On the day of the final Wedderburn re-zoning hearing, which would set County precedent allowing developers to strip protective filtration buffers away from streams based on "eye-ball evidence," Tom Toles came out with this cartoon in the Washington Post:


 

    I thought about the parallels between what was happening in my own back yard and what happened with the slow erosion of New Orlean's wetland barriers and how that contributed to the disaster of Katrina.  I made the cartoon a centerpiece of my presentation to the Fairfax Board of Supervisors.  We also collected and displayed on poster-boards a full-page spread that the Washington Post published on September 4, 2005 (unfortunately not available on-line), asking "What's Killing the Bay" and providing lots of scary answers about the role of ordinary sub-urban run-off.  See Potomac News Editorial and The News Virginian.  During my three minutes at the podium (video here under 9/26 Public Hearings - fast forward about one hour into the tape), I spoke about the precedent Fairfax was setting and the waste of its investment just two years ago to comprehensively evaluate County streams using a 26-factor scientific Protocol that renowned scientists from around the Country had written to the Board to praise (four more such letters available here).  

    In 2003, the Wedderburn stream was evaluated under the Protocol and found to be "a very good looking stream.  Definitely perennial."  In September 2004, developers photographed the Wedderburn stream after 21 days of no rain, and at a time when local stream flow was at a two-year low, and submitted the photos to the County seeking to reverse this determination.  Every 218 feet of stream buffer canceled results in an additional acre of buildable land, so it's no wonder that they wanted it, regardless of the cost to the Bay.  This "eye-ball" evidence was then used to administratively strip away the construction prohibition zone around the headwaters of the stream.  Citizens had no right of public notice, no right to comment, no right to a public hearing, and no right of appeal.  (See County memos here).

    At the July 11, 2005 hearing to amend the County's Chesapeake Stream Map to delete the Wedderburn stream based on this evidence, the Board had actually endorsed this "quick exit scheme" for developers to get around the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.  From then until the final hearing on September 26, 2005, we worked furiously to get the word out to neighboring community groups and the citizenry at large about what was at stake, using FairGrowth Network, a new community tool for sharing information and coordinating joint action.  Two major citizens organizations issued Resolutions (here and here) calling for a moratorium on stream reclassification using these flawed procedures, and sending representatives to testify.  The Prince William Conservation Alliance sent its Executive Director to speak to the Board at the final Wedderburn hearing.  The DC Surfrider Chapter also sent its Chair-Elect to speak.  The Hunter Mill Defense League alerted citizens to the portent of this new policy for yet another controversial development brewing elsewhere in the County.

    As the video of the hearing shows, our Supervisors completely dismissed our testimony and evidence.  One Supervisor dismissed the effect of suburban runoff as insignificant given the agricultural contribution to nutrient load in the Bay.  As if being the #2 problem justified ignoring the impact.  This same Supervisor even called using visual evidence "good science."  She actually said that twice....  Another Supervisor hauled out more photos of the stream taken on August 26th of this year, also showing a dry surface appearance, but failing to note that our region had had no rain since August 8th, and at the time of the hearing was officially in a state of drought.  They all persisted in ignoring continuing sub-surface stream flow - even though it is this flow that sustains the web of life that filters incoming contaminants.  The local press covering the hearing even made the disrespect shown to citizens the focal point of its story.

    At the close of the hearing, our District Supervisor read her pre-prepared speech and the predictable unanimous vote followed.  The Wedderburn headwaters of this vibrant stream were now lost, and 24 houses and all their attendant impervious surfaces would now inundate this stream with exactly the sort of run-off we need the stream buffers to filter.  But something else also happened.

    Back in June, Dr. Penelope Firth, a stream ecologist, and I submitted a Guest Column to the Washington Post on the "blemished underbelly" of Fairfax stream policies, which was published on June 30, 2005.  Thereafter we peppered the Post with letters to the editor about the Wedderburn development, some of which were published.  Shortly before the Wedderburn hearing, the Post finally published an article about the upcoming hearing, mentioning our growing citizen's Network.  They subsequently published my letter addressing the important precedents to be set at the final hearing and again mentioning our Network.  Then, when we issued a formal press release to announce the website launch, the Post put it up on their new and experimental FairFax Blog.  Comments came pouring in.  A subsequent snippet on the Wedderburn hearing generated another cascade of comments.  Another blog addressing another development issue in Fairfax generated yet more debate.  Finally, thirteen leaders of the various citizen groups that had all banded together through the Network and had coordinated testimony in support of Fairfax streams and the Bay, met with the Post's editorial board for two hours to talk about our concerns.  The next day, the Fairfax Blog featured that meeting (unfortunately mischaracterizing us all as wrathful NIMBYs but still noting the fact that something is happening in Fairfax).  The blog comments went wild.

    Yesterday, October 14, 2005, the Post put the story of the Network on the very front page of the newspaper.  Another Fairfax Blog is now brimming with commentary.  One of our most intrepid local reporters actually beat the Post to the punch with a spot-on commentary about what has been happening in Fairfax County on development issues generally, which, of course, is the genesis of the County's miserable stream declassification policy.  That article is also generating on-line comments.

    The last chapter on Fairfax streams has yet to be written.  Actually, there are probably several chapters yet to come as we continue our fight for environmentally responsible development policies to protect both our quality of life and that incredible regional and national jewel, the Chesapeake Bay.  But we have reached critical mass now.  We will make a difference.

                                         Deborah M. Reyher, Esq.