Category Archives: Water-waste water

Repairing Waterways One Subdivision at a Time

Driving live stakes into the eroding bank of Westham Creek.

Virginia’s suburbs are hard on water quality and wildlife habitat. You can do something about it. Create a neighborhood preserve and get to work!

by James A. Bacon

If everyone swept their front stoop, the old saying goes, the whole world would be clean. With that philosophy in mind, two or three dozen volunteers with the Countryside Homeowners Association mobilized Saturday to clean up the creek running through their neighborhood. In a morning’s work, they collected several bags of trash, planted roughly 500 dogwood and willow stakes along the eroded stream bed, and built “rabbitats” to make homes for small woodland creatures.

Countryside homeowners had long ignored the stretch of Westham Creek running through the neighborhood. Once in a while, someone would call the public works department when culverts got clogged and the creek backed up, and occasionally kids would play in the woods, but that was about the extent of it. Over the 11 years I’ve lived in the subdivision, I paid little heed to the creek, which does not touch my property. But my environmental consciousness is more expansive these days than in years past, and my thoughts have turned increasingly to the forlorn and neglected strip of woods running through my neighborhood.

Indeed, you could say that I have become a zealot on the subject. I heartily urge other Virginia homeowners to undertake the clean-up of the creeks and streams in their own back yards, and I offer this article as a modest example of what citizens can accomplish on their own. There is no need to wait for the James River Association or the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay to come organize you. In the immortal words of the Nike commercials, just do it!

My enthusiasm was kindled a few months ago when Barbara Brown, president of our homeowners association, shared a consultant’s report that she had commissioned at her own expense regarding the potential for creating a neighborhood wildlife sanctuary. The report concluded that the Westham Creek floodplain was of sufficient size and quality to serve as a viable conservation area, providing “green space for residents to enjoy, quality wildlife habitat, water quality protection benefits and … an educational starting point for many community activities.” The potential existed, the consultant said, to create a communal asset that would “interest prospective home buyer as properties changed hands over the years.” In other words turning the floodplain into a neighborhood asset could increase property values.

Legal title to the land in the flood plain had been held by the Countryside Corporation, which had developed the subdivision. Taking ownership itself, the homeowners association created a conservation area that benefited everyone and made it easier to get the neighborhood excited about its upkeep and maintenance.

Around the time that I became aware of Barbara’s initiative, I had been writing about stream and creek restoration efforts in the James River watershed as part of a wider effort to clean the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Much of the Bay pollution comes from everyday activities of suburbanites like my neighbors and me. We fertilize our lawns with little thought to the nitrogen and phosphates that wash into our creeks, flow downstream and ultimately create algae blooms and dead zones in the Bay. We neglect the neighborhood creek, only dimly aware that erosion washes tons of sediment into the river, clouding the water, blocking sunlight and killing underwater grasses so vital to Bay and riverine ecosystems. We are a part of the problem. But with a little effort we can be part of the solution.

Barbara was organizing the neighborhood’s first spring clean-up event, so I volunteered to see what could be done to fix our stream. I took John Newton, Henrico County’s stream-reclamation engineer, on a tour of Westham Creek, showing him where the stream had cut stream banks as high as six feet and had washed away the soil from under towering trees, leaving tangles of exposed roots. Newton said the erosion was pretty bad but had not reached a level where it justified county intervention. He recommended that we stabilize the creek banks by planting live stakes every few inches, three rows high, in a diamond-shaped pattern. Within a couple of years, the stakes would grow into dense foliage with thick mat of roots that should hold the soil into place.

The next step was figuring out where to find the live stakes. The stakes are a specialty product, cut in uniform lengths of about two feet, stripped clean and chopped diagonally at one end for easier insertion into the sand and clay. The James River Association put us in touch with Ernst Conservation Seeds, of Meadville, Pa., which specializes in bioengineering and wetlands materials. For about $500, which the homeowners association paid for, Ernst shipped us roughly 500 stakes of Red Osier Dogwood and Black Willow.

