Appeals.
In related news, Southern Durham Development has not responded to a request from the Indy for information on $142,000 in overdue property taxes the company owes to Durham County. According to the county's online billing system, the taxes had not been paid as of Friday afternoon.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Judge: Controversial rezoning for 751 South was legal
Editor's note: This story has been modified since its original post.
A judge in Durham dismissed a lawsuit Friday (PDF) that opponents of the controversial 751 South development near Jordan Lake filed in 2010. The ruling means the judge agreed with the defendants, that the actions Durham County Commissioners took to rezone the case in 2010 were legal. No word yet on whether the plaintiffs will appeal.
Residents near the land to be developed brought the civil lawsuit against Durham County after Durham County Commissioners voted to rezone the land to allow a large, dense development along N.C. 751, which is near the environmentally sensitive lake in southern Durham County.
Numerous property owners had signed a protest petition against the project. By local law, if enough adjacent property owners petition, at least four of five commissioners have to approve the rezoning. And while the petition met all the requirements, a last-minute technicality involving a land-transfer to the N.C. Department of Transportation botched their efforts. The commissioners approved the rezoning by a 3-2 vote, a simple majority. (See a timeline of events)
The Chancellor's Ridge Homeowners Association was one property owner that signed a petition. The HOA sued the county saying its petition shouldn't have been invalidated on the technicality, and thus that commissioners didn't lawfully approve the rezoning. Many residents in the Chancellor's Ridge neighborhood, which is across from the 167 acres to be developed, have said they don't want to live through the estimated 10-year construction of 751 South, which could include 1,300 homes and apartments, plus shopping and office space.
But in his order Friday afternoon, Superior Court Judge Henry Hight sided with Durham County and the project's proponents Southern Durham Development, which intervened in the case and helped defend the county in the lawsuit. Hight granted the parties' request for a dismissal, essentially agreeing that the protest petition was no longer valid when commissioners rezoned the land for 751 South. Hight is a judge from Henderson who has just begun a regularly scheduled rotation presiding in Durham.
"I’m very disappointed," said Steve Bocckino, one of the most vocal opponents to the project. Bocckino was not a plaintiff in the case, but supported their cause. "I do think that Southern Durham Development was guilty at least of trickery in giving land to N.C. DOT and I’m sorry that the judge didn’t recognize that." Plaintiffs in the case couldn't be immediately reached for comment. It is unknown whether the plaintiffs will appeal the judge's findings. However, representatives of the plaintiffs had indicated in recent months that they would appeal if the case was not decided in their favor.
Southern Durham Development President Alex Mitchell issued a statement through his attorney: “We are pleased with Judge Hight’s decision. His order shows Southern Durham Development has consistently acted above board and within the law. We hope this puts to rest any concerns that may have been generated during the course of this lawsuit. We look forward to being part of Durham’s future success.”
Monday, January 9, 2012
If anyone in the General Assembly listened to the scientists at the hydraulic fracturing workshop at Duke University today, then any pro-fracking legislation should be dead in North Carolina. That’s not a given: Last week, the GOP-led majority threatened a midnight override to Gov. Perdue’s veto of Senate Bill 709, which would have opened the door to fracking in North Carolina, but the party couldn’t muster the votes.
Considering the Legislature’s shenanigans over the past year, we shouldn’t assume the majority would base a vote on facts. But for the rest of you who don’t have campaign coffers to fill and political favors to return, here’s the take-home message about fracking: Based on available data, which admittedly is limited in some cases, fracking is fraught with environmental hazards, including air and water pollution, and it may contribute to, or even accelerate the pace of, climate change.
The public event was five-and-a-half hours long—you can watch an archive of the livestream—so I’ll touch only on the main environmental points:
Fracking requires water, a lot of it, to combine with other chemicals so drillers can force the fluid into cracks below the ground, thus releasing the gas. How much water? Around 2 million to 4 million gallons per well. Pennsylvania has 1,400 of these wells, and if you do the math, said Avner Vengosh, Duke University professor of geochemistry and water quality, fracking operations in that state use an average of about 15 million gallons of water per day. For comparison’s sake, he noted that Durham customers use 20 million to 25 million gallons of water per day.
It’s not just the water quantity that suffers; the water quality does, too. The flowback from the well—think of it as the well’s acid reflux—contains water, fracking chemicals, oil and toxic elements including barium, arsenic, lead and bromide. Disposing of this water also presents problems: Injecting it back into the ground can contaminate groundwater. (Pennsylvania no longer allows new drilling of injection wells, and haulers are taking the water to Ohio, where geologists believe the injection wells are linked to earthquakes in the region.)
