www.newrivervalley.com

Bill Aden and other engineers commented on the continuing debate over the Toms Creek sewer and the future of Blacksburg ("Engineers weigh in behind Toms Creek sewer," April 25). As an engineer and a friend of Bill's and some of his co-authors, I respect their experience and perspective.

First, their statements with which I agree (and some caveats of my own):

n Well-designed and maintained central gravity sewers are the best means of collecting and conveying wastewater in urbanized areas (however, they may not be as economical in rural development areas).

- It makes sense to plan for the future and oversize sewer capacity for planned and desired growth within the gravity drainage basin (but that planned growth should be at a density to support that capacity).

- Blacksburg "is going to grow." It is an attractive community, and it will need to accommodate more people (with diverse housing options, including affordable ones).

- Growth "should be directed through the comprehensive planning and zoning process."

Second, their statements about which I disagree:

- The gravity sewer is the only affordable option to meet Blacksburg's sewerage needs. The gravity sewer would alleviate the current capacity problem and provide a sewer option for some of the new development in the basin. However, there would be very little development within the 200-foot mandatory hook-up zone because of the no-build Creek Overlay Zone. With one-unit-per-acre rural residential zoning, many developments outside the mandatory zone may select on-site systems (e.g., septic, STEP / STEG, sand filters, etc.) rather than pay the high hook-up and operation fees of connecting to the sewer. And there are affordable options to the central sewer to meet both the current capacity problem and public sewer service to Toms Creek.

- Using nature's own gravity, the sewer is cheaper than pump stations. True enough, but the fact is that all sewage has to be pumped out of the Toms Creek basin. The treatment plant is on Stroubles Creek, so the gravity sewer would drain to a very large pump station to pump over to the Stroubles interceptor. The main difference in the gravity sewer and the alternatives is the number and size of the pump stations.

- Restoration after construction will show little or no evidence indicating the presence of the line.

The Toms Creek corridor is already affected by upstream agriculture and development, so we cannot say it is naturally "wild," and post-construction restoration can return vegetation and provide the aesthetics of natural drainage. But the engineer's and the ecologist's views of "no evidence" of change are vastly different. Toms Creek would survive the sewer construction and operation, but it would be a different and less natural corridor than it is today.

- This is simply an issue of growth vs. no growth.

I found this statement most troubling. Sure, there are some who do not want Blacksburg to change at all, but nearly all of the opponents to the sewer line whom I have talked to know that Blacksburg will grow and change and that growth is not only inevitable but also a potentially good thing. But they want that growth to be managed, to be sensitive to the character of the town, and to be true to the vision of the comprehensive plan they worked so hard to develop.

Third, the rest of the story:

- Aden's argument for the gravity sewer and oversizing capacity makes sense if Blacksburg were planning for high-density development in the Toms Creek basin. But it is not. The comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance call for rural residential development for most of the Toms Creek Basin. No one has voiced a call to change that plan. All current members of town council, including the sewer advocates, have said they do not want to change that plan. The town council's proponents of the line say that we can build the sewer and retain the rural development plan through adherence to the existing zoning ordinance. But they are wrong.

In urban planning, we have an adage about urban infrastructure, especially sewer, in areas of development pressure: "Build it and they will come." If the sewer were built, it would be hard for future town councils to argue to retain the rural development vision of the basin against proposals for higher density development and fiscal arguments that higher densities will help pay for the ultimate costs of the line.

Community plans should determine where infrastructure and development should go, not the other way around. If, as the engineers imply, the town should have higher densities in the basin to accommodate growth, the town should decide that through a community process and amend the plan before the sewer line is built.

- Their repeated concern about the interests of "all of the residents of Blacksburg" implies that a vocal minority has created an "emotionally charged debate" that somehow does not consider facts or broader interests. Perhaps if they had attended the series of public meetings held over the last year and heard the thoughtful, articulate and well-documented comments of scores and scores of Blacksburg residents on this subject, they would see that the vast majority of Blacksburg residents who have spoken to this issue oppose the gravity sewer.

Of course, come Tuesday, Blacksburg residents will have opportunity to speak at the polls to determine what "all of the residents of Blacksburg" really want.

Randolph, a resident of Blacksburg, has graduate degrees in civil engineering and is professor of urban planning at Virginia Tech.