Chesapeake Bay states Approve a new Watershed Agreement for the Next Era of Bay Restoration

 

From an EPA press release:

The Chesapeake Executive Council met at the National Aquarium last week to formally approve a revised Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Since 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Program has used the “voluntary agreements” to guide restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary and its watershed.

The ceremonial signing of the agreement is the culmination of work that began more than three years ago, when the partnership began to hammer out a path forward that outlined the next steps necessary to meet the pollution reduction goals and estuary health outcomes that the previous Watershed Agreement had hoped to complete by 2025. The partnership prepared recommendations that addressed lessons learned about the science of restoration while focusing on the future of the Chesapeake Bay Program beyond 2025. At last year’s meeting, the Executive Council formally tasked the partnership with revising the Watershed Agreement this past year. 

The result is a new agreement that builds on what has already been achieved—and the work still to be done—while using the latest science, elevating conservation as a key focus, and ensuring, as much as possible, that its goals are clear, measurable and time-bound. The target completion dates were extended or modified to push deadlines to 2030, 2035, or 2040.

“Today we made a commitment to the Chesapeake Bay and a commitment to the people of Maryland and our neighboring states,” said Maryland Governor Wes Moore. “The revised Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement will make our rivers and streams cleaner. It will bolster Maryland’s seafood, tourism and recreational businesses. Most importantly, it will ensure we protect the precious heirloom that is the Chesapeake Bay so we can pass it down to the next generations in a better condition than we received it.”

The revised Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement contains four goals:

1. Thriving Habitats and Wildlife
2. Clean Water
3. Healthy Landscapes
4. Engaged Communities

The partnership will now update or develop new Management Strategies for each outcome that outline how it will be achieved and include considerations such as monitoring, assessing and reporting progress, as well as where coordination with partners and stakeholders is needed.

Additionally, the structure and governance of the partnership was streamlined and simplified.  The Chesapeake Bay Program will implement these revisions and regularly report progress to the Principals' Staff Committee for their final approval expected by July 1, 2026.

“Throughout my Administration, protecting the Chesapeake Bay, one of our most treasured natural resources, has not been an afterthought, it has been a commitment we have reaffirmed each and every day. Through transparent engagement with our Bay Program partners and Virginia stakeholders, we have demonstrated that targeted investments combined with voluntary partnerships equal real results. Virginia is poised to meet our goals and accelerate our progress, and I am pleased that the actions taken by the Chesapeake Executive Council have set the partnership on a path for continued improvement by understanding the need for realistic targets and structural efficiencies.” Glenn Youngkin, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was unanimously elected to be chair of the Executive Council, succeeding Maryland Governor Wes Moore, who has served in the role for the past two years. “My Administration has accelerated Pennsylvania’s progress in restoring local waterways across the Commonwealth and reduced our share of pollution to the Bay, ensuring every Pennsylvanian has access to clean air and water while supporting our farmers and our agriculture industry,” said Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. “I’m honored to be elected as the next chair of the Chesapeake Executive Council by my fellow governors and I’m looking forward to continuing this work to get stuff done together for the people we serve.” 

The Executive Council was formed as part of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 and consists of the governors of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, the mayor of the District of Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who represents the federal government. 

“The Chesapeake Bay is one of our country’s most important resources,” said U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi. “The efforts of the Chesapeake Bay Program over the past 42 years have shown the power of collaboration and cooperative federalism in restoring and protecting our nation’s waters. Partnerships such as the Chesapeake Bay Program help to carry out President Trump’s agenda to provide clean air, land and water for every American and support economic growth.” 

Does Prince William have a Housing Crisis?

Every residential development rezoning to increase allowed density that has been approved has been justified by “Prince William’s housing crisis”. The data supports that Prince William County is experiencing a severe housing affordability crisis, which the Board of County Supervisors and other officials often refer to as a "housing crisis". The problem is less about a lack of available physical housing units, though Prince William County failed to meet the MCOG’s overall housing target, and more about a significant shortage of homes that residents, particularly those with low and moderate incomes, can afford to rent or buy. 

Supervisors, staff and residents use the term "crisis" to describe the situation because:

• Housing costs are soaring while wages are not keeping pace. The median sales price for a home in the county was around $565K in October 2025, which is significantly above the national average.
• Many households are "cost-burdened," meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. An analysis found that over 50% of the county's renters fall into this category.
• There is a significant shortage of affordable units. A 2023 report noted a deficit of 8,800 affordable rental units alone, and projections for 2040 indicate a potential shortage of 14,000 to 23,000 housing units in total if 2019 trends continued.
• Essential workers like teachers, firefighters, and nurses often struggle to live in the community they serve.

