PDA

View Full Version : New Erosion Controls


Windknot
12-10-01, 02:08 PM
This is from Thursday's paper. The short version - EPD wants to impose higher permit fees on builders so they can hire more warm bodies to check erosion control.

Erosion control may bring big fees, new hires
Jim Tharpe - Staff
Thursday, December 6, 2001


State environmental regulators think a little more green from developers could help reduce the sweet-potato red color of many Georgia streams after heavy rains.

The state board for the Department of Natural Resources is considering recommendations to charge developers higher permit fees so the state can hire about 80 workers to oversee erosion control across Georgia.

The new hires would substantially increase state efforts to monitor erosion control efforts, a task assigned to only a few workers in the past. "There is a lot of concern that local governments are not doing the job in this area," said David Word, assistant director for the state Environmental Protection Division. "So there is the real need for the state to come in and supplement the local efforts."

Environmental officials say eroded dirt in storm runoff is one of the biggest causes of water pollution in metro Atlanta, where tons of reddish sediment wash off construction sites. The mud smothers fish and other aquatic life and makes streams unfit for recreation or drinking water.

Hiring the 80 workers would cost about $5.2 million, money that's tough to come by in a tight budget year. Georgia's financial woes were highlighted by Gov. Roy Barnes' recent decision to cut this year's state budget by about $200 million.

So EPD is researching fees as an alternative. Additional fees can be assessed in several ways. Proposals range from charging developers a flat fee, regardless of a development's size, to fees based on the acreage a development disturbs. One recommendation calls for a $200 fee on a development of up to five acres and $12,500 for a development of 50 to 250 acres.

The board will produce a funding recommendation in January, and that will be presented to the Legislature for a final decision. It likely would be July before any new fees are assessed or additional erosion monitors hired, Word said.

Earlier this year, the DNR board told its environmental division to come up with a list of proposals to improve erosion control efforts. Environmental officials Tuesday presented the board with a draft report outlining how to fund additional positions needed to oversee soil erosion efforts.

EPD Director Harold Reheis has complained that state and local laws to prevent streams from clogging with dirt are not working.

Reheis said regulations on erosion control measures and devices are not adequately enforced because of a lack of trained workers and confusion over who enforces the rules.

"There is still too much mud going into our streams," he said recently.

Some developers say the fees would drive up the cost of doing business and would be passed on to the home buyer.

Atlanta developer Steve Macauley said any new fee would not be a deal-breaker by itself.

"But the cumulative effect of all these fees definitely makes housing less affordable," he said.

The Owl
12-10-01, 07:26 PM
drive up fees?
Well, isn't that too bad? Next they'll be asking the fisherman to pay for the builders errors! WE already PAY for those! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

No offense to anyone in the construction, concrete, or art mule business. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif ( Ghost, I just didn't want to leave you out! ? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif )

fletcherwilliams
12-11-01, 05:54 PM
I see no problem with passing the fees on to the buyer. If they buy a house, and the construction of said house will effect others, they should pay, not the builder. Why should the builder pay for the effects of the buyer's purchase? IMHO.

GregLS
12-11-01, 06:01 PM
I don't normally chime in on these type debates but...

Why should the buyer pay...If the developer/builder didn't make it avalible then the buyer wouldn't have the option to make the purchase.

The Owl
12-11-01, 09:33 PM
If builders didn't violate the laws so much.......you wouldn't need more abundant enforcement. GregLS - you better get back under that ole bridge with that bear, now - ya hear! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif


Owl

fishnpreacher
12-12-01, 08:40 AM
IMO, the consumer ultimately pays on almost everything. The last man shelling out the bucks has to shoulder the burden for everyone in the selling/producing chain. If permits or fines are in place before the time of sale, they will be passed on, if the fines come up later, someone else takes up the slack. If fines become a part of normal operating costs, GUESS WHAT?? The consumer pays. I like my little piece of heaven in the county, 4 acres, few restrictions.

------------------
I can do all things through Christ <bill><

vonchim
12-12-01, 11:21 PM
If only the guys who check this stuff out didn't have to look over their shoulder all the time. Remember what was said about enforcing these laws at the fling?

I have reported workers dumping lead dust from bridges into the hooch in the past. I had lab tests done on samples, photographs and eye witness accounts. This was a dot project, the EPD did "investigate". But the last time I checked these folks were still in business in Georgia.
Has anyone seen dust flying around all those bridges being painted in georgia? The dust I collected from under the Ga. 400 bridge at the city park in Roswell was 30% lead by weight. Came back the next day and it had been cleaned up, by washing it into the river!

The state paid these guys to remove the lead paint and they did, just about half of it never made it to the disposal drums. Seems it is easier to dump it into the river than put it in a drum and pay to have it disposed of. The DOT guy on the site even called the cops on me after the contractor complained that I was taking pictures.

bowtied
12-14-01, 10:25 PM
As a Developer AND an avid Fisherman/outdoorsman, I can see most all the sides to this issue..
The Permit Fees going up will become a cost to the developer/builder, and HE WILL pass those costs on..,However,there are also many other changes that are going(not yet hitting the board) that will also raise more costs to the developer/builder that will also get passed on as well<---that go hand in hand with this permit fee.. (more design costs, more engineering costs,more monitoring costs etc)
IF these fees are used to improve monitoring/policing of job sites and reduce erosion and runoff GREAT!!!!, however, in the past this has not been the case.
(As is usually true, a few bad apples ruin it for everyone)
The Really bad news, is that when the buck gets passed to the end consumer, it will hit the entry level/economical home and home buyer the hardest.(NOTE TO OWL---> I am also a erosion control/qualified monitoring specialist) http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gifblah blah..
I hope this ends up like they envision it, but 80 more bodies won't even make a dent.

Good and ethical development, with proper design,installation,maintenance,and monitoring will.
My longest post ever... http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif/ and also just my .02 worth.

The Bow

JOHNKIES
12-15-01, 11:37 AM
As is so often the case, just follow the money trail. Atlanta metro has an economy based on the notion (false in my opinion) that not only is growth good, but necessary to the survival of the metro community. Therefore, we must avoid anything which may impede this growth.

This ecomomic theology is what leads people to even consider asking the question, "why should the buyer and developer be forced to pay these fees"? Because they are the ones who benefit from the construction: the homeowner gets a house and the builder gets a profit. And without rules and enforcement thereof, the rest of us get mud in the river that raises the costs for the rest of us with higher taxes to clean it up again for drinking water and other uses. In effect, tax dollars - our tax dollars - are subsidizing the growth industry.

Builders and developers are not evil polluters who do so for some unknown reason. They do so simply because at that end, it costs less to build and that increases profits. I know of no company which has taken control of their pollution simply because of the public good. They did so because we spoke up and created laws and regulations forcing them to do so.

---JCK---

------------------

fletcherwilliams
12-15-01, 07:11 PM
Vonchim, are you a journalist? I just get that "air" from you.