Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Haymarket Do Not Drink Tap Water Without Boiling it First


A water main break in Haymarket, Virginia near University Boulevard between U.S. 29 and Wellington Road has resulted in a loss of pressure in the water distribution system. Prince William Service Authority has issued a boil water advisory. DO NOT DRINK THE WATER WITHOUT BOILING IT FIRST. Bring all water to a rolling boil, let it boil for one minute, and cool before using; or use bottled water. You should use boil or bottled water for drinking, making ice, washing dishes, brushing teeth and food preparation until you are notified that the advisory has been lifted. Make sure to send your kids to school with bottles of water.

There are two types of boil water advisories: precautionary and mandatory. A loss of positive water pressure in the system from a water main break might allow contamination to enter the water distribution system. This is the most common type of advisory, which is issued as a precaution until water samples are collected and analyzed to confirm that water quality has not been affected. A mandatory boil water notice is issued when contamination is confirmed in the water system. Customers are instructed to boil the water to kill bacteria and other organisms in the water, until the issue is resolved and the notice can be lifted. Contamination from organisms, such as bacteria, viruses and parasites, can cause symptoms, including nausea, cramps, diarrhea and associated headaches.

After a water main break water samples must be collected to test for bacteria in the distribution system. The first samples are taken on the day when the water main break has been fixed, and then another set of samples are taken in the next 24 hours. Two consecutive days of "clean" test results are required before the water advisory can be lifted. (The process takes 24 hours for test results to come back from the laboratory, so final lab results to lift an advisory can take several days after the event.) The Prince William County Service Authority is advising that this Boil Water Notice will remain in effect for a minimum of 48 hours to provide adequate time for water quality testing. As more information becomes available, customers in the affected area will be notified.

Boiling the water kills microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, or protozoans that can cause disease. Boiling makes the tap water safe. Adding a tablespoon of household bleach such as Clorox to a sink full of tap water should be sufficient to treat the water used for washing dishes. Bleach should also be added to the water used for rinsing dishes. Allow dishes and utensils to air dry before reuse. Throw away uncooked food or beverages or ice cubes if they were made with tap water since Tuesday afternoon
• Keep boiled water in the refrigerator for drinking
• Do not swallow water while you are showering or bathing
• Provide pets with boiled water after cooling
• Do not use home filtering devices in place of boiling or using bottled water; Most home water filters will not provide adequate protection from microorganisms
• Use only boiled water to treat minor injuries; When showering or bathing, avoid allowing the water to come in contact with an open wound
• Do not wash salad items with tap water during the period; Use bottled water or freshly boiled and cooled tap water

The Service Authority will notify you when the water is safe to drink again. The boil water advisory is in effect for the following communities:

Regency at Dominion Valley
Dominion Valley Country Club
Westmarket
Simmons Grove
Market Center
Village at Heathcote
Old Carolina Road Estates
Piedmont Mews
Longstreet Commons
Heritage Farms
Long Level Acres
Long Level Estates
Piedmont
Heritage Hunt
Piedmont South
Carterwood
Crossroads Village S1
Heathcote Commons
Village Place
Hillwood Park MHP
Gainesville Mobile Homes
Lakeview
Lakeview Estates
Wentworth Green
Virginia Oaks
Waverly Mill
Villages of Piedmont
Haymarket Station
Greenhill Crossing
Kennard Ridge
Somerset
Somerset Crossing
Gates Mill Estates
Gainesville Acres
Estates at Breyerton
Breyerton
Gateway Oaks
Blue Ridge Farms
Hopewells Landing
Madison Crescent
Lake Manassas
Regents at Lake Manassas
Reserve at Lake Manassas

Monday, December 5, 2016

Alberta Pledges to Implement Canadian Carbon Tax

With Alberta joining, four of Canada’s most populous provinces either already have or are introducing some kind of carbon price or carbon cap and trade program. Last month Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a minimum Canadian federal price on carbon. The initial price will be a minimum of $10 (Canadian) per metric ton (“tonne”) of CO2, and it will increase annually by $10/tonne to reach $50 in 2022 when it will be reviewed. This announcement was made by the Prime Minister in leading off parliamentary debate on the Paris climate change agreement Monday, making the case for Canada to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. (In Parlimentary debate the Prime Minister leads and closes the debate.) The announcement came without warning.