Now, I know next to nothing about planting live stakes. But I had read a couple of pamphlets and talked to a couple of experts when writing my articles. And in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. So, while Barbara supervised the trash clean-up and rabitat construction, I organized the stake-driving team.

It was a nippy March morning. A dozen men and a couple of teenage boys spent a couple of hours splashing through the (mostly) shallow creek and pounding stakes into the riverbank. We had enough material to stabilize about 40 to 50 linear yards. The key was to drive in the stakes at a such an angle and depth for their roots to tap the water. Having absolutely no idea of what we were doing, we will have to wait and see how many live and how many die. Hopefully, we will learn enough from our floundering exertions that we can repeat the process more successfully next year on another stretch of creek bank. The creek has enough erosion to give us spring projects for years to come. Read More.

First, Fix Virginia’s Roads

by James A. Bacon

Virginia’s infrastructure rates a “D+” in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2013 report card on American infrastructure, released earlier this week. That’s a lousy rating in line with the national score of D+. The civil engineers have been accused of overstating the woes of American infrastructure in order to justify spending more money on projects that ultimately benefit… civil engineers. Be that as it may, there is some interesting data in the Virginia state report.

Here are two data points that caught my eye:

  • 9.1% — the percentage of bridges deemed structurally deficient.
  • 47% — the percentage of roads rated poor or mediocre quality

And a third: The average yearly cost to motorists in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs from driving on roads in need of repair is $254.

Bacon’s bottom line: The top priority of transportation policy should be to fully fund the maintenance of existing road, bridges, highways and rail before a single dime is spent upon new infrastructure. There is no excuse for allowing roads to deteriorate. First, poor roads impose a needless cost on drivers. Second, the more roads deteriorate, the more expensive they are to bring up to proper standards later. Letting transportation infrastructure to degrade creates a double whammy for citizens.

Official Virginia policy, embedded in the state code, requires the Virginia Department of Transportation to fully fund maintenance before undertaking new construction. And VDOT has abided by that policy… more or less. But there is a gray area. What standards of road and bridge conditions do we adhere to? Clearly, the current practice falls short of perfection — or 9.1% of our bridges would not be graded deficient nor would 47% of our roads be deemed poor or mediocre quality. If the civil engineers are to be believed, that slippage is costing Virginia drivers a fair amount of money for new tires and shock absorbers.

Now, compare that $254-per-year cost to what the typical driver has been paying in state gasoline taxes (17.5 cents per gallon). Assume the typical motorist drives 15,000 miles per year and gets 25 miles per gallon. He would buy 600 gallons of gasoline yearly and pay $105 yearly in state gasoline taxes.

Wow! The sub-par quality of roads and highways is costing motorists two-and-a-half times as much as what they pay in the gas tax! Talk about pennies wise and pounds foolish.

That brings me back to an old proposal: The gas tax should be set at whatever rate it takes to fully fund the maintenance of Virginia roads, bridges and highways at a high level of quality — no more, no less. Those tax revenues should be dedicated to maintenance and go to no other purpose. I believe that Virginians would be willing to pay a few pennies more per gallon in gas taxes if they were assured that the money was not being diverted to new construction of questionable value.

Such a tax would be easier to swallow if motorists could see the payoff in the form of smoother, safer rides resulting in fewer auto repairs. People are smart enough to know that if you pay to properly maintain the roads, they won’t pay as much to maintain their cars.

The problem with the old transportation funding policy, as well as the new one passed by the General Assembly last month, is that no one can see the connection between what they pay and what they get in return. Linking the gasoline tax to maintenance would make that link crystal clear for at least a portion of the road budget.

The Myth of Cuccinelli the “Straight Shooter”

Mirror, mirror on the wall. Ken Cuccinelli spends a lot of time admiring himself. He’s long on portraying himself as a heroic figure fighting federal over-reach and short on the self-deprecating humor that evinces a certain level of humility. This habit is particularly notable when it comes to being a “straight shooter.” At the recent CPAC conference Cuccinelli gave a keynote speech. He almost threw his shoulder out of joint patting himself on the back and congratulating himself on being a “straight shooter.” But is he?

