A BILL to amend and reenact § 62.1-44.15:5.02 of the Code of Virginia, relating to the Occoquan Reservoir; low-flow protections for drinking water safe yield.
HB387 amends Virginia’s low-flow water protection law for the Potomac River and the Occoquan Reservoir system. The bill keeps the existing 500,000-gallons-per-day threshold for certain Virginia Water Protection Permits, but adds new restrictions for withdrawals and reuse diversions affecting the Occoquan Reservoir, the Occoquan River, Bull Run, and their tributaries above the reservoir. It also sets a July 1, 2026 cutoff for new permits authorizing consumptive withdrawals from those waters, with limited exceptions for agricultural or irrigation uses and for continued operation, expansion, or relocation of existing public water supply withdrawals.
For permits involving sewage or reclaimed water reuse from publicly owned treatment works, the bill requires low-flow protections if the permitted diversion exceeds 500,000 gallons per day. In that case, the permittee may not divert more than 500,000 gallons per day for consumptive use unless the excess is returned in the same quantity and at a quality equal to or better than the original effluent. The bill also provides that emergency restrictions or wastewater reclamation requirements can override permit terms when more stringent measures are needed.
The bill’s practical effect would be to tighten water-use controls in the Occoquan watershed and to protect drinking water safe yield during low-flow conditions. It would affect permit holders seeking large consumptive withdrawals or reuse diversions, especially utilities, industrial users, and entities involved in reclaimed water projects. By limiting new permits and requiring augmentation or return of excess use, the bill would add constraints to state water permitting under the Virginia Water Protection Permit and VPDES permit programs.
The available legislative history suggests little public debate in the record provided, but the bill was not advanced out of committee and was tabled in the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee by a 22-0 vote. That outcome indicates broad committee agreement to set the bill aside, though the record does not show specific arguments for or against it. The absence of recorded testimony or votes in the provided materials limits insight into detailed sentiment, but the committee action suggests the bill did not generate enough support to move forward at that stage.
The main points of contention likely involve balancing drinking water protection against flexibility for water users and wastewater reuse projects. Supporters would likely favor stronger safeguards for the Occoquan Reservoir and downstream drinking water supply, while opponents or affected permit holders may view the new limits as too restrictive for growth, water supply planning, or reclaimed water reuse. The bill also creates a policy tension between conservation/low-flow protection and the expansion of public water supply and reuse infrastructure.
HB387 would amend § 62.1-44.15:5.02 of the Code of Virginia to impose additional low-flow protections and permit conditions for large water withdrawals and reclaimed-water diversions in the Occoquan watershed. It would affect Virginia Water Protection Permits and Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, especially those involving consumptive use above 500,000 gallons per day, and would restrict new consumptive-use permits in specified waters after July 1, 2026, subject to limited exceptions.
The limited record shows no committee transcript or floor debate, but the bill was tabled unanimously in the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee, 22-0. That suggests the committee did not move the bill forward, despite no recorded opposition in the vote itself. Overall sentiment in the available history appears neutral to cautious rather than strongly supportive.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s tighter limits on water withdrawals and reclaimed-water reuse versus the needs of utilities, agricultural users, and other large water consumers. The bill’s exceptions for agricultural/irrigation uses and existing public water supply operations suggest an effort to balance competing interests, but the new permit restrictions and return-quality requirements for reused water could be seen as burdensome by affected permit holders. The record provided does not identify specific speakers or organizations, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from stated testimony.