PW Partners to Reintroduce Mussels int PW County Streams

From a recent NVRC press release:

The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) secured a watershed restoration grant of $75,000 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Chesapeake Watershed Investments in Landscape Defense (Chesapeake WILD) Program.

This funding, part of 25 grants announced in the 2023 round, supports an innovative project to reintroduce native freshwater mussels into Prince William County's restored streams. This project a partnership with Prince William County Department of Public Works, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery and George Mason University's Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center (PEREC). Last month about 150 young mussels were placed in baskets and placed into four stream sites to kick off this restoration effort.

Nicknamed “nature’s water filters,” freshwater mussels are environmental superheroes. A single adult mussel can filter up to 8-15 gallons of water per day, removing various pollutants. This boosts water clarity, improves habitat for fish and other wildlife, and strengthens the entire aquatic ecosystem. Mussels help improve water quality through filtration and denitrification—the process in which nitrogen is removed from water by transforming into gas. Mussels filter water preventing nutrients and other harmful pollutants from flowing downstream. They also removes potentially harmful debris like silt and algae and plastics, which improves water clarity. Mussels provide food for aquatic species, and their beds are a source of habitat for small species.

A Three Phase Plan for Success

Phase I, Site Assessment: Mussel biologists scouted Prince William County’s streams, analyzing water quality, substrate, flow patterns, and existing aquatic life to pinpoint the best homes for mussels.

Phase II, Controlled Release and Monitoring: This is where we are now! About 150 one year old hatchery-reared and tagged mussels have been placed in specialized baskets at four sites. The team will monitor their growth, survival, and adjustment to their new homes before releasing them more broadly.

Phase III, Full Reintroduction and Monitoring: If all goes well with the test group of mussels, more tagged hatchery-reared mussels will be released into the streams. Ongoing monitoring will track mussel population health and measurable improvements in water quality, providing valuable data for future restoration efforts across the Chesapeake watershed.

Looking Ahead:

This isn’t just a local win. As these natural water filters establish themselves in Prince William County streams, the downstream benefits will contribute to the region and the Chesapeake Bay. The success of this initiative will hopefully pave the way for similar mussel reintroduction programs across the region and state to improve our local streams with an innovative approach. I am hopeful that Chestnut Lick (which runs through my back yard) will also receive baskets. 

Contamination by fecal coliform bacteria is the most common cause of water quality violations in Virginia streams. According to DEQ and the United States Geologic Survey “Although fecal coliform bacteria are not necessarily dangerous to humans, their presence in streams indicates that the water is contaminated with fecal waste from warm-blooded animals. For this reason, fecal coliform bacteria are known as ‘indicator organisms;’ their presence in recreational waters indicates an increased risk to human health.”

Prince William County is subject to four separate TMDLs that assign WLAs for discharges of bacteria to impaired waters. The WLAs are assigned in aggregate to multiple MS4 permit holders within Prince William County’s geographic boundary. Prince William County is also under the EPA Chesapeake Bay cleanup mandate.

DOE Report on Electric Reliability

The Department of Energy (DOE) recently released their report: “Evaluating the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid.”

This report and associated analysis were prepared for DOE to evaluate both the current state of electrical adequacy as well as future adequacy from the combination of announced retirements and large load growth from expansion of industry, data centers and AI.

This report serves as DOE’s response to a Presidential Executive Order by delivering the required uniform methodology to identify at-risk region(s) and guide reliability interventions. The report was developed with assistance from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) using data from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

The highlights relating to PJM below is excerpted from the 73 page report. They developed three separate cases for 2030. The “Plant Closures” case assumes all announced retirements occur plus generation additions which include NERC’s Tier 1 resources category- completed and under-construction power generation projects, as well as those with firm-signed and approved interconnection service or power purchase agreements. The “No Plant Closures” case assumes no retirements plus the same additions. A “Required Build” case further compares the impacts of retirements on perfect capacity additions needed to return 2030 to the current system level of reliability.

The model assumes electricity moves between subregions, when conditions start to tighten. Each region has a certain amount of capacity available, and the methodology determines if there is enough to meet the demand. When regions reach a “Tight Margin Level” of 10% of capacity, i.e., if a region’s available capacity is less than 110% of load, it will start transferring from other regions if capacity is available.

Several utilities and financial and industry analysts identify data centers, particularly those supporting AI workloads, as a key driver of electricity demand growth. Multiple organizations have developed a wide range of projections for U.S. data center electricity use through 2030 and beyond, each using distinct methodologies based on their institutional expertise.

