Ohio EPA considering revised Licking Regional Water District permit for wastewater plant – The Newark Advocate

Report on the Proposed Raccoon Creek Wastewater Treatment Center and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Project Overview and Infrastructure Development (SDG 9, SDG 11)

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently evaluating a permit application for the proposed Raccoon Creek Wastewater Treatment Center in Licking County. The project, submitted by the Licking Regional Water District (LRWD), is a critical piece of infrastructure intended to support regional growth, directly addressing SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

• Proposing Entity: Licking Regional Water District (LRWD).
• Project Location: A 92-acre site in St. Albans Township, west of Granville.
• Service Area: The facility is designed to serve the fast-growing Jersey Township and the State Route 161 corridor.
• Proposed Capacity: The plant would process up to 3 million gallons of treated wastewater daily.

Environmental Impact and Water Resource Management (SDG 6, SDG 14, SDG 15)

Significant concerns have been raised regarding the project’s environmental impact, particularly its alignment with goals for clean water and ecosystem preservation.

• Discharge Point: Treated effluent would be released into Moots Run, a small tributary of Raccoon Creek.
• Water Quality Concerns: Community stakeholders and officials from Alexandria, Granville, and Johnstown have expressed opposition, citing potential negative impacts on the water quality of Raccoon Creek. This creek is a vital component of the local ecosystem and recharges an underground aquifer used for drinking water, making its protection essential for achieving SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).
• Regulatory Mandates: Following initial public criticism, the Ohio EPA required the LRWD to revise its application to include advanced treatment methods, such as filtration and ultraviolet disinfection. These measures are intended to comply with federal anti-degradation policies for waterways, supporting the objectives of SDG 14 (Life Below Water).
• Ecosystem Protection: The debate highlights the tension between development and the preservation of natural water systems, a core issue related to SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Public Health and Contaminant Monitoring (SDG 3, SDG 6)

The project’s potential effects on public health and the adequacy of monitoring protocols are central to the public debate, touching upon key targets within SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

1. Required Testing: The LRWD will be responsible for monthly water testing for nitrates, phosphorus, and oxygen levels, with results submitted to the Ohio EPA.
2. Emerging Contaminants: Residents expressed specific concerns about polyfluorinated compounds (PFAs), or “forever chemicals,” which are not currently on the federal list of chemicals requiring mandatory monitoring or treatment by the EPA.
3. Regulatory Gap: The Ohio EPA’s acknowledgment that PFAs are an “emerging contaminant” but not yet regulated highlights a potential gap in protecting public health and ensuring the comprehensive achievement of SDG 6.

Governance, Partnerships, and Institutional Conflict (SDG 16, SDG 17)

The permitting process has exposed significant conflicts over governance, planning authority, and the need for collaborative solutions, reflecting challenges related to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• Jurisdictional Dispute: A primary point of contention is the conflict between the LRWD and the Municipal Utility Coalition of Licking County (MUC), a group formed by Alexandria, Granville, and Johnstown. Both entities claim the right to provide utility services to the same unincorporated areas.
• Proponent’s Position: The LRWD and Jersey Township officials assert that LRWD is the legally designated service provider and that opposition is motivated by a desire for “authority, control, and money.”
• Opponent’s Position: The MUC argues that the LRWD project promotes speculative development without regard for local comprehensive plans. They propose an alternative plan where a treatment facility would be built only when needed, not in anticipation of future growth.
• Need for Collaboration: Despite the conflict, officials from both sides have indicated a willingness to continue discussions. The Ohio EPA had previously encouraged the parties to work together, emphasizing that achieving a sustainable regional solution requires effective partnerships, as envisioned in SDG 17.

Sustainable Economic Growth and Community Planning (SDG 8, SDG 11)

The debate over the wastewater plant is intrinsically linked to the future of regional development and the principles of sustainable economic growth and urban planning.

• Managing Growth: Proponents view the plant as necessary infrastructure to facilitate economic growth (SDG 8). Opponents, however, argue that the project is “forcing growth rather than fostering it” and risks undermining long-term, sustainable community planning.
• Community Self-Determination: The Mayor of Alexandria noted that local residents are considering a merger with St. Albans Township to better manage growth and oppose the plant’s construction in their community, reflecting a desire for inclusive and sustainable urbanization as outlined in SDG 11.3.
• Financial Prudence: Concerns were raised by the Johnstown City Manager regarding the financial risk of building a large-scale facility based on projections that may change, questioning its alignment with responsible and sustainable economic planning.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• The entire article revolves around the proposal for a new wastewater treatment plant, which is a core component of sanitation infrastructure. It discusses the treatment of wastewater, the quality of the discharged water, and the potential impact on drinking water sources, directly aligning with the goal of ensuring available and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The need for the plant is driven by a “fast-growing Jersey Township and the State Route 161 corridor.” The debate between different local authorities (LRWD and MUC) about who has the authority to provide sewer service and how it will affect “growth and development plans” connects directly to sustainable urban planning and the provision of basic services for communities.