Kill Bill.  There is little doubt that Cuccinelli and his henchmen short circuited the democratic process in order to make sure he was the Republican nominee for governor. Cuccinelli used a deal from the smoke-filled back rooms of the Republican Party of Virginia to avoid an open primary in favor of a convention.  Cuccinelli knew that the extremists who frequent Republican conventions would put him on the ballot. Apparently, he was less sure of the rank and file Republicans who would have voted in an open primary. Not the straightest of shots there.

Channeling his inner Clinton. Cuccinelli’s web site, on the education section of the issues page, has this sentence:”I was raised in Fairfax County and attended public schools.”  One is led to believe that Mr. Cuccinelli’s views on education in Virginia are well formed since he is a product of Virginia’s public school system. Not so fast. Which one of Fairfax County’s many fine public high schools counts Cuccinelli as an alumnus? None of them. He went to high school at a very private, very expensive school in Washington, D.C.: Gonzaga College High School. Interestingly, the reference to Cuccinelli graduating from Gonzaga has been removed from his official biography. I am sure that Cuccinelli attended public school at some point in his life. However, shouldn’t a self-proclaimed “straight-shooter” write, “I was raised in Fairfax County and attended a mixture of public and private schools?”

Come hell or high water. One of Cuccinelli’s rare victories against the federal government came from a case where the Environmental Protection Agency wanted to force Fairfax County and Virginia to cut back on sediment pollution caused by runoff into the Accotink Creek. Cuccinelli derisively accused the EPA of trying to regulate water as a pollutant. That statement is an outright lie. Cuccinelli personally argued the case. The judge’s opinion states, “Both parties agree that sediment is a pollutant and stormwater is not.” I guess “straight shooters” can take a little liberty with the truth when it suits their needs. H/T – Blue Virginia.

Rippert’s Read Out.  Cuccinelli is as slippery as a greased eel. He uses back- room deals to stab members of his own party in the back. He ignores the teachings of the Jesuits at Gonzaga High School and lies through omission about his own educational background. He knowingly lies about the EPA in his comments regarding the Accotink case. Cuccinelli a straight shooter? Yeah, and I’m Brad Pitt’s brother.

– D.J. Rippert  

Fostering Regional Collaboration Case by Case

by James A. Bacon

For reasons rooted in local identity and entrenched political interest, Virginians are unlikely to consolidate their local governments into units aligned with the metropolitan regions they serve. But it is not impossible to imagine governments partnering regionally on specific projects.

A new study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, “Encouraging Local Collaboration through State Incentives,” describes areas where collaboration might make sense and how the state can encourage it.

K-12 education, which accounted for $13.2 billion in state and local spending in FY 2011, is one area rife with opportunity. For instance, special education programs can be administered more efficiently on a regional basis — reducing the cost per student by $6,500 to $13,500.

Public safety, which accounts for $4 billion in state and local spending, offers more low-hanging fruit. Regional radio networks would facilitate the cost-efficient collaboration between local fire, police and rescue. A step toward even greater integration, which could save localities up to $8 million, would be to create of joint emergency dispatch centers. Building joint courthouses can reduce construction costs by 16% 6o 44%. The cost of managing jail populations could be cut by $65 per person per day by allowing individuals awaiting trial to be transferred from jail detention to less expensive community release.

Other functions include regional administration of foster care, regional operation of public utilities and regional procurement.

The state can encourage regional collaboration by identifying savings to the state — the state contributes heavily toward foster care, special education and local jails, for example — and sharing some of the projected gain with the local governments.

There is nothing sexy about these nuts-and-bolts proposals for efficiency in government. In fact, the details can be pretty boring. You won’t find citizens holding demonstrations at the state Capitol grounds to demand more regional collaboration. (Regional foster care now! Regional foster care now!) But taxpayer advocates and good-government types should find common cause in making government work more effectively.

