Sussex Green

Several weeks ago Bill Zak, concerned citizen and one of the founders of Citizens for Clean Power, appealed DNREC Secretary’s Order 2008-A-0037. This order approved the issuance of a permit that allows NRG to build a third solid waste landfill just south of the Indian River Generating Station. The landfill will be used as a dump for the coal ash produced by the power plant.

Sussex Green has received information that an appeal hearing has been scheduled for March 10, 2009 at 9:00 am. It is unknown at this point where the hearing will be held.

The following is a letter sent to Sussex Green and the press by the Citizens Coalition. It was originally intended for Governor Minnor asking that she not approve the Sussex County Comprehensive Plan. However, the Governor certified the Comprehensive Plan before the letter could go out.

“Dear Editor:

Michael R. Tyler, President
Citizens Coalition, Inc.

On October 31, 2008, the Constellation Energy Group settled a class action lawsuit brought by a Baltimore law firm on behalf of a group of residents in Anne Arundel County Maryland for $45 million. Read the full story from the Baltimore Sun here.

Sussex Green believes this is the first settlement of a lawsuit against a United States energy company for fly ash air and groundwater pollution and thus sets an important precedent for future lawsuits. While the terms of this lawsuit help in the remediation of affected residents living around the Constellation Energy fly ash dumpsite, it does not solve the problem of what to do with the fly ash. Currently, the Constellation fly ash is being transported to a Virginia dumpsite.

Many environmentalists feel the recycling of new fly ash (e.g., a strengthener of Portland cement), the transport of new fly ash to remote landfills or the removal of decades old fly ash from old landfills to “safer” locations are good remediation techniques. However, Alan Muller of www.greendel.org has serious concerns about fly ash recycling and recently referred us to an article by Brian Nearing of the Albany Times Union titled “Fly ash: Culprit at Lafarge”. The article points out the dangers found at the Lafarge cement plant in Ravena, New York due to their use of fly ash in their products. The Ravena cement plant “was the greatest source of mercury emissions in New York from 2004 to 2006″.¹

So, how do NRG and the State of Delaware remediate the Burton Island old ash landfill? Short of ending coal power generation at Indian River, the safest approach for now may be the methods outlined in DNREC Secretary’s Orders 2008-A-0032 and 2008-A-0037. Nevertheless, Burton Island’s fly ash problems will have to be resolved eventually.

Please read Sussex Green’s report Arsenic and Old Ash - Burton Island’s Legacy for more information.

1. Albany Times Union (July 29, 2008), “Update at Ravena Cement Plant to Clean Air” [↩ ]

Bulletin

The Preliminary Land Use Application for the Overbrook Town Center, proposed to be built on 114 acres at the intersection of Route 1 and Cave Neck Road, requests a rezoning of the site from AR-1 to CR-1. The application shows that the site will be developed in an Investment Level 4 area¹ and on land clearly marked on a USGS and Sussex County hydrology map as an excellent groundwater recharge area as well as being adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area and the Great Marsh. When complete, impervious surfaces will cover approximately 80% of the site. Construction of the shopping center will require the removal of 5.5 of the six forested acres present on the site.

The Overbrook Town Center Preliminary Land Use Application which is undated and unsigned, answered “No” in response to the question “Is the site in a sourcewater (for example, an excellent groundwater recharge) protection area?” This is an incorrect answer based on the Sussex County Comprehensive Plan hydrology map referenced above. Furthermore, since the application was presented for review at the October 22, 2008 PLUS Meeting, long after the adoption of the Sussex County Source Water Protection Ordinance, it is Sussex Green’s opinion that this application is in violation of said ordinance and, if and when it is presented to Sussex County, must be rejected.

The example above is precisely why Sussex County needs to manage growth in a way that prevents site plan applications like Overbrook Town Center from ever being presented.

