County staff outlines water resources element: stormwater, PFAS, reservoirs and next steps for master plan review

Carroll County planning staff reviewed a draft Water Resources Element (WRE) of the county master-plan update at the Sept. 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, outlining current water and wastewater capacity, stormwater and climate-change strategies, and measures to address emerging contaminants such as PFAS and lithium.

Brenda (county planning staff) said the WRE was prepared to meet state guidance and to identify both near-term actions and long-term supply alternatives. The presentation covered three core areas: drinking water and wastewater capacity; stormwater and floodplain management; and emerging contaminants and monitoring. Staff asked the commission whether the county should send the draft WRE to the state for the required 60-day review; staff also scheduled a public information meeting and said a public hearing would follow the state review.

Why it matters: The WRE documents countywide water and wastewater capacity, highlights infrastructure limitations and identifies potential long-range options (reservoirs, quarry intakes, groundwater wells and potable reuse). The element will inform the county master plan and help prioritize capital investments and state grant requests.

Key technical points from the staff presentation: - Stormwater: Staff noted existing county and municipal stormwater controls and the MS4 permit (EPA/NPDES framework) that requires plans to address impervious areas, TMDLs (Chesapeake Bay and local waters), and public-education and funding measures. The county expects forthcoming state stormwater-code updates and plans to update its local code accordingly. - Climate change: Projections for Carroll County show warmer temperatures, more extreme precipitation events and higher flood risk as well as intermittent drought — trends that staff said require integrating resilience and co-benefit strategies across water, stormwater and land use. - Emerging contaminants: Staff highlighted recent federal/state actions on PFAS (noting EPA drinking-water standards issued in 2024) and said Hampstead is implementing a roughly $30 million PFAS mitigation project for wells that exceeded recent thresholds. The WRE recommends continued testing, a PFAS mitigation plan where detections occur, salt-management plans for road salt runoff, lead-and-copper service-line inventories and monitoring for naturally occurring constituents such as lithium. - Countywide supply alternatives: The WRE preserves long-term supply options including surface-water intakes or reservoirs (union Mills/Piney Run), quarry intakes, groundwater wells, interconnections and potable reuse. Staff said reservoirs and intakes remain long-term options to retain in the plan even if they are not pursued immediately, because removing them from the plan could limit future funding or permitting options.

Freedom system: Staff explained the Freedom area wastewater treatment arrangement and allocation limits, noting the county has an allocated portion of the plant's capacity (2.74 million gallons) even though the plant maximum is larger. The draft shows Freedom is close to its allocated capacity; staff said inflow-and-infiltration reduction or negotiating a larger allocation from the state are among the options.

Board and public questions touched on wastewater treatment capacity, how state funding rules affected upgrades (for nutrient removal only vs. increased capacity), the interaction between baseflow in streams and discharges from treatment plants, and how solid-waste facilities (landfills) could affect groundwater and surface-water quality. Staff said monitoring programs and cooperation with state agencies (MDE, Maryland Department of Natural Resources) are part of the WRE approach.

Next steps: Staff asked the commission whether the draft WRE should be sent to the state for the statutorily required 60-day review; if the commission agrees, staff will post the draft for public information, collect state comments and schedule a public hearing after the state review period. The staff presentation said a final county decision will follow review and any needed revisions.

Ending: The commission asked follow-up questions about wastewater capacity in Westminster and smaller municipalities, reservoir land acquisition and how the county will prioritize capital projects. Staff said they would provide the planning commission a full draft before the next meeting and return to discuss master-plan implications for land use and capital budgeting.