Blount County commission rejects proposed stormwater amendments after extended debate

The Blount County Commission on June 18 rejected a proposed set of stormwater ordinance amendments aimed at updating the county's MS4/NPDES program and complying with a TDEC review.

Commissioner Acard, who opposed the measure, said the package “arbitrarily dictate[s] on our citizens what they can and can't do on private property above and beyond the state guidelines,” and urged colleagues to adhere to state rules rather than adopt city-style manuals. "There's no reason for Blount County to step out there and arbitrarily create additional strict guidelines that are more strict than the state of Tennessee requires," Acard said.

Supporters, including Commissioner Wells, said staff had drafted minimal amendments to achieve compliance after the county's MS4 permit was reviewed. Wells argued the changes were not a new regulatory regime but ‘‘minimal amendments that would comply with the state requirements’’ and pointed to a letter from county counsel and an expired permit that TDEC had flagged.

The debate featured repeated requests for technical staff—several commissioners asked that Jeff Chapman, the stormwater contact, be present to explain details of the MS4 permit and proposed changes. Commissioner Kaylor read from County Attorney Craig Garrett's letter saying the amendments were intended to be “the least restrictive measures that will be compliant with state regulations.”

Opponents raised a range of concerns: potential expansion of enforcement powers, fines, and the administrative burden and cost of running a stormwater program. Commissioner Michaels characterized parts of the packet as overreaching and reminded colleagues that the county had previously paid consultants $90,000 on the issue. Mayor (identified in the transcript as the mayor) said the state and TDEC set baseline rules but warned that incremental regulation can grow into a larger program that ends up imposing more costs on residents.

Procedurally, a motion to postpone the measure to the July meeting failed on a 10–9 vote. The subsequent motion to adopt Resolution 26-06013 also failed 10–9, leaving the existing stormwater framework in place. The commission recorded no staff vote tally supporting the measure beyond the recorded votes; the clerk announced the final tally as 10 no, 9 yes.

Commissioners who called for postponement said they wanted a staff briefing from Mr. Chapman and clearer written definitions of enforcement authority, violation lists and compliance deadlines; the clerk indicated postponement would require a procedural motion if commissioners wanted to delay beyond the next meeting.

The commission is expected to readdress stormwater compliance in a future meeting; staff noted the county faces an expired MS4 permit and a TDEC letter but the body did not adopt the proposed local amendments on June 18.