When the Citizens Coalition, Citizens for a Better Sussex, Joan Deaver, Jud Bennett and other managed growth advocates stress the need to rein in developments like Overbrook Town Center and prevent the “paving over” of environmentally sensitive areas what factors are they concerned about? What strategies do they want incorporated into the Sussex County Comprehensive Plan or mandated via ordinance to manage and control commercial and residential growth?

Impervious Surfaces, Impervious Cover

The Overbrook Town Center application highlights a specific strategy that Sussex County needs to address aggressively, and in very short order, the type and amount of impervious surfaces allowed in residential and commercial developments. “Impervious surfaces are mainly artificial structures, such as pavements, rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots - covered by impenetrable materials such as asphalt, concrete, brick, and stone. Soils compacted by urban development are also highly impervious.”²

Too much impervious cover not only transports pollution into critical wetlands and waterways, it also prevents the filtration of the fresh water through vegetation and soils into our groundwater. The recently passed Source Water Protection Ordinance is meant to protect our “excellent groundwater recharge areas” that the Overbrook Town Center site plan ignores.

Landowners have the right to use and develop their property in accordance with local zoning laws. However, they also have the responsibility, as stewards of the underlying groundwater and surrounding waterways, to use the land in a manner that will protect the public’s source of fresh water and the ecological health of our bays. The development of the Overbrook Town Center as submitted does not meet this responsibility.

How Much is Too Much

The EPA created the Impervious Cover Model to establish the percentage of impervious cover at which stream quality becomes poor. “Stream research generally indicates that certain zones of stream quality exist, most notably at about 10% impervious cover, where sensitive stream elements are lost from the system. A second threshold appears to exist at around 25 to 30% impervious cover, where most indicators of stream quality consistently shift to a poor condition (e.g., diminished aquatic diversity, water quality, and habitat scores).”³

Sussex County Limits

Recently, the Sussex County Council passed the Source Water Protection Ordinance. This action by the Council is currently the only language on the books to place limits on impervious cover. The ordinance pertains only to source water in tax parcels deemed within well head protection and excellent groundwater recharge areas. It does not address surface water or any other areas of the county that may recharge groundwater or feed surface water into our bays.

Specifically, the ordinance will adopt Chapter 89 into the Sussex County Code with the following language:

• § 89-6 “The requirements of this Chapter do not impose any limitations upon land development, provided the impervious cover of any portion of the tax parcel located within the wellhead protection area is 35 percent or less.”⁴
• § 89-7 “The requirements of this Chapter do not impose any additional limitations upon land development, provided the impervious cover of any portion of the tax parcel located within the excellent recharge area is 35 percent or less.”⁵

Sadly, Sussex County did not follow the EPA model when it set limits of impervious cover for sensitive source water areas nor did it address any impervious cover limits for surface water.

Over the last few years, the Sussex County Council has approved large site plans in the Broadkill watershed that sit on excellent groundwater recharge areas. These include Payntor’s Mill, Vincent’s Overlook (construction halted), Issac’s Glen (cancelled), and the Village at Five Points. Is the Overnbrook Town Center going to be the next site plan approved to cover an excellent groundwater recharge area?

Broadkill Watershed Data

Lyle Jones, program manager for DNREC’s Watershed Assessment Section, regularly monitors the increases and proposed increases of impervious surfaces in all of Delaware’s 45 watersheds. His statistics accurately document existing impervious cover percentages using advanced aerial analysis combined with information from the Office of State Planning Coordination’s PLUS Process⁶ that tracks proposed development site plans by county.

Statistics provided to Sussex Green by Lyle indicate that within the next few years the Broadkill Watershed will exceed reasonable limits established by the EPA model for impervious cover. What follows are current Broadkill watershed impervious cover statistics calculated using PLUS Projects proposed between 2004 and 2008. Note that the following data excludes Issacs Glen and Vincent Overlook (which are canceled projects) and Overbrook Town Center, which is a proposed project.

