Borough looks to bolster water pollution regulations
Published Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!
Local government agencies are building a stable of water pollution rules to ensure developers don’t let runoff from road work or construction sites carry pollutants into rivers and streams.
Federal environmental authorities have traditionally been the ones responsible for enforcing — through the threat of fines — the national Clean Water Act’s stormwater pollution prevention rules in Fairbanks.
Over the past few years, however, local agencies have gradually assumed oversight. The Fairbanks North Star Borough, for example, has drafted a local a monitoring program in which contractors would need to submit pollution-prevention plans at many construction sites near the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole.
The two cities are responsible for applying similar rules inside their borders, a step Fairbanks City Hall took last year.
Pollution-prevention measures can be as simple as lining culverts with silt fences and bales of hay or as complicated as grading property to channel storm water in a certain direction.
Local officials have characterized their efforts as a response to a mandate from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Monty Montgomery, an assistant director with the Alaska Association of General Contractors, said the EPA has tightened expectations in recent years that communities and contractors will incorporate pollution-prevention measures into construction work and building designs. That, coupled with the recent oversight by local governments — which, unlike federal agencies, usually have offices within a few blocks or miles of construction sites — is translating into higher costs for an industry already dealing with rising prices for steel, wood and other materials, he said.
Montgomery said many of the environmental fines levied by federal agencies against contractors in Alaska have been for paperwork-level mistakes.
“If you say you have 13 bales of hay out there, then you better have 13 bales of hay, not 12,” he said.
The community inherited a greater responsibility to prevent water pollution after census figures for the greater Fairbanks area hit a nationally set benchmark earlier this decade.
Borough Assembly members are currently reviewing an ordinance that, if approved, would establish fines of between $500 and $1,000 for businesses or individuals who pollute the Chena River, Noyes Slough or other waterways at points outside the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole but within densely-populated areas. Developers working construction sites one acre or larger near the cities would also need to submit storm-water management plans under the ordinance, and an inspector from the borough’s Public Works Department would visit those construction sites once a year.
Bert Bell, president of GHEMM Co., said his company has trained some of its workers to help the contractor better follow the storm water rules. It uses a third-party to draft pollution-prevention plans for construction sites, he said.
Dale Himebaugh, a superintendent for Exclusive Paving, said road-construction companies are seeing storm-water-pollution-prevention laws indirectly hike their respective projects’ budgets.
“It’s gotten a lot stricter, and it’s driven costs up,” he said.
The Borough Assembly plans to hold a public hearing on the proposed pollution fines June 12.
Randy Johnson, a deputy director for the borough’s Public Works Department, said the rules would apply to 40 of the 100-plus road service area tax districts surrounding the cities.
“We’re trying to be more responsible ... to make sure erosion or spills don’t foul culverts and ditches,” Johnson said. “It will help (road) service areas more than be a hindrance.”
Montgomery’s agency has teamed with contractors to educate hundreds of construction leaders around the state about environmental water-pollution standards, Montgomery said.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Looks like the borough will need to higher a few environmental engineers at $120,000 each to monitor this new ordinance. After all money grows on trees.
Yeah, let's just pollute our waterways instead. And let's exaggerate the salaries of borough employees because that makes the argument more valid.
These kinds of regulations are a necessary evil as population density increases, unless we don't mind degrading the waterways and dealing with all of the negative consequences that follow.
Will the local government rules meet or exceed the EPA regulation?
If not then contractors will have to follow the rules of two different government regulations..
EPA Permits vs. State-Issued Permits
At the time of publication, EPA was the NPDES permitting authority in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Idaho, Alaska, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. territories (except the Virgin Islands),
most Indian country lands, and for federal facilities in four states. For an
up-to-date list of NPDES permitting authorities, visit www.epa.gov/npdes/
stormwater/construct on or www.c cacenter.org/swrl.html
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_g...
The assembly at it's finest .... what a pitiful bunch of kids they are being led by the morons.
FREE ordinances for everyone, that will surely solve the problems (that don't exist!).
We should replace the 4th of July with Fairbanks Ordinance Day! Yea .....
AKhusky are you from California .... lol.
James,
Nope,sorry, I'm not from California. I just have the ability to see beyond tomorrow. Preventing a problem is always less expensive than trying to mitigate one. And with the population density of the Fairbanks area, water quality problems are inevitable. That's why the federal water quality standards become mandatory after population sizes and densities reach designated threshholds.
AKhusky-Government does not solve problems-it creates them.
No we humens create problems, and when it directly affects you? You will whine, whine, whine about how the government was not there to protect you!
Foxalaska,
I agree that sometimes, government creates problems. However, it also helps solve them when the issue is a collective one, such as water quality or air quality. These issues are ones where individual's actions may not contribute significantly to a problem, but the cumulative effects of many people add up to become a problem. Individuals are not inclined to change their actions, because they don't think it has any impact, so like it or not, regulation is required to force people to change their behavior. In these cases, government regulation works. As examples, look at the vast ijmprovement in water quality in Lake Erie once industries were not allowed to use it as a waste dump, or the improvement in air quality since the regulation of air emissions took affect. How do you propose to prevent pollution of Alaska's water bodies near urban areas if you don't think government intervention works? By the way, the Chena River and Chena slough are listed as impaired water bodies by the Alaska DEC.
I remember the parking problem on UAF,to fix it we have an entity to give tickets, collect fines and repair meters at what cost? Did it improve parking? Not only no but ???? no. It matters not what Gov. body trys to correct a problem, they create another body that is so big and self regulated it's hard to get rid of. Noby wants to admit their programs failed. ATF, IRS NAS, FBI, CIA and on and on.
Do we really want to give the borough the authority to levy and collect fines for anything whatsoever? I say no-way.
>let's just pollute our waterways instead.
Trying to prevent silt from entering the Chena / Tanana is like trying to teach abstinence at the Mustang Ranch. Have you even SEEN the Tanana? It's one big river of sand & silt. Duhh.
>And let's exaggerate the salaries of borough employees because that makes the argument more valid.
With pay, benefits, retirement & health care Boro engineer level employees COST $120k per year, easy.
The reality is, NPDES is already overseen by the EPA and (technically) DOT, although neither have any real enforcement due to funding restrictions. But most would argue that these issues really don't apply in Fairbanks where we don't even have top soil to speak of. Dig a foot down and you have well drained sand or weathered schist. And based on the amount of rainfall we receive, soil erosion PROBLEMS really just aren't an issue here. Not to mention, we don't have any REAL storm drain system in Fairbanks - atleast not where large scale land clearing is located. So the point is rather moot.
The Boro picking up enforcement is noble and well intentioned, at best. But I see it as only another source of potential funding, through fines.
Bigger and better government for all. Had we regulated this many years ago we would not be in this situation today. We simply need more regulation as we are a society of idiots needing guidance.
I nominate AKhusky as the new "alpha" to guide us on the proper path to clear, cool and clean water!!!
Can we get the borough assembly on DEC's "impaired" list too ...lol. Throw in the City for free.
Let's see the borough permit to water their lawn. Being located next to the Chena there is a great possibility that some of the fluoridated city water could run off into the river. Fluoride is a regulated poison and this is the contamination that we are trying to prevent right?
>Let's see the borough permit to water their lawn.
hehehe - June 12 - Be there, I will.
I'm gonna go down to the river tomorrow and dump a big, heapin' bagful of fluoride in, because we need to get fluoride back in the news.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.