 | Times-Mirror Staff Photo/Beverly Denny Catoctin Creek |
In Loudoun County, a proposal to help clean the water has residents boiling mad on both sides of the argument.
With the timeline for when talks will continue on the Chesapeake Bay Protection Ordinance fast approaching, a series of community outreach meetings throughout the summer have done little to ease tensions.
Those opposed to the proposal still believe it’s too restrictive. They continue to reject the idea that legislation will have a positive impact on the county’s waterways – or that Loudoun’s rivers and streams are polluted at all.
“The water quality here probably could be improved, but it’s not horrific,” said Tony Howard, president of the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce. “We’re not talking about a calamity on our hands. We’re not talking about a real emergency on our hands. We’re talking about making it incrementally better. And there are other ways that can be done.”
Proponents remain steadfast in their belief that the ordinance is an enormous first step in saving the county’s water from total disrepair. The proposed ordinance, they say, will cost residents only a fraction of what they would pay in tax dollars should the county’s drinking water and streams become so polluted that they would require additional treatment to restore.
“This is the beginning of a process that we’re going to have to go through for years to come,” said Supervisor Kelly Burk (D-Leesburg). “Most certainly, we need to take the first step and this is the first step.”
Supervisors will continue discussions on Sept. 21.
The ordinance
The state General Assembly adopted the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act in 1988 as a way to protect the Chesapeake Bay and its wildlife habitats. When the law was enacted, 84 tidewater jurisdictions – those touching a tidal area – were required to implement the restrictions.
Localities that are not tidewater jurisdictions – like Loudoun – can opt into the guidelines voluntarily. This is what Loudoun is now considering.
There are no laws now in place that restrict developers or homeowners from stripping the land of natural vegetation, according to Laura Edmonds, the county’s Chesapeake Bay Project manger.
Loudoun’s version of the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act is designed to stop that, Edmonds said.
The ordinance, which would apply only to new development or home-improvement projects, would designate portions of the county as resource protection areas or resource management areas.
Resource protection areas are properties adjacent to perennial waters, including connected wetlands. They would require a 100-foot buffer for any land disturbance.
Future development in these areas would be limited so that riparian buffers, such as vegetation and trees, can filter pollutants from runoff, prevent erosion, and store and dissipate flood waters, among other things, according to county documents.
The idea, county leaders say, is to preserve what’s already in place and prevent further stripping of natural vegetation.
Residents living within proposed protection areas face the most limitations. They would be restricted from building structures that disturb more than 2,500 square feet of land without a grading permit, a waiver from the county and a water-quality assessment test.
There are waivers and exceptions for land disturbances within the protection areas, including water and sewer lines and utilities.
A resource management area is land outside the protection area, that, if developed, would have a negative impact on nearby waterways. A countywide resource management area is currently proposed.
Residents living within the resource management areas under the proposal would be required to obtain a grading permit for any land-disturbing activity of more than 2,500 square feet. In addition, there are performance criteria, such as requirements that septic systems be pumped out every five years.
One size fits all?
Critics of the ordinance disagree with what they describe as a “one size fits all” approach.
What works in the other 84 jurisdictions where the Bay Act is mandated won’t work in Loudoun County, they say.
Proponents say the ordinance already has been altered to fit Loudoun’s needs.
The criteria of the act vary by state. For example, the standard land disturbance guideline in Virginia is 2,500 square feet, but in Maryland, it’s 5,000 square feet.
Those worried about how the proposed Loudoun ordinance will affect their properties say they don’t understand why county leaders can’t shape the plan to fit here.
“They basically took it down off the shelf and said, ‘Let’s adopt it’ without careful consideration to the implications,” Howard said.
The Chamber of Commerce president points to Albemarle County as an example of how the ordinance can be amended to fit the needs of a non-tidewater locality.
Albemarle County adopted a water protection ordinance in June 1991 and used the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act as a guideline.
However, in Albemarle County, the land disturbance limit is 10,000 square feet, compared to the 2,500 square feet Loudoun leaders propose.
Albemarle County’s ordinance, in some ways, is more strict than the Loudoun proposal, Edmonds said.
Albemarle residents living in Water Supply Protection Areas or on rural lands are required to have 100-foot buffers on perennial and intermittent streams. Loudoun’s proposed ordinance calls for those same buffers, but only on perennial streams.
