Tag Archives: sewer

Status of (not Valdosta) Lowndes County Waste Water Spill

Mike Allen, Utilities Director, Lowndes County, Georgia After learning that Lowndes County (not Valdosta) was having a waste water spill, I called the Utilities Department and asked to speak with Director Mike Allen.

The person that answered the phone said that he was not available and perhaps she could answer my question or put me through to his voice mail. I figured that perhaps I could get some of my questions answered so I asked about the status of the current waste water spill. She said that it had been repaired as of 5am today (April 26).

I then asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the Overflow Emergency Response Program and she asked my name. When I said my name (Gretchen Quarterman) she said that I would have to talk to Paige Dukes and she would transfer me. After a long wait, she came back on the phone and said she would transfer me and I was transferred to the voice mail of Paige Dukes. I did not leave a message.

-gretchen

Major Spills: What to Do –GA DNR

Georgia: 14 River Basins Apparently whoever is responsible for a major spill into Georgia waters needs to immediately tell GA EPD DNR and the local health department and post a sign, and the sewage leak at GA 133 into the Withlacoochee River qualifies as a major spill. The City of Valdosta reported it as such, but it’s not clear it was their spill (update: it was Lowndes County’s spill). Excerpts below from GA DNR’s guidelines. -jsq

Water Quality: A Guide for Municipal Compliance by Mick Smith, Environmental Engineer.

Spills and Major Spills

Spill

  • Any discharge of raw sewage < 10,000 gallons to waters of the state

Major Spill

  • Any discharge of raw sewage > 10,000 gallons to waters of the state
  • BOD5 or TSS = 1.5 x weekly avg. permit limit
  • Any discharge resulting in a water quality violation
Continue reading →

Videos @ LCC 2012 05 07

Here are videos of the entire approximately eight minute 7 May 2012 Work Session of the Lowndes County Commission. They vote in Regular Session tonight at 5:30PM. Here’s the agenda.

See other post about “5. Appointments – Lowndes County Development Authority”.

Two weeks ago they decided to hold a public hearing about abandoning part of the Right of Way of old US 41 South, but this time it’s on the agenda as a Resolution, and it appears part of the request has been withdrawn, and some people would be left landlocked with no access to a public road, so it seems the Resolution will be to table at least part of it to an undetermined future date. Yet the County Engineer seemed to reccomend going ahead with the rest of the abandonment. Where’s the public hearing?

Two rezonings had no comments. The third, just north of Hahira, got opposition at the Planning Commission; see the other post on that.

A developer wants, according to County Planner Jason Davenport, a letter from the Commission so it can more readily get tax credits from the federal government. He didn’t say what the tax credits would be for. For a concrete front yard? Or for solar on the roof? It will be interesting to see how the anti-grant Commissioners vote on this one, when it’s a developer who benefits.

It sounds like the county wants to award a contract to Continue reading →

County quantifies some infrastructure payback times @ LCC 2012 03 31

Water and sewer take decades for return on investment, and roads and bridges probably aren’t any better. That’s worth remembering whenever solar, busses, or trains come up.

David Rodock wrote for the VDT Sunday, Commission wraps up annual retreat: Utility payments, road projects and waste disposal discussed

The cost of one mile of construction for water takes 23 years for a return on the initial investment; sewer takes 21.3 years.

The VDT didn’t specify the similar return times for road paving or bridge construction, but it’s a safe bet they’re at least as long. The farther water or sewer lines or roads or bridges are from population centers, the more they cost both directly in installation and indirectly in trips for fire and sheriff vehicles, and especially school busses. The county commissioned a report on that several years ago, as Gretchen reminded them last year. In the particular rezoning case on Cat Creek they were discussing then (Nottinghil), they made a decision to table which seems to have caused the developer never to come back with that particular sprawl plan. I congratulated the Commissioners at that time, and I congratulate them again on not promoting sprawl.

Sprawl costs the county, payback takes years, and longer the farther out it goes. What if we did something different? More on that later.

-jsq

 

 

This issue has a lot of peculiarities. —Barbara Stratton

Received today on Valdosta water project on county land, with no city or county approval. -jsq
This issue has a lot of peculiarities. The city engineer was quoted as saying he hoped Radney Plumbing, Inc. could be chosen for the project since the company had provided them a low price on similar work. Whatever happened to the bid procedure that is supposed to proceed any new construction activity regardless of personal preferences. Is this an impromptu public/private partnership where bidding gives way to cronyism? Oops, seems like I recently read that PPP’s were now being called beneficial corporations. Either way they are blatant fascism (mixing government & private business)& we don’t need them in Lowndes County. Under proper bidding procedures it would have been imposible for a contractor to have been given a go ahead by any mythical person. The project is expected to cost $132,000 of tax payer money & I think we deserve proper bid procedures to be certain we are getting maximum benefit from our expenditures.

I have no comment on the statement the pipe needed to be put in the ground so it would not go to waste other than I never new water/sewer pipe had a short expiraton date. Perhaps we should ask how so many feet of pipe were left over from another project since I’m sure 12″ pipe is not cheap. Does our project estimator need to sharpen his pencil?

It seems County Commission Chairman Paulk questions “the wisdom of spending that much taxpayer money without any prospect of income in the near future’. I’m glad someone is concerned about the taxpayers. Since it has been acknowledged we citizens have an interest in the obvious four way fiasco between city, county, private contractor & private landowners,I trust the VDT will continue to keep us informed of all the facts as they surface.

-Barbara Stratton

Valdosta water project on county land, with no city or county approval

It seems the City of Valdosta is installing a mile of water and sewwer pipe on county land without approval or prior knowledge of the Lowndes County government. Or, cats and dogs not playing well together. And, given that the Valdosta City Council apparently didn’t approve it either, cats not playing well together. Who is in charge of herding the cats?

David Rodock wrote in the VDT 23 November 2011, City project on county land

Without City Council approval, the installation of 5,600 linear feet of water/sewer pipe is being installed on Racetrack Road, at the very edge of annexed City property.
County says City didn’t notify. City says did.

This part is particularly interesting:

City Engineer Pat Collins said they had sent the county a letter and had not started on the project. He also said the city hoped to bring the project before council on Dec. 8, so they could make use of approximately 1,000 feet of 12 inch pipe leftover from a previous project.
So “not started” apparently includes digging ditches and installing 12 inch water mains. And “approval” means ask the Valdosta City Council after that’s already been done. And never ask the Lowndes County Commission, despite this project being on county land.

Not to worry, there’s a familiar excuse: blame the contractor! Continue reading →

Widening Old US 41 North: It’s Back, for $8 million T-SPLOST!

Lowndes County wants $8 million T-SPLOST to widen Old US 41 North from North Valdosta Road to Union Road, and the map shows the entire road to the center of Hahira as part of the plan.

Back in 2009, a local citizens group called car41no managed to fight off widening Old US 41 North all the way into Hahira, at least temporarily. Well, it’s back! This time, instead of asking for general GDOT money, Lowndes County is asking for funds from the proposed T-SPLOST one cent sales tax.

What is in the plan for old US 41 North between Union Road and Hahira?

It is proposed to construct bike lanes and possibly sidewalks throughout the project for the residents of this area to use.
I suspect “construct bike lanes” means paint lines on the pavement, and note that sidewalks are just “possibly”.

So what is this plan really for? Continue reading →