8 comments
| Email this story
 |
by J. Flannery
Many individuals act on their own, in their own best interest, caring only about themselves, getting their own, and they waste shared common resources that are severely limited and essential, that need to be preserved, rather than squandered.
This is a classic dilemma, called the tragedy of the commons, how individuals motivated only by their own needs, gradually degrade and ultimately destroy a common that exists without sufficient, if any, restriction to protect itself.
The shared and ever-limiting resource that concerns us in Loudoun County, the common that is at risk, is water, clean water, from our streams, rivers and water table, the tributaries of water that flow into the endangered Chesapeake Bay. Water quality in Loudoun County and this region is at risk.
78% of our stream miles here in Loudoun County are “stressed.”
Fertilizer, manure, waste and pollutants feed into these watery channels.
I heard a realtor at a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors make fun of those environmentalists who want to preserve our waters in a “pristine” condition.
She said “pristine” with contempt, like it was two four-letter words. She seemed astonished that anyone could prefer water that was pure and unspoiled. No matter. The water we are talking about is no longer pristine. It has been compromised. Every 10th parcel in Loudoun County has been affected.
A Greek philosopher said “what is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.”
This is shamefully true here in Loudoun and we must now compensate for our carelessness. We have allowed irresponsible industry and personal sloth to foul the air we breathe and the waters we drink.
The Loudoun Chamber of Commerce is an embarrassment. Last year, the Chamber opposed insurance for autistic children, and this year it opposes stream buffers to clean our water. I don’t know who this Chamber represents – but it’s not this businessman. We have to do better because doing nothing is bad business.
Some say the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, passed by the General Assembly in 1988, doesn’t require that this Board do anything at all.
They are right we are not required to do anything.
But we were empowered by the General Assembly to act when the need arises, now that our population has increased dramatically, and our water supply has become degraded.
Some complain that it is inconvenient to abide by the County’s proposed rules and regulations, and that it may carry additional costs.
Polluted water is an even more “inconvenient” legacy than setting things right.
And, you know, sometimes we have to pay the price for people acting independently and selfishly without any concern for the commonwealth.
Among the worst of this number who are resisting change are the do-nothing table thumpers, those folk who ridicule clean water, who play on public fears of cost and limited freedom, who shift blame from themselves, and who spread disinformation about what’s proposed in the hope that misdirection and conflation will defeat these long-needed environmental safeguards.
The amendments that the Board of Supervisors are considering strive to strike a fair balance by creating areas that protect all water bodies that flow year round.
They propose a 100-foot landward buffer adjacent to these water bodies, both standing alone, and when they are connected to wetlands. These buffers will reduce sediments by 70% and reduce nutrients by 40%.
The Board’s exempt and permitted uses, buffer requirements, waivers, exceptions and agricultural requirements that, among other things, permit farmers to graze livestock within the buffer and permit fencing within 25 feet of the stream demonstrate a nuanced understanding of this community’s right and just concerns.
But, if you don’t agree with any aspect of this proposal, speak to how you would improve it in the months ahead, while the Board is considering the proposal, rather than giving aid and comfort to those who would continue to compromise the common until polluted water becomes a sore reminder of what could have been, and how we despoiled a natural resource, when we should have protected it.
JPF
I can’t believe this is happening right here in Loudoun. Another environmentalist-born scam. Using the same tactics that the liberals always use; they point to some tragic “Common” ill, and then devise ways to solve it that both restrict freedom, and extract money from everybody else’s wallet. “Global warming”, “Homeless people”, “Dirty water”. Another poster above was right. They are never satisfied.
Is the water in Loudoun a problem? Are animals who drink it dying? Are we experiencing high cancer rates like the Love Canal? No! No! Is there a problem at all here? NO?
What we have here is the classic liberal scam going on to create new restrictions to be enforced by a new bureaucracy paid for by new taxation (or fees).
I’m happy to see that most people (at least the ones posting here) are fed up with this nonsense, and can see it for what it is: Nonsense.
