Tag Archives: Louisa

Fluvanna Reluctantly Opens JRWA Water Spigot

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

water bibOn January 20th, the Fluvanna County  Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the special use permit for the James River Water Authority (JRWA).  The permit allows the JRWA to construct an intake facility and pump raw water to a location near Route 6.

The permit was a resubmitted request from December 2nd when the board voted 2-2 (resulting in a non approval). The difference in approved version was the facility moved to the adjacent property. Previously it was in a wooded area, now it is strip of trees of a field.

The other main difference, and probably the reason it passed, was the filed lawsuit Louisa County, Louisa County Water Authority (LCWA) and the JRWA filed (but not served) after the first permit failed.


Fluvanna Supervisor Patricia Eager

“It breaks my heart that we have been checkmated,” said Patricia Eager (Palmyra District).

Eager and Don Weaver (Cunningham District) noted before the vote that the county asked outside counsel about the basis of the pending legal action. Weaver noted the lawyers gave ‘strong worded’ counsel.

“The decision here tonight was made two years ago,” Weaver said, referencing the October 2013 vote of the inter-jurisdictional agreement. It passed on a 3-1 vote, Weaver voting against it.

During the public hearing fourteen speakers spoke against the JRWA permit. Seven spoke in favor and one did not state an outright opinion.

One resident threatened possible legal action if the permit passed. He also said he would stand in front of any bulldozer to stop any action.

Weaver said before casting his vote, “I will make a decision that in my opinion would do less damage to the county.”

The second special use permit on January 20th was for the LCWA to construct a pipeline from Route 6, along the eastern portion of the county to Louisa County line. It passed unanimously.

Mozell Booker

Fluvanna Vice Chairperson Mozell Booker

After the votes, vice chairperson Mozell Booker (Fork Union District) said, “I can’t be anything but elated.”

The public hearings were held jointly with the Planning Commission. Both permits were recommended for approval by the commission unanimously.

Chairman Mike Sheridan (Columbia District) was not at the meeting because of health reasons. He is expected to be back starting in February. He may attend portions of the supervisors’ scheduled retreat on January 30th.

That retreat was previously scheduled for January 23 but postponed because of weather. It is planned to be at the Fork Union Community Center.

The next regular supervisors’ meeting is February 3rd at 4 p.m.


bryan-rothamelThe Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum

Photo Credits: Fluvanna County


Why 2013 is a “GOTV” or “Turnout” Election


BY. Neil Williamson, President

One day left.

Citizens and candidates alike look forward to the end of the election season. As one local incumbent described the process to me recently, “There’s two ways to run, unopposed or scared”.

Regionally, we have one of the most robust ballots in recent history.  While we do not have opponents to our sitting state legislators (which is regrettable), the vast majority of the local elections are contested.  Simply put contested elections make candidates explain and defend their positions thus making the public better informed and generates better policy after the election. 

By virtue of reading this post, you tend to be one of the more engaged community members.  By now, you likely know who is running for local office in your locality.  Hopefully, you know where they stand on issues that are important to you and you have selected the candidate that best represents your views. 

Here in Virginia we like elections so much we hold them every year.  This year is an “off-year” election meaning there are no Federal offices on the ballot but there is a gubernatorial race. By means of contrast the 2012 presidential election year saw 71.78% statewide voter turnout compared with the last “off” year the 2009 Gubernatorial election turnout of 40.4%.

Based on early absentee voting and historical averages, the Free Enterprise Forum anticipates the 2013 statewide election turnout to hover near 40%.  Locally, we may see higher than state average but we do not believe it will exceed 50%.


Based on this projection, roughly half of registered voters likely will not vote this cycle.  Therefore, regardless of the locality, this year’s campaign will come down to which campaign motivates their voters to show up at the polls.

Ballot BoxGet Out The Vote, known as “GOTV”, campaigns have been underway by the major parties, and special interest groups, for a number of weeks.  Likely voters are being contacted via mail, phone, and in person by party operatives and candidates.  Historically, this type of “ground game” can make the difference.  We have seen the amount of shoe leather candidates put into the campaign can have a higher return than signs and advertising in many of the local races.

