Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Urbanna council on HRSD wastewater plan, cite engineer’s letter and cheaper local option
Summary
Residents presented a letter from engineer Peter Mansfield arguing HRSD’s plan to rely on long-term discharge into Urbanna Creek would cost the county far more than local in-ground disposal and could violate pollution rules; the council accepted the letter into the record and agreed to consider further discussion.
Residents urged the Urbanna Town Council on Sept. 11 to scrutinize Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) plans for handling wastewater and to consider a local in-ground disposal alternative described in a letter from engineer Peter (Pete) Mansfield.
During public comment, speakers summarized Mansfield’s calculations, which the letter said estimate a local in-ground drip-disposal conversion at about $4 million and annual disposal costs of roughly $11,000, compared with an annual cost of about $270,000 under the county/HRSD proposal. The letter argues the county’s plan would result in prolonged discharge into Urbanna Creek and called for exploration of cheaper, locally controlled solutions.
One speaker who presented the material described Mansfield as an engineer with “23 patents” and urged the council to enter the letter into the record and to pursue further discussion. A councilmember asked staff to accept the letter into the record and to make copies available to council for follow-up; staff agreed to do so.
Council members and residents framed the debate as a balance of environmental protection, long-term cost and jurisdictional control. Speakers noted historical efforts to address Urbana (Urbanna) Creek contamination, past lobbying by local officials, and previous county-level discussions about pipelines and centralized treatment. No HRSD representative spoke at the meeting and no formal technical review was offered during the session.
The council accepted the letter into the record and asked staff to make copies available and to explore next steps, but the meeting did not produce a formal resolution or vote on HRSD’s plan. Residents asked the council to consider inviting Mansfield to present his analysis in more detail at a future meeting.
Next steps: staff agreed to accept Mansfield’s letter into the record and provide copies to council; the town indicated interest in further discussion but made no commitment to pursue a specific alternative at this meeting.
