HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-18 adjNovember 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 18, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., at Monticello High School, 1400 Independence Way, Charlottesville,
Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from November 10, 1999. The purpose of this meeting was to hold
a joint meeting with Charlottesville City Council to discuss future water supply.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr.
Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, and Assistant County Executive Thomas Foley.
CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Virginia Daugherty.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order and Opening Remarks by Chairman, Board of Supervisors and
Mayor, City Council.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin, and Mayor, Virginia
Daugherty.
Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation by Art Petrini, Executive Director, Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority, on water supply alternatives.
Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), gave a
presentation on water supply alternatives. He would be repeating much of the information that was
presented at the April 20, 1999 public meeting since there has been no new information produced since
that meeting. However, the slide presentation would be done in a different format and arrangement. He
would mention the alternatives that did not produce a safe yield, but there was no sense wasting a lot of
time, since they will not help the situation. He pointed out a map on' one of the slides and informed the
Board and Commission members that it is included in the back of the information they received. He noted
that this is a summary of the water supply alternatives and their locations. He described the permitting
process and pointed out that one phrase, "least environmentally damaging practicable alternative" is what
the federal and state regulators are looking for when they consider the list of alternatives that will be
presented to them. There could be one alternative or a series of alternatives, and they can be staged with
a first five to ten years, the next five to ten years and a third five to ten years. The study goes to the year
2050, so the phrase is supposed to describe the best solution. The water need has been determined, and
developing a range of alternatives, as well as evaluating the alternatives is also in the process. The
environmental effects' practicability will determine if a facility just looks nice on paper, or if it can be built.
He added that technicality feasibility and cost of logistics are also examined.
He pointed out that the study is only covering the urban system and does not include the water
supply for Crozet nor Scottsville. There are three sources of urban water supply -- South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir which is projected to have a zero safe yield by the year 2050, mainly because of sedimentation.
He went on to say the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain combination is more stable because there is little
sediment involved there, and there is no sediment considered for North Fork Rivanna River. He stated
that over time it can be seen that there will be a shortage of supply of water for this area, and he described
the five entities involved with the water demands. He said AIIbemarle County's demand increases three
times by the year 2050; the City of Charlottesville is expected to only increase slightly; the University of
Virginia is not expected to increase very much; uses outside the urban service area, where subdivisions
are expected to be built will become part of the urban service area and will increase; and unmetered water
use, such as hydrants, will increase over time. He emphasized that by the year 2050 the demand will be
for approximately 18 to 21 million gallons per day, but according to today's calculations, the supply will be
4.5 million gallons per day, although it doesn't necessarily mean that this gap will have to be filled within
the next couple of years.
Mr. Petrini next pointed out that the alternatives have been broken down into two categories --
Improvements to efficiency of Existing Resources and Physical Additions to the Water Supply System. He
would skip over the specific detailed data, because there has been a lot of information processed over the
past year that will probably be presented during the next one to two months. He described improvements
of the existing resources, as well as physical additions to the existing supply system, which is basically
new construction. He also described costs, land acquisitions, displacement of residences, wetlands
impacts, historic impacts and environmental impacts that are involved with each of the improvements and
additions. Mr. Petrini noted that the staff of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is receiving input
every week from the regulatory agencies and the public, and the VHB and other firms identified are doing
additional investigations and analysis. He stated that calculations are being done by one of the
consultants on most of the safe yields because information received from the agencies over last year
indicate that more flow should go over the dam and more flow going down the river is desired if the water
is going to be pulled out for future use.
The next step is the culling of the alternatives shown tonight to between five and ten. He added
that these five to ten alternatives will then be presented to the public in a meeting similar to this one. The
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
least damaging practicable alternative or alternatives will be selected and applications for approvals to
state and federal offices will be made, if they are required.
Agenda Item No. 3. Presentations from Ad hoc Water Coalition
Item 3a. League of Women Voters
Ms. Katie Hobbs, representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chapter of the League of Women
Voters, provided a brief overview of the League. The effort relative to the area's water supply and
demand resulted from an informal ad hoc cooperation between the League of Women Voters and the
Rivanna River Basin Roundtable. City and County officials should be familiar with both organizations and
their longstanding interest in the area's watershed. In 1997, the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable
published its State of the Basin report, a highly regarded study about regional watershed, and earlier this
year the League of Women Voters' Natural Resources Committee published a report relating to balancing
the needs of people and the environment. Recently the League published another report entitled,
"Ground Water, Our Unprotected Resource." She noted that the latter report was compiled by Trevor
Cromwell, with assistance from the Natural Resources Committee members, as well as Mr. David
Hirschman, County Water Resources Manager, and Mr. Nick Evans, a geologist from the Virginia Division
of Mineral Resources.
She explained that the specific events leading to the formation of the League's Roundtable Ad
Hoc Committee can be traced to the public information meeting held by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority on April 20, 1999. The purpose of this meeting was for a presentation by RWSA and its
consultants of preliminary water supply alternatives identified during the course of the Rivanna water
supply project. She said although the presentation was informative, its length left little time for questions
and comments from members of the public, and at that time no additional public meetings of any kind
were scheduled. She recalled that on June 30, 1999, some members of the League, the Rivanna River
Basin Roundtable and other concerned citizens representing diverse interests began a series of meetings
to discuss possible implications of the water supply project upon the community and upon the
environment. A central concern from the beginning was uncertainty with respect to the intentions of City
and County governments as far as providing public forums for governmental consideration of water supply
issues and for the receipt by elected officials of informed public comment. She remarked that this led to a
joint letter from the Co-Presidents of the League of Women Voters and the Chairperson of the Rivanna
River Basin Roundtable dated July 8, 1999 to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. The
scheduling of this important joint session tonigh[,followed. She went on to say the individuals who are
making presentations this evening during this po'.rtion of the agenda speak as individual City and County
residents. It is the League's sincere hope that these presentations will be of assistance to the elected
officials in the identification of issues stemming from the Rivanna Water Supply project that can only be
resolved by application of their judgment, as elected representatives, and of meaningful opportunities for
informed public comment, on the beginning of a difficult process. It is the League's belief that if people
were not optimistic and hopeful about their future and the community, they would not be here this evening.
She added that this is the community's watershed.
