[LCN Newscast] Sewer Separation Lawsuit

[newscast@lists.lakeclaire.org]

This message is quite a bit longer than typical messages
sent thro' Newscast, but considering the economic and
environmental impacts involved we thought it best to send
the entire update, rather than just a synopsis.  This was
submitted by Shannon Kettering (npu@lakeclaire.org) and
Bob Schreiber, our current and a past NPU-N representatives,
respectively.

--------------------------------------

MAY 30, 2002

Citizens sue city to force full assessment of sewer separation

BY JOHN SCHAFFNER

A group of citizens petitioned Fulton County Superior Court last
week to legally compel the City of Atlanta to conduct a thorough
assessment of both the benefits and the costs of complete sewer
separation, contending that the city has failed to satisfy a
city ordinance adopted in August 1998 that required such
assessment. The civil suit, which was officially filed May 20,
lists Shirley Franklin, individually and in her official
capacity as mayor, and the City of Atlanta as defendants. The
plaintiffs are listed as Jacqueline M. Echols, Vivian Steadman
and Harry Leon, who refer to themselves as advocates for active
public participation in the selection of Atlanta's long-term
combined sewer overflow (CSO) remedy. The law firm of Andrews
and Knowles represents the group. According to Echols, who
teaches public administration at Clark College and is an active
member of the Clean Streams Task Force, the three citizens
prepared and filed the court action following a meeting on
Thursday, May 16 at which Greg Giornelli, chief of policy for
Mayor Franklin, announced that the city was not doing the dual-
track study for the purpose of assessing total sewer separation.
Echols said that Giornelli said at that meeting "by looking at
the 100 percent separation, we are only looking at which 27
percent to separate." Echols said that, by that statement,
Giornelli was declaring total sewer separation officially a dead
issue as an alternative to the city's proposed storm water
runoff tunnel system, which is the other part of the dual-track
studies. Echols said that until that time, it was the
understanding that Dan Peters, acting director of the Department
of Public Works, and his staff were moving forward with the
study of total sewer separation as part of the planned dual-
track studies, which was to thoroughly study total sewer
separation versus constructing the storm water runoff tunnel
system. The petitioners contend that the city as failed to
satisfy the provisions of City Ordinance 98-O-1327, which
requires the city to conduct a thorough assessment of both the
benefits and costs of complete sewer separation, and with which
the city recognized that sewer separations could solve Atlanta's
combined sewer problems. The ordinance states, "The separation
of the combined sewers into sanitary sewers and storm water
drains is a well-recognized measure that abates the
environmental impacts on urban rivers attributable to combined
sewer overflows, and to backups of combined sewers, and to
overloading interceptor sewers with combined sewage." The
petitioners also contend that without this assessment, "the
mayor will be unable to make a truly informed decision as to
which option for dealing with the city's combined sewer problems
best serves the city, its citizens and neighbors."

The legal action also contends that, according to Ordinance 98-
O-1327, the thorough assessment, which Echols, Steadman and Leon
seek, was to be conducted as part of a remedial measures
alternative study required by a consent decree in the case of
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, et al, versus City of Atlanta.
Echols said that in April 2001, the city submitted its Remedial
Measures Report (RMR) to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Georgia Environment Protection Division (EPD).
She said the RMR did not include the required thorough
assessment of the costs and benefits of sewer separation.
Instead, she added, "the RMR designated a preferred option which
involved building massive underground storage tunnels." Of
particular interest to the petitioners is the fact that the RMR
did acknowledge that Atlanta's public participants in the survey
supported full sewer separation. "We have begged and pleaded
with the city to follow through on the requirements of the
ordinance, but to no avail," Echols said. In fact, she said a
friend of the cause and of the mayor's had tried as late as this
week to broker a meeting with the mayor. She said Mayor Franklin
did not respond to a letter or the follow-up. "The city has
given us no choice but to pursue this matter in court," she
said. The suit originally was assigned to Fulton Superior Court
Judge Marvin S. Arrington Sr. who recused himself from the civil
action. The action now has been assigned to Judge T. Bedford
Jackson Jr. The plaintiffs have asked for a speedy hearing of
the case and hope to have it heard by mid to late June.

http://www.the-stories.com/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A413

Below is the press release from the plaintiffs.   The particular
issue with the  Remedial Measures Report and the Ordinance is
that the city did not THOROUGHLY assess the BENEFITS of
separation and BMPs in regard to enhanced quality of life by
having parks and greenspace in many neighborhoods; and the 
potential for increased development in proximity to greenspace.
Currently, many of the sites for BMPs are not attractive for
development because they are near streams which frequently carry
waste water contaminated overflows.  Even with the "big bore
tunnel solution" there are four overflows permitted per year in
each of six watersheds.  If there are more than four, then there
are fines.  If the sewers are separated, then there is no waste
water in the streams and the BMPs serve to clean up other
contaminants which are picked up by storm water flows.  The
press release follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: COOPER KNOWLES ANDREWS & KNOWLES
(404) 524-4000, or JACQUELINE ECHOLS(404) 609-9517

PRESS RELEASE

On May 17, citizens Jacqueline M. Echols, Vivian Steadman, and
Harry Leon petitioned the Fulton County Superior Court for a
Writ of Mandamus, compelling the City of Atlanta to conduct a
thorough assessment of both the benefits and the costs of
complete sewer separation. The petitioners are advocates for
active public participation in the selection of Atlanta's long-
term combined sewer overflow (CSO) remedy, a choice that will
have far-reaching social, environmental, and financial impacts.
They are represented by the law firm of Andrews and Knowles.

The petitioners contend that:

The City has failed to satisfy the provisions of City Ordinance
98-O-1327, adopted in August 1998, which requires the City to
conduct a thorough assessment of both the benefits and costs of
complete sewer separation.

With this ordinance, the City also recognized that sewer
separation can solve Atlanta's combined sewer problems:

"[T]he separation of the combined sewers into sanitary sewers
and stormwater drains is a well-recognized measure that abates
the environmental impacts on urban rivers attributable to
combined sewer overflows, and to backups of combined sewers, and
to overloading interceptor sewers with combined sewage"
(Ordinance 98-O-1327).

Without this assessment, the Mayor will be unable to make a
truly informed decision as to which option for dealing with the
City's combined sewer problems best serves the City, its
citizens and its neighbors.

According to Ordinance 98-O-1327, the thorough assessment which
citizens Echols, Steadman, and Leon seek was to be conducted as
part of a remedial measures alternative study required by a
Consent Decree in the case of Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper,
et al. v. City of Atlanta.

In April 2001, the  City submitted its Remedial Measures Report
(RMR) to the U.S.  Environmental  Protection   Agency  (EPA)
and  Georgia  Environmental Protection  Division (EPD). The  RMR
did  NOT include the  required thorough assessment of  the costs
and benefits of  sewer separation; instead, the RMR designated a
preferred option  which involved building  massive underground
storage tunnels. Of particular interest to the partitioners is
the fact that the  RMR did acknowledge  that Atlanta's  public
participants in  the survey supported full sewer separation.

"We have begged and pleaded with the City to follow through on
the requirements of the Ordinance, but to no avail," states
Echols. "The city has given us no choice but to pursue this
matter in court."