Powhatan hears 20-year water and wastewater master plan; consultants warn of infrastructure gap, five-year window to secure regional supply

Powhatan County supervisors on April 21 heard a draft 20‑year water and wastewater master plan from consultants with Dewberry that maps projected growth in the Flat Rock service area, flags potential shortfalls if large users arrive, and recommends near‑term engineering work and interjurisdictional negotiations to secure additional water.

The plan, presented by Brett of Dewberry with Rachel Wilson in attendance, uses current system data and projected development to show where new mains, pump stations and transmission lines would be needed. Brett said the presentation was “tailored to kind of talk about the so what,” and that the document is intended as a flexible road map the county can refine before a final draft is returned for consideration on May 8.

Why it matters: The county’s infrastructure choices will affect which parcels can develop, whether prospective large water users — notably data centers — can sit in Powhatan, and how much the county will need to budget for transmission mains and treatment upgrades. Consultants and supervisors repeatedly framed decisions as time‑sensitive because some supply options require multiyear permitting and construction.

Key findings and numbers

- Flat Rock: Brett said the Flat Rock system shows an estimated max‑day water use of about 2,800,000 gallons per day (gpd). He compared that to an allocation from Chesterfield of “about 0.57” (spoken figure) — a number the consultant flagged as a constraint as demand grows.

- Courthouse and Route 711 areas: Brett summarized existing local service arrangements: Aqua Virginia supplies water to the courthouse area (permitted capacity cited by the consultant as 76,000 gpd) while Founders Bridge/Chesterfield provides up to 80,000 gpd for parts of Route 711. On wastewater, Fighting Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is permitted at 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD), and the DuToit facility was described as permitted for roughly 250,000 gpd average day. Founders Bridge treatment was cited at 35,000 gpd.

- Growth projections: The presentation shows the largest projected increases in Flat Rock; one board member cited a water growth increase from about 0.303 MGD to 1.207 MGD as “rather significant.” Consultants emphasized that some reported figures do not yet include approved data‑center water use.

Options for additional supply and timing

Dewberry laid out two high‑level supply strategies: negotiate for more treated water from nearby Chesterfield (the most economical if Chesterfield is willing) or build a long transmission connection to a northern regional supplier (Henrico) that likely would require directional drilling under the James River. Brett said planners had assumed a worst‑case scenario connecting to Henrico when sizing long‑term projects.

Consultants gave a planning timeline: permitting and design for a long transmission project would take roughly three years, with construction adding about two more — “so 5 years” before water would flow if Powhatan were to pursue that connection aggressively, Brett said. He recommended starting preliminary engineering and right‑of‑way work well ahead of anticipated development and said some transmission mains shown in the plan could be developer‑driven if a private developer chooses to fund an extension earlier than the plan year indicates.

Costs, grants and funding

The presentation and subsequent board discussion referenced multi‑million‑dollar capital needs over the 20‑year period. Supervisors noted headline figures in the plan that one supervisor described as “$68,000,000” for major projects; Dewberry staff cautioned that the plan’s numbers are high‑level planning estimates, not construction bids, and do not include easement and full right‑of‑way acquisition costs.

Consultants suggested pursuing grants and developer participation where appropriate. On wastewater, they said some grant programs are targeted at consolidation or eliminating small plants, and one of the plan’s recommended actions is to study converting Fighting Creek to a pump station and sending flow to a single plant — but consultants advised further due diligence (fish studies, permitting analysis) before committing to large relocations or river‑level outfall changes.

Data center considerations

The consultants and board discussed how data centers change water and wastewater profiles. Brett said much of the plan’s demand modeling did not yet include some approved data‑center uses. He also discussed the potential to provide reclaimed water to data centers in the longer term (beyond the 20‑year window) to reduce nutrient discharges to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, but that would require separate infrastructure and investments.

Board requests and next steps

Board members asked the consultants to: (1) overlay parcels identified by the county’s comprehensive plan working group and re‑run assumptions for partial or full buildout of those parcels; (2) produce alternative cost scenarios that separate the plan costs that assume Chesterfield cooperation from the more expensive Henrico/river‑crossing option; and (3) add clearer road labels and map detail for board review.

Dewberry agreed to incorporate comments and bring a revised final document to the board agenda on May 8 for the board’s consideration. The consultant recommended starting preliminary engineering reports and right‑of‑way work within a 3‑ to 5‑year window for projects that the board expects to accelerate.

Ending

The presentation closed for time; the board recessed the pre‑meeting and moved into the evening’s budget public hearing. The consultants and staff will return with a revised plan and scenario analyses and said they will include clearer breakout of costs tied specifically to Chesterfield agreements versus other build‑out options.