Item 3b. Rivanna River Roundtable
Mr. Jim Bennett, an Albemarle County resident, emphasized the importance of public input into
the water supply and demand process. (Note: Mr, Bennett's comments were not picked up by the
recorder.)
Mr. Martin informed Mr. Bennett that he could continue to speak if he wished, but he was not near
a microphone, so his comments were not being recorded.
Mr. John Martin stated that he was present to address the Rivanna water demand and population
projections, as well as to pose some difficult questions relating to how the future of this community will be
determined and by whom it will be determined. He noted that approximately ten years ago the
predecessors of the elected officials committed to the construction of a reservoir at Buck Mountain Creek
pursuant to a four party written agreement. He said Rivanna has purchased the land, and City and
County residents have been paying on the yearly debt service on the financing of the land purchases
through the urban water system by surcharges for new water connections. Construction of the Buck
Mountain reservoir has also called for the utility section of the County's Comprehensive Plan, but due to
the elements of long regulations, the Supervisors' decision should and probably must be revisited. The
Buck Mountain Reservoir received federal and state regulatory approval finally after a demonstration of
need, and it was determined that it is the least environmentally damaging practicable water alternative to
meet community needs. In the current and ongoing Rivanna water supply project, the construction of a
reservoir at Buck Mountain Creek is but one of 30 water supply alternatives under consideration.
Therefore, it will need the elected officials' statement to the federal and state governments with respect to
the future water supply capacity needed by this community. He asked if these officials are going to
address this question, or will they defer to the RWSA to make this decision on behalf of the community,
when they are the elected representatives and Rivanna officials are not. He asked if County officials
intend to review the Rivanna water supply plans to see if they are in substantial accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan. A meaningful review under the Comprehensive Plan is required by law. He
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
commented that elected officials should be ~involved in this most important element of community planning,
and the public has a role beyond this evening, of the planning for their own future. He stated that future
water supply needs are tied to projections of population over the next 50 years.
Mr. Martin then noted Rivanna's projections, as shown in the slides, and he asked if this
community needs or wants to grow to the population level of 225,000 citizens by the year 2050. He asked
about the effect to the City if the County doubles in population, and he wondered when the additional
infrastructure will be built to support a population double its present size. He asked if the City will be
required to make infrastructure changes at its expense caused solely by County growth, and if the current
population will be required to build new infrastructure for a population yet to arrive. He wondered when
the taxes will increase and by how much. He went on to say many people in this community think that a
population double its present size within 50 years is highly undesirable, and it would change the quality of
life in this unique community both in the City and County. He added that some people say growth is
inevitable, and there is nothing to be done other than to build a water supply to support the inevitable and
to build alt the rest of the infrastructure. This is perhaps the most important question elected officials must
address. Is the growth projected by Rivanna inevitable, or do the elected officials have the power and the
will to maintain an acceptable and healthy rate of growth and development in the City and County. He
inquired as to the amount of population growth the County leaders think can be healthy and acceptable
and what is their vision. He said upon the assumption that this community is capable of establishing
desirable and realistic population levels, the question then relates to the type of tools elected officials have
at their disposal to control growth to desirable levels. This enters into an entirely new realm, but
considering what is at stake, he wondered how plunging forward into this realm can be stopped. He
recalled that to assist it with decisions regarding cellular telephone towers, the Board of Supervisors
retained a consultant for technical assistance. He suggested that this community would greatly benefit by
the retention of a community planning consultant with expertise in population growth. He said some say
water cannot be used to control growth, and the argument some use is that it would be irresponsible to
maintain a water shortage crisis to deter people from living here. This is true and such an attempt at such
a scheme could severely jeopardize the existing population, but this should not be allowed to diffuse and
detract from the reality that water is a catalyst for growth. He noted that a water supply grossly in excess
of reasonably forseeable future needs could attract water dependent growth that would otherwise locate
elsewhere. It should be apparent by now that there are no easy solutions to this matter, but shrinking from
complexity should not be considered as an option. He said population growth, to a large extent, is
because of development and promotion.
He recalled that a week ago yesterday, an article appeared in the Daily Progress concerning a
forum conducted at the Darden Business School. The headline was, "Venture Capitalists Extol Virtue of
Area." The article stated what the capitalists were saying, and one person was reported as saying that
Charlottesville ought to grow. He read another headline from the newspaper indicating that real estate
agents were told to prepare for growth. The headlines speak for themselves. He stated that without
controls on growth, this fine community will grow and grow until it is no better than any other community,
and people will cease to be motivated to live here. At that time the community will be ordinary and
perhaps ugly. He said perhaps the principles of sustainability can lead to a solution. He suggested that
the water supply be built to meet current and reasonably foreseeable future needs with planned and
identified options to be implemented later as needed. He also suggested that elected officials spend as
little as possible of future generations' inheritances which is the water supply and natural resources. He
asked that the right thing be done in the right way.
Mr. Nick Evans, a Geologist with the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, commented that
there are about 34,000 people presently living in the rural section of the County, and these people are all
dependent on groundwater. He pointed out that if the population projections grow to fruition, there will be
approximately 68,000 people in the rural segment of the County using groundwater. This obviously raises
the question of whether or not there is sufficient groundwater to support this level of population, and he
mentioned continuing articles in the news that lead people to wonder if they are already exceeding the
approximate density of population that is using groundwater in the County. He mentioned that
groundwater and surface water are intermittently connected, and this is referred to as the hydrologic cycle.
There is no current evidence that there is a regional system that recharges at the Blue Ridge, for
instance, and extends all the way to the ocean. The availability of groundwater has not been tested at
depths of 2,000 or 3,000 feet, and the economics of doing so have resulted in a complete lack of
knowledge. The groundwater systems that are being dealt with currently in the rural segment are shallow,
local groundwater flow systems in depths of less than 500 feet. These flow systems have recharge areas
that are local and are not regional. The recharge area from groundwater is certainly within the watershed
and may well be in the person's own back yard. He commented that the groundwater in the rural segment
for water supply, discharges into the streams and maintains a lot of water flow in the streams during Iow
flow conditions. If the groundwater becomes contaminated, there is a real possibility that this
contamination could transmit itself into surface flowing streams and reservoirs. In this area, because of
the geology and topography, groundwater resources are certainly intermittently connected to surface
water resources.
