Public hearing concerning waste water treatment plant on hammock in Meridian; comments accepted through Aug. 6
Public hearing held by EPD concerning
waste water treatment plant on hammock in Meridian
By Kris Knieriem
More than fifty people gathered in the McIntosh County Recreation Center on Tuesday evening, Aug. 4, for a public hearing regarding the proposed Environmental Protection Division’s permit for a wastewater pollution control plant as part of a residential development on Landing Road, just a mile from the Sapelo Ferry Dock in Meridian.
The small parcel of land was rezoned from R1 to R3 (from medium to high density) in 2023; On the buildable four-acre parcel along Hudson Creek, Crescent River Partners, LLC, plans to develop a community on a circular drive consisting of ten free-standing short-term vacation rental units surrounding a Wastewater Treatment Plant comprised of “a septic tank, dosing tank, irrigation pump station, and drainfield,” permitting 1,750 gal/day. The proposed development also includes a 3,648 sq. community dock.
Tuesday’s meeting, which solely focused on the EPD permit for the Wastewater Pollution Control Plant, began with a brief presentation from EPD staff about the permitting process; the proposed wastewater system; treatment requirements, limitations and monitoring; groundwater monitoring requirements; soil monitoring requirements; solids management; Land Application System operations; and next steps.
EPD staff opened the floor to the community, where sixteen people shared remarks and asked questions. Nearly all spoke in opposition of the proposed permit based on a history of flooding on that small spit of land, danger to the ecosystem of the tiny tidal hammock, potential threats to saltmarsh and groundwater, suitability of the planned Eljen Geotextile Sand Filter (GSF) system, the harsh conditions of the air and water in the marsh and its effect on sensitive equipment, methodology for monitoring, reporting and notification, and long-term responsibility for system failures.
The hearing concluded at 7:30 p.m. with EPD staff explaining that they will provide written responses to all oral and written comments, along with the granted permit, denial, or suggested revisions. In addition to oral testimony, written comments were being accepted the end of day on Aug. 6, via email to: EPD.comments@dnr.gov.ga with the subject line: LAS permit issuance – Landing Road Development, Water Pollution Control Plant – GAJ040065 (McIntosh County).
Darien resident Jan Chamberlain shared that she was usually pro-development, especially short-term vacation rentals. But her questions about the development’s height in relation to sea level and of flooding’s impact on wastewater flowing into the marsh give her concern about the proposed permit.
Ann Majure, a retired science educator, expressed her opposition to the permit based on her experience living in the community. She shared photographs of a significant flooding event, which rendered Landing Road impassable. She also described the after-a-storm impact of wrack. “When property is covered by saltwater intrusion and dead marsh grass, septic systems have problems,” she explained. “Wrack (dead marsh grass that floats) may end up covering the property. The dense mat of debris cuts off air supply to the soil. Without oxygen, the bacteria need to break down waste and effluent in the drain field does not work properly. Heavy rain and storm surge cover the ground and stops the sun from drying out the topsoil keeping the land waterlogged. Wrack is not easy to remove and takes proper equipment for removal. What is the plan when this happens?”
Retired engineer Miles Majure also discussed historical flooding and added questions about the impact of saltwater on a system like the one proposed in the permit. He cited researchers’ data about anticipated flooding, pointing out that, “at some point, this is all going to be under water.”
Tim Gardner shared that he has experience as an electrical contractor working in three states on wastewater treatment facilities. He asked several questions about failure: how is it reported? How is the community notified? Who notifies citizens of a violation? Who pays for the continuous monitoring? Who is accountable for clean up? He suggested the developers put up a bond that would cover costs in advance. He also expressed concern about the elevated drainfield in the proposed system and egress of effluent. Linda Daniels, a neighbor across the marsh, shared her experience with routine flooding, particularly during king tides, in which water routinely covers Landing Road.
Neighbor Virginia Hannah explained, “The physiography of this area and its known response to coastal flooding conditions makes it considered a high-risk area. As population growth and demand for coastal development increases so does the sea levels so, too, does the ground water table. Habitat disruption will occur with this project and as the potential for saturation risks are introduced into our marshes and waterways, there is no doubt that the EPD would be approving a destructive shoreline alteration. How this tiny hammock on this little sliver of our coast was rezoned from R1 to R3 is a moot point, but when decision-makers ignore the effects of their choices on others, we value cooperative planning, and we value the responsibility that your agency has to develop an effective response for intervention.” She concluded, “I ask the EPD to bring real scrutiny to the situation and deny this application. I ask that the EPD does not put us in a position of becoming a cautionary tale for the rest of Georgia.”
