MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS PLAN

APPROVED 2003 ­ 2012 PLAN

CHAPTER 1: OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Plan Goals and Objectives – The overall goal of the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage 
Systems Plan is to ensure that the existing and future water supply and sewerage system needs of 
Montgomery County are satisfied in a manner consistent with the following specific objectives:

 Community water supply and sewerage systems proposed in the plan shall emphasize service to the 
urbanized areas of the county, shall support the land­use recommendations adopted by the 
M­NCPPC in County Council­approved local area master plans, and shall be consistent with the 
provision of other public services.

 The Plan shall support the State of Maryland Smart Growth initiatives that direct State funding for 
public services and infrastructure to identified growth areas.

 The county’s water supply and sewerage system needs are satisfied in a cost­effective manner that 
protects or improves the quality of the water resources of the county, from both public health and 
environmental standpoints.

 The Plan shall address needs and solutions, including recommendations for capital projects, of the 
complete water supply and sewerage systems, from the point of withdrawal of the raw water supply 
to the point of final disposal or reuse of wastewater effluent, including the treatment or disposal of 
water and wastewater treatment by­products such as water filtration solids and sewage sludge or 
biosolids.

 Specific public health problems related to water supply and wastewater disposal in all areas of the 
County shall be identified in the plan and appropriate solutions, including community water and/or 
sewerage systems and capital projects if required, shall be recommended.

 The Plan shall address the variable soil and groundwater conditions within the county and attempt to 
protect or enhance groundwater resources where practical.

 Focus plan updates on comprehensive amendments­­particularly for water and sewer service area 
categories­­which implement master plan recommendations, rather than on individual requests for 
service area changes.

These objectives are accomplished in the plan with the support and cooperation of the Washington 
Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), the Maryland ­ National Park and Planning Commission 
(M­NCPPC), municipal governments within Montgomery County, and various County agencies.  The County 
also seeks the support and concurrence of Prince George’s County in regard to bi­county issues.
 B. Purpose ­­ The general purpose of Chapter 1 of the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage 
Systems Plan is to set forth the laws, regulations, and policies upon which the plan is based.  This chapter 
includes the general, or county­wide, legal and policy issues pertinent to Montgomery County.   Other legal 
and policy issues that are only relevant to a particular topic, such as regional water supply planning or 
biosolids management, are deferred to the chapter of the Plan that addresses that topic.

This section Chapter 1 presents the legal requirements for preparation of this plan and the 
responsibilities of the government agencies involved in preparing this plan and in managing the County's 
water supply and sewerage facilities.  The remainder of this chapter is divided into sections discussing the 
policies and procedures for the provision of water supply and sewerage service, and the policies for water 
and sewerage systems facilities.

C. Legal Requirements ­­ Each County in Maryland is required by State law to have a comprehensive 
plan that deals with water supply and sewerage system needs for at least a ten­year period into the future. 
The specific legal requirement is embodied in Environment Article, Subtitle 5, "County Water and Sewerage 
Plans," Sections 9­501 through 9­521, of the Annotated Code of Maryland and the Code of Maryland 
Regulations, Title 26, "Environment", Subtitle 3, Chapter 1, "Planning Water Supply and Sewerage Systems" 
(COMAR 26.03.01.01 ­ .08).  This Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan fulfills this 
legal requirement.

The Annotated Code establishes the authority for the Water and Sewer Plan and delegates that authority 
to the counties.  The Annotated Code also establishes the procedures by which the counties prepare, adopt, 
and amend their water and sewer plans.  Sections 9­515 through 9­518 provide policies specific to 
Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties which supersede other related sections of the Code. 
Montgomery County is required to comprehensively review and update this plan triennially (once every three 
years.)  COMAR 26.03.01.01, et seq., specifies the requirements for format and minimum contents for each 
county's plan.  In addition to the specific legal requirements for this document, there are numerous Federal, 
State, and local laws and regulations that apply to the water supply, sewerage, and rural sanitation needs of 
the County addressed in this plan.  Many of these additional laws and regulations are discussed in the 
chapters of this plan where they are most relevant.

D. Government Responsibilities for Water and Sewer Service – The responsibilities of planning for 
the availability of and providing water and sewerage service in Montgomery County are multi­jurisdictional 
and depend on the cooperative efforts of County, bi­county, municipal, State, and regional agencies and 
authorities. This is especially true with regard to the use of the Potomac River, a shared raw
water source for several jurisdictions, and the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP), a regional sewage treatment facility located in the District of Columbia. These
governmental agencies, and their primary responsibilities, are described in the following
sections.  Figure 1­F1 depicts the interrelationships of the public and the government agencies primarily 
involved in preparing this Plan and in managing the water supply and sewerage systems serving 
Montgomery County.

Figure 1­F1: Government Responsibilities for Water and Sewerage System Planning
 VOTERS

CO. EXECUTIVE: COUNTY
DEP COUNCIL MD DEPT. OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 
 DPS, OMB, DHCA MD DEPT.  OF PLANNING
  *  

M­NCPPC/
PLANNING BOARD WSSC MUNICIPALITIES*

* The City of Rockville and Town of Poolesville operate community water and sewerage systems largely separate from 
WSSC’s systems.  Therefore, the relationship between these municipalities and the County Council is less direct than with 
other jurisdictions, and is focused primarily on coordination in this Water and Sewer Plan.

1. Montgomery County Government -- Under State law, Montgomery County has

planning authority for the availability and adequacy of water and sewerage service and for
land use in the county. The County government also maintains the county’s land use
planning and zoning authority. The County coordinates the planning and development of
water supply and sewerage facilities with County land use, staging, adequate facilities,
capital improvements, and environmental protection goals. The objective is to develop this
Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan (CWSP) such that the water supply
and sewerage systems are consistent with County land use planning. The CWSP incorporates
all or part of subsidiary plans of the municipalities, sanitary districts, privately-owned
facilities, and local, State, and federal agencies which have existing, planned, or
programmed development within the county. The County reviews and adopts the Water and
Sewer Plan on a triennial basis, and also reviews and acts on proposed plan amendments at
intervals between mandated, triennial updates.

a. County Council -- The Montgomery County Council consists of nine elected

Council members, four elected at large and five elected from councilmanic districts. The
Council establishes a set of broad objectives and policies (including master plans, staging
plans, and fiscal policy) to be followed in preparing the Recommended Water and Sewer Plan.
After receiving the triennial submission of the recommended plan from the County Executive
and allowing a period for comments by public agencies and interested parties, the Council
holds a public hearing on the Executive’s recommended Plan. Following worksessions, the
Council amends and formally adopts the Plan. The Council also receives semi-annual
transmittals of amendments to the plan from the Executive. Following a public hearing, the
Council acts on the proposed amendments and incorporates them, as appropriate, into the
Plan. The Council similarly reviews and approves both the annual WSSC Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) for water supply and sewerage projects and the annual WSSC
operating budget.

b. County Executive ­­ State law requires the County Executive to prepare a comprehensive 
update of the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan for consideration by the County 
Council every three years.  The Executive also prepares and submits recommended Plan amendments to the 
Council.  These amendments can include text amendments and water/sewer category map amendments 
which are usually in the form of individual requests for water and sewerage service area category changes 
(see Section V. Procedures for Adopting and Amending the Water and Sewer Plan, below).  The Executive 
transmits proposed amendments to the Plan for the Council's consideration and action semiannually.  The 
Executive also transmits recommendations to the Council on the proposed annual Capital Improvements 
Program (CIP) WSSC submits annually for its major water supply and sewerage projects.

Within the Executive Branch of the county government, the Executive's responsibilities are 
delegated to the following agencies:

i. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ­ The Department's mission is to 
protect and enhance the quality of life in the County through conservation, preservation, and restoration of 
the environment guided by principles of science, resource management, sustainability, and stewardship.  The 
Department maintains the primary functions of developing and administering the Water and Sewer Plan.

(a) Water and Sewer Plan Administration ­­  DEP staff develop updates and 
amendments to the Plan, and review and prepare recommendations on Plan amendments proposed from 
outside the Department such as individual category change requests.  DEP maintains maps of the county’s 
water and sewer service area categories, issuing interim update maps as necessary, based on approved 
Plan amendments.  The County Council has delegated the authority to act on Plan amendments to the 
Director of DEP under limited circumstances.  The policies addressing this administrative delegation authority 
are provided in Section V.F.  DEP staff conducts public hearings and meetings related to proposed plan 
amendments.

DEP staff coordinates the review of the annual WSSC CIP with the County’s Office of 
Management and Budget.  In administering the plan, staff is involved in a variety of programs including 
surface water and groundwater protection, watershed management, water and sewerage capital facilities 
planning, development plan review, record plat approval, public health problem relief, and master plan 
development.  DEP provides technical, policy, and research support not only to the Executive, but also to 
local government agencies such as the WSSC, the Maryland ­ National Capital Park and Planning 
Commission, and the County Council, and to regional agencies such as the District of Columbia Water and 
Sewer Authority, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and the Interstate Commission on 
the Potomac River Basin.

(b) Related Water Quality and Resource Programs  ­­ DEP also carries out a variety 
of programs to protect the county's water resources.  In addition to the Water and Sewer Plan, DEP has 
prepared three other major strategic plans which guide County policy in environmental management and 
protection: the County­Wide Stream Protection Strategy, the Groundwater Protection Strategy, and the Forest 
Protection Strategy. 
DEP conducts extensive water quality monitoring, watershed restoration, storm water 
facility maintenance inspection and enforcement, illicit discharge inspection and enforcement, and public 
outreach activities.  DEP regulates illicit discharges to county streams and storm drains under the Water 
Quality Discharge Law (Montgomery County Code, Chapter 19, Article IV).  As provided under Chapter 19, 
Article VI, DEP provides general oversight of sediment control and stormwater management concept plans 
approved by the County's Department of Permitting Services (DPS).

Under the County's Water Quality Review law (Montgomery County Code, Chapter 19, 
Article V), DEP assists DPS in setting performance goals for development projects within County Council 
designated SPAs (presently located in the Upper Paint Branch, Piney Branch, and portions of the Little 
Seneca Creek watersheds).  DEP conducts in­stream monitoring of development impacts within SPAs and 
assists DPS in defining requirements for developer monitoring of the effectiveness of sediment controls and 
stormwater management controls.  DEP and DPS also work closely with the M­NCPPC in implementing SPA 
requirements and report upon development impacts and best management practices (BMP) effectiveness 
within SPA's to the County Executive and Council.

DEP directly implements and coordinates other County agency programs as required 
under the County's five­year National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal 
stormwater discharges (issued March 15, 1996).  To help address the NPDES permit compliance 
requirements, DEP monitors and inventories the biological, physical, and chemical water quality conditions in 
county streams and tracks discharges to storm drains.  Collected monitoring information is used to: 1) assess 
baseline water quality and habitat conditions in county streams and water supply sources; 2) evaluate 
impacts of specific development projects and wastewater discharges on streams; and 3) identify, locate, and 
take enforcement action against illicit pollutant discharges as provided under the County's Water Quality 
Discharge Law (Montgomery County Code, Chapter 19, Article IV).  DEP coordinates in­County monitoring 
and data management activities of other Federal, State, local agency, and volunteer groups through the 
County's Biological Monitoring Workgroup (BMW).  DEP monitors groundwater quality generally throughout 
the county and specifically around county landfills.  DEP also reviews and comments on the State's water 
appropriation and use permit applications, both for water withdrawals and wastewater discharge.

DEP conducts watershed­wide resource inventories, stream erosion surveys, modeling, 
and feasibility planning studies to comprehensively assess watershed restoration needs and opportunities in 
largely developed County watersheds which have degraded stream conditions.  DEP then develops 
Watershed Restoration Action Plans for degraded watersheds and sub­watersheds.  These plans identify 
goals to improve stream conditions and specific educational, facilities maintenance, volunteer, and 
enforcement initiatives and capital projects necessary to achieve these goals over a five to ten­year time 
frame.  As basic assessment work is completed for an individual watershed or subwatershed, DEP organizes 
interagency and public/private partnerships to implement the specific restoration tasks identified in the 
Watershed Restoration Action Plans.  In addition to spearheading targeted public outreach, stream 
monitoring, and enforcement initiatives, DEP's work includes design, construction, maintenance, and 
monitoring effectiveness of stormwater management "retrofit" projects and stream restoration facilities 
needed to upgrade damaged stream habitat and water quality conditions. Stormwater retrofit projects 
improve control of peak runoff flows and runoff quality in developed areas of watersheds that previously 
lacked such controls.  Stream restoration projects control stream bank erosion and improve habitat 
conditions. 