Mr. Evans next discussed recharge, and he reiterated that it is local and not regional. He added
that if someone built a home in the County with a view of the sun setting over the Blue Ridge Mountains, it
is possible the person's recharge could be in the wooded hillside above the house. He said wooded land,
with its tree roots and leaf litter, serves to arrest the water that falls on the ground and causes it to sink
slowly into the subsurface system. He explained that the base of the forest acts like a sponge, and it
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
actually constitutes most of the groundwater storage and recharge feeding the subsurface fractures from
which water is drawn. He emphasized that the land cover is very important to effective groundwater
recharge. Changes in land cover and land use have a powerful impact potentially on groundwater
recharge. He remarked that as soon as someone changes the land cover from forestal use to virtually
any other kind of use, the percentage of water fa'lling on the ground that flows off along the surface
increases which detracts from the percentage of water that soaks into the ground. This creates a paradox
in terms of good planning because the potential exists to plat out a development that has adequate
groundwater supplies. However, at some point in time perhaps ten years into the future, land use might
change on an adjacent property which was completely not thought of at the time the development was
platted out, and it could affect the recharge for the development. He mentioned that there are examples of
this already in the County. Another aspect of groundwater recharge is contamination of groundwater
protection, and sanitary drain fields pose the greatest threat in Albemarle County to groundwater. In terms
of these things, people should not be thinking in terms of just making the affluent that comes out of septic
tanks disappear into the ground, but it is more a question of the capability of the sewers and the
subsurface geology to cleanse the affluent before it actually reaches ground water. He does not believe
this is adequately being covered in a lot of the County, and it is something that could be a big problem.
He then talked about how to decide if a particular piece of property is going to have any water on
it if a well is drilled. The water accesse.d through drilled wells comes from fractures in the bedrock, so the
recharge that occurs through the sponge finds its way down into fractures in the rock, and wells are drilled
into this to try to access the water. The.different types of rock have different densities of fractures, so if
information was available as far as which rock types had more or less fractures, decisions could be made
on how much water might be anticipated to come out of the proposed development on a certain piece of
land. He said to address this issue, the use of a digital hydro-geologic data base would be helpful. He
acknowledged the County Board of Supervisors for funding this item, and said he looks forward to working
with David Hirschman and members of the Planning staff to move this idea forward. If data having to do
with water wells, hydrologic testing data and other types of drilling data can be combined with geologic
map data then adequate ground water resources in the County can begin to be mapped out for potential
residential use, as well as where these resources do not exist. This could be the foundation of being able
to make decisions on which lands would be chosen to be developed more intensely than others in terms
of residential use. He noted that he has been working on this for quite a few years, and the data in the
system is'already beginning to give him some interesting reports. He pointed out a red circle in one of the
graphs representing an area where wells are located, and mentioned that each of the yellow diamonds
represents a point where there is water well information in the system. He said 130 wells were queried in
the circle which is in an area north of Charlottesville, and the median age of construction of these wells is
1983. If these wells were sorted to find the younger wells, it will be found that the wells drilled prior to
1983 have a yield of approximately 15 1/2 gallons per minute. However, the wells drilled after 1983 have
a yield of about 7 1/2 gallons per minute, so the younger wells have half the yield as the older wells. This
may indicate that the shift in land use in that part of the County is having a measurable effect on
groundwater resources. He remarked that this ties back to a planning decision to do certain things based
on groundwater on a certain property. However, when something is done on adjacent properties,
sometimes a situation is created where the recharge potential on the original development has been
compromised. This is a very challenging planning problem.
Mr. Evans next mentioned sustainability as applied to groundwater resources. He said it is
simple, and it is a matter of the whole community taking a stand that no more water will be pulled out of
the ground that is being supplied by recharge. He commented that the recharge areas need to be
protected. There is a sustainable long use of groundwater, and that is a fundamental issue of integrity for
both the community and individual landowners. This is easy to say and difficult to implement, but taking
such stands are real starting points to grappling with this problem. He asked what can be done now, since
it will take a while to gather the information needed in order to base some of these decisions on technical
data. He thinks enough is already known to take some sort of action on this issue. One thing that can be
done is to implement a hydrologic testing program on proposed residential developments that are going to
depend on groundwater. He said observation wells that are associated with the test can be used and
maintained into future years as monitoring wells. He stated that long term benefit can be derived from
being able to monitor what is going on with well water over time. It can furnish a lot more information on
what is available at the moment and whether or not to permit the development, and if so, at what density.
He added that there should also be a monitoring system to keep track of things, and this can then be fed
back into the County data base. He emphasize.d that he thinks this is a good way to go. He noted that the
County's recharge areas can be defined and protected, and he acknowledged the Board for embarking in
the future on the purchase of development rights. He will be suggesting in the future that some of this
money be put toward lands that are vital to protecting well water recharge. He stated that minimizing
impervious surfaces is an obvious thing, and it does not just relate to rural areas. It is something that
individual landowners can take steps to do, and it is also an urban problem. He commented that David
Hirschman has done a wonderful job working with the County on the Stormwater Management Ordinance.
Mr. Evans then mentioned that he was at a presentation the other night where the University of
Virginia laid out its current Master Plan, and it has very impressive, powerful language with respect to
stormwater management. The University's stand involves a run-off program for any of its new
developments, and if it requires fancy engineering, then that is what they are committed to doing. When
the building is built, there will be facilities surrounding the building to accommodate the run-off. He
remarked that the urban area around Charlottesville will not be made over overnight, but the sooner the
community can begin to take a stand on this, the better it will be, because it is something to which
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
everybody should be committed. He mentioned that drainfield siting is another important matter but it is a
subject for another discussion. He said water resources issues don't tend to pay any attention to political
boundaries, and when there is reference to a regional community, it encompasses the watersheds from
which the County gets its water. The geological map, which mirrors the groundwater problems, shows
how such things cross county lines. He added that Albemarle County needs to be working with the
neighboring jurisdictions in designing a firm public policy on groundwater and surface water. It is a matter
of regional cooperation. He looks forward to working with County officials.
