Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Investment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineers present $328 million midterm transmission plan to reduce Henrico’s East End reliance on Richmond
Summary
Whitman, Requardt & Associates presented short-, mid- and long-term options to deliver independent water to Henrico’s East End. The firm recommended a 21 MGD midterm transmission project estimated at $328 million and 5–7 years to design and build; county leaders said funding options will be considered in the upcoming budget.
Consultant engineers on Feb. 11 presented a range of infrastructure options intended to reduce Henrico County’s reliance on City of Richmond water for the county’s East End and to improve system reliability after a January outage.
Dan Seeley, consulting engineer with Whitman, Requardt & Associates (WRA), summarized three planning objectives: a short-term supply target (7 MGD to the Greater Eubank zone), a midterm target to fully replace Richmond supply (21 MGD), and a long-term target (40 MGD) to meet projected growth. He told the board the county’s three primary constraints are available transmission capacity, the existing contractual relationship with Richmond and physical bottlenecks in the distribution network.
Recommendation and why it matters
WRA’s recommended midterm option would construct roughly 70,000 feet (about 13 miles) of 48-inch transmission main from western supply corridors through La Burnum/Azalea into the Greater Eubank zone. That project is estimated at $328 million with a 5–7 year engineering and construction timeline. The firm said that capacity — 21 MGD to Greater Eubank plus 5 MGD to La Burnum/Azalea — would allow the county to operate without drawing that portion of supply from Richmond.
Major options summarized
- Short-term option A: 7 MGD to Greater Eubank via roughly 54,000 feet (about 10 miles) of new 30-inch transmission main and pump upgrades. Cost: approximately $117 million; timeline: 5–6 years. This meets average daily demand but not peak.
- Short-term option B: Re-permit and retrofit four East End wells to produce about 4 MGD. Cost: approximately $20 million; timeline: 3–4 years. WRA and county staff told the board VDH would require permitting and treatment upgrades before those wells could supply drinking water routinely.
- Midterm option (recommended): 21 MGD via 70,000 feet of 48-inch main (cost: $328 million; 5–7 years). The plan is additive to the long-term alternative and would cover average and peak needs for the East End without city supply.
- Long-term option: Expand to a 40 MGD capacity with additional 42-inch mains; cost estimated at $583 million; 6–8 years. WRA also noted a greenfield regional treatment plant was technically possible but would be much more expensive (planning estimate $1.3 billion and 10+ years).
Technical constraints and shorter mitigations
Seeley emphasized that the system is not designed to convey full East End demand from Henrico’s western treatment plant under present configuration, and that bottlenecks near the center of the county constrain flow. He outlined smaller operational mitigations implemented during the outage — closing large city boundary valves, using emergency PRV connections (approximately 2.0 MGD at Wilkinson and 1.1 MGD at Brook Road) and prioritizing storage use — but said those stopgap measures do not replace the need for larger transmission capacity.
Funding and timing
County leadership said the midterm option aligns with near-term capital planning and that the manager will present specific funding scenarios in the upcoming budget release. The county manager told supervisors the proposed 21 MGD option could be advanced in the capital budget cycle and that planned 5% annual water-and-sewer rate increases already contemplated by the county would be factored into any financing plan.
Next steps requested by the board
Board members and staff agreed on four near-term steps: 1) await Richmond’s forthcoming internal and VDH reports to understand the producer-side prognosis; 2) refine WRA’s cost and schedule estimates and supply-chain assumptions; 3) prepare funding and rate scenarios as part of the budget documents being released in two weeks; and 4) evaluate regional partnership options — including potential negotiation with Richmond or a multi-jurisdictional authority — as part of the broader financial analysis.
Provenance: This article is based on Dan Seeley’s WRA engineering presentation and subsequent board discussion during Henrico County’s Feb. 11 work session.