The Housing Affordability Crisis in Prince William County

The core issue is affordability, driven by a persistent mismatch between housing supply (especially for lower and middle-income residents in areas with transit and services) and demand.

Key Data Points

• Cost Burden for Renters: A staggering 50% of renter households in Prince William County are considered "cost-burdened," meaning they pay more than 30% of their monthly income for housing. This leaves less money for necessities like food, healthcare, and transportation.
• Affordable Rental Shortage: The county is reportedly short at least 8,800 affordable rental units. The greatest need is clustered at the Extremely Low Income level (30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and below).
• Homeownership Out of Reach: The median sale price for a home has risen significantly. Based on mortgage standards, someone making the median annual income in the county often cannot afford a median-priced home. Essential workers like teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters are often priced out of the market.
• Supply Shortfall: The county has consistently failed to meet the annual production targets set by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). For example, Prince William County's target was 2,353 new units in 2024, but only 1,202 were built.

Prince William County and local organizations are actively pursuing several strategies to address the crisis, focusing on increasing supply, improving affordability, and preventing homelessness.

County-Level Policy Solutions

• Affordable Dwelling Unit (AfDU) Ordinance: The county recently adopted its first-ever AfDU ordinance (effective December 2025), which offers density bonuses to developers who include affordable housing units in their projects. This targets households earning 80% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI), with greater incentives for those at 50% AMI or below.
• Housing Trust Fund (HTF): A Housing Trust Fund has been established, with a commitment of $5 million annually through 2029, to provide gap financing for affordable housing developments.
• Comprehensive Plan Updates: The county's planning process is focused on finding new land capacity through rezoning and increasing residential densities, particularly in transit-oriented communities, to meet the future housing demand.

Homelessness Prevention and Assistance

Local non-profits and county services are focused on immediate and long-term support for those in crisis:

• Coordinated Entry System (CES): This system is the single point of access for all people experiencing or at risk of homelessness in Prince William County. It assesses needs and connects households to resources like emergency shelter, rapid re-housing, and permanent supportive housing.
• Rental/Mortgage Assistance: Programs like the Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP II) offer financial help to eligible households facing housing hardships.
• First-Time Homebuyers Program (FTHB): This program provides loans for down payment and closing cost assistance for low- and moderate-income residents.

The consensus from county staff, elected officials and advocates is that an "all-of-the-above" approach—combining policy, funding, and community collaboration—is necessary to overcome the housing affordability challenge. However, developers seem to be driving the direction of the response through rezoning of greenfield rather than smart solutions. 

The termination of the Rural Crescent policy in the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan (approved in late 2022) has two major impacts on the housing and conservation discussion:

1. It removes the primary planning tool for limiting sprawl and protecting open space.
2. It dramatically expands the potential land available for increased housing density. Yet, the development community continually looks to expand density beyond the planning in the Comprehensive Plan- Pathway to 2040.

 Shift in the County's Plan (BOCS)

The termination of the Rural Crescent (which previously restricted development to 1 unit per 10 acres) was explicitly justified and motivated by the need to address the housing affordability crisis by making more land available for residential development.

• The New Land Use Designations: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan replaces the "Rural Area" with designations like "Agricultural and Forestry" (upzoned from 1 unit/10 acres to 1 unit/5 acres as proposed in the draft) and "Conservation Residential" (allowing for clustered homes at up to 1 unit per 2 acres with 60% of the land preserved in easement).
• Massive Increase in Development Potential: This change essentially doubles the potential development density in large swaths of the county, which translates to the potential for thousands of new homes—which some claim can now be closer to the "affordable" threshold (though not necessarily meeting the deep affordability needs).
• Alignment with Affordable Housing Goal: The BOCS's adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan aligns its land use policy (which governs where and how much can be built) with its Housing Chapter policies (AfDU Ordinance and Housing Trust Fund), providing the land supply needed to meet the affordability goals.

The Prince William Conservation Alliance (PWCA) and other groups were the most vocal opponents of this change.