Supervisors could opt to increase the size of the land disturbance area, but doing so would be a difficult option because of the way the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act is structured, Edmonds said.
“If you’re going to use this enabling authority to adopt an ordinance and for it be defensible in court, you’ve got to use Chesapeake Bay,” Edmonds said.
The state of our waters
Local eco-historian Hayden Mathews believes Loudoun County has landscape amnesia.
Mathews, referring to author Jerry Diamond’s concept that inhabitants don’t notice incremental changes to the environment, says that concept keeps residents in denial about the state of Loudoun’s waters. He’s baffled at the controversy surrounding the issue.
“It’s imperative for us to say, ‘Let’s not argue about how we got here, but let’s not let it get any worse,’” said Mathews, a member of the Loudoun Clean Streams Coalition. “Let’s not lose a little bit of environmental quality one nibble at a time.”
A 2009 countywide stream health study found that 78 percent of stream miles in Loudoun are stressed or severely stressed, meaning they are degraded.
In the study, scientists found that the majority of Loudoun’s waters were too polluted to support insect life. There are bacterial impairments as well, making fishing or swimming impossible without the risk of illness, scientists found.
Riparian buffers would help fix these problems, according to county staff, by reducing sediment by 75 percent and nutrients by 40 percent.
Naysayers don’t believe the numbers. Loudoun, they say, is proposing to enact an intrusive ordinance without proof of the quantitative benefit.
The problem is, Edmonds said, the 84 tidewater localities that already have the regulations in place have never studied its effects.
“You don’t study a mandatory program,” she said.
In addition, those localities have other legislation in place aimed at curbing pollution, such as storm-water management and erosion control, so separating the effects of riparian buffers from other programs is difficult.
“The connection that you can make is that there is a problem now, most likely related to the activities of the past, and that by increasing these riparian buffers, you can help deflect some of that problem,” said Dr. Emily Southgate, a certified senior ecologist from Middleburg.
Resident burden
County staff admit they’re struggling with the exact cost of what residents would pay should they chose to build in a resource protection or management area.
It’s estimated that a resource protection area delineation on a quarter to half-acre property would cost between $1,700 to $3,900.
Edmonds believes the price would likely be on the lower end of that spectrum because county staff would not ask homeowners to map their entire property, only the area that would be disturbed.
“Our goal is to isolate the area of disturbance and not make you study your whole property,” Edmonds said. “You could own 100 acres, but if you’re disturbing 2,500 square feet, we’re only going to focus on that area.”
However, Howard, like many other residents, believes the county should bear the brunt of the financial responsibility for mapping. Homeowners and small businesses are already struggling, he said, and extra burdens will only make matters worse.
“They don’t make tons of money and they operate on very thin margins. They’re obviously subject to the whims of nature, they shouldn’t be subject to the whims of county bureaucrats,” Howard said. “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth mapping.”
New federal regulations
A recent push by the federal government could override Loudoun county leaders’ efforts to protect its waterways.
Under the proposal, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Act of 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency essentially would take over many of the regulations dealing with the bay that previously had been handled by state regulators.
The new act is in congressional committee.
All Virginia localities that drain into the bay, including Loudoun County, would be forced to abide by the new legislation, should it pass.
Virginia’s plan for the new legislation has not yet been revealed; the state missed the Sept. 1 filing deadline.
Loudoun’s proposed ordinance already matches up with what could be coming, county leaders said.
“We’re right on line, leading the direction they seem to be headed,” Edmonds said.
The only aspect that would need to be changed, she said, is a requirement for a mandatory agricultural land assessment.
Many Loudouners believe the county should wait to see how the federal mandate plays out before passing an ordinance.
But supporters say Loudoun doesn’t have the luxury of time.
“The longer you wait, the more people are in the buffer and have restrictions,” Edmonds said.
In the State Watershed Implementation Plan, the State does propose new laws to more strictly regulate state wide, not only fertilizers, but also storm water management, sewage treatment plans, and even suburban yard use with respect to yard waste, leaf and grass clippings, etc.