Mr. John Hermsmeier showed slides and discussed each one. He also mentioned that the
paragraph he distributed is an excerpt from a 1998 Executive Summary of the Rivanna River Basin
Project. He is calling attention to it to keep the discussion in a regional context and to show everybody
that the region is in 'an ecological system, and they are not just residents of separate jurisdictions. The
point has been made tonight that through individual actions and public policy, there is the power to
determine the nature of the river that is shared, as well as the watershed and landscape, etc. He pointed
out the maps demonstrating that the watersheds lie within ecosystems; ecosystems lie within watersheds;
jurisdictional boundaries lie within both; and both lie within jurisdictional boundaries. The decisions that
determine the conditions of watersheds and ecosystems, though, are typically made within jurisdictional
boundaries by governments and citizens. He stated that water supply decisions are based on historic,
current and anticipated future decisions by local leaders and their constituents. He remarked that many of
these decisions having an impact on water supply issues and ecosystem watershed areas are never
framed with these impacts in mind nor presented as clear choices for the consuming public. He added
that water supply must be considered in the full context of water management including supply, demand
and quality. He said public action and inaction have created the present situation, and improving this
situation should be considered before focusing on specific supply recommendations. The projections
show the desired choice, but he wondered if leaders are capable of charting a course different from the
projectionl if the desired choice cannot be obtained. If they are capable of choosing a path different from
the projection that was not desired, then it should be done. The question is not so much projections, but
the ability to determine numbers including the total number of users -- those on the urban system and
those on wells, as well as how much each water user uses. He remarked that it is not necessarily true
that a decrease in the growth in the urban service area means an increase in the rural area, because
there could be a lower number there. He then asked how much water needs to be supplied based upon
demand. He added that demand is a product of the number of users and how much each uses. The
current demand is simply a collection of water uses by water users, and it is essentially unplanned and
undecided. He wondered what sense it makes to speak of water supply planning when future water
demand is not planned and only projected. He asked if the Albemarle, Charlottesville and University
community can decide how much water it will use, and what happens if it doesn't decide. The water utility
cannot be asked to do the management plannir~g, and water supply alternatives will be selected based on
what is deemed the least environmentally damaging and practicable. He stated that environmental
damage or protection of the natural elements generally is largely determined by policies under the control
of local governments. He said controlling ecosystem damage can produce the same results as meeting
ecosystem goals. The outcome for the ecosystem, and the people living within it, is determined more by
the level of commitment to ecosystem health by the process used to achieve it. When a supply is built to
meet the projection, it has the potential to have land use implications which have ecosystem and
watershed outcomes. However, some may not be intended, such as the rivers running dry.
He then referred to the two decision pathways that were not based on projections. They are
based on intentions, and they have a different style in that the water supply with ecosystem and
watershed goals at the starting point is used as the means to control growth leaving a certain condition of
ecosystem. He then referred to the pathway that suggests starting with the ecosystem and watershed
goals up front. He said by weighing these decisions and commitments accordingly, it will determine how
much water is needed and the amount supplied, as well as the nature of the supply, in a way that respects
the goals. He pointed out that under either scenario it is possible to have Iow goals or high goals, so he is
not prepared to advocate tonight for one or the other, but in either case it comes down to the commitment.
He noted the slide showing the connection between water supply and ecosystem watershed outcomes.
He said water supply planning may determine in part this community's general capacity to decide its
growth. He added that this also affects the community's capacity to decide the percent of impervious
surfaces, watershed, the amount of forest cover, etc., which in turn have ecosystem impacts directly and
indirectly connected to water, such as groundwater and recharge areas. He explained that there could be
a population projection and a water supply decision which have land use implications, as well as
ecosystem and watershed implications, which then affects groundwater with recharge. He stated that at
the present time, meeting water supply planning goals is taking precedence over other obligations. He
said even the projections that will be approached should be part of the larger superstructure of ecosystem
and watershed goals. He added that the Moorman's River is an example of how meeting water supply
demands can lead to lack of water in a riverbed, and addressing this situation through conservation
requires public input. He stated that no one ever intended on letting the Moorman's River go dry, but
instead, it was an unintended outcome of a flawed relationship between these three facts. He then
referred to the siltation at the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. If the plan starts with the goal of stopping
the siltation or managing it by some means, then it does not become an outcome for the community, but it
is a goal that has been addressed and a commitment made. He stated that if water use increases,
impervious surfaces tend to go up as do the impacts of impoundment to the extent they are used to meet
that supply. He added that as water use increases, the green spaces in the community drop, and the
citizens' access to healthy free running streams drops, as well. The essential point relates to this
community's commitment to its ecosystem and watersheds. He commented that water supply decisions
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
should support the community's goals for the integrity of its ecosystems and watersheds. He noted that
this was part of the press when this meeting was advertised originally in September, and there was the
insinuation that the facts before the community leaders tonight were delivering a veiled threat and hiding
behind broader issues. This is not the case, but it is whether this community can decide its relationship
with its total environment. He asked if this community will actively determine its fate or have its fate
determined by resource centers. He emphasized that the community can act now to develop overlay
districts to protect the area's lands.
Ms. Kaye Slaughter, with the Southern Environmental Law Center and a member of the Rivanna
Roundtable, commended the community leaders for holding this meeting. She has been in their position
before, and she knows how hard it is to take the additional time to hold such meetings. She stated that
water conservation was one of the most frustrating areas of concern during her eight year tenure on the
City Council. She fully understands and supports the decision to create the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority more than two decades ago to supply the water and sewer needs for the community. However,
she believes the creation of the Authority has had a down side because it has eliminated the necessary
involvement by local government and elected officials to make some decisions regarding water resources
for this community in the future. She heard the request tonight for the Board and Council to begin a
dialogue for a community planning process. She noted that this is required by the regulatory agencies
because decisions about water policy would affect this community long after the end of the members'
tenures on the Board and Council. She works on these issues around the State, and she believes that the
federal and state agencies, and especially the federal agencies, are going to be taking a much harder look
in the future at the real need for new water supplies. The agencies will be considering whether there has
been a truly meaningful consideration of alternatives, as well as what conservation efforts are underway or
planned. She pointed out that she thinks they have done a good job up to this point, and they will always
continue to identify the environmental consequences. She stated that too often, because of the busy
schedules of elected officials, they need to defer to the technical people who are involved in the activities
relating to water resource planning. It is appropriate that elected officials want the expertise due to
research and to have more information brought before them. However, sometimes these technical studies
eliminate alternatives without benefit of meaningful policy input by elected officials and the public. The
water utilities in the City and the County are very good but they have narrow missions, which is to produce
public water supply with as little as possible cost, and their separate roles can get in the way of working
and planning together. The citizens in Charlottesville and Albemarle demand much more participation,
and she thinks citizen experts, such as those who have spoken this evening as well as other educated lay
people from all segments of the community, bring a wealth of information to this subject. She went on to
say she hopes the elected officials will be able to initiate an ongoing planning process that incorporates
checkpoints where Rivanna's recommendations can be reviewed, but can also bring to the table the
elected officials' perspective.
