September 23, 2007
Lois Rochester

I have tracked Water Supply Planning in this community for over 10 years. On September 13 I listened to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority’s “Water Supply Resources Implementation Strategy” and to the subsequent public comments. I conclude that “Implementation Strategy I”, to build the full Ragged Mountain dam and the South Fork Rivanna River pipeline now, is the most desirable option.

It is mandated, for safety reasons, that the Ragged Mountain dam must be rebuilt by 2011. Building the full dam now, rather than in phases, makes the most sense. The pipeline should be built concurrently, not fourteen years from now. This pipeline, which would transfer excess water from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to the greatly expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir, is the core of the current Water Supply Plan.

If the pipeline is not built now, the community will have to rely heavily on the small Sugar Hollow Reservoir and its limited watershed to supply water to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Continued use of the old, leaking pipeline from Sugar Hollow to Ragged Mountain will be required. There is a good possibility that this pipeline would have to be replaced at considerable cost. Taking this risk does not seem prudent. Furthermore, optimal flow to the Moorman’s River would not be assured for a long time to come.

An additional concern is that the costs of building the South Fork pipeline will rise considerably in fourteen years. This could tempt decision makers to abandon the pipeline part of the Water Supply Plan, thereby forcing reliance on Sugar Hollow Reservoir indefinitely. This would be unacceptable. It seems wiser and more cost effective to build the pipeline now as an integral part of the overall plan.

I realize that the costs of Scenario I are formidable and that the community faces several other major fiscal challenges. Somehow officials must figure out a way to proceed expeditiously on this fundamental community project without excessively burdening rate payers.

Perhaps this is the time for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to sell the Buck mountain property. It seems less and less likely that a future reservoir will be built there. In my opinion, future water supply, if needed, will more likely come from the recycling and reuse of the community’s treated effluent. Sources of funds, such as proffers from developers and surcharges on new hook ups, should certainly be considered. I would also like to suggest that it is reasonable for all City and County taxpayers, not just ratepayers, to contribute to supplying water and sewer facilities. Almost all of us use these whether or not our homes rely on wells and septic systems.

I would like to make two additional points. First, the community will continue to depend on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir in the future even though siltation continues. Citizens have been told that maintenance dredging will be done. I am concerned that this is not being discussed as part of the Water Supply Plan and that no funds have been allocated. My second point is that on-going water conservation is the best and cheapest way to extend the community water supply. Therefore, on-going education of the public and perhaps more stringent regulations must be integral parts of the Plan.

1. The information contained on your website is lacking. For example, if I click on Projects & Reports from the home page, absolutely no reports are shown. One has to do a great deal of searching to find any reports. All previous documents produced by RWSA authority should be placed on your website by year for at least the past 20 years. I note that you do place current reports on your website, but I feel a very easy to find historical site should be present.

It is also quite difficult to find any factual information about the reservoirs themselves. That information may be contained in previous reports, but I was not willing to wade through your entire website to find it. There should be information on water volumes of each reservoir and some historical info.

Information on the silting problem of the South Rivanna reservoir should be easy to find. I would like to find historical information on water level and flow from all the reservoirs for the past few decades.

For example, I have not been able to determine whether the total reservoir levels has dropped below 90% this summer. That should be available. I wanted to compare this year's water levels and flow with 2002. I was not able to do this.

2. I feel strongly that there should be a significant water connection fee for all new customers. If a state law prohibits it, then the public should work towards changing the state law. There should be at least a $10,000 charge for every new water connection.

Or perhaps $5,000 for water and $5,000 for sewer.

Perhaps the charges should be proportional to the building cost. All new construction, commercial, public, or private, should pay it, including the University of Virginia. Or a 2-3% charge for all new construction and remodeling could perhaps be charged.

This should have been instituted years ago, and those funds would now be available to pay for upgrades and new water and sewer projects.

Sincerely,

Stephen T. Thornton
100 Bedford Place
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Albemarle County

Thursday, April 20, 2006

The Board and Citizens for Albemarle commends all of you for your efforts in reaching the decision to stay within our watershed and to manage this resource sustainably. We are proud to live within a community in which our water providers not only reach out for public involvement, but actually listen and take action on what our shared, community-wide voice is saying. We appreciate the hard work that went into listening and investigating the alternatives to come to the decision that the Ragged Mt. reservoir and pipeline is the best alterative.

