LITTLE ROCK — A proposal to limit lot sizes to a minimum of 5 acres within the Lake Maumelle watershed was defeated by the 15-member Pulaski County Quorum Court on Tuesday despite a packed room of supporters for the idea.
The vote failed 6-9.
The vote was an attempt to amend a proposed revision of the county's 37-year-old subdivision and development code, a revamp that was meant to provide some of the legal authority Central Arkansas Water and its supporters have long sought to protect the water quality of Lake Maumelle.
The code passed as presented on a vote of 10-5, with Justices of the Peace Curtis Keith, Pat Dicker, Donna Massey, Julie Blackwood and Wilandra Dean - all of whom were in favor ofthe amendment to limit the size of lots - voting against it. Justice of the Peace Mary Louise Williams voted for the lot size restriction but, after it failed, voted with the majority.
"We have a treasure ... and I believe we are making a terrible mistake on this Quorum Court," Dicker said. "I personally feel I have failed my constituents."
The lake is the principal source of drinking water for about 400,000 people, including more than 90 percent of Pulaski County's residents. The Lake Maumelle watershed includes about 88,000 acres of land and stream tributaries that draininto the lake, the greater part of which is in northwestern Pulaski County.
Under the new restrictions passed by the Quorum Court on Tuesday, land within the county's portion of the watershed that is subdivided into parcels smaller than 10 acres will be subject to strict engineering controls meant to limit wastewater and storm-water pollution, among other environmental impacts.
The cost of enforcing the proposed changes, including the hiring of a watershed inspector and other additional staff for the county's Planning Department, is expected to be $160,208 annually, along with a $92,881 capital outlay, all to be borne by Central Arkansas Water, according to an agreement with the utility that the Quorum Court also approved Tuesday.
The utility will also assume the burden and expense of any lawsuits by property owners who assert a taking of their property, and will bear the costs of any judgments or claims that arise as a result, according to the agreement, which was approved in a 5-1 vote by the utility'scommissioners in March.
The vote on the agreement with Central Arkansas Water was, unexpectedly, unanimous.
Justice of the Peace Doug Reed, who has adamantly and consistently opposed any regulation of the watershed by the county because of a concern over private-property rights, voted for both the agreement with the utility and the revision of the subdivision and development code.
"I did change my mind," he said, afterward. "I'm shocked I did."
He said he attended a rural watershed meeting recently and was impressed by the residents' desire to connect to Central Arkansas Water because of the quality of its water.
"I felt sorry for them," he said.
Despite the greater control over development in the watershed, however, dozens of community activists who have fought for years to protect the lake's water quality expressed disappointment Tuesday.
They said the county did not go far enough in incorporating into law a watershed management plan that was the result of a compromise among all the parties with interests near Lake Maumelle. Many angrily accused the Quorum Court and its staff of passing an ordinance that would be cheered by developers.
"The ordinance is missing alot of the critical elements of the watershed plan," said Barry Haas, who lives west of Little Rock in the unincorporated area of the county and who participated in the creation of the plan.
Graham Rich, chief executive officer of Central Arkansas Water, also testified that the code, although approved by the utility's board of commissioners in the 5-1 vote, fell short of what they wanted, principally the minimum lot sizes for new development, which would have preserved open space around the lake.
Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines and County Attorney Karla Burnett argued against the idea of limiting the size of lots in the watershed because they said that, without a land use plan in place, the move would amount to zoning just one part of the county and put the county at risk of being sued.
Villines has said that he supports implementing a land use plan as soon as possible.
After the meeting, the county residents who had gathered to lobby for the lot-size restriction held an impromptu meeting in the lobby of the county building to discuss their next step.
"It's not over," Haas said. "We've been doing this for four years. We can't stop at this point."
Arkansas, Pages 9, 13 on 04/29/2009