Developer eager to leave taxpayer with lake burden

By FREDERICK VOM SAAL
Columbia Dailly Tribune
Sunday, March 7, 2004

There have been repeated public statements by agents working for the developer of the 489-acre Philips property that water quality in this area will actually be improved by the development. The amount and type of pollutants that will be generated are related to the amount and type of development. Philips farm Tracts 4 through 9 consist of 256 acres proposed for commercial development - including parking lots with 12,000 spaces - that will cover 126 acres, amounting to almost 50 percent impervious surface. Storm-water runoff from all of this commercial development will drain into Tract 3, which contains the 40-acre Philips lake in addition to another 90 acres. Tract 3 is being considered for use as a city park. Columbia City Councilman John John, who is also the real estate agent for the developer, has said: "The water in Philips lake will be cleaner after the development than it is now. I will drink the water."

Much of the focus on water quality issues associated with the development plan has been on the ability to control runoff using "best management practices," which consist of devices such as plants, detention ponds and lakes. Unfortunately, though these devices are effective for most residential construction, they are not designed to remove the types of organic pollutants generated from such a large commercial development. These organic pollutants dissolve in storm water and consist of chemicals such as toxic additives in gasoline and toxic chemicals that leach off of asphalt and from building materials. The potential for harm includes brain damage in children exposed to these pollutants from contaminated lakes. These organic pollutants require special types of filtration materials, such as very expensive carbon filtration systems, to be removed to the point that the water is safe for recreational purposes - forget about drinking it. The wording of the rezoning document prepared by the developer makes it clear that cost will be a determining factor in pollution control, leading to the conclusion that he has no intention of implementing these expensive measures.

The CH2MHILL report, which the city council paid for to obtain an unbiased opinion, says that, regarding the developer’s "water quality management plan, … there is ambiguousness about whether protection of the lake is a priority. … The lake is a cornerstone storm-water treatment facility. … Rather than an amenity for the community, the lake could become an eyesore."

The proposed best management practice devices will remove only about 50 percent of these dissolved organic pollutants from the storm water; the rest will drain into the Clear Creek and Gans Creek and eventually Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. The reality is that the developer’s plan to use the Philips lake as the primary water treatment facility means many removed pollutants will become trapped in the lake sediment. Disturbance of the sediment will result in release of the pollutants at toxic levels. Any use of the Philips lake by people will have to be forbidden, and any wildlife in or around the lake will become polluted. To protect the city from future suits, specific standards need to be set down in writing in the rezoning ordinance that provide for a mechanism to hold the owners of the commercial properties responsible for monitoring and limiting the pollutants generated from this massive commercial development.

The developer has suddenly proposed giving the Philips lake and about 23 additional acres to the city "for free." The city, meanwhile, is supposed to pay about $1.28 million for the remaining acres next to the lake in Tract 3 for use as a city park. The developer obviously is desperate to get rid of the lake and surrounding land in Tract 3 because they will require continual maintenance at a great cost to avoid a serious public health hazard.

It would be irresponsible for city council members to place the burden of ownership of the Philips lake and surrounding property on the taxpayers at the same time they approve the development plan with the lake and property to be used as the primary storm-water treatment facility. Why are the city council and staff ignoring their hired consultant’s warning about polluted water and future liability?