Though Prime Minister Trudeau has long promised that Ottawa would impose a minimum carbon price on provinces unwilling to adopt their own system, but in his speech he effectively seized the leadership from the province premiers, who have insisted on the right to regulate carbon emissions as they see fit. Canada’s 10 provinces will need to meet that minimum, or exceed it, by using either a carbon tax or achieving a comparable emissions reduction through a cap-and-trade system.

The Prime Minister said he will convene a first ministers’ meeting on December 8th with the aim of concluding an all Canada climate plan, which would include carbon pricing and other measures. A first minister’ meeting is a meeting of the provincial and territorial premiers and the Prime Minister. Several provinces and territories reacted angrily. Three of the environment ministers walked out of the federal-provincial climate talks after Mr. Trudeau’s unilateral announcement in the House of Commons. Most vocal in his protest was Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall who was reported to have called the carbon tax decision is a betrayal of previous promises and assurances and that the tax would devastate his province’s economy.

However, last Tuesday, The Trudeau government approved Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.’s $6.8-billion Trans Mountain pipeline, which would nearly triple capacity on an existing line from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C. to about 900,000 barrels per day. This is an alternative route to the Keystone Pipeline to move the Canadian oil sands out of Canada via Canada’s Pacific coast. Now Alberta has committed to phase in a $50-per-tonne carbon tax after the federal government approved the pipeline.
In addition Canada’s westernmost province of British Columbia already prices carbon at C$30 per metric ton. Canada’s two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec, are pursuing cap-and-trade systems, which Prime Minister Trudeau said will be deemed adequate if they achieve the same emissions reductions as the federal minimum price would achieve.

In a carbon tax or fee as in the Canadian federal program the price on carbon pollution provides an incentive for everyone, from industry to households, to be part of the solution. A carbon tax can be very simple. It can rely on existing administrative structures for taxing fuels and can therefore be implemented in just a few months. Ultimately, the critical factor in reducing carbon emissions is the strength of the economic signal. A stronger carbon price will push more growth low carbon, renewable energy and will encourage adoption of greener practices.

While a cap-and-trade system could achieve the same goals, but in practice they tend to be much more complex. More time is required to develop the necessary regulations, and they are more susceptible to lobbying and loopholes. Cap-and-trade also requires the establishment of an emissions trading market and they become expensive to operate and monitor. I support a carbon tax, and look forward to see how the system ends up operating in Canada. The U.S. based Carbon Tax Center says that their computer model suggests that a U.S. carbon tax at that rate would reduce CO2 emissions by 12-13 % below “otherwise” emissions (without a carbon price) in 2022 in the United States.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Who Owns the Waters of the Potomac?

Proctor & Gamble (P&G) plans to build a $500 million manufacturing plant to produce Pantene shampoos and Old Spice body wash just south of Martinsburg, West Virginia. Under a previous agreement the local water treatment plant is authorized to draw four million gallons a day from the Potomac River. The water treatment plant currently draws 2.4 million and the P&G plant will require an additional 1.3 million gallon a day; however, the P&G factory will result in additional residential and industrial development that will push the county over the four million gallons a day it is currently limited to. In a letter to Maryland officials, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the water treatment facility that will supply water to the P&G factory “has an urgent need” to increase capacity beyond limits imposed by Maryland and has threatened to file suit much as Virginia did at the turn of the 21st Century.

West Virginia has a strong case. Maryland instituted a permitting program for waterway construction and water withdrawal on the Potomac River in 1933. Over the years, starting in 1957, Maryland issued many of these permits to various Virginia and West Virginia entities without objection. In 1996, the predecessor agency to Fairfax Water applied for permits to build a 725-foot water intake structure to supply the new James J. Corbalis Jr. Water Treatment Plant in Herndon. Maryland denied the permit.

