La Plata officials warn town could exceed water permit by 2026; urge county agreement and sewer upgrades

La Plata — Town Manager Chuck Stevens told the La Plata Town Council on Sept. 9 that the town is using about 90% of its state groundwater allocation and that summer demand could push La Plata above its permitted limit as early as 2026, a condition that would block some approvals and require the town to secure supplemental water.

Stevens said the supply constraint, not treatment or pipe capacity, is the primary bottleneck. “We have an infrastructure and a water system that's well built. But the real bottleneck is not gonna be the pipes or the treatment,” he said during a roughly 90‑minute technical presentation. He added the town is “already operating at about 90% of our allocation” and quoted the permit cover letter: “the town cannot exceed its allocation and must identify additional sources of water to supplement its groundwater appropriation.”

Why it matters: La Plata has a long pipeline of proposed and approved development and a legal duty to ensure adequate water before issuing building permits or final plat recordations. Stevens and staff said the town’s permitted groundwater appropriation totals 1.234 million gallons per day (mgd) on average, with a monthly peak allowance of 1.716 mgd. Town metered use averaged about 1.11 mgd in 2025; Baker Tilly projections included in the briefing show seasonal peaks breaking through the permit ceiling by 2026–2028 if no supplemental supply is secured.

What staff presented and recommended - Source and limit: Stevens explained La Plata draws from the Lower Patapsco aquifer under two permits that total 1.234 mgd average and 1.716 mgd for the month of highest use. He said the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has told the town it will not increase that allocation absent a viable supplemental source and engineering justification. - Supplemental options: Town staff described a countywide planning study by Charles County that favors an Upper Potomac River surface‑water supply delivered in partnership with WSSC (Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission). Stevens said that Charles County’s scenario and a wholesale purchase agreement with the county are the most realistic path to increased supply for La Plata. - Why local surface water is not a quick fix: Stevens addressed why nearby Tillman Lake is not a practical alternative, saying the lake’s recharge and yield would not support the town without an expensive surface‑water treatment plant and that the lake’s recharge rate (about 120,000 gallons per day) is far below need. - Wastewater capacity: Stevens said the town’s wastewater treatment plant is permitted and designed for 1.5 mgd but that its permit and phased upgrades allow expansion to 2.0 mgd (and sites for a 2.5 mgd clarifier have been identified). He said completing planned upgrades is critical but is under the town’s control, unlike the groundwater allocation. - Conservation and system losses: Staff urged pursuing universal metering, AMI/smart metering, leak detection and repair, water‑efficient landscaping standards for new development, and reuse/purple‑pipe options to reduce demand. The briefing noted measured water losses in the system and said reducing losses would buy additional capacity.

Development pipeline and planning constraints Stevens provided tabulated counts staff compiled from planning records: 1,377 residential units have guaranteed water allocations; an additional 543 approved subdivisions lack water allocations; and a larger set of annexed or preliminary projects could total roughly 6,800–7,300 potential dwelling units over many years. Using the state planning factor (250 gallons per day per dwelling unit) rather than the town’s measured average (about 179 gpd), staff estimated the aggregated demand of the pipeline at roughly 1.7–1.8 mgd and concluded the combined pipeline increases urgency to secure supplemental water.

Direct quotes and council response Town Manager Chuck Stevens: “We are already operating at about 90% of our allocation,” and “the town cannot exceed its allocation and must identify additional sources of water to supplement its groundwater appropriation.” He also described the wastewater plant treatment practice plainly: “the sum total of our treatment of our groundwater in the town of La Plata is injecting chlorine at the well pumps. That's it.”

Council reaction ranged from detailed technical questions to policy recommendations. Councilman Guttenberg said the presentation “is an amazing amount of detail” and praised the tables as a basis for decisions about conservation and capital spending. Councilman McCormick pressed on whether MDE would reallocate groundwater or require an MOU with Charles County before discussing allocation changes; staff replied MDE has indicated it expects a county agreement before considering reallocation. Several council members urged pursuing conservation, leak reduction and a formal adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) or similar mechanism to align planning approvals with available capacity.

Votes at a glance - Meeting agenda approved (motion moved by Councilman Johnson; seconded by Councilman Sampson). Vote: unanimous (Guttenberg, McCormick, Sampson, Johnson, Mayor James all recorded “Aye”). - Consent agenda approved (motion moved by Councilman Johnson; seconded by Councilman Guttenberg). Vote: passed 4–1; Councilman Sampson recorded “Nay”; Guttenberg, McCormick, Johnson and Mayor James voted “Aye.” - Amended Ordinance 25‑06 (FY26 tax rate correction for Heritage Green Special Taxing District) adopted (motion moved by Councilman Johnson; seconded by Councilman Guttenberg). Vote: unanimous. - Ordinance 25‑08 (amend FY25 budget/financial plan) adopted (motion moved by Councilman McCormick; seconded by Councilman Johnson). Vote: unanimous. - Motion to enter closed session for attorney‑client consultation about water contract negotiations (motion moved by Councilman Johnson; seconded by Councilman Guttenberg). Vote: unanimous.

What staff and council said they will do next Staff recommended the council pursue a wholesale water purchase agreement with Charles County as a priority, continue the wastewater plant expansion to reach 2.0 mgd permitted discharge, refresh the Baker Tilly rate study, and invest in metering and leak detection. Stevens told the council capital funds include $2 million listed for “connection to the Charles County water system” and a major facility fee (impact fee) is collecting roughly $21,000 per new unit to support infrastructure needs.

What is not decided or remains uncertain Stevens said MDE has not agreed to increase La Plata's groundwater allocation and that the state’s 80% aquifer protection policy is a core constraint. The timing, price and detailed terms of any wholesale purchase agreement with Charles County/WSSC remain unresolved. Council members asked for more precise accounting of water losses, a land‑use/land‑revenue study and clarification of long‑term fiscal impacts before committing to major rate or borrowing decisions.

Next formal steps noted in the meeting: staff will continue county-level negotiations, refresh the Baker Tilly rate study, provide additional breakdowns requested by council for legislative services and HR spending, and return with design/cost estimates for wastewater upgrades and a clearer metering/leak mitigation plan.

(Reporting note: quotes above are verbatim excerpts from the Sept. 9 council meeting presentation and subsequent council discussion, attributed to speakers in the meeting transcript.)