I have read the Watershed Implementation Plan for the Ches Bay submitted by Virginia.

Here is is again for anyone who would like to read it, the interesting stuff applicable to Loudoun starts at about page 77.  The state certainly does propose to phase out conventional septic systems, and to encourage “alternative” septic systems, which our board tried to ban—systems where the water is filtered through carbon and comes out so clean you can drink it, as opposed to conventional systems putting the waste straight into the ground… our board tried to ban them so people with poor soil could not build houses, and chose to punish all the rest of us with antiquated technology, and pollute our streams thereby..  The state over turned this hypocritical (for clean water/but want conventional septic systems) board did to try to ban alternative septic systems..

Read the State Watershed Implementation Plan for yourself..

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/tmdl/chesapeakebay.html

Kdgeo, you sound like someone disappointed that the State is not mandating Loudoun to be treated in the strict regulatory manner that the State is proposing to continue to treat tidal Virginia.  I am not sure how it helps our Loudoun homeowners, businesses, farmers, rural businesses, etc. to VOLUNTEER for more regulation (that does not apply to us) by the EPA? 

This is what farmers mandated in tidewater virginia say, via the Farm Bureau:

http://vafarmbureau.org/Pages/default.aspx

Why would we volunteer for this??

My take, the county staff said it would be ‘naive” to think you could build something 50x50 and only disturb 2500 sf.  In fact, in the circumstance below, a couple disturbed more than 2500 sf with a 20x25 foot pool, and had to spend $18,000 in extra consulting fees to get it done..

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

We don’t need this here, we do not impact the bay, these 100 foot buffers were designed (and mandated) for TIDAL shores and we have none.

Sally,  You need to read the Virginia WIP again.  It does not call for phasing out conventional septic systems.  Plus, that document is a joke, written by the Governors office, rehashing what the state is already required to do, and basically challenging the EPA to “bring it”.  If you want to read a good implementation plan, read one from any of the other ches bay states!

I don’t think you understand the intent of what is proposed, or have read it, or both. Enforcement is on a case by case basis, as a property owner voluntary wishes to build something. It’s one more step in the building process, like grading permits, building permits, zoning and use verifications, occupancy permits, etc.  If a property owner never does any land disturbance, then the regulations will never come into play in their lives or on their property. And that is why “pre-mapping” of every single parcel is not necessary prior to adoption. And only if your total land disturbance for some project exceeds 2500 SF (that’s a 50’ x 50’ square, 16 yards x 16 yards, that’s pretty big!) do you have to do some more study and perhaps then provide buffers to help filter runoff from the new disturbed land/impervious surface.

The real problem with this being approved is that the BOS is only approving the ACT. The ACT by itself will do NOTHING to protect our water.
I personally believe as the ACT is written it is over kill for what is needed in Loudoun to improve our water. I do agree that we need to do something NOW to protect our water and keep it from becoming too polluted.
However the BOS is not establishing any FUNDING for the enforcement or monitoring of this.
The ONLY TIME (answer from at least three of the BOS) it will be enforced is if someone files a complaint that someone is NOT doing things according to the ACT. They will make sure any new development or building that requests a building permit is required to follow them. To me that will just lead to MORE people building things without requesting a building permit and unless someone files a complaint nothing with be done.
Passing any Law or ACT into existence without plans to enforce and monitoring the enactment of it is just plain a waste of time, and being done just to be able to say WE DID OUR PART, without really expecting to make a difference.

If they were really going to enforce it and have it make a difference then there would have to be a very big department set up just to review all the existing properties and notify all land owners of the changes they need to make to bring their properties into compliance. There would be a Time Frame set in place to do it or the county will do it for them and send them the bill. There would have to be follow up and constant rechecking to ensure people are complying with the ACT.
NONE of that is planned, none of that is accounted for in the budget, none of that will get done. So it will therefore be enforced as unequally as possible. Those that upset their neighbors will have to comply and those that keep their neighbors happen can continue business as usual. That does NOT seem like a real solution to keeping our water as good as it is or making it better.

This law is is far reaching it can never be equitably enforced. But the larger polluting entities should be regulated.  If people see that the law is important enough to be enforced against the major sources, many individuals will follow suit.

In the end though it’s a matter of raising public consciousness regarding the issue.  Before Lady Bird Johnson’s campaign against littering the highways were all bordered by trash and debris.  Gas stations started passing out litter bags and people used them.  Now hardly anyone tosses trash from their cars.  She raised the consciousness of the whole country, not by law enforcement, but by agreement.  What can be done once can be done twice.