After failing to obtain administrative remedies, Virginia filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2000 seeking a declaration that Maryland lacked regulatory authority to veto the project. (In 2001, Maryland approved the permit, but with the condition that FCWA install a restrictor to limit withdrawal.) The Court accepted that cast and referred the complaint to a Special Master for fact-finding and recommendation. The Special Master reviewed the evidence submitted by both states and recommended that the Court rule for Virginia. In the Special Master’s opinion, Maryland did not have authority to regulate Virginia’s rights under the 1785 compact and 1877 award.

Maryland opposed this recommendation on two grounds: first, that as sovereign over the river to the Virginia border it had regulatory authority; and second, that even if Virginia’s rights under the compact and award were unrestricted, Maryland had acquired the right to regulate by way of Virginia’s acquiescence to its regulation since 1957.

Nonetheless, in a 7-2 majority the Supreme Court overruled Maryland’s objections to the Special Master’s report, and entered the decree proposed by the Special Master affirming Virginia’s sovereign rights under the 1877 arbitration award to build structures appurtenant to its shore and withdraw water from the Potomac River without regulation by Maryland. Now West Virginia has threatened to challenge Maryland’s authority over its withdrawals.

The effect of the Virginia case on the West Virginia water disputes may be limited to most other states, the decision turned on interpretation of historical documents unique to the previous case – the 1785 compact and 1877 arbitration award. However, when Virginia attempted to secede from the Union in 1861 during the Civil Water, voters in 41 northwestern counties of Virginia (including Preston County) voted to secede from Virginia; and in 1863 the new state of West Virginia was admitted into the union with the United States. The historical claims of Virginia are the same as those of West Virginia.

Though the Potomac River, although practically serving as the border between West Virginia and Maryland is not the actual boundary. The Maryland Assembly passed legislation in April 1787 to formally establish the boundary. Francis Deakins was appointed surveyor, and in 1788 established what became known as the "Deakins line." The Deakins line became the de facto border of Maryland. Unfortunately, the Deakins line was not straight, and it was not a true meridian but rather drifted to the east. A second attempt was made to correct this error, but the dispute continued. Finally, in a 9-to-0 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 1910 found that the boundary between Maryland and West Virginia is the south bank of the Potomac River and the Deakins line became the de facto border of Maryland.

Monday, November 28, 2016

LWV and Fracking in Virginia

Last Saturday I attended the Prince William Area League of Women Voters general meeting at the Community Library in Manassas. The topic for the day was Fracking, or more formally hydraulic fracturing, a method to release natural gas and oil trapped inside bedrock that cannot be economically retrieved with traditional methods. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the pumping of millions of gallons of water and laced with thousands of gallons of chemicals into shale at high pressure have increased our ability to recover natural gas from shale. Long ignored shale gas is potentially valuable. Until recently there was no economically feasible way to extract this gas. Fracking is a fiercely debated political and environmental issue.

The Virginia League of Women Voter's report was well-researched and an impartial review of the science, regulation and current status of Fracking in Virginia. Rona Ackerman of Fairfax gave an excellent and engaging presentation of the report and lead the discussion. Though I encourage you to read the report for an unbiased review of the technology and what we know about fracking, the most important take away was the status of fracking and fracking regulations in Virginia.
from DMME


Virginia has gas rich shale deposits. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Taylorsville basin contains over a trillion cubic feet of gas. The Taylorsville basin has not been explored using newer fracking techniques so it is not known if we have the technology to exploit these deposits, yet. However, over 84,000 acres in the Taylorsville basin have been leased for 7 years by Shore Drilling.

The oldest type of hydraulic fracturing is coal bed formation fracturing that has been used for more than 65 years. The volume of water needed for hydraulic fracturing varies by site and type of formation. Fifty thousand to 350,000 gallons of water may be required to fracture one well in a coal bed formation while two to five million gallons of water injected at much higher pressure may be necessary to fracture one horizontal well in a shale formation. Virginia currently only has gas well in the coal rich Appalachian Plateau 6,000 of 8,400 existing wells were dry fracked. The existing wells are vertical wells that were nitrogen fracked. This is a completely different technology than contemplated for the Taylorsville shale deposit.
from DMME


In 2013 then Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued an opinion that stated “a local governing body cannot ban altogether the exploration for, and the drilling of, oil and natural gas within the locality’s boundaries.” However, in May 2015 current Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring issued an opinion that stated “Localities may use their zoning authority to prohibit “unconventional gas and oil drilling,” commonly known as fracking.” Following this opinion the King George Board of Supervisors in the Taylorsville basin voted to amend their zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, prohibiting drilling within 750 feet from resource protected areas, such as rivers and creeks, as well as roads, buildings and schools, leaving only 9% of the county potentially eligible for drilling.

