The same half truths and misquotes and distortions and outright lies that speakers opposed to the Chesapeake Bay Act used at the meeting are being continued here by a group of people who remind me of spoiled two-year olds stomping their feet and saying “no, I don’t wanna and you can’t make me.” Grow up.

This isn’t about the Chesapeake Bay:  The Potomac River accounts for less than 0.8 of 1 percent of the water flowing into it.  Also, silt doesn’t reach the bay.  We are also 50 miles from it.

It is about adopting a set of stringent and unnecessary rules at the expense of the homeowner/landowner that have already been approved by the legislature.

If you read the Versar stream assessment report, you will find out that the rush to adoption isn’t about dirty water, either.

The Versar stream assessment report gave our streams high marks for oxygen levels, necessary for aquatic life.  Our streams did well on 5 metrics.  The remaining 3 metrics have to do with the presence or absence of tiny invertebrates that like clean water.  They appeared to be on “vacation,” to the delight of our local government that never met an environmental restriction it didn’t like.  Call this SELECTIVE SCIENCE.

They county, in collaboration with environmentalism that defies reason, dislikes “engineered solutions.”  We must live on our privately owned land as if we don’t live there—at our expense. 

Loudoun Water says our water is fine for drinking.  Our streams are darn good, even though there is a growing population due to our availability of jobs.  This quest for a green utopia can only end badly, as all utopian quests.

Some speakers noted that Mother Nature can tear up our streams.  A bad storm can knock over a tree that changes the flow of water.  Stream banks are torn off due to the change in flow.  Wild animals, the explosion of deer and geese, pollute.  But Mother Nature gets a pass. 

In the real world of cost benefit analysis, enviromentalists have a hard time dealing with the reality that life is messy; a perfect environment is an illusion.  And I have found that they are NEVER satisfied.  I suppose because they don’t have to pay the price for their imposing extreme measures on the rest of us.

These ordinances are the dumbest idea.  IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT. 

Don’t our highly paid bureaucrats have better things to do, like figuring out how our young people will be able to afford to live here.  Most definitely, the cost of living here will rise as a result of these ordinances.

Typically, a 10 to 15 ft work zone around the perimeter of the structure footprint is included and if there is any excavation, then they include a 10 ft wide access path to the street or driveway.  They also count the area used to distribute any excess dirt from the excavation.

I never saw any of those things on the diagrams they presented at the meetings.  Very misleading.

The paper reports that Laura Edmonds said, “Development refers to any construction on property that is more than 2,500 square feet, which is usually the size of a house, and in that case requires a grading permit anyway.”

She was called to the mat on this issue, because you cannot build even a small 20x25 project without “disturbing” more than 2500 square feet, because of the way they add in areas of disturbance to the foot print of what ever you are building.  She admitted you could not build a 500 square foot pool without disturbing more than 2500 square feet, and that it would be impossible to build any house disturbing so little land—that they count the driveway, all underground connections, your septic field or well, and then a percentage of land they assume you will disturb in the process..

The paper continues in the misinformation. EVERY project, no matter how small, will be reviewed, because we are all in a Resource Management Area, at a minimum, to be “managed.” 
Half of the County will be proposed as NO DISTURB buffers, and any project that disturbs more than 2500 sq ft will be subjected to much higher fees, whether or not you are near a “stream” or “water body” “ditch” and all the other things they want to study on your property.  And if they find you are too near something they think is a buffer, then you will spend all that money, and not be able to do your project.

No one knows what restrictions apply to any property until the homeowner trie to build a patio or deck, or add onto the home.  This is because the County is playing a shell game, refusing to map in advance or tell us in advance what property will be restricted and how—this uncertainty is already making real estate more difficult to sell in our County.

What are you talking about, maravetz ( Sep 03 at 09:44 AM )?  Virtually everyone who voiced opposition to the CBPA at the meeting based their arguments on science.  The concern expressed is that the Act is not necessary for Loudoun County.  If you had been at the meeting, or if you were had you paid attention, you would have seen that.  Our argument is that there is inadequate science to justify the Act, and the benefits will be minimal, as balanced against the increased regulations. 