She added that water conservation is a cause whose time has come, and she emphasized that
she is not speaking just about conditions of drought when she mentions water conservation. She said
saving water will help postpone, reduce and avoid spending millions of dollars in water and waste water
infrastructure costs over the next 20 to 40 years. In water resources planning, the City and County have
no boundaries in the stewardship of their natural resources. She noted that there are differences between
urban and rural water veins and between the public water supply and private wells, but everybody
depends upon nature to provide, and there are ways people can be stewards of the water resources. The
Comprehensive Plan should involve proper use in conservation of all the water resources in this area,
such as groundwater, surface water, water in the urban area, water in the rural area, and water that not
only comes through Rivanna but also Crozet, as well as water crossing some of the boundaries leading
into the adjacent communities. First, community education on how to conserve water as individuals and
as institutions must be done. This would cause an aggressive public education program to help people in
businesses and the University connect with the advantages of conservation. She noted that some pro-
active groups such as the League of Women Voters could be enlisted to help with this, and it should
include governmental actions to promote stewardship. It also includes planning for the emergency events,
such as a drought, to address measures to employ in times of particular stress on water resources. This
means reviewing the present drought plans and ordinances relating to voluntary and mandatory
requirements. She said existing laws and plans need review and updating as part of the water policy plan.
Ms. Slaughter next talked about research, and that the Comprehensive Plan should also include
research components on such topics as reuse and recycling of water both for household and domestic
use and also for commercial and industrial uses. The possible reuse of water for outdoor public facilities
needs to be investigated such as parks, golf courses and the Meadow Creek Golf Course in the City;
reuse for private commercial facilities such as car washes and other water intensive uses; and domestic
reuse of rain water for watering around homes. She pointed out that the University of Virginia is one of the
largest users of water, and any water resources planning needs to include the University even though they
are not part of Rivanna. She suggested that perhaps the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) is a
good place for the City and County and University to address water conservation together. In terms of
groundwater, Ms. Slaughter indicated that while Rivanna serves the City and the urban users of public
water supply, groundwater also needs to be considered. She noted that this is true not only because a
large percentage of rural dwellers rely on this source, but also because of the connections between
groundwater and surface water. She said reducing unnecessary water use will help to conserve and
assist in groundwater supplies and can be an important step toward rejuvenating failing septic systems.
By reducing water use to good stewardship, the flows of waste water will be going into septic systems and
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
flows to a treatment plant will be reduced. The treatment plan allows for the retention of the waste water,
as well as exposure to treatment which results in higher quality of discharges and less impact to the
streams and rivers. If water use is reduced on the front end, it will pay off also in sewage treatment and
ultimately to the rivers, streams, etc., that will receive the affluent. She remarked that aside from
educating the public with research and the effectiveness of various streams of water conservation and
stewardship measures, local government can provide incentives such as rebates, for switching to energy
efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances. She commented that plumbing efficiency is a very specific cost
effective way to save on water use. She said according to experts, indoor water use can be reduced by
39 percent just by using water efficient equipment. Local governments could provide free water audits to
help residents conserve water and could also help businesses in this way. She suggested that the
governments could support subsidized rebates for water efficient plumbing or even retrofits to create more
water efficient toilets, showers and faucets. This will save water for the community, and the homeowner is
saving money because it is not being spent on wasted water. She pointed out that the Service Authority
has provided some of these programs already, but more could be done not only by individual utilities, but
by the City, County, Rivanna and the University working together. The plan should address the
effectiveness of conservation measures currently in place in the City and County as far as their
effectiveness, and an evaluation could be done on the numbers of families and households that could be
retrofitted, as well as businesses that could be helped. The effectiveness of some of the rebate programs
could be measured and compared to some of the national studies that have been done. She mentioned
that Commercial, Industrial and Light Industrial zoning areas, including the University of Virginia, could
also be included in the retrofit program, as well as energy efficient programs. She next referred to several
myths associated with water conservation. The first myth is that conservation is only for westerners who
squander their water on outdoor uses. She explained that increasingly in the east, because of population
shifts, water supply must also be conserved to make sure there is enough for the populations and the
critters that live in the woodlands and streams. Many communities in the south, including Greensboro,
North Carolina, Nashville, Tennessee and Asheville, North Carolina have exemplary programs to draw on
for ideas. The second myth is that no one likes to use water efficient equipment. She stated that some
products, whether or not they are water efficient, do not work well. She said, though, studies by
Consumers Report show that carefully chosen water efficient toilets, shower heads and faucets can work
as effectively as the present ones and waste less water in the process. The third myth indicated that
conservation equals mandatory restrictions. She emphasized that this is not so, and she explained that
conservation equals stewardship. She added that in a community such as Charlottesville and Albemarle,
recycling has become a way of life for large numbers of businesses, individuals and the University. She
stated that stewardship of water resources can also be addressed because the community cares. She
said it cares about its water supply, its neighbors; and its rivers and streams.
Mr. Russell Perry, former Co-Chair of the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable, noted his appreciation
for the opportunity to address the group. The Roundtable strongly believes the issue of water supply
planning is one that must engage the whole community, and it clearly falls within the purview of the
elected officials. He added that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is doing its job to identify and
focus on the issue, and now it is time for the community to give the Authority some guidance and provide it
with the context in which these decisions will be made. He said ground rules need to be established in
terms of population and rate of use and the citizens' values need to be brought forward in the form of
principles.
