Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Blount County rejects proposed urban stormwater rules after hours of debate
Summary
After extended public comment and commissioner debate, the commission declined to adopt a proposed resolution establishing stormwater quality criteria for the urbanized area of Blount County, citing concerns about property restrictions, enforcement powers and the need for more staff information.
The Blount County Commission on June 18 considered Resolution 266013, which would establish stormwater quality management criteria for the county’s urbanized area, but the measure failed after extended discussion.
Public speakers and several commissioners warned that the draft language—based in part on city manuals—would impose restrictions on private property and small businesses, including limits on planting, potential fines, and costly compliance steps. Jasmine Satterfield, who identified herself as from District 7, urged the commission not to “make a hasty decision” and asked that an ad hoc committee tailor any rules for Blount County rather than simply adopting city standards.
Commissioner Acard expressed skepticism that the county should create regulations stricter than Tennessee law, saying the item represented “government overreach.” Commissioner Wells and others noted the county’s MS4 permit has expired and that the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) had written the mayor identifying deficiencies in the county’s plan. Supporters of the draft, including Commissioner Wells (who seconded the motion from Commissioner Kaylor), said the amendments were intended to make the county compliant with state requirements and were framed as minimal changes recommended by county legal counsel.
A procedural motion to postpone the resolution until the July meeting so staff (specifically the stormwater director, Jeff Chapman) could address technical questions was put to a vote and failed (nine yes, ten no). The commission then voted on adoption; the motion to adopt did not pass.
By the end of the night commissioners remained divided. Opponents warned the language could allow the county to impose fines and enforcement actions that would affect homeowners and small businesses; proponents said the changes were necessary to satisfy state permit requirements and avoid regulatory penalties. The commission did not take further action on 266013 at the meeting.
Next steps: several commissioners asked that staff prepare clearer written explanations and that the stormwater director or other county staff be present to answer specific enforcement and scope questions at a future meeting.
