Alternate to Proposed Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa

by Douglas R. Johnson
March 16, 2009

All though the years of discussions, up until April of 2008, the concept of sharing the cost of a water pipe to Zion Crossroads never included any Joint Water Authority. This was a totally new idea which was sprung on the community as a "done deal" at the January 26, 2009 meeting at the Best Western Inn at Zion Crossroads. This meeting was suppose to be an "exploratory" meeting between the two BOS's, Fluvanna BOS and Louisa BOS. All of a sudden, this was the one and only way for the project to go forward.

We were told the Fluvanna was going to pay more than half because of the convoluted path of the pipeline. For strictly political reasons, the most direct route is not taken for the pipeline. Supervisor Moss not only wants to dictate where growth should occur, we wants to dictate where it should not occur.

We will be tapping the water line of Tenaska which runs from the James to the Tenaska plant near Lake Monticello. That existing line of unprocessed water virtually runs through Fork Union. The simple logical plan would be to tap into that line in Fork Union district and build a small processing plant there. There is virtually no pipeline needed to then hook into to the existing waterline servicing the entire Fork Union Sanitary District. That puts clean water on Rt 15 at the Middle School.

That location is the current location of the factory that recently closed down. Having unlimited water makes that location a prime location for industry. In fact the entire Fork Union area would then be "open for business". There is a ready work force that does not need to be imported.

Let's look at other benefits for that solution. The Fork Union Sanitary District already has brand new water towers and fully functioning wells. When we add purified James River water, we then move the wells to be back-up for when the river water is down. The water towers also then give storage capacity. That makes Water coming through Fork Union the most reliable system we could have.

Furthermore, I have stated here that the water purifying plant should be a minimum size but built with expansion in mind. So when businesses actually do hook in, we can then reasonably use revenue bonds to expand capacity.

So just what would the cost be to do this Fork Union solution? If we only considered Fluvanna's actual "needs", the cost would be substantially less than half of the Zions Crossroads "wants". But then business development would center around Fork Union rather than around Zion Crossroads.

The closest Timmons Plan to what is proposed here is what Timmons calls the "Rte 649 WTP & Rte 15 Pipeline". Suppose we broke this down to phases. We could then have:

Phase 1 - Fork Union hookup including bare bones Water Treatment Plant. This can be financed by general obligation bonds of Fluvanna as an investment into the infrastructure of the county. This is where help from the Federal Government should be sought. If in fact Mr. Moss did get a promise of 10 million, this is where it should be applied. That would then give Fluvanna a net risk of less than 10 million.

Phase 2 - Pipeline straight up 15 to Zions Crossroads. This would fulfil the obligation to Louisa. This cost should be entirely born by Louisa or it should not be done. That straight run should cost less than the 20 million Louisa currently expects to pay. Here is where we can be a little creative. We can sell Revenue Bonds for this phase based on a full term commitment by Louisa to purchase water at a wholesale level.

Phase 3 - Extend pipeline from Zions Crossroads to Prison. This cost should be born entirely by the prison or it should not be done. This expansion then must be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis. Again a full term commitment to purchase water by the prison would justify those Revenue Bonds.

Phase 4 - Expand capacity of Water Treatment Plant. This should only be done when capacity is actually needed. Then this expansion must be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis.

Phase 5 - Extend pipeline up Rt 53 from Rt 15. While it would be nice to do this, it should only be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis. If the sole purpose of this extension is for the High School, then a Cost Benefit Analysis needs to be done comparing the cost of well water for the new High School vs extending the water pipe to the new High School.

While this may cost more money eventually, it would be a pay as you go plan with very little exposure to the Fluvanna taxpayer.