DEP administers the County’s new Water Quality Protection Charge program, which 
assesses an annual charge to property owners for the purpose of providing County maintenance of private 
stormwater management facilities.

ii. Department of Permitting Services (DPS) ­ Montgomery County's Department of 
Permitting Services (DPS) regulates new land development and building construction activities which affect 
storm flows, stormwater infiltration, stream base flows, and water quality.  This includes sediment and erosion 
control and stormwater permitting, and associated plan review, inspection, and enforcement functions.  DPS 
also issues well and septic system permits, street and storm drain permits, and administers the County's 
floodplain protection laws.

Within DPS, the Well and Septic Section has the responsibility delegated from the State to 
regulate and permit individual water supply and sewerage systems, usually wells and septic systems.  The 
Well and Septic Section develops regulations addressing siting, testing, and permitting for these systems, 
currently Executive Regulation 28­93AM, "On­Site Water Systems and On­Site Sewage Disposal Systems in 
Montgomery County".  DPS coordinates with DEP concerning cases involving public health problems caused 
by failing individual, on­site systems where a resolution of the problem involves the provision of community 
water and/or sewer service.

DPS staff administers a program which grants exemptions from WSSC systems 
development charges for biotechnology, elder housing, and community revitalization projects (see Section 
IV.A.1.b.).

DPS coordinates stormwater management requirements for new developments with DEP, 
M­NCPPC, and other appropriate agencies through an established interagency Development Approval 
Process.  Special Protection Areas (SPAs), designated by the County Council under the County's Water 
Quality Review Law (Montgomery County Code, Chapter 19, Article V) are defined as areas where: 1) 
existing water resources or other environmental features directly relating to those water resources are of high 
quality or unusually sensitive; and 2) proposed land uses would threaten the quality of preservation of those 
resources or features in the absence of special water quality protection measures which are closely 
coordinated with appropriate land use controls.  In Special Protection Areas, DPS sets performance goals, 
approves water quality plans and stormwater management concept plans, and specifies requirements for 
developer monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of required stormwater control BMPs. 

iii.  Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT) –  DPWT designs and 
builds capital projects for public storm drainage systems and specifies requirements for privately constructed 
drainage systems.  DPWT maintains public storm drainage facilities.  DPWT constructs drainage structures 
such as curbs, gutters, drainage inlets, pipes, and paved channels.  These networks are designed to convey 
stormwater from developed surfaces into natural drainage swales and stream channels.  In new 
developments, large drainage systems convey runoff to stormwater management facilities before discharging 
into the stream system.  DPWT also constructs bridges and road crossings which can affect stream habitat 
and fish migration.  DPWT's requirements for drainage systems, roadways, and road crossings for individual 
developments are coordinated with DPS and the M­NCPPC through the Development Approval Process. 
 iv. Department of Housing and Community Affairs (DCHA) ­ This Department 
administers grant and loan funding programs, generally from State and Federal funds, which provide financial 
assistance to property owners and communities seeking to repair, upgrade, or modify their water and sewer 
systems.

v. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ­ This Office oversees the operating and 
capital program budgets for County agencies, including the WSSC, with a primary emphasis on fiscal 
accountability and responsibility.  OMB staff coordinates closely with DEP, WSSC, and County Council staff 
on their review of WSSC's budget submissions.

2. Municipalities ­­ State law requires that the County incorporate the subsidiary water and sewer 
plans of the municipalities into the County’s Plan.  The municipalities provide the Executive with information 
needed for the preparation of the recommended Plan and participate in reviewing the recommended Plan 
and any amendments, as appropriate.  Community water and sewer service for most municipalities in the 
county is provided by the WSSC.  The City of Rockville and the Town of Poolesville are responsible for the 
operation of their own water supply and sewerage systems; some limited areas within the WSSD are served 
by these systems.  Accordingly, the planning, design, and operation of their sanitary systems is largely 
independent of WSSC and the County.  Especially because of its dependence on WSSC sewer mains for the 
transmission of sewage flows to the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rockville does coordinate with 
WSSC and the County on water and sewer service issues.

The following municipalities are also responsible for their own planning and/or zoning authority:

Table 1­T1: Municipal Planning and Zoning Authority and Community Systems

Land Use Planning  Zoning  Community Water/Sewer 

Municipality* Authority Authority Service Provided By:
City of Gaithersburg City City WSSC

City of Rockville City City City and WSSC

City of Takoma Park City M-NCPPC WSSC

Town of Barnesville Town M-NCPPC no service (within WSSD)

Town of Brookeville Town Town WSSC

Town of Kensington M-NCPPC Town WSSC

Town of Laytonsville Town Town no service (within WSSD)

Town of Poolesville Town Town Town

Town of Washington Town Town WSSC

Grove

* See Figure 1-F2 for the locations of these communities.

 3.  Bi­county Agencies ­­ The State of Maryland has chartered two bi­county agencies to serve 
the communities neighboring Washington, D.C. located in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties:  the 
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and the Maryland ­ National Capital Park and Planning 
Commission.

a. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) ­­ Established in 1918 under 
State legislation, WSSC provides community (public) water and sewerage systems throughout most of 
Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. The State’s charter specifies the area served by the WSSC: the 
Washington Suburban Sanitary District (WSSD).  WSSC is responsible for the design, construction, 
operation, and maintenance of the community water supply and sewerage systems within the WSSD.  The 
agency constructs and maintains water mains, pumping stations, and water storage facilities to deliver 
treated drinking water from the Potomac and Patuxent filtration plants to connected households and 
businesses.  WSSC also constructs and maintains sanitary sewer lines, pumping stations, and force mains to 
collect and transport wastewater to its wastewater treatment facilities and to trunk sewers connecting to the 
regional Blue Plains wastewater treatment facility.  Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties each appoint 
three of the six commissioners who head the WSSC, subject to confirmation by the respective county 
councils.  The commissioners serve staggered, four­year terms. The WSSC General Manager, the chief 
executive for all WSSC operations, as well as the Internal Audit Manager/Secretary, report directly to the 
Commissioners.

WSSC owns and operates two water supply reservoirs on the Patuxent River and another 
water supply reservoir on Little Seneca Creek.  The Triadelphia and T. Howard Duckett Reservoirs on the 
Patuxent River supply raw water to WSSC’s Patuxent Water Filtration Plant.   WSSC uses the Little Seneca 
Lake reservoir to supplement flows in the Potomac River to the Potomac Water Filtration Plant during 
droughts.  The agency has permits to operate and maintain water intakes and filtration plants, to withdraw 
and treat water from the Potomac River and the Patuxent River reservoir system for public water supply 
purposes.  WSSC conducts extensive water quality analyses for the community water supply within the 
WSSD and provides water quality to its customers through federally­mandated, annual Consumer 
Confidence Reports.  These reports may also be obtained through the WSSC Public Communications Office 
or on WSSC’s website at www.wsscwater.com.

WSSC operates and maintains wastewater treatment facilities on Great Seneca Creek near 
Darnestown, on Magruder Branch near Damascus, and on Little Bennett Creek in Hyattstown. These point 
source discharges are controlled through NPDES permits issued by MDE. WSSC conducts in­plant process 
monitoring of water filtration and wastewater treatment processes and maintains several water quality 
laboratories to support these operations and also conducts some raw water supply monitoring at its water 
sources and in­stream monitoring immediately upstream and downstream of its wastewater discharge points. 
 WSSC provides data and guidance to the Executive pertaining to capacity of the water 
supply and sewerage systems and to engineering and fiscal aspects of system expansion.  Reviewing and 
commenting on the Recommended Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan and on 
recommended water and sewer service area category changes are also functions of the WSSC.

WSSC submits a Six­Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) annually to the County for 
interagency review and for modification and adoption by the County Council.  WSSC prepares and submits 
the CIP for major community water and sewerage projects to the County as part of its responsibility to plan 
and finance the water supply and sewerage system.  WSSC and the Executive work together in the 
preparation of relevant portions of the WSSC's proposed CIP and related facility plans.  The County 
incorporates the adopted WSSC annual CIP and subsequent amendments as updates to the Water and 
Sewer Plan, which serve to substantially fulfill the fiscal planning requirements of state law and regulations. 
Public hearing advertisements shall indicate that the Council’s action on WSSC’s CIP is also an update to the 
Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan. WSSC implements the approved County CIP for 
major water and sewerage facilities by designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining water systems 
and acquiring facility sites and rights­of­way. The two County Councils annually review and adopt the WSSC 
CIP and operating budgets. 

WSSC is responsible for identifying potential impacts from proposed water and sewer lines 
and related infrastructure.  Cooperating with other agencies through the Development Services Process, 
WSSC works to avoid and minimize impacts of sewer line, water line, and other facility construction and 
maintenance activities to streams, floodplain, wetlands, parklands, and woodland buffers.

b. Maryland ­ National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M­NCPPC) – State 
legislation created M­NCPPC in 1927 to protect open space and control development in Montgomery and 
Prince George’s Counties.  In 1939, the Maryland District Act provided planning and zoning authority to M­
NCPPC. M­NCPPC is responsible for park land acquisition and development and maintenance of the 
county’s park system. M­NCPPC is governed by ten commissioners, five each appointed by Montgomery and 
Prince George’s Counties. The five members of the commission for each County also serve as a separate 
Planning Board to facilitate, review, and administer the matters affecting only their respective counties. The 
Montgomery County Planning Board advises and assists the County Council in planning, zoning, and 
subdivision. The Planning Board prepares master plans for Executive review and County Council 
consideration and approval. In support of the CWSP, M­NCPPC provides the County with demographic 
information and population projections.

In carrying out its basic land use planning mission, M­NCPPC develops master plans, 
functional master plans, and technical watershed studies.  Master plans are required to incorporate the seven 
Visions of the Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992.  M­NCPPC also 
conducts stream surveys necessary to support the development of land use plans.  In executing its 
development review responsibilities, M­NCPPC evaluates proposed subdivisions and site plans for 
stormwater and other impacts on floodplain, trees, slopes, wetlands, streams, wildlife, fisheries, and other 
natural features. M­NCPPC applies its environmental guidelines to reserve and protect forest conservation 
areas, stream buffers, and other sensitive features.  In administering the County's Forest Conservation 
Program, M­NCPPC ensures compliance with requirements for both forest protection and planting by 
developers for specific sites through the development review process, and on a county­wide basis, through 
master plans and an overall forest conservation plan.  The agency also maintains responsibilities for 
development projects occurring within SPAs, addressing  levels of imperviousness, forest creation and 
protection, and compliance with master plan directives, environmental guidelines, and county regulations.

M­NCPPC is responsible for protecting, preserving, and managing natural resources in 
County parks, including streams, fish, wetlands, forests, and wildlife.  Within the park system this is 
accomplished through a wide variety of ongoing programs including: 1) resource inventory functions; 2) 
reforestation; 3) wildlife and fisheries management; 4) aquatic and wetland habitat enhancement; 5) 
environmental and engineering review of construction plans; 6) direct performance or participation in design 
and construction, and construction management of proposed stormwater management facilities located on 
parkland, including stormwater retrofit and stream restoration projects; 7) maintenance of these facilities; and 
8) water quality monitoring activities within park areas as necessary to support these specific functions. 

4. State of Maryland ­­The State of Maryland has delegated the responsibility to plan for the 
adequate provision of water and sewer service to Montgomery County.  The following State agencies 
oversee that responsibility and other, related planning and water quality programs: 

a. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) ­­  Under State Law, the Maryland 
Department of the Environment (MDE) is responsible for the State’s review and approval of this Water and 
Sewer Plan. MDE adopts and administers regulations that each county must follow in the preparation of its 
comprehensive plan, and acts to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Plan or any Plan 
amendment submitted by the County.  MDE coordinates State grant and loan programs for major water and 
sewer infrastructure improvements.  MDE also regulates the discharge of treated wastewater into State 
waters, through its permit issuing and monitoring programs.  

b. Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) – The State's Department of Planning 
oversees the County's land use planning and zoning processes.  MDP manages the State's Smart Growth 
programs which, in an effort to reduce sprawl development and make maximum use of existing infrastructure, 
direct State funding to identified, higher­density, primary funding areas.   Water and sewer service planning is 
an integral part of the land use planning process, and MDP therefore reviews and comments on the County's 
comprehensive plan and any amendments for consistency with State and County land use planning, 
including Smart Growth objectives.

c. Montgomery Soil and Water Conservation District (MSWCD) – The MSWCD 
promotes the effective management and conservation of soil and water and provides technical support and 
advice to farmers concerning the effects of agricultural activities on soils and water quality.  The MSWCD 
works with farmers and other landowners to encourage the development and adoption of Soils Conservation 
and Water Quality Plans.  MSCD provides technical assistance to design and implements stormwater control 
BMPs that reduce erosion and improve water quality on agricultural land.  In conjunction with the MSWCD, 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for dam 
safety review, when this review is required for certain stormwater pond designs.  MSWCD has a Memoranda 
of Understanding (MOU) with the County to allow County reviews of sediment control, stormwater 
management, and dam safety.  MSWCD and MDE adopt the local standards and specifications for sediment 
control.  MSWCD also has an MOU with the City of Rockville to allow the City to review of sediment control 
and storm water management projects.  NRCS, via MSCWD, reviews and approves the City’s dam safety 
plans.  MSWCD performs sediment control reviews and approvals for the City Gaithersburg.

