HOME | CONTACT | WRITE TO THE EDITOR | WORK AT C-VILLE
cville.acac.com
 
Issue #21.36 :: 09/08/2009 - 09/14/2009
Virginia may tighten screws on runoff pollution

Slutzky cautions new regs may end up causing sprawl

BY ERIKA HOWSARE

Here’s a riddle. When is rainfall bad for the environment? Answer: when it becomes “stormwater runoff,” washing sediment and excess nutrients off yards and fields, then into streams, rivers and eventually the Chesapeake Bay.

 

Under new regulations to reduce stormwater runoff, the site at 301 W. Main St. would be required to reduce phosphorus runoff by 20 percent. Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center says that such reductions can be achieved by installing green roofs and harvesting rainwater, among other things.

Such pollution is a complex problem that has many sources and degrades many points downstream, so it’s fair to say the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has a tough job trying to stop it. One measure DCR is taking right now is a set of proposed changes to the way it regulates stormwater management on developed lands.

Now here’s another riddle. When are pollution controls bad for the environment? According to some local watchers, they could be harmful if—in seeking to protect the bay—they end up promoting sprawl instead.

The most obvious target of the regulations: sizeable new projects on undeveloped land. David Slutzky, chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, mentions North Pointe (a major development off Route 29N, within one of the county’s designed growth areas) as an example of the type of project that could suffer from what he sees as potential unintended consequences of DCR’s plan. If developers become subject to tighter controls on the amount of sediment and phosphorus that can legally wash off their land, he worries, they’ll be forced to downsize the density of their projects or, in extreme cases, scrap them altogether.

“‘I can’t afford to move forward. This is no longer an economically viable development project,’” Slutzky envisions developers saying. “[Then] a large tract of land just sits in the growth area.” In turn, he says, growth will be pushed into rural areas, contributing to sprawl.

Writing as a private citizen, Slutzky submitted comments to this effect during DCR’s public comment period, which ended August 21. Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center expects that a compromise will be struck in which developers unable to meet DCR requirements through on-site measures (which might include rain gardens, rainwater harvesting, green roofs and other practices) could buy credits instead. Slutzky has argued for developers being given off-site options like paying into a DCR fund, or contributing money to changes in the agricultural sector, another major source of runoff pollution.

What about the city?

The proposed changes would also affect redevelopment sites in urban areas—for example, the 1.03-acre lot at the corner of W. Main Street and Ridge/McIntire, where a furniture store has recently opened and a nine-story condo-and-retail project was proposed as recently as June 2008. (Plans are still pending; the last developer to present plans to the city, EDC in Richmond, is no longer working with the site, and architects Morrison Seifert Murphy did not return calls by press time. CBRE lists the property, which also includes an unused brick garage, for $4.8 million.)

An almost entirely paved site, under the proposed regs 301 W. Main St. would be subject to requirements that phosphorus runoff be reduced by 20 percent, double the reduction currently required. Butler says there are a number of ways to do this on-site, including green roofs and rainwater harvesting. “Even beyond that, there are other safety valves that DCR is putting into the regulations,” he says.

If those safety valves end up reducing pollution on faraway farms rather than on-site at W. Main Street, it will help the bay but not its local tributaries. According to Butler, both the EPA and the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have declared an 11-mile stretch of the Rivanna River to be impaired by sedimentation.

And of the three main sources of nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake—sewage treatment, agricultural runoff and stormwater runoff—it’s the last area, says Butler, where the problem is getting worse instead of better. “The state has made progress on reducing the first two, but the amount of nutrient pollution on developed lands continues to increase,” he says. “It’s outweighing progress made on the other two fronts. It’s critical that something be done on this piece of the problem.”

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.

 
Comments
hmm, pretty significant daisy chain logic there from Supervisor Slutzky. rather than developers controlling pollution, they contribute more sprawl as an alternative? not sure that is easy swallowed as an excuse or rationalization or whatever. just who is Supervisor Slutzky seeking to protect with his position?
Sean ThomesSeptember 8th, 2009 11:27am
So if a building has a green roof in order to reduce the runoff then doesn't that mean that all the crap from the parking lot will still runoff into the streams but not benefitted with the dilution of the roofs water? Maybe the solution is to figure out a way to continously harvest the sediment to be used as fertilzer, sort of like a brillo pad that gets weaker with age but still works...
justadummySeptember 9th, 2009 08:14pm
The DEQ and DCR should be trying to stop the proposed PATH powerline that will run through Frederick County. Allegheny Power will be destroying miles of trees and other vegitation with poisionous chemicals that will run into our many creeks, streams and rivers and eventually make its way to the Chesapeak. The power line is not needed and onlyn makes money for the power companies. Virginian's are the big losers.
Lynda from FrederickSeptember 10th, 2009 09:29pm
Slutzky is right about his concerns. The market impact study for the proposed regulations also warns of encouraging sprawl, and many other environmental and smart growth groups have raised similar issues. Common sense says that if you require each site to be as much like nature as possible, you will end up with low-density sites spread throughout the landscape ... and the immense automotive infrastructure necessary to move between them. DCR is reportedly taking this very seriously as they revise the language. The bottom line is that stormwater is a transportation issue. period. Bruce Ferguson, an authority on stormwater management: "The runoff and pollution from a contemporary city result not so much from the number of human beings, as from the lavish support given to their automobiles in land use and land development."
DanSeptember 11th, 2009 09:37am
Stormwater has the potential to be an asset captured as water in a cistern is precious. I am in the market to introduce a product from ABTECHINDUSTRIES.com. The SMART Sponge that removes hydrocarbons (at the stormdrain) and captures them by adsorption not absortion and can be disposed of as a solid or burned for BTU content. The Smart Sponge can remove a fair amount of phosphorus(over 20%) and is really effective in killing bacteria as well as E-COLI. My Email is charlesbtaylor@gmail.com
Charles B TaylorSeptember 11th, 2009 10:32am
Other communities have strict storm water management regulations, and they have had them in effect for decades. Mr. Slutzky could have researched if these strict regulations have increased sprawl in those communities before making his statement. The county/city could decrease the amount of parking required per square ft. of office or retail space. This is what really causes sprawl.
BrianSeptember 11th, 2009 11:33am
The potential for value added amenities low impact development provides will make developers partial to these practices, not run away from them. If you read about green roofs today, you see they are looked at as assets developers sell as amenities to their clients. The green roof in tandem with pervious pavement in sidewalks and parking spaces has the potential to reduce pollution in our water, increase property value, and grow denser communities. Some things like pavement is still being figured out. But the idea is straight forward. We have to develop a permeable skin that mimics the forests and wetland we paved over when we made our settlements, suburbs, cities.
Tim ColmanOctober 8th, 2009 06:47am
Have your say
*
*
*
Your comment will be displayed after it has been reviewed by our editors. Please refer to our comments policy if you have any questions, or email editor@c-ville.com.
C-VILLE site search by Charlottesville's Best News and Entertainment
www.facebook.com/pages/Charlottesville-VA/jean-theory/1274017519
petitbebe.com/
www.secondstreetgallery.org
www.regionten.org/
www.nestrealtygroup.com/
www.eagleslandingva.com
jeffersontheater.com
Circulation VerifiedCopyright © 2010, Portico Publications
Copyright Info | Portico Corporate
Powered by PLANet w3 CMS Content Management System
PLANet Systems Group 2010