[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6126538,"mediaKeyId","2667787-094a4cd3bcc03e6ca0d49f487e477002","parentId",2667787,"title","County staff outline flood-management modeling, propose public watershed maps and targeted upstream projects","audioSeconds",1345,"startMs",1030000,"endMs",2375000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2667787-094a4cd3bcc03e6ca0d49f487e477002&start=1030&end=2375","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2667787-094a4cd3bcc03e6ca0d49f487e477002/thumbnail_1030000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6126538/Montgomery-County/Maryland/County-staff-outline-flood-management-modeling-propose-public-watershed-maps-and-targeted-upstream-projects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6126538-f55c21e6dba2ee28a351a66308c59998/orig.mp4?Expires=1770653739&Signature=XEZrn0zO-dpTux28Yq-ELs0Agbo8w5dlZglRDIfPjFwSRMAUugaUYbA1vTpgaastuRZ4h5APq90KBpPJ4pwclb2rrcfR3soWMitdxBTEQ4fL5kXOu7YcqgLjcJW2DpLkx0kLX~6kHWDq6Ri8I9ERvxbyXFEKbJjHnDiyGUGGeBWAndldPjFm0CT1QZDhGaW6jIFcVKwh4Bsm-YeFopACSTooyRwbvR2lumHBCWP0LUZ08B5IuC2qb09kkp5CrPZcoOEIhZCHE6ttZueMYh-YR9DFAtFe7T5nX37D0hW2igbUrJ1iW6SAzABblcbZyohCc~wYEA6itMAXYCxGRJmbuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montgomery County, MD","date","2025-03-18T03:11:30Z","article","Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection staff updated the Transportation and Environment Committee on the county\u0000wide comprehensive flood management plan and related CIP amendments on March 17, saying the project will expand watershed modeling, update precipitation assumptions to reflect climate projections, and move toward a public web map of modeled flood depths.

Stan Edwards, chief of the Division of Energy, Climate Compliance and DEP, said the plan\u0000s current phase is modeling detailed watersheds, beginning with Sligo Creek as a pilot. \"We're doing 11 watersheds. They should be modeled by the end of 2027,\" Edwards said, and staff will create models for design storm events from 10-year to 500-year events and project conditions through 2100.

Edwards described updates to precipitation assumptions using techniques similar to NOAA\u0000s methods but extending projections to 2100. The county\u0000s preliminary analysis shows higher projected rainfall for the 24-hour 100-year event than the historic baseline; staff summarized that projections could increase the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall from roughly 8.2 inches historically to higher values in mid- and late-century scenarios.

Amy Stevens, division chief for the watershed restoration division, described several small upstream \"bioretention\" projects that the executive recommended adding to the stormwater CIP, including a partnership program called \"Congregations for Clean Water\" (projects at Temple Emanuel and Saint Stephen Lutheran Church were cited) and a reforestation site identified by a pay-for-performance contractor. Stevens said those projects treat runoff upstream of stream restoration work.

Staff showed an excerpt of the Sligo Creek model that displays shallow to deeper inundation levels by color; Edwards said the county will prepare explanatory materials so residents understand modeled depths before maps are published. \"We want to make sure we're explaining what we're showing here,\" he said, and staff indicated a web-based tool for public access is anticipated \"probably this summer\" as models for additional watersheds are completed.

Committee members asked how modeling inputs are coordinated with NOAA updates and how the county will address increased impervious area from growth. Edwards said NOAA (Atlas 14) provides national intensity-duration-frequency data but that the county is using updated local analysis and longer-term climate projections specific to Montgomery County. He also said the county modeled a \"reasonable worst case\" for future imperviousness based on current zoning and separately considered focused growth around transit corridors.

On policy implications, Edwards told the committee the work will lead to recommendations on planning and building-code changes and on how long-range development should mitigate flood risk. He warned some recommendations will be controversial because they raise tradeoffs about who pays for protection and how to treat redevelopment in higher-risk areas. \"Those are controversial subjects, as you can imagine,\" he said.

