Future of the Rural Crescent: Water, Costs, Fairness

Last week the Prince William County Planning Office held a public outreach meeting to a present the options that they are considering for the fate of the Rural Crescent. The comment period for the Alternatives for the Rural Crescent ends on August 16^th 2019. You have a very narrow time frame to get your comments in and have the Planning Office hear your concerns. I have listed the options below with my concerns. I am shocked that after consideration I think the best options is PDRwith increase of minimum lot size of A-1.

Though this option would require the county to raise what the Development Office estimates to be between $50,000,000-$114,660,000 to purchase the development rights of the remaining open space and $137,000,000 to outright purchase the 10,000,000 recommended in the Rural Preservation Study, it would not necessarily be the most expensive option to the county. All the other options will result in a need for more infrastructure: water, sewer, road, schools, and County services that also have significant upfront costs- a foot of water main or sewer main costs about $300 and a mile cost about $1,600,000. There is a large capital cost to expand capacity of the H.L. Mooney Advanced Water Reclamation Facility and Upper Occoquan Service Authority (UOSA). There is a capital cost to purchase additional capacity from Fairfax Water and that water is not unlimited.

In the PDR option viewsheds and the current feel of the rural area would be maintained and truly public land would be increased. The PDR option would not increase the number of houses, students in our schools nor the number of transportation daily trips in the coming years. There would be no additional need for County services or infrastructure. No additional need for teachers and schools and the capital and carrying costs associated with increased population.  There would be no impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater to the existing property owners.

Prince William County Planning Office Alternatives for the Rural Area:

A-10 : 10-acre lots and rural cluster with existing density and no sewer. This is the existing policy. In the coming years this will result in an additional 2,783 houses being built, and additional 1,813 students in our schools, an additional 28,108 transportation daily trips and no open space preserved. If we continue on this path the remaining rural areas will eventually be cut up into 10 acre parcels with McMansions on each. There will be more traffic and a need for additional schools and the expansion of and widening of roads.

RC-A: Rural cluster with existing density and sewer. This alternative provides land owners the “right” to extend sewer to their property while maintaining existing planned density levels. It would allow development to be clustered on a corner of a property in order to preserve greenspace and a conservation easement to be placed on the remainder of the land. In the coming years this will result in an additional 2,783 houses being built, and additional 1,813 students in our schools, an additional 28,118 transportation daily trips and 8,145 acres of open space preserved. This limits the amount of impervious surface constructed which may impact groundwater recharge less than option A-10.

RC-B Rural Cluster with increased density and sewer. This alternative provides land owners the “right” to extend sewer to their property while almost doubling planned density levels. It would allow development to be clustered on a corner of a property in order to preserve greenspace and a conservation easement to be placed on the remainder of the land. In the coming years this will result in an additional 5,067 houses being built, and additional 3,303 students in our schools, an additional 51,177 transportation daily trips and 8,145 acres of open space preserved. The impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater for this has not been studied, but there would be an increased demand on groundwater and a reduction in recharge. Both of the rural cluster options will result in a need for more infrastructure: water, sewer, road, schools, and County services. While there would be a preservation of some of the open areas, agricultural parcels will continue to be chopped up.

TDR-A: Transfer of development rights using density based on rural character areas of the rural preservation study. In a TDR program a landowner sells his or her development rights to a developer. This alternative identifies “sending areas” where the rights can be purchased and receiving areas where higher density cluster development will be built. This version of the TDR will have the density in the receiving areas of one house per 1.5 acres. In the coming years this will result in an additional 2,643 houses being built, and additional 1,723 students in our schools, an additional 26,694 transportation daily trips and 23,889 acres of open space preserved. The impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater for this has not been studied, but this does not increase the impervious surface area in the sending areas.

TDR-B: Transfer of development rights using density base on long range land use from the 1981 comprehensive plan. In a TDR program a landowner sells his or her development rights to a developer. This alternative identifies “sending areas” where the rights can be purchased and receiving areas where higher density cluster development will be built. The basis for the number of rights allotted to land will be based on the number of houses that could have been developed under the 1981 Comprehensive plan. This version does not treat the landowners of the Rural Area equally, but makes land in what was called the “rural residential area” 39 years ago much more valuable.  This option would increase the density of impervious surfaces and housing adjacent to current A-1 housing in the northern portion of the Rural Crescent significantly. The impact to groundwater recharge would be significant.  This alternative will also have the density in the receiving areas of one house per 0.4 acres. In the coming years this will result in an additional 10,390 houses being built, and additional 6,773 students in our schools predominately in the northern portion of the Rural Crescent;  an additional 104,939 transportation daily trips and only 23,176 acres of open space preserved. Though there would be preservation of open areas this would only be in Nokesville, the incentive would be to convert all donor lands to farm wineries and breweries. The receiving areas would become a high density development ribbon that runs from one end of the “Rural Area” to the other. This would create constant traffic issues on what are currently in many cases unlit rural roads. Residents would no longer experience the view sheds as their view would be blocked by the wider developed road and the super density zone. It would all appear as Fairfax style subdivision. This option will result in a need for more infrastructure: water, sewer, road, schools, and County services. The impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater for this has not been studied, but this creates a high density area of impervious surfaces around the entire Rural Area which could significantly impact the wells of existing residents. In addition, this increases the demand for public water which is also limited.