Every vote matters as evidenced by several recent close elections.  In the 2009 Samuel Miller District Race in Albemarle County, Duane Snow won a three way Board of Supervisors contest by 264 votes. The same year, Shaun Kenney won his Fluvanna Supervisor race by 33 votes. In 2011, Supervisor Davis Lamb won his Ruckersville seat by just 15 votes (with 41 votes going to a candidate who had dropped out of the race). 

Typically turnout elections favor those candidates with well defined and energized constituencies.  While there are a multiplicity of local constituencies with varying levels of organization, the question of election day is which of these constituencies are both motivated and energized.  Put succinctly, what half will show up?Badge

The Free Enterprise Forum is a non partisan public policy organization, as such we embrace elections as the political marketplace for ideas.  We sincerely thank the candidates who are making the sacrifice to run for public office.  We strongly encourage everyone to make your voice heard by voting. 

The candidates have done their job by running now it is up to you – Polls will be open Tuesday from 6 am to 7 pm.—VOTE

If you do not know where you vote, click here for your polling place.

Respectfully Submitted,


Neil Williamson, President


20070731williamson Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded non partisan public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Funding Process Approved for James River Water Authority

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

PALMYRA — The James River Water Authority (JRWA) now has a funding process set between the two parties responsible for the entity. The agreement is pending the expected acceptance of an amendment to the original contract.

Fluvanna Board of Supervisors passed the contract with amendment that set funding breakdown between Louisa and Fluvanna counties for the JRWA with a 3-2 vote on Sept. 18. Don Weaver (Cunningham District) and Bob Ullenbruch (Palmyra District) dissented.

The counties will evenly split costs of JRWA infrastructure which includes costs of reapplying for a withdrawal permit, intake facility and short pipeline, estimated to be about a mile long.

The one-time cost is estimated to be around $3.5 million to shared equally. The counties will also evenly split fixed costs of operating the JRWA year to year. JRWA will divide non-fixed operating costs based on percentage of usage to the two counties.

Each county will also pay and maintain any county owned pipeline from the JRWA section. Louisa is planning to build a pipeline from the JRWA pipeline to the Louisa County line and build a treatment facility in Louisa. Fluvanna has no plans to use the JRWA raw water.

The Fluvanna supervisors are asking Louisa for an amendment to the contract, requiring Louisa to build and maintain a larger pipe for a portion of its pipeline. Louisa would also place another ‘T-junction’ location, allowing Fluvanna to connect to in the future.

The idea of this amendment proposal is it would allow Fluvanna to connect to the JRWA raw water line in a more centralized location without paying for the expanded pipe.

The proposed area for the Louisa-paid junction would be near Kents Store. Fluvanna could connect to that junction and run raw water to Palmyra. There, a centrally located treatment facility could disperse the water to all sections of the county.

Fluvanna, though, has no current plans to connect to the second junction or building a water treatment facility.

Louisa will have to agree to the amendment, which is expected. Fluvanna then would also pass the amendment to complete the contract. Earlier this year Louisa supervisors offered to pay for the entire JRWA operation and pipeline with Fluvanna only paying if wanting to connect in the future.

The ‘second junction amendment’ was proposed late in the night so county attorney Fred Payne suggested requesting the amendment but still passing the contract pending the amendment. This allowed other portions of the contract to move forward, like the counties requesting a change in the permit.

The permitted withdrawal location is currently near Bremo Bluff. JRWA would request moving the permitted withdrawal to a location near the town of Columbia. The process would be more along the lines of requesting a new permit and relinquishing the original. A new permit could also change the permitted withdrawal amount and the Fluvanna-Louisa breakdown.

The current permit evenly splits the permitted three million gallons per day. In the request process, Louisa could demonstrate a need for five million gallons per day and Fluvanna only three million gallons per day. The permit withdrawal could then be for a total of eight million gallons a day, the breakdown would change to such a request.

Department of Environmental Control could lower or even reject the request. The change in permit withdrawal location is pending DEQ approval.


The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.


Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

2013 Local Government Spending Index Released

Study Finds Disparity in Local Government Spending


Charlottesville, VA – As political candidates are vying for election and local governments are starting their FY2015 budget process, a new study shows that the rate of increases in local government spending vary dramatically.    The third iteration of the “Choices and Decisions” report, conducted by the Free Enterprise Forum, developed a locality-specific local cost of government spending index (LGSI).  The report, which studied fiscal years 1990-2012, identified the City of Charlottesville as the locality with the greatest increase in LGSI.

