Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
Stormwater Management Regulations 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 Ended on 8/21/2009
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
8/20/09  11:01 am
Commenter: George Moore - Citizen

Storm Water Regulations

I am a resident of Henrico County and I do not support these regulations as they are currently written. Protecting our waters is an important goal and something we should continue to improve but it appears to me that the cost to implement these storm water requirements far outweighs the benefits of improving the water quality in our streams, rivers and bay.  Based on my understanding the implementation and maintenance cost for these storm water control facilities will be significant and will eventually be passed along to the home buyer which will make affordable housing even more difficult for those looking to purchase a home.  This is further substantiated by an Economic Impact Analysis completed by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget where they state that “the proposed regulations will directly impact private land developers, public land developers, businesses and homeowners.  Virginia residents will also likely pay for the higher costs associated with the local storm water program requirements.” The timing of this could not be worse as we are in the most severe economic recession we have had in 30 years and this will just place further burden on both Virginia small businesses and homeowners and will further delay any economic recovery that is needed in the real estate market in Virginia. 

     It also appears to me that the regulations will create sprawl within Virginia and work against efforts to develop infill areas where infrastructure already exists.



CommentID: 9766