I have an idea: Mr. Flannery, and all you greenie fanatics, why don’t you pool your monies together, and buy up all the land you want to “save” and “protect”? Then you can do nothing with it all you like!!
Everyone wants clean water and waterways, the implementation of the CBPA in Loudoun County is about neither. If this was about clean water, staff would have developed a plan custom to Loudoun County.
Mr. Flannery, will you ask the question “Who wants a more powerful county government?” That is the real question. You ignored an overwhelming majority of comments at the BOS input sessions and every principle surrounding fair and honest debate.
Perhaps we could start a real discussion on water quality testing and stressed waterways AFTER the CBPA has been defeated. My hope is the process will be fair and applicable to Loudoun County and not a vehicle for power and control, but we must fight the CBPA or all bets are off.
Mr.Flannery,
Have you even read the report that you claim says 78% of our streams are “stressed?”
In the VERY SAME REPORT, as Ms. Ray points out, according to those same sites, the dissolved oxygen is very good to support aquatic life, and many of our streams are in the very top category of stream health. 94% are in the top two categories of stream health, and NONE are in the bottom category, poor.
The one sentence from that report (78% stressed) that is being plastered everywhere is simply misleading as an overall conclusion for our streams’ health. The liberals have to lie so they can con the citizens into going along with their plan to manage our every decision and tie up the county’s economic development and private use of backyards in gigantic buffers everywhere.
We eat the fish from our pond and happily swim in it. We do not drink the water (on purpose) as Mr. Flannery dared people to at the public hearing (so he could later FALSELY claim people are AFRAID to drink our water.) (But people drank his water!)
We do not drink directly from our pond on purpose because we see the beaver, raccoons, skunks. deer drink there—all the wildlfe, including geese and ducks—who are lovely but “messy” and certainly not “pristine!” We do fence our farm animals out, but our dogs love to swim…as do our children. For streams to be “pristine” enough to drink out of them, we would have to find a way to keep wildlife out…is that what Mr. Flannery wants, our streams to be untouchable?
Already this new proposal requires property owners to plant no disturb buffers and mandates that we prevent deer browse. Doesn’t that stand common sense on its head?
For a lawyer, he was just looking for a stunt, so he could call names and accuse Loudouners unfairly. He gives lawyers a bad name, in my opinion.
He repeatedly has called us all who question any aspect of this massive proposed bureaucracy to oversee how big our patios are and where we put our playsets (even on RMA land) “slothful.”
On the battlefield of ideas, I think it would be more helpful for Mr. Flannery to leave the sneering and name calling out, to drop the misleading sweeping manipulative conclusions and work on the precise problem we need to fix, and the details together.
Everyone wants water that is clean.
I have studied the international environmental movement for decades. Mr. Flannery confirms my findings: Ideological environmentalists are never satisfied. We use too many resources, no matter how much we conserve. The air is never clean enough. The water . . . , you get the picture. A county report found 94% of our streams were in the top two (of four) assessment categories, with none in the bottom category of “poor.” Streams were above average for aquatic life—not good enough for Mr. Flannery.
Not only are they never satisfied, but also they take umbrage from any suggestion of applying cost-benefit analysis to their demands. Benefits, to them, approach monetary infinity. Yet, the scarcest resource is money.
It is time for reason to boot these extremists off their moral high ground. They have gone too far. Prof. Charles T. Rubin, a political scientist, declared in his book The Green Crusade: “Where once I saw a movement founded in science, now I see a utopian political program” (p. 8). Have we forgotten already where the quest for utopia leads us?
The county wants us to pay for determining the scope and for the maintaining of “resource protection areas” (cannot use) and “resource management areas” (less restrictive). Study those words. Government employees, whose salaries we pay, want to “manage” our land at our expense, to “protect” our land from our use. They can make demands on us, with no expense on their part, and our only recourse will be expensive litigation. Aren’t we already burdened by the cost of living in Loudoun? Do you trust their judgment?