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson

Free Enterprise Forum President Neil Williamson said, “The goal of the LGSI is to inform and promote dialog.  The comparison of local spending trends, combined with population data provides citizens an objective tool to evaluate spending decisions.  Equipped with this data, citizens can ask better questions of elected officials during the budget season”.

The LGSI is based on self reported data required to be provided to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Auditor of Public Accounts.  The numbers focus exclusively on the operating budget of each municipality. This number will not include capital expenditures thus avoiding having single-year spikes in capital spending skew the results or interpretation of the data.

 2013 FINAL Combined Chart

It has been theorized that inflation adjusted spending would largely track changes in population and school enrollment.  While a correlation was found in some localities studied, this trend was not universal:

Albemarle County – adjusted for inflation, Albemarle County’s total spending increased by over 129% during the study period while population and school enrollment increased by 49% and 30.75% respectively.

City of Charlottesville – During the study period (1990-2012), Charlottesville experienced an average annual rate of population increase of just 11.36%, the smallest of the municipalities being studied. In addition, Charlottesville experienced a cumulative decline in School enrollment (- 4.38%), by far the largest decline in the study group in school enrollment (Nelson -1.29%).

In contrast, inflation-adjusted operating expenditures increased at 79.37% during the study period.  The LGSI in Charlottesville was 176.31 in 2009, but had declined the following two years.  In FY2012, Charlottesville’s LGSI had increased by 5 points to 156.41 still markedly below its 2009 apex.

In FY2012 per capita spending is as follows (in 2012$):

In FY2012 per capita spending was as follows (in 2012$):

Albemarle – $2,837.55

Charlottesvlle – $4,689.66

Fluvanna – $2,129.75

Greene – $2,487.05

Louisa – $2,442.55

Nelson – $2,33.35

It was also theorized that growth in inflation-adjusted per capita spending among the localities would be similar because of the high percentage of programs mandated by the state and operated by the localities.  In contrast, the analysis clearly indicates wide variation in per-capita spending decisions made by the localities.  During the study period, Charlottesville had the greatest increase spending per capita at 61.07%, Albemarle increased 54.24%, the balance of the localities increased less than 50%.  Nelson County (29.8%) had the lowest increase.

It was also anticipated that school enrollment growth would track population growth. While it does [with 2 exceptions] in every instance the percentage growth in school enrollment was smaller than the growth in population.  The Free Enterprise Forum is a privately funded public policy organization dedicated to individual economic freedom.  The entire report, and supporting documentation, can be accessed under Reports Tab at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

– 30-

Revised Water Plan on the Table in Fluvanna

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer 

PALMYRA -The Fluvanna Board of Supervisors will be busy in the month following its annual summer break.

The biggest item to come to the board for the Sept. 4 meeting will be the James River Water Authority.

The proposed JRWA plan being discussed is to move the permit to the Columbia community planning area (CPA) then allow each locality to build a raw water line to each needed area from a nearby junction location.

In the proposal, the JRWA would be responsible for the capital costs of building an intake facility and operations and maintenance costs. Some costs would be shared fixed maintenance costs while other costs will fluctuate dependent on use of withdrawal capacity.

The JRWA would own a raw water line to a proposed ‘T’ junction. Either county would then own any pipeline from the junction, proposed near Route 6 in the Columbia CPA.

Fluvanna would be responsible for the Fluvanna pipeline and share costs if in the future Fluvanna wants additions to the Louisa pipeline. Louisa would be responsible for the Louisa pipeline. The parties would own any property they construct.

JRWA’s estimated costs are just below $3.5 million to construct a 3 million raw water intake facility and a raw water line to the junction plus the modification of the permit from Bremo Bluff to Columbia area. Unknown costs are easement acquisition along the Colonial gas line.

Water allocation would be based on needs each county established and agreed in a Columbia withdrawal permit and Department of Economic Quality summary findings. Each county could have a temporary reallocation or purchase bulk water from the other locality. A county could request a withdrawal permit increase and would be responsible for costs.