Discharging the water into rivers and streams can harm ecosystems. Few municipal treatment plants can adequately filter and clean the wastewater. And there is a limit to the water’s reuse because of the chemicals and high salt content.
Kelvin Gregory, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Cornell University, noted there are no cost-effective technologies to treat the water, and even reusing it creates problems: storage, transportation and the unknown effect of high salt content on the other chemicals.
Methane is a crucial part of the fracking issue. The gas is vented from the wells, and inevitably some of it escapes into the atmosphere—or it can leak beneath the surface into groundwater. When it comes to greenhouse gases, methane emissions are a bad actor, with the potential to accelerate climate change even more than carbon dioxide.
Vengosh of Duke is updating a paper he and co-authors Rob Jackson, Stephen Osborn and Nathaniel Warner published last year that concluded drinking water wells in Pennsylvania near fracking operations were more likely to have higher levels of methane in them than wells that were farther away. Why? Improper well casings, possibly, that allow gas to leak into naturally occurring cracks.
And shale gas, which is produced from fracking, contains more methane than other fossil fuels, even coal, says Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell, who published a paper with that conclusion. (The paper, he acknowledged, is quite controversial within the scientific community.)
According to his analysis, methane emissions are 40 percent higher from shale gas than conventional gas because of venting. The EPA says that number is 60 percent, but there are a few scientists who say there is no difference. (Howarth disputes their findings; might we see a scientific fisticuffs?)
But if Howarth is right, he wins the award for the most ominous prediction of the day: “We need to control methane immediately or within the next 15 to 20 years we meet the irreversible tipping points in the system.”
Now the question is: Will the North Carolina Legislature listen?
I'm at the fracking workshop at Duke today and someone just asked a question about the connection between fracking activities and earthquakes, such as those that occurred last year near fracking operations in Arkansas and Ohio.
Michael Parker of ExxonMobil, who is among the speakers, was quick to mention that the wells potentially related to the quakes are injection wells—not drilling wells. Companies use injection wells, also known as disposal wells, to dump the material that is extracted with the gas or oil. This can include drilling chemicals and corrosion inhibitors. Think of the wells as a place to dump your acid reflux.
These are not innocuous operations, even if the earth is not moving under your feet. In 2006, I wrote a story about a historically African-American community in DeBerry, Texas, where the private wells had been contaminated by material from disposal wells. You can read that story here: www2.sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=61632
So even if injections wells are found not guilty of causing earthquakes, they pose other hazards.
A workshop about the environmental and social implications of fracking—also known as hydraulic fracturing—is starting right now at Duke University's Reynolds Theater, which is in the Bryan Center. It is open to the public; there are a few seats left. It runs until 3 p.m.
If you can't attend, the workshop is being streamed live at nicholas.duke.edu/hydrofrackingworkshop2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
N.C. DOT holds public hearing Tuesday on new billboard law
The N.C. Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, Dec. 13, regarding a new state law that allows billboard companies and other outdoor advertisers to clear more trees around their signs.
The law has already been passed. But members of the public can now weigh in on how billboard owners should contribute to planting new trees, shrubs and other vegetation on the sides and medians of highways to help make up for what they removed.
Previous rules allowed billboard owners to trim trees within 250 feet of their signs to allow a clear view from roadways. The new state law, which took effect Sept. 1, maintains the 250-foot maximum on locally controlled roads or highways within city limits. But advertisers may now cut a swath up to 340 feet in front of signs on interstates and state-controlled access roads, even if they're inside city limits. Outside of city limits, the cutting zone expands to 380 feet. (Read an analysis from the N.C. League of Municipalities that summarizes the changes, PDF)
Early versions of the bill, which was passed last summer by the N.C. General Assembly, would have overruled local ordinances, including those banning digital billboards. But thanks to outcry from the public, the N.C. League of Municipalities and environmental groups, language that would have taken away local rights on signage were stripped from the bill before it passed.
Under the new law, billboard companies still must also follow local ordinances, such as those governing sign appearance and tree preservation. When they start cutting out trees, the billboard companies must also submit plans to the N.C. DOT to install new plants to compensate for the ones they removed.
How these plants will be replaced, and how close they have to be to the site that was cleared appears to be determined. According to a public hearing notice, the the N.C. DOT has to establish temporary rules on how to comply with the new law, including the replanting program, and it's on those temporary rules that the N.C. DOT is seeking public input.