Clearly we need some level of regulation, no one denies that.  But regulation must be justified by the benefits it will bring, because all regulation takes away some measure of liberty. In our opinion the CBPA as is is not justified for Loudoun.  If you want to disagree, fine, do so and state your case.  But your attempt to paint all opposition as “fear-mongering” and based on “politics” shows a disturbing inability or desire to understand the other side.

Unfortunately, we see this uptown with the Democrats there, too.  They can’t imagine anyone could be opposed to stimulus spending or ObamaCare based on the merits of the case, so they demonize the opposition as “racist.”  How utterly shameful of them. 

Interestingly, the only people I see here arguing the case on the science are Sally Mann and anonymous, and they’re against Loudoun adopting the Act. 

As for tweaking the CBPA, I’m certainly open to ideas on how to change it so as to make it acceptable.  But the burden there is on those who are pushing the legislation.  So if the supervisors have listened to public opinion at these community meetings, they’ll introduce some changes. They’ve certainly heard enough ideas on changes from citizens.  I would hope, then, that the supervisors who want the CBPA will not want to pass it as is but will introduce changes that they’ll announce before the meeting on the 20th.

Elder Berry said, “Doing nothing is not an option. “

Actually, the CBPA will do nothing but infringe on property rights.  Waters will still be impaired (which really means not pristine).  If the county can come up with a solution that will clean up all of Loudoun’s impaired waters - which would essentially require making them as pristine as what you would find in the GW National Forest - then I’d love to hear it.  I’d support it.

Come one, you brilliant county environmental engineers, put your thinking caps on and give us a real solution!

Glen, the point is, for the 80 plus jurisdictions that were mandated to implement the Ches Bay Ac, they did what the act requires, buffer TIDAL shores and TIDAL wetlands.  They did not even buffer all 100 year flood plains with the 100 foot on either side.

Loudoun County has NO tidal shores or wetlands, and the difference between what other Counties did and Loudoun, is that Loudoun is proposing to buffer every drain, to study anything that could possibly be a drain, and has HALF the County designated as possible no disturb.  No other jurisdiction has done anything even close to what Loudoun is proposing, most limited the 100 foot buffers to tidal shores and tidal wetlands mandated to be protected under the Act.

Loudoun is taking advantage of something the staff sees as a “technicality”—they admit this has nothing to do with the Bay, but they like the Bay Act’s 100 foot buffers, so they are falsely designating us a Ches Bay Preservation Area so they can tie up half the County.  A VERY EXTREME LEFT proposal to manage the entire County as a Resource Management Area, to impose no disturb buffers, to study every inch of Loudoun (and make the private land owner pay for it) under an admittedly false guise, protecting the Bay… we have a nominal effect on the Bay if any.

Our stream assessment report is on its face incomplete, and it states no conclusions can be drawn from one testing in an excessively rainy and cold March.  We “failed” only in one category, bugs, which the report notes could have been affected by the rain and the cold, and that more testing was necessary.  The Scientists noted that given the other test criteria were so excellent, they were surprised and the bugs fail, which they stated could be an anomaly, and noted that the test could be 30 points off…

And based on this, we adopt this extreme measure?

Again, respected environmental lawyer, Democrats, Independents, and lots of others are questioning this, and with the Federal gov’t and state considering more innovative solutions that buffers, why the rush? 

It’s like take out the eye, when laser surgery could save it… out of date and drastic “solutions” create more problems than they solve..

anonymous Sep 02, I have read the bizjournal article.  I saw it shortly after it came out.

I note that this article is referenced often in this political debate.  However, there is a different way to interpret the article than is commonly used.  First, I am sure there is a lot more to the Conley’s story.  It would be interesting to hear the counties version.  We all are aware of some crazy land use situation(s) here in Loudoun that have two sides to the story.  The complaining land owner isn’t always in the right. 