See the State Watershed Implementation Plan:
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/tmdl/chesapeakebay.html
The buffers are indeed an antiquated and ineffective approach…
...fertilizers? I would say that the issue of nutrient use is much broader than just limited to fertilizers. This antique of a law is only designed to deal with sediments and fertilizers through the use of these buffers along streams. The reality is, and only 1 guy mentioned it, at Burton/Kurtz’s community meeting, that the bay’s aquatic population will not get better until we deal with the other problems involving pharmaceuticals in the water—-and they do not come from the farms!
A friend just told me the other day that he purchases fertilizer from a regional wastewater treatment plant, Class A, biosolids for land application in crop production; he is already doing nutrient management (documented and available for inspection at any time); one of the managers at the plant told him, “‘we just keep letting you farmers take all the heat for this’.” The bay’s true problem will not go away until we deal with the effluent releases from wastewater treatment plants—we built too many houses on land never designed to carry that many people!
Due to the economics involved most farms are underapplying nutrients not overapplying. Fertilizer is way to expensive to give plants more than they can use or make a return to the farmer on. Farming has razor thin margins already with huge variables in weather, disease, pests (deer)...most times it doesn’t pay at all, but to stick a thumb up in the air and guess “yeah that should be enough,” you wouldn’t last long.
The problem is those that are overapplying and using guesswork are most likely going to be a golf course or a homeowner who are using the “looks green enough to me”-factor; I know we want to be green, but not that green! The extension office would have soil testing results and fertilizer recommendations available from those farmers who submitted soil samples to the Virginia Tech lab.
As I said before…animal agriculture will bear the brunt of this antique law. Yes, I agree it is aimed at development, but the grenade will send shrapnel to the farmer and homeowner also. The last thing a farmer wants is to disrupt operations waiting for a bureaucrat to decide whether or not the farmer can move forward with planting decisions, etc, due to a neighbor’s (who knows nothing of farming) complaint. This is undoubtedly, more ammo for non-farm neighbors to use against farmers.
So…if the path of least resistance becomes development, that is where the landowners and farmowners will head….
There are so many dynamics at work and so many problems with getting people to believe that this will actually work; that the county’s study is even accurate (the lowest bidder, during a drought, in the heat of summer); that it is worth it for them to pay for the RPA-delineation themselves…they assessed inclusion of Loudoun in the state’s initial CBPA 20-some years ago and finally decided it would be too much financial hardship on the farmers and homeowners; and here we are again….
A large percentage of our streams are not even mapped, maybe those are the pristine ones that would change the arbitrary 78 percent stressed figure that the leftists keep throwing around…
Mapping in advance tells us what we have, helps us protect what we have and gives us accurate data to evaluate if we really even have a problem—
This CBPO is a joke, we have no map, do not know where our streams are, but can make sweeping conclusions about the streams we are not sure we have…
Mapping in advance is the ONLY way we can reasonably evaluate our streams..
Eric, your example about perc testing the entire County is dumb and a poor leftist attempt to confuse.
The mapping the County is suggesting requires us to study every parcel and pay for a lot of needless engineering/waivers/exceptions—whereas if the County went in and mapped in advance, the mapping would be targeted and efficient.
Ironically, as a side note, in the new State proposal to the EPA, perc tests are irrelevant, because the State is going to discourage conventional systems—(conventional systems are a major cause of e coli in our water, Mrs. Kurtz), The State proposes to put into place incentives for people to install the “alternative” systems, that filter the wastewater from a septic system so well that it comes out clean enough to drink.
Seems to me Mr. Miller and a number of the clean water hypocrites on our board were not in favor of the technology to filter septic waste and tried to ban alternative systems? why? because they were trying to make homebuilding more difficult for some with poorer soils…. and punished all the rest of us!
Ms. Kurtz (who claims to care so much about e coli?) and Mr. Burton, (who is fighting for these extreme buffers) also tried to outlaw the alternative septic systems? to insist on only conventional (polluting) systems in western Loudoun? They care so much about our streams they want to force on us the largest e coli pollutant, conventional septic systems, instead of allowing clean and green systems, new technology that relies on carbon filters instead of our dirt?
This is all about tying up the land folks. The county has wasted millions trying, for example, to stop Purcellville from using its land. (Gee that would have paid to map our streams in advance.) No wonder the Town of Pville is opposed to this proposal, and its Mayor spoke against it at the public input session last week.
