Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Water Withdrawal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Amherst accepts DEQ water-withdrawal permit with 75% flow-by, authorizes compliance steps

Town Council of the Town of Amherst · January 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Amherst Town Council voted 5–0 to accept a revised DEQ draft permit restoring the town’s existing 1 million gallons-per-day withdrawal but imposing a 75% flow‑by requirement; staff estimated short‑term compliance costs of about $120,000 for monitoring and planning.

The Amherst Town Council voted unanimously on Jan. 14 to accept a revised Virginia Department of Environmental Quality draft water‑withdrawal permit for the town’s intake on the Buffalo River. Town staff said the draft restores the town’s current allocation (1 million gallons per day) but adds a “flow‑by” requirement intended to protect in‑stream resources.

“On a normal day...the flow‑by requirement is 75%,” said Ms. McGuffin, town staff leading the permit discussion, describing the condition in the draft permit. She told council the 75% requirement means the town could withdraw about 25% of flow passing the intake under typical conditions, and that some other jurisdictions face flow‑by standards as high as 90%.

Staff outlined three implementation needs in the permit: install a flow‑measurement device (subject to DEQ approval) or, as a fallback, a USGS gauging station; develop a monitoring and operations plan; and prepare a drought‑management and alternative‑water‑supply plan within a 10‑year horizon. The town’s engineer provided a ballpark short‑term cost estimate of about $120,000 to construct the proposed monitoring device and produce the operations and monitoring plan.

Council also heard that a USGS gauging station, if required, would carry higher initial construction and ongoing maintenance costs and require federal/state permitting because it would involve a new in‑stream structure. Staff said the permit allows the town to use county reservoir releases as part of compliance and that the county prefers using certain reservoirs over others for recreational reasons.

Council voted to accept the permit as drafted and direct staff to proceed with the compliance steps and budget planning; the motion (option one) was moved by Mr. Sundberg, seconded by Mr. Driscoll, and carried 5–0.