A number of community members spoke in opposition to Plain City’s planned wastewater treatment plant expansion, most with the concern that it will promote new development that harms the environment.
“No snowflake wants to think it was the one to start the avalanche,” said Ecologist and Antioch College Professor Kim Landsbergen. “But that is where we are.”
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held an information session and public hearing Monday regarding its proposal to issue a permit for the expansion of the Plain City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) from an average flow of 0.75 million to 1.5 million gallons per day.
According to a release from the Ohio EPA, the expansion “would result in degradation to, or lowering of, the water quality in Big Darby Creek.”
“The lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate important social or economic development in the area in which the water body is located,” Ohio EPA Director Laurie A. Stevenson wrote in a draft permit.
David Brumbaugh, with the Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water, said the permit, if approved, will result in higher amounts of pollutants discharged to the Darby, but emphasized that it “does not authorize increased amounts of pollutants we are concerned about.”
For instance, the amounts of phosphorus, ammonia, total suspended solids and CBOD5 (five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand) will be capped at the current design limits of the WWTP.
Brumbaugh noted that these limits will serve to protect the habitat of endangered species of freshwater mussels, which have historically been observed in the Big Darby Creek.
Still, many community members argued that the limits imposed by the Ohio EPA will not do enough to protect the biodiversity of the watershed.
John Tetzloff, president of the Darby Creek Association, said the water quality of the Big Darby has met Ohio EPA standards for years but the mussel population has continued to decline.
He said his association is “not against all development,” but called on the Ohio EPA to impose a temporary moratorium on all development in the watershed.
Many of the individuals who testified during the public hearing echoed Tetzloff’s sentiment.
Kori Sedmak, with the Columbus Audubon, called urbanization the principal threat to the local waterway.
“We urge you to consider more than just the needs of the expanding population,” she said.
Melissa Brinkerhoff, a Brown Township resident, said lowering the water quality of the Big Darby Creek by expanding the WWTP to accommodate for more houses and apartments implies that species living in the watershed “are not important enough to protect.”
“Why should the environment… pay the price for poor human planning?” she asked.
Some speakers noted that increasing the capacity for residential development will create more impervious surfaces and more storm water runoff.
Ashley Ward, with the Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water, noted that the permit at hand is handled separately from storm water concerns.
Nathan Johnson, with the Ohio Environmental Council, called it an “ad hoc, piecemeal approach.”
While the agency may address the concerns separately, resident Antoinette Marsh said the discharge from the WWTP itself and the storm water runoff from new development will have a “cumulative effect.”
“Once it’s degraded, it’s not going to come back,” Marsh said. “It’s going to be a bad day for the mussels.”
Ward noted that construction in the watershed requires storm water permits from the Ohio EPA.
Additionally, she said the village of Plain City has ordinances detailed in its comprehensive plan regarding the conservation of green space.
Ward emphasized that the purpose of the permit is not to regulate development.
“(The permit process) isn’t meant to dictate what cities can or can’t build in their cities,” she said.
While the majority of those who participated in the public hearing opposed issuing the permit, two individuals spoke in favor, including Steve Rice, who said he feels the WWTP is “antiquated” and upgrades are “needed and necessary.”
The Ohio EPA will continue to accept written comments surrounding the proposed permit through July 18.
Comments may be mailed to Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Attn: Permits Processing Unit, P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049. They may be emailed to epa.dswcomments@epa.ohio.gov.
Max Moore, with the Public Interest Center at the Ohio EPA, said all comments received by 5 p.m. July 18 will be given the same consideration as testimony shared at the public hearing.
Once all comments are received, Ward said the Ohio EPA will either issue the permit as is, issue a revised version or deny the permit.
If the permit has extensive revisions, a second public hearing may be held.
She said the earliest the permit could be finalized is Sept. 1, as it must go before the U.S. EPA for review.