These projections were used to explore reasonable boundaries for what different parts of the economy envision for the future state of AI and data center load growth. For the purposes of this study, rather than focusing on any specific analysis.

Key Findings:

Plant Closures Case:

• Systemwide Failures: PJM failed reliability thresholds.
• Loss of Load Hours (LOLH): Was projected to be 430 hours/year in PJM.
• Load Shortfall Severity: Max shortfall reached as high as 43% of hourly load in PJM
• Normalized Unserved Energy: Normalized for PJM was 0.1473% (PJM), far exceeding thresholds of 0.002%.
• Extreme Events: Most regions experienced ≥3 hours of unserved load in at least one year. PJM had 1,052 hours in its worst year.
• Spatial Takeaways: Subregions in PJM met thresholds—indicating possible benefits from transmission.

No Plant Closures Case:

• Improved System Performance, but PJM still experienced shortfalls.

Regional Failures:

• PJM (was the worst failure zone) 214 hours/year average, 0.066% normalized unserved energy, 644 hours in worst year, max 36% of load lost.

Key Takeaways

The Status Quo is Unsustainable. The status quo of more generation retirements and intermittent replacement generation is neither consistent with winning the AI race and ensuring affordable energy for all Americans, nor with continued grid reliability (ensuring “resource adequacy”). Absent intervention, it is impossible for the nation’s bulk power system to meet the AI growth requirements while maintaining a reliable power grid and keeping energy costs low for our citizens.

Grid Growth Must Match Pace of AI Innovation. The magnitude and speed of projected load growth cannot be met with existing approaches to load addition and grid management. The situation necessitates a radical change to unleash the transformative potential of innovation.

Retirements Plus Load Growth Increase Risk of Power Outages by 100x in 2030. The retirement of firm power capacity is exacerbating the resource adequacy problem. 104 GW of firm capacity are set for retirement by 2030. This capacity is not being replaced on a one-to-one basis and losing this generation could lead to significant outages when weather conditions do not accommodate wind and solar generation. In the “plant closures” scenario of this analysis, annual loss of load hours (LOLH) increased by a factor of a hundred.

Planned Supply Falls Short, Reliability is at Risk. The 104 GW of retirements are projected to be replaced by 209 GW of new generation by 2030; however, only 22 GW would come from firm baseload generation sources all the rest is intermittent and weather dependent and climate change is impacting solar and wind generation. Even assuming no retirements, the model found increased risk of outages in 2030 by a factor of 34.

 

Chesapeake Bay Cleanup

In 2014 the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement was signed by the six Chesapeake Bay Watershed states (Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) and the District of the Columbia. In this agreement the EPA set a limit for release of nutrients into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. At that time this limit was referred to as the TMDL, but now is called the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint. Under the most recent revision to the blueprint, the Chesapeake Bay model called for about 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 % reduction in sediment from the “base case 2011 levels.”

 These reductions in pollution were then partitioned to the various states and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer modeling tools and monitoring data. Each year, Virginia, as well as the other Bay jurisdictions, report information about implemented best management practices (BMPs) to the EPA, which takes the information and runs it through the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. The results estimate the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that would make it to the Bay under average conditions. By comparing the model results across time, EPA then evaluated the expected collective impact of these actions under the implementation plans. 

They also continued to measure the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in the water. The Chesapeake Bay Program in partnership with USGS, monitors stream flow, nutrients and sediment in the rivers throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are 85 sites in the network; currently being monitored; however not all of the monitors have been operating since the beginning of monitoring in the 1980's. Only 31 of these sites date back that far and can be used to examine long term trends. 

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed agreement ran for 10 years and we are now coming to the end- it will expire in December 2025. Unfortunately, we have neither met the goal of installing the required BMP’s (best management practices) to meet the Watershed Implementation plans, but the measured data is discouraging, too.  As of 2023, the BMPs in place across the watershed are estimated to achieve 57% of the nitrogen reductions, 67% of the phosphorus reductions and 100% of the sediment reductions needed to meet water quality standards when compared to the 2009 loads.

from Bay-Barometer-2023-2024_Web.pdf

Here’s a look at the long-term trends, measured since 1985, and the short-term trends, those from 2015 through 2024 by the USGS at their monitoring stations as reported by the Chesapeake Bay Program:

• Susquehanna River (measured at Conowingo Dam): The long- and short-term trends improved for both nitrogen and phosphorus.
• Potomac River (measured at Chain Bridge in the District of Columbia): The long- and short-term trends improved for nitrogen. The long-term trend improved for phosphorus, but there was no clear short-term trend.
• James River (measured upstream of Richmond): The long- term trend improved for nitrogen and phosphorus, but the short-term trend degraded for both nutrients. Any BMPs installed under the WIP in the last 10 years was overwhelmed by other factors.
• Rappahannock River (measured near Fredericksburg, VA): The long-term trend improved for nitrogen, but the short-term trend was degrading. The long- and short-term phosphorus trend was degrading.
• Appomattox River, (measured near Matoaca,VA): The long- and short-term trends were degrading for both nutrients.
• Pamunkey River (measured near Hanover, VA): There was no clear long-term nitrogen trend, but the short-term nitrogen trend improved. The long-term phosphorus trend was degrading; there was no short-term phosphorus trend.
• Mattaponi River (measured near Beulahville, VA): The long-term nitrogen trend improved, but there was no short-term trend. There was no clear long-term phosphorus trend, but the short-term trend was degrading.
• Patuxent River (measured at Bowie, MD): The long- and short-term nitrogen trends were improving. The long-term phosphorus trend improved, but there was no short-term phosphorus trend.
• Choptank River (measured near Greensboro, MD): No long-term nitrogen trend, but the short-term trend was improving. Long- and short-term phosphorus trends are degrading.

Overall, the billions of dollars spent on implementing BMPs under the Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) seems to not have accomplished very much. Even with an epic fail,  no government program ever dies. Right now the Chesapeake Bay Program is planning for the future of Bay restoration, expanding goals and such. Maybe we need to take another look at the Chesapeake Bay Model that was the basis for the WIPs and see where we went wrong before we create a permanent program with more layers.

The Chesapeake Bay Program partners recommend that they “should continue to set targets, track progress and be mutually accountable for meeting meaningful science-based goals as specified in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. As new and growing challenges like increased rainfall, higher temperatures, land use changes and other known or unanticipated factors continue to complicate efforts to meet Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement  goals, it is imperative that the partnership continuously improve its organizational capability to assess, respond, innovate and adapt.” 

All of Earth's Climate Indictors continue in the Wrong Direction

 Forster, P. M., et al;  Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2641–2680, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, 2025.

The article below is primarily excerpted from the paper cited above.

from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/

The annual Indicators of Global Climate change, IPCC, update provided an assessment of human influence on key indicators of climate every five years.  The figure above presents a summary of the main indicators from.

Last year (2024) global surface temperatures appears to have exceeded 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, though the average surface temperature for the last 10 years is 1.24  °C above pre-industrial levels. The high level of global temperature recorded last year is typical of what we expect from current best estimates of human-induced warming, modulated by internal climate variability-specifically El Nino in the Atlantic and subsequent droughts.

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/

Land temperatures average 2014-2023 are now 1.24  °C above pre-industrial levels at this review. The previous report found surface temperatures 2011-2019 averaged 1.02  °C above pre-industrial levels. The planet is warming, and the climate models have done a relatively good job of predicting the observed rise in temperatures; but have not succeeded at predicting localized changes and weather patterns. The increasing land temperatures, closely related to global warming levels, drive increasing evapotranspiration, decreasing soil moisture (Seo et al., 2025). As moisture leaves the land it contributes to the increased rate of global mean sea-level rise along with the melting glaciers.

Methane and biomass emissions (which are to a large extent natural) had a strong component of change related to climate feedbacks. Average greenhouse gas emission worldwide were 53.6 gigatons per year for the last ten years. The previous study found that the average global greenhouse gas emissions averaged 52.9 gigatons per year.

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/

The scientists found that global mean sea-level rise continues to accelerate. From 1901 to 2024 mean sea level rose 228.0 mm at an average rate of 1.85 mm per year.  The scientists noted the need to explore they might develop tracking for regional climate extremes and their attribution, which are particularly relevant for supporting actions on adaptation and loss and damage.

Sea level rise is accelerating. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/

Generally, scientists and scientific organizations have an important role as “watchdogs” to critically inform evidence-based decision-making. This annual update traced to IPCC methods can provide a reliable, timely source of trustworthy information; IGCC and the complementary updates of the State of the Climate (BAMS) and State of the Global Climate (WMO) reports very much rely on the continued support of high-quality global monitoring networks of atmospheric and climate data and also on open data sources that are regularly updated and easily accessed.

