What Buffers?
Off The Map Doesn't Count

Three years ago, following debate over whether local stream protection buffers should extend 50 or 75 feet from streambanks, Mayor Doc Eldridge broke a 5-to-5 Commission tie in favor of 75-foot buffers. Many thought this meant that all local streams would be protected from building or land disturbance within 75 feet, but they haven't been, because a lot of streams were left off the map that passed with the ordinance.

According to ACC Senior Planner Bruce Lonnee, many streams were left off the map because planners didn't know exactly where they were in relation to specific parcels of land. Data on existing maps like U.S. Geologic Survey maps didn't locate the streams accurately enough, he said, to use for the ordinance. However, USGS data has improved substantially since then, and additional data is also available now from aerial photos.

Last week at an informal "work session," ACC Commissioners heard a report of the Stormwater Advisory Committee, which has discussed protecting additional streams. The advisory committee consists of county staff and representatives of the Athens Area Homebuilders Association, the Upper Oconee Watershed Network, the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce and other citizens. The committee reached no consensus on the issue, and it will probably be settled by the county commission.

Wider buffers can protect drinking water source areas by filtering runoff rainwater before it flows into nearby streams. Such runoff water may be polluted with automotive fluids that drip from cars, or fertilizer and pesticides from lawns. Stream buffers also provide undeveloped corridors for wildlife. According to information provided to the committee by the Upper Oconee Watershed Network, "protection of these small streams is very important for water quality" since they can carry pollution to larger streams. A 1989 state law requires local governments to inventory and assess their drinking-water source areas, groundwater recharge areas, river corridors and wetlands.

Commissioner John Barrow said the commission "cannot do everything that needs doing" right away, but that streams should be protected from pollution "at the front end," rather than spending money to clean up the pollution downstream once it has been pumped out for drinking water.

"We want these areas protected," added Commissioner David Lynn. He said an unprotected stream in the Jefferson Commons development on Jefferson River Road was "completely demolished" by grading, leaving only deep mud. Both Lynn and the watershed network said protected streams should be defined by the written ordinance, and not by a map.

The existing stream protections were controversial when they were passed in 2000. Of present commissioners, both Charles Carter and Harry Sims voted in favor of 50-foot buffers and against 75-foot protection. The Athens Area Homebuilders Association, represented by now-State Senator Brian Kemp, also favored 50-foot buffers. According to calculations by the planning department at the time, there are 25 acres of privately owned land parcels which have half or more of their area "constrained" under the present ordinance. Those streams not protected under the local ordinance still receive some protection under a state ordinance which provides 25-foot buffers.

According to Commissioner Barrow, "some of the urban streams were specifically left off the map," including Tanyard Branch and Brooklyn Creek. The Upper Oconee Watershed Network said urban streams should not be eliminated from protection, but instead the county should install guidelines or processes encouraging sites along urban streams to be developed in ways that minimize runoff or otherwise protect water quality.

Commissioners discussed the possibility of exempting existing structures near streams if the ordinance is expanded. The present ordinance allows landowners to request an exception to the rules by arguing their case before the county hearings board (which also hears requests for zoning variances). Assistant County Manager Bobby Snipes suggested that some streams might need either more or less than 75-foot buffers, and suggested developing "some sort of criteria or rational analysis" for evaluating different situations. Commissioner Cardee Kilpatrick thought 50 feet might sufficiently protect smaller streams, and suggested that adjacent topography might also be considered. Further discussion is not expected until the commission's November 20 agenda-setting meeting, and a vote could be taken December 2.

John Huie

Harass the author at jphuie@athens.net.

Defending Families
A Congressman Speaks Out

As long as I've had the honor of serving my Northeast Georgia neighbors in Congress, almost nine years now, I've always let commonsense and Georgia values guide me on how best to represent the folks back home. As I've said before, commonsense may be in abundance around kitchen tables in our neck of the woods, but I'm sad to say it's usually in very short supply in our nation's capital.

But occasionally... just once in a while mind you, a commonsense idea is so universally accepted and endorsed by the majority of all people, it's met with a broad range of support from across the political, ethnic and religious spectrums and brings folks together that haven't always shared the same perspective on a number of other issues.

Such has been the case, I'm pleased to say during Marriage Protection Week, with the defense of marriage and the support of the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56) - legislation I'm cosponsoring which would amend our Constitution to finally protect marriage.