Now, the community and service agencies need to work together on efforts to best sustain our future water needs and to make Albemarle County a stellar example of management. We cannot ignore the price tag of $130.5 million that local people will have to bear, a price that comes with the local, state, and regional appetite for growth. It’s a cost that all rural and urban citizens should share. Water supply has not been an historical problem, but limited water supply and water storage capacity are challenges to sustainable water needs. Greene and Fluvanna Counties have installed unsightly water towers to store their dwindling supply. Albemarle County is fortunate in being situated at the headwaters of the state’s watershed and can collect the abundant precipitation that falls on the landscape, using management options to meet water supply needs. While demand for water may continue to grow over the next 50 years, it is most prudent that our community better understand watershed sources and the water budget in order to support expected demand.

This challenge mandates a comprehensive, wise land-use and County-wide water management plan. Such a management plan must recognize ground and surface water connectivity for an approach that integrates land use and groundwater impact with water demands. With these challenges in mind, we as citizens of Albemarle County support your work towards making Albemarle’s future water source and supply sustainable without destroying the environment and amenities that we now enjoy.

Thank you for all your efforts to include us in Albemarle’s future. We will do our best to help in the effort to sustain our future water needs for both rural and urban needs.

Yours sincerely,

The Board of the Citizens for Albemarle

Jerry McCormick-Ray, President
Carleton Ray
Mike Erwin
Mike Mellon
Andy Wright

To: Charlottesville City Councilors
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
RWSA Executive Director and Board of Directors

Re: Water Supply Planning

As a concerned citizen, a member of the Rivanna watershed community, and a customer of public water in the City of Charlottesville, I am writing to urge you to exercise care and invoke a broad vision for our City and the surrounding locales as you move towards selecting a plan for increasing the available supply of public water.

I have attended many of the public meetings and reviewed many of the documents available and have come to understand the following:

(1) We do not have an impending water shortage in our area. We do, however, have an impending problem with available capacity to store adequate reserves to meet near-term and projected growth out to 50 years from now.

I urge the City Council and its colleagues in the Albemarle Board of Supervisors to take every available opportunity to educate the public about this fact so as to diffuse the controversy that seeks to divide our community into "growth" versus "no-growth" fueled by the alarmist and inaccurate view that we are "running out of water."

(2) The present planning timeline (2055) being used by RWSA and its consultants is not required by law, nor is it consistent with proposed revisions to the regulations which would encourage planning to be done with respect to a 30 to 50 year timeframe in order to allow for: the inevitable revisions to consumption projections; development of new conservation technologies; institutionalization of water conservation measures by the community, including households, businesses, and UVa; and refinements in our scientific understanding of how to maintain healthy watersheds while balancing human and other biotic needs. According to William Cox of Virginia Tech, who has watched Virginia’s water planning process since the early 1970’s, incremental, iterative, and phased-in solutions are consistent with the trend to "accept planning as a continuous process rather than a temporary action to produce a specific plan." (from: "Planning Virginia’s Water Future," by William Cox, Virginia Water Central, Virginia Water Resources Center, Blacksburg, Virginia (No. 32), November 2004.)

I urge the City and the County not to succumb to pressure from any quarter than is insisting we must, once and for all, make a decision now and be done with it. Neither the "requirement" to address the spillway at Ragged Mountain within a July timeframe, nor the fact that this community has already spent considerable time and money on the planning process, should drive the decision.

(3) The RWSA’s charter is to provide adequate water for its customers. RWSA has provided alternatives that, within its limited mission, appear to satisfy the requirements of the "least environmentally damaging, most practicable". It falls to the regulators to make the final determination of what exactly this phrase means, but not without input from the community affected.

I urge you to broaden the evaluation of alternatives such that RWSA be required to include a comprehensive study and trade-off of factors to support any alternative as "least environmentally damaging." Please consider the likelihood that RWSA and it’s consultants are not best positioned to provide this broader view and that you will have to look to your community, including the extraordinary wealth of scientific and professional expertise found amongst its citizen activists, to help you in this determination.