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/

This is a critical decade: human-induced global warming rates are at their highest historical level, and 1.5 °C global warming might be expected to be reached or exceeded in around 5 years in the absence of cooling from major volcanic eruptions. Yet this is also the decade when global GHG emissions could be expected to peak and begin to substantially decline do to slow but sure changes in our fossil fuel based economies and the peak population having been reached in China (and hopefully in India).

The indicators of global climate change found  that the Earth's energy imbalance has increased to around 1.0 W m⁻², averaged over the last 12 years, which represents a 25 % increase on the value assessed for 2006–2018 by the previous report. This means that even after the annual emission fall the planet will continue to warm due to the response of slow components in the climate system (glaciers, deep ocean, ice sheets) and committed long-term sea-level rise (through ocean thermal expansion and land-based ice melt/loss.

However, rapid and stringent GHG emission decreases could halve warming rates over the next 20 years (McKenna et al., 2021). Global GHG emissions are at a long-term high, yet there are signs that their rate of increase has slowed. Do not abandon all hope. Depending on the societal choices made in this critical decade we may be able to bend the curve a little more.

Harmful Algae Bloom in Maryland

 

The Recreational Water Contact Health Advisory for Triadelphia Reservoir is still in effect due to the presence of a Harmful Algae .

Toxic blue green algae also know as a harmful algal bloom (HAB)  has been increasingly found in the warmer months. WSSC Water monitors both treated and untreated water for cyanotoxins during the warmer months to ensure these toxins do not enter the water system. WSSC also monitors the reservoirs used for recreation. Accidentally consuming water containing HAB can cause harmful health effects. Signs will be placed around each recreation area when water contact is unsafe. Please adhere to these signs. WSSC Water watershed regulations prohibit pets from being in the water at any time.  

Algae blooms also called harmful algal bloom (HAB) or dead zones form in summers when higher temperatures reduce the oxygen holding capacity of the water, the air is still and especially in years of heavy rains that carry excess nutrient pollution from cities, suburban lawns and farms. The excess nutrient pollution combined with mild weather encourages the explosive growth of algae fed by excessive nutrient pollution.

Not all algal blooms are toxic or hazardous. Only certain species of blue-green algae form the toxin, for reasons that aren't fully understood. Toxic bacteria were not a problem until the 21st century, though algae blooms have been a problem on Lake Erie, the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay and other areas for over half a century. Only algae that contains microcystine or cyanobacteria, a toxin produced by microcystis, a type of blue-green algae that spreads in the summer algae bloom are hazardous.

In the 21st century toxic or hazardous algal blooms have become a global concern in lakes, rivers and oceans. They occur when algae grow out of control when there are favorable environmental conditions. Hazardous algal blooms, the ones that contain microcystis a type of blue-green algae produce Microcystine or cyanobacteria toxins, that can lead to the poisoning of fish, shellfish, birds, livestock, domestic pets and other aquatic organisms that can lead to human health impact from eating fish or shellfish exposed to toxins as well as drinking water contaminated by toxins.

The Department of Health advises:

• Avoid contact with any area of a lake or pond where water is green or an advisory sign is posted. WHEN IN DOUBT, STAY OUT!
• Waters that are discolored or have foam, scums or mats that are green or blueish-green should be avoided because they likely contain toxins.  Harmful algae can also be brown or red, and can resemble paint floating on the water.  Toxic algae can stink, smelling nauseating to people, but can be attractive to animals like dogs.
• Do not allow children or pets to drink from natural bodies of water.
• Keep children and pets out of the areas experiencing a harmful algae bloom and quickly wash them off with plenty of fresh, clean water after coming into contact with algae scum or bloom water.
• If you, your kids or your animals experience symptoms after swimming in or near an algal bloom, seek immediate medical/veterinarian care.

Symptoms: Human contact with HABs can cause rashes, stomach upset, diarrhea and vomiting.  Dogs can show symptoms including staggering, drooling, breathing difficulty, convulsions or seizures.

To ensure fish fillets are safe to eat, properly clean fish by removing skin and discarding all internal organs, and cooking fish to the proper temperature.

If you, your pet, or someone you know has come in contact with or ingested water at the reservoir, call your local health department:  

• Montgomery County: 240-777-0311 (Montgomery County 311) 
• Prince George’s County: 301-883-4748 (Prince George’s County 311) 
• Howard County: 410-313-1773 (Environmental Health Department)  

 

Data centers Threaten Energy Grid and Water Supplies

The comments below from Landon Marston, an associate professor at Virginia Tech’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering are taken from a Virginia Tech news release. Dr. Marston specializes in water resources engineering. His research focuses on the sustainability of water systems and the complex interconnections between water, energy, food, and infrastructure.