5. Regional Agencies – Montgomery County’s community water and sewer needs also involve 
agencies and jurisdictions outside the State of Maryland.  The County and WSSC coordinate with the 
following agencies on the use of regional resources.   These governmental agencies, and their primary 
responsibilities, are described as follows:

a. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) – WASA owns and 
operates, among the District of Columbia’s water and sewerage facilities, the Blue Plains Wastewater 
Treatment Plant (WWTP) where the majority of Montgomery County’s wastewater is treated.  An independent 
authority of the District government, WASA was created and began operating in 1996 under and pursuant to 
an act of the Council of the District entitled “Water and Sewer Authority and Department of Public Works 
Reorganization Act of 1996". Governed by an eleven member Board of Directors with six representatives 
from the District, two from Prince George’s County, one from Fairfax County, and two from Montgomery 
County, WASA’s authorizing legislation provides, in part, for the total separation and control of funds from the 
District Government.  

The sewer service provided to Montgomery County by the Blue Plains WWTP is 
administered by a variety of related management interests and defined in regional agreements and adopted 
legislation. These include the Bi­County Agreement of 1983, the Intermunicipal Agreement of 1985, the 
WASA Board of Directors and related committees, the Blue Plains Regional Committee, and by the budget 
approval authority of the County Council. The details of these agreements and management systems are 
presented in Chapter 4. 

b. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) ­­ COG is the regional 
organization of the Washington area's major local governments and their governing officials.  Founded in 
1957, COG provides a forum for coordinated action on issues of regional concern, including water supply and 
watershed protection.  This includes updating the region's water emergency response plan, assisting the 
water utilities and local elected governments in communicating concerns to regulatory agencies, and 
educating the region through conferences and publications on regional drinking water issues, such as water 
conservation.  COG staff also coordinates and maintains regional databases on Potomac River water quality, 
water treatment plants, and wastewater plant discharges.  COG's Environmental and Public Works Directors 
Committee advises the COG Board on regional policy issues associated with drinking water, water quality, 
and wastewater treatment.

c. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) – ICPRB was created 
by interstate compact, and approved by Congress in 1940.  Withdrawals from the Potomac River provide the 
majority of the county’s water supply.  Among its responsibilities, ICPRB helps control and prevent pollution 
of the waters within the Potomac drainage area; cooperates with, supports, and coordinates activities of 
public and non­public entities concerned with water and associated land resources in the Potomac River 
basin; promotes public understanding of these issues and activities, and the need for enhancement of the 
basin's resources; conducts drought operations management support for Potomac River water resources 
allocation for the Washington Metropolitan Area; and conducts short­ and long­term water supply planning 
analyses.  In carrying out its work, ICPRB works directly with WSSC, Fairfax County (Virginia) Water 
Authority, and the Washington Aqueduct Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In particular, the ICPRB Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac 
(CO­OP) conducts drought operations management support for Potomac River water resources allocation for 
the Washington Metropolitan Area. In carrying out its work, CO­OP works directly with WSSC, the Fairfax 
County (Virginia) Water Authority, and the Washington Aqueduct Division of the Corps of Engineers. The CO­
OP Section conducts monthly “Water Supply Outlook” analyses which are provided to WSSC, to other water 
suppliers, and to other interested entities; conducts annual real­time drought operations exercises; produces 
quintennial water demand forecasts and resource adequacy assessments for 20­year planning horizons; 
maintains 24­hour water resource emergency coordination; and operates releases from the region’s water 
supply reservoirs during drought conditions.

E. Plan Structure and Content ­­ The structure and minimum content of this Comprehensive Water 
Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan is specified by the State laws and regulations referenced in Section I.C. 
of this chapter.  The following briefly describes the structure of the plan and the contents of each chapter:

 Chapter 1: Objectives and Policies ­ This chapter provides the legal requirements for the plan; the 
County's overall objectives for water and sewer service; the policies addressing the provision of 
water and sewer service from community, multi­use and individual systems; and the procedures and 
organizational roles through which the County and State adopt, amend, and administer this Plan.

 Chapter 2: General Background ­ This chapter provides background information on Montgomery 
County's natural and man­made environment relevant to the provision of water and sewer service by 
both community and individual systems.

  Chapter 3: Water Supply Systems ­ This chapter provides information on the County's existing 
water supply systems and on planning efforts to ensure that the County's mid­ and long­term water 
supply needs are and will be satisfied in a manner consistent with public policy and the plan's 
objectives.  Regional planning issues, as they relate to the county, are also addressed.

 Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems ­ This chapter provides information on the County's existing 
sewerage systems and on planning efforts to ensure that the County's mid­ and long­term sewerage 
needs are and will be satisfied in a manner consistent with public policy and the plan's objectives. 
Regional planning issues, as they relate to the county, are also addressed.

 Appendices ­ The appendices provide technical or reference information to supplement the Plan’s 
four chapters.  DEP updates portions of this information, such as the capital water and sewer 
projects listing, more frequently than the Plan’s three­year comprehensive amendment cycle.  Using 
an appendix for this information provides a more convenient method to accomplish these updates. 
DEP shall also post these updates on the water and sewer section of its website at 
www.askdep.com.
  Water and Sewer Service Area Category and Systems Maps ­ These maps identify the water and 
sewer service area categories designated in this Plan for all properties within Montgomery County. 
Paper copies of these maps may be purchased from DEP or the map may be viewed on DEP’s 
website at www.askdep.com.

II. POLICIES FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER AND SEWERAGE SERVICE

The water and sewer service policies addressed in this section of the Plan provide the basis for establishing 
what areas of the county will receive community versus individual  systems service.  The Plan uses water 
and sewer service area categories both to designate areas eligible for either community or private service 
and to provide a staging element for the provision of community service.  These policies provide guidance 
not only in evaluating individual and general service area change amendments, but also in the preparation of 
development and water/sewer service recommendations in the County’s land use master plans.

The County Council relies primarily on these service policies in evaluating and acting on Water and Sewer 
Plan amendments.  However, the scope of the Council’s responsibilities goes far beyond this Plan and 
includes issues such as the county­wide economic growth, public health and safety, transportation 
infrastructure, and public education.  The Council has the authority and responsibility to consider such issues 
where they may affect its actions with respect to this Plan.  Given this, the Council may reach conclusions 
regarding this Plan or its amendments which do not necessarily follow the policies provided in the following 
sections; in such cases, the Council will provide an explanation of the issues involved and rationale for 
actions that may vary from these standard policies.

A. Water and Sewer Service Area Categories ­­ In order to provide for the orderly extension of 
community water and sewer service, State regulations (COMAR 26.03.01.04) have established category 
designations for water and sewer service areas.  These categories identify those areas approved or 
proposed for community service and those areas where development will depend on individual systems.  In 
addition, some areas of the county are noted for special service conditions or restrictions, including those 
area where the County has approved the use of multi­use systems.  Service area categories are shown on 
the water and sewer service area category maps which are a part of this plan.

1. Numbered Service Area Category Definitions ­ The County has modified the State’s category 
definitions to more accurately reflect its planning process.  All areas of the County are classified by this plan 
into one of the categories, with the exception of rights­of­way for public roads, railroads, gas and electrical 
transmission lines which are not assigned a category.  The County’s service area categories are as follows:

Table 1­T2: Service Area Categories

Service Area 
Categories Category Definition and General Description

W­1 and S­1 Areas served by community systems which are either existing or under
construction. – This may include properties or areas for which community
system mains are not immediately available or which have not yet connected
Table 1­T2: Service Area Categories

Service Area 
Categories Category Definition and General Description
to existing community service.

Categories W-2 and S-2 are not used in Montgomery County. (State
definition: Areas served by extensions of existing community and multi-use

W­2 and S­2 systems which are in the final planning stages.)

Areas where improvements to or construction of new community systems will

be given immediate priority and service will generally be provided within two
years or as development and requests for community service are planned and

W­3 and S­3 scheduled.

Areas where improvements to or construction of new community systems will

be programmed for the three- through six-year period. – This includes areas
generally requiring the approval of CIP projects before service can be

W­4 and S­4 provided.

Areas where improvements to or construction of new community systems are

planned for the seven- through ten-year period. – This category is frequently
used to identify areas where land use plans recommend future service staged

W­5 and S­5 beyond the scope of the six-year CIP planning period.

Areas where there is no planned community service either within the ten-year
scope of this plan or beyond that time period. This includes all areas not
designated as categories 1 through 5. – Category 6 includes areas that are
planned or staged for community service beyond the scope of the plan’s ten-
year planning period, and areas that are not ever expected for community

W­6 and S­6 service on the basis of adopted plans.

2. Service Area Special Conditions and Restrictions ­­ In specific cases, special conditions or 
restrictions are included with the service area category for a property affecting the provision of water and/or 
sewer service.  For example, these conditions can specify the type of development suitable for community 
water and sewer service, specify the number of water or sewer hookups allowed, advise that existing 
community service is the result of prior water and sewer policies no longer in effect, or explain why 
community service is provided to a site outside the community water and/or sewer envelope.

The following special service conditions are examples of those used on the water and sewer service 
area category maps:

 Conditional approval has been granted to change the service area category for this property. 
  Community service existed prior to the establishment of the Water and Sewer Plan and the 
service envelope.
 Community service was committed prior to master plan recommendations and/or policy 
determinations to exclude the general area from community service.
 Community service was extended in order to relieve a public health problem caused by a failing 
individual or multi­use system.
 Community service was extended to serve a public facility or a private institutional facility.
 Community service was extended to lots which were previously approved for individual systems 
but which are unable to utilize those systems due to changes in individual systems regulations.
 Community service is limited to specific development options only such as cluster­option 
development or development using transferrable development rights (TDRs).
 Community service was provided to properties which abut an existing water or sewer main. 
 Community service is restricted to a single water and/or sewer hookup only.  (This usually occurs 
in connection with another special service condition.)
 Multi­use systems are approved for this site.
 Interim on­site systems are approved for this site.

New conditions are sometimes created to address specific situations or new policies in this plan.  The 
conditions as applied to a particular site may be general in nature and it is advisable to research specific 
conditions or restrictions with the Department of Environmental Protection.

B. Water and Sewer Service Development Policies by Service Area Designation ­­ The following 
policies govern the provision of water and sewer service under each of the County’s service area categories:

 1. Categories W­1 and S­1 ­­ Areas designated as categories W­1 and S­1 are intended to 
develop using community water supply and sewerage systems.  As a general rule, no new individual, on­
site systems will be permitted where an adequate community water or sewerage system is available.  If an 
existing community water or sewerage system is inadequate or is not available as defined below, then an 
individual water or sewerage system may be used for an interim period.  Such individual systems shall be 
subject to the conditions established in this Plan as the General Conditions for Interim Individual Systems 
(see Section III.B.1.).

 a.  Community Service is Inadequate  ­­ An existing community water supply or sewerage 
system may be considered inadequate by DEP when service is prohibited by an Order of MDE, WSSC, or 
Montgomery County, due to inadequate conveyance or treatment capacity.  Individual systems are then 
allowed subject to the General Conditions for Interim Individual Systems and the following additional 
conditions:

i.  Community water service is available in areas where community sewer service is 
considered inadequate; and

ii.  All subdivisions to be initially developed on interim individual systems shall construct dry 
community systems, as specified in Section III.A.4., Dry Community Systems.  No waiver of this condition is 
allowed.
 b.  Community Service is Not Available ­­ An existing community water supply or sewerage 
system may be considered not available by DEP when, upon application for service to a utility, the utility 
makes a determination that it is not feasible for economic or engineering reasons to provide community 
service at that time.  Such cases may include, but are not limited to, projects with excessive deficit charges, 
projects where intervening mains are to constructed by other developers or individuals, or projects where 
pumped sewer service is not feasible due to excessive grades or site elevations.  Interim individual systems 
approved under this condition shall be subject to the General Conditions for Interim Individual Systems (see 
Section III.B.1.) below.

An existing community water supply or sewerage system may also be considered not available 
when DEP makes a determination that it is a severe economic hardship for an individual house or other 
structure to be connected to the community system.  This policy shall only be applicable to single residential 
hookups or to individual structures that are the equivalent of single residential hookups.  Interim individual 
systems approved under this condition shall be subject to the General Conditions for Interim Individual 
Systems (see Section III.B.1.).

c.  Public Health Hazards ­­ Under conditions of an existing or anticipated health hazard, as 
certified by DPS, DEP may require connections of existing individual structures to a community system if 
available, and may require service extensions where deemed desirable.

