|
By Phil Williams
pwilliam@franklin.uga.edu
As Georgia streams, rivers and lakes approach record lows, governments are fighting to keep the water flowing. At least one Georgia city faces running out of water completely this month.
There’s another issue at stake, however, and that’s water quality. If the state’s water resources become irreparably damaged, it doesn’t matter how often it rains--or for how long. That’s why UGA ecologists have developed a model ordinance for local governments dealing with buffer zones for streams and rivers. And cities and counties across the country are rapidly gaining interest.
“Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division was required by the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 to come up with buffers for streams, and they decided that 100 feet on either side of the water would be required, but only on larger rivers with a specific average annual flow,” says Laurie Fowler, who teaches ecology and law at UGA. “The problem is this decision to limit protection to larger bodies of water wasn’t really backed up by any scientific research. What we did was match the science to the problem.”
Likewise, says Fowler, there was no scientific basis for the Erosion and Sedimental Control Act’s restrictions on land-disturbing activities within 25 feet of any streams, with allowances for single-family residences and variances.
Fowler and Seth Wenger, a conservation ecologist and policy analyst at UGA, have therefore written “Protecting Stream and River Corridors: Creating Effective Local Riparian Buffer Ordinances,” a 68-page booklet just published by UGA’s Carl Vinson Institute of Government. (“Riparian” is an adjective that means of, on or pertaining to the bank of a natural water source.)
Interest in the model ordinance, which recommends (among other things) minimum 50-foot buffers for rivers and streams, has been quick and widespread. Requests for copies have come from California, Maine and Florida. Queries have even come from as far away as Australia.
“Local governments have a real need for science-based buffer ordinances, but in many cases, the science just wasn’t available,” says Wenger. “We want to make sure that what is put in place is based on science.”
The value of plant buffers along streams and rivers has been known for some time. The booklet lists those benefits as trapping and removing sediment from runoff; stabilizing stream banks and reducing channel erosion; trapping and removing nutrients and contaminants; storing flood waters, thereby reducing property damage; maintaining habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms; providing terrestrial habitat; maintaining good water quality; improving aesthetics, thereby increasing property values; and offering recreational and educational opportunities.
Unfortunately, buffer requirements around Georgia and the rest of the nation vary widely, and the difficulties in developing effective requirements have long seemed intractable. State and local laws have rarely provided a uniform and effective system of protection, and some local officials have avoided the issue entirely because of conflicts over property rights and fears of lawsuits.
“We realized that the first thing we had to do, before we could create a model buffer ordinance, was do a thorough review of the science involved,” says Fowler. “Seth did a fine job in that first step in his master’s dissertation.”
Wenger’s review determined that “the most effective buffers are at least . . . 100 feet wide, composed of native forest and are applied to all streams, including very small ones.” The width of an effective buffer, however, may vary, depending on such factors as the presence of wetlands and the slope and width of the flood plain.
The model ordinance includes two variable-width formulas that incorporate differing factors at specific locations. The first specifies a minimum width of 100 feet, while the second provides for a minimum width of 50 feet. Local governments which consider variable buffer widths too problematic to administer are advised to use fixed 100-foot buffers.
The booklet also discusses non-regulatory means that a local government may use to protect the buffer, such as the acceptance or purchase of development rights on the property.
In any case, no buffer under 50 feet can be considered very effective, the authors report.
“The issue of buffers is really a serious problem all over the state,” says Fowler. “There are very few buffers at all on many streams, and some tributaries are paved right to the edge of the water. Some local governments have been very concerned for a long time and have tried to do the right thing, and others have largely ignored the whole issue.”
The state of Georgia does have a law requiring 25-foot buffers on rivers, but in thousands of instances that rule is not being applied.
One problem is that variances to the state law continue to be approved wholesale. Fowler says the state Environmental Protection Division, according to one study, has granted as many as 90 percent of the variances requested. She says the state is now setting up a committee to look at the issue of variances. Wenger serves on that committee.
The new study and model ordinance give local governments, for the first time, hard scientific evidence of the need for buffers of at least 50 feet. In the past, local governments had borrowed ordinance language from each other, but few were sure what was based on sound science or what might hold up in court.
The encouraging news, according to Wenger, is that the quality of Georgia’s streams and rivers (with some notable exceptions) is for now quite good. With massive development, especially north of Atlanta, that quality cannot be taken for granted, however.
“Georgia really has a lot that’s worth saving,” he says. “Using buffers and planned developments now will save an incredible amount of money in the long term. It’s very expensive to retrofit a river corridor.”
|