The County spent FOUR years punishing the Town of Hamilton, who needs water, in a constant conserve mode, with no water pressure at all in eastern Hamilton—can’t do laundry and shower on the same day….depriving them of the use of their own well, insisting on mindless delays and bureaucracy, when the well was already operational and serving the new schools on the outskirts of Hamilton…
it’s ok for the County to use the Town’s well, but not ok for the Town to use its own water…
No wonder the Towns are opposed to the CBPO, and worry about the hypocrisy of our far left leaders who are pretending this is about our water, and in truth are drooling at the prospect of half our county being tied up in no disturb buffers, and having staff authority to Manage us all since the whole county is a Resource Management Area…using County land on the outskirts of Town to force issues on the inside of Town—it is about land use, not our streams… and Burton and Kurtz do not support any building, as much as they claim to support the rural economy, that is all lip service, now that they have down zoned 2/3 of the County, they are willing to destroy all use of the land/agriculture/wineries/rural economy—because some would rather that Loudoun simply be a park for the very wealthy, and those working class people have got to go…
The issue is fertilizers, and the state will address that in the next legislative session, so why do we need these extreme buffers and half our County as possible no disturb???
Bill writes “They would have to do a complete mapping of the County and it is not budgeted.”
“...this seems to be the County saying “we don’t have the budget in place to get the data correct, but we won’t let incorrect data stop us.”
I disagree. I as a tax payer would rather pay for the mapping of the entire county (for millions of dollars) over a long period of time and let the people building new houses and developments pay for a portion of that cost. As I have pointed out before requiring the entire county to be tested and mapped before enactment is analagous to perc testing every property before enacting septic regulations. Not only is it impractical to do all in one fell swoop (think of property access issues alone), it is not cost effective, and will essentially mean that these regulations will never be enacted. Of course this is what the spoke people for the real estate industry in Loudoun County are really after.
odysseus, do you have the early edition of the article, or what it was rewritten to say later that night?
The first version was positive, the second much “murkier”. Much.
I have both, and the changes are fascinating, in an Orwellian sort of tinfoil hat way—lol
Farmers in other parts of the State subject to the Ches Bay regs say that the EPA modeling used to determine their “pollution” is flawed, and they say they are forced to hire expensive consultants and lawyers just to prepare “nutrient” plans to be approved, that the compliance has become so difficult and technical, they need lawyers to help them understand, as well… and they also say the paper work just to show they are doing the right thing is so extensive, expensive and time consuming…they are being squeezed out of farming, even when they are doing everything right (many voluntarily for many years).
From yesterday’s Washington Post.
“These conditions are actually better than they were in the 1950s. The portion of the Potomac that we’re talking about was completely devoid of vegetation in the 1950s,” said Nancy Rybicki, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and a co-author of the study.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706765.html
Unless ALL of the offending water from the streams is being sucked in by Supervisor McGimseys often cited Fairfax County Water intake. The condition of the water is the best it’s been in 50 years. I was swimming in the Potomac River in Sterling YESTERDAY, the water is Gin clear and full of grass. The benthic issue is a SNAPSHOT in a constantly changing environment ( the streams and rivers). The people who conducted the above cited study were SCIENTISTS, not out of the county professional environmentalists looking to check an item off their list with the aid of their funded politicians. The Chesapeake Bay Protection act doesn’t hold water in Loudoun County.
Hey Leej, regulations are already in place, however, unless there is more government growth (i.e. jobs created to enforce those regulations) then new legislation is a waste of time. Now who wants more government bloat? This is more political garbage than anything.
For the farms…the animal agriculture will bear the brunt under this ordinance. IF, those who have animals apply AND the Loudoun Soil and Water Conservation District Board (elected) agrees to fund their project (as long as the LSWCD has enough funds allocated to disburse to approved projects), AND the LANDOWNER agrees to keep the fencing/waterer/hardened crossing maintained for 10 years, there may be up to 75% “cost-share” available. The “hobby-horse” owners will not have these funds available to them, only breeding operations. The LCWSD’s 2010 budget took a huge cut from the 2009 level (almost 50%). If passed, this ordinance will, overnight, create an instant demand for LSWCD “cost-share” dollars and the BOS will not agree to add funding to help the farmers comply. This is a real problem and virtually gives complaint ammunition to the suburban complainers. The current Virginia Ag Stewardship Act already applies to Loudoun County farms. Check with the Virginia Department of Agriculture, there are no complaints of farms polluting waters under the Ag Stewardship Act in Loudoun County.
