In defense of Maumelle watershed amendments | Arkansas Blog

Monday, December 19, 2011

In defense of Maumelle watershed amendments

Posted By on Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:57 AM

Kathy Wells, president of the Coalition of Greater Little Rock Neighborhoods, responds to a story in the Democrat-Gazette over the weekend quoting Pulaski County Attorney Karla Burnett raising questions about amendments added to pending land use proposals for the Lake Maumelle watershed.

Wells said, for one, that attorneys at the McMath Law Firm, which drafted the amendments, said there were no legal problems with them.

For example, Burnett objected to an amendment to explicitly protect current land uses by existing owners. Wells notes that the language merely repeats a provision in the county's own zoning code to further reassure existing landowners that they are protected.

Burnett also raised the specter of a "reverse taking" on a rule that could limit home development to 7,000, rather than a figure perhaps five times larger in Pulaski County. But Wells noted — laments, actually — that the amendment provides a means for that number to increase once it's proved that anti-pollution procedures are working to prevent degradation of the water supply.

The Coalition argues its policy to start small, at 7,000 houses, and prove pollution is controlled before allowing more, would serve “legitimate state interests” better than allowing 39,000 houses in our Watershed, draining downhill into our drinking water reservoir.

Any owner whose construction keeps pollution out of Lake Maumelle has “economically viable use of his land.” That is the theory of the present Code, and the Coalition does not change that.

Note: Any additional rules added to protect the watershed are opposed by Deltic Timber. County Judge Buddy Villines and his staff, such as the county attorney, have historically been deferential to Deltic, such as with the first major revising of the county proposals. It was written for the county planning office by Deltic. If you get my drift about the sudden new legal questions.

Tags: , , ,

From the ArkTimes store

Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • An open line for Sunday

    An open line.
    • Sep 24, 2017
  • City plans more spending on 30 Crossing

    The Little Rock City Board meets Tuesday to set an agenda for the following week and among the "consent" items is a new $175,000 with Nelson/Nygaard consultants to "assist with a comprehensive review" of the 30 Crossing project, otherwise known as the bigger concrete ditch the Department of Transportation wants to tear through the heart of Little Rock.
    • Sep 24, 2017
  • NFL owners rise to defense of players against Trump and false patriots

    Many football team owners have risen to the defense of players against Donald Trump criticism as yet another racially fraught issue seems likely to gain increasing heat thanks to Trump's rhetoric.
    • Sep 24, 2017
  • More »

Readers also liked…

Most Shared

  • ASU to reap $3.69 million from estate of Jim and Wanda Lee Vaughn

    Arkansas State University announced today plans for spending an expected $3.69 million gift in the final distribution of the estate of Jim and Wanda Lee Vaughn, who died in 2013 and 2015 respectively.
  • Bad health care bill, again

    Wait! Postpone tax reform and everything else for a while longer because the Senate is going to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act one more time before September ends and while it can do it with the votes of only 50 senators.
  • Sex on campus

    Look, the Great Campus Rape Crisis was mainly hype all along. What Vice President Joe Biden described as an epidemic of sexual violence sweeping American college campuses in 2011 was vastly overstated.
  • The inadequate legacy of Brown

    LRSD continues to abdicate its responsibility to educate poor black students.

Most Viewed

Most Recent Comments

Blogroll

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation