News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Atlanta’s Capital City Club will pay the state $150,000 for violating clean water rules while reconstructing its Brookhaven golf course.

Large amounts of mud poured off the 115-acre construction site last year, drawing a rare triumvirate of regulatory redress — from the city of Atlanta, state Environmental Protection Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPD’s fine is one of the largest ever meted out by the state for violations of erosion regulations designed to keep mud and silt out of rivers, streams and lakes.

The city already had fined the private club $3,000. The EPA still is negotiating with the club.

Club General Manager and Chief Operating Officer Matt McKinney said the intent was to improve water quality on the 18-hole golf course, which is scheduled to reopen this spring or early summer. Several streams, which were piped decades ago, have been uncovered and restored. Water now leaving the course is cleaner than when it entered, McKinney said.

EPD’s Mountain District Manager Bert Langley praised club officials for being responsive but also said they should have known better.

Spilling mud into streams is even worse than spilling raw sewage because it’s avoidable and has long-term impact, Langley said. When silt covers rocks and gravel on the stream bottom, most of its biological activity is destroyed along with the insects, he said.

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2009, 10:50:00 PM »

If thats the truth then they deserved every penny of the fine. They knew what they had to do in order to comply with permits being granted. If  they broke the regulations set by the city and the state and allowed for the tributary to become turbid, theyre paying for the mistake.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2009, 07:55:35 AM »
Erosion control is important, and fairly simple to do in most places.  (I've run across a couple of states/counties where the erosion control regulations were just egregiously overkilled, but only a couple.  We have to use local engineers for this part of the job because the standards are so different from one place to another, and you neither want to have to go back to the drawing board, nor spend more of the client's money than localities require.)

Erosion control is also fairly expensive to put in ... it's typically a $50,000 to $100,000 line item ($300,000 in the egregious case), although this is an unusual case because they were working on their streams, and I don't have a clue how you would do erosion control for that.  So, a $150,000 fine is not excessively penal.  Hopefully it will be enough to make others think twice about forgetting to do it.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 07:57:33 AM by Tom_Doak »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2009, 09:07:36 AM »
I agree that if you are working to uncover long piped streams, it would be difficult to stop erosion.  Most erosion control is for working upland and keeping silt from flowing into streams.  Here, it seems the dirt flowing into the stream was from, well, the stream itself.  There would have to be some huge collection basin somewhere.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2009, 09:16:54 AM »
I have to second Tom's sentiment.  We, in the industry, strive to be as pro-active and environmentally friendly as possible - especially since that is the first thing opponents will use in fighting any project.  Then you get some bonehead that thinks he/they can save some money and try to pull a fast one.  When they get caught, it gives everyone a black eye and opponents more ammo.  

That's the first thing that jumped out at me when I viewed Derek's thread/photos of The Patriot project in Tulsa being designed by RTJII.  None of those streams were protected and some were in valleys with pretty steep sides and 100's of feet of bare, disturbed ground around them.  One spring OK thunderstorm and you could have a big mess on you hands.

Lets see, $150,000.  At $3/linear foot for silt fence, that would enable them to protect 25,000 (almost 5 miles) of stream (remember a stream has 2 sides).

Tom, start at the upstream end, only work on a small section at a time.  Depending on the aesthetic your trying to achieve, either seed and cover with a heavy-flow erosion control blanket or sod (you can also sod and go back later and change the grass type after the stream/banks stabilize. Use big roll sod if possible as it has fewer seams (where flood water can get in and undermine pior to rooting).  By working on small sections at a time, say 100', you should be able to get a section completed in a day or 2, well within the ability to forecast rain.

At the downstream end, a siltation basin should be created to catch any silt that will be created as the stream "cleans" the bottom of the new stream.  This works due to the fact that the velocity a channel of water will slow dramically upon entering a larger body of water.  As the water slows, the heavier soil particles will drop out and settle to the bottom. This is how deltas are formed.
Coasting is a downhill process

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2009, 11:12:49 AM »
Unfortunately, Tim, that $150,000 is only part of the equation.  Like our genius financial engineers, some people are "leveraging" their risk ... there's only a 1 in 3 chance of us being caught, so if it costs more than $50,000 to do it properly, it's a waste of money ...

No worries, they'll get it all bank by investing in toxic mortgage securities with government subsidies.

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2009, 11:23:48 AM »
Tom, treble damages might help even the odds.  Reminds one of Ford's risk management decsion of the exploding fuel tank.

It amazes me how stupid otherwise smart people can be when greed enters the picture.
Coasting is a downhill process

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2009, 01:27:06 PM »
I can not go into too many details but I can assure you the erosion problems where NOT because either the construction company or the club was being "greedy" or trying to save a buck.  People suggesting that with no knowledge as to the dollars spent on erosion control are speaking out of their butts.

Here are a few things to consider about the job.

It was a 115 acre project on property existing in DeKalb County, Fulton County and the City of Atlanta.

The club has existed on that site for almost 100 years in the midst of one of the oldest, most established neighborhoods in Atlanta.  The Brookhaven neighborhood can be described as progressive/liberal/green and the neighbors surrounding the course would ensure the course dot all its "i"s and cross all its "t"s and the club knows that.  Neither the club nor the construction company was trying to "hide" anything.  To suggest they were rolling the dice and trying to get away with not getting caught is stuipid.  The architect, Bob Cupp, is a resident of the neighborhood as well and very sensitive to all the "politics" of the surrounding homes and their well founded desire to protect a beautiful natural area in the city.

There was not a single issue of fallen silt fencing or a lack of silt fencing.  The problem lay in the creation of a new dam and the numerous "safe dams" that were built during the project.  Arguabely the NTU values written into the permit were so low as to be unreachable and the project did fail to meet its turbidity numbers on occasions.

Once that happened and sensing deep pockets, inspectors were on site EVERY day.

Don't get me wrong.  Gov't absolutely has a role to place in ensuring that all of us play by the rules and those that do not should be held responsible.  However, gov't can have misplaced motives as well and I will suggest that to the various government agencies (all of them straining under tough budget cuts) have a financial  interest in producing as many dollars in fines as possible and what better target is there than a rich, exclusive golf club?

Also, this is a case of many of the inspectors simply being in over their heads.  Many of these folks are used to inspecting a landscaping job for a homeowner not a golf course project.

Here are two examples:

One inspector threatened to shut down the project when she saw that the project did not proceed "hole by hole".  She thought one tee would be demolished, shaped and sodded before moving on to the fairway and then the green on hole #1.  Then after everything was complete (irrigation, shaping, etc.) the project would move to hole #2.  This was one example of the disconnect. 

At one other instance the course had a huge delivery of sod to put down on a large area.  The workers had actually laid 10% of the sod when another inspectator came and required them to pick back up the sod!  I am not sure who made the mistake but the inspector felt the sod was only to be laid on the Fulton County side and they were on the DeKalb County side (or vice versa).  In any event it became a pissing contest and an area of exposed soil, prepped and ready for sod could not be sodded.

The inspector required the sod not be laid, seed and straw was put down when clearly sod would have done a better job re: erosion control.  The sod sat until another crew could be brought in, another area prepped (on the correct side of the line) and laid!

All of us in the industry have an obligation to do our best to comply with all govt regulations and even when not required to do so, we should all take care to be the best stewards of our natural resources as possible.

But to be accusatory without knowing all the facts or without having ever visted the site seems like piling on at a time when that is the last thing we need.

 

Ian Larson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2009, 02:11:09 PM »
Chris,

Thanks for the info. I can certainly sympathize. On a job in Westchester County, New York one of my hats was supervising the erosion control program for the project which was basically a valley with a large stream at the bottom of it. It was a major tributary for the drinking water of Peekskill, New York.

Needless to say I was the go to guy for all of the inspectors coming on site everyday. They were the biggest group of hacks ever and Im not sure how they got their jobs. We were threatened to be shut down on a weekly basis because of the election year and political motives.

Its a really crappy situation when they split hairs and fine that much for a minutia of turbidity. The first post made it seem much much worse.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2009, 04:06:05 PM »
Chris:

I'm guilty of not understanding the facts of this particular case, and I guess I ought to be careful these days in saying anything about any project other than my own.  But my comments about erosion control were general in nature, and not directed toward Capital City Club's particular circumstances.

I'm glad you have added more details about this case.  However, just as you criticized me for over-generalizing, you shouldn't generalize about local governments trying to soak the rich private golf clubs with fines.  That sort of talk does even more harm for the golf business ... the industry perspective that "we must keep bad news from spreading" is not always well received by outsiders.

For certain, I have seen erosion control become a political roadblock.  When we were starting High Pointe, the local drain commissioner (who is in charge of erosion control for Grand Traverse County) had just had his butt chewed out by the Michigan DNR for a previous golf course construction which had silted up a creek ... so they wanted us to build only four holes at a time, and get those seeded and "stabilized" before the next holes could be opened up.  Eventually our engineer managed to convince them to let us start working on the next area while we cleaned up the last one.  But, there are lots of places where construction must proceed in strictly controlled phases, and there are a lot of misunderstandings on the margins because both sides are trying to understand things in their own favor ... and that's when accidents are more likely to occur, and something shows up in the papers.

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2009, 04:56:09 PM »
Ian and Tom,

Thanks for the responses and again I totally agree that clubs must be responsible stewards of their projects.  I am not a member of Cap City and I have no financial interest at all in the project but I just felt they were being unfairly targeted a bit.  I also agree with Tom that many local governments have very professional staffs.  However, that is not the case with Fulton county, GA.  Sadly it is one of the most dysfunctional and divided counties in the country being both corrupt and incompetent in its mission to serve its citizens.  In contrast, DeKalb county has been realtively well managed and the city has made huge strides as well. 

I do think that the "story" golf has to tell is by and large a positive one.  Today we are more conscious of our environmental impact than ever before and golf courses are fast becoming the last large acreage ares of green space in many cities.  In GA we have been the leading industry to tackle the water issue with our neighboring states as most homeowners, politicians and other industries sat on their hands and did little but point fingers.

But, you are right and being overly protective is not good--particualrly when it's not necessary.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2009, 07:46:57 PM »
Just driving home after a rainstorm tonight and was looking at a new highway being built near my house. There was no silt fence and acres and acres of exposed ground near a major stream/tributary, etc.  The only thing I don't like is when the govt enforces private sector work strictly when it seems as if public works projects get a freer pass.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Sweeney

Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2009, 08:20:00 PM »

Atlanta’s Capital City Club will pay the state $150,000 for violating clean water rules while reconstructing its Brookhaven golf course.



Is this a settlement? I am guessing they were threatened with a $500,000 to $1.0 mm lawsuit?

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2009, 02:14:55 AM »
Chris,

It seems to me that being very aggressive in enforcement with very high standards to meet and inspectors on site every day would encourage others to just assume a fine as part of the cost and save money to pay for the fine by doing nothing for erosion control.

How would they stop that?  Do they have the power to shut the project down entirely if they think they aren't trying hard enough?  Is there a limit to the size of fines they can assess?

At some point, if you are paying a guy's salary to be on site every day for however many days you almost have to find something wrong for the higher-up who made the call for him to be there.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2009, 07:58:18 AM »
IMHO..short and sweet...if CCC had listed this project as a nature park instead of a golf course..there would have been no problem....being on the front page of the Atlanta Journal is not because of a violation as much as the fact it is a golf course that had the supposed violation.....JMO ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Greg Chambers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf course work brings $150,000 fine for Capital City Club
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2009, 08:05:43 AM »
Doug,

If a project were to have no erosion control in place, be it a golf course, new Wal Mart, anything, the EPA would shut the project down and work would not commence until the project was in compliance with it's Storm Water Management Plan.  Plus the project would incure a fine for every day that they were out of compliance with the SWMP, per violation.  That cost would add up exponentially.
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling.”

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back