There are a lot of problems with this antiquated legislation…the UNDEFINED MAPPING (complete with landowner cost to create the map), validity of the county’s water survey (conflicts with VA-Department of Conservation and Recreation’s, Healthy Waters Initiative), upcoming federal and state legislation which would, at least, be fair across the board to the farmer and the suburban homeowner pertaining to land nutrient application (requiring a nutrient management plan), it virtually forces property owners to give up the farming and turn to developers to deal with the red tape. The reduction from 10,000 sq ft to 2500 sq ft is too much of a burden on farms. All of the counties that have implemented this have virtually seen their animal agriculture disappear from the landscape; now, if this passes, a farmer will potentially be subject to arrest (Class 1 Misdemeanor) if he/she refuses to (or cannot pay for) erect a fence.
PLUS, in the end…how are we planning to keep the critters and deer out of the creek. Loudoun County has more deer per square mile than any other Virginia county according to VA-Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. I look for the E. Coli and fecal coliform numbers to go up since the “buffers” will create additional carrying capacity for deer, which will jump right into a nearby crop field (because the incentive to keep animals on farmland will be more difficult) and go right back to the “buffer” and waterway for cover and protection.
AND…most of this deals with “surface water.” The well water tests show that the wells are in good shape. Why would people be drinking from ponds and puddles anyway?
The problem here is that there are too many variables, too many “if this, then thats,” too much uncharted territory (literally unmapped, and the landowner gets to pay for what the county should be responsible to map), RIGHTLY SO, people cannot trust this ordinance. It is old law and the reason it has not been challenged was because the counties that adopted it were already named in the state law (aside from Albemarle). Loudoun was not named because it is not on the tidal Potomac. This is a voluntary action on behalf of the BOS. If county “leaders” push forward with this AND the state revamps (or moves on the federal mandates) the entire CBPA, we will literally be stuck with an old law that has no proven track record. The citizenry is literally being asked to buy a 20-year-old car with no warranty, no refund, no exchanges, no “consumer protections.” This will not put us “ahead of the game” as some tout, but way, way behind the 8-ball…if they wanted a zoning-esque rivers and streams overlay in the first place, why try to mask it with this piece of junk?
Here they are throwing that 78% fiction around again. The Loudoun Streams are in the top 5% of the state , regarding their health and clarity.
Dutchman’s Creek in Lovettsville has actually been improving for years—despite the amount of agriculture and building around it.
We do not need this Ordinance. It is a “who want’s to make some money” moment for McGimsey and company….just like the sewer service companies who got the county’s mandatory drainfield inspection act passed and immediately had the authorized contractors limited to THEMSELVES.
An article in the WaPo today also says that the Potomac has reached a highpoint in clarity since 1990.More proof we don’t need this, and the water is just fine.
Bill, this CBPO does not require fencing animals out of the streams, in fact it allows what they are calling “hard crossings” where animals will be allowed to access the streams, in certain locations that are built to a certain standard, where they will not degrade all the banks.
WE already have an incentive program in Loudoun to help farmers pay to fence animals completely out, and to provide alternative water sources to our streams. This incentive program needs more money—and we should not be wasting our resources on this crazy Ches Bay Ordinance, and the cost of mapping and administration…wasted money.
What about deer poop? raccoon poop? fox poop? as one farmer testified, they sue the streams as their toilet—they go into the water to “go”—the deer are out of control in western loudoun, yet the Ordinance makes us plant and ensure against deer browse..
This Ordinance does not solve any real problems…
No offense taken, Leesburger. I’m just relaying my personal experience with the County. I agree with you as well. I want the County mapped before this passes and if we need to make the Supervisors budget this, then lets get it done!
Bill writes “They would have to do a complete mapping of the County and it is not budgeted.”
I’m not picking on you Bill, but this seems to be the County saying “we don’t have the budget in place to get the data correct, but we won’t let incorrect data stop us.”
So basically we are seeing the equivalent of “spot zoning” via the grease pencil method?
Thos who are aware can take action and be spared, and those who are unaware, oh well.
