RUCKERSVILLE CITIZENS COUNCIL
Check out our website at http://www.orgsites.com/va/ruckersvillecitizens/index.html
Minutes of May 6, 2008 Meeting
Discussion with Herb White, President, WW & Associates, county engineering consultants for Greene Regional Water Supply Study as of 4-11-08.
1. Overview of Greene water supply planning 2000 through 2009 / 2011.
a. 2000 Rapidan Service Authority tri-county plan was presented to Board of Supervisors as a public study, and included Orange, Madison, and Greene. A water impoundment was recommended at that time as the only method of securing water for the future due to limitations of other water supply sources (p 3-1 of current plan). Preliminary evaluation of 20 sites in the three counties was included in the 2000 study.
b. Regional Water Supply Study for Greene published 4/11/08 – primary focus is follow up on the 2000 study for Greene only, with additional study of potential reservoir sites and evaluation and ranking of those sites. Short term supply enhancements were also recommended.
c. 2009 / 2011 Greene Water Supply Plan – the state requires (9 VAC 25-780-10 thru 190) each county of Greene’s size to submit a more comprehensive water supply plan by 11/2/2009. Planning is to cover a 30 to 50 year period, covers both well and public water users, requires projection of commercial and residential use as separate categories, and requires a drought contingency plan, along with lots of other information. If the County combines with another jurisdiction, including an incorporated town within its boundaries (Stanardsville in our case), a two year extension to the due date is allowed.
2. Power point highlights of Greene Regional Water Supply Study as of 4-11-08.
· Greene water usage has been growing at a rate of about 4.25% annually
· If it continues to do so through 2009, the current water treatment plant will reach capacity on peak days in 2009, so some water restrictions will likely be required during dry periods.
· Due to limitations on other sources, the recommended solution for Greene is a pump storage water impoundment with at least 850 million gallons of storage (which will be filled with over-average flow from the Rapidan river, piped to the site).
· Study provided further evaluation of a number of sites, shown on County map:
· Detailed evaluation of the five best sites is presented in a table format:
· In addition, a new water treatment plant with a capacity of 3.0 million gallons a day, capable of expansion to 6.0, is recommended.
· Cost of the project, not including land acquisition, for the two best sites, is presented in a table format.
·
· As a short-term solution, drilling of deep wells for public use is recommended. Five have been tried; one is capable of producing 60 gallons a minute (near Rapidan Center) and one is capable of producing 30 gallons a minute (behind Ruckersville Elementary School).
3. Questions / concerns from group:
· Jerry Gore commented that he came from an area in Maryland that dug 3 deep wells, and then had to keep adding more – had gone up to 8 at the time he came to Greene. He said that the zone of depression around these wells can affect surrounding private wells, depending on the rate of pumping going on. He suggested that the County have a plan in place for compensating private well owners for damage to their wells, as the process being used in his community was costly and annoying lawsuits on the issue. Herb White commented that the county does not have a long term plan of using continued deep well drilling and usage – this is a short term plan only, until a water impoundment can be placed in service. The county is trying to keep the selected well sites away from private wells and in areas that are on public water anyway. Anthony Herring asked how the search for additional well sites is going. Herb White replied that hydro-geologic studies are being done to locate possible sites, and then landowners are being contacted. Drilling of wells having a production total of 300 gallons a day would be very helpful for temporary use until the reservoir is in service. Bart Svoboda said there is some resistance by landowners based on the idea that the deep well would bring development to their area, which is not the plan.
· Bob Grassi, who is a landowner on Welsh Run, asked about downstream water protection below any proposed dam. Herb White responded that there are strict state Department of Environmental quality regulations requiring that at least minimum instream flow (dry weather flow in lay terms) continue – only excess wet weather flow could be trapped. Marge Grassi asked what the fallback position of downstream property owners would be if adequate stream flow were not maintained – would they have to go to court?
· Nicole Strickland asked if past, recent, and proposed rezonings were taken into account in coming up with the projected future water usage, which shows that the proposed new plant’s initial capacity of 3.0 million gallons daily would be reached in 2033. Herb White said that for the current study the focus was on reservoir site selection and how to go about proceeding with it ASAP; when new plant capacity would be reached is not central. In the current study, the historical growth in usage of 4.25% a year and densities using the growth area presented in the Comprehensive Plan were taken into account. Jack Clark suggested that population projections be used, as well as planned commercial use, and Larry Chad seconded that idea. Andrea Wilkinson pointed out that the DEQ required water supply plan requires that population projections and commercial use projects are required, so they will be taken into account in that plan. She also commented that the Greene Water Supply plan shows that our 2009 usage (based on about 2,500 residences on public water) will averaged .7 million gallons of water daily and peak will be 1.2 million gallons a day. The current study does not discuss inventory of developments that have reached the preliminary plat approval stage, and we have 3,800 already approved new homes. This is an increase of 165% in our number of residential units on public water and might be expected to increase our water usage proportionately if the commercial to residential user ratio remains the same or increases. This might result in full utilization of our proposed new plant’s 3.0 million gallon a day capacity as soon as the already approved homes are built, which might be sooner than 2033 if the real estate market improves. A small portion of the approved new homes are not on public water, but Bart Svoboda did not have a breakdown of the public / private water in approved developments available.
