Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply Tanaska topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents accuse county of rushed decision-making over Tanaska SUP and proposed wastewater 'water benefit'
Summary
Public speakers at the April 15 Fluvanna County Board meeting accused the board of approving a special-use permit tied to Tanaska without adequate transparency or due diligence, and raised concerns that treating Tanaska’s discharge to potable standards could cost tens of millions. Staff later described investigation work for the Fork Union water-supply project.
At the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors meeting on April 15, residents sharply criticized the board’s recent approval of a special‑use permit tied to Tanaska and urged officials to pause related approvals until technical questions are resolved.
"You ignored 1,300 citizens," public commenter Tracy Smith said, arguing the board dismissed petitions and approved the project without requiring a road‑repair bond or fully disclosing changes to a restrictive covenant that now allows above‑ground utility infrastructure across land previously described as protected. She said staff later reported the water contains "mercury, chromium, arsenic" and estimated treatment costs of "$52 to $57 million," allegations she said should have been resolved before the vote.
Ray Bassie, another resident, echoed those concerns and described the water proposal as a taxpayer risk rather than a community benefit. "That's not a benefit. That's a taxpayer trap," Bassie said, repeating the public comment that the covenant and agreement shift collection, processing and permitting costs to the county and provide no warranty that treated water would be available after the county invests in infrastructure.
County staff said April 15 that engineers from Dewberry are carrying out field investigations tied to a Fork Union water‑supply project that would connect to larger sources (including a James River Water Authority line) and will largely limit early work to marking rights‑of‑way and placing stakes rather than excavating private yards. Staff added maps and a parcel zoom link to the county website so residents can see where investigation work is planned.
Staff told the board the current investigation is to determine utility locations and design options; if easements or further construction are required, the county would return with property‑specific outreach and formal steps. Board members noted hook‑ups to any new lines would be voluntary for property owners, and repeated that Dominion‑related funding was expected to pay for some connections within a defined radius of certain facilities.
Board members did not take any new vote on the Tanaska arrangements at the April 15 meeting. Public commenters called for greater transparency and earlier technical review before substantive approvals. The county scheduled further public hearings and said it would post additional information and maps online so residents can monitor progress.