Once established, the N.C. DOT will enforce the temporary rules while working on longer-term permanent guidelines.
The public and elected leaders across the state can chime in between now and Dec. 23 with input into how these billboard companies should compensate for tree-cutting, including what types of plants they should be required to replace.
Tuesday's hearing will be held in room 100A of Wake Commons, 4011 Carya Drive, in Raleigh.
Can't make the hearing? The public may submit comments to Helen Landi, 1501 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C., 27699-1501, fax them to (919) 733-9150, or email Landi at hlandi@ncdot.gov.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
North Carolina ranks 11th nationwide in hazardous air pollutant emissions, according to a report released today by the Environmental Integrity Project.
The report focuses on six toxic heavy metals—arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and selenium—as well as hydrochloric acid gas. North Carolina ranked 11th in the nation for emissions of nickel, fifth for selenium and sixth for hydrochloric acid gas.
Long-term exposure to toxic chemicals can cause respiratory disorders, damage to the nervous and circulatory systems and a variety of cancers.
Monday, December 5, 2011
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at Duke, N.C. Central tomorrow
What will the EPA's stance be on fracking? What are pending regulations on greenhouse gas emissions? How does the federal government regulate deep water drilling in light of the BP disaster?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will discuss current EPA policies and recent challenges to environmental laws in a presentation tomorrow at 1 p.m. at Duke University's Reynolds Theater, 125 Science Drive.
The event is sponsored by the Nicholas School of the Environment. It is free and open to the public, but tickets are required. For additional information, visit: www.nicholas.duke.edu/deanseries
Jackson is also touring N.C. Central University tomorrow morning at 8:30, followed by an 8:45 a.m. breakfast roundtable with business leaders and government officials at the N.C. Central School of Law.
Monday, November 28, 2011
751 South case delayed; new plan could produce more runoff
- file illustration by V.C. Rogers
- Proposed area for 751 South
Opponents and supporters of the controversial 751 South development geared up for a big day in court today, only to have the case continued to Jan. 9.
The long-pending civil lawsuit, brought by property owners in Chancellor's Ridge against Durham County was supposed to go to trial today. Opponents to the project were hoping the judge would find in their favor and reverse a county vote last summer that will allow Southern Durham Development, also a party to the lawsuit, to build a large, mixed-use development outside the city limits—one that's sure to cause traffic headaches and could also threaten environmentally sensitive Jordan Lake.
But an attorney for SDD is still waiting for the N.C. Department of Transportation to produce relevant documents, he told Superior Court Judge G. Wayne Abernathy today. Abernathy granted the continuance to Cal Cunningham so he could continue to gather evidence from N.C. DOT in the case.
The case appears to hinge upon which employees of the N.C. DOT signed documents accepting the rights to a strip of land along N.C. 751, which the state one day could widen. The acceptance of the land rights by N.C. DOT threw a technical twist into the rezoning process last summer, and essentially aided zoning approval for the developer. If a judge finds the signature was valid and legal, SDD could keep its zoning for a large mixed-use project that could include 1,300 residences and 600,000 square feet of offices and shops. If the judge finds the signature was not from a person legally designated by the state to accept the land, the developer might lose the zoning and have to go back through the process, which has been winding and torturous.
In court Monday, attorney Dhamian Blue and his father, Sen. Dan Blue of Raleigh, represented the plaintiffs. Dhamian Blue said Cunningham's request boiled down to a delay tactic to drive up legal costs for their clients, unhappy property owners across from where 751 South is supposed to be built.
In the past year, lawyers for the developers have made no secret of the fact that time is money—about $2,000 a day in carrying costs for the 167-acre property SDD purchased in 2008 for $18 million. On Monday, Cunningham cited the figure at $3,000 a day in interest, and denied any purposeful sluggishness.
"The costs are clearly being borne by my client," Cunningham told the judge. "They've got me moving fast, and I'm moving fast."
With the continuance, Cunningham expects to take sworn statements from several N.C. DOT employees in December, he said.
Meanwhile, SDD has announced that it plans to file a new application with Durham's planning department to amend three commitments it made when county commissioners approved the project in 2010.
Of the three changes, the most drastic appears to be a request from SDD to increase the amount of impervious surface in the development.
Farm and Garden now has Full Steam Growlers...yeee haww
by Fritx on At the gas station, biscuits, tortillas—and community (Food Feature)
Michael Pollan,
Amen, Amen, Amen!! Your comment was excellently put. Thanks so much for writing in! …
by jwaters on Carrboro Commune occupies CVS building (Orange County)