So what do I consider a broad range of support? How about two of the nation's largest African-American denominations, the nation's largest association of Hispanic churches, the largest African-American Muslim group in the U.S., the nation's largest Jewish organization, a civil rights pioneer, hundreds of Catholic bishops and Christian religious leaders, and 95 Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The fact is, these folks support the Federal Marriage Amendment because they believe that traditional marriage has provided the primary moral cornerstone and strong practical example for our children for centuries.

A poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide last March provided further evidence that support for defending marriage and this bill is significant and originates from a very broad range of folks. Overall, the poll results indicated that 62 percent of those surveyed nationally agreed with the statement: "Marriage is the union of a man and woman." Additionally, the poll found that overwhelming numbers of Hispanics (63 percent) and African-Americans (62 percent) support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from lawsuits. Also, working class and low income Americans (63 percent) are among some of the strongest supporters of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

I know what you're thinking: if so many of us agree on the sanctity and importance of marriage, why is legislation needed to amend the Constitution and defend it in the first place?

Unfortunately, it's necessary because far too many activist federal and state judges are using the courts these days as a vehicle to promote a radical social agenda. These judges are attempting to redefine marriage above the objections of the vast majority of Americans and against the will of the people, as expressed through their state legislatures.

And while social statistics repeatedly tell us that the health and success of children who are raised with a mom and dad who live at home, are married, and are engaged in their lives, is measurably better than the health and success of those children who are missing this fundamental component of family life - these activist judges continue to jeopardize our culture's most basic building block and threaten the health and success of many of our nation's children... children who deserve far better.

Families have a tough row to hoe these days. Whether it's violence in our schools, the tax and spend crowd in Washington taking money out of their pockets, the unhealthy and explicit imagery we see on television every night, or the disturbing message we send our children by removing the Ten Commandments from our courthouse walls - the simple fact is that the American family and traditional values are under assault.

By passing the Federal Marriage Amendment, Congress has an opportunity to do the right thing, claim a significant and much needed victory for America's families, and send a strong message to those who would put personal social experiments before our nation's traditional values that we won't sit idly by.

Charlie Norwood.

Congressman Charlie Norwood represents the counties surrounding Athens in Georgia's 9th District. His address is 2452 Rayburn Building, Washington, DC 20515.

Animal Control
Last Week's Scorecard

Athens-Clarke County Animal Control responded to 73 calls:
3 complaints of animal cruelty
2 reported bite cases
5 complaints of barking dogs
2 dogs running loose
37 animals impounded
33 dogs
2 cats
1 chicken
1 raccoon
23 dogs placed
4 adopted
5 reclaimed
14 turned over to other agencies

ACC Animal Control press release for the week of Thursday, Oct. 9 to Wednesday, Oct. 15.

Cruel Tastes
Meat Comes From Animals

"I like animals. They taste great!" reads the bumpersticker on the truck in front of me. "I have a hunch this clown's bumpersticker is probably not half as lame as he is," I think to myself. "Yet another guy I can knock out of the dating pool."

But despite being tacky, is this immodest carnivore really that different from the rest of America when it comes to his behavior towards animals? I mean, he probably loves his dog, tears-up at the end of Old Yeller, and buys dolphin-safe tuna just like a lot of my friends. While many of my animal-loving friends are too soft-hearted to read the "Why Vegan" pamphlet I put in my holiday cards (in case you aren't on my Christmas list, you can view this info at whyvegan.com or factoryfarming.com) because they can't stand the thought or sight of animals suffering, ironically they eat these same animals just as surely as insensitive bumpersticker guy does - as I did for many years myself.

God love us for caring about animals, but how does our "kind-heartedness" matter to animals if we turn a blind eye and hand our money to factory farmers to raise animals "out of sight and out of mind," knowing the conditions are too miserable for us to even think about with a clear conscience or steady stomach? When we as the meat-eating public condone this closed-door policy of inhumane animal-rearing through our silence and financial consent, we play a twisted game of "don't ask, don't tell," allowing factory farmers the freedom to increase profits at the expense of animal welfare. The losers in this game are the billions of birds, pigs, cows and fish who suffer along with our sense of ethical integrity. Because, while most of us softies would rightly lose our appetite if we had to butcher a living creature ourselves, we seem not to have trouble paying a hitman to do our dirty work for us.

In my case, I finally realized swallowing my own hypocrisy at mealtime wasn't doing much for my peace of mind. But if we don't have blood on our hands, surely we must have blood-money in our wallets because even a remedial course in economics tells us that animals would stop dying if we just stopped buying (and currently, a million farmed animals are killed every hour of every day in American slaughterhouses).