SDG 15: Life on Land

• The article highlights significant concerns about the environmental impact of discharging treated wastewater into “Moots Run, a small tributary of Raccoon Creek.” This directly relates to the protection of inland freshwater ecosystems from pollution, as residents and officials worry about the “quality of water in Moots Run and Raccoon Creek.”

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The conflict between the Licking Regional Water District and the Municipal Utility Coalition over legal authority, service boundaries, and planning processes demonstrates challenges in governance. The public hearings and the role of the Ohio EPA as a regulatory body highlight the importance of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions in decision-making processes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 6.1: Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.

   • This target is relevant because the article states that Raccoon Creek, which will receive the treated wastewater, is “part of an underground aquifer from which Granville and Alexandra draw their drinking water.” The opposition’s concern is that the discharge could compromise the safety of this future drinking water source.

2. Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution… and halving the proportion of untreated wastewater.

   • This is the most central target. The project’s purpose is to build a “Raccoon Creek Wastewater Treatment Center” to treat up to “3 million gallons of treated wastewater a day.” The article details the proposed treatment methods (“filtration and ultraviolet disinfection”) and the goal of addressing “concerns area residents raised about pollution and to follow federal policies regarding anti-degradation of waterways.”

3. Target 6.5: By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels.

   • The conflict between the Licking Regional Water District (LRWD) and the Municipal Utility Coalition (MUC) over who should manage wastewater services for the region exemplifies a breakdown in integrated management. The article notes that the Ohio EPA had asked the groups “almost two years ago to work together to find solutions,” highlighting the need for a collaborative approach to managing the water resources of the Raccoon Creek watershed.

4. Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.

   • The article describes a “contentious second public hearing” where “most residents who spoke… raised concerns about the quality of water.” The fact that the Ohio EPA asked the LRWD to revise its permit application “to address concerns raised by area residents” after the first hearing shows direct community participation influencing the management process.

5. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services.

   • The proposed wastewater plant is a basic service intended to “serve fast-growing Jersey Township and the State Route 161 corridor east of New Albany,” addressing the infrastructure needs of a growing population.

6. Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management.

   • A key point of conflict is the fear that the plant will allow development “without regard to the comprehensive growth and development plans in those areas.” The debate is about whether the infrastructure is “forcing growth rather than fostering it,” which is a core issue of sustainable urban planning and management.

7. Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.

   • The central environmental concern is the discharge of wastewater into Moots Run and Raccoon Creek. Officials and residents are worried about the impact on these freshwater ecosystems, especially given that “Moots Run has a low flow for the majority of the year,” which could exacerbate the effects of pollution.

8. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   • The entire process described, including multiple public hearings, comments from residents and officials from several municipalities, and the regulatory oversight of the Ohio EPA, is an example of participatory decision-making. A resident’s question, “Do you consider us, the residents…?” directly speaks to the desire for this process to be responsive and inclusive.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for Target 6.3 (Improve water quality)

   • Proportion of wastewater treated: The plant is designed to treat “up to 3 million gallons of treated wastewater a day.”
   • Water quality monitoring parameters: The article explicitly states that the LRWD will test monthly for “levels of nitrates, phosphorus, oxygen and other potential contaminants.”
   • Pollutant monitoring: The Ohio EPA periodically tests for “microbial contaminants, lead, nitrates and nitrites, arsenic, disinfection byproducts, pesticides and solvents.”
   • Emerging contaminants: The concern raised about “polyfluorinated compounds, also known as ‘PFAs'” serves as an indicator for future monitoring needs, even though they are “not yet on the federal list of chemicals required to be treated or monitored.”

2. Indicators for Target 6.b (Community participation)

   • Mechanisms for participation: The article mentions the existence of “two public hearings” as a formal mechanism for community input.
   • Influence of participation: A qualitative indicator is that “public criticism during the first hearing” led the Ohio EPA to ask the LRWD “to revise its permit application to address concerns raised by area residents.”

3. Indicators for Target 15.1 (Protect freshwater ecosystems)

   • Water quality of freshwater bodies: The same parameters used for Target 6.3—levels of “nitrates, phosphorus, oxygen”—are direct indicators of the health of the Moots Run and Raccoon Creek ecosystems.
   • Ambient water flow: The mention that “Moots Run has a low flow for the majority of the year” is a baseline ecological indicator against which the impact of adding 3 million gallons of water per day can be measured.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: newarkadvocate.com