Residents raise PFAS and lead contamination concerns after golf-course testing

Deborah Woodcock, a resident of the Buffalo magisterial district, told the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 25 that preliminary water testing at a local golf course shows significant contamination and asked the county to help prevent further harm to drinking water and the environment.

Why the story matters: multiple members of the public described dead wildlife and chemical readings they say came from the golf-course area and urged county action to protect private wells and surface waters that feed Woods Creek and the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Speakers described the same cluster of concerns in remarks during the public-comment period. Woodcock said the golf-course testing shows “a high level of contamination of water on the golf course, both surface water and groundwater.” Elementary-school student Ben Holston said he found “dead crawfish everywhere” this summer at Jordan’s Point and along Woods Creek and urged supervisors to protect water for future generations. Joe Dix, a longtime resident who shared a written summary with county staff, said one well at the golf course tested at 41 parts per trillion of PFOS and 19 parts per trillion of PFOA and noted those figures in urging baseline sampling before further site work. Hydrogeologist Barbara Walsh told the board the county should obtain complete information from the golf course on which well corresponded to which sample and reconsider sediment testing, which the facility had at first agreed to but then withdrew.

The commenters urged county-led testing or grant-funded sampling if the facility will not cooperate. Walsh referenced the state’s groundwater nondegradation policy and said she believes the data show “a clear case of degradation of groundwater at this location.” Dix and others urged the county to establish a baseline of conditions before additional landscape or renovation work proceeds.

There was no board action or vote on the subject at the Aug. 25 meeting; staff acknowledged receipt of the materials and several speakers said they had provided spreadsheets or summaries to county staff and requested those documents be entered into the record. The board did not schedule a follow-up agenda item at the meeting.

Residents and the hydrogeologist asked for the county to clarify which well is which in the submitted data, to disclose how the sampled water is used on-site, and to reinstate or conduct sediment testing if the facility will not. Dix and others noted biological indicators — crayfish and frogs — that, they say, suggest ecosystem impacts downstream.

The board did not dispute the commenters’ technical claims at the meeting and offered no formal direction beyond staff handling of submitted documents. County staff acknowledged they had received the materials and that officials including the deputy zoning administrator and county attorney had been contacted, but the transcript records no formal assignment of a testing or enforcement step. The concerns were raised during the citizen-comment portion of the meeting, not during a regulatory or permitting matter on the agenda.

The remarks at the Aug. 25 meeting included numeric results offered by commenters and characterized as preliminary: “one well had…41 parts per trillion of PFOS, and it also had 19 parts per trillion of PFOA,” Joe Dix said. Hydrogeologist Barbara Walsh cited the Virginia State Water Control Board nondegradation policy in urging county engagement.

The county’s next formal steps were not specified during the meeting. Residents asked that the county not take any actions that would aggravate contamination and that staff consider how remediation planning and baseline testing should proceed to protect private wells and downstream waters.