In 2015 the Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy (DMME) promulgated New Gas and Oil Regulations. In summary the regulations would:
(i)                  amend permit application requirements to include disclosure of all ingredients anticipated to be used in hydraulic fracturing operations, certification that the proposed operation complies with local land use ordinances, inclusion of a groundwater sampling and monitoring plan, and submission of an emergency response plan; 
(ii)                require a pre-application meeting jointly conducted by the DMME and the Department of Environmental Quality before an operator drills for gas or oil in Tidewater Virginia; 
(iii)               require well operators to use FracFocus, the national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry website, to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations; 
(iv)               establish a groundwater sampling, analysis, and monitoring program before and after well construction; 
(v)                add language related to the use of centralizers in the water protection string of the casing; 
(vi)               strengthen casing and pressure testing requirements for well casings used in conventional and coalbed methane gas wells; and
(vii)             provide protection for trade secrets from public dissemination while allowing this information to be made available to first responders and local officials in the event of an emergency.”


The new Gas and Oil Regulations were submitted for final approval by Governor Terry McAuliffe last August. It is still waiting for approval and there is no timeline, but approval is expected this year. The Gas industry has been trying to delay the regulations in Virginia so that a bill tabled from last year to exempt the Gas industry from Freedom of Information Act requirements for fracking chemicals. This bill, HB1389, was carried over from last year and should not pass. It is important not only for first responders, but for citizens to know what chemicals they are potentially being exposed to. From data from FracFocus we know that 29 known or possible human carcinogens regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants were used in 650 out of 2500 fracking products. Unless you know what chemicals to look for, it is virtually impossible to test air and water pathways for every possible contaminant. Please consider calling your delegate to vote against HV 1389 this year.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Water Delivery for the Caribbean

While I have spent the late summer watching a silent drought take over my corner of Virginia, other parts of the world are experiencing much bigger droughts. The islands of the Caribbean have been experiencing drought. Their drought started early last year. The Islands are mostly dry rock formations that collect rainfall in reservoirs across the region. Without the rains, the reservoirs are being drained, forcing utilities from Trinidad & Tobago to Jamaica to ration water.

For some islands, such as Cuba, it is reported to be the worst drought in more than 100 years. And this may just be the start. Now the tiny Republic of Suriname wants to sell some of their abundant water to their neighbors. Suriname is located on the coast of South America and has a reported 151 billion M³ of fresh water flow to the ocean each year from its rivers.


Now, a company, Amazone Resources has received the rights from Suriname’s government to pump water from the mouths of the Coppename and Suriname rivers, both of which meet World Health Organization standards for water quality. The water will be filtered and treated with UV light to meet health standards. This week, a boat will tow a giant bag made from PVC-coated fabric with enough water to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool from Suriname to drought-stricken Barbados and Curacao. The bag will float because fresh water is lighter than salt water.

Amazone Resouces has received permission to export up to 400 flex tanks a year. This is equivalent to 0.0092% of the flow of the rivers. Research has shown that removal of up to 0.129% of a river's flow can be accomplished without permanently disturbing the ecology. This will be a test run for a business to sell some of the excess water that flows to the sea from Suriname without disturbing the ecological balance. The Barbados Water Authority, which signed a memorandum of understanding for the test run but is not buying the initial shipment, said in a statement that the accord it part of its long-term plans to tackle the impact of climate change.