I mainly see this article as a complaint from pool companies and the effect the BA will have on there challenges to get business.  The Conley’s seem anecdotal.  I imagine pools especially large ones should be evaluated for their environment impact, especially when the dirt is planned to be left on the property.  I also think only one example out of the hundreds of thousands of citizens currently under this measure seems trifle.

Ms. Berry—some say you are a gov’t employee, planner?  is that so?

I am not out of district, I went to the meeting, and specific facts were raised and challenged.  The staff was shown to be quite deceptive in manipulating and cherry picking data, misusing our stream assessment report to draw unwarranted conclusions to scare the public. 

You don’t like what the PEC posts on its website?  You don’t like what environmental lawyer, former PEC officer, DEMOCRAT, Malcolm Baldwin, tells you—you just don’t like anyone who questions the facts and false conclusions.

At meeting after meeting, and at the local Dem Committee meeting, everyone agrees this is not about the Bay, that this will have no meaningful effect (if any) on the Bay, that this is an effort to “protect” our streams, and the argument is—even though this is not about the Bay, there is this “technicality” that we think gives us authority to impose these buffers (designed for Tidewater and tidal shores) over possibly half our County—and we just have to call it a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance to do this, even though it has nothing to do with the Bay… (that should be a good one to litigate.)

Even the county’s own data says 18 meter (not 100 foot) buffers are “optimal.”

You are the partisan: not the Dems, Independents and Republicans who have pointed out the fallacy of this—

And yes, other solutions exist.  How about RSCOD that was designed for our County (but no time to go through the process? of advertising it? too much trouble to do the right thing?) 

Staff presented more than 80 other things that could be done, and this board lasered in on the MOST EXTREME taking of rights possible and most expensive remedy in terms of private costs and growing of government programs…

The argument is 100 foot buffers must be good, the bigger the buffer the better the filter.  Well, given that logic, we can also argue people are bad, and so we must not allow people.  Ban people.  We can also say birth control pills being excreted into our public water supply is a bigger problem, so we should ban birth control pills according to the county illlogic…

Reasonable remedies exist, but the far left only wants to discuss extreme remedies so they can “manage” every inch of Loudoun and so the out of touch elite can demand we all “pay” in extreme ways to live here…

There are plenty of practical things we can do, to spend our money and time wisely, rather than falsely designating our County a Chesapeake Bay Area (and then subjecting us to federal oversight, without any real basis?)

Common sense has left this Democratic Party, and not even a lot of Democrats are buying the “re-education” and spin that staff is laying on pretty heavy to sell this…

Sounds like a lot of the same out of district hot air producers who were at the meeting are also here. Protecting fresh water resources is not a made up issue, it is a real issue, if you don’t like the Bay act, make some other suggestions for how to do it. From most of the speakers who were opposed I heard only political rhetoric of the don’t tread on me type, none of it specific, most of it ignoring the data that staff had just presented. Those people might like to think that physics and chemistry work differently in Loudoun than other places, but unfortunately no. Every year we have more streams impaired and the Bay is sick, sick, sick. Doing nothing is not an option. If you don’t like the Bay act, figure out how to get around the Dillon rule with something better and more effective and share it, will ya.

The other jurisdictions who have adopted this were mandated to adopt these 100 foot buffers because they are Tidewater jurisdictions.  They only regulated tidal shores.  We have no tidal shores or tidal wetlands, for which these buffers were designed, and yet hey are proposing to buffer every drainage area, half the county.  Ridiculous.

