Reported sediment deposition locations in streams and wetlands along the valley pipeline path. (Wild Virginia)

A meeting with the Environmental Quality Department this summer shocked me, but it gave me a glimpse of what DEQ leaders think of the people they serve. In major natural gas pipeline cases, this apparent ignorance or contempt for the role of the public in decision-making has appeared many times. 

It continues to this day. 

We must hope that the State Water Control Board rejects DEQ’s recommendation to allow valley pipelines to further discharge and destroy habitats, because part of the reason is that the department clearly does not respect the opinions of those most affected. 

This is what happened on May 18 this year. In an online consultation group discussion on possible changes to water regulations, I talked about the changes proposed by Wild Virginia and others. Suddenly, on the DEQ slide presentation screen, a small dialog box appeared. A senior water department official from DEQ said: "I'm rolling my eyes." 

Obviously, this person intends to let colleagues in the agency and not other attendees see the comment. But, to a certain extent, I am glad that she let us all know her true attitude. Her lack of respect for me, the people I represent, and the real concerns that we work hard to research and explain, this expression is very important.

I quickly added that, based on my direct experience, this behavior of DEQ employees is unprecedented. I have worked with people from DEQ and other organizations for more than 40 years, and it can be said that this is the first time they have been rude to me. 

Of course, I have had many differences with the staff of the agency over the years, and both sides have expressed our opinions strongly. But, apart from this example, I think we all manage to remain civilized in our direct relationships, which are usually friendly. this is necessary. 

Sometimes, when I criticize DEQ's policies or decisions, I am accused of attacking workers, but this is not the case. DEQ employees have a lot of expertise and commitment. Sometimes we think they should go further in protecting resources, but they think they lack the legal authority to do so. Sometimes we just disagree with facts or science. 

In this context, if there is no explanation of the leaders' supervision methods in a wider range, the written comments of the DEQ official will not attract people's attention after that day. Last week, I read DEQ's response to the public comment on the MVP proposal before the board today, and the episode last summer flashed back.

In the document, the agency mentioned that many people mentioned more than 300 violations alleged by the state in its 2018 lawsuit against MVPs. Shockingly, DEQ asserted in the message to the board of directors that “many commenters incorrectly described or deliberately failed to accurately describe the violations that were resolved in the execution of the settlement.” 

In other words, DEQ means that members of the public lied in their comments on the board. I feel very sad that our public officials made such accusations without showing evidence. Where is the evidence that these "many commentators" tried to mislead or distort? More importantly, is DEQ obligated to deal with the substance of the review without trying to discredit the reviewer?

I also remembered the story of the discussion between Roberta Kellam, a former member of the State Water Control Commission, and David Paylor, the director of DEQ. According to Kailam, Director Baylor claimed that local residents' reports of MVP pollution were “false” and accused her of “working for the opposition”. When residents try to protect their waters and their communities to become "opposition", Mr. Paylor should explain. 

Other events in the long pipeline battle also came to mind. In early 2017, DEQ announced that it would conduct a separate permit review for the river crossing of the MVP and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. According to a DEQ spokesperson, he specifically asked the agency manager to verify the accuracy of the announcement-the department will conduct this flow-by-stream analysis, including the lieutenant at the time. Governor Ralph Northam, once called.

When the department apparently intended to rely on the general permission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an insider reported internally that “due to a serious lack of understanding of the work done by DEQ, very confusing and inaccurate pictures are being disseminated.” He suggested. The DEQ manager may wish to resolve these misunderstandings publicly. It took seven weeks for DEQ to know the real situation and was then directly asked by reporters.

Each of these situations seems to illustrate the attitude of senior DEQ officials that public participation is not so much a benefit as a burden. Public opinion is an obstacle to results, not a valuable resource. 

As for the violations of the MVP and the impact on the future: DEQ stated in a message to the board that it “does not agree with continuous and serious violations of erosion and sediment control or water quality standards” or “has caused widespread The impact of "" on the state waters of pipeline construction. 

The analysis just completed shows that this is not the case. While reviewing thousands of state inspection reports, Wild Virginia found more than 70 records of sediment being discharged into streams and wetlands, stretching from Giles to Pizwania County. Although similar incidents are considered illegal discharges in the state’s lawsuits, it seems that more than half of them have not been the subject of enforcement actions. 

MVP covers several streams in mud for hundreds or thousands of feet-the longest is 3,600 feet (close to seven tenths of a mile). In hundreds of cases, pollution control structures were "destroyed", "submerged", "submerged" or "bypassed" by dirty water and sediments. These problems have continued from the beginning of 2018 to the last few months.

Virginians will continue to play our role in the decision-making process that affects our waters. We ask the board of directors to ensure that our contribution is valued. An important step in fulfilling this promise is to reject MVP's flawed and harmful attempts to discharge more pollution into our hundreds of valuable water bodies.

David Sligh is the Conservation Director of Wild Virginia, an environmental non-profit organization. He is an environmental lawyer and former Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Engineer.

▪ You must provide Virginia Mercury credit, including https://virginiamercury.com and the author.

▪ If you post online, please include a link from the story and a link to Virginia Mercury.

▪ The story can be edited as an internal style or shortened. More substantial changes should be noted as additional and made by your publication.

▪ You can post our pictures and any pictures belonging to the Virginia Mercury Company, and the story of their first appearance. For any other use, you must obtain our permission through [email protected]

▪ If you share the story on social media, please mention @MercuryVirginia on Twitter and thevirginiamercury on Facebook.

▪ Don't sell ads for stories. However, you are free to post it on the same page as the ads you have sold.

▪ Content should not be published after the paywall; if you have any questions about a particular paywall system, please contact the editor-in-chief.

