Stream-Side Plan Pits Property Owners Against Water Quality

The Watershed Research and Education Center at the University of Arkansas Agricultural Research and Extension Center Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences Farm features a riparian buffer zone where scientists study and demonstrate the effects plants have on nutrient and sediment discharge into waterways.
The Watershed Research and Education Center at the University of Arkansas Agricultural Research and Extension Center Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences Farm features a riparian buffer zone where scientists study and demonstrate the effects plants have on nutrient and sediment discharge into waterways.

— An agreement reached nearly five years ago easing pressure on the city to improve its sewer discharge may lead to new restrictions on property owners near waterways.

City Council members are expected to weigh in on a proposed stream-side protection ordinance in February limiting about 1,300 property owners’ activities within 50 feet of streams, rivers and lakes.

The proposal attempts to combat nonpoint source pollution, a regulatory catch-all phrase referring to water runoff that cannot be traced to a specific point. Examples of point source pollution would be waste flowing from a sewage treatment plant or industrial source.

The city proposal is contained in its nutrient reduction plan, prepared by a national consultant in 2009 as part of an agreement with the water district. The city agreed in 2006 to pay $200,000 annually over five years to reduce nonpoint source pollution in exchange for not seeing a reduction in permitted phosphorus discharge from the Noland Wastewater Treatment Facility. The treatment center receives its yearly permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

More stringent discharge requirements would make it more costly to treat the wastewater without significant improvement to water quality, said David Jurgens, utilities director.

The nutrient reduction plan identified ways to target nonpoint source pollution. Those ways include controlling soil erosion, stricter limits on outdated or failing septic systems and encouraging low-impact development.

The stream-side ordinance is likely to create tension between landowners who view the ordinance as an unfair intrusion on property rights and officials’ desire to reduce costs of treating water from Beaver Lake.

If approved, the ordinance will prohibit some types of construction, landfills or junkyards, removal of woody vegetation, storage of hazardous material, parking lots, septic systems, animal feedlots, cultivation and buildings more than 150 square feet within 50 feet of streambeds.

Attempts to pass similar ordinances in Washington and Benton counties in the past decade failed. A 2004 proposal died amid differences of opinion between rural and urban justices of the peace in Washington County. The Benton County Quorum Court backed off a move to establish special-use areas around Beaver Lake in 2006 following resistance from a property-rights group.

“I think that several key members on the Quorum Court misread the level of opposition that would be forthcoming from people who firmly believed in property rights in America,” said Hugh Earnest, a member of the Fayetteville Planning Commission who helped draft the failed Benton County ordinance.

In Fayetteville, two planning commissioners and an affected property owner spoke against the proposal when the commission voted to forward it to the council Nov. 8.

Halley Hoggatt’s land on South College Avenue falls within a buffer zone. He questioned whether the city had a right to tell him and roughly 1,300 other landowners what they can do on their property.

John Pennington, water quality specialist with the Washington County Extension Service, has hosted about a dozen meetings with affected property owners. He said there’s no getting around the fact the ordinance would be intrusive.

“That is a great point,” Pennington said. “People pay for property. They pay taxes on it. It’s theirs. I certainly understand someone saying they want to protect that. It’s something that really has to be respected.”

But, Pennington said, “there’s been a lot of science conducted over time relating to the function of (stream-side buffers) as a filter for different types of potential pollutants.”

According to research by Pennington, the Environmental Protection Agency, the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and others, planting certain types of woody vegetation along the banks of waterways can slow erosion and catch nutrients, allowing them to soak into the soil rather than spilling into a stream, river or lake.

A 2005 EPA study concluded stream-side buffers could reduce pollution up to 75 percent.

One of the nutrients officials are most concerned about is phosphorus, which can cause a degradation of water quality.

Although phosphorus is not toxic, Mike Bira, an environmental scientist with the EPA, said it can pose problems for treating drinking water.

In lakes such as Beaver Lake, blue-green algae feeds on phosphorus, Bira said. When algae becomes highly concentrated, it can affect water taste and odor and, in extremely concentrated amounts, can pose health risks.

Bira said the biggest problem is water with algae in it becomes very expensive to treat.

“It really is that the water is easier to treat if it’s cleaner to start with and it’s less expensive,” said Bob Morgan, manager of environmental quality for Beaver Water District.

But, Morgan added, “We’re going to do whatever it takes to treat the water. We’re not going to put water in the pipe that’s not safe.”

It’s unclear how effective the city’s nutrient reduction plan will be, but Jurgens is confident it can make strides in the right direction. “What we do can make a difference,” he said. “But can you measure it with a yardstick? I’m not a good enough scientist to say yes.”

Jurgans also said the Department of Environmental Quality has proven it can be more lenient in if a city makes other efforts to reduce pollution at nonpoint sources.

Should the city enact a stream-side protection ordinance, it would be the first in the state, although similar measures are on the books across the country.

***

At A Glance

Phosphorus Reduction

In January, the City Council voted to spend $248,000 to restore a stream bank southeast of the Fayetteville Executive Airport. On Tuesday, they will consider spending $119,431 more on the project and city’s Water and Sewer Committee moved forward last week with a similar project near the Noland Wastewater Treatment Facility costing the city $77,000. Both projects also use about $700,000 in federal grants. The treatment facility project is predicted to reduce phosphorus entering the White river by 330 pounds each year.

Source: Staff Report

***

Web Watch

Water Resources

• For the full text of Fayetteville’s proposed stream-side protection ordinance go to www.accessfayetteville.org and search for “stream-side Protection Ordinance.”

• The city’s Nutrient Reduction Plan can be found on the same website by searching “Nutrient Reduction Plan.”

• To view a study released Thursday on the overall water quality of water in Beaver Lake, go to www.bwdh2o.org, and click on the link for “Constituent Concentrations, Loads, and Yields to Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Years 1999-2008.”

• A 2005 EPA study on the effectiveness of riparian buffer zones can be found at www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600R05118/600R05118.pdf.

Upcoming Events