“it shall be the Commonwealth’s policy to protect its atmosphere, lands, and waters from pollution, impairment, or destruction, for the benefit, enjoyment and general welfare of the people of the Commonwealth”

Section 1 Article XI of the Virginia Constitution

I agree.

Sally with the news you just brought us, which is good news. It will be interesting what idiots on this BOS will vote for this half baked bay act that Miller McG and others on this BOS will most likely try to cram dome our throats so McG and her cronies can find another private profit center for themselves at the cost of the tax payer. ;-)

Virginia has just come out with a plan to regulate fertilizer state wide. This will make the 100 foot buffers as proposed—unnecessary.

The draft Virginia Phase 1 Watershed Implementation Plan is available at:

      http://www.deq.virginia.gov/tmdl/chesapeakebay.html

Note, the state is proposing to also regulate municipal facilities, industrial facilities, storm water facilities, and septic pump outs, state wide—

For those localities in the ches bay preservation area, under the Ches Bay Act, one would have to pump out every 5 years, and for all others (including Loudoun) you would be required to pump out only every 15 years.

Had to laugh, because the state is going to phase out conventional septic systems, in favor of the alternative systems (that Mr. Burton tried to ban)—and even give people money to upgrade… or install alternative systems…

Also, the State is pushing back at the EPA, questioning the federal modeling, and the unfunded mandates of EPA’s—saying in the worst economy in more than 50 years, the State cannot afford this, especially given the State’s questioning of the Science… and challenging the EPA’s authority to force the State to do more than it proposes….

At the moment I believe this act has no redeeming value.  I will vote against my supervisor if she supports it.

Sally, thanks for representing our common interest of protecting and improving the water quality of our streams.  I own property with two streams flowing through it and would like to prevent adjacent properties from degrading the water quality.

How many people for this act stand to make a bunch of money off it. Our supervisor McG stands out as one you could profit off this, like as she possibly does with Loudoun’s energy policly she rough shodded thru. ;-) I will repeat grant money is still our tax dollars, it is not free money.

Example back in Houston where I lived a developer was required to build a two lane bridge over a large buoyu. It was to become four lanes in the future. The Developer offered to build the second two lane bridge at cost right away. Harris county declined. Several years later the county needed to build that second bridge. It ended up costing the tax payers four times the amount the original developer would of done it for. Moral of the story keep the government out of peoples private business and property. Just like this unnecessary and costly bay act will be extremely expensive to the tax payer. Go after the chemical companies where the majority of the problem originates.

Sally, what if that 150 SF footprint structure requires 3,000 SF of land disturbance to construct it?? That’s the point. It’s not the size of the structure per se, it’s the amount of disturbance required to build the darn thing. Disturbance = potential loss of existing vegetation (IF it exists of course), potential run-off/siltation, and potential recontouring of land that COULD exacerbate future run-off/siltation. Every property and project location is individual, not to mention every project is elected by the property owner, and the prime reason why mapping on a case-by-case level is appropriate.  All valid concerns when the objective is overall, watershed-wide water quality.

Glen, yes, a dog house in the RPA would be an expensive thing to build, just watch this video in front of the Planning Commission discussing building a play set… cost between $4000 and $10,000 for application engineering fees required..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWc0N740SOQ&feature=player_embedded

That said, NVBIA is suggesting that there be a complete exemption for structures (not a waiver or application process to be exempt, but complete this does not apply) under 150 square feet (in foot print.)

Delgaudio continues his dis-information campaign.  At least this statement is in the open and not covert.  Doghouses?!?  Give me a break.  That sure helps the debate.

I also think the Leesburg supervisor needs to sit this out as Leesburg is required to be apart of the CBPA.

Sally,  the latest test show water clarity is high in the Potomac which indicates silt is not the problem! If you are going to vote on this, I highly suggest you become edjucated on the science and stop voting from you heart.  If science shows that the CBPA is needed and can work, so be it. But I am not convinced any of the supervisors have adequate knowledge to make an informed decision. That’s why the residents of Loudoun need a part in this process.

Before the supervisors conducted their “Summer Outreach & Education” tour, I felt that this CBPA might be an expensive, unproven and unnecessary boondoggle.  However, after attending several of the education sessions and after listening to the citizens’ questions and the supervisors’ answers, I have now concluded that this CBPA is definitely an expensive, unproven, and unnecessary boondoggle.

With the exception of Jim Burton and Lori Walters, spoken like true politicians.

Sally Duntz…....  Need I say more…  I wish you did NOT represent me.