Guest column from Mercury, Virginia December 14, 2021

A meeting with the Environmental Quality Department this summer shocked me, but it gave me a glimpse of what DEQ leaders think of the people they serve. In major natural gas pipeline cases, this apparent ignorance or contempt for the role of the public in decision-making has appeared many times. 

It continues to this day. 

We must hope that the State Water Control Board rejects DEQ’s recommendation to allow valley pipelines to further discharge and destroy habitats, because part of the reason is that the department clearly does not respect the opinions of those most affected. 

This is what happened on May 18 this year. In an online consultation group discussion on possible changes to water regulations, I talked about the changes proposed by Wild Virginia and others. Suddenly, on the DEQ slide presentation screen, a small dialog box appeared. A senior water department official from DEQ said: "I'm rolling my eyes." 

Obviously, this person intends to let colleagues in the agency and not other attendees see the comment. But, to a certain extent, I am glad that she let us all know her true attitude. Her lack of respect for me, the people I represent, and the real concerns that we work hard to research and explain, this expression is very important.

I quickly added that, based on my direct experience, this behavior of DEQ employees is unprecedented. I have worked with people from DEQ and other organizations for more than 40 years, and it can be said that this is the first time they have been rude to me. 

Of course, I have had many differences with the staff of the agency over the years, and both sides have expressed our opinions strongly. But, apart from this example, I think we all manage to remain civilized in our direct relationships, which are usually friendly. this is necessary. 

Sometimes, when I criticize DEQ's policies or decisions, I am accused of attacking workers, but this is not the case. DEQ employees have a lot of expertise and commitment. Sometimes we think they should go further in protecting resources, but they think they lack the legal authority to do so. Sometimes we just disagree with facts or science. 

In this context, if there is no explanation of the leaders' supervision methods in a wider range, the written comments of the DEQ official will not attract people's attention after that day. Last week, I read DEQ's response to the public comment on the MVP proposal before the board today, and the episode last summer flashed back.

In the document, the agency mentioned that many people mentioned more than 300 violations alleged by the state in its 2018 lawsuit against MVPs. Shockingly, DEQ asserted in the message to the board of directors that “many commenters incorrectly described or deliberately failed to accurately describe the violations that were resolved in the execution of the settlement.” 

In other words, DEQ means that members of the public lied in their comments on the board. I feel very sad that our public officials made such accusations without showing evidence. Where is the evidence that these "many commentators" tried to mislead or distort? More importantly, is DEQ obligated to deal with the substance of the review without trying to discredit the reviewer?

I also remembered the story of the discussion between Roberta Kellam, a former member of the State Water Control Commission, and David Paylor, the director of DEQ. According to Kailam, Director Baylor claimed that local residents' reports of MVP pollution were “false” and accused her of “working for the opposition”. When residents try to protect their waters and their communities to become "opposition", Mr. Paylor should explain. 

Other events in the long pipeline battle also came to mind. In early 2017, DEQ announced that it would conduct a separate permit review for the river crossing of the MVP and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. According to a DEQ spokesperson, he specifically asked the agency manager to verify the accuracy of the announcement-the department will conduct this flow-by-stream analysis, including the lieutenant at the time. Governor Ralph Northam, once called.

When the department apparently intended to rely on the general permission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an insider reported internally that “due to a serious lack of understanding of the work done by DEQ, very confusing and inaccurate pictures are being disseminated.” He suggested. The DEQ manager may wish to resolve these misunderstandings publicly. It took seven weeks for DEQ to know the real situation and was then directly asked by reporters.

Each of these situations seems to illustrate the attitude of senior DEQ officials that public participation is not so much a benefit as a burden. Public opinion is an obstacle to results, not a valuable resource. 

As for the violations of the MVP and the impact on the future: DEQ stated in a message to the board that it “does not agree with continuous and serious violations of erosion and sediment control or water quality standards” or “has caused widespread The impact of "" on the state waters of pipeline construction. 

The analysis just completed shows that this is not the case. While reviewing thousands of state inspection reports, Wild Virginia found more than 70 records of sediment being discharged into streams and wetlands, stretching from Giles to Pizwania County. Although similar incidents are considered illegal discharges in the state’s lawsuits, it seems that more than half of them have not been the subject of enforcement actions. 

MVP covers several streams in mud for hundreds or thousands of feet-the longest is 3,600 feet (close to seven tenths of a mile). In hundreds of cases, pollution control structures were "destroyed", "submerged", "submerged" or "bypassed" by dirty water and sediments. These problems have continued from the beginning of 2018 to the last few months.

Virginians will continue to play our role in the decision-making process that affects our waters. We ask the board of directors to ensure that our contribution is valued. An important step in fulfilling this promise is to reject MVP's flawed and harmful attempts to discharge more pollution into our hundreds of valuable water bodies.

David Sligh is the Conservation Director of Wild Virginia, an environmental non-profit organization. He is an environmental lawyer and former Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Engineer.

Virginia Mercury is part of the States Newsroom, which is a network of news organizations supported by a grant and donor alliance, and is a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact the editor Robert Zullo: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

Our story may be republished online or in print under the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask you to edit or shorten the style only, provide an appropriate attribution and a link to our website. Please refer to our repost guidelines to use photos and graphics.

The views of the guest columnists are their own. To submit a column for consideration, please contact the editor Robert Zullo via [email protection]

From pushing for the removal of Confederate statues to a major shift in health care and energy policies, the old dominion is changing; fair and hard reporting on the policies and politics of Virginians that affect us all is more important than ever. Mercury aims to bring a new perspective to reporting on the state's biggest problems.

Our story may be republished online or in print under the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask you to edit or shorten the style only, provide an appropriate attribution and a link to our website.