Piedmont Water Summit

On January 30, 1999, representatives of local government, state and federal agencies, non-profit groups, and private citizens came together for the first Piedmont Water Summit. The meeting was held from 10 AM – 2 PM at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women and was co-sponsored by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME), the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), and the League of Women Voters. Forty-one people attended the meeting, representing Albemarle, Fluvanna, Gloucester, Louisa, Nelson, and Orange Counties plus the City of Charlottesville. The proceedings of the day’s events are available here.

After most of the attendees had gathered, they were welcomed by the facilitator of the day’s events, Llyn Sharp of the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Blacksburg. As an opening exercise, participants were asked to pair up with a stranger and discuss at least two water resources issues affecting the region. Issues were recorded on file cards, and sorted for later consideration into three categories: "easy to change," "possible to change," and "very difficult to change."

The first formal session began with opening remarks by Nancy O’Brien of the TJPDC and Nick Evans of DMME. There was then a series of short presentations by panelists representing various areas of expertise in water issues.

Dialogue

The floor was then opened to questions and dialogue. Issues were raised by the participants and discussed by the panelists and other participants. Some additional questions and comments, which are listed at the end of this document, were submitted in writing.

Issue: What can a local planning commission do to be pro-water?

Discussion: Planning commissions can promote educational projects to sensitize citizens to problems and what they can do to help, including pollution prevention, water conservation, and stream restoration. Planning needs to take into account the control of non-point sources of contamination. Commissions can review plans, ordinances, and regulations to insure that water quality is taken into consideration. Planning commissions can participate in dialogue and cooperative programs with other communities. Commissions can initiate water protection activities such as stream buffers and stormwater retention through their regulatory and law recommending authority. They are charged with guarding the health, safety, and welfare of citizens.

Issue: How can we access basic information to help us understand our county’s groundwater? A hydrologic study of the county would cost a lot of money.

Discussion: Hopefully funding will allow the VA DMR to extend the work that they’ve been doing in Albemarle, Fluvanna and Louisa into other localities. It is important to know how much groundwater is available; withdrawal without knowing is like writing checks without knowing one’s bank balance. Unfortunately, sometimes localities have to make decisions before they have all the data that they should have.

Issue: Not everyone relates to an environmentalist point of view. The public should be educated as to the economic value of water quality.

Discussion: The real values of many of our resources, such as open space, clean water, and clean air need to be determined. Virginia needs to grow in a smarter way, not by sprawl, which is wasting these resources. But it’s a complex issue.

Issue: Decisions are still being made on a political basis within each jurisdiction. What is the vision of the group in terms of improving the decision-making process for water? Each locality could benefit by hiring a water resources manager, but some localities might not be able to afford this.

Discussion: There needs to be dialogue between localities, and an effort toward regional (watershed-wide) policy development through consensus-building. Localities need to communicate with each other as a part of the comprehensive planning process. It might be time for counties to get together and hire a water mediator or negotiator who serves as an information clearinghouse and arbitrates water resources issues.

Issue: How does the quality of sewage water after treatment compare to the quality of the water before it was removed? Can it be made drinkable?

Discussion: Sewage water is treated to the standard of the receiving stream. All receiving streams have standards, but not all have the same standard. It would be possible to make the water potable, but it’s very expensive and not usually done.

Issue: What is the magnitude of net loss when water is pumped out of the ground and goes through the system?

Discussion: That depends on the fate of the water (discharged into a septic system, sprayed over a parking lot, etc.) and on a complex interplay between surface water, groundwater, evaporation and precipitation. We would need more information to define the relationship for a given system.

Issue: What is the status of the Buck Mountain Reservoir?

Discussion: Buck Mountain is officially one of 27 alternatives being considered as a site for a new reservoir; it has not been officially chosen or permitted.

After lunch, Senator Emily Couric addressed the group. She stated that there is a general lack of knowledge about water issues, and a need for the general public to understand the issues in order to support water policy planning. Plans need to move beyond the talking stages, and to be developed on watershed, not political, boundaries.

