Making those changes won\u2019t be cheap. DENR estimates the total cost for the entire project, including costs for local governments is $605 million for Stage I and $946 million for Stage II.<\/p>\n
DENR officials say that\u2019s probably an overestimate. McCallie agrees.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a worst-case,\u201d he said. \u201cThere are a number of ways to meet these reduction requirements. Some of them are hard to put a price tag on.\u201d<\/p>\n
But even if that figure is the worst case, there is some cost, and \u00a0it\u2019s worse for some than others.<\/p>\n
Costs will be cheaper in Granville County, for example, because the South Granville Water and Sewer Authority has already begun upgrading the water treatment plant, part of the Stage I requirements. So that will only cost $26 million. Stage II will be more expensive, at about $77 million.<\/p>\n
Same for the city of Durham, which spent $45 million to upgrade Durham\u2019s water reclamation facility in the mid-90s. Upgrades to improve the nutrient removal systems will only take $14 million.<\/p>\n
But stormwater runoff will be more expensive; retrofitting to keep\u00a0stormwater from entering the lake from nearby subdivisions requires tearing up roads and inserting larger pipes, finding land and then creating\u00a0sediment ponds.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.raleighpublicrecord.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/DSC_0747.jpg\")
\nLocal governments are facing bills of hundreds of millions of dollars to make the necessary changes. Photo by Leo Suarez.<\/center><\/p>\nDurham officials estimate that retrofitting existing development will cost $645 million. That\u2019s one reason why officials there have suggested taking another look at the lake after Stage I, and then deciding whether Stage II is necessary.<\/p>\n
\u201cA lot of conservative assumptions were made by the DWQ about the way the lake will behave,\u201d said Ted Voorhees, Durham\u2019s deputy city manager. \u201cSince they\u2019ve layered in so many conservative estimates and since we can\u2019t find any estimates that the lake is trending worse, we would suggest before the local governments commit to spending $3 billion dollars that we monitor over the next few years and use that data to determine whether it\u2019s necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n
Raleigh Stormwater Utility Manager Danny Bowden said it isn\u2019t too big an issue for Raleigh, which has a small area draining into the lake. But Durham: \u201cHalf their jurisdiction drains into Falls [Lake],\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He said Stage II will be worse, because all existing development will have to cut its nitrogen and phosphorous contributions by half.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s where a lot of potential costs come in. You\u2019re talking everything in Raleigh,\u201d Bowden said.<\/p>\n
Raleigh\u2019s wastewater treatment plant would not be affected by these rules, because it dumps water downstream.<\/p>\n
But T.J. Lynch, superintendent of the Raleigh Public Utilities Department, said other state rules and mandates are also under reviews that affect Raleigh. Those rules, and the proposed rules for Falls Lake, are pushing wastewater treatment plans to use reverse osmosis, a form of filtering that uses a high-pressure pump to push the water through a very fine membrane to squeeze out even more molecular-level items such as nitrogen.<\/p>\n
That high-pressure pump uses a lot of electricity, Lynch said. That combined with the capital costs could mean a 10-fold increase in your water and sewer bills.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s tremendous,\u201d he said. \u201cAre residents of these towns ready to pay 10 times the water and sewer bills they are now? Our water bills would rival our electric bills. It\u2019s important that we take a step back and say what\u2019s the overall benefit to the environment that you get from that increase in cost? Do you get a tenfold benefit?\u201d<\/p>\n
DENR also estimates some cost savings, such as between $43 and 266 million saved in avoided drinking water treatment costs. And another $600-800,000 for reduced drinking water treatment costs.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s always more cost effective to treat higher quality water. The more contaminated the water, the more chemicals you have to use,\u201d said Kenny Waldrop, Raleigh\u2019s assistant public utilities director. \u201cSo there is a relationship between raw water quality and the amount of chemicals that are used at any one time to render that water into potable water.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Blame Game <\/strong><\/p>\nSo how did all this happen?<\/p>\n
That\u2019s where it gets murky. There are six county governments and eight municipal governments in the Falls Lake watershed.<\/p>\n
The worst ick areas are north of Interstate 85 around Durham and Granville county sections of the lake. Raleigh\u2019s portion is slightly better and it gets clearer as you head downstream. The area around the water intake meets EPA standards.<\/p>\n
Many blame Durham for planning decisions they say led to that pollution.<\/p>\n
Bierma said you can\u2019t only point fingers at current elected officials, and that these problems have been occurring for decades. But data about Falls Lake came out in 2006 and since then, very few local governments have stepped up to make changes.<\/p>\n
\u201c[Durham] hasn\u2019t even adopted a pet waste ordinance and that\u2019s, like, a two-second conversation in a meeting,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s those very basic things. Small decisions like that do make a difference.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cummings says blaming Durham is unfair, because Durham did not ask for the lake and did not choose to be upstream from it. Falls Lake was created when a dam was built by the Army Corps of Engineers between 1978 and 1981. (That\u2019s another story.)<\/p>\n
In addition, part of the reason for the higher concentrate of pollution in the northern sections is due to the amount of water in those areas of the lake. The lower lake is much deeper compared to the shallow portion north of Interstate 85.<\/p>\n
