Supervisor disappointed in Fauquier delegate

Editor’s Note: Letter to Delegate Scott Lingafelter

I am quite disappointed at the raft of bills encouraging the promulgation of AOSS across our once pristine commonwealth, but none so much as yours.

Last year, the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors took the initiative of requiring proof of financial responsibility from the owners of such systems in order to protect our general taxpayers from the liability of bearing the responsibility for fixing these systems when they fail.

This action was taken in response to the last round of legislation that removed our ability to approve these systems by special exception, our previous method of ensuring protection of the environment and general taxpayer, notions for which the legislature clearly has little sympathy or concern.

We harbor our concerns based on the high failure rate of these systems based on reports from local health departments.

In fact, as an aside, I find this whole effort to convert every square inch of remote, primarily agricultural land into much more potentially developable locations for residences as going squarely in the opposite direction of the legislature’s previous efforts to prod localities toward more compact forms of development, concentrated around services and infrastructure, where we are able to serve citizens much more effectively and with greater fiscal responsibility.

Effectively, you are robbing us of our most tax-positive, environmentally friendly asset in favor of our most expensive-to-serve category of future residents.

One wonders why and for whose benefit.

In any event, I remember quite clearly your declaration that we had no legal authority for our requirement and your solemn promise that an attorney general opinion stating as much would be forthcoming.

Where is that opinion, and if it exists, why did you see fit to introduce your bill?

Along the way, you offered to gather the affected parties and attempt to find some resolution.

I suggested, for instance, we consider a statewide fee on these systems that would go into some form of sinking fund that could pay for remedy in the event of failure.

What happened to that effort? Your bill offers no such protections.

In fact, your bill stands in stark contrast to my efforts, serving the interests of the building community with little regard for the taxpayer and leaving the taxpayer with the residual expense of paying for the effect of too much development in the wrong places as they have done all too often in the past.

I, on the other hand, am working,, as always to protect the environment and the taxpayer from what will ultimately be a form of wealth redistribution that would make the Obama administration proud.

In the end, the question is, “Who will pay for these systems when they fail?”

Barring a suitable answer to that question, the efforts of the legislature to remove any protection that we as responsible public servants may provide, are quite premature and highly irresponsible.

Holder Trumbo

Scott District Supervisor