Wetlands' destruction affects bay

You raise some interesting points. But, it is not sufficient to raise objections to someone else's proposal to solve a problem.

We will need more water in the future. I do not believe that the waterworks proposes the reservoir to make money. They do it to provide sufficient water in the future.

If you accept that conclusion, how shall we provide an increased water supply in the future in the most cost effective manner.

We can solve problems by reaching consensus, not by trying to shout down the opposition.

I am shocked that anyone would disagree. If there is a greater need for water, residents need to conserve. That may mean that you cannot wash your 3 Suburbans every weekend. The issue of more water is completely irrelevant. As Jennings stated, the Chesapeake Bay is in critical condition due to greed and wastefulness. If we continue to destroy our waterways, the problem of less water will be the least of our worries. Please start looking at REAL alternatives.

Angry wrote:

I am shocked that anyone would disagree. If there is a greater need for water, residents need to conserve. That may mean that you cannot wash your 3 Suburbans every weekend. The issue of more water is completely irrelevant. As Jennings stated, the Chesapeake Bay is in critical condition due to greed and wastefulness. If we continue to destroy our waterways, the problem of less water will be the least of our worries. Please start looking at REAL alternatives.

The real issue is population control. We can not continue to increase the number of people in our area (or any other) without effective control on resources. Private property trumps the desire to protect the environment. Until we are willing to spend real money to purchase the wet lands and proper buffers to protect natural resources the process will continue to destroy them.

We need to be specific for a plan to conserve water if that is the proper answer and it will cost everyone real money.

Bring forth the ideas with a realistic cost and let's debate a real plan. It is not sufficient to just be against something!

Excellent article by Ms. Jennings. Keep on fighting!!! There are alternatives but you won't hear about them because the politicians involved have too much to gain personally from the King William Reservoir. One such example is the Chickahominy River intake. The City of NN is allowed 30,000 gallons a day by permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. This permit was obtained in the early 1970's. Newport News has never requested from the Army Corps that this permit be amended to increase the intake. The funny thing is any increase would only be needed during periods of severe drought. You couple this with dredging our current reservoirs and you have more than enough water for the greater peninsula. Technology is changing so fast that within 20 years that our plentiful saltwater could be our main source of water. Now I ask you, which is less harmful to our environment, destroying 400+ acres of wetlands or amending a permit and dredging our reservoirs?

Jimmy P wrote:

Excellent article by Ms. Jennings. Keep on fighting!!! There are alternatives but you won't hear about them because the politicians involved have too much to gain personally from the King William Reservoir. One such example is the Chickahominy River intake. The City of NN is allowed 30,000 gallons a day by permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. This permit was obtained in the early 1970's. Newport News has never requested from the Army Corps that this permit be amended to increase the intake. The funny thing is any increase would only be needed during periods of severe drought. You couple this with dredging our current reservoirs and you have more than enough water for the greater peninsula. Technology is changing so fast that within 20 years that our plentiful saltwater could be our main source of water. Now I ask you, which is less harmful to our environment, destroying 400+ acres of wetlands or amending a permit and dredging our reservoirs?

Excellent suggestions. Now, let's hear from the Waterworks on your suggestions.

i think it since that you and your muscular men help that knotty bay of yours.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaa arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Just a thought wrote:

<quoted text>
The real issue is population control. We can not continue to increase the number of people in our area (or any other) without effective control on resources. Private property trumps the desire to protect the environment. Until we are willing to spend real money to purchase the wet lands and proper buffers to protect natural resources the process will continue to destroy them.
We need to be specific for a plan to conserve water if that is the proper answer and it will cost everyone real money.
Bring forth the ideas with a realistic cost and let's debate a real plan. It is not sufficient to just be against something!