PDR: PDR with increase of minimum lot size of A-1. In this alternative, Prince William County would purchase the development rights of lots larger than 20 acres and place an easement for farming and/or open space on the land. Though the county would not use eminent domain, the county is using coercion by increasing the minimum lot size. This option uses public money to purchase the development rights. In this option, viewsheds and the current feel of the rural area would be maintained and public land would be increased. The PDR option would not increase the number of houses, students in our schools nor the number of transportation daily trips in the coming years. There would be no additional need for County services or infrastructure. No additional need for teachers and schools and the capital and carrying costs associated with increased population.  There would be no impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater.

AAOD: Agritourism and Arts Overlay District. This alternative can be used to complement other options. The objective would be to allow more flexibility to establish a rural and agrarian area with agritourism and art-related businesses. While this will increase economic vitality, the water demands from breweries and wineries needs to be carefully considered. Also, the operation of alcohol selling venues along unlit rural roads must carefully be considered before allowing an unlimited number of breweries and wineries that require massive amounts of water.

LUV: Land use valuation. Since 1972 Virginia has allowed the assessed value of productive agricultural land to be based on its use rather than market value. This option envisions tweaking the aspects of this program that the county controls- reducing the minimum acreage for agricultural, forested and open land. The changes that could be made would be minor to the overall tax base, but could make farming slightly more favorable to the farmer.  

Changing the character of the Rural Area to include cluster development houses clustered in “transition areas” or even increasing the current population could impact water availability to the existing residents and impact base flow to our rivers. Bringing in public water and sewer connections even if they are limited to cluster development or along what they called the transition area, such expansion may exceed the capacity of the current water supply systems and require water and sewer infrastructure expansion. Clustered properties cannot rely on well and septic- they are simply too close together, clustered development will be connected to public water supplied by Prince William Service Authority.

Currently, public water in the areas adjacent to the Rural Crescent is supplied by a combination of groundwater wells and surface water supply that is purchased from Fairfax Water and Lake Manassas. There is a cost to purchase additional capacity from Fairfax Water and that water is not unlimited. Based on the PW Service Authority study of the Evergreen water system, that system cannot provide adequate water to withstand a leak or to have adequate water to recover from a problem, let alone provide supply to more homes. In addition, piping and pumps will have to carry water from its source to any new development. This would force the County to find additional sources of water at greater incremental cost to all rate payers and such sources may not even be available. In addition, water mains and sewage piping are costly not only to build, but also to maintain.

For more than two centuries the waters of the Potomac seemed unlimited. It is not, Fairfax Water, Loudoun Water, WSSC, and the Washington Aqueduct all share the waters of the Potomac. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, manages the Potomac River allocation of the regional water supply during times of low flow and plan for future water supply. The Washington DC region has reached the point in population density and development that during times of drought, natural flows on the Potomac are not always sufficient to allow water withdrawals by the utilities (including power generation which takes an awesome amount of water) while still maintaining a minimum flow in the river for sustaining aquatic resources.

In 2018 Virginia Legislature amended the comprehensive planning process (§§ 15.2-2223 and 15.2-2224 of the Code of Virginia ) to include planning for the continued availability, quality and sustainability of groundwater and surface water resources on a County level. State law now requires that the County plan to have good quality water for all its residents present and future in the Comprehensive Plan. These proposals do not address this issue.

The right of existing property owners to their water is primary and valuable and should not be compromised or impaired. Because there are natural fluctuations in groundwater levels it is easy to mask or ignore signs of the beginnings of destruction of the water resources that we depend on. Fluctuations in climate or rainfall and imperfect measurements and vantage points mask trends from clear view. It is essential if the Prince William County Planning Office is considering study the impact of these plans on water resources before making decisions that will result in Prince William County having inadequate water for all its residents in the future.