The total volume of water on Earth is about 1,400 million km3 of which only 2.5 %, or about 35 million km3, is freshwater. Most freshwater occurs in the form of permanent ice or snow, locked up in Antarctica and Greenland, or in deep groundwater aquifers. The principal sources of water for human use are lakes, rivers, soil moisture and relatively shallow groundwater basins. The usable portion of these sources is only about 200,000 km3 of water worldwide.

Freshwater resources are unevenly distributed, with much of the water located far from human populations. Many of the world's largest river basins run through thinly populated regions. At the continental level, the Americas has the largest share of the world’s total freshwater resources with 45%, followed by Asia with 28%, Europe with 15.5 % and Africa with 9%.

Fresh water I necessary to sustain life, but it is equally vital for food production. Seventy percent of the worldʼs fresh water resource is currently required for food production alone, yet water is also essential for industry. Every product on the planet has been produced by using water at some stage of the process. Thirty-three countries depend on other countries for over 50% of their renewable water resources: Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Cambodia, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Latvia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Pakistan, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia.

Monday, November 21, 2016

We Trash Food While Americans Go Hungry


With Thanksgiving just around the corner, we should talk about wasted food in America. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tells us that more food is sent to landfills and incinerators than any other single material in the United States. The EPA estimates that 35.04 metric tons of prepared food or consumer bought food is wasted each year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that throughout the food chain between 30%-40% percent of the total food supply or about 133 billion pounds of food worth almost $162 billion is wasted from farm to consumer.

The total amount of waste in the United States is shocking. We have to do something about this. This wasted food is particularly disturbing when you consider that in 2015, 13% of households (15.8 million) were food insecure. That means that in the United States 42.2 million Americans lived in “food insecure” households. The U. S. Department of Agriculture defines food insecurity as not having consistent access to adequate food throughout the year. This is usually caused by poverty. People who are food insecure are simply hungry, or at risk of hunger. In the United States people go hungry every day. There are hungry people in every state and community in America, our community is no exception.

Keeping food in our communities and out of landfills helps communities reduce hunger and reducing food waste also potentially reduces methane emissions from our landfills. Food waste quickly generates methane in landfills, and 20% of total U.S. methane emissions come from landfills. In addition, the land, water, labor, energy used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, storing, and disposing of the discarded food are wasted as we throw away the imperfect and the excess.

In 2013 the USDA and EPA
first called on organizations across the food chain – farms, agricultural processors, food manufacturers, grocery stores, restaurants, universities, schools, and local governments – to join efforts to
  • Reduce food waste by improving product development, storage, shopping/ordering, marketing, labeling, and cooking methods.
  • Recover food waste by connecting potential food donors to food banks and pantries.
  • Recycle food waste to feed animals or to create compost, bioenergy and natural fertilizers.

Then in 2015 USDA and EPA announced the first U.S. food loss and waste reduction goal Challenge. Last week the USDA and EPA announced the inaugural group of the U.S. “Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions,” businesses and organizations who have taken up the challenge and pledged to reduce food loss and waste in their operations 50% by 2030. The “Champions” announced last week were: Ahold USA, Blue Apron, Bon Appétit Management Company, Campbell Soup Company, Conagra Brands, Delhaize America, General Mills, Kellogg Company, PepsiCo, Sodexo, Unilever, Walmart, Wegman’s Food Markets, Weis Markets and YUM! Brands.

By joining the U.S. Food Waste Challenge, organizations and businesses demonstrate their commitment to reducing food waste, helping to feed the hungry in their communities, and reducing the environmental impact of wasted food. The Challenge Partners’ inventory of activities will help disseminate information about the best practices to reduce, recover, and recycle food waste and stimulate the development of more of these practices that can be applied to businesses in the future.