Fixing Broken Streams and Broken Dreams

The Bellemeade Walkable Watershed project aims to reclaim a damaged creek, create a route for kids to walk to school, and boost community spirit in a gritty, inner-city Richmond neighborhood.

by James A. Bacon

Bob Argabright got involved with Richmond city schools nine years ago when he volunteered to help two young students learn to read. It wasn’t long before he discovered that the challenges faced by inner city kids run far deeper than a difficulty with letters and words. As he delved deeper into their lives and their surroundings, his volunteer activity became a full-time vocation. Today, the retired paper industry executive is such a fixture at Oak Grove-Bellemeade Elementary School that children wave to him in the hall, call him by name and even run up to give him a hug.

“I think it’s totally unfair for a child to be born in the 23229 zip code and be set for life while a child born in 23224 has a low probability of success,” says Argabright. “Ninety percent of our kids say they want to be a rap star, an NFL football player or a beautician. We’re trying to show them other paths. … We’re teaching these children to dream.”

As unlikely as it might sound, Argabright is hoping that a few children might conceive the ambition of becoming an architect or an environmental engineer.

Making that connection would have been unlikely a year ago, when the students at Oak Grove-Bellemeade were attending the old Bellemeade Elementary School, an aged and decrepit school building that screamed urban blight. But this month they moved into a new, LEED-standard school building next door that is fresh, clean and airy. Every section of the school bears a name associated with the James River — the river bed, forest floor, forest canopy, and the like — to serve as inspiration for teaching about nature. Moreover, the city is moving forward with a project to restore the severely eroded creek behind the school with the aim of creating a community resource and a focus for environmental education.

The Bellemeade Walkable Watershed is a triumph of public-private collaboration, says Michelle Virts, deputy director of utilities. “It’s a great opportunity for the city to stretch our dollars.” The project is funded largely through a $187,000 National Fish & Wildlife grant to restore the creek, and a $60,000 Environmental Protection Agency grant to build a watershed coalition, but the city is chipping in land, public works money and staff time, while not-for-profits like the James River Association and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay are providing volunteers for clean-up and money for tree planting.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the walkable watershed is how the community is leveraging a single project to advance multiple goals: stream restoration, environmental education, a community garden and a network of sidewalks and trails. By making it possible for hundreds of kids, many of whom live in housing projects, to walk or bicycle to school instead of ride the bus, the project, it is hoped, will ward off the obesity that plagues Richmond’s inner city.

Many educators, public officials and not-for-profits have contributed to the project. But Argabright is the thread tying the efforts together. “Bob is extremely active in the neighborhood,” says Virts. “He makes things happen.”

“Bob Argabright is totally on fire about this thing,” says Champe Burnley, president of the Virginia Bicycling Federation, who recalls meeting with him more than half a year ago. Argabright was thinking ahead to when the new route opens for children to walk and bike to school. How many poor kids own bicycles? Not many. Even back then, he was working the angles to rustle up some used bikes. He now has 300 (only some of which, he regrets, are suitable for children) sitting in a warehouse in anticipation of the day when they can be used.

Argabright is not one to claim credit. He sings the praises of everyone involved in the project, from Oak Grove-Bellemeade’s principle Jannie Laursen to Lara Kling with the Blue Sky Fund, which has raised $275,000 to fund outdoor nature programs for inner city schools, including Oak Grove-Bellemeade. He depicts his contribution mainly as showing up at community events, pushing to get things done and building a web of contacts linking corporate leaders with City Hall and neighborhood volunteers and activists. Says he: “What I’m doing is networking, doing what I’ve done my whole career.”

Re-greening Richmond

Two developments were key to making the project happen. One was construction of the Oak Grove-Bellemeade School, which opened its doors this year. Children from the old Bellemeade School, located right next door, moved in right away. Students from Oak Grove will transfer next school year. The 90,000-square-foot facility is state-of-the-art. But it’s one thing to teach a subject like science in the abstract to inner-school children who have seldom ventured outside their concrete-and-asphalt domain, and quite another to teach them in a natural environment. More.

