The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act ordinance is perhaps the most misnamed project to head down the Board of Supervisors legislative track in some time. True, its intent has some laudatory, tangential impact on the overall health of that critical and sensitive body of water – a tourist and economic engine important to several states, including ours.
But its true intent has much more to do with the health of our rivers, creeks and tributaries here in Loudoun that lead to the Potomac, and to our drinking water supply. In that sense, we wish it had a more topical and relevant name, such as the Loudoun Clean Rivers Act.
No matter what it’s called, this effort is akin to the policy version of “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.” It’s one heck of a complex, far-reaching and controversial ball of wax that has inexorably divided the county long before its full consideration by the Board.
That continues to be one of the most unfortunate hallmarks of present-day county policymaking – the notion that even before a just, constructive and informed debate takes place on a high-priority subject, the dividing line is prematurely drawn, the rhetoric and hyperbole goes into overdrive, and our county lawmakers are driven into disparate partisan, political posses that eschew the noble ideal of coalition-building. Where’s the ‘solution-driven’ politics for which we all yearn?
While we at the Times-Mirror are not yet ready to coalesce around a position on the CBPA, we’re getting there. We’re charting a course of decision-making that we hope our fellow residents will follow: meeting with stakeholders, attending town hall meetings, discussing the implications with county staff and supervisors, and reading comments and letters from our readers on the issue.
Aside from the yearly county budget, there are very few legislative items this year that have the potential to touch and affect so many county citizens across the board as the CBPA – whether their concerns are the quality of our drinking water and clean(er) streams, or conversely, a concern about an overreaching regulatory burden that will infringe on property rights (and values).
Whatever your viewpoint, we constructively urge you to dial back any preconceived notions about the CBPA that you may have read or heard on the early end of this debate, which really began in June. Clear your mind, resist the rhetoric, start from scratch, and dig into the details of the plan.
Most supervisors have held, or are soon holding, town halls to listen to your feedback and explain the plan (as they interpret it). The county is scheduled to hold public input sessions on the matter twice in September, and at two Board business meetings. Check out the county’s fact sheets and helpful online tools to discover how you might be affected (or not at all affected) by the plan, as it’s currently written (loudoun.gov/chesapeakebay).
By our early count, there are still a handful of supervisors who have not yet reached a final conclusion on how they will vote on the CBPA. You can help them make up their minds. But time is fleeting.
Here are some of the questions we’re interested in having answered as we review the plan: Is the CBPA timely, or too soon? Is it necessary, or is it a solution in search of a problem? Is it tailored and targeted to Loudoun, or is it a one-size-fits-all approach? Is it well-balanced, or is it heavy-handed? Is the burden unevenly borne by residents, or is the county shouldering enough of the implementation and the cost? How stressed are our rivers, and how endangered is our water? Where is there the most risk to us all – in doing too much, or in doing nothing at all? If adopted, how will the plan be enforced to be made effective – and with what funds and what staff?
Here’s one observation and conclusion we most certainly are ready to make at this point:
The level of hyperbole and histrionics we’ve witnessed to date in the CBPA debate has left us seething at the antics and forlorn for decent, responsible policy-making.
We’ve heard the term “green tax” on the one hand and, on the other, that our drinking water is on the verge of being undrinkable. For shame on both counts.
We’ve also heard statements cheaply tossed about that anyone hoping to erect a birdbath, playset or a deck is looking at a massive $5,000 plus bill. Nonsense.
One stakeholder we met with suggested it would cost some upwards of $50,000 simply to ‘map’ property to conform to a provision of the ordinance. Come on.
As we cover this debate at the Times-Mirror, here is our pledge: if you have a relevant fact or data point about the CBPA you want to share with us in a meeting, press release, or letter – be fully and unequivocally prepared to back it up and source it. If not, we won’t print it, we won’t quote it, and we won’t share it with our readers. Period. On something as important as this, we won’t be anyone’s petri dish for misinformation.