• Loss of a Core Tool: The Rural Crescent was the single most important tool for Prince William County to combat sprawl and protect the county's western watersheds and historical resources. Its termination was a major loss that enables "haphazard" development.
• The New Battleground is fighting poorly conceived individual rezoning applications in the former Rural Crescent area, which would convert thousands of acres of rural land to data center and industrial use, and higher density housing zoning than the watershed can support impacting water resources necessary to supply the Occoquan Reservoir.
• Focus on Environmental Conditions: Any new development in the "Agricultural and Forestry" or "Conservation Residential" areas should strictly adheres to environmental protections, limits on public sewer extensions (which facilitate high density), and open space preservation as approved in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which had the input of consultants and professional staff. 

---

Updated Comparison Summary

Feature	BOCS Approved Plans (Post-2040 Comp Plan)	Prince William Conservation Alliance (PWCA) Ideas	Relationship
Land Supply	Significantly increased by eliminating the 1:10 density restriction in the former Rural Crescent and allowing for higher densities (1:5 and 1:2 clustered).	Strong opposition to this land supply increase, arguing it is unsustainable, leads to sprawl, and strains infrastructure.	Direct Conflict
Affordability Tool	AfDU Ordinance and Housing Trust Fund remain the core tools for subsidizing affordability.	Supports the Housing Trust Fund but insists new density must be focused on existing urbanized areas and transit corridors, not the former rural area.	Divergence on Location
Environmental Focus	Emphasizes "Conservation Residential" policies to cluster development and preserve some open space (60%) on site.	Demands maximum enforcement of conservation measures and opposes the extension of public sewer/water into the former Rural Crescent as a prerequisite for higher density.	Tension over Enforcement

 In short, the County Staff is attempting to solve the housing crisis by making more land available for development through the new Comprehensive Plan, while simultaneously using the AfDU Ordinance to mandate a portion of that new supply be affordable. The BOCS is approving almost all rezonings to generate tax money from data centers to fund their programs and further increase housing density. They have forgotten that it is necessary to also protect the Occoquan Watershed to provide drinking water to the eastern portion of Prince William County.  As the Prince William Conservation Alliance (PWCA) points out this environmentally damaging overreach, the housing crisis should be solved through higher density and redevelopment in the existing urban core

NERC Predicting Blackouts Over Winter

From a NERC Press Release:

NERC’s 2025–2026 Winter Reliability Assessment (WRA) finds that much of North America is again at an elevated risk of having insufficient energy supplies to meet demand in extreme operating conditions. Although resources are adequate for normal winter peak demand, any prolonged, wide-area cold snaps will be challenging and may result in blackouts. This is largely due to rising electricity demand, which has grown by 20 GW since last winter, significantly outpacing winter on-peak capacity. This, coupled with the changing resource mix, is affecting the winter outlook.

“Electricity demand continues to grow faster than the resources being added to the grid, especially during the most extreme winter conditions where actual demand can topple forecasts by as much as 25%--as we saw in 2021 in ERCOT and SPP,” said John Moura, NERC’s director of Reliability Assessments and Performance Analysis. “This latest assessment highlights progress on cold weather readiness but underscores that more work remains to ensure energy and fuel supplies can be reliably delivered even during the harshest conditions.”

Although evidence from the past two winters indicates notable improvement in the delivery of natural gas to bulk power system generators, natural gas availability for generators remains precarious during extreme winter conditions due to the uneven application of voluntary freeze protection mitigations impacting production and transportation.

“Natural gas is an essential fuel for electricity generation in winter. Winter fuel supplies for thermal generators must be readily available during the periods of high demand for both electricity and natural gas that accompany extreme cold weather,” said Mark Olson, NERC’s manager of Reliability Assessment. “Although we are seeing evidence of improved performance, grid operators in areas that rely on single-fuel gas-fired generators are exposed to unanticipated generator loss during cold snaps when gas supply interruptions are more prevalent,” said Mark Olson, NERC’s manager of Reliability Assessment. 

NERC’s cold weather Reliability Standards address recommendations from winter storms Elliott and Uri reviews. The most recent standard, EOP-012-3, became effective on October 1, 2025, among the improvements in the new version are enhanced and expanded requirements to ensure that Generator Owners (GO) implement corrective actions to address known issues affecting their ability to operate in cold weather in a timely manner.

This year’s assessment, previewed in the 2025-2026 WRA video and summarized in the WRA infographic, makes a series of recommendations to reduce the risks of energy shortfalls on the bulk power system this winter:

• Cold Weather Preparations: GOs should complete winter readiness plans and checklists prior to December, deploy weatherization packages well in advance of approaching winter storms, and frequently check and maintain cold weather mitigations while conditions persist. 
  
