SD6 - Report of the Land Use Roundtable - Land Use Initiatives for Tidewater Virginia: The Next Step in Protecting the Bay

  • Published: 1988
  • Author: Chesapeake Land Use Roundtable
  • Enabling Authority: Appropriation Act - Item (Regular Session, 1986)

Executive Summary:
Studies of the Chesapeake Bay completed in the late 1970's concluded that dramatic changes were taking place in the water quality and productivity of the Bay. The survival of the world's most bountiful estuary was threatened. There was an immediate and widespread call for action.

In 1983 Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania signed an historic agreement to mount a multi-million-dollar regional effort to clean up the Bay. Since then, Virginia and its neighbors have taken important steps to restore the Bay. But there is still concern that until we find ways to address land use issues and their relationship to the health of the Bay we will fall short of our task.

To respond to this concern, the Virginia members of the Chesapeake Bay Commission urged the General Assembly to fund a policy dialogue group to focus on land use issues and the Bay. Commission members were aware of the use of policy dialogues to wrestle with such controversial topics as hazardous waste disposal and groundwater protection and management, and they thought the approach held promise for addressing land use/water quality issues in Virginia. In March 1986 the General Assembly appropriated funds to support the formation of the Chesapeake Bay Land Use Roundtable under the auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Commission.

Roundtable members included legislators, farmers, industrialists, developers, local government officials, environmentalists and citizen activists from all parts of Tidewater Virginia - Fairfax, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Richmond County, Mathews County, the Eastern Shore and other Tidewater jurisdictions. Members came together with open minds to explore the connection between land use and water quality in the Bay region and to consider steps the State and its localities might take to make land use decisions more sensitive to water quality concerns. We participated not as formal representatives of any particular group or organization but as individuals representing the interests and perspectives of major constituencies concerned about these issues. We hoped a consensus reached by such a diverse group of individuals could serve as a foundation for more official consideration of policy changes.

We were assisted in our work by a resource group whose expertise and experience informed all of our deliberations and by staff from the Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia. We also invited a number of experts to share their opinions on a range of legal, environmental, and programmatic issues.

During eighteen months of discussion and debate, we exchanged views, found ways to resolve apparent impasses and ultimately reached consensus. When we say we reached consensus it means all Roundtable members agree with the essential features of this statement. It does not mean complete agreement exists on every specific recommendation or on how these might be interpreted or implemented by others. It does mean all members support the outcomes being sought and the overall framework proposed. Reaching consensus was not always easy, but in the end a strong commitment to the unique qualities of the Chesapeake Bay and recognition of the very real threats to its health and survival persuaded those who were initially most skeptical to join in recommending a stronger land-use planning and decision-making process for Tidewater Virginia.

As we concluded our deliberations, a new regional Chesapeake Bay Draft Agreement was developed by Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and the Environmental Protection Agency. The new draft is a recommitment to and expansion of the 1983 Agreement. Among other things, it establishes as a major goal: "To Plan For and Manage the Adverse Environmental Effects of Human Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay System" and it asserts a clear correlation "between population growth and associated development and environmental degradation in the Chesapeake Bay system." The new agreement sets out a number of major objectives that relate to land use and growth management.

We note with satisfaction that many of the findings, goals and objectives contained in the Draft Agreement are compatible with our conclusions and the recommendations which are set out in this consensus statement. We believe what we recommend is timely, practical, and necessary, and we hope it will receive serious consideration among citizens and decision-makers across the Commonwealth.