How do we know that Jordan Lake (and upstream creeks) are in trouble?

 

Water quality scientists from the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources take water samples from several locations in Jordan Lake and upstream along the Haw River and other creeks that flow into it. 

 

For several years, water samples from the lake and river have shown high levels of chlorophyll, indicating unhealthy levels of algae in the water. Algae is the result of too much nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the water. Observers on the water have reported watching the lake bubble – like a carbonated soft drink – from the gas given off by dense algal blooms.

 

In the last few years, the water samples have also shown high levels of alkalinity, also a product of algae fed by pollution from upstream.  At times, the alkalinity has reached a pH of greater than 9; at such times, swimming in the lake is like swimming in a weak solution of bleach – it is enough to chemically burn sensitive skin. Of course, unlike human visitors to the lake, fish can’t go home and take a shower; they are in the water all the time. Over time, continued high levels of pollution will lead to fish kills and the collapse of Jordan Lake’s ecosystem. 

 

While upstream creeks are not sampled as frequently as Jordan Lake, we do know that virtually every town upstream in the watershed has a damaged creek flowing through it. This map shows the creeks that are listed as not meeting federal water quality standards. It’s not hard to see why: most of the towns upstream have areas of dense impervious surface – pavement and roofs – places where any rain that falls washes directly into the streams and rivers, carrying nitrogen, phosphorus, oils, grease, and heavy metals from parking lots, lawns, and roads. The steps needed to clean up Jordan Lake, such as controlling runoff from existing development, will help many of these creeks as well.

 

For a more detailed overview of problems in Jordan Lake, we recommend the Haw River Assembly’s State of the Lake report. 

What do federal and state law require us to do?

 

The federal Clean Water Act sets water quality standards that creeks, rivers, and lakes must meet. Jordan Lake violates the standards for chlorophyll and alkalinity (pH). Both of these problems are signals that too much nitrogen and phosphorus is entering the lake, and the lake was officially added to the federal list of ‘impaired waters’ in 2002. When a lake is impaired, the Clean Water Act requires the state environmental agency to prepare a plan to restore the lake’s health by cutting pollution from all contributing sources. That’s what the proposed Jordan Lake rules will do.

 

North Carolina’s state law also calls for the protection of Jordan Lake and the creeks upstream. In 1997, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the Clean Water Responsibility Act. Under part VI of that Act, measures should have been in place by 2003 to clean up Jordan Lake. We are now years behind schedule, but the proposed Jordan Lake rules will begin to deliver on the promise made by the state legislature a decade ago.  Unfortunately, the rules offered for public comment will not require wastewater treatment plants to reduce nitrogen pollution until 2016.  Earlier drafts of the rules required the reductions by 2011, and we think that is still a reasonable deadline.

 

 

What has happened so far?

 

The process of developing the rules to clean up Jordan Lake has been excruciatingly long, involving more than 30 stakeholder meetings over three years.  Documents from the stakeholder meetings are kept on a website maintained by the Triangle J Council of Governments. After repeatedly delaying the rules in an effort to consider all stakeholders' concerns, the NC Environmental Management Commission voted in March 2007 to send the current package of rules to public comment.

 

 

What do the proposed rules require?

 

To develop the rules, state regulators estimated the total nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that Jordan Lake can absorb and still be healthy. The state then calculated how much pollution is currently flowing into the lake – and it's much more than the lake can take. The difference is how much we need to cut back to clean up Jordan Lake. The rules spread the needed reductions among all the sources of pollution: wastewater treatment plants, new development, existing development, and agriculture.

 

Here’s what the rules require from each source of pollution:

 

* Wastewater treatment plants. The proposed rules require wastewater treatment plants to reduce phosphorus one year after the rules take effect, and reduce nitrogen by 2016 – nearly two decades after the state legislature first called for action in 1997. In our view, the science clearly shows that the lake needs prompt reductions in nitrogen and well as phosphorus. An earlier version of the rules called for nitrogen reductions by 2011; we’ve seen no evidence to justify delay, and are urging the EMC to restore the 2011 compliance date. 

 

* Existing development.  This is one of the most controversial and misunderstood parts of the rules. Jordan Lake cannot become healthy again unless local governments take steps to control polluted runoff from existing development. The proposed rules are both vague and lenient, calling for local governments to write plans for projects to ‘retrofit’ existing development, but without details or standards. That’s a problem: the final rules must be much more specific about what, exactly, is expected of local governments – and it must be enough to make a dent in the pollution coming from existing development.

 

* New development. The rules require new development to limit pollution released upstream from the lake by controlling stormwater runoff and leaving buffers along creeks and streams. Similar rules have worked successfully – without significantly hampering development – in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins.

 

* Agriculture. The rules require farmers in the Jordan Lake watershed to work together to adopt best management practices to keep nitrogen and phosphorus out of rivers and creeks upstream from the lake. Similar rules have worked successfully in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins without placing a noticeable burden on farmers.

 

*NC Department of Transportation. Although its contribution is relatively small, the network of state roads does account for a share of pollution flowing into Jordan Lake. The proposed rules will require the state Department of Transportation and other state and federal entities to take modest steps to control polluted runoff from existing and new projects.

To improve flexibility and lower costs, the rules also allow the various contributors to ‘trade’ pollution reductions – so, if a farmer can cheaply reduce nitrogen, even beyond their required reduction, they can sell that reduction to a wastewater treatment plant or local government. 

 

You can download a copy of the rules from the official DENR website.

 

 

What will the rules cost?

 

The rules will have a cost, and most of the opposition expressed to the rules so far is directly tied to the costs.  State regulators have prepared an estimate of costs. 

 

Overall, the estimate suggests that the rule will impose few new costs on farmers or developers. 

 

Upgrades at wastewater treatment plants will be expensive, and will be passed on to ratepayers. On the other hand, continuing at current levels of nitrogen discharges fouls the waters downstream, threatening downstream communities’ drinking water. For Greensboro, Burlington, and other cities along the Haw River, reducing nitrogen and phosphorus discharge should be a cost of doing business responsibly.

 

The most controversial cost estimates have been for the control of runoff from existing development.  In our view, these estimates are seriously flawed.  In creating them, staff assumed that local governments would do everything necessary to cut pollution to specific levels – but that’s not what the proposed rules require.  Staff also assumed that local governments will have to pick pollution control strategies from a short list of expensive options, when in fact there are many other, cheaper ways for local governments to control polluted runoff. Greater clarity in the final rule will result in more pollution control than the proposed rules actually offer, at a much smaller cost than the current estimate suggests.

 

This set of questions and answers is current as of July 2007.