Commission reviews water & sewer service maps, recommends streamline and CWSP updates

The Saint Mary's County Planning Commission spent the Sept. 24 work session reviewing the county’s Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan and the relationship of service categories to growth and rural planning areas.

The briefing covered the CWSP adopted in 2017 (staff said it has had 10 amendments since adoption) and how the plan’s water and sewer service categories align with growth areas, town centers, development districts and rural areas. "The comprehensive water and sewage plan identifies the county's growth management policies related to water and sewer infrastructure and generally aligns with growth area designation," Leanne (staff member) told the commission.

Policy and map details: Staff described existing service categories in the 2017 CWSP (examples: W1/S1 for existing service; W3/S3 for service planned in 3–5 years with a developer 'D' designation; W6/S6 for potential future service with developer funding noted). Rural categories include RWD/RSD for developer‑funded shared systems (example: shared wells or community systems), RSE for rural sanitary service used to address health hazards, and NPS (No Planned Service) for areas where public service is not planned within 10 years. Staff noted that Metcom keeps a GIS‑based record of amendments even where the plan document’s maps still reflect 2017 boundaries.

Speakers discussed several practical constraints and clarifications about service and capacity. George Erickson, director of the Saint Mary's County Metropolitan Commission, explained how reserved equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) affect available capacity: "From a static standpoint, we're only at about 65 or 70% capacity," Erickson said, "however ... the base has 4,800 EDUs [reserved] ... Saint Mary's College ... around 1,200 that are reserved. That means reserved and not connected. If they're not connected, there's no flow. If there's no flow, the treatment plant's not near capacity." He added that when reserved EDUs are considered, staff treats effective capacity differently and that EDU transfers are now possible through a county program.

Several operational points were clarified in the session and should guide planning and messaging: package or "package plant" treatment systems can be built by developers and, depending on the arrangement, are typically turned over to Metcom for ownership and operation; the state subdivision and health rules limit subdivisions lacking public sewer to a small number of lots (speakers repeatedly referred to a limit of seven lots outside public sewer), and developments of 25 lots or more generally require a public water system; Metcom noted it evaluates whether it can take on new assets from a staffing and operational perspective and that developers who construct systems are expected to pay system improvement charges and then Metcom customers pay monthly fees after transfer.

Staff offered four key plan actions for the comprehensive plan to adopt as recommendations: 1) review and update the CWSP to consolidate similar developer‑funded categories (staff proposed combining W3/W6 into a single developer‑funded future category), 2) move static CWSP maps into a dynamic online GIS maintained by county staff, 3) review the CWSP on a regular schedule (staff suggested every three years) to keep designations current, and 4) clarify the approval process for service‑area designation amendments while adhering to state law (staff noted Legume staff currently process many developer‑funded category changes administratively).

Commission response: Commissioners and Metcom staff generally supported consolidating near‑term and future developer‑funded categories to reduce confusion. Staff also recommended increased clarity for the public about the meaning of designations (for example, that an S3/S6 label does not guarantee near‑term sewer availability). Several commissioners asked staff to produce maps that show where EDUs are allocated versus connected so the public can better understand true available capacity.

No formal votes were taken. Staff said they will incorporate the recommended CWSP actions into the draft comprehensive plan and bring detailed maps and the draft back to the commission for the November and December review sessions.