He then noted that he would enumerate the decisions that need to be made pertaining to the
water demand analysis: (1) How many people are served by the public water supply system. The
Authority has provided a range of calculations regarding potential futures for this community. Available
information was used in developing these scenarios, but it did not have the advantage of the elected
officials' counsel. (2) How much water is desired in this region, and how much should be projected. (3) At
what rate per capita will water be used in the future: The Authority's analysis uses the current per capita
rates for their projections, and he asked if the current rate of use represents a responsible standard, and
is it fiscally environmentally responsible. (4) How does the drought management factor into the calculus
as far as the size of the water supply. The Authority is currently using the worst case drought as a starting
point for determining the scope of the area's water supply. The calculations of demand and the extremes
of the growth projections assumes a responsible level of conservation and the inclusion of a drought
management plan, as a public policy, will result in a significantly different result than that today.
He next mentioned choosing alternatives, He stated that unless a reasonable and responsible
future demand is determined, he does not understand how decisions can be made as a community as far
as which alternatives meet this demand and best fit the community and its values. This is a community
with a strong focus on principles to guide its collective intuitiveness. This concern is written in the history
of the region and is evidenced by significant recent community efforts such as the Thomas Jefferson
Sustainability Council. He stated that members of the Roundtable believe that the decision should be
guided by such a discussion of principles. He added that clearly an assessment of established priorities
among the proposed alternatives would benefit substantially from the statement of community values and
principles. It seems equally clear that the elected officials should participate in the process of defining
which alternatives best fit the collective vision of the future of this region. He then articulated the
parameters of population, rate of use and drought management. He added that to define water use
demand and a need to define the principles against which supply alternatives should be judged, he would
suggest that this community needs to engage in comprehensive water planning. Such planning should
obviously integrate the County, City and University, and it should center the Authority's current efforts by
bringing into the discussion the issue of regional groundwater supply. The process of planning should be
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
an opportunity for interested members of the community to contribute their views and expertise, but more
importantly, for the regions' elected officials to reach conclusions and set policy as designated
representatives.
Mr. Perry then made the following recommendations: (1) The Board of Supervisors and the City
Council should establish a process to develop an inter-jurisdictional comprehensive water plan and water
management protocol for the Charlottesville/Albemarle community; (2) Elected officials in each
jurisdiction and representatives from the University should be responsible for furnishing the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority with a projection of the number of people who should be provided with water from the
public's supply over several time horizons; (3) Albemarle County's recent Groundwater Study should be
used to direct growth appropriately; (4) The Board of Supervisors and City Council should establish and
enforce policies to ensure healthy ecosystems. The maintenance of optimum, and not just the minimum,
in-stream flow in rivers and streams affected by the management of the Authority, as well as protection of
ground and surface water should be a matter of clear public policy; (5) Policies should be established to
ensure wise efficient use of water at all times with particular emphasis on additional measures to be taken
in times of drought; (6) When the time comes to start making choices of water supply alternatives, the
easier, least expensive choices that leverage the current infrastructure should be chosen first to buy some
time; (7) To allow the Board of Supervisors and City Council to make informed judgments, the Authority
should complete studies on the ramifications of each viable alternative -- cost of maintenance and
operations, growth policies, treatment facilities, etc.; and (8) The community should establish principles to
guide the selection of acceptable water supply alternatives. He said some principles might include the
ability of the community to live within its watershed water means and not encroach on the potential water
supply of surrounding communities. He said water should be reused whenever feasible, and as far as
possible, damming streams should be avoided. He emphasized that future water needs should be met in
the most simple and least environmentally invasive way possible without compromising the biological
vitality of any of the area's precious surface waterways. He noted that if there is a message to his
presentation today it might be that establishing the parameters for discussion of the future of the
community's public water supply necessarily and appropriately is within the purview of the elected officials
with the guidance and advice of the community. He urged the officials to take charge of this important
discussion.
At 9:00 p.m., there meeting recessed. The meeting then reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public comments.
The first speaker after the break was Mr. Bob Watson, Governmental Affairs Director of the
Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition. He remarked that his statement would not be technical,
but he felt the debate must be focused in the proper manner. The future need for additional water supply
to serve the Albemarle County growth areas and the City of Charlottesville has been recognized since the
1970s. He remarked that the City and County, through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, have
been planning for the future water supply for approximately 20 years. He added that in the 1980s the
Committee agreed on the Buck Mountain site for this future supply, and this decision was re-enforced in
Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan update in 1996. RWSA has acquired the property for the
reservoir and the buffer area. However, since then, federal regulations controlling water supply
development have changed, and RWSA must follow the process for identifying all available options for
additional water supply before the regulatory agencies will approve the option of the least environmentally
damaging and the most practicable solution. The study is currently underway, and RWSA's consulting
firm performing this work is methodically and objectively analyzing the water supplies and the alternatives.
Through this process, RWSA seeks to avoid the pitfalls which have derailed other recent water supply
projects in Virginia.
Since July 1, 1983, all new water customers in the City and urban service area of the County have
had a surcharge on their connection fees to offset the cost of acquiring the Buck Mountain property. He
said although the Buck Mountain reservoir may or may not be the water supply option approved by
regulatory agencies, all water customers in the City and County have paid their connection fees and
monthly user fees with the understanding and expectation that a new water supply would be available
when needed. He recalled that this summer the community endured the worst drought in the last several
decades without restricting the water use. He stated that although conditions were worrisome in August,
the fact is the water supplies were never less than three-quarters full and were envied by utilities
throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. Currently the water supply is adequate, but time is of the
essence if community needs are met without first enduring hardships. Despite community-wide efforts to
conserve water and to become more efficient in the consumption of water, natural sedimentation can steal
storage capacity from the supply in reservoirs. Action is required to assure the community does not suffer
the inconvenience of water restrictions or the hardship of a moratorium on future connections. The
Coalition urges the community to examine population growth limitations and water supply planning. He
said growth issues should be controlled through effective zoning regulations and sensible land use
programs, and active efforts, such as the DISC study, should be encouraged. He said reasonable water
supply planning should not be derailed. As a community it must be recognized that some people may be
negatively affected whichever future water supply alternative is chosen. Time must be factored into the
planning process to ensure the potential impacts of each alternative are identified so that an informed
decision can be made.