2. Categories W­2 and S­2 ­­ Categories W­2 and S­2 are not used in this Plan (see Section 
II.A.1.).

3. Categories  W­3 and S­3 ­­ Areas designated as categories W­3 and S­3 are intended to 
develop using community water supply and sewerage systems.  However, interim individual water supply and 
sewerage systems may be permitted to be installed in the W­3 and S­3 service areas consistent with the 
General Conditions for Interim Individual Systems set out below (Section III.B.1.).  All subdivisions to be 
initially developed on interim individual systems shall construct dry community systems, as specified in 
Section III.A.4., Dry Community Systems.  No waiver of this condition is allowed, except for single­lot 
subdivisions and subdivisions consisting of lots of two acres or larger in size.

a.  Area­Wide Public Health Hazards ­­ Under conditions  that a defined area of the county has 
an existing or anticipated health hazard, DPS, in coordination with DEP, may recommend the construction 
of a community system for water or sewerage service.  Any such community system shall be operated by a 
public agency and be approved by the County Council as a formal amendment to the plan.

b.  Individual Public Health Hazards ­­ Under conditions of an existing or anticipated health 
hazard, as certified by DPS, DEP may require the connection of existing individual structures to a community 
system, if available, and may require service extensions where deemed desirable.

4.  Categories W­4 and S­4 ­­ Although programmed for water and sewer service from community 
systems, individual water supply and sewerage systems may be permitted to be installed in areas designated 
as categories W­4 and S­4 consistent with the General Conditions for Interim Individual Systems (Section 
III.B.1.).  All subdivisions to be initially developed on interim individual systems shall construct dry community 
systems,  as specified in Section III.A.4, Dry Community Systems.  No waiver of this condition is allowed, 
except for single­lot subdivisions and subdivisions consisting of lots of two acres or larger in size.

a.  Area­Wide Public Health Hazards ­­ Under conditions  that a defined area of the county has 
an existing or anticipated health hazard, DPS, in coordination with DEP, may recommend the construction 
of a community system for water or sewerage service.  Any such community system shall be operated by a 
public agency and be approved by the County Council as a formal amendment to the plan.  The issues and 
alternatives relative to such a recommendation for properties in categories W­4 or S­4 will be reviewed by 
DEP as a proposed category change request, initiated by the County.

b.  Individual Public Health Hazards ­­ Under conditions of an existing or anticipated health 
hazard, as certified in writing by DPS, DEP may require the connection of existing individual structures to a 
community system, if available, and may require service extensions where deemed desirable. DEP will 
coordinate a category change for the site, usually through the administrative delegation process, although 
WSSC need not await approval of such an amendment prior to providing community service.

 5.  Categories W­5 and W­6, and S­5 and S­6 ­­ Individual water supply or sewerage systems, not 
of an interim nature, shall be permitted to be installed in any portion of the County designated as categories 
W­5 or W­6 and S­5 or S­6, consistent with COMAR 26.03.01, 26.03.05, and 26.04.02 ­ .04, and County 
Executive Regulations 28­93AM, "On­Site Water Systems and On­Site Sewage Disposal Systems in 
Montgomery County".  Individual systems may be installed within these areas on an indefinite basis without 
firm obligation to connect to a community system, when and if it becomes available.

 Within areas designated as categories W­5 and S­5, the construction of dry community systems 
shall not be required for subdivisions or individual properties which develop using individual on­site systems. 
DEP may recommend water and/or sewer map amendments to designate subdivisions developing on 
individual systems as categories W­6 and/or S­6.

a.  Area­Wide Public Health Hazards ­­ Under conditions  that a defined area of the county has 
an existing or anticipated health hazard, DPS, in coordination with DEP, may recommend the construction 
of a community system for water or sewerage service.  Any such community system shall be operated by a 
public agency and be approved by the County Council as a formal amendment to the plan.  The issues and 
alternatives relative to such a recommendation for properties in categories will be reviewed by DEP as a 
proposed category change request, initiated by the County.

b.  Individual Public Health Hazards ­­ Under conditions of an existing or anticipated health 
hazard, as certified in writing by DPS, DEP may require connections of individual structures to a community 
system if available, and may require service extensions when deemed desirable.  DEP will coordinate a 
category change for the site, usually through the administrative delegation process, although WSSC need not 
await approval of such an amendment prior to providing community service.
 C. Water and Sewer Service Planning in the Development Review Process – The provision of water 
and sewer service for new development is an integral part of the County's evaluation of development 
proposals.  DEP’s primary involvement in the County’s development review process includes the following:

1. Development Plan Review ­­ The M­NCPPC Development Review Division manages the 
County's Development Review Committee (DRC), an interagency group which meets regularly to review and 
evaluate proposed development plans.  DEP is the lead agency in the DRC with regard to water and sewer 
service planning issues.  DEP staff report to the DRC on the consistency of the water and sewer service 
components of development proposals with respect to the County's Water and Sewer Plan.  In order for a 
development proposal to proceed to the Planning Board for consideration, DEP and M­NCPPC staff need to 
confirm the consistency of the development plan with the policies and service area designations in the Water 
and Sewer Plan.  WSSC staff also participates in this process with a focus on water and sewer systems 
design and capacity.

2. Record Plat Review and Approval Process ­­ Record plats legally establish subdivided 
properties in the County's land records.  DEP staff review record plats prior to recordation to ensure that the 
type of water and sewer service intended to serve the development proposed by the plat is consistent with 
policies and service area designations in this Plan.  As required by MDE, DEP staff also calculates a sewage 
treatment flow commitment for each plat which depends on community sewer service.  MDE and WSSC 
track these flow commitments relative to the available treatment capacity at the appropriate sewage 
treatment plant in order to ensure that adequate treatment capacity is available for development approved by 
the County.

D. General Policies for Water and Sewer Service ­­ The water and sewer service area categories 
designated in this plan serve two functions: 1) they identify those areas of the county approved or planned for 
community water and/or sewer service and  those areas intended for service by individual systems; and 2) 
for those areas planned for community service, they identify a mechanism for staging community service 
consisting of the application of the service categories W­1 through W­ 5 and S­1 through S­5 described 
above to the properties within the county.  The County Executive, through the Department of Environmental 
Protection, recommends service area categories based on the following policies addressing water and sewer 
service, land use, staging, and infrastructure policies included in this plan.  The following policies provide 
general, county­wide guidance for the provision of community water and sewer service and individual, private 
water and sewer systems.

1. General Policies for Community Water Service ­­ Land zoned for moderate to high residential 
development densities of two or more units per acre (R­60, R­90, R­200, etc.) is intended for water service 
from community water supply systems.  In the County's Zoning ordinance, two cluster­option zones also 
specifically call for the provision of community water service: the Low­Density Rural Cluster (LDRC) and 
Rural Neighborhood Cluster (RNC) Zones.  Development occurring within these zones using the appropriate 
cluster option is intended to use community water service.  Under the LDRC Zone, developers may choose to 
use individual wells if environmental conditions or concerns support that decision.  The requirements of the 
RNC Zone allow for the consideration of community service for larger “conservancy” lots within the clustered 
subdivision where DEP and M­NCPPC staff concur that such service is appropriate, generally due to its 
proximity to community service.  Where the provision of community water service is contingent upon the use 
of a cluster development option, the approval of service area category changes will generally be conditioned 
on the approval of subdivision plans using those cluster options.

In addition, the provision of community water service to areas zoned for lower­density development 
(RE­1, RE­2, etc.) may be considered under the following circumstances, provided that development with 
community water is consistent with the protection of surface and ground waters:

a. The provision of water service to areas zoned for "large lot" residential and rural 
development should be generally limited to those areas zoned RE­1, RE­2 and RE­2C/non­cluster option, 
and Rural Cluster (RC)/cluster­option; areas with other zones may be considered upon the recommendation 
of the Planning Board.  For sites within the RC zone, the provision of community water service shall generally 
require approval of a subdivision plan which uses the cluster­option for the development; water service may 
also be approved in cases where zoning or subdivision regulations dictate that a given site has insufficient 
acreage to use the RC zone cluster option.
b. The provision of community water service must conform to the land use policies of the 
applicable master plan.  In order to ensure consistency with the master plans, all category change requests 
for community water service to large lot areas will be submitted to M­NCPPC for review and comment on a 
case­by­case basis.  The policy of providing community water service to large lot areas was first adopted in 
the Water and Sewer Plan in June 1990 (under CR 11­1953); the Council reviewed and approved some 
current local area master plans prior to the introduction of this policy.  The decision to extend or restrict water 
service should focus on conformance with master plan land­use and development recommendations, rather 
than on generalized water service areas identified in these older master plans.  Where the provision of water 
service to large lot areas promotes the land­use and development envisioned by the master plan and meets 
other economic and environmental standards, the approval of service and/or timing of service is 
appropriately handled by the adoption of water category changes as part of this plan.  Requests for water 
service to large lot areas may be considered for administrative approval under the "Consistent with Existing 
Plans" policy (Section V.F.1.a.) in cases where the Planning Board concurs that the extension of service is 
consistent with the land­use and development policies of the master plan.

c. Extensions should generally be from existing or authorized water mains to allow orderly and 
logical extensions of the water system.

d. All costs associated with community water service to large lots will be paid by those directly 
benefiting from the extension of service.  To ensure this goal is achieved, both of the following two conditions 
will apply to extension of water service to large lots:

i. Where intervening lots are subject to a potential front foot benefit assessment for a water 
main extension, the approving authority may condition a category change request to require the applicant to 
pay all main extension costs.  Under the System Extension Permit (SEP) process, WSSC requires the 
applicant and/or developer to construct main extensions at their own cost, and then dedicate the extension to 
WSSC (see Section IV.A.2.).  For mains constructed under the SEP process, the intervening lots would 
therefore not be assessed front foot benefit charges.  This policy will prevent intervening lots from subsidizing 
line extensions benefiting new development.  
 ii. Funding for large­diameter water lines (16 inches or greater) and/or other improvements 
to local service line extensions cannot be provided through water and sewerage bonds financed by general 
water and sewer rates.  These improvements must be funded either through the general bond program (with 
all costs retrievable through front foot benefit assessments associated with the proposed development and 
developer contributions), or through the SEP process in the WSSC Capital Improvements Program with 
developer contributions covering 100 percent of the capital costs (as is now required for CIP projects which 
support only new growth).  Note that WSSC requires that only capital­size main extensions more than 2,000 
feet in length must be included in the CIP.  These policies will prevent extensions to large lot areas from 
impacting intervening lots and general user rates.

e. The provision of community water service to lower density areas can occur without the 
provision of community sewer service, requiring the use of individual septic systems.  Development with only 
community water must be consistent with the protection of surface and ground waters.  To assure this goal is 
achieved, DEP may require hydrogeologic studies of proposed development to assess potential impacts to 
ground and surface water quality from the use of individual sewerage systems.  In order to address concerns 
about the clustering of septic systems in areas where zoning permits lot sizes of less than 40,000 square 
feet, DEP may, upon consultation with DPS and M­NCPPC, recommend minimum or average minimum lot 
sizes of 40,000 square feet for new development using community water service and individual sewerage 
systems.  (This lot size is the minimum required for RE­1 zone/non­cluster development.)

This Plan recognizes that some rural areas of the county with moderate­density zoning (R­200, 
RMH­200, etc.) may be beyond the logical and economical reach of existing or planned community service. 
These areas will be served by individual systems.

Local area master and sector plans may recommend exceptions to the general policies contained in 
this Section (see Section II.E.1.).

This plan intends that community water service shall be extended in concert with community 
sewerage service, unless specific limitations of the community water system make it unreasonable to provide 
such service.  The provision of community water service without community sewer service to areas zoned for 
two or more units per acre (R­200) density is discouraged wherever possible; in cases where such service is 
approved, the development plan must provide adequate protection for ground and surface waters as 
discussed in Subsection e. of this policy.

2. General Policies for Community Sewer Service ­­ Land zoned for moderate to high 
development densities of two or more units per acre (R­60, R­90, R­200, etc.) is intended for sewer service 
from community sewerage systems.  Where local area master plans recommend cluster­option development 
in zones with lower average lot yields (i.e., RE­1 or RE­2C Zones), and where clustered lot sizes are 
generally comparable to those in moderate and high­density zones, the provision of community sewer 
service is consistent with this plan.  In the County's Zoning ordinance, two cluster­option zones also 
specifically call for the provision of community sewer service: the Low­Density Rural Cluster (LDRC) and 
Rural Neighborhood Cluster (RNC) Zones.  Development occurring within these zones using the appropriate 
cluster option is intended to use community sewer service.  The requirements of the RNC Zone allow for the 
consideration of community service for larger “conservancy” lots within the clustered subdivision where DEP 
and M­NCPPC staff concur that such service is appropriate, generally due to its proximity to community 
service.  Where the provision of community sewer service is contingent upon the use of a cluster 
development option, service area changes will generally be conditioned on the approval of subdivision plans 
using those cluster options.

