Agencies | Governor
Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Conservation and Recreation
 
Board
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
 
chapter
Stormwater Management Regulations RENUMBERED AS 9 VAC 25-870 [4 VAC 50 ‑ 60]
Action Amend Parts I, II, and III of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit Regulations to address water quality and quantity and local stormwater management program criteria.
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ends 8/21/2009
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
8/19/09  12:30 pm
Commenter: Gray Stettinius

NO to proposed stormwater regs as written
 

I am a life long resident of Virginia.  I am a builder/developer by profession, and like many in my profession, I am trying to do my part to become more green in all that I do.  I am an EarthCraft certified builder, and also a Certified Green Professional.

 

I have been a frequent user of the upper James, the lower James and the Rappahannock Rivers over the past 40 plus years,  and  I very much want them to be as healthy and clean as possible.

 

That said, I would like to register my opposition to the proposed storm water regulation in its current form.

 

These regulations as written, provide only marginal incremental benefit to our state waters at an economically crippling price.  The real world cost of this proposal to our Commonwealth in terms of lost jobs and diminished quality of life is enormous.  These impacts will be felt by all residents of Virginia, and they will be felt for years to come. 

 

Furthermore, the unintended consequence of this proposal in terms of forced sprawl, will do much to negate whatever benefit is derived from any change to the existing regulations. 

 

We can do a much better job providing for the Chesapeake Bay and the rivers that feed it, and at a much lower cost to the citizens of Virginia, than what is being proposed currently.

 

I encourage the Board to defer the adoption of Part 2 of this proposal until a more effective proposal can be crafted. 

 

 

CommentID: 9711