Supervisors will also consider the approval process Louisa would have to go through to construct a water line in Fluvanna. Current county code requires another locality apply for a special use permit to construct major utilities through Fluvanna.

Fluvanna could alter the current county code which could allow another locality, including Louisa, to develop major utilities by-right.

Louisa County Board of Supervisors previously said it was interested in executing the JRWA without Fluvanna’s full participation. The goal for Louisa was to bring water across Fluvanna’s eastern border following the Colonial gas line to Louisa to help alleviate Louisa’s water concerns in its southern portion of the county.

Fluvanna Board of Supervisors will meet on Sept. 4 at 2 p.m. in the Fluvanna Circuit Courtroom.


The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.


Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Fluvanna and Louisa Supervisors Discuss JRWA and Pipeline

By. Bryan Rothamel

PALMYRA — The Fluvanna and Louisa Board of Supervisors might finally have a way to get water out of the James River.

It has been discussed for over 20 years and in 24 minutes the two boards were able to move the discussion closer to reality than ever before.

Louisa supervisors called the March 6th meeting to discuss four tennets to having the jointly owned James River Water Authority (JRWA)  pull water from the James River and bring it across Fluvanna to the Louisa border.

The points Louisa wanted to discuss were:

1) Is Fluvanna County still interested in a longer term water solution benefiting both counties using the James River Water Authority?

2) Louisa County proposes to run a raw water line from Columbia, directly along the Colonial gas pipeline into Louisa where Louisa would construct and operate a water treatment facility. The facility then could produce usable water along Route 250 for Louisa growth areas.

3) Louisa County proposes to fund the entire project to begin as soon as possible.

4) Louisa County requests to have one additional vote on the JRWA until such time Fluvanna funds their share of the project.

The Fluvanna supervisors found no issues with the first three points. The fourth point fell flat.

“Conceptually we are in agreement. We think it is a project that can move forward, we are very confident it can move forward,” said Louisa chairman Willie Harper (Mineral District) after the meeting.

During the meeting, Fluvanna chairman Shaun Kenney said, “If Louisa is willing to pay for the pipeline, there isn’t much more to discuss.”

The issues the JRWA has had is the board is split evenly by Fluvanna and Louisa representatives. Neither county owns the permit to withdraw water from the James River, it is jointly shared though the authority. Finally, the permit allows withdrawing from the river in the Bremo Bluff area.

To accomplish what Louisa proposes, the JRWA would have to request Department of Environment Quality to have the ‘straw’ placed at Columbia instead of Bremo Bluff. Then Louisa would run the water line along side the Colonial gas line to Ferncliff where it would reach the Louisa border.

That project would be owned by the JRWA. Louisa would then own, all to itself, any pipes or treatment facilities in Louisa County. There is no discussion of what Fluvanna would have to do to become a ‘fully funded parter’ to tap into this raw water line.

“It has always been a joint effort, continues to be a joint effort. We are just going to be the sole participant, payer and benefactor until such time they’ll find the need. It will come,” said Harper.

Louisa estimates the entire project, including the treatment facility to be over $50 million. The project to just get the water from the river to the Louisa border is estimated at $15 million.

This agreement is nothing new to what the JRWA has always been. The only change is Louisa willing to fully fund it to get water quicker than when both parties are ready.

The JRWA’s plan has been to provide raw water across Fluvanna. The intent of the JRWA has been to take raw water out of the James River and then either county can treat it where they wish.

Also, the JRWA still has the agreement that the counties split the intake evenly. In order to change that, both counties would have to agree in contract. If Louisa would want to use more than 50 percent of the intake, then Fluvanna could sell the water wholesale without amending the original agreement.

The Louisa timeline is to request a change of the permit and get approval in about 60 days. Louisa will also work on engineering and design work.


The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.


Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Is the Louisa/Fluvanna James RIver Pipeline Back?

By. Bryan Rothamel

LOUISA — The James River water pipeline is getting a second look.

The Louisa Board of Supervisors has sent notice, calling a special meeting to be held in Fluvanna with the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors. The Louisa notice states the two boards will meet to ‘discuss the James River Water Project.’

The notice says at 6 p.m. on March 6 in Palmyra. The Fluvanna supervisors have a normally scheduled meeting that day and do not require additional notice beyond the routine meeting notice.

