Cities and counties across Hampton Roads are opposing proposed state rules intended to curb storm water runoff from development and construction sites - a major pollution source in the Chesapeake Bay.
On Wednesday night, the Suffolk City Council passed a resolution urging the draft rules be revised, saying that without changes, the regulations would cost too much to implement, significantly increase new housing costs, and encourage urban sprawl.
Virginia Beach and Chesapeake have sent letters to the state Department of Conservation and Recreation expressing similar misgivings. And the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission is recommending revisions as well.
The commission, which represents local governments throughout the region, including Norfolk and Portsmouth, argues that the regulations as currently drafted contradict "smart growth" principles espoused by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and "would likely eliminate the option of affordable housing" in urban areas, according to an Aug. 11 letter to state regulators.
The criticism comes as the state is wrapping up its public-comment period on the proposed runoff rules, which took nearly four years to write but cannot be implemented until July 2010 at the earliest.
Also this week, 60 state and local environmental groups sent a letter to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine praising his administration for pushing the regulations to the forefront and recommending speedy approval of them.
Storm water runoff "is the greatest threat to the health of Virginia's waterways - smothering aquatic life, damaging navigation channels and drinking water supplies, and devastating vital fishery and economies," wrote the groups, including Lynnhaven River Now in Virginia Beach, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club.
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.
One of the specific proposals is a much tougher standard for phosphorus, a nutrient that in excess damages water quality. Developers would have to cut phosphorus concentrations in any storm water washing from work sites nearly in half.
The draft rules also would require every locality to manage a permitting program for storm water impacts or, absent that, to allow the state Department of Conservation and Recreation to do so.
And they would include incentives for builders to use more environmentally sensitive techniques, such as green roofs, rain gardens and porous concrete. The rules also would allow developers to buy, sell and trade runoff "credits" that come when such techniques are employed.
While applauding the intention of the proposals, local officials say the rules would force them to hire additional staff at a time of stressed budgets and would hike development costs in urban areas so much that builders would simply move their projects to cheaper, rural sites - hence, exaggerating urban sprawl.
"Maybe these new regs should be given a shorter name - something like 'The Urban Sprawl Incentive Initiative,' " said George Nyfeler, a branch manager of McCrone Inc., a civil engineering firm.
Joe Lerch, director of environmental policy for the Virginia Municipal League, said the state needs to "allow greater flexibility" for urban cities so their staffs can work with developers to build cost-effective projects and still curb runoff.
Lerch said the localities in Hampton Roads are not the only ones complaining about the proposed regulations: "We're hearing the same concerns pretty much across the state."
Dave Dowling, policy and planning director for the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, said he understands the complaints and is willing to negotiate amendments with local officials in the coming months.
"For the most part, these are issues we can address," Dowling said.
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Green Ribbon task force at the Beach
Regretfully, there is a lot of emotion and misinformation posted herein. As a developer who must comply with tough standards for new development, frankly, we pose no objection to the current standards which have been toughened to the point that no more storm water leaves our sites than would leave the site in its undeveloped state. The problem is that those who built projects pre say 1989, these projects, residential and commercial alike, basically pipe storm water into the bay. So if we really want improvement in water quality, we need to retrofit 80% of the real estate in the developed part of the city. That is a herculean task, and the green ribbon task force has addressed this issue with city staff and council and has made significant recommendations which have yet to be implemented. Frankly, funding these recommendations will actually immediately improve water quality; these new proposed regs will just paper over the existing problems.
So whose money is it going to be?
"Frankly, funding these recommendations will actually immediately improve water quality; these new proposed regs will just paper over the existing problems."
We have an agreement.
It's about MONEY!
Who is making the money now?
That's where it should come from.
If Chesapeake City Council
does not want it, then I am all for it. That pack of snakes only wants one thing: a fully paved Chesapeake. The more city councils that complain the better these new rules must be.
Regulate Impervious Surfaces
Older suburban areas that have enough yard area to absorb runoff from roofs and driveways and farmland have a minimal impact because a lawn can absorb at least 80% of the stormwater. Newer development such as the mcmansions in Chesapeake and VA Beach, and dense mixed use development typically have more roof surface area and pavement per lot size. We don't even have curbing or storm drains on my street and we're in a flood zone. Our flooding doesn't come from the nearby canal. We get flooding from other neighborhoods that have their storm drains routed to discharge in our neighborhood. Isn't it great that local governments are so concerned about the REAL culprit...GREED. Let's build as much as we can on a postage stamp piece of property...then we can tax'em more. The old homeowners will get tired of the traffic and sell out to even more development..then we can tax'em even more! It's sad but true that the majority of corrupt government is located at city hall...not the White House or governors mansion.