Lastly, one of the most painful twists and turns in this debate came earlier this year – when the county engaged in a game of whiplash by hurriedly bringing the CBPA to the brink of board consideration, and then – in a flash of a brutal onslaught of rhetoric on both sides – quickly realized they had put the cart before the horse in the public process. More time was needed for stakeholder meetings and public education. Lesson learned, we hope.
The county is on-point and under the gun to make a highly complex and convoluted policy plan understandable and applicable to its citizens. That means being careful not to toss around inane and arcane acronyms, or expecting citizens to play catch-up at key inflection points in the process. It also means bringing the CBPA down to a ‘family kitchen table’ discussion level, where it becomes meaningful and relevant to the lives of everyday moms and dads, retirees, business people, students and farmers.
If the county fails on that, it won’t matter what we at the Times-Mirror think of the CBPA: the policy and its implementation - if passed - is doomed.
wow—oops indeed, WaPo:
here is the original 2:15 version, much more positive. I wonder who handed the reporter his head, and weaseled the self-appointed “riverkeepers” into the current version?
lol—“NO NO NO, Loudoun is trying to pass the CBPO!”
The original opening:
“Potomac River now healthier than in ‘50s, study shows
By David A. Fahrenthold
Tuesday, September 7, 2010; 2:15 PM
The Potomac River, once so polluted it was labeled a “national disgrace,” is now the cleanest it has been in decades - its comeback signaled by the re-growth of large areas of underwater grasses, according to a new scientific study.
The study, announced Tuesday, details the Potomac’s slow transformation into an environmental success story. The authors found that improvements at Washington’s Blue Plains sewage plant had cut down on choking, unnatural algae blooms, and that - once the water became cleaner and clearer - native plants rebounded, helping to clean the river further.
Scientists examined the stretch of river in the 50 miles downstream from Washington’s Chain Bridge. Since 1990, they found, the amount of one key pollutant in this area had dropped by half.
In the same time, the amount of grasses doubled, transforming the river bottom from a mud flat into a kind of underwater forest, more suitable for fish and blue crabs.
“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 an author of the study.
She said the study signaled that millions spent to clean up the sewage plant had produced real results.
“We are seeing change in habitat” in the river, Rybicki said. “It’s paying off.” ”
Ooops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090703555.html?wprss=rss_metro
Come on Loony you are just jealous
that Sally and me are so correct ;-) ;-)
I know one thing-
sally Mann/anonymous/Sally is even ape sh*t crazier than that LeeJ character
The Act applies to us ALL. Every bit of Loudoun is proposed to be a Resource Management Area, and you will have to apply for a waiver, exception or locational clearance for projects as small as playsets or patios. Anyone who “disturbs” more than 2500 square feet (a 20x25 project deemed to disturb 2500 sq ft “disturbs” 2500) will pay high fees for studies, etc—and may find that they are in a no disturb buffer that they have to permanently plant (and insure against deer browse) or “mitigate” for the disturbance…and will be prevented from actual use…
The Act applies to anyone who “disturbs” more than 2500 square feet of land, which is the definition of “development” in the Ordinance. Very small projects, such as a 20x25 pool, have been shown to “disturb” more than 2500 square feet of land, because they count every blade of grass that gets stepped on in the process… you cannot replace a septic field without a space at least 100x50…
This Utube, below, is what Miller says about that (still trying to sell the misleading spin that this only applies to “developers” -not saying that every Harry Homeowner is a “developer” under this Ordinance—)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijkBhylPGOk&feature=player_embedded#!
Malcolm Baldwin, former PEC officer and environmental lawyer, Democrat known for his support of conservation and agriculture, also opposes this based on the (lack of) science, and on the wrong “remedy,” and he thinks we should wait to see what the EPA and the State will do, as they are scheduled to act in the very near future.
WHY THE RUSH to adopt something that may be moot in a few months after the federal government and State of Virginia enact laws regarding TMDL’s?
That’s right windbag…It is all merely an elaborate conspiracy to take away your Liberty.
Mike posted something that just tickles the heck out of me, and I’m glad he posted it:
‘Supervisor McGimsey: “I’d like to add my voice to the misinformation campaign.”’
Where else has it ever been?