The James River Water Authority, while still a legal entity, has not be active for years. Both counties paid money for the JRWA to defend it legally but it has not been seriously discussed since the summer of 2010 when the two parties split from discussing a water project.

The endeavor was officially canceled, but not disbanded, by Louisa on Aug. 17, 2010 when then Louisa supervisors felt Fluvanna stop acting in good faith towards making a financial decision. Fluvanna’s then leadership allowed a Aug. 16, 2010 Virginia Resource Authority application deadline for financing pass without an application.

There was a Memorandum of Understanding about a possible James River water pipeline  and until that August 2010 deadline, Louisa supervisors were willing to pay for up to half the water pipeline had it met “reasonable standards for costs and water age.” Louisa’s only public concern was to get water from the James River, across Fluvanna and to the Zion Crossroad planning area.

At the time, discussions in Fluvanna raised questions about extending the debt load of the county when the high school debt payments had not fully started. Some residents also voiced concerns about paying half the costs of a water line that would send water directly to where, Fluvanna residents felt, Louisa competed with Fluvanna the most, the Zion Crossroad economic development.

Louisa leaders countered in the Aug. 17, 2010 press release and follow up interviews with Louisa’s availability for future growth was much more limited than Fluvanna’s possible future growth because of Green Springs Historical District. The historical district is federally protected from development. Fluvanna has no such limitations.

Louisa leaders also said Fluvanna could strategically place the pipeline to hit major economic areas inside Fluvanna before even getting to Zion Crossroad. The proposed route was over 22 miles, winding through Pleasant Grove, near Lake Monticello and down Route 250.

The biggest issue about take water from the James River for either county is neither county owns the withdrawal permit. The JRWA owns the permit to take any water from the river. Neither county can get that permit without the authority relinquishing control. The JRWA board has three Fluvanna members and three Louisa members.

Reportedly, the JRWA has not met beyond keeping up with regulated bylaws. The Louisa County’s website last has minutes for the JRWA board dating January 2010. Fluvanna’s last published minutes are February 2010.

The joint Louisa-Fluvanna meeting will happen on March 6 although discussions with Fluvanna sources say the Fluvanna supervisors will have additional agenda items to accomplish before meeting with Louisa.


The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.


Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Louisa Treasurer Highlights 25% Tax Delinquency Rate

By. John Haksch, Louisa County Field Officer

In a report to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Treasurer Henry B. Wash stated that 25% of the county property owners were delinquent in paying their county taxes.

In an effort to raise awareness of this issue, the County Treasurer’s office sent a letter to all Louisa County employees. Several members of the Board of Supervisors received calls from constituents withclip_image002 questions and complaints regarding this letter.

In part, the letter stated:

“As Employees of Louisa County you are aware that the taxes are the lifeblood of our government. Because government cannot operate without tax revenues, we have adopted specific methods of collections according to the Code of Virginia § 58.1-3919.

With the addition to the previous Tax Delinquent notices mailed to all taxpayers of Louisa County, the next action of our collection program is to give our own county employees the opportunity to pay their delinquent taxes before sending the debt to collections. Collection efforts include such actions as Treasurer’s lien, Warranty-in-Debt for Judgment, Withhold Vehicle Registration at DMV, Withhold Virginia Income Tax Refund, Distress Levy and Judicial Sale.

We have added internal payment plans designed to fit your budget needs, and a new local ordinance approved by the Board of Supervisors to help get your taxes current.”

Several of the county employees who complained about the letter pointed out that at no point did this letter state whether or not they themselves were delinquent in their tax obligations, nor that it was simply a form letter sent to all employees. These omissions, according to Willie Gentry (Cuckoo District), “are unacceptable.”

According to Mr. Wash, the delinquency rate among county employees is consistent with the 25% rate of county at large, and is similar to the rates encountered in neighboring jurisdictions. He stated that he felt county employees should be held to a higher standard than the general populace, since they derived their incomes from the taxes paid by all the county residents, and that all county employees should be current with their tax liability.

Mr. Wash went on to explain that his office was trying to raise awareness of the options available to any county employees who may be delinquent in their county taxes – not to single out individuals. He conceded that while it may have been more appropriate to limit the letter to those known to be delinquent, the computer systems currently in place – used to identify the owners of a property – are unable to “see” any names beyond the first person listed on a deed, which means there is no way to determine whether or not any names exist after the first, or if those names might be those of a county employee.