(4) Given the RWSA presentation of the alternatives, one might think that the pipeline from the James River is best, least-environmentally damaging solution, albeit expensive. The James, we suppose, has limitless water for all, if only we could get our intake pipe in the river before others, or before future regulatory pressure discourages or even limits this as a choice. If it is limitless -- which it is not -- how will the James provide the "safe yield" in times of drought, when other localities’ withdrawals as well as the landscape and climate drive its levels down?

What nobody willing to say is that water, like land, is ultimately finite, no matter its source. I am eager to hear you, our elected officials, be courageous enough to admit this fact and move forward with a process which acknowledges the need – and the ability – of this community to improve its stewardship of the Rivanna and its watershed – especially the upper watershed which presently feeds our reservoirs. With increased vigilance in maintaining and increasing stream buffers, with a full-court press of public outreach and education on the hydrology of this area and the effect of land use patterns on both water quality and quantity, I have no doubt that this "world class city," and it’s enlightened neighbors, can make great strides in reducing per capita use of water, decreasing the rate the sedimentation into our existing reservoirs, and improving the overall water quality in our watershed.

We are a community that did, when required, go to extremes to conserve water, when our reservoirs fell to 60% of their capacity during the 2002 drought. We can continue to let fear drive the search for the solution. A reliance on numbers alone, such as the RWSA study has provided, doesn’t do justice to the good will and strong desire to "do right" which is present in our community. As the elected body for this city, I urge you lead this community towards creative solutions for continuing our capacity to conserve – to frame the discussion as "wise use" as opposed to "limitation" and to choose a combination of alternatives for storage that keeps our water source wholly within our watershed and jurisdictional control.

To recognize our limits – and to work within them – this is the real opportunity and challenge of the present water supply planning process.

Leslie Middleton
Charlottesville, VA

Growth, short-sighted decisions, and land-use change are the causes of our projected water shortages. The alternatives that Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority suggest aim to accommodate future growth while ignoring the real issues of sedimentation and the services that natural environments play. RWSA offers no plan for water conservation, protection of the source water in the watershed, nor comment on growth that is stressing our water supply. The alternatives suggest more impact on the sensitive landscape, with more erosion and more pressure on the watershed system.

The RWSA's approach comes with a high price tag without ensuring better long-term water quality. Added developments will irreversibly change the landscape and mobilize more sediment and pollutants into streams, rivers, and reservoirs. What benefit will County and City residents gain from a short-sighted approach that will indirectly promote over-consumption of a finite water supply, or create future battles with neighboring counties tapping into a shared water resource like the James River? The City and County's public water supply, as well as the numerous rural well-water users gain much benefit from the free services that forests and natural environments provide in delivery of adequate supplies of high water quality to wells and reservoirs. Where is the integrative resource management approach that County engineers have suggested? Numerous scientific and public documents advise on protection of source water, yet RWSA offers only short-sighted, costly engineering solutions toward a landscape water-supply problem - definitely a step backward from their former exemplary role, in an era when society should know better.

Citizens for Albemarle support staying within our watershed, and dredging and installing bladders for the South Fork Reservoir. To achieve a sustainable public water supply and maintain water quality, such an approach must be accompanied by a land-use watershed-protection plan for the source water system. A watershed advisory group, in consultation with the County's Rural Areas Plan, could provide advice on appropriate land-use decisions to safeguard our reservoirs, streams, and waterways from excessive and costly sediment and water-quality problems. In this era of water-supply problems, such an approach could make RWSA a model in water supply management.

Gentlemen:

As a long time resident I am very concerned at your failure to take significant action to solve the impending water storage in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. I well remember the worry, discomfort and financial loss this community suffered only two years ago as a result of the drought. Now we are supporting an ever increasing number of area residents. We all know that another period of drought is inevitable. The only meaningful action taken to date has been to raise our water rates in anticipation of future financial needs. I realize how long it will take to secure the appropriate authorizations and easements before any plan can be implemented. Accordingly, I urge you to move ahead and make a decision quickly.