@3D: thanks for throwing what sounds like a reasonable idea out there. Probably some will complain about the cost of even a public information program, but you have thrown out an idea.
And thanks for your opening sentence about your irritation with labels like anti-environment. It goes to my point that I don’t think everyone in this thread is anti-environmental. However, other readers seeing only negativity and no creative ideas, like the one you have presented, may well come to the conclusion that there are a lot of anti-environment folks out there. I appreciate you indulging me in this exercise to simply try to find some common ground.
Honestly, it is not just this issue and it is not just Loudoun County. I feel like our political system is letting us down as neither side ever seems that interested in finding common ground.
Sally Kurtz is retiring, and Malcolm Baldwin hopes to be the Dem nominee to take her place.
Good luck, distancing yourself from her record. Malcolm Baldwin, former PEC officer, grape grower, rural business owner, supposedly does not support the CBPO.
Sally Kurtz, Jim Burton and Andrea McG, and their PEC allies have created a firestorm and very motivated/energetic opposition to the democrats in this County, and there is no way a former PEC officer will get elected to anything in or near Catoctin, even if you “say” you will support rural businesses and are opposed to the CBPO.
Supposedly the Dem running to replace McG (who everyone knows broke up with her boyfriend and does not live in the Potomac District anymore, and is unelectable on her record there) is also touting his opposition to the CBPO (lip service.)
If Sally and the other Dems vote for this, then the Democratic Party is doomed.
Ms. McGimsey accused the public of being misinformed, and then a few weeks later admitted she has not had time to read or study the CBPO.
Sad statement from a small MD farmer being put out of business by the Ches Bay EPA regs:
“Quite frankly, the farmers are lost. They don’t exactly know where to turn. They want to know, ‘who has jurisdiction over what? How long can I leave manure in the field? Until I get arrested?’ Is that the answer?”
http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=3906
CommonGround? - It irritates me that people who speak out against unreasonable environmental policies are labeled anti-environmental. Most of us believe there are already extensive measures being taken to protect the environment. Let’s face it, humans produce a lot of pollution and not all of it can be contained. The environmental standards are set so high that they are essentially unattainable in urban/suburban settings. Did you know that all Virginia waters have been designated for swimming use? That means that until Sugarland Run and Broad Run, for example, are pure enough to swim in, the standard will never be met! It’s ridiculous. Perhaps if 95% of the population vacated the county then the streams might return to a more pristine state; and that is probably what the anti-growth groups would like.
What would I suggest? The county conduct an intensive public information campaign that would include how to have a great looking lawn without dumping massive amounts of fertilizers and other chemicals. Perhaps provide subsidies for phosphorus-free fertilizers. Lots of things that can be done without heavy government intrusion.
I hope I’m wrong, but I too believe the 6 Democrat supervisors are not interested in “common ground” and that they have already decided to ram this through no matter what citizens will say to them over the next few weeks. As evidence, I offer the video tape (see link below) of the June 15 CBPA meeting, at which Supervisors Kurtz, Burton, McGimsey, Buckley, Miller, and Burk first demonstrated a coordinated effort to accuse citizens of a “misinformation” campaign:
Supervisor Kurtz: “I believe the response we have seen from the public is a response from a deliberate misinformation campaign.”
Supervisor Burton: “I agree with Ms. Kurtz. I think it’s unfortunate that we’ve had a lot of misinformation put out there and fire-in-the-theater tactics.” (Note: At this same June 15 meeting, Mr. Burton said he came that night “ready to vote” and I think that’s further proof that his mind is made up no matter what citizens will say from here on out).
Supervisor McGimsey: “I’d like to add my voice to the misinformation campaign.”
Supervisor Buckley: “I too think there’s been a lot of misinformation and intentional confusion about this issue.”
Supervisor Miller: “There has been an energetic and early attempt to convert this for partisan purposes and it has been a resounding dud…Let’s not be naïve. A lot of people who come to that podium, we know who they are…A lot of other people know who they are…”
Supervisor Burk: “I think the misinformation is despicable.”