This plan recognizes that some rural areas of the County with moderate­density zoning (R­200, 
RMH­200, etc.) may be beyond the logical and economical reach of existing or planned community service. 
These areas will be served by individual systems.  Areas zoned for lower­density residential development 
(RE­1, RE­2, etc.) are also intended to be served by individual systems.

Local area master and sector plans may recommend exceptions to the general policies contained in 
this Section (see Section II.E.1.).

3. Water and Sewer Service Policies for Non­Residential Zoned Areas ­­ The preceding 
sections focused on policies related to residential zoning and development densities.  For areas zoned for 
commercial and industrial development, the provision of community water and sewer service or the use of 
individual on­site systems shall be generally consistent with the type of service used for adjacent or nearby 
residential development.

Areas zoned for rural development, the five­acre (Rural or RC/non­cluster) and twenty­five acre 
(Rural Density Transfer (RDT) zones, are generally not intended to be served by community systems. 
However, case­by­case exceptions can be considered where community service is logical, economical, 
environmentally acceptable, and does not risk extending service to non­eligible properties.  Subsequent 
policies included in Section II.F. identify the conditions under which these exceptions can be considered, 
including public health problems, public facilities, properties abutting existing mains, etc..

4. Consistency with Comprehensive Planning Policy ­­ Water and/or sewer service should be 
extended systematically in concert with other public facilities along the corridors as defined in the General 
Plan, to accommodate growth only in areas covered by adopted local area master or sector plans.  Guidance 
for the type, amount, location and sequence of growth is contained in the comprehensive planning policies of 
the County as adopted by the County Council.  These policies are expressed in detail in the General Plan 
and the various master and sector plans which constitute amendments to the General Plan.  Various 
functional plans, such as the Water and Sewer Plan, should be consistent with these comprehensive 
planning policies.  In addition, the Water and Sewer Plan should consider other adopted or proposed policies 
of various agencies affecting land use, including guidelines for the administration of the Adequate Public 
Facilities Ordinance.

This Plan intends that water and sewer service decisions should follow and implement the land use 
and development guidance established in the County’s General Plan and local area master plans.  A variety 
of factors influence policy decisions concerning the density or type of development for a particular area: 
overall land use guidance; transportation and school capacity; environmental protection; local and county­
wide housing and commercial demand; compatibility with existing development; and suitability for individual, 
on­site systems.  The proximity of water and/or sewer mains to an area of the county, also one of these 
factors, should not serve as the primary driver of these policy decisions.  The availability of community 
service can provide for development options, such as cluster, which might not be possible with the use of 
individual systems.

Recommendations for service area category actions that are inconsistent with the policies described 
in the comprehensive planning policies or any other policies listed in this Plan will be accompanied by 
explanations showing what factors have changed significantly since the adoption of the original policies, 
and/or what elements of the comprehensive planning policies should be amended to more appropriately 
reflect current conditions or concerns.  Such explanations will identify what specific considerations are 
relevant to the individual recommendations, including as appropriate: economic and fiscal concerns; 
population estimates; planning; zoning and subdivision requirements; federal, state, regional, county, and 
municipal planning efforts; residential commercial and industrial needs; availability and adequacy of public 
facilities; energy conservation; water and sewage treatment capacity; engineering constraints; environmental 
protection; and the alleviation of public health problems.

DEP staff participates in the master plan development, review and approval process, to address 
water and sewer service issues.  Master plans make recommendations concerning the use of community 
and individual water supply and sewerage systems to support zoning recommendations and to implement 
specific development proposals.  These recommendations are made with an understanding of the County's 
general water and sewer service policies, as adopted in this Plan.  Where master plans make water and/or 
sewer service recommendations which are not in agreement with the general policies of this plan, an 
explanation and justification of those recommendations is provided in the master plan and subsequently 
incorporated in future Water and Sewer Plan updates (see Section II.E.1.).

A category change request for a property in an area where a new master or sector plan is in 
preparation shall be deferred until the Council has adopted a plan for the area.  DEP may recommend 
exceptions to this requirement where the County Council and the Planning Board concur that a more 
expedient review and actions process is appropriate for a particular amendment, and the proposed action is 
1) consistent with existing master plan recommendation, 2) consistent with water and sewer planning policies 
and 3) that the master plan update is not expected to change these policies.  A master or sector plan is 
considered "in preparation" at the time the M­NCPPC staff draft of the plan is complete.  The Council shall 
also defer action on Plan amendments to allow another process to proceed without bias before making a 
decision on the amendment.  Often the other process involves a land use or zoning decision which is 
relevant to the decision on water and sewer service, or which could be potentially influenced by the Council’s 
action on the issue of water and sewer service.  Commonly, these actions include rezoning and special 
exception requests addressed by the Council and the County Board of Appeals, respectively.

Individual service area category change requests which DEP finds to be consistent with the general 
community water and sewer service policies of this Plan and with relevant master plan recommendations 
may be considered for approval under administrative delegation policy, Section V.F.1.a.: Consistent with 
Existing Plans.

E. Special Policies for Water and Sewer Service – In addition to the preceding general service 
policies, the County Council has adopted specific policies for the provision of community water and/or sewer 
service which create exceptions to the general service policies.  The Council has also adopted service 
recommendations in local area master plans which create exceptions to the general service policies.

1. Master Plan Recommended Exceptions ­­ The preceding sections discussing general water 
and sewer service policies noted that local area master plans may recommend exceptions to those general 
service policies.  In order to implement specific development and land use strategies, a master plan may 
recommend policies for community water and/or sewer service which can be either less restrictive or more 
restrictive than this Plan's general service policies.  When a master plan makes such a recommendation, it 
must also include an appropriate justification for the recommended departure from the general policies.  DEP 
staff coordinate closely with M­NCPPC staff with regard to the water and sewer service  recommendations 
developed in local area master plans.
These exceptional recommendations are, of necessity, scattered throughout the County’s various 
local area master plans.  The following table is intended to consolidate and summarize these 
recommendations into convenient format and to make them part of this Plan.  For additional information 
concerning these issues, please refer to the master plans cited below.

Table 1­T3: Special Master Plan Water and Sewer Service Recommendations

General Area Affected Master Plan Service Recommendation & Comments

Cloverly Master Plan (1997)  

Area zoned RE­2 bounded by Norwood  The master plan recommends against community sewerage 
Rd., New Hampshire Ave.(Rte. 650),  systems serving residential, commercial, or institutional 
Hampshire Greens, and Northwest  development except to relieve public health problems, or to 
Branch address other specific Water and Sewer Plan policies.

Area zoned RE­1 located within the  The master plan recommends that community sewer service may 
Upper Paint Branch Special Protection  be considered where logical and economical, and where the 
Area/Environmental Overlay Zone provision of community service provides an environmental benefit 
over development occurring using on­site septic systems.  This 
condition is usually evaluated as part of the subdivision plan 
review.

Damascus Master Plan (1985)*

RE­2C zoned areas The master plan recommends against the provision of community 
sewer service for much of the RE­2C zoned area around 
Damascus, regardless of whether that development is using the 
RE­2C cluster option.  Community sewer service is available 
under this zone only where included in the master plan's 
recommended service envelope.

Heritage Builders Property (The  The 1993 Damascus master plan amendment for recommended 
Plantations), Zoned RE­2 community sewer service for this site.  This followed the Council’s 
1990 conditional approval of a sewer category change request for 
this site, requiring just such a master plan recommendation.

Fairland Master Plan (1997)
 Table 1­T3: Special Master Plan Water and Sewer Service Recommendations

General Area Affected Master Plan Service Recommendation & Comments
Areas zoned  RE­1 located within the  The master plan recommends that community sewer service may 
Upper Paint Branch Special Protection  be considered where logical, economical, and environmentally 
Area/Environmental Overlay Zone acceptable.

Benderly Property zoned RC north of  The master plan recommends allowing the provision of 
Sandy Spring Rd. (Rte. 198), east of  community sewer service to the portion of Parcel P195 located 
Columbia Pk. (U.S. 29), and west of the  between existing and proposed Columbia Pike alignments. The 
proposed U.S. 29 realignment. approval of such service will depend on the approval of an 
appropriate special exception use for the site.

Olney Master Plan (1980)*

Southeast Quadrant bounded by  The master plan recommends considering community sewer 
Georgia Ave. (Rte. 97), Norbeck Rd.  service in this area for properties which satisfy the following:
(Rte. 28), Norwood Rd., Dr. Bird Rd.,   Rezoned from RE­2 to either Rural Cluster (RC) or Low­
Olney ­ Sandy Spring Rd. (Rte. 108),  Density Rural Cluster (LDRC); and 
and Old Baltimore Rd.   Development must occur using the RC or LDRC cluster 
development option.

Potomac Subregion  Master Plan (2002)

Piney Branch Watershed
The provision of community sewer service within this watershed 
is regulated by the Piney Branch Restricted Sewer Access Policy 
(see Section II.E.12.b. for specific policy requirements).  This 
policy was amended in 2002 in accordance with the 
recommendations in the updated 2002 master plan.

Glen Hills Neighborhoods (as defined in  The master plan recommends that only documented public health 
the 2002 master plan.) problems shall be justification for the approval of sewer service 
area category changes within this area, pending the completion 
of an area­wide sanitary survey by DPS and DEP.  

Properties zoned RE­1 or RE­2 at the  The master plan recommends that these properties may be 
periphery of the master plan's  considered for community sewer service on a case­by­case 
recommended community sewer service  basis.  
envelope

Darnestown Triangle: R­200 zoned area  The master plan recommends against the provision of community 
bounded by Darnestown Rd. (Rte. 28),  sewer service in this area, except to relieve public health 
Jones Ln., and Turkey Foot Rd. problems or to provide single sewer hookups to properties which 
satisfy the "Abutting Mains" policies (See Section II.E.3.).

Upper Rock Creek Watershed Master Plan (1985)*

Properties zoned RE­1 and RE­2 north  The master plan recommends that community sewer service may 
of and adjacent to Muncaster Mill Rd.  be considered on a case­by­case basis for properties which 
(Rte. 115). satisfy the following conditions:
 sewer service requires only a direct connection to existing 
 Table 1­T3: Special Master Plan Water and Sewer Service Recommendations

General Area Affected Master Plan Service Recommendation & Comments
mains along Muncaster Mill Rd., without the need for new 
sewer main extensions;
 sewer service requires only the use of gravity connections 
and hookups (no pumping systems are permitted); and
 sewer service will support development which will not result 
in environmental degradation of Rock Creek.
* These master plans are currently under or are soon scheduled for revision.  These revisions may affect 
the exceptional water/sewer service recommendations provided in this table.  DEP will post 
amendments to this table in the water and sewer section of its website at www.askdep.com.

2. Community Service to Relieve Public Health Problems ­­ Community water and/or sewer 
service may be extended to existing structures to alleviate or eliminate existing or anticipated public health 
problems, upon certification of such by the Director of the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) or his or 
her designee.  DEP, in coordination with WSSC, shall evaluate whether the provision of community service is 
reasonable.  If appropriate, DEP will direct WSSC to expedite the provision of community water and/or sewer 
service either by a connection to existing mains or by the extension of new mains in order to relieve the 
public health problem.  Under these circumstances, community service will be provided regardless of the 
existing service area category, and WSSC need not wait for a service area change approval in order to plan, 
design, or implement the service.  DEP may act to approve related service area changes through the 
administrative delegation process, Section V.F.2.a.: Public Health Problems.  In such cases, community 
service will generally be limited to a single water and/or sewer hookup for existing properties.  The provision 
of community service under this policy shall not be used as justification for the connection of intervening or 
nearby lots or parcels if they would not otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.  In addition, 
DEP will coordinate with DPS to identify, as necessary, larger­scale, chronic public health problem areas and 
to recommend solutions for those problems in this plan.  A decision to extend community service will depend 
on the number of properties affected, the feasibility of service, and the viability of alternative relief methods.
3. Community Service for Properties Abutting Existing Mains ­­ Under specific and limited 
circumstances, community water and or sewer service may be provided to properties which abut an existing 
or approved water and/or sewer main.  The provision of community service requires that the property, or a 
structure on the property must have been established prior to the extension of the abutting main.  A 
residence, business, or institution (church, school, etc.) qualifies as an existing structure; a barn, garage, or 
other type of outbuilding does not qualify.  The provisions of this policy do not include community service for 
private institutional facilities (PIFs), which must be addressed through the PIF policy (see Section II.E.4.).