The committee approved the technical CIP correction for storm drains and supported advancing targeted, upstream stormwater projects; members asked DEP to return with more detailed planning and public-engagement timelines.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Mar. 17, 2025 - TE Committee Worksession (Live-Stream)","oneSentenceSummary","Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection staff updated the Transportation and Environment Committee on the county\u0000wide comprehensive flood management plan and related CIP amendments on March 17, saying the project will expand watershed modeling, update precipitation assumptions to reflect climate projections, and move toward a public web map of modeled flood depths.","taxTitle","Montgomery County, Maryland","taxId",3351,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6126543,"Committee backs executive—recommended CIP amendments for Oaks leachate treatment, recycling center upgrades",844,140000,984000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2667787-094a4cd3bcc03e6ca0d49f487e477002&start=140&end=984","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2667787-094a4cd3bcc03e6ca0d49f487e477002/thumbnail_140000.jpg","/articles/6126543/Montgomery-County/Maryland/Committee-backs-executiverecommended-CIP-amendments-for-Oaks-leachate-treatment-recycling-center-upgrades","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6126543-c7385d6ae1ab43758802685c89f2b2b9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770653740&Signature=BMBr3uNs9MAN2-s9hNU~iGxnD2MvGdTokbbHCYlTeKw~H9xYdSGNaWJTRDuQ~AGd3AIQvTeLcUZjQ4T-wE4ceOzySU0ujwY18l5cT4EaQQmKRi2Hssxd6pMJEW2pb-tagLWc-nXNJosyT8KETAPHl-KPz9H3piO4llQnmLgpYxVnx~tkJIO4e7e9RssFA-eAj0U3ep5-1wxHV9luCG~v0vMuXsTm~Q3nKQZCtmrImFMCxIj~oVODbBGzI4GDfGnhKUa7hkymfBZqN9a6WYR1xAan0hi~SY~VWb5dmNwNvWXSn3VJlw~802Hsr9TWmbQlisjToB99iJAv2hBbZ9nM-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Transportation and Environment Committee of the Montgomery County Council on March 17 reviewed and expressed support for two county executive amendments to the FY26 capital improvements program that would add funding to the county\u0000recycling and resource management CIP, including retrofitting the Oaks Landfill leachate pretreatment plant and a full upgrade of the existing materials recovery facility (MRF). The executive\u0000recommended six\u0000year CIP total across all programs was described at roughly $387,000,000 with an $11.2 million increase above prior appropriations.

The amendments would be funded from the solid waste disposal fund (current revenue and revenue bonds) and the water quality protection fund for stormwater-related projects, staff said. \"This is for the Oaks Landfill Leachate Pretreatment Plant,\" said Jamie Foster, section chief of plan and design, construction, and monitoring in the resource and recycling management division, explaining the retrofit work is intended to address PFAS and to develop treatment technologies appropriate for discharge to the sanitary sewer.

Foster said the county tested granular activated carbon systems but \"based on the testing, we realized that we would not meet the 4 parts petroleum treatment goal,\" and that staff is evaluating other treatment technologies. The requested funding, she said, will continue evaluation and planning to identify the appropriate treatment system to mitigate PFAS in effluent discharged to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) sanitary sewer.

On the MRF upgrade, staff described completed facility condition assessments and a move from 30% toward 60% basis of design. Willie Weiner, who identified himself as chief of the area department, said the current sorting and processing equipment dates to the 1990s, with an upgrade in 2001, and that it now processes roughly 8 tons per hour. \"The facility that we are looking for right now as an upgrade will be processing about 22 to 25 tons an hour,\" Weiner said, projecting roughly a threefold increase compared with existing equipment and noting that current capacity forces the county to bypass material to other processors.

Committee members pressed staff on the likely impact of these capital investments on the solid waste management fee the county executive proposed in the operating budget. Councilmember Balcom and others asked whether the two projects alone would trigger the proposed fee increase; staff said the projects before the committee would have only a marginal effect on rates. \"I imagine... these projects alone are not driving significant impact on time,\" a staff member said, adding that the larger operating-budget changes and a separately proposed new capital project carry greater rate implications.

Committee members asked DEP to return with a project-by-project breakdown of the fee implications so the council can prioritize work before approving rates. Staff also said the committee will review the broader solid waste management plan and the FY27 operating budget in coming weeks and months; the committee noted the MRF upgrades and the Oaks PFAS work have regulatory and capacity rationales driving the near-term need to move forward.