I am not just against something. I live exactly .25 mile from the Chesapeake Bay. I currently work to help educate residents in my community about pollution caused by residents. This includes 1. how to update septic systems that are not functioning properly 2. How to replace fertizers and pesticides with organic, less toxic alternatives. 3. How to create proper drainage that helps to filter rain water before it returns to the Bay. 4. How to update living facilities without creating more pollution. And the list goes on..
Now, as far as the resevoir, I have many ideas that could be used as alternatives. I am unsure that any alternative is going to be cheap, but here goes.
1. There has to be some regulation placed on development. This would not require money being paid out. Unfortunatley local communities would be sacrificing new income from developers and residents.
2. What ever happened to using wells for water? This is expensive for the homeowner, but a long-term investment. Perhaps a neighborhood well for things like watering gardens and flower beds.(Again, watering lawns and washing cars are not absolute musts!)
3. Spend more time passing regulations about pollutants and chemicals. Take the time to educate communities about less damaging alternatives.
I could go on forever. I am not involved in politics and am unsure that most citizens can be convinced to live more simply. I try to remain optimistic and to encourage others to pay more attention to the consequences of their choices.
Until there is a tangible threat, most people are content to remain wasteful and happy.
As far as the waterworks goes...they are a company. We often think of them as a city-run office. That is not really true. They are a utilty company. They want to make profit. This is no different than the power company or oil companies. Keep in mind that they should be taken to task on recommendations that could provide them with more revenue.

Just a thought wrote:

<quoted text>
The real issue is population control. We can not continue to increase the number of people in our area (or any other) without effective control on resources. Private property trumps the desire to protect the environment. Until we are willing to spend real money to purchase the wet lands and proper buffers to protect natural resources the process will continue to destroy them.
We need to be specific for a plan to conserve water if that is the proper answer and it will cost everyone real money.
Bring forth the ideas with a realistic cost and let's debate a real plan. It is not sufficient to just be against something!

Now, what is your plan to reduce population growth? How much will it cost? How many politicians will need to be bought? How many watermen will be bankrupt by then?

Angry akaAshamed wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, what is your plan to reduce population growth? How much will it cost? How many politicians will need to be bought? How many watermen will be bankrupt by then?

I was not arguing for population control. I was attempting to point out that the population in the area served by the Waterworks has a growing population and therefore will have a growing need for water.

Building a new reservoir is most likely the least costly way to add to the water supply.

Water is a renewable resource. Conservation is a very good idea, where practical. Jimmy P brought forth a couple of ideas which I thought would be very helpful. Increasing the capacity of the current reservoirs by dredging might be very helpful if there is sufficient rain to fill the increased size. But, this will add cost. Having the ability to pull from the Chickahominy River intake during periods of severe drought may also be practical.

We will all be best served if we can all work together to meet our common objectives. I am doing my part. I had a septic system which was working just fine. I was lucky to have sandy soil. But, I spent the money to connect to a common sewer system and pay monthly for a service which I did not need to help keep the bay clean.

I am not an expert on the Bay. But I think that knowledge is the way to solve problems. Most people are reasonable. If you have a better idea they will listen. Just present your arguments on how to solve the problem or present a better way to accomplish the goals.

Why is new development a problem? It is the increased number of people who consume the water. I do not think it is the communities desire for new income that drive development. It is the property owners' desire to sell their land for profit and the developers' desire to make money and the desire for people to want a larger house away from crime that drive development.

Let's stop crime, limit income and tax lawns. I am not trying to be flippant. I think for a living and thinking outside of limits is one way to come up with new solutions to old problems.

All problems are connected. We need to move from generalities to specifics to actually make progress.

There needs to be a web site where these ideas and others can be debated and a consensus reached. This site can then be referenced in future efforts to inform the public and get their support.

Just a thought wrote:

<quoted text>
The real issue is population control. We can not continue to increase the number of people in our area (or any other) without effective control on resources. Private property trumps the desire to protect the environment. Until we are willing to spend real money to purchase the wet lands and proper buffers to protect natural resources the process will continue to destroy them.
We need to be specific for a plan to conserve water if that is the proper answer and it will cost everyone real money.
Bring forth the ideas with a realistic cost and let's debate a real plan. It is not sufficient to just be against something!

This debate has been going on for years now.
I do have 10% mixed emotions concerning the King William Reservoir....to build.

