Memo #1
Issue Summary
41,000 acres of land were officially downzoned as a new measure to protect the Occoquan Reservoir in 1982. This policy implemented a limit on the amount of housing built in the area, and introduced stringent restrictions on stormwater runoff. Since then the population has steadily increased, while restrictions on development have remained. Water quality has improved significantly since the 1982 ruling was emplaced. This has resulted in the demand for reduced restrictions for development purposes.
Background
The Occoquan Reservoir constitutes one of the major sources of water in Northern Virginia. Today it provides 160 million gallons of treated water to a population of around 2 million people.[1] Water in the Occoquan Reservoir was severely polluted in the 1960s and 70s. Improvements to water quality were a result of the implementation of water treatment centers, as well as controls on development.[2] The Corbalis and Griffith treatment centers currently monitor 182 different contaminants in drinking water.[3] The downzoning in 1982 was part of a series of initiatives to reduce the amount of runoff that had been attributed to increasing pollution in the Occoquan Reservoir. The downzoning limited 1 household per 5 acres of land instead of 1 house per acre.[4] Stormwater controls were recommended due to increasing phosphorus and nitrogen, which made the Occoquan Reservoir the second most polluted lake in Virginia.3 Population increases in the county have added new development pressures. About 85% of homes built in Centreville alone have occurred since the 1980s.2 With this increase in population, nutrient and sediment runoff will continue to affect water quality in the Occoquan Reservoir. Storage capacity as well becomes an issue as water use increases, with 0.2 BG loss of storage capacity in 1995.3
Policy Options
Maintain current zoning and storm runoff restrictions.
Allow development within the R-C District. Less than 24% of the land is vacant or underutilized.4 Much of this land remains undeveloped because of constraints to emplace on-site sewage disposal systems. Alternative treatment and disposal technologies could result in this land being developed, with limited impact.
The Tree Action Plan of 2019 can help reduce runoff and improve water quality by reducing impervious surface cover such as roads or sidewalks. Expected benefits for stormwater control are $26.3 million, and 393 million cubic feet/year of precipitation taken up by plants and soil.[5]
Public outreach and Occoquan Watershed Protection programs can educate the public about the dangers of development and stormwater runoff can have on water quality.
Pros and Cons
Development of water treatment facilities and downzoning has led to stable or improved quality of water since 1982. This includes safer drinking water, as well as water for agriculture and industrial purposes.[6]
Increased development leads to increased runoff, which can result in increases of chemical pollutants and erosion.6
Downzoned area acts as a natural water treatment system.
Occoquan Reservoir and surrounding area serves as a recreational asset, as well as for maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
By-right land development in the R-C District will fall outside of regulations, meaning that land stewardship, and therefore Occoquan Reservoir protection, will be voluntary. Conservation easements may ease or encourage voluntary stewardship.
Recommendations
The county should resist any demand for easing restrictions, and continue to implement policies that promote improvements in water quality.
Maintain natural buffer regions, tree conservation, and promote urban forest development.
Funding of watershed management to monitor ecosystem health, pollution, erosion, and water quality.
Maintain downzoning of the 41,000 acres of land in the Occoquan Reservoir. Formation of development and zoning committees that monitor and approve development plans, and ensure that they follow standards that reduce watershed pollution.
Coordination between County officials, school systems, and nongovernment organizations to promote stewardship and education with the general public.
Bibliography
2020 Annual Water Quality Report. (2020). Retrieved March 1, 2021, from https://www.fairfaxwater.org/sites/default/files/newsletters/ccr_2020.pdf
Fairfax County Environmental Vision 2017. (2017). Retrieved March 1, 2021, from https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment/sites/environment/files/assets/documents/pdf/environmental-vision-2017.pdf
Cho, D. Occoquan Reservoir is Clean, at Least for Now – The Washington Post. (2003). Retrieved March 1, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2003/01/30/occoquan-reservoir-is-clean-at-least-for-now/6bc0ab97-2ccd-4f35-8f99-748d5046842b/
Fulfilling the Promise: the Occoquan Watershed in the New Millennium. (2003). Retrieved March 1, 2021, from https://www.novaregion.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/OTFFinalReport12703?bidId=
Ryan, M. and Ende, J., Where Does Drinking Water Come From? | Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2021, from https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/soil-water-conservation/where-does-drinking-water-come-from-fairfax-county
Fairfax County Tree Action Plan 2019. (2019). Retrieved March 1, 2021, from https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/sites/publicworks/files/assets/documents/treeactionplan.pdf
[1] https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment/sites/environment/files/assets/documents/pdf/environmental-vision-2017.pdf
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2003/01/30/occoquan-reservoir-is-clean-at-least-for-now/6bc0ab97-2ccd-4f35-8f99-748d5046842b/
[3] https://www.fairfaxwater.org/sites/default/files/newsletters/ccr_2020.pdf
[4] https://www.novaregion.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/OTFFinalReport12703?bidId=
[5] https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/sites/publicworks/files/assets/documents/treeactionplan.pdf
[6] https://www.novaregion.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/OTFFinalReport12703?bidId=
Memo #2
Issue summary
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality should administer a stricter regulatory program surrounding the water quality of the Occoquan Reservoir. Since 1982, the county has had 41,000 acres surrounding the reservoir downzoned to protect the main source of drinking water through the prevention of overcrowding and to produce lower amounts of stormwater runoff that pollutes the water body.[1] This restricted the number of homes allowed to be built on the protected land when there were only 144,703 residents in the county and still stands today with a population of 467,900.[2] Based on the consistently poor health of the water since the downzoning event in 1982 paired with the rise in population since then, it can be concluded that technology has not changed significantly enough for the permittance of more development in the watershed area to accommodate the growing population, therefore restrictions should continue to protect the Occoquan Reservoir.