• Projects Proposed = 25
• Average Impervious Cover Per Project = 34%
• Change in Nitrogen Loads - from 269 to 447 lbs per day
• Change in Phosphorus Loads - from 13.2 to 17.5 lbs per day
• % Increase Nitrogen Load = 66%
• % Increase Phosphorus Load = 32%
• Total Acreage of Proposed Projects = 4,935
• % Forested Acreage Retained = 29%

Two statistics, the Average Impervious Cover Per Project and the % Forested Acreage Retained, indicate that the Broadkill watershed stands to lose a substantial amount of water infiltration capability over the next few years.

Total buildable land area in the Broadkill watershed is 68,623 acres. A 2002 DNREC report calculates that 8,584 acres of land had been built up with impervious cover estimated to be 7.9% or 5,407 acres. Sussex Green is awaiting the publication of the 2007 impervious cover statistics. However, based on our initial estimates we calculate that from 2002 to 2007 impervious cover in the Broadkill watershed grew to 10.5%.

Sussex County Data

Further analysis of the PLUS database highlights the potential for unacceptable amounts of impervious cover percentages particularly in the Environmentally Sensitive Developing Area (ESDA). Between October 2004 and October 2008:

• 188 residential and commercial projects to develop 22,380 acres in Sussex County were submitted to the Office of State Planning Coordination; 51 of these projects propose to develop 3,828 acres within the ESDA
• 40,515 residential units were proposed; 8,145 residential units were proposed within the ESDA
• 101 of these projects propose to develop 14,046 acres within an Investment Level 4 area
• 22,556 residential units were proposed within an Investment Level 4 area

Final Analysis

The maximum percentage of impervious cover fragile wellhead and excellent groundwater recharge areas in the Broadkill watershed should be exposed to is 10%. What is disconcerting to Sussex Green and to managed growth advocates is that the Sussex County Council has passed an ordinance setting the allowable limit of impervious cover for these source water areas to 35%.

The Sussex County Council must pass ordinances that work to maintain the 10% threshold and reject projects like Overbrook Town Center that impose absurd amounts of impervious cover. If Sussex County does not act soon to impose more stringent impervious cover limits, we will never regain adequate water quality in our bays.

1. In Investment Level 4 areas, the state’s investments and policies should retain the rural landscape and preserve open spaces and farmlands, and establish defined edges to more concentrated development. In essence the investment by Delaware in transportation, roads, water and wastewater facilities, and other infrastructure development will be limited. It is the state’s intent to discourage additional development in Investment Level 4 areas unrelated to the areas’ needs. Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination (October 2008), Strategies for State Policies and Spending [↩ ]
2. Wikipedia (October 2008), Impervious Surface [↩ ]
3. ”EPA (1996), “The Impervious Cover Model” [↩ ]
4. Sussex County Council (June 2008), “Source Water Protection Ordinance” [↩ ]
5. Sussex County Council (June 2008), “Source Water Protection Ordinance” [↩ ]
6. Ann Marie Townshend (2005), The PLUS Process and Source Water Protection [↩ ]

Steve Callanen of the Sierra Club, Southern Delaware Group, sent a letter to the editor of Coastal Point. It describes his concerns over DNREC’s recent decisions regarding the coal ash landfills at the Indian River Generating Station on Burton Island.

You may view his letter at the following link www.coastalpoint.com.

Tuesday, October, 14, 2008

Today, DNREC Secretary John Hughes signed Secretary’s Order No. 2008-W-0054 adopting the proposed Inland Bays Pollution Control Strategy as a final set of regulations. The regulations become effective November 11, 2008.

Wednesday, October, 15, 2008

Governor Minner and DNREC Secretary Hughes joined Center for the Inland Bays (CIB) Board Chairman Rick Eakle to announce the adoption of regulations governing the pollution control strategy for the Inland Bays watershed.