  
• Load Forecasting: Be cognizant of the potential for short-term load forecasts to underestimate load in extreme cold weather events and be prepared to take early action to implement protocols and procedures for managing potential reserve deficiencies. .
  
  
• Fuel: They should prepare their operating plans to manage potential supply shortfalls and take proactive steps fand should maintain awareness of potential extreme cold weather developing over holiday weekends and the implications for fuel planning and procurement that may result over long, holiday weekends.  
  
  
• Regulation and Policy: State and provincial regulators can assist grid owners and operators in advance of and during extreme cold weather by amplifying public appeals for electricity and natural gas conservation, and supporting requested environmental and transportation waivers.

Undertaken annually in coordination with the Regional Entities, NERC’s WRA examines multiple factors that collectively provide deep and unique insights into reliability risk. These factors include resource adequacy, encompassing reserve margins and scenarios to identify operational risk; fuel assurance; and preparations to mitigate reliability concerns.

 

DEQ Proposes Changes to Backup Generator Rules

 The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulates backup generators primarily through air quality permits and rules governing their operation, particularly in the context of data centers. The regulations specify when generators can be used, their emission standards, and permit requirements, with a general emphasis on non-emergency use limitations. 

The data centers that increasingly fuel our interactions need to run 24 hours a day to keep the internet going. So, these facilities include backup power generators, often fueled by diesel or natural gas, and intended to run only during emergencies. Each data center is equipped with sometimes dozens, sometimes hundreds of tractor trailer-sized generators. Running generators burns fossil fuels for power emits pollutants such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides and carbon dioxide. 

In the summer of 2022 Virginia regulators proposed allowing Northern Virginia data centers to use backup generators in a more continuous manner for a five-month period during which energy “transmission problems” were anticipated. Homeowners’ associations that were already opposing data center projects in their backyards quickly coalesced to contest the proposal. The data center industry ended up asking regulators to rescind it.

But the outsized power demands have only grown since then, especially as more hyperscale data centers enabling AI come online. This past summer, the region faced another test of its grid when power demand for cooling reached record highs during heat waves in June and July. PJM Interconnection, which manages the grid for the northeastern U.S., issued permission in late June for places with high power consumption to use backup systems instead of the grid to prevent blackouts.

Electricity demand continues to grow faster than the generation being added to the grid. An extreme period of cold when the ubiquitous air heat exchanges cannot make the temperature gap and are forced to operate on the les efficient electric heat resistance to warm the homes could topple the grid.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently accepting comments (until December 4th ) on a proposed change that would allow data centers to run backup diesel generators during planned outage events. Until now, these generators could only be used in the case of “sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events” or maintenance. In other words, these diesel generators–one of the most polluting forms of energy generation–were only ever meant to serve as backup power in emergency situations.

Below are the comments from the Piedmont Environmental Council:

“Utilities want the flexibility for the data centers to be able to run their existing backup diesel generators during planned outage events. This is driven by a desire to expedite timelines and avoid paying for more expensive options better equipped to protect public health."

"Planned outages, such as while transmission lines are built or worked on, are considered foreseeable, meaning data center operators have sufficient time — and are expected to — seek alternative options. Options typically used include: a) renting mobile Tier IV gas generators with higher pollution controls, or b) retrofitting Tier II generators with SCRs (selective catalytic reduction systems) to protect the public from pollution."

"But DEQ's proposal would allow data centers to potentially turn on hundreds to thousands of diesel generators, putting public health at greater risk. We believe this change should not be allowed or, at the very least, should be strictly limited and regulated."

The Public Comment Period ends on Thursday. Until then you can provide your comment at the following link: Guidance Document Public Comment Forum

DEQ Proposes to Allow more Frequent Operation of Backup Generators

A bad idea is once more being considered. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) proposes to allow backup diesel generators to operate more often, particularly at data centers in Northern Virginia. This would lead to significant increases in air pollution, noise, and environmental impacts in the region, especially to residential communities and schools.

There are 4,000 MW of backup generation (primarily diesel) in the Potomac River Basin is concentrated in Northern Virginia, with an estimated 9,000 permitted diesel generators across the state, many of which serve data centers in Loudoun and Prince William counties (Source 1,2,8).