Background
In 2000, the Occoquan Reservoir was placed on Virginia’s Dirty Water List due to pollutants from human activity such as the low dissolved oxygen, high concentrations of phosphorus, and even traces of pharmaceuticals.[3] The Prince William Conservation Alliance provides evidence of human impact and obstruction of water health by those who were living in the lower populated areas with the most common offender being erosion on the Occoquan Watershed from the years 2000-2005.[4] As of 2020 with restrictions still in place, Fairfax Water determined that the reservoir was still highly susceptible to contamination from impervious surfaces on the watershed.[5] This pattern shows how difficult it would be for the reservoir to improve its health if even more residents were allowed to reside on the 41,000 downzoned acres.
Policy options
In 2019, the Chesapeake Stormwater network created a program in which streams who best met or exceeded their set water health standards and could prove this with official documentation could participate in a best stream restoration competition.[6] The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality could create something like this on a national level to reward the most improved and most consistently healthy water bodies.
Since 2010, Arkansas has had in place a tax credit program which rewards the restoration and conservation of wetlands up to $50,000.[7] The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality could create an incentive program to reward those who live in the downzoned area to practice healthy environmental habits to prevent contamination to the reserve.
Conversely, creating a system of negative monetary effects, such as penalizing taxes, to those who disregard minimum health requirements surrounding the protection of waters.
Pros and Cons
Not all communities may be able to financially support a program in which they improve water health or organizations sponsoring such a project may not be interested in assisting lower income communities. On the other hand, communities may be eligible to apply for state and federal grants to enact a program such as this.
In order to prove that requirements are being followed the resident may not be able to self-report as they could delineate their efforts in a more positive manner than they were actually conducted for monetary gain. However, this could be a good opportunity to create a new job that focuses just on the measurement and tracking of an individual’s level of environmental health protection, possibly making it easier to pinpoint the sources of issues.
Taxation may disproportionately effect those in lower economic standing than it does to someone in the upper class and make them uninterested in issues surrounding environmental quality. Still, this could lead to the creation of a new job in the environmental field.
Recommendations
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality should create a statewide competition that any community with a water of body that needs to be restored can enter.
All participating streams would have access to a state sponsored, professionally trained technician who can fairly test and report on their improvements to avoid most chances of cheating over the duration of the competition.
After a few years, the competition can have another section that rewards streams that are consistently meeting and exceeding the statewide water health standards (conservation) rather than having just a most improved (restoration) competition.
[1] https://protectow.com/about-us
[2] https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/doit/gis/Pages/Annual-Population-Estimates.aspx
[3] http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/occoquan/index.html
[4] http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/watersheds/violations/violations_unaddressed.htm
[5] https://www.fairfaxwater.org/sites/default/files/newsletters/ccr_2020.pdf
[6] https://chesapeakestormwater.net/the-bubbas/2019-bubbas/2019-best-stream-restoration-project/
[7] https://www.agriculture.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/title_13-rules.pdf
Memo #3
Issue summary
Safe drinking water is essential to the health and prosperity of the community. The Occoquan Reservoir is one of the main sources of drinking water in Fairfax County. It supplies to the Northern Virginia area through the highly advanced Fredrick P. Griffith treatment plant. The population in this area has steadily increased and is predicted to continue this trend. The number of households located here is forecasted to grow from approximately 406,000 to 519,000 by 2045.[1]In order to regulate non-point pollution, about 65% of the of the Occoquan Reservoir located within our jurisdiction is currently down zoned to 1 unit per 5 acre ratio.[2] Water Quality in the region remains within standard quality due partially to this factor. The concern however, is if deregulation is needed to allow development to support economic growth to the growing area.