Sussex Green would like to congratulate all the people, especially Secretary Hughes, Kathy Bunting-Howarth, and John Schneider, who helped make the Inland Bays PCS a reality. Many of these folks endured years of hard work and frustrations to finally achieve an important set of regulations. After 10 years, state and county officials, Sussex County citizens and environmental groups finally have some tools to help improve water quality in the Inland Bays watershed.

Are these tools enough to make a major impact quickly? No. The Inland Bays water quality slowly decreased over a 40-50 year period so it will take time to reverse the trend. However, approval of the PCS is a great first step.

A great second step would be for pro-growth advocacy groups to let the PCS take effect November 11th without appeal. Protracted litigation that stifles a strategy clearly intended to benefit all Sussex Countians is repugnant. Why would anyone oppose efforts to improve water quality, increase land values and improve the recreational value of our natural resources?

To get a better understanding of how the PCS will be implemented and how it will impact Sussex County residents, I encourage you to read a clear and concise flyer (created by Jennifer Volk of DNREC). See the flyer here.

I just finished reading an eye-opening article in The News Journal by Jeff Montgomery entitled “Cleanup efforts collide with politics, cronyism”. It describes Delaware’s major environmental issues and the challenges the State faces in getting out of the “holding pattern” these issues have been sitting in ever since the Coastal Zone Act was written into law 38 years ago.

The article goes on to describe the “Culture of Compromise” that infects Delaware politics where some of Governor Minner’s closest advisors include petroleum and business lobbyists and where “…business leaders, environmentalists and state officials all know one another so well that the parties end up being too polite…”¹

I encourage everyone to read this News Journal article.

This “Culture of Compromise” is real. It is hidden away in President Pro Tem Thurman Adams desk drawer. It can also be seen in decisions as recent as The Center for The Inland Bay (CIB) Board’s resolution not to appeal DNREC Secretary’s Order No. 2008-A-0037 (read chronology here) an action recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of the CIB. After the appeal was rejected Board Chairman Rick Eakle said “the CAC resolution asked the board to do something that may harm the center’s relationship with DNREC.”

Fortunately, the Board realized that the CAC had done its homework and resolved that it “…has determined that Secretary’s Order No. 2008-A-0037 appears to be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the state-adopted Inland Bays CCMP”².

The CIB Board’s resolution appears to be a crack in the “Culture of Compromise” that has energized citizens and environmental groups anew.

Sussex Green feels that many of the moving parts of a new engine of environmental politics in Sussex County are starting to coalesce. All that’s needed is the key to start the engine. Could the key appear as a decision by DNREC to approve the Inland Bays Pollution Control Strategy (PCS) once and for all or will the key be sent back to the drawing board?

After ten years of compromises that have prevented its passage, will the citizens of Sussex County and all the supporting environmental organizations finally see approval of the PCS and the implementation of new tools to help restore water quality to the Inland Bays watersheds?

Sussex Green talked with several DNREC staff members at Coast Day in Lewes October 5th. We sensed optimism and relief in their voices when asked about the status of the PCS and if it is finally going to be approved.

We were also encouraged by their efforts to communicate in plain English just what the PCS is and what impact it will or won’t have on Sussex County residents. Jennifer Volk of DNREC handed out a clear and concise flyer that resolves the complaints of “too much technical lingo” heard at the June 23rd public hearing. See the flyer here.

Will the Inland Bays Pollution Control Strategy finally be approved by DNREC Secretary Hughes? And if approved, will the specter of litigation by the Positive Growth Alliance become reality.

Stay Tuned!

1. Source: Cleanup efforts collide with politics, cronyism, The News Journal,
   Quote from environmentalist Victor Singer [↩ ]
2. Source: Center for The Inland Bays,
   Board of Directors motion, September 23, 2008 [↩ ]

Monday, September 15, 2008

The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of the Center for The Inland Bays (CIB) resolves, by a vote of 15 to 0, to recommend the CIB Board of Directors appeal DNREC Secretary’s Order 2008-A-0037.¹ This order approved the permitting of a Phase II coal ash landfill adjacent to the Indian River Generating Station (IRGS).