John Haksch is the Louisa County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support our work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Louisa Water Proposes New Discharge Location and Ordinance Changes

By. John Haksch, Louisa County Field Officer

By design the Louisa County Water Authority (LCWA) is an independent authority.  While the organization operates as if it were a semi-autonomous county agency.  Their independence from direct county control insulates Louisa County from the many legal squabbles foisted on LCWA by Historical Green Springs, Inc. (HGSI) – a corporation formed to protect the historical significance of the Green Springs District.

The latest lawsuit of HGSI against the LCWA (over $130 million) concerns the discharge of treated waste water into Camp Creek, which flows along a small part of the border of the historical district.

As a part of the suit, it was determined that as the holder of a land trust, HGSI established standing in the case. 

The Historic Green Springs, Inc. land trust (HGSI), in its amended complaint had stated that “protecting water quality in Camp Creek [a water body into which the Water Authority discharged treated sewage wastewater] is a core duty in [HGSI’s] overall purpose of preserving and protecting the properties that comprise the District, which it accomplishes through the use of conservation easements that, among other things, protect the riparian rights and beneficial uses of Camp Creek

As a potential resolution to this suit and tighter regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dean Rodgers, general manager of the LCWA, proposed a plan that would divert the discharge to a much further distant point, along the South Anna River. This new location would provide a larger dissipation area and thus dilute the discharge below the new regulatory limits. This $8 million project would serve to mitigate several problems, including the excessive naturally-occurring zinc levels in the discharge.

Along with the relocated discharge solution, it was proposed that residents along the pipeline route would “hook up” to the line.  The ordinance change as reported in The Central Virginian was:

The water authority has proposed requiring residents within certain distances of a pipeline to connect to municipal water and sewer.” This caused quite a furor among county residents, particularly in the affected area: “residents along Route 250 were concerned that the expansion of water and sewer pipelines would force them to move off their well and septic and pay about $10,000 in residential connection fees.”

The actual proposal was that any new dwelling constructed within 100 feet of the water and sewer pipelines be required to use county water and sewer. The cost of these hookups would, in fact, be less than the cost of putting in a well and septic system.

In an interview, Mr. Rodgers corrected the published misconceptions and stated that no existing dwellings would be affected unless the well or septic system was irreparable and had to be replaced completely. He also supplied a map of the affected area:


This map can also be found by following this link.


John Haksch is the Louisa County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support our work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Louisa Board Cancels EMS Mutual Aid with Fluvanna

By. John Haksch, Louisa Field Officer

Louisa County has had a long-standing mutual aid agreement covering the provision of emergency medical services with Fluvanna County. In the past five years, Louisa County rescue squad personnel have responded from the Zion Crossroads station to assist Fluvanna County residents – to calls as far away as Palmyra and Fork Union – an average of 10 times each month. In all that time, Fluvanna has failed to respond to Louisa County even once.

This is not surprising, since the county has repeatedly refused to form or fund any rescue squads beyond the single squad serving Lake Monticello – a squad that only responds to other areas of Fluvanna County with reluctance.

clip_image002 The matter came to a head after several years of discussion between the counties at the most recent Board of Supervisors meeting, at which Richard Havasy (Green Springs) moved to rescind the agreement, giving the Fluvanna administration 30 days’ notice before the action takes effect.  The supervisors discussed that the ‘mutual aid’ agreement suggested that the aid provided was mutual and that this is not the case and has not been for 5 years.  One supervisor questioned if Fluvanna residents were not willing to pay for adequate EMS service, why should Louisa citizens carry this cost?  The motion was approved on a 6-0 vote after some discussion.

clip_image004 Mr. Havasy’s stated that although the fiscal strain is a factor, it is more of a concern to his constituents that while their one ambulance is off assisting in Fluvanna (usually a 4 to 6 hour commitment) there is no EMS service available in the burgeoning growth area that the squad was formed to serve. According to Louisa County Administrator Robert Dubé, Louisa County is willing to revisit the issue if and when Fluvanna County expresses a willingness to bring something substantial to the table.


John Haksch is the Louisa County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support our work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org