4/5/2018 7:01:00 PM Letters/OPINIONS
US Geological Survey is not debunked
At Summerfield's Unified Development Ordinance Review Committee meeting on March 15, TREBIC president Marlene Sanford stated as credible (emphasis) fact that published report "US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4140" is debunked - debunked to the degree that the UDO Review Committee should not consider it relevant for purposes of their deliberations. Moreover, the specific reason Sanford gave for Report 97-4140 being debunked is that the report calculations did not take into account septic wastewater recharge back into aquifer storage as a result of use of onsite septic.
After reading Report 97-4140 again this week, I find zero credibility in Sanford's underlying claim. Within the report its authors provided two example analyses of maximum development density in Guilford County, each using two different methods to calculate sustainable recharge. In both cases the authors explicitly state onsite septic is assumed. The authors also state that although there will be some loss due to evaporation through soil and uptake by plants, this loss is negligible compared to volume returned to aquifer storage and for purpose of the calculation (in report) that 100 percent of septic wastewater is assumed to return to aquifer storage.
Based on my attendance at the UDO Review Committee's meeting immediately after the one where Sanford presented, it is clear most committee members now accept that Report 97-4140 lacks credibility - specifically because of statements the TREBIC president made at the March 15 meeting. UDO Review Committee members are repeating Sanford's statements as "fact" to other committee members and, likely, beyond. Committee members are also considering Sanford's statements in their deliberations, despite USGS Report 97-4140 containing clear language completely opposite of statements Sanford made.
I hope you all understand the seriousness of the situation as I now see it.
USGS Report 97-4140 remains an actively published report by US Geological Survey. I wish to be provided verifiable proof, in writing, that this report lacks the credibility stated, for the reasons stated at the March 15 UDO Review Committee meeting. Absent proof, having both attribution and subject matter expert verification, I will call for remedy (remedies) for what has taken place.