Worcester County staff refine water-resources chapter; PFAS, aquifers and wastewater capacity highlighted

Worcester County planning staff and consultants reviewed a near-complete draft of the county—omprehensive Plan—hapter on water resources at a work session Thursday, Sept. 11, and outlined remaining technical checks before the draft is sent to the state for a 60-day review.

The water-resources element is being revised to reconcile hydrology, land-use inputs and growth-area assumptions that affect demand and infrastructure planning. "We'll start with the water resources element. So this is the this is the complete version. I won't say it's quite the final because we do need to get some more comments back from Bob," a staff member said during the meeting.

Why it matters: water-resource assumptions drive where new development can be served, what wastewater upgrades are required and the schedule for public hearings. Staff emphasized the chapter's connection to the land-use and growth-area analyses that will feed the county's implementation chapter and subsequent public review.

Key details from the discussion

- Aquifers and cross-jurisdiction coordination: Consultants noted aquifer boundaries cross state lines into Delaware and, in places, connect to coastal plain systems in Virginia. The consultant said Virginia has a more restrictive approach in some coastal areas, citing single-source aquifer protections and tighter well-appropriation controls. Participants discussed coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions where groundwater systems overlap.

- PFAS ("forever chemical") monitoring: A consultant reported two county wells tested for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): one in Ocean Pines and one in Berlin. Measured concentrations were given as roughly "2 parts per trillion, 1 and a half parts per trillion," below a cited 4 parts-per-trillion standard. The county is participating in related class-action litigation and coordinating with state grant priorities for communities with higher concentrations.

- Saltwater intrusion and vulnerable shorelines: Staff and consultants flagged saltwater intrusion in waterfront communities and identified vulnerable areas such as sections of the St. Martin's River. They said private shallow wells in low-lying waterfront areas can fail and require deeper drilling.

- Wastewater treatment capacity and nutrient limits: Participants noted inconsistent counts and capacity figures in the draft (one map/table referenced 13 plants, another 15). Staff said some plants had nearly all capacity committed while still reserving space for projected growth. Riddle Farm (listed in the draft) was discussed as operating with roughly 81% of capacity committed and about 19% remaining; staff said committed capacity may be reserved for future growth and that numbers should be footnoted and reconciled.

- Spray irrigation and nutrient compliance: Several spray-disposal (land-application) plants were discussed. Staff and a consultant explained monitoring typically reports concentration values that are converted to pounds-per-acre for agronomic application, and that nutrient management plans are part of discharge permits. Participants recommended clearer footnotes tying hydraulic-flow numbers to permit-based nutrient limits.

Next steps and process directions

Staff said the team will: compile an implementation chapter summarizing goals and action items across plan elements; send the draft to Bob Mitchell for additional county input; finalize numerical tables and map legends; and then submit the full draft to the state for its 60-day review before public hearings.

Ending note

Planning staff repeatedly told the group the chapter remains data-heavy and will require formatting fixes and clarifying footnotes before it is released for formal review. "Don't feel overwhelmed," one staff member said, noting the chapter will be revised further before the state review and hearings.