Smart Growth for Everyone

by James A. Bacon

I’m back from the New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Kansas City, where I learned a lot, met some really bright people and, oh, by the way, gave a speech to the biggest audience of my career. As a bonus, I experienced a first — my speech was live-tweeted!

You can tell if a movement is vibrant or dying by attending conferences like these. If you see a lot of creative new thinking, you know a movement is gaining momentum. If you see a recitation of the same, worn nostrums, you know it’s slipping into senility. Let me tell you, there was no paucity of fresh thinking at the New Partners event. I talked to people who designed “parklets” (micro-sized public spaces shoe-horned into small urban spaces), adapted golf courses for wildlife habitat, used remote sensing technology to map urban tree canopies, conducted walking audits to measure a community’s walkability, and pushed the envelope of urban design to spur economic innovation.

Another sign of vitality is the organizers’ openness to different viewpoints. While smart growth tends to be a liberal or greenie preoccupation, the organizers invited me to deliver a speech, “Smart Growth for Conservatives,” an earlier version of which I had published on this blog. Also participating in the plenary session was Michael Lewyn, a libertarian law school professor at the Touro Law Center. Following the speeches, we engaged in a discussion moderated by Smart Growth America CEO Geoffrey Anderson.

My broad conclusion: There is roughly 80% overlap between liberals and conservatives on goals and objectives… Let’s work together to execute the smart growth elements we can agree upon and haggle over the details later.

During the conference, the Smart Growth Network released a compendium of smart-growth articles, entitled “The National Conversation on the Nature of Our Communities.” Among the highlights:

Smart Growth for Everyone,” written by yours truly. Pull-out quote: “Are planners so omnipotent that they can accurately predict the market demand for housing and business space in a dynamic economy for years in the future? Not bloody likely. Governments should unleash entrepreneurs by giving them more freedom. Let the marketplace, not comprehensive plans, decide what gets built and where.”

Also, “A Libertarian Smart Growth Agenda,” authored by Mike Lewyn, the libertarian law school professor. Pull-out quote: “If ‘smart growth’ means support for more walkable, less vehicle-dependent communities, smart growth supporters and libertarian-minded property rights supporters should have much in common.”

The Wobbly World of Global Uranium Prices

By Peter Galuszka

Highly controversial plans to mine and mill a rich tract of uranium in Pittsylvania County are before the General Assembly. Plenty of studies, lobbyists and scads of money are being thrown about on both sides of the argument.

Yet a brief story on page B7 in today’s Wall Street Journal deals with a topic that may be the truly decisive factor in the project.

While bullish on the long-term prospects for global uranium prices, the piece notes that spot prices for uranium have slid from about $130 a pound around 2007 when the Virginia Uranium plan was announced to about $42.25 a pound today. It had been about $70 a pound when Japan’s Fukushima reactor disaster caused it to tank in 2011.

The pieces states: “The industry needs prices at $75 or $80 a pound for future mine production to be profitable.” Thus, the uranium market has a long way to go before the 119 million pound tract around Coles Hill Farm east of Chatham, said to be the largest in the U.S., can actually be profitable to mine.

This is a fact that Virginia Uranium hasn’t really advertised. The company Web site has the standard boosterish fare about the need for uranium, how clean a fuel it is and what a boon mining and milling would be to Southside. The Website has factually inaccurate material, such as claiming that uranium has been mined successfully in Florida when what happened was that phosphate miners managed to get some uranium from their byproducts but shut down when uranium prices got too low.

That said, it could be that Virginia Uranium, made up of some local investors, the Coles family and a number of Canadians, are pressing ahead waiting for brighter days. The Journal advises that investors might be smart to make a uranium play.

Among the reasons are that China, Russia, India and South Korea are bringing online some 62 new reactors in coming years. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that nuclear power production will rise from between 35 percent and 100 percent over the next 20 years.

Another factor is that a 20-year-old agreement between Russia and the U.S. that convert material from  old Soviet nuclear warheads into uranium useable in civilian reactors is due to expire this year. According to the World Nuclear Association, this program has supplied about 13 percent of world reactor requirements up to this year. The Journal predicts the pact won’t be renewed.