The following organizations endorse the recommendations included in the CAC resolution:

• The Citizens Coalition
• Citizens for A Better Sussex
• The Sierra Club, Southern Delaware
• Citizens for Clean Power
• The Audubon Society
• Green Delaware (with 2 exceptions)

Monday, September 19, 2008

At the CIB Annual Meeting CAC chairman Ron Wuslich presents the resolution (here) to the Board of Directors (here).

After the presentation board members Hughes, Campbell-White, Wuslich, and McGowan discuss the CAC resolution. DNREC Secretary John Hughes states that “An appeal of a secretary’s order by an environmental group is a matter of great importance and has to be taken extremely seriously” and that the CAC should afford itself the benefit of advice from his department’s scientists. He offers to make arrangements for the CAC to meet with some of his staff.

In the end, the CIB Board of Directors votes to delay a decision on the resolution until after the CAC meets with DNREC scientists to discuss their concerns.

Monday, September 22, 2008

4:00PM – 6:00PM

Eleven members of the CAC along with several board members, Ed Lewandowsky and Chris Bason of the CIB meet with six DNREC scientists and engineers from the Site Investigation and Restoration Branch and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch.

DNREC gives a presentation on the IRGS Phase II landfill. Then, CAC members ask DNREC a series of questions regarding environmental studies they performed on all three IRGS landfills as a basis for recommending the Phase II landfill permit. Finally, CAC members ask DNREC how they intend to communicate to the CIB its progress and findings with regard to the Burton Island old ash landfill remediation feasibility study.

6:00PM – 8:00PM

After the DNREC contingent leaves the CAC meets to discuss what they have heard and to determine if they want to continue to recommend the appeal of 2008-A-0037. The CAC votes 11-0 to recommend the appeal and amend their resolution with a reference to Title 7 DNREC 1300 Waste Management Section (6.1.3) “No new cell of an industrial landfill shall be located in an area such that solid waste would at any time be deposited:” (6.1.3.8) “In an area that is environmentally unique or valuable”.²

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

9:00AM - 10:00AM

The CIB Board of Directors holds an emergency meeting to vote on the CAC recommendation to appeal Secretary’s Order 2008-A-0037. As the first order of business, Ron Wuslich reads the amended resolution. A motion follows and is seconded to accept the amended resolution. Chairman Rick Eakle commends the CAC for the work they’ve done.

Dr. Bill McGowan offers a motion to amend the CAC resolution. The motion is seconded and is read into the record by Ed Lewandowsky. The motion removes the appeal but states that “the Board of Directors has determined that Secretary’s Order No. 2008-A-0037 appears to be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the state-adopted Inland Bays CCMP” and requests that DNREC “coordinate with CIB a long-term approach for addressing the impacts from fly ash landfills at Indian River Generating Station…”.³

Rick Eakle initiates a roll call vote of the board members to approve the motion entered by Bill McGowan. Roll call vote: McGowan-yes, Campbell-White-yes, Baker-yes, Wuslich-no, Tush-no, Huerta-abstain. Chairman Eakle notes the tie vote and votes yes; motion carries 4 to 3.

Analysis

The CAC’s goals and objectives are outlined in the Delaware Inland Bays Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP). After reviewing these goals and objectives Sussex Green believes the CAC acted well within its charter by identifying a possible violation of Delaware Code by DNREC and recommending the appeal of Secretary’s Order 2008-A-0037.

The people that make up the CAC are not uninformed citizens as some believe but dedicated Inland Bay’s stakeholders who are well informed and educated on the issues. They acted aggressively not capriciously and although the CIB Board acted appropriately to place their actions within the context of the National Estuary Program, the CAC’s message was received loud and clear.

The CAC’s actions will not be swept under the carpet.