“The primary driver for energy consumption is the IT equipment itself - the servers run 24/7 to process data. The second major driver is cooling. All that electronic equipment generates a tremendous amount of heat, and data centers must run massive cooling systems to keep servers from overheating. AI-specific servers are especially power-hungry because of the intense calculations they perform,” Marston said. 

“Water's main role is in those cooling systems. Many large data centers use evaporative cooling, which is very effective but can sometimes consume as much water as a small city.”

In commenting on The White House’s recently released “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan to remove barriers to American leadership in AI, Dr. Marston said: “It could lead to data centers being built without adequate grid planning, increasing the risk of local blackouts,” said Marston. “It could also allow facilities to be built without proper consideration of local water availability, water infrastructure, and financial agreements that ensure long-term sustainability of the water system.” 

However, approving nearly 90 million square feet of  data centers in Prince William County without even identifying if these will be the more energy intensive AI data centers has done just that. Our utilities will have no opportunity to plan the massive infrastructure necessary to support this demand that might only be short term.

As Dr. Marston pointed out: “The primary driver for energy consumption is the IT equipment itself - the servers run 24/7 to process data. The second major driver is cooling. All that electronic equipment generates a tremendous amount of heat, and data centers must run massive cooling systems to keep servers from overheating. AI-specific servers are especially power-hungry because of the intense calculations they perform,” Marston said. 

“Water's main role is in those cooling systems. Many large data centers use evaporative cooling, which is very effective but can sometimes consume as much water as a small city.”

Prince William County Board of Supervisors has approved hundreds of rezoning requests without even carrying a tally of what the ultimate build out total will be. These approvals were given without knowing if land will have to be taken by eminent domain from homeowners to meet the transmission requirement without obtaining a detailed layout of the site, despite detailed requests for additional information from PWC staff. The proposed rezoning requests have often been too general and did not provide sufficient details to even determine the actual location of site features.

In the Digital Gateway rezoning the applicants never submitted the maximum daily water demands and peak wastewater flows for each phase of development, so the hydraulic capacity studies by the PW Service Authority were not completed. This was and remains unacceptable.  Impacts on the water supply adequacy and the need for and costs of additional water storage in the system were not addressed.

Digital Gateway Rezoning: Void

In news from the battlefield: Last Thursday Prince William County Circuit Court Judge Kimberly Irving ruled in favor of the Oak Valley Homeowners’ Association and a group of individual homeowners who live near the planned Digital Gateway development at the edge of Manassas National Battlefield Park. Judge Irving said the Prince William Board of County Supervisors’ decision to rezone 1,790 acres of homes and farms for the data center development is void because the county failed to comply with state and local notice requirements in advance of the public hearings, that were held in December 2023.

The only question decided was whether Prince William County complied with public notice laws ahead of the Dec. 12, 2023, public hearing for the PW Digital Gateway rezonings. The defendants- Prince William County and the two data center developers, QTS and Compass Datacenters, will decide whether to appeal the decision or go through the rezoning process again. Another legal challenge to the Digital Gateway is winding its way through the appeals process.

 

A little background:

On November 1, 2022, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the PW Digital Gateway. They did this without performing a watershed study as requested by Fairfax County and Fairfax Water.  The Digital Gateway Development could endanger the Occoquan watershed, the most urbanized watershed in the nation and currently experiencing degradation; and the Occoquan Reservoir, the source of water for nearly 1,000,000 northern Virginia residents.

The rezoning heard in December 2023 also requested a waiver to requirement that the planned 37 data centers must have an approved SUP, denying the county and public a final review of the plans for the site before approval. The process was rushed resulting in the notice deficiency as found by Judge Irving; however, there were many deficiencies in the rezoning request itself.

The rezoning request lacked a detailed layout of the site, despite detailed requests for additional information from PWC staff. The proposed rezoning requests were too general and did not provide sufficient details to even determine the actual location of site features and resource protected areas under the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. It appeared that the data centers propose using part of the RPA as the path for the power lines. That is forbidden by Virginia Law- the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act.  

For a reasonable waiver of the SUP requirement, PWC staff need the same level of detail in the rezoning request as would be required with the SUP, and that all relevant impacts should be appropriately mitigated to protect our water, our grid and our citizens as a SUP would. Yet, the data center developers argued (successfully to the Board of Supervisors) that on such a large and complicated site, asking for this level of detail was unreasonable. They failed to submit the requested information, address the impacts to the properties to the west, or develop adequate mitigations to prevent impact to the Battlefield and historical resources, and Occoquan watershed.

