Virginia regulations would govern storm runoff

Storm water runoff is a technical term for a big environmental problem:

When it rains, oil, fertilizer, animal waste, chemicals, dirt, garbage and other contaminants on land are whisked away and emptied, almost untouched, into public waterways, including creeks, marshes and the ocean.

Runoff from development sites - open fields, lots, construction zones - is the fastest-growing source of water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay today, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Nearly everyone agrees that more needs to be done to curb such pollution.

Hardly anyone agrees on how to do it.

Now, after four years of debate and study, Virginia is proposing new, stricter and complex rules governing storm water runoff. Not surprisingly, battle lines are being drawn.

The state has scheduled five public hearings across the state this month on its recommendations.

The only one in Hampton Roads is tonight at 7 p.m., at Hampton City Hall. Written comments will be accepted through Aug. 21.

Under state law, the rules cannot take effect earlier than July 2010.

The stakes are high: the proposed regulations would dictate how new homes, roads, offices and shopping centers are built, where new development occurs and how redevelopment happens in cities and towns.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has touted the rules as vital in accelerating efforts to crack down on nutrient pollution and restore healthy water quality in the Chesapeake Bay.

While storm water regulation has been a way of life in eastern Virginia since 1988, the rest of the state has been immune - until now.

The regulations would require every locality to manage a runoff permitting program or, absent that, allow the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to do so.

Generally speaking, environmental groups, scientists and state regulators support the tougher approach, which includes incentives to use environmentally sensitive design and building methods, such as green roofs, rain gardens and porous concrete.

"We're pretty happy with how things turned out," said Mike Gerel, a senior scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Virginia, who helped craft the regulations on various state-sponsored committees in recent years.

Builders and developers, on the other hand, say the recommended system, while well-intentioned, would cost too much for too little ecological payoff and comes at an inopportune time of economic recession.

The Home Builders Association of Virginia compared the costs for storm water compliance at a redevelopment site on Atlantic Avenue in Virginia Beach. The result: $80,000 under the current rules, $2 million under the proposed ones.

"It's cost-prohibitive," said Barrett Hardiman, vice president of regulatory affairs for the state builders association. "I mean, we recognize we are contributing to the problem here, but we worry that they're asking us to spend money no one has."

T here are also underlying concerns of logic and fairness.

"Help me understand how a homeowner can spread as much phosphorus-rich fertilizer on his lawn as he wants, and we, as developers, have to pay thousands of dollars to remove each pound of phosphorus on a new housing site - on that same lawn?" asked Andy Herr, vice president of land development for The Terry Peterson Companies in Virginia Beach.

One of the proposals is a reduction in phosphorus, by almost half the current standard, that can legally wash off a new construction site.

Other highlights of the program include:

- Creating a new method for calculating the volume of storm water coming off each site, called "the runoff reduction method." This essentially requires project engineers to figure out how much water might exit their site and then show how they intend to reduce it.

- Allowing developers who cannot meet state standards to buy storm water "credits" or "offsets." They could purchase or trade these credits from other developers who have achieved their goals and have room to spare.

- Opponents are floating a counterproposal, with more offsets and less strict standards for phosphorus. And they also say friends in the General Assembly are willing to help, if need be.

"This is such an expensive and damaging regulation package," Hardiman said. "So we're willing to do what we need to do to get something reasonable in place."

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com