Nelson County Board of Supervisors members heard a technical evaluation on Oct. 14 of water-supply options for the proposed Larkin Phase 1 development, including a surface-water withdrawal from Dillard Creek and several options to develop groundwater wells.

The presentation, delivered by a county-hired water consultant, summarized regulatory limits, expected yields, capital and operating costs, and likely permitting steps for each approach. The consultant said Dillard Creek could yield substantially more water on average than the county’s 30‑year buildout estimate but would carry higher upfront capital and permitting costs. The desktop analysis estimated average daily flow in Dillard Creek that, subject to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) withdrawal limits, could provide roughly 830,000 gallons per day at typical flows; the consultant said that would exceed the estimated 30‑year buildout need of about 82,000 gallons per day.

The consultant cautioned that DEQ limits withdrawals to a percentage of measured daily streamflow (citing the agency’s standard that typically lets 90% of flow continue downstream), that low-flow/drought periods could restrict withdrawals, and that storm-driven turbidity and flashiness of surface water would affect treatment-technology choices and operations. He estimated DEQ/Corps permitting and initial studies could cost tens of thousands of dollars and that full capital costs for a Dillard Creek intake and raw-water pumping station could reach about $6.5 million (estimate included intake, pumping, and raw-water conveyance but did not include storage sizing or downstream treatment plant upgrades).

As an alternative, the consultant presented a groundwater option based on electrical resistivity surveys and VDH well records near the Larkin property. Nearby wells showed widely varying yields (reported examples ranged from under 10 gallons per minute to about 88 gallons per minute), so the consultant said multiple wells might be required to reliably meet higher demand. He described a standard next step of drilling test wells, performing 48‑hour pump tests required by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), and monitoring nearby wells to assess aquifer connectivity. Estimated site-preparation and test-well costs in the consultant’s slides ranged from low five-figure amounts per site for clearing and access to about $15,000–$25,000 for a test bore per location; those estimates excluded full well completion and treatment infrastructure.

Board members asked about timeline, permitting, environmental studies and costs. The consultant said DEQ permitting for a surface-water withdrawal would likely take about a year and that any intake touching the stream would trigger joint federal/state review including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He advised careful pre-permit studies for mussels and other aquatic species where desktop work indicated potential presence, and noted that impoundments (dams) would add permitting, inspection, emergency‑action and long‑term maintenance costs and were likely to be a multi‑year, higher‑risk path.

On groundwater, the consultant said VDH limits require designing wells so sustained yield does not overdraw the source; VDH typically permits extraction at a fraction of measured well yield (the consultant cited a 55% working allowance used in his planning). He recommended starting with a refined scope for 1–2 test wells closest to existing access, pursuing grant funding to lower local cost exposure, and holding a focused capital‑improvements workshop to refine cost estimates before committing to drilling or permitting.

The consultant emphasized there is no single “right” answer and that the county could pursue wells first and keep the larger surface‑water project as a later option. The presentation concluded with an offer from the consultant to produce more detailed cost estimates for a board work session if the board directed staff to do so.

The board did not take formal action on the presentation; the item was informational and the consultant requested direction on next steps and whether to prepare more detailed, site‑specific cost estimates and grant research.