Community service must be technically feasible from the abutting main.  Major water and sewer 
transmission mains and sewer force mains cannot support individual service connections and hookups, and 
therefore do not qualify abutting properties for community service under this policy.
 This policy may be used in cases where a property is not otherwise eligible for such service under 
the general policies of this Plan.  Under this policy, the provision of community service is allowed under the 
following circumstances: 

a. Single Hookups Only ­­ A single water and/or sewer hookup only is allowed for an 
individual property or for a structure which abuts an existing or approved water and/or sewer main.  The 
subject property or structure must predate the abutting main.  A change in the property configuration due to 
the dedication of land for a public use such as a road right­of­way or park land shall not invalidate this 
allowed single hookup.  Neither shall an exchange of land between adjacent, qualifying properties invalidate 
this allowed hookup, provided the overall number of qualifying lots–and therefore allowed hookups–remains 
the same.  DEP may grant approval for this single hookup under the administrative delegation policies 
included in this chapter  (Section V.F.2.b.: Properties Abutting Existing Mains).

DEP may direct WSSC to provide an allowed single, residential water and/or sewer hookup upon 
1) staff confirmation that the property qualifies for service under this policy, and 2) DEP's receipt of a 
category change request for the property.   Only in such cases may DEP approve service from an abutting 
main in advance of granting the actual service area category approval.  Commercial and institutional uses 
must first receive the required service area change.

b. Single Hookups for Residual Properties ­­ The allowed single­hookup may be assigned to 
an existing or proposed remainder or residual of a property provided that the following conditions are 
satisfied:

i. the original property would have qualified for a single hookup under Section II.E.3.a. 
above, and the residual site still abuts the existing main; and

ii. the allowed hookup has not been used elsewhere on the property; community service 
provided elsewhere on the subject property consistent with both Water and Sewer Plan policies and master 
plan recommendations shall not be considered to have used this one allowed hookup.

DEP may grant approval for this single hookup under the administrative delegation policies 
included in this chapter (Section V.F.2.b.: Properties Abutting Existing Mains) provided that:

 all of the residual properties involved are still under common ownership, or

 none of the other residual properties from the original abutting property could qualify 
under this policy for the allowed hookup because they do not abut the subject water or 
sewer main.

In cases where the property receiving water and/or sewer hookup is part of a pending 
subdivision plan, DEP will condition the final category change approval on approval of the subdivision plan 
which specifies the lot receiving the allowed water and/or sewer hookup.  DEP shall refer cases where the 
residual qualifying properties are under different ownership to the County Council.  DEP shall make every 
reasonable attempt to notify the owners of those qualifying properties of the pending category change 
request amendment and of the Council’s hearing for that amendment.

c. Single Hookups for Combined Properties – A single allowed water and/or sewer service 
hookup for a qualifying property may be also applied to additional contiguous, commonly­owned properties if 
those properties are subdivided into a single qualifying property.  Only one single water and/or sewer hookup 
for the entirety of the combined properties shall be approved in such cases, so that the provision of 
community service does not promote the further subdivision of additional lots.  DEP will condition the final 
category change approval on approval of the subdivision plan combining the properties.  DEP may grant 
approval for this single hookup under the administrative delegation policies included in this chapter  (Section 
V.F.2.b.: Properties Abutting Existing Mains).

d. Multiple Sewer Hookups ­­ In order to protect and preserve sensitive environmental 
features on the site (e.g. stands of trees/forest, wetlands, etc.) that would be potentially harmed by the 
installation of septic systems, while also limiting the effects of sewer­supported development, community 
sewer service may be provided to a property abutting an existing sewer main provided all the following 
conditions are satisfied:

i. The site would qualify for a single sewer hookup under section 3.a. above;

ii. The site contains sensitive environmental features that DEP, in consultation with M­
NCPPC, determines would be preserved to a greater extent by the provision of community sewer service 
rather than the construction of septic systems;

iii. The number of sewer hookups allowed shall not exceed the number of lots which could 
have been approved for septic systems, based on a review of the site conditions (soils, groundwater 
conditions, local history, etc.) by DEP in consultation with DPS and M­NCPPC, and assuming that at least 
one sewer hookup is allowed; 

iv. That all the proposed sewer hookups can be provided from the abutting mains: no 
on­site main extensions are required, no off­site main extensions or hookups (special connections) are 
required, and no rights­of­way from other properties are required.

This policy cannot be applied in cases where the County Council has expressly restricted access to 
the abutting main as specified under the Limited Access Water and Sewer Mains policy (see Section III.A.2.). 
The provision of community service under this policy shall not be used as justification for the connection of 
intervening or nearby lots or parcels if they would not otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.

e. Abutting Mains Land Use Policy Issues – M­NCPPC staff and the Planning Board have 
raised concerns about the land use implications of the abutting mains policy, which can allow for the 
development of a property which would not have otherwise occurred without the provision of community 
service, especially community sewer service.  Of particular concern are commercial and institutional uses 
which may have substantially more imperviousness than a single residential use.  In this regard, the Board 
has recommended restrictions for this policy, including wastewater flow restrictions, with the intent that they 
function within this Plan as controls over commercial and institutional land uses.  However, this is at odds 
with efforts initiated by DEP over the past decade, and approved by the County Council, to remove land use 
control functions from the abutting mains policy, preferring to allow that control to occur more appropriately in 
the County’s zoning and subdivision regulations.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

The Council recommends that M­NCPPC and County agency staff pursue appropriate land 
use restrictions, such as imperviousness limits, in the zoning ordinance and/or subdivision 
regulations, rather than use wastewater flow or other restrictions in the abutting mains policy 
as a means of controlling land use.

4. Community Service for Private Institutional Facilities ­­ This Plan defines private institutional 
facilities (PIFs) as buildings constructed for an organization which qualifies for a federal tax exemption under 
the provisions of Section 501 of Title 26 of the United States Code (Internal Revenue Service).  The provision 
of community water and/or sewer service to such facilities shall be addressed on a case­by­case basis by the 
following policies:

a. Facilities Located Within the Community Service Envelopes ­­ For private institutional 
facilities located within the acknowledged water and/or sewer envelopes, service area category changes may 
be approved by DEP through the administrative delegation process (Section V.F.1.a.: Consistent with Existing 
Plans).  For a specific site, the acknowledged water and sewer service envelopes may differ due to the 
general water and sewer service policies (Section II.D.) included in this Plan .

b. Facilities Located Outside the Community Service Envelopes ­­ For existing or proposed 
PIF uses located outside the acknowledged water and/or sewer envelopes, the County Council shall consider 
requests for the provision of community service for PIF uses according to the following criteria:

i. Sites Abutting Existing Water and/or Sewer Mains – For cases where existing or 
approved water or sewer mains abut or will abut a property, service area category amendments may be 
approved for sites with an existing PIF use and for sites proposed for a new or relocating PIF use.  

ii. Sites Requiring New Water and/or Sewer Mains Extensions – For cases where the 
provision of community service for a PIF use requires new water and/or sewer mains, the following criteria 
shall apply:

 For existing PIF uses, service area category amendments may be approved for sites 
only where required water and/or sewer main extensions do not threaten to open 
undeveloped land to development contrary to the intent of the relevant local area master 
plan.

 For new or relocating PIF uses, service area category amendments may be approved for 
sites only where required water and/or sewer main extensions will abut only properties 
 which are otherwise eligible for community service under the general policies of this 
plan.

c. Main Extensions for PIF Uses ­­ Main extensions outside the acknowledged community 
service envelopes, where required, shall be designated "Limited Access" consistent with the Limited Access 
Water and Sewer Mains policy (see Section III.A.2).  Where community sewer service for a PIF use will be 
provided by low­pressure mains, those mains shall be dedicated only to that PIF use and generally not 
eligible for additional service connections.  The County and WSSC may make limited exceptions to this 
requirement to allow for the relief of failed septic systems, where such service is technically feasible.

PIF uses may receive service from limited access water or sewer mains where the Council has 
specifically approved access to those mains.  The provision of community service under this policy shall not 
be used as justification for the connection of intervening or nearby lots or parcels if they would not otherwise 
be entitled to connect to community systems.

Under its Systems Extension Permit (SEP) process, WSSC now requires that all commercial and 
institutional service applicants construct and pay for the community systems main  extensions needed to 
serve their projects.  In cases where more than one PIF use proposes to locate on a site requiring a pump 
and low­pressure main extension, WSSC requires that each institutional facility have a separate pump and 
pressure main system.  The County and WSSC shall not support the provision of community sewer service 
for a PIF use where that service will require a WSSC­owned and operated wastewater pumping station which 
does not also support community sewer service for other non­PIF uses consistent with the service policies of 
this Plan.

d. PIF Uses in Existing Residential Structures ­­ The Council may deny service area 
category amendments for PIF uses located outside the acknowledged water and/or sewer envelopes where 
main extensions are required for private institutional facilities seeking community service for existing 
residential structures.  This could result in the extension of community water and/or sewer service for 
structures which would not otherwise be eligible for such service, and which could return to residential use.

e. PIF Policy Directions – The Council originally adopted a Water and Sewer Plan service 
policy addressing PIF uses with three primary goals in mind:

 To continue to support, where the provision of community service is reasonable, the county’s 
private institutional facilities, which the Council recognized as having an important role in 
their communities and for their residents;

 To provide more objective and consistent criteria in evaluating PIF cases; and

 To limit the potential impact of water and sewer main extensions outside the community 
service envelopes to support PIF uses.
 The PIF policy has accomplished the preceding goals, at least to some extent.  However, it has 
also created unintended concerns, involving complex relationships between differing public policies and 
affecting private institutions needing space to locate and grow within an often fiercely competitive Real Estate 
market.  This makes less costly land, usually located outside of the community water and sewer service 
envelopes and zoned for lower­density development, more attractive to institutional uses.  Among the 
concerns which have come to the attention of both the County Council and County agency staff are the 
following:

 The policy has resulted in the clustering of PIF uses at the edge and outside of the 
acknowledged community water and/or sewer service envelopes.

 The policy has facilitated the siting of PIF uses on properties where the institutional use and 
its ancillary needs, especially parking, can create imperviousness far in excess of that 
normally resulting from residential uses, leaving little open space and creating water quality 
problems.

 The policy has facilitated the siting of PIF uses within the county’s RDT­zoned agricultural 
preserve areas.

 The policy has promoted speculative interest in sites because of their potential ability to 
satisfy the PIF policy requirements, not because a specific private institution has a need for 
that site.

 The policy does not provide guidance concerning institutional subdivisions, where two or 
more PIF uses subdivide and locate on an existing property approved for community service.

 The policy can not address issues beyond the scope of the Water and Sewer Plan, such as 
community compatibility, traffic congestion, and alternate facility uses.

DEP, other County agency, and County Council staff representatives have begun a review of the 
PIF policy, with particular attention to the preceding issues.  The PIF policy adopted in this Water and Sewer 
Plan contains changes from the original PIF policy which address some of these concerns.  Among these are 
restrictions preventing public support for community service to PIF uses where WSSC pumping facilities 
would be required, and policies requiring private institutions to act as the applicants for PIF­based service 
area change requests (see subsection c., above.)  However, further interagency work on the impact of PIF 
uses is needed not only in the context of the Water and Sewer Plan, but also in other County plans and 
policies.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation
The County cannot address all of the issues affecting private institutional uses only within 
the context of the Water and Sewer Plan.  Addressing these issues will involve considering 
changes to other aspects of the County’s land use planning, zoning and water quality 
protection processes.  The County will likely need to address these institutional uses in the 
context of its master plans, zoning and subdivision ordinances, and water quality 
 regulations.  M­NCPPC staff and the Planning Board are urged to pursue options for 
establishing imperviousness limits for institutional facilities locating in rural and rural estate 
zones.

5. Community Service for Public Facilities ­­ Public facilities are defined as government­owned 
buildings or facilities; this includes municipal, county, state, and federal governments.  Community water and 
sewer service may be provided to serve existing public facilities and to support the development of approved 
new public facilities, including those facilities which are located outside of the acknowledged community 
water and/or sewer service areas.  DEP may act to approve service area changes for public facilities through 
the administrative delegation process, Section V.F.1.c.: Public Facilities.  The provision of community service 
under this policy shall not be used as justification for the connection of intervening or nearby lots or parcels if 
they would not otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.

6. Community Service for Properties Affected by Public Improvements – Community water 
and/or sewer service may be approved for a property where public infrastructure improvements such as road 
construction will directly remove, damage, or otherwise adversely affect that property’s individual, on­site well 
or septic system.  DEP shall coordinate the review of these requests, as appropriate, with the County’s 
Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT).  DEP may act to approve service area changes for 
these properties through the administrative delegation process, Section V.F.1.c.: Public Facilities.  The 
provision of community service under this policy shall not be used as justification for the connection of 
intervening or nearby lots or parcels if they would not otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.

7. Community Service for Community Development Projects  ­­ Community water and sewer 
may be provided in support of community development projects which have previously been approved 
following a public hearing.  Such projects may include officially designated renewal and redevelopment 
areas, neighborhood and community improvement programs, projects approved for productivity housing, 
rural village programs, historic preservation projects, and housing subsidized by Federal, State or local 
government, upon the recommendation of the Director of the County Department of Housing and Community 
Affairs.  DEP may act to approve service area changes in these cases through the administrative delegation 
process, Section V.F.1.e.: Community Development.  The provision of community service under this policy 
shall not be used as justification for the connection of intervening or nearby lots or parcels if they would not 
otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.