Data centers are the physical factories of the internet. Standard data centers are warehouses filled with row upon row of servers, routers, wires, and other information technology hardware spanning hundreds of thousands of highly cooled square feet per building and sucking up incredible amounts of power. Now we have the emerging demand for AI data centers. These specialized data centers run high performance chips like the Nvidia graphics processing units that use seven times the power of traditional data centers. This requires additional power infrastructure, and the extra power generates more heat and requires liquid cooling to prevent the equipment from overheating. The applicants never submitted the maximum daily water demands and peak wastewater flows for each phase of development, so the hydraulic capacity studies by the PW Service Authority were not completed. This was and remains unacceptable.  Impacts on the water supply adequacy and the need for and costs of additional water storage in the system were not addressed.

In a briefing to the Board of County Supervisors in December 2024, the Occoquan Watershed Laboratory Director, Dr. Stanley Grant made it clear that emerging water quality issues are a result of the “built” environment. The Digital Gateway will certainly increase that. As we continue to develop the Occoquan Watershed we endanger the sustainability of the water supply for the up to 1 million people in northern Virginia who depend on the Occoquan for their water supply. When population density increases, the impervious surfaces in a watershed increase. However, the increase is not linear, once the population density reaches 100 people per square mile, the rate of increase in impervious surfaces takes off. Data centers only accelerate this trends because the bult environment increases significantly without any increase in population density.

Alimatou Seck, Senior Water Resources Scientist of the ICPRB found that data centers currently consume about 2% of the water used from the Potomac River Basin rising to about 8% in the summer when adiabatic cooling is necessary. If the industry continues to grow at an unconstrained pace using standard cooling technologies, Dr. Seck projected that number could surpass 33% by 2050, using 200 million gallons of Potomac water per day. This assumes that the cooling technologies remain the same mix as they are now. That assumption is very unlikely given the migration towards AI.

In 2023, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission directed staff to review the impacts of the data center industry in Virginia. Modern data centers consume substantially more energy than other types of commercial or industrial operations. Consequently, the data center industry boom in Virginia has substantially driven up energy demand in the state, and demand is forecast to continue growing for the foreseeable future. The state’s energy demand was essentially flat from 2006 to 2020 even though population increased, it was offset by energy efficiency improvements. However, an independent forecast commissioned by JLARC shows that unconstrained demand for power in Virginia would double within the next 10 years, with the data center industry being the main driver.

JLARC found that a substantial amount of new power generation and transmission infrastructure will be needed in Virginia to meet this energy demand. Building enough infrastructure to meet energy demand will be very difficult to achieve and cannot be accomplished while meeting the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) requirements. The power infrastructure necessary to move this power will have a significant impact on the cost and quality of life in Prince William County. Operating data centers in Prince William County used 862 megawatts of electrical power in fiscal year 2024 that is enough power to serve 646,500 homes. However, the actual number of households in Prince William County is actually about 155,000. Prince William has approved enough data centers to increase that power use more than 10 times.

According to Dominion Energy and the JLARC report, data centers’ increased energy demand will increase system costs for all customers, including non-data center customers, for several reasons. A large amount of new generation and transmission will need to be built that would not otherwise be built, creating fixed costs that utilities will need to recover. It will be difficult to supply enough energy to keep pace with growing data center demand, so energy prices are likely to increase for all customers. Finally, if utilities remain reliant on importing power, they may not always be able to secure lower-cost power and will be more susceptible to spikes in energy market prices. Virginia currently gets more than 20% of its power from outside the state.

Data centers are mission-critical facilities as a result; to maintain operation during emergencies such as grid outages or fluctuations in power, data centers require highly reliable backup power sources and almost entirely use diesel generators which are the dirtiest source of power generation. Data centers must have what is essentially a mini grid to ensure backup power.   Diesel generators are known to emit significant amounts of air pollutants and even hazardous emissions during operation. For example, they emit 200-600 times more NOx than new or controlled existing natural gas-fired power plants for each unit of electricity produced. 

However, data centers bring economic activity. Capital investment in Virginia data centers is substantial, exceeding $24 billion in FY23 alone, and primarily consists of equipment purchases from Virginia-based and out-of-state companies. The primary benefit to Virginia’s economy is the economic activity related to data center construction, which is only 20% of total data center capital investment. Virginia primarily benefits from data centers when we keep building. Virginia-based businesses performing key construction services such as clearing trees and grading sites, erecting steel frames, installing high voltage electrical equipment, installing industrial-scale cooling systems, and running miles of cable, conduit, and piping. Materials used in data center construction are often also sourced from Virginia businesses throughout the state. There are relatively few permanent jobs associated with data center operation.