---

Air and Health Impacts

The core issue is that these generators are generally Tier II or unrated diesel engines (designed only for emergency use) and are a highly polluting energy source (Source 1.2, 3.3). Increased operation would directly increase the emission of harmful air pollutants, posing a significant public health burden.

• Particulate Matter (PM): Diesel generators emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known carcinogen (Source 1.1). Increased use would raise the concentration of PM2.5 (fine particulate matter), which can penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream, exacerbating asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases (Source 1.8).
• Ozone Precursors (NOx): The generators emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides, which react with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to form ground-level ozone (smog) (Source 3.3). Allowing generators to run during anticipated disruptions often coincides with peak summer heat and grid stress, which are already the highest ozone-forming conditions (Source 1.2).
• Cumulative Health Costs: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) and related studies estimate that even a fraction of the permitted emissions could result in an annual public health cost of $190–260 million in Virginia and surrounding states (Source 1,8).

Impact on Schools and Residential Areas:

Children are especially vulnerable to air quality impacts. Proximity of generator clusters to sensitive receptors—such as schools, hospitals, and residential areas—is a key concern, as increased operation would directly expose these communities to higher levels of toxic emissions (Source 1,2).

---

Noise Impacts

The allowance for more frequent operation, especially for non-emergency reasons like planned maintenance or grid support, would lead to chronic noise pollution in adjacent communities.

• Disruptive Decibel Levels: Diesel generators are extremely loud. When multiple units run simultaneously, they produce a constant, industrial-grade humming and droning noise (Source 3,2).
• Quality of Life: Residents near data centers already report that the noise from cooling equipment and routine testing disrupts sleep, conversation, and the ability to use outdoor spaces (Source 3,2). Extending the permitted operating time beyond brief emergency tests would make this noise pollution a pervasive, ongoing issue.
• Increased Frequency: The proposal is designed to allow use during "planned outage events" or grid constraints (Source 1,2). This shifts the use from unpredictable, rare emergencies to foreseeable, planned operations, increasing the overall frequency and duration of loud generator operation (Source 3,2).

---

Environmental and Regulatory Impacts

• Climate Change (GHG): Increased burning of diesel fuel for non-emergency grid support directly increases greenhouse gas emissions, making it more difficult for Virginia to meet its climate goals, such as the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) targets (Source 1,1).
• Cumulative Emissions: The total number of permitted generators is enormous (nearly 9,000 across the state, with thousands concentrated in Northern Virginia) (Source 1.8). The concern is that DEQ has not publicly estimated the potential cumulative impact of thousands of these generators operating together for extended periods, effectively using them as a temporary, polluting power plant (Source 1,2).
• Regulatory Precedent: Environmental groups oppose the change, fearing it sets a "slippery slope" precedent that allows generators, which are permitted only for emergency use, to be used for demand response—where data centers are paid to reduce grid usage by running their polluting backup power (Source 1,2).

---

Sources

1. PEC Web Map, "Data Centers, Diesel Generators and Air Quality"
2. PEC Virginia, "Proposed Increase to Data Center Diesel Generator Use"
3. Bay Journal, "Virginia regulators consider letting data centers regularly use fossil-fuel power for part of the year"
4. Trinity Consultants, "Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Releases Three Air Permitting Guidance Documents for Data Centers"
5. Virginia Conservation Network, "ADDRESSING DATA CENTER IMPACTS & ENSURING TRANSPARENCY"
6. JLARC, "Data Centers in Virginia"
7. McGuireWoods, "Virginia DEQ Withdraws Proposed Rule Allowing Extended Backup Generator Use"
8. Virginia Regulatory Town Hall, View Comments on Proposed Rule

COP 30 Ends

COP30 that was held  in the rainforest in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, closed declaring that it achieved agreements on tripling adaptation finance and launched initiatives to protect forests and scale up climate finance. However, it failed to adopt a formal roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, leading to disappointment among many nations and civil society groups. The United States did not send an official delegation though California Governor Galvin Newsome made an appearance.

What was decided:

• Finance at scale: Mobilise $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action.
• Adaptation boost: Double adaptation finance by 2025 and triple by 2035.
• New initiatives: Launch of the Global Implementation Accelerator and Belém Mission to 1.5°C to drive ambition and implementation.
• Climate disinformation: Commitment to promote information integrity and counter false narratives.