STM WTR
The SW pipe at the end of our street has been clogged up with mud and silt for decades. When we have a big rain event, the street floods. The City comes out now and then to flush it out, but the mud quickly fills the pipe since the pipe is lower than the mud and silt level. The only solution is to dredge our Creek, but who want's to pay for that?
If the residents pool dredging funding together, the City is OK with that. Why? They would want to raise our taxes for having deep water access! Go Figure!
One more thing
Anybody who argues against clean water is suspect. That includes the city mouthpieces who have a vested interest in the status quo.
Mr Wizard
Your logic is seriously flawed: you assume that anyone who opposes these regulations opposes clean water. That is so typical of the depths to which political debate has fallen in this country. In truth, one can be for clean water - is anyone really against clean water? - and still oppose these regulations. There are other ways to achieve what needs to be achieved to clean up our waterways.
These regs do not address two major contributors to water pollution - runoff of chemicals and waste from farmlands, and suburban lawn fertilizers. Instead, these regs place burdens so onerous and expensive on new development, or redevelopment, that this part of our economy, already seriously damaged, will grind almost to a halt. Some shortsighted folks will think that's great. However, if redevelopment of blighted areas is too expensive, the blighted areas will remain. If development on expensive land is now even more expensive with these regs, developers, tenants and homebuyers will look for cheaper land, which is usually out on the urban periphery, and we will get both more sprawl and more traffic.
In addition, the science behind these regs is flawed. In fact, the Technical Adviso
We are all at fault
"Storm water runoff “is the greatest threat to the health of Virginia’s waterways – smothering aquatic life, damaging navigation channels and drinking water supplies, and devastating vital fishery and economies,” wrote the groups, including Lynnhaven River Now in Virginia Beach, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club."
Nobody wants to do anything about this issue. Just read who is lined up against it. EVERYBODY! Especially those who are doing the major polluting.
Why? MONEY.
So the bay is dead and people are dying from swimming in its waters.
Laws need to be made and enforced to stop the stormwater runoff.
That will never happen.
A little confused.
Why is there no outcry for the greedy developers' obscene profits....they are just as greedy as the lefts' chosen insurance CEOs.
Why not just put a hold on any new projects until all empty homes and strip malls are either refurbished and filled with tenants and new owners or rehabilitated to current day standards? Just make less like the rest of us.
Storm Water
There are so many problems associated with how our cities are dealing with storm water. First, they are allowing urban sprawl. The leaders in Virginia Beach have never met a building that wasn't approved. In addition, they just want to get rid of the water as soon as possible without finding alternative plans. This means that if you live near a body of water, you can bet that the city will collect all rain water and shoot it out into the body of water. Do they put it through any cleaning process? NO! Finally, when they collect the water, they want to get rid of it in the cheapest way possible.....not the best way. There are many devices for cleaning storm water but no one in VA uses it. Look at several cities in CA that use a "sponge" that removes all the oil and chemicals. Now they are trying the argument that this will prevent building affordable housing. We all know what kind of housing they are interested in creating. Nice try. Norfolk and Virginia Beach believe in sending the water out into the ocean or bay. I have a question for them...when all that junk (dog poop, fertilizers, oil, cigaretes...)get thrown out into the body of water, where does it go? All you ha
No New Taxes!!
Similar to the Spanish-American War tax on communications, taxes are not temporary, and seldom are those funds dedicated to the purpose for which they were instituted. SOMEDAY, America will wake up, and realize that the only way to bring government under control, is to strip government's ability to tax us at free will, without the absolute consent of the taxpayers. Until then, we are bond-servants. Nothing more than food for the power brokers in office.
Sends a great meassage. . .
Yea, it's fine to pollute the Bay and whatever. The State needs to get these regulations in ASAP, and begin heavily fining for non-compliance. It's unacceptable to allow this type of (or any other) pollution. Nice to see the State doing something positive.
counter productive
Let's address the real issue, which is development that occurred twenty or more years ago when the standard for dealing with storm water was to install asphalt and concrete to move the water as fast and as efficiently as possible to the nearest outfall and thence into the creek, river, and bay. That has not been allowed at the Beach, and most other cities in this region, for over a decade. New development now must use best management practices so that no more pollutants leave the site in its developed state than would have left the site if it were undeveloped. The main problem is the legacy development (think Pembroke Mall), and if the Commonwealth were serious about run off in urban areas, they would create a fiscal system with tax incentives to stimulate retro fitting. Instead, they have created a system to make developers spread out to low cost areas, and they have not addressed the source of urban run off. That is counter productive.
Storm -water Tax
Big surprise! The local governments were squandering our storm-water tax dollars. Now they have to "pony up" instead of using the money for pet projects and padding the pockets of developers.
Don't think so.
That's not quite how it will work. The cities have squandered our storm-water tax dollars (that part I will agree with) but that money is now gone and there will need to be a new influx of money. Can everybody say storm-water tax increase?