Several speakers who described themselves as dedicated environmentalists implored the supervisors not to adopt the ordinances. I have lived here a long time. Loudouners are good stewards of their land. Landowners are good stewards because the land is their property. Mr. Flannery ridicules us, demeans us.
Tell the board to forget the ordinances and enforce the stringent environmental laws already on the books. Enough is enough. Rose Ellen Ray
Mr. Flannery can’t even get his facts right.
No realtor used the word “pristine.” Two were at the public hearing, and one spoke about the State Study that found no evidence that the 100 foot tidal buffers would do anything to improve the bay in non tidal counties, and found the administrative expense and burden, and private taking were not warranted. The study she professionally cited is here: Report of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, Implementation of the CBPA, House Document No. 23, http://jlarc.state.va.us/Reports/rpt281.pdf See also, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, http://www.vjel.org/editorials/ED10053.html
The other realtor sat in on the stakeholder meetings and recounted how it was a waste of time since they were told the proposal would not be changed, no matter how reasonable any question of any aspect of it was…
REPEAT: MR. FLANNERY, NO REALTOR SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM.
FlimFlannery has no new ideas, this is the speech he made to the bos. He cannot discuss the details of this, because he is an ideologue and partisan. Manure, yep I smell it!
Do us a favor, get real, be honest about what our problems are and honestly address them.
I am also concerned about all of our water, and would like to clean it up. First a question: where are most of the nutrients coming from? Are they from lawn treatments, agriculture, buildings, illegal dumping? Second question, if we know the first answer: Why not deal the top three pollutants (stressors) first? And if we do this we need full enforcements. It is naive to think this won’t use county resources. We have many laws/regulations and little enforcement. Do you know we have only approximately 8 Animal Control Officers in the County? (compare that to the # of animals in the East and West). Anyway…this is bad law if not enforced properly. Property inspectors will be needed to drive the county. And if they find something—what then? Just like fences make good neighbors, proper enforcement can help legislation do what it was designed for.
John Flannery makes a strong case for protection of our water; however, he does not address whether the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act are the right ones to provide that protection in a County that the Act was not designed to cover.
The board of the Ashburn Village Community Association (to which I am required to pay dues), has told its members that the Act is both unnecessarily burdensome and fails to address major sources of Bay pollution. I believe the AVCA board members are neither opposed to measures to clean the Bay nor to measures to protect the aquifers from which many in the county obtain their drinking water. So arguing in favor of clean water is not addressing the right issue.
There seems to be a need for a discussion of the measures that are both necessary and appropriate, but the majority on the BOS has argued that the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act must be adopted without any changes.
Updated: Thirteen-year-old pedestrian hit crossing Route 7 near Dulles Town Center
Stone Bridge named Top 10 school by U.S. News
Leesburg high schools switch things around
Supervisors approve $7.9 million increase for schools
UPDATE: Missing Leesburg man drowns in drainage pond
 |
The Loudoun Times-Mirror is an interactive, digital replica of the printed newspaper.Open the e-edition now. |
 Weekly Homes Guide |
 2011 Guide to Loudoun |
 Holiday Gift Guide |
 Health and Wellness |
 Bridal Guide |
 Historic Frederick Maryland |
 Taste of Loudoun |
 Senior Lifestyles |
 Historic Downtown Leesburg |
 Future Leaders |
 Coming Soon |
Coming Soon |
Is the water in Loudoun a problem? Are animals who drink it dying? Are we experiencing high cancer rates like the Love Canal? No! No! Is there a problem at all here? NO?
What we have here is the classic liberal scam going on to create new restrictions to be enforced by a new bureaucracy paid for by new taxation (or fees).
I’m happy to see that most people (at least the ones posting here) are fed up with this nonsense, and can see it for what it is: Nonsense.
I have an idea: Mr. Flannery, and all you greenie fanatics, why don’t you pool your monies together, and buy up all the land you want to “save” and “protect”? Then you can do nothing with it all you like!!
" class="blue2">Report this comment