The test point at which samples are taken to determine if the DENR rules are being met is just south of I-85. Durham officials say the test point should be in the middle of the lake \u2013 not near the upper end.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s nothing requiring the Division of Water Quality to pick a single compliance point,\u201d Cummings said. \u201cThere are different ways of measuring water quality. If they had chosen [a lower] point \u2026 we wouldn\u2019t be going through any of this process.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bierma said environmental officials used a number of sampling points throughout the lake to determine there is a problem. Yes, they could have chosen a point below I-85 and it would have made cleanup easier because there would be less to do, she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut we also could have chosen one further up the lake and more strict,\u201d she said. \u201cThe entire lake does need to be clean.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bierma said that in the end, a second set of rules may need to be written to deal with the northern reaches of the lake.<\/p>\n
Proposed Rule Changes<\/strong><\/p>\nMcCallie of the Conservation Network said arguing fault is moot. But he is concerned about some of the arguments area officials have made, including an agreement known as the consensus principles. Most area governments involved in the Falls Lake process have agreed that the situation should be reassessed after Stage I changes are complete.<\/p>\n
Stage II could be used more effectively if we know how far we have come, said Durham County\u2019s Cummings.<\/p>\n
\u201cCheck back to see if seven additional years\u2019 worth of modeling were telling us anything new about the status of the lake, and whether we could shape Stage II to be more cost effective,\u201d Cummings said.<\/p>\n
Waldrop said with Stage I will stop things from getting worse and take the lake back to chemical levels seen in 2006. He said doing so would be a \u201cvictory\u201d for Raleigh\u2019s drinking water.<\/p>\n
Stage II would probably require $100-120 million in costs for his department to upgrade the drinking water treatment processes, he said.<\/p>\n
But if the 2006 levels can be maintained, \u201cthere\u2019s a reasonable expectation that we will not need to add advanced treatment technologies,\u201d he said. \u201cWe support our consensus partners in the upper watershed in seeking additional testing over the next six to eight years and then a reevaluation of the social impacts of moving to Stage II.\u201d<\/p>\n
McCallie fears that such a pause-button approach might allow governments to halt the process completely, claiming that Stage II would be too expensive and difficult.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe would fight that,\u201d McCallie said. \u201cWe can\u2019t walk away from this.\u201d<\/p>\n
McCallie and the Conservation Network also argue that the rules for Stage I should require more. More work now means Stage II won\u2019t be such a huge leap.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet\u2019s do the low-hanging fruit. And by the time we get up there, we don\u2019t think we should have a review. By the time we get to that point, it\u2019s not going to be nearly as scary because we will have accomplished a lot.\u201d<\/p>\n
McCallie also argues that the deadlines are too lax. Agreed, said Dr. JoAnn Burkholder, director of the Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology at NC State.<\/p>\n
\u201cA period of 25 to 30 years is unacceptably too long to wait for the state to achieve its water quality standard to protect this critically important drinking water supply. To me, the main problem with Falls Lake is that the lake has been degraded for some time,\u201d she said, adding that the state of New York has never even allowed development around its water source. \u201cNorth Carolina should be following suit. When you allow development in a watershed, you have to expect there\u2019s going to be urban runoff and pollution in that runoff.\u201d<\/p>\n
Durham City\u2019s Voorhees argues that assessing where we are with cleanup after Stage I simply makes sense.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve agreed that an adaptive management approach make sense, but it\u2019s not adaptive management if you don\u2019t adapt,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
McCallie hopes it does not prevent them from moving forward.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no proof if you let this go, that the drinking water is going to stay protected,\u201d McCallie said.\u00a0 \u201cThis is the lowest water quality standard in the state. We\u2019ve got to meet it.\u201d<\/p>\n
What\u2019s Next <\/strong><\/p>\nSo they\u2019ve got these new rules proposed. This summer, DENR collected input from the public and the local governments about tweaks to the rules.<\/p>\n
Now, DENR will take those comments and deliberate before making final approval to the rules by November. State law dictates that the rules must be adopted by Jan. 15, 2011.<\/p>\n
A temporary version of the rules will take effect immediately. Meanwhile, the rules would undergo legislative review in 2011 or 2012.<\/p>\n
Bierma worries about that part of the process. As local governments weigh in on the cost and problems associated with this cleanup, that fear might be used to halt the process or dilute the rules, she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor Falls [Lake] we have a set of rules that would genuinely make a difference and help protect the health and safety of this community, but if we take it through the legislature and play the fear card rather than be honest we\u2019re going to end up with a law that doesn\u2019t protect Falls Lake.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the end, both sides are arguing the science, the measurements and the cost. But all agree: No one wants nasty drinking water.<\/p>\n
\u201cPeople are committed to Falls Lake,\u201d Cummings said. \u201cI appreciate that. We\u2019re talking about spending billions of dollars here to clean up a lake, so we\u2019d better know what we\u2019re doing and why we\u2019re doing it. We\u2019d better be sure we\u2019re targeting that money where it needs to go.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jennifer Wig unpacks the issues over cleaning up Falls Lake, Raleigh’s water supply.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24025,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[48,51,15,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4450"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24025"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.raleighpublicrecord.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/DSC_0700.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.raleighpublicrecord.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/Falls-Lake-303d-Map-from-DWQ-April-2010-300x226.jpg\" "\\"Falls")
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.raleighpublicrecord.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/DSC_0736.jpg\")