Kris Knieriem shared her opposition to the permit based on frequent flooding and system failure, the diminutive nature of the parcel for this size wastewater pollution control facility, and its location in a Groundwater High Pollution Susceptibility Zone, meaning system failure would have a devastating effect on the community’s reliance on wells and safe drinking water. She implored the EPD staff to “consider this permit as if your life depended on it, because,” she added motioning to her neighbors, “to us, it does.”
One Hundred Miles Coastal Advocate Susan Inman recognized that flood events and related wrack issues are well-documented at this site. She noted that, as currently written, “the permit relies on reactive reporting requirements triggered only after ‘mechanical failure, inclement weather, or other factors cause a discharge of contaminated runoff,’ rather than establishing preventative design standards and operational thresholds to avoid such discharges. Underscoring the need for proactive safeguards,” she added, “one can access the historical data from the USGS weather station data from the Hudson Creek at Meridian Landing, USGS 022035975. Here you will see within the past three years the gage height has reached 6 ft. at least five times. Meanwhile, the height of road is 6.3 ft, the property is 5.8- 7.1 ft. With these proven flood conditions, the absence of enforceable operational criteria measures does not provide reasonable assurance that discharges to adjacent wetlands will be avoided during flood or storm events.
She asked, “How can a system operate during these flood events to prevent surface water discharges? The site’s proximity to surrounding marshes, combined with the lack of surface water monitoring, presents further risk. The permit states that ‘the land treatment system must be operated and maintained to ensure there are no point source discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the state.’ However, given the insufficient wetland separation, lack of groundwater contingency criteria, and a minimal monitoring framework, there is inadequate evidence that this standard can be consistently achieve.”
Alan Shedd opposes the development as it relates to DNR barrier lines and specifically the wastewater facility, asking questions about its construction. He asked about protections of the marsh, especially as the facility will need to be significantly elevated, utilizing 46 dump trucks of dirt.
Maggie Van Cantfort, Altamaha Coastkeeper, asked EPD to deny the permit. She explained that the site was not appropriate for the size of the septic system and further added that the fragile marsh hammock should be protected, not built upon. She asked additional questions about the potential for the geotextile to introduce microplastics and PFAs to the marsh. She also questioned calculation of water usage.
Darien resident Steven Brown said he decided to attend the evening’s hearing after hearing about plans to build ten houses on the hammock hoping the meeting would answer his question: “Is this real?” He explained that salt air and water “tears things up” and inquired about its impact on the sophisticated equipment, the after-effects of its failure and what would be involved in its repair.
Deborah Sheppard told the audience she has lived in the area for 30 years and “has witnessed the increased flooding and actual sinking of land at the marsh edge. Extreme weather events including high tides and heavy rainfall are becoming more common.” She added, “The proposed system relies on environmental conditions that do not exist on this site. The availability and costs of the proposed monitoring and technical support are equally unlikely to exist in this area. The likelihood of failure is high and the cost and capacity for assessing and dealing with that failure are unknown.” She concluded, “I urge the EPD to deny this permit. This would allow for the review and consideration of the many concerns that are being raised here tonight and in written comments. Perhaps a smaller and better proposal for this property can developed in light of the many limitations in place.”
Neighbor Tina Ridley expressed her opposition to the permit based on her experience with flooding on the site, the fragile nature of the marsh hammock, and in consultation with experts she approached via her work on Sapelo Island. Tina also shared images and video of routine flooding with the EPD staff.
Richard Thompson, a retired civil engineer and developer, mused that in his career he was usually on the other side of this discussion. He challenged the EPD to focus on two items: accountability and responsibility. He argued that the system is going to fail, so he urged EPD to deny the permit. If it is allowed, however, he encouraged the developer to maintain an escrow account to address the costs of failure. He concluded by stating that responsible land development balances economic needs with environmental protections.
Retired veterinarian Jerry Meyer discussed the health of the creek and ecosystem, especially regarding the fish and crabs harvested in the creek. He expressed concern for safety of this food source and impact on commercial crabbers and fishermen who rely on the waterway.
Harry Jennings, the evening’s final speaker, explained he lives one tide cycle away from this development. He asked, “This LLC will be disbanded; how are its successors legally bound?” He also questioned notifications to residents and urged EPD to include a mechanism to force cessation upon failure, and condemn usage until safe, not simply just notification.