Georgia’s Attorney General has ruled that state agencies — the road-builders at the Georgia Department of Transportation, in particular — do not have to adhere to local storm water runoff regulations.
Environmentalists aren’t happy. Muddy discharge from construction sites is one of the biggest threats to the health of the state’s streams, rivers and lakes. Vegetation and wildlife, including fish and river otters, can also be impacted by runoff.
“Polluted storm water is the largest pollution problem in Georgia waterways, particularly in urban areas like metro Atlanta,” Sally Bethea, executive director for the nonprofit Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, said Tuesday. “The Attorney General’s opinion says, in a loud voice, that the state doesn’t have to abide by the same rules as everybody else.”
The ruling’s impact, however, remains uncertain. While it allows state agencies to skirt local storm water rules, they are still bound by rules promulgated by the state’s Department of Natural Resources and the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
David Spear, a GDOT spokesman, said the agency was “gratified” by the ruling.
“Aside from upholding a fundamental tenet of the law, relative to the powers of state government and local governments, it speaks to the practicality of the issue,” he added. “A concern for us was the potential to be subject to 159 or more sets of runoff requirements when in fact local governments can seek relief currently through EPD or EPA.”
Georgia has 159 counties.
Douglas County, part of the 15 county Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District that seeks to protect and conserve the region’s water, requested GDOT apply for a storm water permit for construction of a park-and-ride lot in Douglasville near a creek.
GDOT said it was exempt from the district’s regulations and asked the Attorney General for an opinion.
“Local governments, hav(e) no inherent power to regulate the state,” the July 9 ruling stated.
Pete Frost, executive director of the Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority, sees something of a double standard in the AG’s ruling.
“If water quality standards are good for everybody else, shouldn’t they at least be good for the state?” he asked.
Builders are required to prevent runoff from leaving construction sites via silt fences, hay bales, rock filters, detention ponds and other low-tech devices.
Environmentalists wonder if taxpayers and developers upstream or downstream from any state construction project may have to shoulder heavier storm water mediation costs to maintain the health of a stream or river.
“The opinion has serious implications for where the burden of managing storm water lies,” said Juliet Cohen, general counsel for the Riverkeeper.
The Riverkeeper may seek legislative remedy next year, Cohen said.
About the Author
The Latest
Featured