If the result is a tightening of uranium supply, then prices would rise. The major beneficiaries will be Kazakhstan and Canada, the first and second largest producers in the world. American production represents only 4 percent of the market.

The Journal also notes that “uranium prices could take a long time to recover.” The big boost in power production around the world (new reactors in the U.S. are progressing at a snail’s pace if at all) won’t come until 2020.

That might be about the time the Coles Hill operation is in operation if the 30-year-old ban on uranium mining is lifted by this year’s General Assembly. In the meantime, it’s a roll of the dice as far as making realistic estimates on global uranium prices.

One other point stands out. If Virginia proceeds with uranium mining, the fuel likely won’t be used by Virginia reactors or even American ones. It will be shipped overseas to fast-growing Asian countries, most likely. If there are major negative impacts from mining, people in Virginia and to some extent North Carolina, would bear the burden.

This makes running the American flag with the quote “Fuel for America” on Virginia Uranium’s corporate Website a little cheesy.

Here Comes Cooch-ageddon!

Illustration credit: Ed Harrington, Style Weekly.

Hard right conservative Kenneth T. Cuccinelli has a very good chance of becoming the next governor. At least that’s my view 11 months out.

I disagree with Cuccinelli on almost everything and will spare my readers the list. But I do agree on one thing: he has proved to be a wily politician. He’s turned the Republican establishment on its head. His likely opponent Terry McAuliffe has yet to prove himself as a viable opponent if he is indeed the Democratic choice, as he now seems he will be. Cuccinelli’s off-year race will be one of the most closely watched by the national media.

Enough talking. Read my cover story in Richmond’s Style Weekly.

New Life for Broken Streams

John Newton, Henrico environmental engineer, at the reclaimed Rocky Branch creek.

Rather than make developers install stormwater-control projects of marginal value, Henrico County pools resources to fund high-impact stream reclamations.

by James A. Bacon

Near the Henrico County government training center, a five-foot pipe spills water into Rocky Branch, a forlorn and forgotten urban creek. When it rains, water from more than 80 acres of roofs and parking lots along Broad Street rushes through the culvert and shoots into the stream at high velocity. Over the years water had scoured the stream bank, creating a gully that cut as deep as 10 feet. Stormwater washed tons of sediment every year into the James River watershed, carrying phosphorous, nitrogen and other pollutants with it.

Rocky Branch storm pipe

Thanks to a $600,000 stream restoration project, the ugly little gully has been stabilized. It hasn’t regained a pristine state of nature — some of its banks are hardened with large stones, logs and skeins of artificially implanted tree roots — but it isn’t eroding anymore. Thick with indigenous grass, shrubs and saplings, the banks are returning to woodland. Within a few years, the hand of man will be nearly invisible to passersby on the jogging trail just a few yards away.

Chalk up one small victory in the arduous campaign to clean up the James River and the Chesapeake Bay.

Rocky Branch is one of 48 stream segments that Henrico County identified more than 10 years ago as severely degraded and in need of restoration. To date, the county has repaired two others, one running through the Jamestown Townhouses apartment complex and the other behind Skipwith Elementary School.

Rocky Branch before restoration

None of the severely eroded creek beds would have been patched at all had Henrico County not adopted an innovative approach to storm water management. With the imposition of clean-water regulations under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, Henrico required commercial and residential real estate developers to adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling storm water run-off. What county officials found, however, was that some BMPs were cost-effective while others were not, explains Jeff W. Perry, engineering & environmental services division manager.

While two-thirds of the BMP projects were effective, removing 85% of the pollutant load, one third, usually associated with smaller subdivisions, accomplished little, eliminating only 11%. Developers would spend $30,000 to $40,000 for a project that might remove a half pound of phosphorous a year yet  the water would run into a severely eroded creek or stream where literally tons of sediment, along with phosphorous and other regulated nutrients, washed into the watershed. Says Perry of the mis-allocation of resources: “It’s a real head scratcher.”