We are volunteering for this even though our geology/hydrology/soils, etc. do not require the same buffers that Tidewater needs.  See the report on the Piedmont Environmental council’s site and also linked on the Loudoun Environmental site that says 1. 30 foot grass buffers work in the Piedmont, for their gently rolling and flatter areas, and buffers do not work at all where the ground water runs deeper in the kinds of soils we have!  Understanding the Science of Riparian Buffers, Virginia Tech:

http://lecva.org/images/stories/LEC-documents/understanding-the-science-riparian-buffers-wq.pdf

The Farm Bureau is not happy with the new EPA regulations for small farms in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas… inspecting how they scrape their driveways… etc… why are we volunteering to be regulated by the EPA?  Everyone admits this is not about the Chesapeake Bay, but it will have severe unintended consequences for our rural businesses, farmers and homeowners… these regulations are designed to encourage farming to move… is that what we want?

Glenn Maravetz has not built a thing in his life yet he is a expert on how all this is going to effect all of us. I am involved in this all the time as being in the building business. Yes if this is passed it will cost many loudoun residents a small fortune and jobs, when the chemicals from the chemical companies are the biggest culprit.

Here is a true life link from fairfax that Maravetz does not care about because he is most likely never to be financially affected by this, yet he thinks he is smarter then all of us, when yet he has never ever been thru this.

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/07/12/story3.html

Bottom line this measure is putting the burden on the taxpayer when it should be on the chemical companies.

Don’t for this false feel good crap from people like Glenn Maravetz when it will not solve the problems the Chemical Comapies are doing.

Joe, you’re missing the point.  Other counties have been using this measure to help our water, without citizen outcry or fear that opposition has been shouting.  Opponents want folks to think this is evil and will cause great harm.  All I am saying is that’s a falsehood and I question the motive.  Most of the fear is fabricated.  In reality it’s not caused great hardship to other counties that have been using this approach for years.  That’s all I got to say bout dat.

Dear maravetz:
Sooooo, if another county accepted this garbage, then we should too???  “Stupid is as stupid does”  Forest Gump

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?

Other prominent Democrats are also coming out against this, not politics, but good sense.

Tom, you should replace your “passionate” references to “political”.

It’s a shame this has turned into a political party attack campaign rather than something to help our waterways.

This program has been in place for years in numerous counties and there hasn’t been anything near the uproar we have here in Loudoun.  I don’t buy the fear being spread.  It all seems politically motivated and not policy motivated.

I wish the negative energy spent on this thing was directed towards tweaking the program for Loudoun’s specific needs rather than just an all out defeat of the idea.

I also attended, supervisors and Laura kept repeating the mantra that the manpower to handle RMA/RPA applications and the CBPA ordinance legwork would all be absorbed by existing staff.

I say if Loudoun County staff have that much free time, maybe there should be fewer staff.

Pardon, that’s Kelly Burk

I was there and 28 people spoke.  By my count 3 were definitely in favor of the CBPA, 2 leaning in favor, 21 were against, and 2 more leaning against.  That’s 5 for and 23 against, for a 4 to 1 ratio. 

In addition to Kurtz and Burton, Leesburg Supervisor Kelly Burke was in attendance, sitting in the audience observing. 

Finally, the article, while mostly accurate, does not capture the passion of the meeting.  Only one of those in favor of the CBPA was passionate about it, whereas most of those against it were passionate.

Those supervisors who are pushing this measure have stirred a hornets nest of opposition. 

So if the supervisors were there to gauge public opinion, the message was clear.  We’ll see on the 21st whether they got it or not.

20 people allowed to speak, not based on science….. This is another example of how the government plans to ram another piece of legislation down our throats and limit our Freedom, tthis time it’s an example from “local” government.

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?

Only 20 people were allowed to speak—we were told we had to leave the building by 9:30.  There were more like 200 people there—we ran out of 100 fliers early on… and many could not attend because of back to school nights @ Tuscora and elementary schools…

Everyone was angry about this senseless, not based on science

What rubbish!  very small projects will “disturb” more than 2500 square feet, see the article linked about a Fairfax couple who spent $17,000 in extra consulting/engineering fees to build a 500 sq ft pool, because the County determined it “disturbed” more than 2500 sq. ft.

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/07/12/story3.html