· Barry Barnett asked what the biggest hurdle is before placing the proposed reservoir in service. Herb White named three items, 1) regulatory approval, 2) land acquisition, and 3) cost. Regarding regulatory approval, he suggested that the County move forward with the DEQ required water supply plan as quickly as possible, since having this in hand would help with getting the required approvals to get the permits so water impoundment construction could begin. Regarding cost, County Administrator Barry Clark and Planning Director Bart Svoboda explained that upfront capital outlay to be borrowed on notes up to 40 years and repaid via water hook-up fees charged to new development, with any remainder to be paid by water user fees. Costs are not supposed to be charged to real estate tax payers. Planning Commissioner Anthony Herring said he thought the County was about $10 million ahead on hook-up fees so far, which could be applied to this project, and asked when the County might issue bonds to finance the project. Herb White said this would not occur until a site was selected, which cannot occur until permitting is received. Andrea Wilkinson asked when we set our last hook-up fee rate. Bart Svoboda said the current $10,000 fee was set about a year ago. Andrea Wilkinson asked if this hookup fee would be enough to cover the project, thinking that land acquisition cost was not included in the projected cost of the recommended project of $39.2 million. Herb White later provided the clarification that the reservoir construction cost estimate of roughly $15 million includes projected land acquisition cost. (Editor’s note: Quick math dividing $39.2 million by 4,000 new hookups just nicely approximates the $10,000 hookup fee. However, at the time land acquisition and construction contracts are signed, it may be possible that the $15 million estimate might be low, which could require an increase in the hookup fee.)
· Marty Silman asked if having a water impoundment in the center of a growth area is a good idea, since water runoff into the impoundment would adversely affect the water quality. Herb White said that water shed management and buffers to protect water quality are important, and that smaller watersheds to collect less runoff are helpful in that regard. In addition, a watershed management ordinance is recommended to protect the watershed.
· Barbara Andrews asked about severity of the projected water shortages in 2009. Herb White replied these are not expected to be severe – more like the “no car washing, no lawn watering” restrictions that occur most summers in Charlottesville.
· Aaron Gilbert asked how long it generally takes to get a reservoir placed in service. Herb White said something in the neighborhood of eight years might be an average, and we are hopefully a couple of years into the process already.
· Klaus Alt asked if private well users within the public service area would be required to hook up. Bart Svoboda replied that they would not be required to hook up, but if the desired to do so, they would have to pay the hook up fee. Jerry Gore asked if there is a plan to extend the public water system into the rural areas, and Bart indicated that there is not – the rural areas would stay on private wells.
· Lee Estes pointed out that continuing density rezoning (several proposals in progress right now) are compounding the problem.
· Andrea Wilkinson mentioned that the report says on page 4-3 “additional criteria typically used in analyzing reservoir sites include recreational potential and site access”, but this criterion was not included in Greene’s evaluation process. As a member of the County’s Parks & Rec Advisory Committee, she would have liked to see this typical criterion used, even if all sites scored the same. Herb White said that the first choice site does include recreational access, along with some others.
4. Timetable for recommended water supply improvements - when will we
a. Get permitting required before choosing site? Herb White felt this might take about a year – having our Regional Water Supply Plan in hand would help so DEQ could approve both.
b. Do required soil & other studies on water impoundment site?
c. Purchase required land?
d. Begin construction?
e. Complete construction?
f. How long will it take to fill the water impoundment? Herb felt this would take a year or more.
g. What is plan for additional deep well drilling, and proposed sites? Underway, ongoing.
5. Timetable for state required Water Supply Plan – when will we
a. Select contractor, if desired – this has been assigned to WW Associates.
b. Get agreement between Town of Stanardsville and Greene county to develop regional plan (or county plan must be submitted by November 2009). Bart Svoboda pointed out that there is a slowdown on this since a new mayor had to be chosen, and the town Planning Commission needs members, but hopefully it would be accomplished by fall 2008.
c. Begin further information gathering (must include existing private wells)
d. Apply for grant money, if any is available – Herb White pointed out that no money was by the state anyway for water supply plans for this year.
e. Develop drought emergency plan (voluntary and mandatory water restriction)
f. Write up plan. Herb White said this is in preliminary stages at this point.
g. Provide public comment period as required by DEQ. No exact answer available, but Herb White hopes it will be by end of this calendar year.
h. Submit plan to DEQ by November 2011. (Or sooner, if at all possible, to assist in getting required permits for a water impoundment.)
6. Updates
a. Upcoming rezone & residential density action at BoS April 13 – Deerfield (Kinvara) commercial / residential development at Food Lion; 98 townhomes – not a public hearing; carried over from March public hearing. (Editor’s note: This was approved 4 to 1 on April 13.)
b. Upcoming rezone & residential density action at Planning Commission May 21 – KB Properties; 730 residential lots per information currently available – not a public hearing; carried over from April 16 public hearing. (Editor’s note: This was denied 5 to 0 on May 21.)