Sincerely,
Jane Grinnell

The RWSA consultants, Gannett Fleming, have apparently produced a very professional analysis, with various proposals and detailed reports giving background information, costs and pros and cons in their study of a future water supply plan for our urban area. They have closely followed their technical charge in presenting the factual data and best estimates of their findings and have narrowed the recommendations down to nine alternatives.

The time for a final choice is fast approaching. However, one of the important elements (which was not included in the technical charge to the consultants) in any final major decision should be the ‘intangibles" – which can have severe implications for future generations.

The list below states some of these "intangibles" which should be seriously considered in deliberations by elected officials before a final decision. Many were heard from residents, concerned with any water supply solution affecting our highly valued quality of life.

• Not increasing the ease of generating potential overall population growth, particularly in rural areas – perception for James River option;
• Not increasing the ease for generating potential for increased traffic congestion – perception for James River option;
• Using our best quality raw water supplies when possible and therefore the lowest treatment operating costs;
• Not drinking effluent from up-steam localities;
• Using good stewardship (installing better sedimentation procedures and maintenance dredging) of our local resources to reduce sedimentation loading.
• Not enduring undue noise, sound, or bad odor sources;
• Not enduring noticeable (or perceived) change in smell, taste or color of drinking water;
• Not enhancing susceptibility to terrorists actions (such as ease of damaging the main water source, i.e., James River pipe line at remote unmanned pumping stations or along exposed pipeline at stream crossings, etc.);
• Not becoming entangled in regional operations – always difficult and not as efficient as completely local control;
• Required use of maximum "safe-yield" occurs very infrequently, for severe droughts maybe every 50 to 70 years, thus the perception is that a pipe line to the James River would be used very infrequently (like the flood pumps in Scottsville);
• Not losing recreation, fishing, boating, and hiking opportunities are extremely important; and
• Having open and frank meetings with the public, with no rush to decision making.

In addition to concerns about the intangibles listed above, some of the assumptions made in the 2055 Water Demand analysis, which then determines the additional safe-yield requirement of 9.9 MGD, should be closely scrutinized.

• The consultant utilized historical water demand data through 2001, analyzed trends and assumed water conservation measures would reduce future demands by 5%. The average monthly water demand after the 2002 drought is much less than 5% (~5% to ~15% compared to three years just prior to the drought), but only two years have passed since the severe drought of 2002. More time is required to determine the effect of continued conservation efforts on future water usage. A 10% to 15% long term reduction in usage would significantly decrease the additional safe-yield of 9.9 MGD now required.
• The sedimentation rate of the SFRR was assumed to continue at the estimated current rate of 15.1 MG per year. This would account for nearly 50% of the deficit of the additional 9.9 MGD safe yield required in 2055. More stringent Best Management Practices with agriculture and farms and a reduced development rate in the watershed could further decrease the 9.9 MGD deficit predicted for 2005.

With no immediate need to expand our water supply, other than repair the Ragged Mountain dams, possibly a less comprehensive interim option could be implemented. Then, after several years of carefully monitoring the area growth, observing effects of longer term water use conservation efforts, making stronger efforts to reduce sedimentation, and further investigation of maintenance dredging, the water demand calculations for 2055 could be re-visited to determine the next major water supply project.

Robert R. Humphris, Sr.
Charlottesville, VA

We have a fabulous watershed in this region, with reservoirs that have the potential to provide all the water we need now, and in the future. They are fed by mountain streams, they need to be maintained, and dredging is one of the ways to do that. Let's not lose sight of the opportunity to be innovative, creating economically enhancing methods to dispose of the dredge material.

I support the water supply options which protect our local watershed, taken in small, incremental steps, all the while educating the public to continue water conservation. If I had my way, we would be conserving water every moment, vigorously and forever.

I do not support the option of a pipeline to the James River. We do not need it now. We would never need it if we adhere to the very sound idea of preserving and enlarging our local water supply capacity.

Please help us believe you want what's best for our community by keeping our water supply here.

