Rodgau only wants to extend gravel mining until 2051 subject to conditions

• ofAnnette Schlegl

  –

  shut down

–

The quartz sand and gravel mining in Dudenhofen is to be extended ahead of time until 2051. But only if the building material works reforest 28 hectares of forest in return.

The Rodgauer Baustoffwerke want to extend the quartz sand and gravel mining in Dudenhofen by ten years. Instead of 2041, the raw materials in the forest opposite the test site of Opel successor Segula are now to be extracted by 2051. However, the majority of city councilors decided on Monday that the company would have to refrain from an extended term if it does not reforest 28 hectares of forest on site.

The Darmstadt regional council had sent the city the application of the building materials works to amend the general operating plan for 2013 and given it the opportunity to comment. The subject occupied the city council on Monday, who changed the planned opinion of the city’s specialist service by majority decision. They decided “a clearer positioning for water and environmental protection and for on-site compensation”, as Karin Wagner (Greens) said.

The company is cutting down forests to extract gravel and sand and has to plant new trees to replace them. In the opinion of the parliamentarians, however, the planned afforestation is not sufficient. The result is a shortfall of around 28 hectares, which should be compensated “not just anywhere” but within the Rodgau district. The contract must not be extended if that cannot be realized.

In addition, conflicts in the abstraction of groundwater, which can arise from the open pit, should be avoided. Securing the drinking water supply must have priority over the extraction of raw materials. Drinking water is best protected meters deep underground, explained Wagner. But if gravel and sand are dug up above the groundwater, problems such as eutrophication arise after the mining areas are closed.

Compensating for 28 hectares in Rodgau is impossible, said the CDU. Like the AfD, she voted against this passage.

–