I agree one hundred percent that this should be tabled (preferably until we see what the state does with what the fed told them, and what that means the state has to tell US), and a REAL stakeholder process be convened—i.e. including the majority of those who pay the taxes on the actual stakes in question.
Bill, it is very nice that Laura will answer your telephone calls and emails. She has not responded to many of my questions or returned telephone calls, and I am hearing this from a lot of people.
Seems they are selectively trying to make some happy. Do you live near Susan Buckley? she is one that is under a lot of pressure… whereas they know my supervisor does not care about any of us, and he supports this no matter how draconian or how many mistakes there are, or how much it costs individuals to figure this out..
BTW, my property has been mapped by mistake as an historic district—and I have been asking for a very long time for that map to be corrected, and the County and Mr. Burton have ignored my requests—they tell me verbally, yes, it is a mistake, but it never gets corrected..
I raised that point with Laura in person. The reason is that small waterways riddle the County. They would have to do a complete mapping of the County and it is not budgeted. I suggest you email Laura at the County and ask her to come see your site.
Maybe they should spend some more time clearing up the map, because it’s on my property too, and it should not be.
Why can’t they map in advance? otherwise, some will be treated “according to the code” and have to spend a lot of money, and others will be treated differently..
Let’s know in advance who is impacted and who is not…
That’s exactly what happened. The map changed and will be submitted to the Supervisors. We were able to clear up most of our HOA. Laura and the Engineers were very reasonable. My concern is when/if the politics enters into it. The ordinance needs to be nailed down, starting with the process being put on hold and the holding of meeting of the stakeholders, which are the citizens of this County.
Bill, what did they do to “clear up the problem”? Can you explain in more detail what they are doing when a property is mismapped?
Did they change the map? the Ordinance language will stand, so unless they change the map, I don’t see how anything is cleared up. You cannot rely on her oral or other representations…
I met with Laura to go over the errors in the current map, which showed streams where none were. She and the County were very cooperative in clearing up the issue. I genuinely believe that the County Engineers mean well and it is not a power grab.
I would like to see the Ordinance slowed down and have language that sets up how the owner/county process will work and how much it will cost. As I believe in Laura, I do not so much believe in the Supervisors in the future to rule this program without abusing land owners. There must be checks and balances to prevent what happened in Fairfax from happening here.
I’ve also seen some posting about the DEQ water report used to justify this ordinance. You can find it here and make your own decision. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wqa/pdf/2008ir/appendices/ir08_AppendixA_Cat_5_Factsheets_PotShen.pdf
Many of the streams were due to Benthic fauna being impaired. I did not find any metrics on how Loudouns streams scored, just that they were impaired. I did find EPAs description of what the test is here: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/monitoring/rsl/bioassessment/ch07b.cfm#Section 7.4. Just from cursory reading I wouldn’t claim that our streams are in horrible shape just because a local population of micro organisms were impaired without trying to identify possible causes and to what extent the damage was.
BUT, what did disturb me is the amount of E. Coli and Fecal Coliform in the streams. North Fork Goose Creek had 55.6% postive hits on that. That’s poop water folks.
I’d like to see more discussion of the science behind the report and less emotional banter. That only entrenches both sides. We need to see facts and discuss them as adults. This process needs to be slowed down so we can do that.
I am curious how many that want this passed are going to make a ton of money off it.
Example McGimsey it is rumored is making a ton of money off this bogus energy she got passed in Loudoun. And many of people that were in favor of this energy thing were also in the energy business also making money off it. Just read the forums and blogs on that.
I am tired of public officials that use their office to further their private careers and pocket books omn the backs of taxpayers.
Okay, “A stream runs through it”, then “A waterway runs through it”, now “Rivers of controversy over streams”?
Will we get to “Flood of concern”?
“Tsunami of activism”?
I shall await with interest—rotfl!
Once water quality gets to bad, its is VERY hard to fix. Have you ever wandered what you would do if your water made you sick? Lets prevent this problem, we can play catch-up with everything else, but NOT water quality.
Loudoun’s proposed ordinance already matches up with what could be coming, county leaders said.
Love this arrogant quote—she must really think we are dumb:
“We’re right on line, leading the direction they seem to be headed,” Edmonds said.
The only aspect that would need to be changed, she said, is a requirement for a mandatory agricultural land assessment.”
