news-record.com

RALEIGH - This much is agreed on by regulators, environmentalists, local governments such as the city of Greensboro and the building industry: Cleaning up Jordan Lake is an important and worthy goal.

But that's pretty much where the agreement stops in the discussion over new environmental regulations meant to do just that.

Lawmakers now will have to decide whether rules put forward by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources will achieve their goals or merely cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars during a time they can least afford it.

"I expect it will be contentious because it has already been contentious," said Rep. Lucy Allen , a Franklin County Democrat who chairs the House environment committee. "We hear all of the objections coming from the communities up that way."

Although state law gives opponents of regulations a clear path to appeal to the General Assembly, it gives lawmakers little guidance on how to settle disputes. Allen has filed one of a handful of bills that would wipe the Jordan Lake rules from the books, although few expect that could pass as it is.

Lawmakers like Allen are looking for parties on all sides to come to some accord. At least some of various groups say they're ready to start talking, even if they're not sure when or in what format.

"I'm optimistic," said Steven Levitas , a lawyer and former deputy secretary in the Department of Environment. He has been hired by Durham to help negotiate a compromise and is one of the point people for all the groups opposing the rules.

As described by Levitas and others involved, there have been discussions between various parties one-on-one. The trick now is to get representatives for all concerned in the same room.

Jordan Lake opened in 1974. It provides drinking water to some Triangle-area communities and is a local recreation destination. For years, it has shown signs of water-quality problems, ranging from informal indicators such as fish kills to chemical tests such as high levels of chlorophyll. Federal regulators and state law have required the state to clean up the lake.

Key to cleaning up the lake is reducing the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that flow downstream from sewage-treatment plants, farm fields and parking lots.

Central to the current disagreement are the so-called "retrofit" requirements to clean up rainwater that rolls off existing developments into creeks and streams.

Rule opponents - including Burlington, Greensboro and smaller cities in the region - say it could cost tens of millions of dollars to do the kind of work the rules demand, money that local governments and taxpayers can ill afford in the middle of a deepening recession. In addition, developers say the retrofit rules could eat up existing open space and make redeveloping neighborhoods nearly impossible.

That's a radically different take from regulators and environmental advocates, who say the cleanup could be relatively painless.

"The problems with the rules are dire," said Marlene Sanford , the president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition.

As she reads the rules, they could require city governments to go into existing neighborhoods and condemn land for water-cleaning projects such as detention ponds. They also would be costly to small towns that would have to start street-sweeping and other programs that are usually the preserve of larger cities. To boot, opponents raise questions about whether the retrofit work would even go that far toward cleaning up the lake.

Although that reading is shared by municipal leaders, environmental advocates say the cities and developers are overstating their case.

Grady McCallie , policy director at the N.C. Conservation Network, calls the notion that cities could be forced to condemn land in existing neighborhoods absurd.

"That's not something we would want to see," he said.

As they are written, McCallie said, the rules give cities 31/2 years to work out how they can cut down on pollutants running toward Jordan Lake and give the governments flexibility establishing targets for pollution reduction.

That "flexibility" has some worried. Because the rules call for each municipality to work out its own plan, no one knows exactly what will be required.

"A big part of the problem is nobody knows what they would require. That uncertainty makes people very uncomfortable," Levitas said. He acknowledges that opponents are somewhat under the gun. If the legislature adjourns without taking action on the rules, they will go into effect as-is. "We need to get a bill passed this session," he said.

Elizabeth Ouzts , who leads Environment North Carolina, one of the key environmental players at the legislature, said she also thinks compromise is possible.

"I'm really optimistic that we can do it in a way that gives the cities even more flexibility ... but still preserves the integrity of the rules," she said.

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com