8. Community Service for Transferable Development Right Receiving Areas ­­ Given the 
development densities proposed, the provision of community water and sewer service is generally required 
for areas zoned as transferable development right (TDR) receiving areas.  In cases where the base zoning of 
the property is not suitable for the provision of community water and/or sewer service (RE­1, RE­2, etc.), the 
provision of community service shall require Planning Board approval of a preliminary subdivision plan which 
uses the TDR­development option.  DEP may act to approve service area changes in these cases through 
the administrative delegation process, Section V.F.1.a.: Consistent with Existing Plans.  That policy includes 
an option for holding a joint public hearing for the service area change and the TDR­option preliminary plan. 
The provision of community service under this policy shall not be used as justification for the connection of 
intervening or nearby lots or parcels if they would not otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.
 9. Community Water Service for Child Lots ­­ Community water service may be provided to 
support the subdivision of lots for the children of the owners of qualifying properties.  Montgomery County’s 
zoning and subdivision regulations make special provisions for the creation of these lots which are generally 
located in the more rural areas of the county, primarily in the Rural Cluster, Rural and Rural Density Transfer 
Zones.  The size of the lots to be considered for service under this policy is intended to be in the range of 
those included in the water service for large lot provisions in Section II.D.1.: between 1 and 5 acres.  Approval 
of a service area change to allow community water service must be dependent on Planning Board approval 
of a preliminary plan for the proposed child lot.  In areas zoned RDT, where child lot cases are handled as 
minor subdivisions without the preparation of a preliminary plan; service area changes will depend on an M­
NCPPC notice to DEP that the subdivision plat is ready for Planning Board approval.  DEP may act to 
approve service area changes in these cases through the administrative delegation process, Section V.F.1.f.: 
Child Lots.

Water service in these cases is generally intended to be provided from abutting water mains, 
although water main extensions can be considered where those extensions are consistent with the 
requirements for large lot development, as previously cited.  The provision of community service under this 
policy shall not be used as justification for the connection of intervening or nearby lots or parcels if they would 
not otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.

10. Community Service Due to Individual On­Site Systems Regulations Changes ­­ Community 
water and/or sewer service, restricted to a single water and/or sewer hookup, may be provided to a parcel or 
a recorded lot that meets both of the following conditions:

a. The applicant must demonstrate that the lot was recorded by plat on the basis of successful 
sewage percolation or water supply tests, but due to change in regulation, the lot can no longer satisfy State 
and County regulations for individual, on­site systems; and

b. Community service can be provided in a cost­effective and environmentally­acceptable 
manner.

DEP may act to approve service area changes for public facilities through the administrative 
delegation process, Section V.F.1.d.: Individual Systems Regulations Changes.  The provision of community 
service under this policy shall not be used as justification for the connection of intervening or nearby lots or 
parcels if they would not otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.

11. Reverse Category Changes ­­ The County may approve “reverse” service area changes from 
categories 1, 3, or 4 to categories 5 or 6 in cases where development established using individual, on­site 
systems will be unlikely to need community service within the lifetime of the Plan.  Although DEP staff shall 
be primarily responsible for identifying areas eligible for reverse changes, individual property owners may 
also seek reverse category changes.  DEP may act on reverse service area category changes through the 
administrative delegation process (Section V.F.1.a.: Consistent with Existing Plans).  DEP may also act 
through the administrative process (Section V.F.3.a.) to “update” service area category 1 areas to category 3, 
to better identify those properties without immediate access to community service.
 This Plan recommends against changes from water and sewerage service area categories 1, 3, or 4 
to categories 5 or 6 strictly for the purpose of avoiding the assessment of front­foot benefit charges (see 
Section IV.A.2.b.).  Applications for assessment­based reverse category changes shall be addressed by the 
County Council.  Changes in WSSC's assessment procedures now allow for a hiatus on assessments for 
properties with functioning individual systems which abut mains authorized starting in 1995 regardless of 
their service area category.

12. Special and Restricted Community Service Areas ­­ In addition to the preceding policies, the 
County may also designate specific areas for or restrict specific areas from community water and/or sewer 
service in order to achieve specific development goals, to promote environmental protection, or to address 
other special concerns.  These areas are shown in Figure 1­F3 and are listed below:

a. Oaks Landfill Special Water Service Area ­­ The County approved the extension of 
community water service to the vicinity of the Oaks Landfill, located between Mt. Zion and Laytonsville, in 
1995.  The extension of community water service provides public water for approximately 155 existing eligible 
dwellings in the community surrounding the landfill site.  DEP investigated low­level groundwater 
contamination in the northwestern area of the Oaks Landfill starting in 1992.  While the level of contamination 
was less than the Maximum Contaminant Limits established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, it remained persistent.  Community water service is provided to this 
vicinity to relieve anxiety in the community and to avoid potential long­term costs due to an extensive 
domestic well
(map pending)
sampling program in the community.  The County's actions are in accordance with provisions of the 1983 
Oaks Landfill Mediated Agreement, an agreement between the County and the community near the landfill. 
The supply water system was completed in 1998.

The special water service area envelope, which encompasses parts of the Olney and Upper 
Rock Creek Planning Areas, includes the potential service area from the 1983 mediated agreement, plus 
other properties in the vicinity that can logically be served by the community water system.  The potential 
service area described in the agreement is based on the Oaks Landfill potential groundwater influence area, 
which is the "boundary that establishes the maximum potential water service area to be considered for an 
alternative water supply system," according to a consultant's 1981 hydrogeologic report of the landfill vicinity. 
Part of the special service area within the Olney Planning Area is zoned Rural Density Transfer (RDT), which 
is not normally recommended for community water service in this plan.  The provision of water service to 
these RDT­zoned areas does not establish a precedent for community water service for similarly­zoned 
properties outside of the special water service area.

Water service is provided to the Mt. Zion community at the intersection of Zion and Brookeville 
Roads, which is located partly within the landfill’s potential groundwater influence area.  Many of the homes 
in this community have substandard, hand­dug wells which will be relieved by the provision of community 
water service.  The County is also extending water service along Meredith Drive east of Muncaster Road 
where groundwater contamination unrelated to the Oaks Landfill affected homes using wells.

The solid waste disposal fund financed all of the capital costs for design and construction of the 
water mains, as well as the costs for connections to existing homes that elect this service.  Incurred costs 
include those for the construction of water mains, connections, and hookups; for plumbing repairs inside 
structures to assure adequate water pressure, for WSSC inspection fees, for domestic well abandonment, 
and  for payment of quarterly water bills.  New houses and other structures built after 1995 within the special 
water service area are also eligible for community water service.  However, they must connect to the 
community water system at their own cost and receive no County subsidy of quarterly water bills.  Homes 
along the eastern half of Meredith Drive will also receive no County water bill subsidy.

b. Piney Branch Restricted Sewer Service Area ­­ In 1991, the County Council established a 
policy to restrict the availability of community sewer service in the Piney Branch Watershed, which is 
designated as one of the county’s Special Protection Area watersheds.  Through the Piney Branch Sewer 
Restricted Access Policy, the Council sought to limit the growth of public sewer­dependent development 
within and near this environmentally­sensitive watershed, particularly within the areas of the watershed 
zoned for one­ and two­acre development.  The Council subsequently amended the policy in March 1997 
under CR 13­830 and again in October 2002 under CR 14­1481.  By these actions, the Council has 
specifically designated the Piney Branch Trunk Sewer and its tributary mains as Limited Access mains (see 
Section III.A.2.).

This restricted access policy was recently reexamined in the context of interrelated land use, 
zoning, and sewer service recommendations in the 2002 Potomac Subregion Master Plan; the following 
conditions reflect the policy changes recommended by the new master plan.  In order to be eligible for 
community sewer service, properties within the Piney Branch watershed must satisfy at least one of the 
following conditions, i. through vi.:

i.  Properties designated as Sewer Stages I or II in the 1980 Potomac Subregion Master 
Plan;

ii.  Properties which the Piney Branch Trunk Sewer Right­of­Way either traverses or abuts, 
including properties adjacent to, and commonly owned with, these abutted or traversed properties as of 
December 3, 1991;

iii.  Properties with approval or conditional approval for sewer categories S­1 or S­3 as of 
December 3, 1991;

iv.  Properties with documented public health problems resulting from failed septic systems 
where the provision of public sewer service is logical, economical, and environmentally acceptable; or

v. Properties which abut sewer mains and which satisfy the policy requirements for Section 
II.E.3.a.: Community Service for Properties Abutting Existing Mains – Single Hookups Only.  Applicants shall 
not use the provision of a single sewer hookup to support subdivision or resubdivision of these properties into 
more than one lot.  (This condition does not restrict sewer service provided to properties satisfying condition 
ii., preceding.)

vi. The properties zoned RE­2C located in the southeast corner of the intersection of 
Boswell Lane  and Piney Meetinghouse Road which develop using the cluster method.

All other properties within the Piney Branch watershed are restricted from community sewer 
service, whether from the Piney Branch sewerage system or from other adjacent sewerage systems.

c. Riverwood Drive Restricted Sewer Service Area ­­ In March 1998 under CR 13­1205,  the 
County Council approved the extension of community sewer service to properties located along Riverwood 
Drive south of River Road in Potomac.  In approving this service, the Council restricted the number of sewer 
hookups allowed for the Kitchen Property  located at the southern end of the street, and further restricted the 
sewer main extension from serving properties in nearby neighborhoods in order to limit the extension of 
sewer service in the areas zoned for two­acre development south of River Road.  Except where community 
service is required to relieve public health problems, the Riverwood Drive sewer main, and potential future 
extensions from that main, are restricted from serving the following subdivisions: Potomac Manors, Fox 
Meadow, and Carr’s Addition.

d. Redland Park (Sheffield) Special Sewer Service Area ­­ In 1998, the County Council 
approved the provision of community sewer service for this site zoned for one­acre density development in 
order to facilitate a residential cluster subdivision plan.  The site, marketed as Sheffield, is located along 
Airpark Road east of Woodfield Road (Route 124) in the Upper Rock Creek Watershed.  The Council granted 
this approval as a limited exception to the general sewer service recommendations of the 1985 Upper Rock 
Creek Master Plan which did not anticipate RE­1 cluster development in this area.  The developer proposed 
a sewer­dependent, cluster plan for the site as a solution for providing necessary improvements to Airpark 
Road during the review of the original non­cluster, septic­based subdivision plan.

In allowing the increased development density made possible by the cluster­option development 
plan, the Council specified that sewer service would depend on the approval of a subdivision plan which 
provided water quality protection for the Rock Creek Watershed equivalent to, or better than, that which 
would have been required to implement the previously­approved, non­cluster plan.  The Council further 
specified that the provision of sewer service to this project does not set a precedent for other properties in 
either the Upper Rock Creek Master Plan or any other master planning area.  There shall be no additional 
changes to the sewer categories for RE­1 and RE­2 zoned properties in the Upper Rock Creek Master Plan 
other than those which are addressed by specific Water and Sewer Plan policies for cases such as single 
hookups from abutting mains, public health problems, and private institutional facilities.  In order to avoid the 
effects of sewer main construction along Rock Creek and its tributaries, Redland Park is served by a 
developer­financed wastewater pumping station and force main which will convey sewage flows to the Great 
Seneca Creek sewerage system west of Route 124. 

e. Jonesville and Jerusalem Special Sewer Service Area – The County approved the 
provision of community sewer service to these two neighborhoods to relieve public health problems 
associated with failing septic systems.  The special service area is restricted to the areas zoned RMH­200. 
Under a 1984 agreement with the Town of Poolesville, located adjacent to the south, WSSC has an allocation 
of 20,000 gallons per day (gpd) treatment for this service area at the Town’s wastewater treatment plant. 
Due to topographic constraints, properties in much of the service area require the use of grinder pumps and 
low­pressure sewer mains to receive service.  The provision of community sewer service to these 
communities has allowed for the relief of numerous failed septic systems and for the ongoing renovation and 
replacement of substandard housing stock.  Some limited subdivision of existing parcels has also occurred in 
these communities using sewer service.  Community service in the Jonesville/Jerusalem area does not 
include community water service, either from WSSC or from Poolesville; these areas depend on individual 
wells.