Here’s a link to the video tape evidence of the June 15 meeting of the board of supervisors:
http://loudoun.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=35&clip_id=1484
Thanks for responding anonymous. Out of all that I pulled this as an environmental measure you would endorse:
“optimal” 18 meter buffers described in our stream assessment.
Probably there are a lot of other things in the River and Stream Corridor Ordinance that you reference.
I believe you are more knowledgeable than me on a all of this and still I am interested in more detail about what people do support to protect the environment. Probably there are some things in the CBPO that are palatable if taken ala carte, but I honestly don’t know.
Perhaps you are correct and this Board is not interested in common ground, but I would still like to know where the common ground is for the citizens. Thanks and take care.
There is a lot of common ground, but this Board is not interested in common ground. Staff started off with a list of almost 200 things that could be done for water quality in Loudoun back in 2007, but the most extreme “remedy” was chosen by this Board—to make half the County proposed No Disturb Buffers.
Even with this extreme version of the CBPO this Board wants, it would have been imminently more fair and reasonable to map the perennial steams first, as Fairfax County did.
Unmapped, all we have is uncertainty, which kills home values and discourages economic investment/growth. No map, just Possible Yellow No Disturb everywhere, with broad staff discretion, terrifies owners, and destroys home values.
There were 150-200 people there last night, all against, except for 3. I tried to speak to Burton as he left, and all he said was “I disagree with you.”
He won’t sit down with anyone to try to find common ground. He has had his mind made up for a long time. It does not matter what the Ordinance says or does (staff denies the what the clear words of the Ordinance say, minimizing all concerns…. the Ordinance says you “shall” replant trees after they die, Laura says oh don’t worry about that….,,People are not buying it.)
The PEC told Burton they want it with no changes. This is the only way.
I love how they blame the previous Board, who “refused” to re-adopt the River and Stream Corridor Ordinance we spent so many years working on after it got thrown out of court on a technical notice issue. This Board could have cured the notice issue and adopted something that was designed for Loudoun, that made sense, that used the “optimal” 18 meter buffers described in our stream assessment,,,
But this Board has refused to consider Loudoun or the overwhelming outcry against the CBPO—and persists in a far left extremist agenda to “manage” us all, putting the entire County into a Resource Management Area, subject to bureaucrat discretion, and hooking us into the Chesapeake Bay issues, so our farmers are treated like the industrial chicken and hog farmers on the eastern shore (making life so difficult/expensive, that they consider re-locaction.)
Without arguing one way or another, I am just curious. In addition to telling everyone what you don’t want to do related to the environment, Loudoun’s water, etc. How about sharing some things that you do want to do? And if you don’t want to do anything, that is certainly your right as well. But when you read through this, there is not any indication as to what you do care about environmentally - what you do want to do to protect aspects of our environment. I don’t believe everyone here is anti-environment because they don’t want the CBPO, but your passion for preventing CBPO makes little mention of what you do care about or where you are willing to go in terms of the environment.
check out this take on the CBPA
http://locoenvironment.blogspot.com/
Re selecting what to tell us: that’s the summer re-education tour. As opposed to a reOPENing of the PUBLIC process for the people—as the VLF types campaigned on.
Re “the map is not the map”—worth noting.
The map is not the map because in a way the map doesn’t matter—the text of the ordinance governs.
The map IS the map in its current condition because it can easily lull any viewer (especially in its current low contrast format between RMA and RMA/potential RPA) into thinking it isn’t a big deal.
But that 50% of the county is “potential” RPA should concern anyone with property.
VERSAR stated that the pernnial streams were likely quite UNDER estimated by the county.
And that’s before we even get into “and any connected wetlands”.
P.s.—if you believe Mr. Miller hasn’t made up his mind?
Go talk to some of the people living near the house he owns in Broadlands but doesn’t live in; the ones he told that he hadn’t made up his mind on a hospital.
Come on down to Dulles South and talk to anybody whose kid ended up bused to Ashburn because Lunsford middle school is years late opening—and he had an open mind on that too.
In fact, I have a bridge AND some oceanfront property in AZ I’d like you to look at!