The question is what do we want Prince William to be. Land use decisions are what will shape our future. There will be a special election for Gainesville District supervisor  to replace the late Bob Weir who passed away on July 20^th from cancer will be held on Nov. 4, the same day as the general election. Democrats will hold an all-day “firehouse primary” today-Sunday, Aug. 10 to pick their candidate and the Republicans will hold a primary on Saturday, August 16, 2025, from 10:00AM until 5:00PM at Bull Run Middle School. Vote in the upcoming Primaries and local elections. Participate in determining the future of our community. 

How the Chesapeake Bay Dead Zone is looking in 2025

 

from VMIS

The “Dead Zone” of the Chesapeake Bay refers to a volume of hypoxic water that is characterized by dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 2 mg/L, which is too low for aquatic organisms such as fish and blue crabs to thrive. Within the hypoxic area life of the bay dies and a “Dead Zone” forms. The Chesapeake Bay experiences hypoxic conditions every year, with the severity varying from year to year, depending on nutrient and freshwater flows into the bay, wind, and temperature.

Due to logistical constraints, the yearly Chesapeake Bay Program partners’ seasonal hypoxia forecast was not calculated for 2025. Data collected by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Old Dominion University found an increasing volume of hypoxiain the Chesapeake Bay mainstem of Maryland and Virginia from early to late June. 

No hypoxia was observed in May, marking a later start to low dissolved oxygen conditions than in recent years. Hypoxia increased from below average levels in early June to above average in late June following heavy rains in May and hot temperatures during June. Historically, heavy rainfall early in the year can precede greater levels of hypoxia due to rain runoff carrying excess nutrients into the Bay, which can contribute to algal blooms and reduce water clarity. 

Dead Zone 2025 YTD from VIMS

Although different types of nutrients contribute to the annual dead zone, scientist say it is the amount of nitrogen that enters the Bay during spring that is a key driver in how hypoxic conditions can vary from year-to-year. During June freshwater flows into the Chesapeake Bay leading up to summer were approximately 20% above average carrying more nutrients to the bay. The above average freshwater  volumes in late June are probably the result of significant rainfall in Maryland and Pennsylvania during May. This combined with higher than average temperature in the region during June fueled algal blooms, their decomposition, and resultant oxygen consumption. Warmer waters also hold less oxygen

Each year the Maryland Department of Natural Resources measures the actual dissolved oxygen in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay main stem and the size of the Dead Zone. While the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Anchor QEA and collaborators at UMCES, operate a real-time three-dimensional hypoxia forecast model using measured inputs that predicts daily dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout the Bay (www.vims.edu/hypoxia) using the National Weather Service wind monitoring data.

The peak of oxygen depletion occurs in July or August when water temperatures are highest and the days are longest accelerating the growth of phytoplankton that ultimately consumes all the dissolved oxygen. The dead zone is typically gone by late fall. Cooler air temperatures at that time of year chill the surface waters, while the deeper water remains warm and allows more mixing of the layers during storms. Cooler water also will hold more oxygen. The size and shape of the dead zone is variable from month to month during the summer. The cooler front and big storms that rolled into part of the region seemed to be curtailing the growth of the dead zone.

Dead Zone 2024 from VIMS

At the end of the season the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Anchor QEA and collaborators at UMCES compile all the collected data to report the actual results. In the summer of 2024 the amount of hypoxia consistently increased to a moderate value over the month of May and was higher than in the past 4 years at the end of May. Modeled hypoxia then increased quickly in the beginning of June to a level not often seen in early June. Hypoxia remained relatively severe throughout June; both for the month of June and relative to the past 4 years. The CBEFS team is investigating what conditions may have caused the increase to a large amount of hypoxia in early June.

Iran and Water Depletion

 Anthropogenic depletion of Iran’s aquifers | PNAS

Noori, R. et al. Anthropogenic depletion of Iran’s aquifers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2024221118 (2021).

Decline in Iran’s groundwater recharge | Nature Communications

Noori, R., Maghrebi, M., Jessen, S. et al. Decline in Iran’s groundwater recharge. Nat Commun 14, 6674 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42411-2

The article below is to a large extent excerpted from the work cited above.

