Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Management And Wssc topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County presents flood-management plan and WSSC infrastructure priorities as council questions revenue allocation
Summary
DEP briefed the Transportation and Environment Committee on a comprehensive flood-management plan that models 11 watersheds (Sligo Creek pilot) to 2100 climate scenarios and on WSSC's CIP priorities; members requested jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction revenue and disbursement data and raised concerns about outreach, building-code policy and smart-meter impacts to bills.
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection staff on March 17 gave the Transportation and Environment Committee a progress report on the county's comprehensive flood management plan and reviewed related stormwater and water-infrastructure capital needs.
Stan Edwards, chief of the division of energy, climate and compliance, said phase one of the plan (watershed selection) is complete and phase two is underway with detailed modeling of 11 watersheds; Sligo Creek is the pilot watershed and should be public-facing this summer. Edwards said the models examine flood risk from 10-year to 500-year storms and project changes for current-day, 2050 and 2100 precipitation assumptions to account for climate change and growth in impervious areas.
Edwards said staff updated precipitation assumptions beyond the Atlas 14 baseline and used modeling techniques consistent with NOAA's approaches, adding that the county is projecting future scenarios out to 2100 so infrastructure with multi-decade lifespans can be planned accordingly. He emphasized the need to explain maps carefully to residents so the public's reaction to modeled neighborhood flood depths (the presentation showed areas with modeled depths of about 0.5 foot or more under some scenarios) is informed and not alarmist; DEP plans a web-based tool that will allow residents to zoom to their property.
The committee also reviewed several small stormwater projects advanced in the CIP amendments, including three upstream mitigation projects, a partnership program with congregations for small-scale on-site water projects, an outdoor classroom project at a middle school, and a reforestation site.
WSSC and regional water representatives reviewed capital categories and projects affecting Montgomery County, noting planned pump station upgrades, filtration-plant work tied to consent-decree compliance, water-storage rehabilitation, wastewater plant improvements and interjurisdictional contributions to Blue Plains. Committee members pressed WSSC and county staff for a jurisdictional breakdown of fee collection and disbursement between Montgomery County and Prince George's County; WSSC staff responded that fees are collected into a unified district pot and distributed by project priorities but agreed to provide numbers on revenue shares and how funds flow between counties.
Members flagged several policy- and outreach-related considerations: potential building-code changes (raising first-floor elevation, limiting walkout basements or requiring protection measures), communications in multiple languages to counter scams around flood insurance, and public education on smart-meter rollouts because more-accurate meters could increase bills for some customers. The committee asked staff to return with further analysis and to include prioritized project fee impacts when the operating budget and rate discussions resume in April and later in the spending-control process.
The transcript records committee discussion and staff presentations but no formal roll-call votes.
