Arkansas Times

Arkansas Blog

« Monday night line | Chamber leads effort to oppose gas… »

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Environment Questions about Maumelle land use plan

Posted by Max Brantley on Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:13 AM

It's technical stuff, but those of you who care about clean water in Central Arkansas should continue reading on the jump. It's an explanation from the citizens group working for land use rules in the Lake Maumelle watershed about the shortcomings of the proposal to be considered by the Pulaski County Planning Board today.

In short: The plan has been rewritten by Deltic Timber (the Chenal Valley developer that owns most of the land in the watershed) to allow it to build five times more houses in the watershed than an original compromise plan would have allowed. And it uses measurements for potential pollution that aren't based on the specific types of soil and terrain present in the Lake Maumelle area, but on generic national standards. A more specific study is necessary about a water-safe level of development in the area. It might even prove to be less than the original plan neutered by developers' money.

From Barry Haas
Spokesperson, Citizens Protecting Lake Maumelle watershed

Bottom line, the current October 4 draft Lake Maumelle Zoning Code would allow more than 5 times as many new houses in just the Pulaski Co. portion of the watershed than the Watershed Management Plan contemplated in the entire 3-county watershed. Think about that!

At the October 13 Central Arkansas Water Commission meeting Citizens Protecting Maumelle Watershed (CPMW) released our analysis of how many new houses can be built in just the Pulaski Co. portion of the Lake Maumelle watershed:

6,784 2 houses/acre possible in the Village District (3,392 acres x 2 houses/acre)
16,942 2 houses/acre possible in 40% of the Low Impact District (8,471 acres x 2 houses/acre)
12,707 1 house/acre possible in 60% of the Low Impact District (12,707 acres x 1 house/acre)
36,433 Total potential new houses in Low Impact & Village Districts combined

The above totals do not take into account even more houses that would be allowed (1) if developers used the Site Evaluation Tool (more on the SET below) instead of 1-acre minimum lots on 12,707 developable acres in the Low Impact District or (2) if developers took advantage of a 10% increased density allowance for pumping wastewater outside the watershed.

By comparison, the Watershed Management Plan concluded only 6,000- 7,000 new houses would be allowed in the entire watershed including Pulaski, Perry, and Saline counties. Our calculation of the number of new houses allowed by the October 4 draft Lake Maumelle Zoning Code remains unchallenged by either Pulaski Co. officials or Deltic Timber.

Please note that the 3,392 acres figure for the Village District and 21,178 acres figure for the Low Impact District came from the Pulaski County Planning Department. The density, or houses per acre, are taken from the October 4 draft Lake Maumelle Zoning Code. The densities are from Table 2 Village District Dimensional Standards (page 9 of the Zoning Code), Table 3, Column B, Low Impact Planned Residential District Dimensional Standards (page 10), and Table 4 Density & Open Space Requirements in Low Impact Planned Residential District (page 11).

As noted above, the Site Evaluation Tool, or SET, option may allow even higher densities on 60% of the 21,178 developable acres in the Low Impact District using Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are okay in theory, but often fail to perform as expected over the years. We don't want our drinking water quality to have to rely on BMPs which offer less protection in practice than in theory.

One other important fact- the Site Evaluation Tool, or SET, is an Excel spread sheet loaded with a mathematical equation for each variable like impervious area, etc. The mathematical equation for nutrient loading for BMPs comes from a national database which is generic in nature. Tetra Tech wanted the BMPs tested on Lake Maumelle type soil, forest floor, topographies, etc. so the equations in the SET would be particular to Lake Maumelle. Those "pilot projects" have never been done and to this day the SET remains unproven. In our opinion that's not good enough to guarantee the protection of a high quality public drinking water supply for 400,000 central Arkansans. We want the SET to be a reliable and useful tool, but we don't know if it is given the lack of verification.

The question is would the amount of pollutants, particularly phosphorous, coming off of developed land match what the scientific modeling equations in the SET indicate? Or would they exceed the SET maximums, requiring even fewer new houses?

        
Tweet
Share

Comments (6)

Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment

Is the land available to purchase? If so, they will the CAW purchase the land?

report

dislike

Posted by arkansas panic fan on 10/25/2011 at 7:27 AM

W.C. Fields had the best reason not to drink water, but this is another one.

report

dislike

Posted by Carrick Patterson on 10/25/2011 at 7:48 AM

apf, don't purchase, condemn it and take it. It is absolutely stupid to allow a corporation to threaten the entire community's water supply. If they create a condition where the water treatment costs skyrocket, I bet they would expect the entire community to pay the cost and not just those who bought or developed the land. And no company will relocate to an area where the water source is compromised and that means you can take that $200 million CoC slush fund and throw it in the river for all the good it will do. You could even affect existing businesses that are heavy water users to relocate OUT. Start thinking Pulaski County!

Of course, a green Lake Maumelle could put Deltic at the receiving end of some major lawsuits and that wouldn't be so bad since those who will buy those over-priced lots will end up being those with the money and connections to make life uncomfortable for them for a long time.

report

dislike

Posted by couldn't be better on 10/25/2011 at 8:17 AM

When will the people reign in the greed of corporations?

Are backdoor deals to destroy the water supply of the capital city of a state not enough?

There is no constitutional right to piss in my water supply and tell me to either like it or pay money out of my pocket to clean it.

That is an absurd stretch of the word "rights" that the founding fathers would have laughed at.

report

dislike

Posted by ChildeRolandReturneth on 10/25/2011 at 9:09 AM

There is NO reason to allow housing developements on the watershed. There is plenty of land that will NOT impact the watershed to build on. Private owners are being hog tied in their land use but developers are given what ever they want. The board promised that one development would not go in - the developer started building anyway & was allowed to continue.

Once the developers come in & build houses then the strip shopping centers, etc. come in right behind. Why people buy out in the country & then demand that it become the city is hard to understand. You want shopping live on Chenal, you want to see the stars, listen to the sounds of the night... buy land in the country & build one house on it... don't build a subdivision that will give off light polution & more.

The country is for country folks... let the city folks stay in the city.

report

dislike

Posted by Miss Ellie on 10/26/2011 at 7:06 AM

nicely put Miss. Ellie

report

dislike

Posted by lori on 10/28/2011 at 11:08 AM

Subscribe to this thread:

By Email

With RSS

Showing 1-6 of 6

More by Author

The Arkansas lottery's very bad deal

A tout today for some items in this week's issue of the Arkansas Times. * LOTTERY AND ERNIE P.'S LEGACY: Lindsey Millar's cover story explains in detail how the Arkansas Lottery got put into a very bad deal with major lottery vendors by former director Ernie Passailaigue.
- by Max Brantley
- Apr 18, 2012
Fire at Party City

Reader Donald Dailey sends the photo of fire burning today at Party City on Rodney Parham Road.
- by Max Brantley
- Mar 7, 2012
More »

Event Calendar

« »

May

Events Movies Music Art Theater

most recent comments

Top Commenters

Slideshows

Police clear Occupy Little Rock camp
Police close the Occupy Little Rock camp, perhaps the last Occupy encampment on public land.
St. Patrick's Day Parade