1. Source: Center for the Inland Bays
   Citizens Advisory Committee, Resolution, September 15, 2008 [↩ ]
2. Source:Center for The Inland Bays,
   Citizens Advisory Committee, Resolution (amended), September 22, 2008 [↩ ]
3. Source: Center for The Inland Bays,
   Board of Directors motion, September 23, 2008 [↩ ]

Several important environmental issues are coming to a head this week. They are good examples of how poorly some things are working out in Delaware.

Here’s the sequence:

1. Let the polluters, directly and through their lobbyists and legislators, write the laws and regulations;
2. Write permits as loose as the "nothing" regulations allow, or even ignore the regs;
3. Hold the legally-required "public hearings" but ignore what the public says;
4. Give the polluters what they want…..

Things may be a little worse than usual because the Minner administration may be working with the polluters to get as many bad decisions as possible nailed down before a new Governor takes office.

Green Delaware can and does object to this, but in truth the present administration is not too interested in our views because it already knows we are against environmental destruction, pollution and disease. We’re predictable that way…

So, it’s up to YOU, as we are always saying. If every person reading this alert takes a few moments to send an email or make a call, things will improve. Please do it.

Coal ash dumping

Coal ash is nasty stuff, full of toxic and radioactive stuff. It needs to be handled as a "hazardous waste" but this would cost power plant operators money they don’t want to spend. Millions of tons of the ash, sometimes mixed with sewage sludge, are being dumped at the supposedly-closed Pigeon Point dump near New Castle, in the City of Wilmington, where the City government is part of a scam to create another un permitted dump, and near NRG’s Indian River Power Plant, where ash has been washing directly into the water for years. The power plant is near Millsboro, pretty much directly in the middle of the Inland Bays watershed. Map:

http://www.inlandbays.org/cib_pm/photos2005/baysmap_r3_c1.gif

The good news is that the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Center for the Inland Bays (http://www.inlandbays.org) has come to life on this issue and is asking the Center to appeal a recent DNREC decision authorizing another dump "cell."

The Citizens Advisory Committee (http://www.inlandbays.org/cib_pm/citizen_committee.php), chaired by Ron Wuslich, points out that the Conservation and Management Plan for the Inland Bays watershed (
http://www.inlandbays.org/pdfs/ccmpmain.pdf )–arrived at after many years of discussion, calls for:

• G8A: Ban solid and industrial waste disposal and non-biodegradable products where feasible, in the Inland Bays region
• G3B: Provide maximum protection of waterways , ground water, natural areas, open space, and tidal and non-tidal wetlands
• G1E: Adopt the most effective Best Management Practices to provide maximum ground and surface water protection""As a result, DNREC should be implementing the CCMP goal to ban further deposition of solid and industrial waste (coal ash) in the Inland Bays by denying the Phase II permit."

So, reasonably, the Committee wants the Center for the Inland Bays to appeal a recently-granted permit given by DNREC to NRG for a new ash dump. It also wants the old dumps removed.

Green Delaware wrote to the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Board of Directors of the CIB as follows:

"These demands make sense in themselves. But Green Delaware does not want to see problems elsewhere in Delaware made worse. We don’t want to see more illegal dumping at Pigeon Point or in the City of Wilmington, or more bogus "recycling" of coal ash that amounts to spreading it around the landscape, or have it dumped into the river by the Corps of Engineers as "berm" material….. Given the almost unbelievable irresponsibility of the DNREC in regards to
"solid waste" one much anticipate the worst possibilities."

DNREC Secretary John Hughes in on the CIB Board and is using his position to oppose action by the CIB.  This is not surprising because it was his decision to grant the new dump permit.

An email we received included:
" … John Hughes seemed extremely anxious to kill the CAC’s resolution calling for appeal of the Phase II permit. He offered to have DNREC "technical expert" personnel (knowledgeable about the IRPP NRG Phase II Coal Ash Landfill permit) attend a special CAC mt’g on Monday at 4 PM, including "lawyers sitting in the parking lot."  John implied that the public and the CAC was uninformed about the new coal ash landfill permit and said that he was told that only 6 or 7 people attended the public hearing on the Phase II landfill….

