Residents press Fluvanna supervisors to require enforceable construction water plan for Tanaska project

At a packed meeting, residents urged the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors to demand a formal construction water management plan from Tanaska — the company planning a large power‑plant project — arguing state permits and verbal assurances are not a substitute for enforceable local protections.

Speakers during public comment recounted drought impacts to private wells and agriculture and asked the board to require written commitments on construction water sources, volumes, baseline well testing for nearby properties, drought‑triggered curtailments and a clear complaint and response process. ‘‘If you ask Tanaska for a construction water plan, then you can analyze it,’’ said Ray Bassie, a resident who urged the board to insist on written and enforceable conditions rather than rely on later state reviews.

The board’s staff said Tanaska had communicated to the county — via email — that it would not use groundwater for construction; staff committed to asking the company to put that assurance in writing and to explore whether the county can require contractual or SUP conditions. Planning staff and supervisors discussed options including adding construction‑water conditions to the special‑use permit (SUP), seeking a voluntary memorandum of understanding (MOU), or developing supplemental local regulations that would set baseline testing and reporting requirements.

County staff and water‑system operators told the board the system presently has an allocation of about 75,000 gallons per day, and current usage is roughly 7,000–10,000 gpd; staff recommended the county retain flexibility to reduce bulk‑water allocations during drought or as development increases. Supervisors said they would ask staff to (a) contact Tanaska to request a formal construction water plan and written commitments; (b) research what permit or contractual leverage the county can use (SUP conditions, MOU, or supplemental ordinance language); and (c) report back on the regulatory framework (DEQ/VDH/regional planning) and potential baseline‑testing programs for neighboring wells.

Supporters of a formal plan cited specific protections they want included: identification of construction water source(s); estimated peak and daily volumes during construction; aggregation rules so multiple withdrawals serving the same project count toward a cap; mandatory baseline well testing for neighboring private wells; clear treatment and disposal pathways for used or contaminated construction water; and drought triggers that suspend or curtail construction withdrawals.

Board members noted that some elements — like issuance of surface‑water withdrawal permits and regional water‑planning review — fall to state agencies (DEQ and the regional water authority) but said those reviews sometimes leave local gaps that can be addressed through SUP conditions, contractual agreements, or local supplemental regulations. The county’s planning staff agreed to compile existing regulatory pathways and examples from other localities and to pursue an initial outreach to Tanaska to request a formal construction water management plan.

The board did not adopt new ordinance language at the meeting; instead members directed staff to return with options and legal analysis and, where appropriate, to seek written commitments from Tanaska about groundwater use and baseline testing. The county also discussed the longer‑term idea of convening a technical advisory group to prepare supplemental regulations for high‑impact projects.

What happens next: staff will (1) contact Tanaska to request formal written documentation of its construction water approach; (2) research the legal tools (SUP conditions, MOUs, supplemental ordinances) and precedent used in other local jurisdictions; and (3) return to the board with recommended draft language or procedural options for requiring baseline testing and enforceable measures prior to construction.