By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great local journalism.
Cumming defends site work
EPD will rule on alleged violations
Placeholder Image
Forsyth County News
A state agency will determine the next step in a dispute over whether Cumming violated water quality laws when clearing land for an aquatic center.

A final consent order from the director of the state Environmental Protection Division could come as early as next week, both sides say.

Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Inc., which has threatened litigation, says the city violated four laws protecting water quality and natural resources.

Cumming Director of Planning and Zoning Scott Morgan said the city disagrees with all four accusations. It filed a notice of intent with the EPD prior to any work at the site.

“We cleared and grubbed the aquatic center site in order for us to look at the typography of the site ... to see if it’s suitable to locate the aquatic center there,” Morgan said. “There was no grading done. There was no moving of any dirt.”

That’s just not the case, said Jason Ulseth, director of technical programs for the riverkeeper group.

A Cumming resident, Ulseth said he was on his way to the library when he first noticed the site, which he described as “pretty much as bad as it gets for violations on a construction site.”

Ulseth said the city cleared more land than the EPD approved, among other violations. Penalties can run as high as $32,500 per day, per violation.

“Within the past three or four years, this is our third notice of intent to sue out of hundreds and hundreds of site investigations, so this isn’t something we take lightly or do often,” he said.

“I’ve been doing this for about six years and this is probably the worst site I’ve ever seen out of the thousands of sites I’ve worked on.”

Kevin Chambers, EPD spokesman, declined to comment on specifics of the issue, saying only “we’re still investigating.”

But in an e-mail Ulseth received from an EPD environmental engineer, there appears to be evidence of violation.

According to the e-mail, the engineer and a department manager visited the site April 8.

Based on observations detailed in the e-mail, the EPD’s determination is that “state waters and corresponding stream buffers were not correctly identified and delineated prior to clearing the site.”

“As a result, the stream buffer has been encroached/eliminated without a buffer variance and the stream has been impacted.”

City Attorney Dana Miles said the city is “preparing a written response” to the riverkeeper group.

“We, before this letter came and since then, have been working with the EPD,” he said. “A proposed consent order was sent to the city by the EPD.”

Consent orders can disprove allegations. They can also require a course of action, which could include fines and additional work to improve any damages.

A consent order does not become a public document until signed by the EPD’s director, Miles said.

Riverkeeper attorney Andrew Thompson said the consent order will dictate the next step.

“We would have to review that consent order and determine what enforcement action is taken by the EPD and whether it’s sufficient,” Thompson said.

“We believe they’re [the city] not complying with the law currently and they would need to take action to remediate the harm that they’ve caused.”

E-mail Jennifer Sami at jennifersami@forsythnews.com