Discussion then continued using some of the issues that were recorded in the morning’s exercise. The full list is as follows:

Easy to change:

• ensuring quality of water
• trash in streams
• lack of leadership & guidance for citizen efforts to make meaningful contributions to water quality efforts.

Possible to change:

• regional cooperation
• develop system to enhance viability of urban centers and concentrate infrastructure in urban centers and villages
• erosion of stream beds
• coordination of stakeholders in the watershed to work on cooperating on water resource issues: non-point source; water quality and supply; implementation of James River tributary strategy
• public support for central water/sewer
• urban sprawl! Need TDR-PDRs to minimize sprawl & protect water sources – both for quality & quantity
• water to supply growth at Zion Crossroads & interstate corridor
• water conservation: better habits & use of water
• water being taken from old state prison, piped down Rt 15 to 250.
• possible use of James River for water source for bordering counties
• protection of Rivanna; growth control
• overuse of the Rapidan River
• water supply for Zion Crossroads
• how to better understand & communicate the relativity between demand and supply? Get public acceptance of decision
• enforcement of existing regs – (like erosion and sedimentation)
• determination of carrying capacity within existing environmental protection constraints

Very difficult to change:

• groundwater contamination by landfills
• water conservation: ensuring sufficient supplies for the future
• implications of public water supply for development/sprawl
• restructure the way we use public water to be more efficient (restrict use for flush toilets, watering yards, etc.)
• agricultural/urban runoff
• how do we prioritize sources of reliable water supply?
• getting water & sewer to Zion Crossroads in a sensible way with professional help

Ms. Sharp began the discussion by briefly talking about one of the issues that was grouped as "easy to change," trash in streams. Even this problem was demonstrated to be an interjurisdictional problem by the show of hands of those agreeing that their localities received trash from upstream localities or were sources of trash found in downstream localities.

Ms. Sharp then initiated discussion on one of the topics that had been categorized as "possible to change": how to gain public support for central water and sewer. Some participants saw sprawl as a major impediment to public acceptance for water and sewer. Comprehensive plans can be used as a means to control sprawl, but may not be enforced by the courts. The problem is statewide and needs statewide solutions. One tool that the state legislature could provide would be the enabling of purchase and transfer of development rights (PDRs, TDRs). It is important to use methods of open space protection that protect the rights of property owners. This would include tax incentives and voluntary measures such as conservation easements, as well as PDRs and TDRs. On the other hand, some localities, such as Albemarle, which have used non-voluntary measures such as zoning law changes have seen an increase in property values such that property owners did not necessarily sustain major losses. The message for the state legislature, however, is that localities need a full menu of tools and support for land use planning and open space preservation.

The next topic for discussion was another of those grouped as "possible to change," as well as an issue that had been touched on in the morning’s discussion: how to foster regional cooperation on water resource issues. It was suggested that, as a starting point, better public education is needed, as government bodies will only work to fix the issues that the public wants them to fix. Environmental education should be about land use and protection of open space as well as about pollution. It was further suggested that the planning district commission create a task force to work with individual planning commissions and the general public. More active participation in the PDC was recommended. Interjurisdictional water accords for the Piedmont, a set of principles that each locality would strive to abide by, was suggested. Concern about funding for solutions was expressed.

What should the next step be? A number of participants expressed interest in the concept of interjurisdictional water accords, which would be presented at a series of public meetings in a somewhat similar manner to the Sustainability Accords. What group would draft them? It was suggested that one planning commissioner and one board/council member from each locality be invited to participate. It was pointed out that this was a description of a planning district commission. But is the PDC the best forum? Issues span more than one PDC, and PDCs focus on many other issues besides water. However, if water and sprawl are the most important issues, those are perhaps the ones that the PDC should focus on. Commerce and industry are critical to counties, and water is critical to commerce and industry. It was agreed that the PDC would undertake to move this process ahead to the next step.

Conclusions

Planning for water quality and quantity needs to take place across jurisdictional boundaries. A set of interjurisdictional Water Accords for the Piedmont would be a worthwhile next step. Planning for water quality and quantity also means planning for appropriate land use and sufficient open space. Localities need to have a full menu of tools available and support available for their implementation. The feasibility of a regional watershed management official should be explored.