Rocky Branch after restoration

The county’s policy innovation was to take the money that developers would have spent on marginally useful BMPs and put it into a special environmental fund. That fund then would pay for the clean-up of streams like Rocky Branch where the environmental benefit would far outweigh that of neighborhood BMPs. “You’ve got X amount of resources,” Perry says. “Why not get the biggest bang for the buck?”

Joe Lerch, director of environmental quality for the Virginia Municipal League, embraces Perry’s logic. By combining the contributions of multiple developers, he says, the county can accomplish far more than individual property owners could on their own. The program has won national recognition. Here in Virginia, Fairfax County has put a similar system into place.

In 1999-2000, Henrico County had hired consultants to walk some 200 miles of creeks and streams across the 234-square mile locality. They documented stream conditions and identified segments that called for restoration. County officials then prioritized those stream segments for remediation, taking into account accessibility, elevation, the number of property owners whose cooperation was necessary and the number of gas and water lines that intersected the stream. Read more.

Countering the Cow Menace

by James A. Bacon

Once upon a time, industrial discharges and municipal sewage treatment plants were the biggest sources of pollution for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. But these “point source” polluters have significantly cleaned up their act, and further gains could cost tens of millions of dollars per facility. Whom do we target now to improve water quality in Virginia?

Cows.

There really is no way of putting this delicately. Cattle poop a lot. And when they’re standing around, chewing their cuds and doing whatever cows do, they unload fecal bacteria and nitrogen into creeks and streams.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, Virginia was home to 1,540,000 cattle and calves in 2011. Consider this: In rough numbers, cows average 1,200 pounds each. That translates into approximately 1.8 billion pounds of bovine flesh. Compare that to the human population of just over 8 million. The average weight of adult humans in the U.S. is about 180 pounds, amounting to about 1.4 billion pounds of human body mass.

Assuming that cattle and humans produce roughly the same volume of waste products per pound on a daily basis (which, given the difference in our diets is probably not accurate, but humor me while I play this out), Virginia cattle produce roughly 30% more total waste than Virginia humans do. But there is not one single waste water treatment facility dedicated to cleaning up cow poop! WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CATTLE DEFECATING DIRECTLY INTO CREEKS AND STREAMS, AND WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT?

Sorry, cows, that’s a no-go zone.

Well, the McDonnell administration is doing something about it. Under a Virginia Enhanced Conservation Initiative, the Department of Conservation and Recreation will reimburse farmers 100% of the cost to install systems — fences, watering troughs, vegetative buffers, wells and pumps — that keep livestock away from waterways.

In the past, Virginia paid farmers 75% of the cost of installing “stream-exclusion systems.” Apparently, that didn’t do the trick, even though, as Governor Bob McDonnell said in in a recent press release, “Studies have also shown that keeping livestock out of streams leads to healthier herds and fewer veterinary bills.” (Think about it … cows pooping and peeing in their own drinking water — that can’t be good.) So, the state has bumped up the reimbursement to 100%.

“Virginia farmers now have a new avenue to increase profitability and conservation on their lands,” McDonnell said. “By focusing on the practice of streamside livestock exclusion, we are helping producers protect their financial interest and do their part to protect Virginia’s precious waters.”

The program is funded to the tune of $3 million per year. I’m not sure how many fences, troughs and vegetative buffers that will pay for, but I’m guessing that it will keep only a small fraction of Virginia’s cattle from befouling our streams. We’ll have to maintain this program for a long, long time before all of our waterways are manure-free. On the other hand, the program could keep a lot more poop out of the water than if the same sum were spent on incremental improvements to municipal waster-water and storm-water-overflow systems.

As with all investments of state funds, however, I would like to see a comparative Return on Investment analysis. Perhaps there are private-sector alternatives tor dealing with cow poop. There are serious proposals afoot to convert manure into methane. There may be sufficiently large cattle herds in Rockingham and Augusta counties to justify such an initiative.

Now, if we could figure out how to deal with cow flatulence, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, we’d really have the cow menace under control.