This is what the Virginia Farm Bureau says about the Chesapeake Bay regulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFJNpYdHHbc
“continuous no till” already employed”
“regulations that do no good”
“undue financial obligations on farmers”
EPA’s computer modeling does not take into account the conservation practices already in effect, and the EPA model assumes falsely that farmers are plowing and discing of land (which we do not do in Loudoun)
“One stakeholder we met with suggested it would cost some upwards of $50,000 simply to ‘map’ property to conform to a provision of the ordinance. Come on.”
Does this paper have good reason to believe it won’t cost that much or that it won’t cost $5,000 to erect a bird feeder or deck? Sally Mann brings up some good points and if that article in the Washington Business Journal is any indication of what will happen in Loudoun, then homeowners will be facing unreasonabley high costs.
Even if costs for smaller projects are only in $1,000 to $2,000, that’s too high.
I don’t have a really strong opinion one way or another about the Ches Bay Act, but at least I understand it, which is a lot more than I can say about whoever wrote this editorial. I think readers expect you to have educated yourself on a topic before writing editorials. Lately you guys are sounding uninformed, to say the least.
Most important decision we make is how much we share with the public, to “strategically” share—statements by Laura Edmonds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3u_hM2rHJM
“The map is not the map” and other revealing statements by Laura Edmonds (the staff in charge of the CBPO fiasco) :
http://www.youtube.com/user/loudounboswatchdog
Sally Mann, just for you girl a link to that article which you sent to me and I thank you for that.
http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/07/12/story3.html
Any any BOS votes for this is out of their minds and out of office.
According to the County staff the cost for the County to map in advance would be “exorbitant” ...in the “tens of millions of dollars”—this is the cost they want individuals to bear. This is why it could easily cost $50,000 or HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars depending on the size of your lot, to map and study to satisfy the County.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWKOGBRATiI&feature=player_embedded
Wow! Give this editorial an F! If you are going to express an opinion about a topic, then do it. Don’t get upset because other people have already done so. They will not wait for your lead. Nor should they.
The play set issue is not “hyperbole”—this editor’s remarks are.
Listen to the video discussion in front of the Board of Supervisors re playsets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWc0N740SOQ&feature=player_embedded
Even the County estimates that it may cost up to $6900 in extra engineering fees to build a deck on a quarter acre lot—look at the slide shows on the county website of their community meeting presentations. Doubt this editor went to any community meetings, just making things up based on insider conversations and spin???
Editor, you are doing us all a disservice with your arrogance.
It could EASILY cost more than $50,000 to do the engineered RPA study, the Water quality study, and the mitigation plan, and other required extra consulting fees on a larger lot.
The Washington Business Journal ran an article about a couple being flummoxed at how their 510 square foot project could possibly disturb more than 2500 square feet, and how it could possibly cost them an additional $18,000 in consulting fees and required engineering in Fairfax County—which has already mapped the RPA. Here in Loudoun we have not mapped it, and the County is pushing that cost on the individual too.
Fairfax spent tens of millions mapping their perennial water and wetlands.
You can’t build anything in the RPA without an exception or difficult process—so the statement that it would cost a lot of money to put anything in the RPA is very accurate—but who would bother to try to spend that much to put a playset in the RPA (where they are generally prohibited.) You are right editor, people will not spend that much money, because they will be forced into an economic choice, and will choose not to even try to use their land.
I’ll predict today that the Editorial Board will approve of this highly completex and “convoluted” polciy based on the opening paragraph.
One just has to look at the highly complex and “convoluted” ObamaCare health insurance bill, Frank-Todd Financial reform, Cap-and-Trade, etc. etc. to see that these “solutions” will take away our Liberty for “convoluted” problems such bills claim to solve.
Waterford parents go to court for kids’ constant tardiness
Purcellville woman arrested over kids’ tardiness in school
Inmate dies from medical condition at Loudoun jail
Suspect arrested for connection to 2007 Ashburn gang assault
LTM Editorial: A candle for Bethany
 |
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 |
 Health Resolutions |
 Future Leaders |
 Coming Soon |