Sergio Huerta, another DNREC official, chairs the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee of the CIB and could also be using his influence to protect NRG’s dumping plans.

Delaware’s dump regulations (link to regulations) say:

"It is the intent of the Department to require that solid waste handling and disposal be conducted in a manner and under conditions which will eliminate the dangerous and deleterious effects of improper solid waste handling and disposal upon the environment and upon human health, safety, and welfare."

The Citizens Advisory Committee points out:

"In 1985, the Inland Bays were designated by the State as waters of Exceptional Recreational and Ecological Significance (ERES). As such, the Inland Bays shall be afforded a level of protection and monitoring in excess of that provided most other waters of the state. ERES waters are recognized as special natural assets of the State, and must be protected and enhanced for the benefit of present and future generations of Delawareans, particularly in light of higher level groundwater tables resulting from sea level rise. Accordingly, we Delawareans would be remiss of our responsibilities if we ignore the current threat to the Inland Bays from coal ash transport through the air and water, and elect not to remove the coal ash from this location."

So a very good argument exists that the permit Hughes approved violates not only the management plan for the Inland Bays but DNREC’s own waste regulations.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE

Please contact Secretary Hughes and ask him to stop opposing an anti-dump appeal by the Center for the Inland Bays and withdraw the NRG permit approval. john.hughes@state.de.us, 302.739.9000.

Please contact Ron Wuslich, Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee to (1) thank him for taking a stand, and (2) ask him to stand firm, but include the changes requested by Green Delaware:
yramnor@aol.com.

Please ask the Center for the Inland Bays to support the position of its Citizens Advisory Committee:

Mr. Edward Lewandowski, Executive Director, director@inlandbays.org, 302.226.8105.

Mr. Richard W. Eakle, Chairman, Board of Directors (same contact)

Thanks for helping.

Alan Muller

In last week’s primary for the Third District seat on County Council between Jud Bennett and Mark Baker a total of 3312 of the 10,558 registered Republicans voted. That’s a respectable 33% turnout. Yet in a recent email Jud Bennett attributed his loss to voter apathy:

“There were hundreds and hundreds of Republicans who live in and around our endangered area who could and should have turned out to vote– if they really cared about their future. They chose not to vote and obviously do not care what happens in regard to the environment, traffic, land use, taxes, and the economy of Sussex County. Over 4000 registered Republican voters, just in the Lewes area alone, declined to vote in this primary. These important issues were widely advertised on TV, Radio, and Newspapers, and still a large majority of Republicans chose not to vote. These are the facts. Something to think about for what it’s worth.”¹

After analysis of the Lewes polling number we remain skeptical. In the four Lewes districts a total of 1407 of the 4575 registered Republicans voted in the District 3 primary for a turnout of almost 31%. So, it is not clear that voter apathy existed for Bennett’s platform.

Sussex Green is concerned that land use, congestion and the health of the Inland Bays are not the top priorities of voters in District 3. So we will continue to discuss and publicize Sussex County environmental and land issues. We will also continue to support candidates with strong environmental and managed growth platforms like those of Jud Bennett.

Joan Deaver is such a candidate and Sussex Green endorses her for Sussex County Council District 3.

Polling numbers:²

           Baker       Bennett
1-14     187            229  (Lewes area)
7-14     168            184  (Lewes area)
7-35       35              23
2-36     152            100
3-36     141              58
4-36     117              61
5-36       43              27
6-36     139              85
7-36     200            176
8-36       91              27
1-37     153            259  (Lewes area)
2-37     211            162  (Lewes area)
3-37     125              82
4-37       51              26

1. Source: Judson Bennett, Coastal Conservative Network, September 2008 [↩ ]
2. Source: Sussex County Department of Elections [↩ ]