|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.|
|Comment Period||Ends 8/21/2009|
Regarding proposed changes to Parts I,
II, and III of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit Regulations (4VAC50-
I strongly support the proposed regulatory changes. I feel that non-point source pollution from development needs even further regulation that what is proposed. Virginia is set to develop more land in the next 40 years than in all of its history combined. Think about that.
The Chesapeake Bay will not survive what we're doing to the landscape in Virginia.
The incessant whining of developers should be completely ignored. They reap wealth while our streams, rivers, and bay decline in health. They scream like Chicken Little if they're asked to pay for the damage they cause. I say they should have to pay a development fee per square foot of land that is double what the highest estimated impact cost is. I'm serious. This would slow growth, but not halt it. It would more accurately reflect the true cost of development to the environment and to local infrastructure. The fee should go to pay for three things: 1. road repairs and improvements (not new roads) 2. mitigation and clean up of local streams and rivers and 3. buying conservation easments and development rights
The comments that indicate that this is an undue burden or will not address the highest priority phosphorous loads are misguided. Everyone, every sector, needs to do more. Most people don't have a CLUE about what they are doing to the Bay or local waterways. The idea that BMPs are being followed on any but the largest projects is absurd. Outside the Bay Act counties, BMPs are not required. The Bay Act provisions should be made law throughout the entire state.
In reading some of the comments from developers, it is obvious they have not read the proposed regulations. For example at least two commenters say that offsite controls should be allowed. Part II,G allows for such offsite mitigation. Further some commenters seem to think this will negatively impact existing homeowners. Unless you have a tremendous amout of acreage and are planning a large construction project it would seem the one percent rule would exempt the majority of residential homeowners from the provisions.
The intent of the regulation is sound. The technical details could be made stronger and stronger penalties put in place for failure to comply, but overall I strongly support the regulations as written.
803 Stonehenge Ave.
Charlottesville, VA 22902