Upper Swift Creek Plan: Waters not Troubled but Murky

Last night the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors continued the saga of addressing the Upper Swift Creek watershed and the often revised Upper Swift Creek Plan. The newly, and I mean that rather matter of factly given changes and wording considerations construed on the fly at the session, formed amendment passed the Board 4-1*. The lone descent was Supervisor Dorothy Jaeckle (R) of Bermuda.

*Jaeckle may take some heat on this but her vote really was merely a vote against the process by which this vote came about...she is absolutely right in that a public hearing and meeting should not be used as a modified work session to tweaked something to be voted on that night. I applaud her for her stand on this ground.

This night was not a night to introduce young people to the venue and dilemma of local politics. I sat uncomfortably at times during this session with the manner in which our public officials conducted business. This matter regarding the Upper Swift Creek Watershed is a vital piece of governance and though I am quite sure alot of time and effort was set forth on behalf of the measure, I do not believe the actions undertaken by this Board last night due justice to the importance such a measure brings to Chesterfield. I am not criticizing the vote in terms of the term "action", but the manner in which this vote came to reality on this given night.

The watershed issue is nothing new. On Feburary 13, 1991 Chesterfield adopted the first Upper Swift Creek Plan. It was later amended once before in October, 2007. The goal has been to pay close attention to the impacts of land-use distribution in this 57 square mile area and its impqacts on the Swift Creek Reservoir supplying roughly then 25% of Chesterfield drinking water. Now, in 2008 The USCP has become a growth management boundary set as a measure in all purposes to limit or delay growth in the watershed, less as a direct result of water quality, but more as how such land distribution will impact services. The biggest service being public education.

While you had many speak to the importance of environmental standards, most speakers last night took on the plan from either a school capacity LOS (level of service) or a property right perspective. Of course, these things are very important to citizens of Chesterfield, bit what I think was lost and is being lost is the direct correlation between increased land distribution through residential and commercial zoning cases and the phosphorus levels with the Swift Creek Reservoir.

Back in 1992, the Board sought to indentify and address the pollutant issue and the effciency of the removal of phosphorus levels from the drinking water resource through what became known as Best Management Practices (BMP). By 1997, the Board had inacted "phosphorus laws" to manage the pollution issue and address some of the concerns regarding pollution. This pollution is a key barometer in evaluating water quality and was addressed back in 1993 when the Board sought to evaluate the guidelines that should be used when taking consideration of new, large scale zoning cases that may impact the watershed. It was around this time that the Watershed Management Committee(WMC) was established to review these concerns and make recomendations for moving forward. One of the speakers last night, Mr. Tom Pakurar, was on that very committee years ago.

Mr. Pakurar is now affiliated with Hands Across the Lake, a non-profit community-based organization here in Chesterfield concerned with the watershed and the impacts of growth on both the quality of life and the water quality of the watershed. Mr. Pakurar is a water quality expert and holds affiliations with such groups as the Sierra Club and the Virginia Conservation Network. His efforts since retiring from Dupont as a scientist has helped shape this debate regarding the future of the watershed.

The future is what we should be concerned about. Not the past inadquecies of previous Boards and not the in-fighting between this Board and its Planning Commission and not the rather tepid demeanor expressed towards fellow Board members. Afterall, could not the watershed potentially become another Falling Creek?

Again, I do not intend on implying any real empirical knowledge with regard to water quality. I leave that to Mr. Pakurar and our environmental engineers, but what I do know as someone who enjoys spending time out on Swift Creek and Lake Chesdin that if anyone of our politcians really wanted to wake up from the "just build it" pills they have been consuming for decades all they would really need to do is spend a day out on these two bodies of water after heavy stormfronts our droughts.

I do not need some debated computer modeling of pollution to tell me anything I cannot see with my very own eyes witnessing the runoff into our resources. There is greater run-off at swift Creek than Chesdin in large part because of the growth experienced. But are we not hell bent on repeating this at Chesdin. Are we not beginning to build out more and more on that system. Are we not contining to zone developments like Chesdin Landing there? Take a look at the the BMP's and ponds asscoaited with the tributaries of Swioft Creek after the next major storms. If they continue to look like this:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5234/1409/1600/img-3001.0.5pg

We will certainly be in trouble. And what about that drought period we experienced where Chesdin saw its water level drop substantially last year. Were any test conducted on the clay bottom area to determine exactly how much pollutant the reservoir itself could absorb versus the ponds or BMP's?

In 2005, Supervisor Dan Gecker when addressing concerns of Mr. Tom Pakurar and the pollution issue stated that he "respectfully disagreed with the suggestion we (the County) start by measuring BMP efficiency". Now in 2008, exactly what model are we using? In 2005 CH2MHill consulted on the pollutant issue regarding the watershed and its findings have been highly criticized by many reviewing the impacts of phosphorus on the watershed.

Mr Gecker in responding to Mr. Pakurar in 2005 also went on to say that "once the in-lake phosphorus exceeds a certain level, the lake is dead and cannot be revived. The question of whether we could hit that level before we reach full build out is obviously of grave concern."

So exactly what is the level of "full-buildout". Since this statement It is my contention that we have experienced even greater development approvals on a large scale basis. In this watershed or at the very least on its fringes we got the expansion of Charter Colony, Magnolia Green, Roseland (potentially), Watkins Center, growth all along Otterdale, Winterpock, and Woolridge roads.

Are we there yet Mr. Gecker?

Look I am no expert, but when the tributaries and the ponds are more a less a mix of coffee and cream it does not take a PHD to come to the conclusion that the pollutants are not be absorded effciently enough to standard. I am not talking political standard either. Are these ponds settling? if the soil particles are not settling then there should be grave concern. Both the EPA and the State DCR have requirements for this. Are the ponds more efficient today?

It seesm to me we should be focusing on:

1. Protecting our Water resource above developmental concerns or build-out goals
2. Focus on Long-term Care of our resources and passing ordinances as such
3.Address potential excessive pollutants and impacts on our resources as a result of land distribution and zoning cases.
4. Address the number of BMP required to adequeting and efficiently service our resources and re-evaluate them routinely after major economic or environmental developments.
*for example the County should budget today for a study ten years out to address what impacts the growth in the watershed has had since the last real study
5. We need to move past the "modeling" component of how we are gauging levels and move into the reality component stage.

Everyone seems to want some real predictive anaylsis but in all honesty get out there on the water and experience the resource yourself throughout the year and years ahead and you will see the changes to the environment. They say nothing is certain except for change, but we can help to shape that change. We only need the will to do so.

I remember Brandermill in 1982 and remember later the debates over the Harbor Pointe's build out decades ago and with every new zoning case and commercial development the Swift Creek Reservoir has been impacted and will continue to do so. So while we navigate the hornets nest of Levels of Service standards and the over capacity of our schools we must realize that these things are controllable if we place the people in the position of leadership who intend to control them. Many of our leadership, not all, have short memories with regard to the County. Maybe they themselves relocated here in the midst of this great trend in our growth or maybe the dynamic is such that this build out is neccessary, but if we truly want to be a "First Community" of choice we need to look deeper at ourselves and take all of our resources into consideration when moving forward.