Virginia Water Protection Permit; interbasin transfers of water prohibited.
Summary
SB 923 amends Virginia’s Water Protection Permit law to place a temporary prohibition on certain interbasin transfers of surface water. Under the bill, the Department of Environmental Quality may not issue a Virginia Water Protection Permit for a surface water withdrawal if more than six million gallons per day would be returned to a different major river basin, with the restriction applying to new projects and not to lawful withdrawals already in existence on July 1, 2025. The bill also directs DEQ to convene a work group to develop recommended criteria for evaluating future permit applications involving interbasin transfers and to report those recommendations by December 1, 2026.
The substitute also adds permit-related requirements for surface water withdrawals generally. Every application must include a water auditing plan and a leak detection and repair plan that meet Board regulations, and DEQ may not issue a permit without approved versions of both plans. The bill retains existing provisions on emergency permits during drought, including expedited issuance when public drinking water supplies are insufficient and public health or safety is threatened, and it preserves the existing framework for permit conditions, data use, and exemptions for certain preexisting withdrawals.
Impact
The bill would temporarily change the permitting standards in Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.15:22 by restricting large interbasin transfers and by requiring additional conservation and loss-control planning for surface water withdrawal permits. It would affect DEQ’s permit review authority, applicants for new or expanded surface water withdrawals, localities and utilities seeking to move water across river basins, and stakeholders in agriculture, forestry, conservation, and municipal water supply. The interbasin-transfer prohibition sunsets on January 1, 2027, so the bill creates a short-term moratorium while a work group develops longer-term recommendations.
Sentiment
The available vote suggests strong committee support: the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee reported the substitute unanimously, 14-0. The bill’s structure also indicates an attempt to balance competing interests by pairing a temporary restriction on interbasin transfers with a study/work-group process and by preserving emergency drought authority. Overall, the sentiment appears generally favorable, with the measure framed as a precautionary water-management policy rather than a permanent overhaul.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the restriction on interbasin transfers, which can affect water supply planning, regional growth, and the ability of utilities or local governments to move water from one basin to another. Potentially affected parties include municipal drinking water providers, counties, and users in fast-growing or water-stressed areas, while conservation groups and some agricultural interests may support tighter limits to protect instream flows and basin integrity. The bill’s compromise approach—temporary ban, exemptions for existing withdrawals, and a work group for future criteria—suggests lawmakers were trying to address these competing concerns without adopting a permanent prohibition immediately.