(3/21) Over 50 people showed up for an afternoon briefing by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on the Lochland Ag & Turf farms request to draw up to 580,000 gallons of water per day out of Israel Creek to support their turf business. In close to two hours of public comment, not a single resident other the owners of Lochland spoke in favor of granting the permit.
Following the mandatory presentation of the permitting process by MDE representation, the floodgate of objections opened, starting with one resident asking "why are you having this meeting at 2 in the afternoon? Why not in the evening when more people could attend?" The response that doing so would have required MDE to pay their representatives for an evening meal, met with groans of disbelief from the audience.
Initial concerns focused on MDE’s lack of actual flow rates in the Creek to make its determination on how much water could safely be withdrawn. MDE claimed that the flow in the Monocacy at the Jug Bridge monitoring station could be utilized to provide an estimate on Israel Creek’s flow rate, was broadly pushed back.
The MDE was broadly criticized for using flow rates taken during the rainy seasons as opposed to the flow rate in the summer when the Creek would be at the lowest. The fact that all the photos of the Creek shown by the MDE were taken in the winter, as opposed to the summer, did not go unnoticed.
Members of the audience pleaded with the MDE to stop relying on 20+ year-old figures in books, and instead, to come out and see the Creek as they have seen it, in some cases over 60+ years.
"Why don’t you come back and take your flow measurements during the Dog Days of Summer?" one resident asked. "That will give you a true understanding of the flow rate when they [Lochland] will be pumping water out of the Creek."
Others recounted the number of times the Creek has dried up in recent years, wondering out loud, the insanity of trying to pull water out of a dried-up Creek. Many questioned the logic of allowing water to be drawn from the Creek to water sod when residents of Town are permanently banned from water on their own lawns.
In a subsequent e-mail to the MDE provided to the News-Journal, former Walkersville Planning Commission Chairman David Ennis said: "the land use of the two watersheds cannot be more different. Israel Creek is rural/ agriculture use while Jug Bridge has a significant urban component from the City of Frederick and surrounding County area." Ennis questioned how the MDE was accounting for the "MDE’s stormwater regulations, which affected the data comparison between the two locations from the 1960s when there was no SWM, through the 1980s when quantity management was prevalent, to the current time frame when various quality requirements were implemented."
But it was Stuart Gurst, whose is co-owner of Meadowlark Farm who resides downstream from Lochland, that made the best case for rejecting the permit. "The State just completed a $7 million effort to restore wetlands along the Creek. When I grew up on our property, the Creek always fed the wetlands, and we always had Meadowlarks. But over the years as the flow in the Creek was reduced due to urbanization, the wetlands dried up and Meadowlarks left."
"Now, thanks to the State, we have 40 acres of healthy wetlands fed by the Creek, and for the first time in years, the Meadowlarks are back. And not only are they back, but the wetlands are flush with birds, bees, butterflies and animals of all shapes and sizes."
"When you [MDE] talked about the impact on the water drawn by Lochland, you failed to talk about the impact on the wetlands adjacent to and on our property. The wetlands are built and dependent upon a certain flow rate in the Creek. If you reduce that flow rate by allowing water to be pulled out of the Creek, you will reduce the water flowing into the wetlands. If you reduce the flow into the wetlands, you will impact not only the size, but the quality of the wetlands, which will impact all those animals and birds who now call it home. You need to take their needs into account before you approve this permit."
Gurst description of the impact on the adjacent wetland drew several to call for an environmental impact review on the permit. While MDE pushed back stating that an environmental impact review was not normally done for water permits, the chorus of calls for one went unabated.
"If there was ever a reason for an environmental impact review," said one resident, "this would be it. Let's be clear, pulling water out of the Creek is going to impact the wetlands, and in doing so, the environment."
Susie Knapp, who owns a farm adjacent to it, told the News-Journal that six acres of her property adjoining the Creek is in a State program to improve water quality. "We have an additional 52 acres of buffers along the Creek and the three wetlands on our farm." Said Knapp. "We have been working for years to improve water quality and wildlife habitat. We just wish they would wait until the habitat is somewhat established."
The MDE’s assertion that Lochland would be prohibited from drawing water when the Creek’s flow was below a certain level was met with frustration, especially when the audience was told that Lochland would be responsible for ensuring it was complying by checking a measuring stick placed in the Creek which would be unavailable for the public to verify.
A recommendation to install a permanent flow measuring marker adjacent to the Creek’s crossing under Crum Road to allow residents to independently gage actual flow conditions seemed to resonate with the MDE, but as with all the recommendations offered by the audience, MDE refused to commit to it.
The audience’s primary goal was to request MDE hold off taking any action on the permit until the summer when MDE could gauge actual summertime Creek conditions.
Many suggestions were offered to MDE on alternatives that should be considered. Jeremy Joiner who displayed a mastery of the water management rules; requirements suggested a litany of options to minimize environmental impact including Lochland’s drilling a well and pumping water directly out of the aquifer or digging a retention pond and allowing it to fill during rainy periods and then watering their turf by drawing from it. While Joiner’s suggestions were met with head nods from the audience, they received blank stares from MDE.
When pressed as to what they could expect next, the MDE said they would take all public comments into consideration and discuss the merits of what they had heard but would not provide feedback on the merits of each individual’s comments.
While MDE insisted they had not made a final determination, they would not say if they would give the public a heads up on the decision before issuing it, nor did they give the audience any idea of the timing for the decision.
"If you disagree with our decision, you can always file a lawsuit to stop it." MDE told the audience.
When pressed by members of the audience to hold another meeting, but this time in the evening, to allow the MDE to get more input from a wider audience which includes local elected representatives, the MDE again demurred, instead suggesting the audience spread the word that the comment period was still open, and people could submit comments via the MDE website. But again, the MDE did not indicate when the comment period would close.