Because he was a lifelong advocate for ethical vegetarianism, Mahatma Gandhi's birthday (Oct. 2) has been celebrated as "World Farm Animal Awareness Day" for over 20 years. Gandhi felt, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." With the advent of factory farming in recent decades, I think he'd say America's moral progress has taken a big step backwards.

So, fellow animal lovers, let's no longer turn a deaf ear to the cries of the farmed animals whose welfare we have unjustly left to the mercy of the factory farmer for far too long. Let's prove the "greatness of our nation" and put our natural compassion into action by demanding humane farming reforms (as is being done in Europe) and phase out the worst of the intensive confinement systems, such as veal crates and battery cages for hens. (See farmsanctuary.com.) And more importantly, since "money talks," let your dollars speak for your conscience by buying less animal products and more vegan foods every day - forcing corporate animal agribusiness to hear loud and clear that your peace of mind is more valuable than a piece of meat.

Carrie Packwood Freeman

Carrie Packwood Freeman is a graduate student in UGA's Grady College of Journalism & Mass Communication.

Anatomy Of A Lie
Bush Continues to Mislead

On Sept. 18, George W. Bush knew that he had gone too far. A Washington Post poll showed that, thanks to his statements, 70 percent of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein - not Osama bin Laden - was behind 9/11. With the press leaning on him to put up or 'fess up, he ordered his henchmen to backpedal. Asked whether there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld said: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that." Bush chimed in: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein... had either direction or control of 9/11," affirmed Condoleeza Rice.

Along with his $87 billion request to Congress for Iraq spending, his admitting the lack of a Saddam-9/11 connection caused Bush's ABC News approval rating to plummet from 58 percent in September to 47 percent in October. The truth didn't play well. Therefore, relying on H.L. Mencken's observation that no one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the American public, Bush has returned to the same old lies he has already admitted.

On Oct. 10, without offering a smidgen of new evidence, Dick Cheney again asserted a connection between 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Fiefdom. "Iraq has become the central front in the war on terror. Our mission in Iraq is a great undertaking and part of a larger mission that the United States accepted now more than two years ago. September 11, 2001 changed everything for this country."

Although no evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq, Cheney also reverted to the White House's pre-war argument for preemptive invasion: "We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends or allies." Saddam = terrorism = 9/11, but even worse.

According to the U.N. International Labor Organization, we Americans work longer hours than any other nation in the industrialized world. As White House TV guru Greg Jenkins says, "Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they don't have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television, you accomplish your goals as communicators." People don't have time for facts, much less nuance.

The Bushies exploit our stress to blur the fictional link between Iraq and 9/11. Let's dissect Cheney's key argument: "We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends or allies."

The "danger," according to the Vice Resident, came from Saddam and his "terrorist allies." But Saddam didn't have WMDs. Bush's own chief weapons inspector says so. That leaves Saddam's "terrorist allies."

Here's where the disconnect gets interesting. When post-9/11 Americans think of "terrorists," they think of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. But when Bush officials talk about Saddam's links to "terrorism," they're referring to something different: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian groups fighting the Israeli occupation. Rumsfeld says: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children." (By the way, this oft-repeated allegation has yet to be sourced or corroborated by a reputable journalist.) As usual, the spin is based on what they leave out: Rumsfeld wants you to think that those payments went to Al Qaeda to encourage them to blow up American men, women and children, perhaps on 9/11. In fact, the intended targets of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are Israelis.

Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad have carried out horrendous attacks in Israel. Many innocent people have been killed. But these groups don't have WMDs. And they've never indicated an interest in attacking Americans. Had Cheney told the truth, it would have gone something like this: "We could not accept the possibility of Saddam Hussein's Palestinian terrorist allies financing suicide bombers against Israel." Or, more succinctly: "We must take out Saddam because he indirectly finances attacks against our ally, Israel."

Many Americans support Israel, but very few would send U.S. troops to fight Ariel Sharon's war against the Palestinians.

The Bushies' arguments always fall apart upon close inspection. Now Condi Rice is backtracking from her backtrack: Saddam had to go, she says, because he posed a threat from "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." Guilt by geographical proximity, evidently, is enough to justify carpet-bombing. Israel also happens to be in the Middle East. Should we attack her too?

On Sept. 18, Bush thought it would help to admit the truth: that Saddam Hussein had never been a threat to the United States. Less than a month later, on Oct. 9, Bush's polls upticked as he reverted to form: "I was not about to leave the security of the American people to a madman."

It's too late for that.

Ted Rall

Ted Rall, author of To Afghanistan and Back, writes the new Rallblog at www.rall.com.)