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Watson noted that the Coalition supports the efforts and the strategy of the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority in the water supply planning process. The Coalition believes that the Authority has
identified potential impacts that are appropriate in a responsible manner. He added that while there may
be related issues which should be studied to be fully understood, secondary issues not directly associated
with the planning process should not be permitted to enter the identification of a new water supply. The
Coalition urges the Committee to recognize the existing organizational structure established by the City
and County as capable of planning and managing the public water works. The Coalition encourages all
affected parties to aid the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in implementing decisions for cost effective
solutions to the future water supply.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, speaking for Treva Cromwell, said it must be made clear that the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority's consultants are evaluating.water supply options in the urban service area and
nowhere else. She added that this means the study affects the City of Charlottesville, the University of
Virginia and the 88 square miles of County land around the City where development has public water and
sewer services. She explained that this is where approximately half of the County's population lives,
which is about 38,000 people and is called the growth area. She said it does not include two other Service
Authority areas -- Scottsville and Crozet -- because each is far from the core of the City and its immediate
suburbs, and they are not a part of the urban service area. She noted that the other 38,000 people live in
Albemarle's rural area. She pointed out that the County's population is divided about 50/50 between rural
area and growth area, but the amount of land is 90 percent rural area and about ten percent growth area.
She said everybody in the rural area depends on groundwater, but on the other side of the water supply
coin, is sewage and waste water treatment. In rural areas this means on site sewage disposal systems,
the most common of which are septic systems. She added that despite County policy to discourage
residentia! development in the rural areas, the number of homes with individual wells and septic systems
continues to increase rapidly. She said no matter whose estimates are used, the present development
based on current land use policies, plans and ordinances, is staggering, and there is concern that the
region may not have the water to sustain that level of development. People should be concerned because
there is not much known about local groundwater nor how much water is available. She remarked that
regardless of the amount of water available, it is lost to human use if it becomes polluted. Once polluted,
groundwater is more expensive and more difficult if not impossible to restore, and it is lost. She said of all
the sources of pollution, septic systems have been targeted as the leading contributor of waste directly
into the ground. However, Virginia septic system regulations are considered the weakest in the nation,
and they were never meant to protect ground water. Regulations were designed to dispose of sewage as
quickly as possible, and not to give soil time to t'reat the sewage to filter pollutants. She indicated that
efforts over the past 18 years to strengthen septic system regulations have failed largely because of the
lack of political will of the public officials statewide. She added that such changes are viewed as restrictive
to rural development. Albemarle County has the authority to strengthen the regulations as some of its
Piedmont neighbors have done, but Albemarle's only additional requirements are for drain field
replacement areas and slopes. As long as disposal of sewage into the ground is permitted with
regulations never made to protect groundwater, current and future residents are being put at risk.
Unfortunately, measures to protect groundwater such as strengthening septic system regulations or land
use zoning are often very controversial, because the key to development in the County beyond public
water and sewer lines, is having access to adequate safe water and soils that meet septic system
regulations. Administration by the State Health Department of septic tank controls is a difficult task. She
stated that since septic systems provide the most feasible method of domestic sewage disposal, denial of
a septic system application limits the potential for rural lot development. On the other hand, a well or
septic system located on an unsuitable lot can cause failure later on, which results in disaster for the
homeowner and neighbors and an expense for the County. She said strengthening septic system
regulations means moving away from just educating the public to the sensitive area of regulation. Unless
the public becomes informed and insists on action that protects groundwater, public officials will be
reluctant to act and groundwater will remain the unprotected resource upon which thousands depend.
Ms. Diana Foster, a resident of 400 Balbion Drive in Earlysville, stated that she is a County
resident, but she has had the good fortune of working with City residents, as well as County residents, on
an endeavor called the Rivanna Watershed Center. This endeavor involves a steering committee
envisioning a Center that will address a lot of the recommendations in the State of the Basin report, as
well as education to the community. She mentioned that some of the things that came up in the reports
tonight will also be addressed. The group is actively looking for people who would like to join in this
endeavor. She mentioned that brochures are available at this meeting, and they include contact names
and numbers inside of them. She encouraged people to take a brochure.
Dr. Liz Palmer commented that she lives at 2958 Mechum Banks Drive, she is a County resident,
and she would like to address water costs in the community. She noted that by VHB's own admission the
cost analysis of the alternatives for the future water supply are incomplete, and there are cost
ramifications to many of these alternatives that have not been considered by the report. The grander
alternative of a new reservoir will be extremely.expensive, and the cost will not be borne evenly by the
community. It will be paid for by water customers, and primarily those customers that live in the County,
because that is where most of the growth is going to be taking place. She added that her biggest concern
though, is. that the dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is considered an alternative when in fact
it is a necessity. She said citizens have been told that the reservoir is silting in by natural processes. She
commented that a new reservoir would have the same problem. This is a man made structure, its banks
and the banks of the rivers leading to it have been altered by man's own activities. She commented that
when people are no longer able to use it as a water source, it is supposed to be retired to recreational use,
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
but the silting in will not stop at this time. She s.aid that is because the natural cycle of all lakes and
impoundments is lake to swamp to mud hole to lowlands. She remarked that the citizens' children and
grandchildren will have a gargantuan mud hole in the midst of their community, and nobody wants that.
She wondered what sort of health hazards will it bring, and at what point will it climb the dam. She asked
if it will interrupt flow of the river, and at what point will there be concern about inadequate dilution of
affluent from the sewage treatment plant downstream. She said many communities employ regular
dredging practices for their reservoirs, and she suggested that a cost analysis is needed of these more
modern and less expensive techniques before any decisions can be made. She said abandoning the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is not an option. The area citizens built the reservoir, and it is their
responsibility, and they are going to have to pay for long term regular maintenance. Once this fact is
acknowledged and other issues that have come up tonight are examined, she does not see how it can be
concluded that building a new reservoir is a cost effective plan at this point in the community's evolution.
Mr. Russell Perry, a resident of 1626 St. Anne's Road, remarked that water use data suggests
that the City users use water at a rate of approximately 111 gallons per person per day, and County users
use water at the rate of about 99 gallons a day. The rate for domestic use in public water supplies in
Virginia averages 86 gallons per day. This means the City is using water at 30 percent more than the
average and the County uses it at 15 percent more than the average public water user. He then referred
to an analysis published by the Authority at the end of the 1977 drought which states that "In the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area customers demonstrated during the 1977 drought that greater than 20
percent reductions in water consumption can be achieved without undue hardships." He noted that he is
an architect, and he is pro-growth, but it depends on what people want to grow. He stated that he wants
to grow beauty, culture, literacy, prosperity, healthy children and trees.