COPs continue to operate around consensus. Many compromises are made, but just one country can veto a proposal. At the conference Brazilian scientist Carlos Nobre issued a stark warning: fossil fuel use must fall to zero by 2040 – 2045 at the latest to avoid temperature rises of up to 2.5°C by mid-century. That trajectory, he said, would spell the near-total loss of coral reefs, the collapse of the Amazon rainforest and an accelerated melt of the Greenland ice sheet.

The world is in a critical state is supported by scientific data released at the conference: 

• CO2 emissions are projected to reach a new record high in 2025 (38.1 billion tonnes), an increase of 1.1% over 2024 levels.
• 1.5°C Goal is beyond reach: The remaining carbon budget to limit warming to 1.5°C is "virtually exhausted" and expected to be gone before 2030 at the current emission rate which is still rising. Keeping warming below 1.5°C is "no longer plausible".
• Warming and Water Stress: Global temperatures will continue to rise with 2024 likely the first year to temporarily exceed the 1.5°C threshold. The accompanying impacts, including droughts and water stress, are intensifying. 

Expectations were high that COP30's final decision would include explicit reference to phasing out fossil fuels. More than 80 countries backed Brazil’s proposal for a formal ‘roadmap.’ However, more nations did not.

The Tropical Forests Forever Facility was launched. The goal is to raise $125 billion to pay countries to conserve forests. There were  $5.5 billion in initial pledges. Brazil also committed to creating new Indigenous territories.

• Methane Reductions: Seven countries (including the UK, Canada, and Germany) signed a separate statement to achieve "near zero" methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector.
• Renewable Energy: Public utility companies in various countries pledged nearly $150 billion for new grids and energy storage to accelerate the global clean energy transition. 

COP30 fell short of the decisive action on fossil fuels that many scientists say is necessary to "correct course" and keep the 1.5°C limit within reach.

  

Drought Expands

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), in coordination with the Virginia Drought Monitoring Task Force, has expanded the drought watch advisory to now include 50 counties and 23 cities. Virginia has endured three dry years and this water year (October 1 2025 -September 30 2026) has started off very dry.

from DEQ

The drought advisory is intended to help Virginians prepare for a potential drought and now includes the following areas:

• Middle James: Albemarle, Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, Buckingham, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, Nelson, Powhatan, Prince Edward counties; and the cities of Charlottesville, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Lynchburg, Petersburg, and Richmond
• Northern Virginia:  Arlington, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, and Prince William counties; and the cities of Arlington, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park 
• Northern Piedmont: Culpeper, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, Rappahannock, Spotsylvania, and Stafford counties; and the city of Fredericksburg
• Roanoke River: Bedford, Campbell, Charlotte, Franklin, Patrick, Halifax, Henry, Mecklenburg, Pittsylvania, and Roanoke counties; and the cities of Bedford, Martinsville, Salem, and Roanoke
• Upper James: Alleghany, Bath, Craig, Botetourt, Highland, and Rockbridge counties; and the city of Covington
• Shenandoah: Augusta, Clarke, Frederick, Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah, and Warren counties; and the cities of Buena Vista, Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton, Waynesboro, and Winchester

Recent lack of precipitation has resulted in continued below normal or declines in streamflow and groundwater levels throughout northern, central, and south-central regions of the state. The forecast for the next week suggests limited precipitation east of the Blue Ridge Mountains (0.10 to 0.25”) with slightly higher, but still below normal, totals forecasted in western portions of the Commonwealth (0.25 to 0.5”). Above normal temperatures are predicted over all the Commonwealth for the next two weeks. Below normal water levels are present in Smith Mountain Lake and Switzer Lake with storage at all other major water supply reservoirs at normal levels.

Groundwater monitoring wells along the Blue Ridge Mountains and throughout northern portions of the state continue to exhibit moderate declines and were generally below or much below normal levels in these areas. Groundwater levels in three indicator wells were below the 5th percentile, one in the Roanoke and two in the Northern Virginia drought evaluation regions. Groundwater levels in three indicator wells were between the 5th and 10th percentiles, one in each of the Roanoke, Northern Virginia, and Upper James drought evaluation regions.

from USGS

DEQ is working with local governments, public water works, and water users in the affected areas to ensure that conservation and drought response plans and ordinances are followed. Localities and residents that are supplied water from the Potomac River should consult the Metropolitan Washington Water Supply and Drought Awareness Response Plan for specific triggers and actions to be taken. All Virginians are encouraged to protect water supplies by minimizing water use, monitoring drought conditions, and detecting and repairing leaks.