The County Staff is so smart, they are even MIND READERS!
They don’t need cost benefit analysis to justify what they do, they don’t need stream testing over time (as our own stream assessment report says is required for any valid conclusions) but one test is good enough in an extremely cold early March 2009 (funny no “May” flies yet?) with excessive rain (excessive run off, skewing the results) and now…
They KNOW what Congress is going to do (when there are TWO competing completely different bills to address the Chesapeake Bay TMDLS, one proposed by a Virginian and one by a far left Marylander—and the county staff KNOWS what the State will do, when the State cannot meet its deadline for its Restoration Plan because the language of the Plan is so controversial with respect to agriculture and industry, and expensive with respect to Sewage Treatment plants and Storm Water issues…
And we are supposed to believe her that the County will not be requiring what the plain words of the proposed Ordinance requires: mandated planting of the full width of buffers/ mapping of entire lots with any RPA at all/ studying lots with Possible RPA to see if they need to be remapped RPA/surety bonds to ensure trees survive “deer browse”/forced replacement of dead and dying trees/more fees not just for delineation studies, but grading plans not previously required until 10,000 square foot threshold, water quality studies, plats showing a map of all existing vegetation that must be preserved, mitigation plats prepared by licensed arborists, county review fees ,,, and the list goes on for the costs they have not even tried to calculate…
So much BS and deception to try anything to sell this to the public…
I like the headline change from a “stream” to a “waterway”.
Stream sounds small, in relation to such big legislation.
The constant mention of the 2,500 SF threshold in the media and the county information sessions may lead some to believe that anything smaller is okay. It isn’t.
The fact is that no detached structures, such as a shed or playset, are allowed in the RPA without an exception.
Perhaps there should be regulations guarding against the clear-cutting of stream buffer vegetation, but to not allow small structures, which would only distrub a tiny fraction of the buffer area, is just unreasonable.
And the press campaign by the new advocacy group continues.
The PEC-summer intern group, with the PEC as a member, whose field officer wears many hats, including Water Resource Technical Advisory Committee, chief “stakeholder”, paid lobbyist for the ordinance’s passage, etc. How many hats can an official wear and still be professionally impartial? But the Economic Development Commission is a “shadow government”, with inherent “conflicts of interest”.
Staff advocacy too; both from a public schools employee, and a spouse in Building and Development.
Contradictions are present, beyond the conflicts.
Albemarle opted in to an ordinance which drew from the Chesapeake Bay Act, but we can ONLY “opt in” to all of it? That doesn’t track.
As for the idea that our waters are “too polluted for the sensitive to survive”, the only metric in which we “failed” seems to test low in the Piedmont to begin with (but we don’t know what the norm is, because over the years there hasn’t been enough testing to establish one), and generally tests 20-30 points lower in spring, when the limited testing here occurred, than in other seasons.
Staff has yet to release both the benthic data and the perenniality data, although it was requested in the beginning of July.
The new advocacy group has some benthic data on their website—maybe some citizen questions are more equal than others?
If staff can’t manage to enforce our already strict erosion control laws for development (which yes DO demand protection for significant existing environmental features, but not total protection and replanting of all “native” species), how, with NO NEW STAFF OR FUNDING, will they enforce a new overlay set of rules?
The point isn’t necessarily to enforce, it is to adopt sets of laws, and not any concurrent testing to see if they are effective: “You don’t study a mandatory program.”
It would be prudent (and probably less costly) to table this until we see what our new responsibilities as a locality shal;l be under new mandated TMDLs.
It may not be as powerful a resume blip for some of the activists (both publicly employed via tax dollars, and those lobbyists paid with untaxed nonprofit dollars), but it will be better for property owners who provide ALL of the revenue that funds ALL of these exercises.
Let’s get real here. The biggest problem is chemicals used in landscaping and farming.
Get the feds to regulate that, not put this band-aid and burden on the Loudoun tax payer.
http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/07/12/story3.html
Updated: Thirteen-year-old pedestrian hit crossing Route 7 near Dulles Town Center
UPDATE: Missing Leesburg man drowns in drainage pond
Leesburg high schools switch things around
Loudoun inmate dies after suffering massive stroke in prison
Two Loudoun County residents involved in $1.5 million mortgage scheme
