Water
Resource Issues and Local Land Use Decisions - A Recommended Approach
by David Kyler
Purpose:
1. It is clear from recent actions taken by the County
Commission that our elected officials are justifiably concerned about
the allocation of water by EPD under existing criteria being used by the
state. The following proposal is an effort to ensure that better
information is applied in making local land use decisions as they affect
the use, consumption, quality, and long-term commitment of water
resources. Without this new initiative by Glynn County, unless state
criteria change, EPD will continue to issue water permits on a
first-come, first-serve basis, without regard for the long-term
priorities of local government. If this practice continues, the cost
and quality of water for future users will impose burdens that may well
work against the development interests of the county. Therefore, it is
vital that Glynn County openly consider a variety of options for
improving local control over water and other natural resource issues by
amending and consistently enforcing land use management ordinances.
Background:
By unanimous vote, our local elected officials decided to
send a letter to EPD objecting to the proposed Live Oak power plant
groundwater withdrawal and to initiate an effort to revise the state
rules to give priority to public wells for withdrawals of 100,000
gallons a day or more. Public wells allow a far more adaptable use of
water resources to meet emerging demands that serve the interests of
Glynn County citizens, compared with private industrial wells dedicated
to a single large water use that often lasts for many decades.
These are valid concerns even when the science is reliable, but
groundwater modeling is inaccurate, and site-specific effects may differ
greatly from the general relationships and characteristics predicted.
(The most compelling illustration of this fact is that shallow wells are
often adversely affected by withdrawals from deeper aquifers, yet the
models claim there is utterly no interconnection between these
aquifers.) Because of these concerns and related water allocation
issues, the Center opposed the permit for Live Oak, and three very
qualified ground- water professionals, with extensive experience in
modeling and evaluating regional aquifers, endorsed our position.
Despite this, we were the only member of the Glynn County Water Resource
Management Advisory Committee that voted against the Live Oak permit.
For this and related reasons, we strongly urge the Glynn County
Commissioners to carefully evaluate the process used to create advisory
committees, the purpose of such advisory groups, and in particular to
re-examine the role and performance of the Water Resource Committee.
2. On November 19 the Water Resource Management Advisory Committee
discussed various aspects of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
related to evaluating water use.
- Though there was no official
consensus vote taken by the committee on any aspect of the proposed
amendment, there seemed to be wide agreement that whatever language may
be adopted, it should apply to all 'large' users of water (however that
term is defined), not just industrial users. In other words, whether
commercial, industrial, residential, or golf courses, any proposed land
use needing water above a certain amount should be analyzed in a special
way, to be set forth by the proposed amendment.
- Second, the
Advisory Committee generally agreed that using the site plan review
process alone was inadequate for making land use decisions, and that
whatever parameters are adopted, they should apply to zoning decisions
as well as site plan review. This had been the main problem with the
Live Oak Power Plant proposal, because the zoning was already in place,
and the leverage available through site plan review is weak since it
does not involve an action by the 'legislative authority' (elected
officials).
Analysis:
It is illogical to conduct analysis of water resource impacts
independent of zoning decisions, as is the case with the proposed
ordinance amendment. If county officials want priority given to public
wells, the most effective way to achieve that objective would be to
limit water demand by using local land use controls to influence the
type, timing, and location of new development. (Note: Such factors are
already a legitimate function of local government as a means for
protecting public interest by providing orderly, balanced growth for the
benefit of all citizens.) A rezoning review is the most powerful tool
available to local governments for getting control on water demand by
carefully considering land uses and their implications. Therefore, the
county should seriously consider amending the ordinance to require
assessment of major water use in zoning decisions as well as in site
plan review. By EPD's reckoning under existing rules, if a local
government does not prevent a prospective water user from getting local
permits for land use, that city or county has forfeited its right to
have any further say about a water withdrawal permit - no matter how
large the withdrawal or how long the period over which it would be in
effect.
3. While it is desirable to parallel state permit applications as much
as possible, the county should not restrict itself to using only such
information in the language of its ordinance after all, there may be
water consumption, allocation, and quality issues of specific importance
to Glynn County and its citizens that are not recognized in the
standards used by EPD in evaluating permits. For instance, we need to
be asking not just whether the needed water is available (based on
current science), but also what effect proposed water use(s) will have
on the countyıs future options for meeting foreseeable water demands,
and the relative costs and benefits of meeting these various demands.
Included in this assessment, for example, the County may want to
consider the efficiency of the proposed user compared with the average
water use efficiency in that user category (industry type, etc.). In
this case, the County would adopt some standard of efficiency that would
be required of all large water users before their land use request could
be further considered. We are not suggesting that this should be the
only type of criteria, but it is likely to be one of several key factors
to be considered in making land use decisions as they affect water
resources (including control of run-off, reduction, monitoring and
assessment of wastewater discharges, etc.).
4. The Water Resource Management Advisory Committee had some problem
with the terminology "no negative impact." Alternative language to be
substituted instead was "acceptable" or "unacceptable" as determined by
some standard of passing (or failing) a "public interest test." I have
suggested several factors that could be included in such a determination
in my written comments (submitted to the Planning Commission secretary),
such as water-use efficiency, the duration and adaptability of the
proposed water use, and other parameters measuring public interest, such
as water quality impacts. But we provide no specific quantitative
amounts that should be adopted as thresholds or standards - these would
have to be recommended through further study and, to become effective,
ultimately adopted by the County Commission and then rigorously enforced
by county officials. True and responsible water management cannot be
achieved without such acceptability criteria. Consistent enforcement of
these criteria and other local standards is also essential to legally
defensible decisions that will protect the county's interests.
5. We recommend that the County Commission form a study committee to
spend some time developing a proposal for creating a separate section of
the zoning ordinance that would cover all significant natural resource
impacts of proposed land uses, not only water resource impacts. This
would ensure that when decisions are made, they take into account
potentially major impacts on air and water quality, water supply,
wildlife habitat, and fisheries. As many have said, we must consider
natural resources as part of our public infrastructure, and accordingly
make land use decisions that reflect responsible management of that
natural capital. If this principle is not followed, the costs of
protecting or restoring public health, water supply, and ecosystems
(when even possible) will be substantial and potentially prolonged, with
conceivably severe consequences for our citizens. To prevent adverse
outcomes, standards used for making land use decisions should be refined
to improve the County's ability to predict such impacts and control them
locally, serving multiple aspects of public interest as growth
continues.
|