My other 90% reasoning on this issue is the mere fact that 20=30 years ago, the Corp of Eng. and various govermental agencies KNEW the per capita would grow. Nothing done. Same old pipes, drainage systems exist.

SO, where is the solution? There is none to date.

We need to stop this invasion of destroying the wetlands and find an alternate solution. Our eco systems are in far more danger than the public realizes.
Our flooding is due to OLD piping, OLD drainage and still we add more people to the equation.

Solutions? Ask Dr. Custalow, I am sure they will be happy to advise, as they have already DONE years ago.

One solution is put a metor on the NN publics systems, restaurants, local laundries, car washes and anyone or thing that uses water. Example: Did we need water country=NO.

Take a walk along the reservoir, it is beautiful. It can never be restored to its natural state again if destroyed. Period.

Just a thought wrote:

<quoted text>
The real issue is population control. We can not continue to increase the number of people in our area (or any other) without effective control on resources. Private property trumps the desire to protect the environment. Until we are willing to spend real money to purchase the wet lands and proper buffers to protect natural resources the process will continue to destroy them.
We need to be specific for a plan to conserve water if that is the proper answer and it will cost everyone real money.
Bring forth the ideas with a realistic cost and let's debate a real plan. It is not sufficient to just be against something!

"Until we are willing to spend real money to purchase the wet lands and proper buffers to protect natural resources the process will continue to destroy them."

I agree with you. In Anne Arundel County in MD, they declared a moratorium on building on the peninsula back in the 90s. Don't know if that's still in effect. Of course, there were still pay offs under the table, so some slipped through - as you would expect. I do have real concerns, however, about whether we can trust our local government (city council) to protect the wetlands. It's not that I have an alternative solution though. Wish I did. It's just that they don't seem to have the same mindset as you and I. They haven't shown any concern about allowing, indeed encouraging, development in these areas in order to gain a larger tax base or perhaps even more cynical reasons. Destroying the habitat be damned. Greed is the soup de jour.

One more thing. A key word that you used was "purchase." I would want the private owners of this land to be given fair compensation. I don't believe in taking land from citizens unless they are truly and fairly compensated. And I would want assurances that the land could only be preserved - not used for anything else. Pump houses, etc.

Pamunkey and Mattaponi Indians do not own the land around the proposed resevoir. They use the waterways and land to barely eek out their old ways of life. The land, or most of it, that would be effected is held in trust by the state of Va. This land was provided for the Indian tribes as a treaty. Each tribe was granted 5,000 acres each. Of course, the acreage overlapped so, in reality, each tribe got much less than promised. In addition, the Smurfit-Stone Corporation has taken portins of the reservations for their use (courtesy of the state). It is depressing to see the SMurfit Stone train tracks running 12 feet from Powatan's tomb. Anyway, there is more to be discussed than just water sources. Oh, BTW, how much of this water goes to NN residents and how much is sold elsewhere? Has anyone heard of desalinization?

Just a thought wrote:

You raise some interesting points. But, it is not sufficient to raise objections to someone else's proposal to solve a problem.
We will need more water in the future. I do not believe that the waterworks proposes the reservoir to make money. They do it to provide sufficient water in the future.
If you accept that conclusion, how shall we provide an increased water supply in the future in the most cost effective manner.
We can solve problems by reaching consensus, not by trying to shout down the opposition.

There are so many opinions on this subject.

Logically, the destruction of the wetlands are
already affecting us. That is nature VS man.

Asfor water supply, they should have given this major consideration 20-30 years ago. Population grows and I am sure they knew this then.

So, this generation sees the valuable resources destroyed due to lack of concern or insight.

As for the water supply, conserve, gather rain water for foilage. But, the destruction of wetlands to build King William reservoir, illogical and damaging.

In addition to my post above, I wanted to add a thought regarding future issues like this:

Have the developers put in HUGE proffers and study the effects of enviromental damages. Maybe city water is not what is it cracked up to be. Can you install wells?$$$$$$$$$ down the road.