King George study maps Rapahhanic surface-water option, estimates $73M–$100M build cost

Dan Hamilton, the service authority’s general manager, briefed the board on a 250-page surface-water master plan that evaluates the county’s water distribution, forecasts near- and long‑term demand, and recommends a new surface‑water treatment supply drawing from the Rapahhanic River.

Hamilton said the study modeled future demand and identified potential intake and plant sites within five miles of the river and outside FEMA 100‑year floodplain where feasible. He told the board the plan’s phased capital cost estimate is “roughly $73 million” and that higher‑end scenarios push toward $100 million. “100 million bucks we don't have,” Hamilton said, underscoring the gulf between engineering options and available funding.

The plan forecasts growth-driven demand increases through 2050 (the report projects demand could rise by about 62% by mid‑century under high‑growth scenarios) and recommends interconnections among the county’s nine public systems to allow a surface‑water source to replace a substantial share of groundwater withdrawals. The report notes the treatment facility, as presented, could reduce reliance on groundwater by up to 90% while positioning the county for economic development that requires reliable supply.

Board members pressed staff on cost, funding sources and operations. Hamilton warned that operating costs for an advanced surface‑water plant would exceed current groundwater operating costs and that state regulators have signaled growing scrutiny of groundwater withdrawals — a regulatory shift that contributed to the plan. He said the study is a planning document, not a finalized design; it identifies site constraints, intake siting criteria and phased improvements but does not commit the county to immediate construction.

What’s next: staff suggested the plan become a roadmap for pursuing state and federal grant opportunities and prioritizing smaller short‑term projects while tracking permit outcomes for local groundwater withdrawals. The board did not vote on construction; members asked staff to refine cost estimates, funding paths and phasing options before any formal commitment.