It is important to remember that cutting food waste will require a sustained commitment from everyone. The USDA estimates that about 90 billion pounds of food waste comes from consumers, and costs about $370 per person per year. USDA’s “Let’s Talk Trash” focuses on consumer education, highlighting key data and action steps consumers can take to reduce food waste. Take a look at this link to see the suggestions. This is much harder because it involves millions of households changing their behavior, better managing their food shopping, storage an meal planning and using and eating leftovers. Millions of our households need to continually practice frugality in our food use. This in a nation that in 2014 produced about 258 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste with only slightly over one third of trash was recycled and composted. We have been promoting recycling since 1965 with the introduction of the recycling symbol yet we still have a long way to go.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Lorton Quarry to Become Reservoir


At the end of October William Duke, President of Vulcan Materials Mideast Division, and Philip Allin, Chairman of Fairfax Water signed an agreement at a ceremony at the Griffith Water Treatment Plant in Lorton that sets the conditions for the transformation of a rock quarry into a water storage reservoir in southeastern Fairfax County.
from Google Maps

The Quarry will be converted to a reservoir in phases and continue to operate during phase 1 which will convert a portion of the quarry to a reservoir with storage of of about 1.8 billion gallons by 2035. Quarry operations will end with Phase II which will convert the remaining area to Fairfax Water reservoir with storage capacity of up to 15 billion gallons by 2085. To do this the existing quarry will be reconfigured to mine portions of Fairfax Water’s property. This will allow Vulcan to leave a “rock wall” that will segregate the quarry into the two parts. The two-reservoir Quarry reconfiguration addresses the water supply need projected to occur in the 2035-2040 timeframe.
from Fairfax Water

The Vulcan Quarry was identified as the favored alternative for meeting future water needs in the Northern Virginia Regional Water Supply Plan in 2011 and adopted by Fairfax County in early 2012. This new reservoir will be used to supplement water supply to accommodate population growth in Northern Virginia and ensure that Fairfax Water can continue to provide reliable, high-quality drinking water well into the future. 

Fairfax Water projects water need based on the most recent population and employee projections available from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Today, Fairfax Water serves nearly 2 million residents and more than 800,000 employees in Northern Virginia. Between 2010 and 2040, the population served by Fairfax Water, including wholesale customers, other communities that buy their water from Fairfax Water, is projected to increase by over 650,000 residents and nearly 550,000 employees. Fairfax Water needs to plan to reliably provide water to all.

All the regional water supply companies share the water resources of the Potomac. Fairfax Water, the Washington Aqueduct (WA) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) signed the Water Supply Coordination Agreement that established a framework for water supply planning, drought management, and resource optimization on the Potomac River back in 1982 and have worked together to manage the regional water resources since.

Every five years, the ICPRB conducts a study of projected demand and available water supply resources based on the best available information at the time- utilizes water use and demographic data along with assumptions regarding changes in water use patterns in the region. These are not certain. The ICPRB 2015 report assumes daily per capita water use will decrease by an additional 25%, incorporates various climate and weather scenarios and uses the projection of population growth provided by the Washington Council of Governments who forecast that the residential population is expected to grow by 23% and the workforce is expected to grow by 36% by 2040. They also looked carefully at the impact the climate change might have on water supply.


Historically, a key assumption was that the future flow of the Potomac River will mirror the hydraulic conditions for the past 79 years. If hydraulic conditions are changing or a 79 year period is inadequate to predict the possible extent of droughts, this could impact the availability of water. So, a couple of years ago the ICPRB engaged a study that created a model for various climate scenarios of water supply availability from Potomac Watershed to determine if the water supply would be adequate to serve the population. They used this model to examine the water supply adequacy of the current study.

The ICPRB found that the existing water supplies can meet demands of the forecasted population levels through the Year 2035, by implementing mandatory water restrictions during severe droughts. However, as the population and water demand continue to grow the current supply system including the Potomac River and all current and planned reservoirs and water storage would not be adequate to supply all needs during a severe drought even after using all the reservoirs to supplement flow and implementing water use restrictions.

This is why Fairfax Water has worked with Vulcan to develop the “two reservoir Quarry reconfiguration”, to provide interim water supply storage in 2035, as well as a significantly larger storage facility beyond 2085. With the delivery of the Northern Reservoir in 2035, Fairfax Water will be able to expand the Griffith Plant to 160 million gallons a day.  The Northern Reservoir will also provide an emergency source of supply to the Griffith water treatment plant when emergencies like chemical spills restrict the larger and newer Corbalis plant’s access to the Potomac River. This happened last year when Fairfax Water had to shut their intake to let a plume of contamination pass.