Background
The Occoquan River was one of the most polluted bodies of water in Virginia in the 60’s and 70’s. In both appearance and smell it was noticeably dirty and was inhabitable too many aquatic species.[3] In the early 80’s a task force was authorized to develop several scenarios to combat the water pollution. After conducting an extension study on the issue, the Board of Supervisors permitted downzoning of nearly 41,000 acres of land in the Watershed to the Residential-Conservation (R-C) District. The Reservoir is primarily monitored by the Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA), the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Lab (OWML), and the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority (UOSA). The Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality also have responsibility for some aspects of direct Reservoir management. Within the Watershed Protection Overlay District, that portion of the Lower Occoquan watersheds is densely wooded in most areas and contains some of the highest water quality streams found in the county.[4] However outside of this protected zone, there is still a noticeable decline in the quality of water. With increasing populations in the county and development pressure from certain stakeholders, traditional non-point sources of pollution will continue to have the potential to threaten Reservoir water quality. In addition, other contaminants associated with human activity (such as endocrine disruptors) will increasingly have the greater potential to threaten drinking water quality.
Policy options
Rezone land adjacent to the Occoquan Reservoir to large swaths of natural land with permeable surfaces. Allocate old developments to new clusters further from the designated water body. This would essentially encompass the entire 64,500 acres and vastly reduce anthropogenic activity in vulnerable local ecosystems.
Keep zoning restrictions and enforce limited development of the non-down zoned area of the river basin.
Expand unregulated chemical testing at Fairfax Water within the next year and fund more research to discern possible harmful environmental and public health impacts of new emerging contaminants
Reinstate Occoquan Watershed task force to conduct new study and report on potential waste treatment methods for reuse of treated wastewater for drinking water (such as the effluent from the UOSA recharging the Occoquan reservoir). This will ensure an adequate water supply for future generations.[5]
Institute mandatory curriculum in FCPS schools and conduct widespread knowledge campaigns for adults about known toxins[6] through existing community resources such as one of the environmental stewardship programs. Consider a tax rebate to adults who successfully complete the program.
Pros and cons
Rezoning Water Supply Protection Overlay Districts to reduce impervious surfaces could in of itself have negative environmental externalities when dismantling already semi-developed land. The zoning ordinance is already comprehensive and addressed all present issues sufficiently. Regulations within such an overlay district have extensive review and approval of residential, commercial, industrial and other development proposals that may have adverse water quality impacts; to encourage land uses and activities which will be compatible with water quality protection; and to assure that structures and uses within such overlay districts will be developed in a manner that will serve the health, safety and welfare objectives of preserving the environmental integrity of public water supply reservoirs.[7] Adding amendments to this could convolute the integrity and intentions laid out by local government.
Federal water quality standards have often been scrutinized for not being adaptive to new scientific evidence of unregulated aquatic chemical exposure. Fairfax county has the opportunity to set an example and propel itself as a leader in this aspect. Fairfax County water already monitoring for a total of 30 chemical contaminants: 10 cyanotoxins (nine cyanotoxins and one cyanotoxin group) and 20 additional contaminants (two metals, eight pesticides plus one pesticide manufacturing byproduct, three brominated haloacetic acid disinfection byproducts groups, three alcohols, and three semivolatile organic chemicals).[8] Expansion of PFA testing to the occoquan reservoir could improve general knowledge of potential negative consequences and as such improve ameliorate inequitable public health crises.
Understanding the potential of new emerging technologies can offset cost from watershed damage and excess pollution from increasing populations. There are numerous treatments that have thus far been effective in conducting waste-to-value recovery. Value added products from waste include energy that can be used in circular economies within cities though this will not be suitable in more dense areas[9].
Recommendations
The county should strike any motions to further development on down zoned areas. Officials should work with residents in the area to monitor non-point pollution problems and encourage pollution prevention, source reduction and waste minimization. Additionally, work with all relevant agencies to enforce and maintain zoning regulations.
Through coordinated planning efforts (including the Tree Action Plan and Watershed Management Plans) should create a new program dedicated to education and outreach on personal sustainable practices. It’s key to incorporate within the program some sort of economic incentive or credit to bolster active participation.
Forgo rezoning Watershed overlay district until continuous poor water quality test results occur. Encourage incoming residents to buy property in clustered settings outside of the Occoquan Reservoir area.
Approve additional funding to scientific organizations and government offices to research installing new direct wastewater to drinking water treatment options and unregulated chemical testing (especially new PFA compounds) to analyze long-term health costs.
[2] https://www.novaregion.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/OTFFinalReport12703?bidId=
[4] https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/stormwater/lower-occoquan-watersheds
[6] https://www.knowtoxics.com
[8] https://www.fairfaxwater.org/sites/default/files/newsletters/ccr_2020.pdf