The committee voted \"without objection\" to support the executive\u0000recommended amendments as presented and asked staff for more detailed fee-impact scenarios before final rate decisions later in the budget process.","The Transportation and Environment Committee of the Montgomery County Council on March 17 reviewed and expressed support for two county executive amendments to the FY26 capital improvements program that would add funding to the county\u0000recycling and resource management CIP, including retrofitting the Oaks Landfill leachate pretreatment plant and a full upgrade of the existing materials recovery facility (MRF).",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6126533,"Committee reviews WSSC CIP priorities: lead abatement, PFAS planning and smart meters flagged for follow-up",1745,3505000,5250000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2667787-094a4cd3bcc03e6ca0d49f487e477002&start=3505&end=5250","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2667787-094a4cd3bcc03e6ca0d49f487e477002/thumbnail_3505000.jpg","/articles/6126533/Montgomery-County/Maryland/Committee-reviews-WSSC-CIP-priorities-lead-abatement-PFAS-planning-and-smart-meters-flagged-for-follow-up","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6126533-ee01742cede2e99e85d5af2e27c8adec/orig.mp4?Expires=1770653740&Signature=ZpL50UMqcl-SHU45vkDTdHw4R2cSqSo1dw5WslnqIFVsYZL8ynachxt0i6fsEL21dEYwJP5nlM17bzRxo2cTFoR6qETfqet0~jNmRhardL6-nBY3FE1KKfd~XiHVbi-aQgCuDsiBI1Ea7V2ZUKUniEigGa-0ap15ElmrBcEidD92q0vz0kY-xRgtE2RUwD326CwstmwwPA5QZJgew~B30Uhm9IZO3bH9eZ2wtmCJlTpIB0ifhG-CiNDCh6dfRRyG4Y~9hcMQs-8WPZurR9MJaDfu~DIlgd9dboBCbs5xbjx7DNWbo10N4umXczscnD4kZ~s5PwSCHxIf-T~s2nULfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee received a briefing on capital priorities for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) and related county implications, including placeholders in the six\u0000year CIP for a master-planning effort, lead-abatement work, PFAS planning and smart-meter deployment.

Committee members asked WSSC and staff for a breakdown of revenue collection and disbursement between Montgomery County and Prince George\u0000s County because WSSC operates a unified water and sewer district for both jurisdictions. A WSSC representative said the commission treats the system as unified and that funds are allocated based on system needs and geography; staff offered to provide the requested breakdown. \"We can get that information,\" the representative said.

Councilmember Andrew Stewart (as identified in the meeting as Councilmember Stewart) asked whether recent federal budget uncertainty affecting the District of Columbia could affect Blue Plains operations and any pass-through costs to Montgomery County. WSSC staff said their preliminary assessment from DC Water indicated the federal funding changes would have a minimal immediate impact and that DC Water believed it could absorb estimated costs. \"They don't anticipate anything happening,\" a staff member reported back to the committee about DC Water\u0000s assessment.

Committee members and staff also discussed a smart-meter initiative included in the CIP under an umbrella project. Staff described the substantial upfront cost of replacing legacy meters and noted an outreach need: newer meters generally read more accurately and \"tend to read higher,\" which could result in higher bills for some customers when meters are replaced. The committee asked WSSC and staff for additional detail on meter timing, the distinction between maintenance of aging mains versus new construction, and a clearer accounting of revenue sources between the two counties ahead of budget negotiations.

The committee supported the WSSC CIP as presented for committee review and asked WSSC staff and county staff to return with additional data on revenue splits, aging-infrastructure needs, and projected rate impacts ahead of operating-budget and bi-county coordination in April and May.","The committee received a briefing on capital priorities for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) and related county implications, including placeholders in the six\u0000year CIP for a master-planning effort, lead-abatement work, PFAS planning and smart-meter deployment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County staff outline flood-management modeling, propose public watershed maps and targeted upstream projects

Committee backs executive—recommended CIP amendments for Oaks leachate treatment, recycling center upgrades

Committee reviews WSSC CIP priorities: lead abatement, PFAS planning and smart meters flagged for follow-up