Greene County explores groundwater wells to bolster water supply; board weighs costs and limits

A consultant presenting to the Greene County Board of Supervisors outlined the county's experience drilling public wells and urged a cautious, phased approach to using groundwater as a supplemental water source.

The presenter said Well No. 1, drilled in 2007 near Ruckersville off Route 29, has an 8-inch steel casing, is about 242 feet deep and currently yields roughly 60 gallons per minute with a 7.5-horsepower pump. The facility, constructed in 2009, was set up for soda-ash pH control, chlorination and corrosion inhibitors; construction costs were cited at about $500,000. Well No. 2, drilled in 2009 at the county park, was described as about 640 feet deep with an approximate yield of 80 gpm and a 15-horsepower pump; the presenter estimated it would take roughly 1,100 feet of 6-inch waterline and about $1 million to connect that site to the distribution system.

The consultant emphasized operational limits for groundwater in Greene County's geology. "You can pump it dry if you pump it long enough," he said, urging intermittent operation (roughly 60% duty) to prolong yields and recommending pump tests and a period of extended operation to measure recharge. He also warned that treatment needs such as iron and manganese removal can add substantial costs if well water quality requires green-sand filters or other specialized treatment.

Board members questioned the county's minimum-acceptable yields and how wells translate to customer capacity. The presenter cited public-well design conventions used by health authorities: under conservative planning metrics (200 gallons per day per residence or a half-gallon-per-minute planning shorthand), Well No. 1's 60 gpm equates to roughly 120 customer-equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) and Well No. 2's 80 gpm to roughly 160 EDUs. He cautioned those figures are conservative and do not assume continuous 24/7 performance; the Virginia Department of Health practice of derating wells and requiring multiple sources for reliability means a single well rarely substitutes fully for surface-water treatment capacity.

Several supervisors and attendees urged a targeted test-drilling program on county-owned sites. The consultant said drilling costs vary: local quotes for deep test holes were reported at about $24,000; a more typical public-well bid for a 400-foot, 8-inch public well including pump and testing was described in the $50,000—$75,000 range, noting "it's $50,000 whether there's water in it or not." Several board members proposed drilling a modest number of test holes on county land (for example, five) to find any productive targets before committing larger sums.

The board and staff agreed on a near-term plan: pursue permit clearance and bring Well No. 1 online to monitor recharge and chemistry, resubmit approved plans for Well No. 2 to the health department for reapproval, and consider additional testing on county-owned reservoir lands if data support it. Directors also flagged dependency risks including the need for 3-phase power at candidate well sites and potential effects on nearby private wells.

The board did not take new binding action at the workshop but directed staff to pursue the permit for Well No. 1, to consider a small, county-land test-drilling allocation, and to return with cost estimates and a project plan.