We entered into the debate over the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance with a strong and real desire to support a noble effort to protect Loudoun’s streams and rivers.

We earnestly listened to proponents who said the drafted act was exactly what was needed and should be adopted. We equally listened to opponents who said they believed the act was an unnecessary overreach whose end result wasn’t entirely necessary.

We believe neither approach is believable or accurate.

Supporters of the CBPA have made an alarming case about the state of Loudoun’s streams and rivers. They have done the county a true service by responsibly defining a serious problem that requires action, and then making it part of our policy agenda.

Opponents of the CBPA have identified pitfalls in the plan and raised some very legitimate concerns about its application and execution. They have made a solid case as to why the plan before us is untenable and unworkable – in its current form.

We strive for a solution-driven, centrist approach that seeks balance, consensus and pragmatism. We also seek one that will attract a coalition of informed supporters across all stakeholder groups.

In our view, that begins with the shelving – but, to be clear – not the outright scuttling of the proposed draft ordinance as it is written today. Our mantra falls roughly along the lines of “Mend it – don’t end it.” Let us explain why.

First, we want to be clear about the underlying issue. We are believers in the premise that our rivers and streams are in a state of severe impairment and stress – to the tune of a measured 78 percent of all studied perennial streams. This is unacceptable and must be acted upon. A 78 percent “poor” or “stressed” rating for any other quality-of-life service or feature in Loudoun would not be tolerated by the populace – be it in the quality of our schools, our roads, or local law enforcement effectiveness.

Second, we believe our streams and rivers are a critical part of our way of life – whether it be the quality of our landscape as a recreational and sporting feature, or as a magnet for tourism. Streams – and the life that surrounds them and the lives they touch – are priceless.

Third, we believe in the promise and purpose of riparian buffers as a method to address this evolving calamity. The science and data as to their effectiveness is indisputable: With buffers in place, 75 percent of sediment is removed, and so are 40 percent of potentially harmful nutrients.

But we’ve been given an imperfect solution in the draft ordinance before us. And that is a shame. An opportunity has been lost here – and we fear its time won’t come again until after the 2011 county elections. By then, who knows what the state of our streams will be?

Our issues with the draft ordinance, which could be substantially changed (we hope) in the coming weeks as the Board of Supervisors considers it, begin with the process itself. It is one that took a faulty path (if not an outright wrong turn) long ago, perhaps when a regulatory ordinance was chosen over other options. The responsibility for this lies with members of the board and the county staff.

We’re chagrined about a stakeholder process that has been ill-designed, ill-timed and incomplete. We realize that this has not been crafted and led in secret.
But the manner in which it has been brought before the community has been severely lacking and comes much too late for a vote in the near future. Confusion and misinformation still permeate. Any wide-reaching ordinance that is birthed from a broken public input and educational process is doomed to wilt and fail.

Having said that, we’re equally chagrined that those who profess to have unanswered questions haven’t been more proactive in getting in touch with county staff months ago to assuage their concerns.

In addition to the stakeholder process, critical features are missing from this process: unclear numeric targets, benchmarks and “return-on-investment” guidance. Basically, we don’t know if adherence to this plan is worth the effort and cost for a potentially broad swath of residents and businesses. Proponents are asking us to take a giant leap of faith. Ironically, it turns out that having this ordinance be “county-specific” is also a curse – it means that staff can point to no other jurisdiction to offer a guide to the future under this plan. It’s a colossal “catch-22”.

It has also become apparent that the proposed solution is based on an insufficiently mapped field of streams and rivers that raises more questions than answers. The county owes it to residents to have the most data-centric, up-to-date mapping of the county so we know exactly what constitutes a “perennial” stream, and who lies in the Resource Protected Areas. This will take time and money. It’s worth it on both counts.

Another item that discourages us is that the proposed regulation is nothing less than an unfunded county mandate that places an undue and unbalanced burden on residents, the agricultural community and small businesses. By this we don’t just mean a cost inequity, but an inequity in terms of administration, application and understanding.

A couple other things give us pause. It is likely that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is on the brink of promulgating a new set of laws that will directly address the core purpose of the CBPA draft program. This is a massive yet unknown quotient that could render this draft proposal pointless – or as one that is visionary and before its time. No one knows, and the uncertainty casts a long shadow over this process.

Finally, we remain unconvinced that this proposal – as many supporters claim – will make a measured, data-based difference in the future quality of our drinking water in Loudoun. We simply don’t know by how much or at what cost. This is another missing link. We hope more substantial backup on this point comes out as the debate progresses this month.

Can this leviathan be fixed? We’re hopeful, but doubtful. But just because the proposed solution is flawed doesn’t mean the underlying problem goes away. Opponents should remember that, if nothing else.

We’ll be most interested to see where Supervisor Susan Klimek Buckley (D-Sugarland Run) aligns on this issue. As an ongoing voice of reason, pragmatism and centrism on most critical issues, she may be best equipped to map a way out of this policy Gordian knot, and bring both sides together for the sake of progress.

Next week, we’ll take ownership of our criticism, and offer constructive ideas on how the draft ordinance could be improved.