I want to thank you for all your efforts, Martha Levering

After attending your public forum and reviewing your information, I have reached the following conclusions:

1. I oppose ANY alternative that includes a pipeline from the James River.
   Though you have tabulated certain environmental risks with these proposals, no one appears to be considering the risk to the James River, Rivanna River, and Chesapeake Bay overall. Many localities already draw from the James, and supposedly many more counties and cities will dip their straw in the James in the future. Even if we never run the James dry, like the Colorado River, having so many large withdrawals from the James MUST have a deleterious affect on the river’s ecology, plant, and animal life. Not to mention the large, unnatural amounts of water that would be flushed back down the Rivanna.
   1. The water from the James will never be as pure, safe, and good tasting as water from our own streams and reservoirs.
   3. We simply should learn to live within the means of our own watershed. This will prevent fighting with other localities in the future.
   4. I think the idea of using the pipeline as a Regional water supply is a horrible one. We should be concerned with supplying the urban Charlottesville area, not providing water to other places. This overabundance of water is nothing but an excuse to spur rabid sprawl into our rural areas anyway.
2. Though I’m positive about what we shouldn’t do, I’m not as certain as to which alternative is the right one. Overall the Ragged Mountain stand alone alternative seems to be the best option. It is inexpensive, and uses an existing reservoir. Serious environmental damage was done years ago when the reservoir was first built, so I don’t think losing a few more feet of stream is that bad in comparison to everything else. Also the loss of walking trails is not important in the overall scope of this process. Those trails have only existed a few years anyway, and can be rebuilt (and I personally walk those trails all the time).
3. In general, I could live with any of the alternatives that don’t involved the James River pipeline. We have existing, working, wonderful reservoirs, and I don’t believe we should abandon them at this point. I do see the case for dredging. What could be worse environmentally than flooding these valleys years ago, just to end their usefulness as reservoirs now, then causing more environmental damage elsewhere with a new reservoir or drawing from other rivers? We should maintain our reservoirs, including the SFRR.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Darren Pace

Tapping in on this email vehicle to commend RWSA on the quality and demeanor of presentations on January 6 and 20th. While not yet knowledgeable enough to formulate my own opinion I am confident that the concepts, public participants, and upcoming meetings with Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and ACSA will enable me to do so.

Of greater interest will be seeing how RWSA including Board of Directors (and perhaps citizens advisory members) guide this in a publicly visible decision making process. Unlike the presentation or alternatives several years ago (where in my opinion the Board presented nothing more than a gridlock) I hope the current process will result in a clear win-win goal with a committed schedule.

Sensing that the outcome of this water supply program will finally conclude with the demise of the SFRR over some period of time, I am curious if any concept has the ability to take SFRR off line to enhance the ability for dredging at a lower cost. Doubting that the silted soil could be compacted on its own merits for airport runway extension, the observation by a retired lawyer that the airport has a significant need for soil was interesting.

I am not expecting (undemanding) a response as the intent of this message is to compliment RWSA for their approach in presenting the four concepts for addressing water supply. Well done (good and faithful public servants).

Sandy Lambert

I saw the program on the drain from the James and once I got thinking about it felt that a public river, downstream from Lynchburg might not be a good source for water. There's the potential for all sorts of chemicals in it that we're not testing or screening for. The potential for "clean" water is far greater by expanding our current reservoirs or building an additional one. It also seems better to be controlling the water supply than to be sharing it with others as would be the case with the James. In addition, I've seen the James get quite low during periods of drought so when we'd need it most, it would fade away. Basically, I'd vote against the James as an addition to our water supply.

Jonathon D. Earl, Ph.D.
Management Analyst
Albemarle County Police Department

I am a County resident and strongly believe that our water should be kept LOCAL. The water from the James is of questionable quality, with documented presence of PCBs and dioxin. The LOCAL water is of high quality and does not contain all the impurities that flow down the James from Lynchburg and other localities geographically up river from our area. Keeping our water local ensures healthier water which will continue to make the Charlottesville area one of the best places to live in the country.

Also, crossing another county to bring water to our area is putting the control of the basic necessity for life out of our local control. If we keep our water local then no one else can prohibit our access to it.

Sincerely,
Paula Mehring

download Acrobat Reader

download MS Word Reader

download MS PowerPoint Reader