Ms. Leslie Middleton indicated that her address is 1608 Oxford Road in the City. She welcomes
the opportunity to speak tonight, and she is appreciative of this public forum. She noted that she wants to
affirm her belief in the importance of conservation methods to help meet the present and future water
supply needs as an immediate and Iow cost, but in the long term, highly effective means of making change
in the area's water usage patterns. She was struck by the relatively small amount of money that was
noted in the consultant's report. She said it could be implied that the rate of $50,000 per year for the year
2050 will result in a small but noticeable amount in reduction and demand. She added that she imagines if
these figures were multiplied for resources allocated toward education and conservation there would be a
far greater reduction in demand. She believes that greater conservation requires the kind of public
participation which will engage the citizenry with a sense of stewardship of these natural resources, and
this is the very first building block needed. She urged the elected officials to be pro-active in implementing
a comprehensive program within the next year for a long term public education and awareness campaign
on water conservation methods and to utilize the enthusiasm of students, nonprofit organizations and the
interest of community members that are present at this meeting to help foster and build a sense of
community stewardship of water resources.
Mr. Tim San Jule, a resident of 1111 Cherry Street in Charlottesville, remarked that he is a
teacher, so as Ms. Middleton, he was surprised at the lack of emphasis on education toward water
resources. He was struck by something he heard many times as a child which is "waste not, want not."
He does not think he needs to explain what these words mean, but given the area's consumption patterns,
any amount of shortfalls are due to human behavior and human behavior can be changed. He noted that
the situation the area is in is as much a result of the way people use water as it is the number of people
who are using it. He said behavior can be changed and the way water is used can be changed. He
emphasized that people are water wasteful, and the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative, without fail, is teaching people how to use water properly. He commented that if as much was
spent on public education as on the public works programs, he thinks everybody would be amazed at the
results. If elected officials are willing to spend as much on education as for building reservoirs, etc., he
thinks they would be astounded by the results, because the results would be unprecedented. He stated
that education has never been the priority that other things have been, and "waste not, want not" means
reusing as well. He added that as long as people increase in numbers, they will eventually have to learn
to reduce and reuse. He can't see any other way, and the sooner this gets started, the easier it is going to
be. He noted, though, that the question is whether the people have the will and the backbone to actually
take responsibility for their behaviors, and adjust those behaviors accordingly. In his opinion, these are
the real choices with which people are faced.
(Three speakers who had signed up to speak left before they were called. They are David Noble,
Mary Hunter and George Larie.)
Mr. Tom Olivier remarked that he lives at 4632 Green Creek Road in the Schuyler area of the
County, and he would like to talk about some of the exercises that need to be done if there is success in
protecting natural resources, including water. He said natural resources are valued in the region, but
more and more demands are put on them. He commented that increasingly, people are coming to
understand that the lands and different uses of the landscape comprise a complex system on which
everybody depends. This system of lands must be protected if people continue to receive water as well
as the other precious natural resources it provides. To protect the system of lands, residents must
rigorously assess their natural resource needs; analyze the interactions and needs of the areas' natural
resources; prioritize the natural resources based on an analyses and a perceived value; and commit to
direct protection of essential and high value resources. He noted that some recent events encourage him
to think residents can succeed. He said water is a common interest that sometimes unites the City and
November 18, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
County, and the governments have committed to understanding the water resources. He mentioned that
some residents such as Treva Cromwell, have developed expertise that few people would have imagined
possible. He said most importantly, residents know that water plays multiple roles in the land system, and
the development of the water delivery capability must always be watched so it does not drive nor damage
the system as a whole. The County will soon create a Biodiversity Advisory Committee, and this gives
him encouragement. This Committee will guide biological inventory and develop proposals for protection
of flora and fauna. He believes the County is closest to realizing the systematic approach he outlined
previously in its dealings with water and biological resources. He said other areas are also encouraging,
and he pointed out that Albemarle is updating the Rural Areas chapter of its Comprehensive Plan, which is
the County's basic strategy for protecting rural areas. He emphasized that this is a rather wishful
encouragement that isn't working, and he does not think it will, but the County appears reluctant to fully
examine its options for protecting rural areas' resources.
He noted that Albemarle is considering a Purchase of Development Rights Program of land
acquisition criteria for the proposed PDR Program, but it unfortunately emphasized scenic over
fundamental resources. However, this can be fixed. One of the hazards of life in an area so rich in open
space resources is that the constituencies for the different resources can develop and compete for limited
protection dollars. He is sure the Supervisors and Councilors understand that many voices want whatever
funds are available and many voices want policies to protect the potential concerns. He added that
policies put in place can protect one resource and may damage another. He commented that with the sort
of systematic approach to identification and analysis of resource needs, there is some rational basis rather
than political constituencies competing for distributing the possible efforts among the different resources
within the system. There is a basis for judging how well they are doing and revising the resource
production priorities over time. There is also the basis for discussion between the County and City with
many common interests.
Mr. James Ward stated that he lives in Nelson County, but there is some drainage from there into
the Rivanna River and a small section of Nelson County, known as the Red Town, drains into the
Mechum's River. He said because of his residence in Nelson, he was appointed to the Rivanna River
Roundtable three years ago, and he has attended meetings and has gotten a lot of information. He
commented that his first point is to stress trees and protection of the forest lands, because protection of
water systems depends on a healthy forest. He pointed out that there are reports published by the
National Forest Service about the loss of forest land along the Blue Ridge because of devastating floods.
He noted that sedimentation is filling up the reservoir, and the forests need to be protected not only along
the rivers,, but all through the drainage area. He said his second point deals with conservation, and he
wondered why big users of water should be given cut rates. He suggested that the rate system be re-
examined, and he asked why should a public institution or a manufacturer be getting water at a lesser rate
than a resident.
Mr. Martin thanked everyone for coming to this meeting, and he thanked the presenters for
challenging the minds of the elected officials. He mentioned that before the meeting, Ms. Daugherty
announced the Councilors and Board members who were present. This closes tonight's meeting, but the
Supervisors and Councilors will be getting together and setting an agenda for how to proceed with this
issue.
Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn. At 10:00 p.m., there being no further business, the meeting was
immediately adjourned.
pproved by
Date 5'.~.~;
Initials