In arid and semiarid areas like California and the Middle East, groundwater is the backbone of water and food security.  Groundwater provides about 60% of the total water supply in Iran, where agriculture is responsible for more than 90% of water withdrawal. Iran’s exports turn out to be food and oil.

from Noori, R. et al 

However, despite the importance of groundwater as one of the pillars of food and water security, extractions from aquifer systems exceed their natural recharge, -Iran is mining their limited water resources. Therefore, re-establishing the balance between the amount of groundwater withdrawal and recharge is essential to sustainably use groundwater resources if they are to avoid crisis.

Systematic groundwater extraction in Iran dates back to the Persian Empire at least two and a half millennia, when underground aqueducts known as “qanats” were excavated to transfer groundwater to the surface by gravity. The nature of how a quant works forces it to be sustainable. The Persian qanats that had enabled the development and agricultural production in Iran for thousands of years mostly dried up in the 20th century with “modern” agricultural practices the enabled population growth that demanded more water.

Deep well drilling and powered pumps made groundwater overexploitation possible, while increased surface water damming and diversion reduced groundwater recharge, together drawing down groundwater tables.  Aggressive water resources development to support the livelihood of over 80 million people and irrigate about 5.9 million hectares of agricultural land heightened the pressure on groundwater. Iran’s water scarcity in the 21st century has been exacerbated by frequent droughts and climatic changes.

The imbalance between groundwater withdrawal and recharge (i.e., groundwater depletion) was first reported in some aquifers in Iran in the 1970s. Currently, Iran records the volume of groundwater withdrawal from over one million extraction points, including wells, springs, and still functioning qanats, through its national groundwater monitoring network that covers all 30 national hydrological basins.

Groundwater overdraft has contributed to a host of problems, including the drying up of wetlands, desertification, sand and dust storms, deteriorating water quality, saltwater intrusion and population displacement. Land subsidence due to groundwater depletion is now a manmade hazard to vital infrastructure and residents in vulnerable plains where the land has been subsiding almost a foot a year

Nonrenewable groundwater extraction caused a cumulative decline in groundwater levels that averaging about 49 cm/y across the country. Groundwater consumption decreased from 60.7 km3 in 2002 to 55.2 km3 in 2015. This was not due to improved management of water resources, but due to surface water and fresh groundwater shortages. Not only is groundwater being used faster than the recharge rate, but the rate of groundwater recharge has also been falling.

from Noori, R., Maghrebi, M., Jessen, S. et al.  

 

In Professor  Roohollah Noori’s 2023 paper, he found that Iran’s countrywide groundwater recharge ratio (chart above), defined as the fraction of recharge to precipitation, declined from 21% in 2006 to14% in 2017. This is not far from what has been happening in other areas where groundwater has been mined, but rainfall in Iran is very low.  The researchers found that human interventions (not a changing climate) have dominantly impacted the decline in Iran’s groundwater recharge. Their research found that the average nationwide groundwater recharge was 39.6 mm/yr during the study period (that is less than 1.6 inches).  

Reduction in groundwater recharge combined with the nonrenewable groundwater discharge from the country’s aquifers further contributes to decline in groundwater storage and falling groundwater table. The current declining trend in groundwater recharge and the reducing trend in groundwater table reported by both Noori et al. and Ashraf et al. has resulted in a gradual decrease of Iran’s water and food security and makes the country’s landscapes prone to a wider spread of already occurring disasters, such as desertification, dust storms, landslides, land subsidence, sinkholes, droughts, floods, and fires.

Artificial recharge is a promising engineering solution to recover depleted groundwater resources globally. Iran is also making efforts to complete a national plan that aims to artificially recharge groundwater up to about 1km3. However, this amount is considerably less than the deficit between recharge of groundwater and use of groundwater Iran experiences each year. They could only slow the depletion of groundwater this way.

Engineering solutions alone cannot prevent the alarming depletion of groundwater resources for Iran, particularly when other factors such as countrywide land subsidence can hinder the effectiveness of recharge efforts. (You can not recharge land that has subsided.) The poor management of water resources, characterized by unsustainable land use changes, planning, inequitable allocation of water  rules, and institutional ineffectiveness in water management combined with the very poor economic conditions appear to have Iran on a slow path to extreme crisis without the added strain of outside actors.  The only way to address this over extraction of groundwater is through a cooperative and bottom-up approach that considers the interests of local stakeholders, particularly farmers, as the main consumers of groundwater resources. Without action Iran is moving towards water bankruptcy.