DEP’s recent analysis of the WSSC’s flow monitoring of the Jonesville/Jerusalem system showed 
that existing and committed flows, combined with anticipated flows (accounting for a single connection for 
each of the remaining, existing houses and vacant properties in the service area), will use 90­ to 93­percent 
of the allotted 20,000 gpd treatment capacity.  This Plan must insure that adequate capacity in the negotiated 
WSSC allocation remains to address potential public health problems, as it is unlikely that the Town will have 
additional sewage treatment capacity available for WSSC in the future.  Therefore, community sewer service 
will support existing development and the limited development of existing, vacant properties in the special 
service area; but will not support further multiple­lot subdivision of existing properties.  WSSC shall provide 
new community sewer service in the Jonesville/ Jerusalem service area only under circumstances which, as 
of October 2001, satisfy one of the following conditions:

 A single permitted sewer connection previously approved by the WSSC (this condition may 
allow for more than one connection for an existing property);
 A single sewer connection for an existing house or its replacement; or
 A single sewer connection for an existing, vacant property.
 f. Hyattstown Special Sewer Service Area – The County approved the provision of 
community sewer service to the Hyattstown area in 1994, as part of the Clarksburg Master Plan.  Sewer 
service was needed to relieve chronic, ongoing septic problems in the community, some of which had 
required condemnation of specific properties.  In order to provide this service, WSSC constructed the 
Hyattstown Wastewater Treatment Plant near the intersection of Frederick Road (Rte. 355) and Old Hundred 
Road (Rte. 109).  The provision of community sewer service in this area is restricted to the Hyattstown 
Historic District, with only one allowed exception.  The County Council subsequently approved the provision 
of community sewer service to the Hyatt Center commercial site, located adjacent to and north of the historic 
district, partially within Frederick County.  This action addressed public health problems resulting from the 
failure of the center’s septic system, which had the potential to affect potable water wells in Hyattstown.

g. Laytonsville Restricted Water Service Area – In considering the possible extension of 
community water service to the Town of Laytonsville, the County Council expressed strong concerns about 
the potential annexation and development demand created by such service, particularly with regard to 
properties zoned for agricultural preservation adjacent to the town.  In May 2001 under CR 14­857, the 
Council acted to permanently restrict the provision of community water service from any properties in the 
town currently zoned AG and from any properties adjacent to or near the town within the county zoned RDT. 
Although the Plan’s policies generally preclude community water service to properties zoned for one unit per 
25­acre density, the Council’s intent is to withhold providing community water service from these properties 
regardless of their future zoning if annexed into the town and rezoned.  The Council did allow for the 
provision of service to a portion of one AG­zoned property in the town occupied by a commercial horticultural 
nursery. 

13.  Pending Capital Projects ­­ The provision of community service to an area or to a particular 
site may require capital water and/or sewer projects not included in the current capital program or otherwise 
identified and endorsed by this Plan.  In considering individual water/sewer service area change requests, 
DEP will generally address such cases using one of the following alternatives.

a. Conditional Approvals – Map amendments may be initially approved for categories 
W­4/S­4 or W­5/S­5, with conditional approval for categories W­3/S­3.  Final advancement to categories 
W­3/S­3 by the Director of DEP (see Section III.A.2., Conditional Category Changes) will depend on inclusion 
of the capital projects in the Water and Sewer Plan, either through WSSC's approved capital program, by a 
Council­approved Plan text amendment which identifies and adopts the required projects, or by other 
Council­approved actions.  The conditional approval may also require that funding of the required capital 
projects be included within a specified time frame in the six­year capital program (e.g. full funding within the 
first four years of the CIP).  These actions signal WSSC that the County endorses the category 4 or 5 area 
for community service and that the necessary capital project planning should begin; DEP may also provide 
formal notification that WSSC needs to include the required capital projects in the upcoming CIP budget.

b. Direct Approval with Capital Project Dependency – Alternatively, map amendments may 
also be granted for categories W­3/S­3 in cases where WSSC has advised that the review and development 
of the required capital projects would best be addressed by a dependency on those projects through the 
water and/or sewer systems extension permit (SEP) process.  The approval of categories W­3/S­3 allows the 
development project to proceed through M­NCPPC subdivision plan review and approval and on to WSSC for 
approval.  WSSC requires the water/sewer authorization to depend on the approval and/or construction of the 
required capital projects, which cannot proceed until the County Council has approved the appropriate 
funding through the WSSC CIP.

c. Capital Projects and Master Plan Staging – In addition, the need for capital water and/or 
sewer projects can factor into the staging of development as recommended in a local area master plan. 
Comprehensive water/sewer map amendments based on master plan staging recommendations may initially 
assign service area categories 4, 5, or 6 to areas intended for future community service.  Staging triggers 
keyed in part to the status of capital water and/or projects will direct when, and under what circumstances, 
these areas can advance to category 3, allowing them to proceed to develop.  The County and WSSC 
coordinate the inclusion of the required capital projects at the appropriate time in the WSSC CIP.

14. Community Service Errors – On a few occasions, WSSC has mistakenly connected community 
service to properties designated as service area categories 4, 5, or 6, inconsistent with the policies in this 
Plan.  Most often these situations involve cases where existing mains abut and can provide service to the 
subject property without the need for new main extensions.  The County shall not revoke or suspend service 
to properties actually receiving community service provided in error.  However, DEP may, depending on the 
circumstances of individual cases, direct WSSC to suspend the connection and/or plumbing permitting 
process for such sites prior to the actual provision of service.  The provision of community service in error 
shall not be used as justification for the connection of intervening or nearby lots or parcels if they would not 
otherwise be entitled to connect to community systems.

III.  GENERAL POLICIES FOR WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS FACILITIES

The preceding policy sections of Chapter 1 generally address the conditions under which the County 
determines by what means a particular area of the county, or a specific property, receive water and sewer 
service.  The following sections address policies with regard to the actual community or individual water 
supply and sewerage systems which provide that service, including facility sites, water and sewer mains, 
pumping systems, storage facilities, and on­site systems.

A.  Community Systems Facilities ­­ The following policies are generally related to the provision of 
community water and sewer service by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.  Policies specific to 
the community systems for the City of Rockville and the Town of Poolesville are addressed in the sections of 
Chapters 3 and 4 relevant to those communities.

1.  Advance Acquisition of WSSC Sites and Buffer Planting ­­ WSSC should proceed with 
planning the location of future facilities at the earliest opportunity following County approval of capital 
projects, including  public outreach and community involvement from the impacted area.  These facilities 
include sites for treatment plants, pump stations, storage tanks and rights­of­way for water and sewer lines. 
Advance acquisition of necessary sites is encouraged, through the CIP process, in areas that development 
potential  and/or siting are identified as significant to appropriate facility planning.  When WSSC acquires 
sites which need buffering by landscaping from either present or future development, WSSC will develop a 
landscaping plan, including a public outreach effort to encourage the involvement of the impacted 
community.

2.  Limited Access Water and Sewer Mains ­ In order to satisfy the goals and requirements of this 
Plan, water and sewer mains may need to traverse or provide community service to areas of the county not 
usually eligible for community water and/or sewer service.  Those mains are referred to in this Plan and in 
Plan amendments as limited access mains.   The properties which these limited access mains traverse or 
abut shall not be eligible for community service except where they would qualify for community service under 
the specific provisions of the community water and sewer service policies (Section II.E.).  The policies 
detailed in this Plan rely on development density, implemented through zoning, as a primary criterion for 
determining areas appropriate for the provision of community water and sewer service.  The proximity of 
existing water and/or sewer mains to a particular property is therefore not the sole factor considered in 
determining eligibility for the provision of community water and/or sewer service.

Water and sewer mains may also be specially designated by the County Council as limited access 
where they traverse areas of the county normally eligible for community service under the general policies of 
this plan, but where such service is limited or restricted by an action of the Council.  By an amendment to this 
plan, the Council shall specify under what conditions community service may be provided from, or extended 
from, the limited access main.  The following water and sewer mains have been specially designated as 
limited access mains by the County Council:

 Piney Branch Trunk Sewer and Tributary Mains ­­ see Section II.E.12.b.
 Riverwood Drive Sewer Extension ­­ see Section II.E.12.c.
 Proposed Laytonsville Water Main Extension – see Section II.E.12.g.
 Jonesville and Jerusalem Sewer Mains – see Section II.E.12.e.

3.  Capital Projects ­­ The provision of community service to an area or to a particular site may 
require capital water and/or sewer projects not included in the current capital program or otherwise identified 
and endorsed by this Plan.  The need for capital water and/or projects may factor into the staging of 
development as recommended in a local area master plan.  Comprehensive water/sewer map amendments 
based on master plan staging recommendations may initially assign service area categories 4, 5, or 6 to 
areas intended for future community service.  Staging triggers keyed in part to the status of capital water 
and/or projects will direct when, and under what circumstances, these areas can advance to category 3, 
allowing them to receive community service.    DEP coordinates the inclusion of those required capital 
projects in the WSSC annual CIP consistent with the goals and policies of this Water and Sewer Plan. 
WSSC requires the inclusion of capital­sized water and sewer main in the CIP only when their length 
exceeds 2,000 feet.

4.  Dry Community Systems ­­ This Plan requires that developers install dry community water 
supply and sewerage systems for projects where the County intends to provide community water and/or 
sewer service, but where community systems are not currently adequate or available (Section II.B.4.).  Water 
and/or sewer service is initially provided by interim individual systems in these areas.  Dry systems include 
the lateral mains in the streets of the subdivision only, and for each house or structure to be serviced, the 
house connection and the hookup, although the house o r structure shall not be connected to the hookup until 
community service is available.  The policies and permits for such interim individual systems require that 
structures using such systems connect to community systems within one year of the time that community 
service becomes available.  DEP may require developers to escrow funds to pay the costs for final 
connections to the community system when it becomes available, including reasonable on­site plumbing and 
individual system abandonment costs, WSSC inspection fees, and systems development charges.

5.  Environmental Considerations for Community Systems Construction ­­ Consistent with the 
objectives of this plan  and to the greatest extent reasonable, the planning and construction of community 
water supply and sewerage systems must be accomplished with the goal of protecting and mitigating 
potential damage to the environmental resources of the County.  Community water and sewerage systems 
construction has the potential to disturb, damage or fragment streams and stream valleys, wetlands, steeply­
sloped areas, parks and woodlands, and historical and archeological sites.  Wherever possible and 
reasonable, such disturbances should be avoided or mitigated by the use of alternate mains alignments, 
extra­depth or extra­shallow mains, contour mains, and other appropriate measures.  Stream and wetlands 
crossings, intrusion into stream and wetland buffers, and alignments through forested areas should be 
avoided wherever possible and minimized where unavoidable.  State laws restrict construction across and 
adjacent to streams within State­designated Use III and IV watersheds from seasons of the year which are 
critical for maintaining water quality and specific aquatic species.  Further environmental guidelines and 
policies are likely to result from the County's County­Wide Stream Protection Strategy Report.

6. Facility Planning – WSSC performs a comprehensive study, called a facility plan, for each 
major water and/or sewer project to balance the technical components of engineering and economic factors 
with environmental issues and public concerns about the design and construction of the project.  The study 
process identifies alternative approaches and their impacts, obtains technical information about alternatives, 
and determines measures to minimize or mitigate community and environmental impacts.  A facility plan 
determines ways to meet system demands with sufficient lead time in order to avoid a reduced level of 
service to customers, and to gather and incorporate public input into the technical work.   All facility plans 
have three basic common elements or phases; these include:

 Project initiation and organization
 Development of a draft facility plan
 Review, approvals, and implementation

Prior to project initiation and organization, WSSC obtains, through the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) 
process, funding approval from the Counties for any facility planning project requiring a significant 
expenditure or perceived as potentially controversial.  Alternately, WSSC will require developers who will 
construct capital facilities as part of their projects to initiate and finance the facility plan process.  A recent 
example of this process is the facility planning for capital projects in the Clarksburg Triangle area.  WSSC 
sees this developer­financed process becoming more common.

a.  WSSC and Interagency Coordination – A WSSC planning manager produces a preliminary 
scope of work, conducts the consultant selection process; and, once selected, oversees the consultant's 
work.  The WSSC planning manager organizes a planning team and works with the team to achieve 
consensus of the draft Facility Plan.  The planning team consists of a WSSC project team, the interagency 
Policy Review Group (PRG), and the technical consultant.

The project team typically consists of WSSC staff who provide technical and/or functional 
support to the project.  The PRG consists of staff from WSSC, County Council, County Executive, M­
NCPPC, and technical personnel.  The PRG meets to identify and provide guidance on areas of concern, as 
well as public policy issues affecting the decision­making process.  The County Council staff helps maintain 
communication with Council members.  The County Executive, represented by DEP, helps to ensure the 
project's consistency with the County's adopted policies contained in the Water and Sewer Plan and 
coordinates implementation of other development and infrastructure.  DEP's role also is to coordinate issues 
that arise with other departments of the County government as needed.  M­NCPPC provides demographic, 
land use, environmental planning, park property impact assessment, and zoning data.  These ensure that 
WSSC projects use consistent and updated development projections; appropriate park impact cost factors; 
and adopted land use documents.  A Memorandum of Understanding between WSSC and M­NCPPC 
establishes the procedures and requirements for the review and approval of WSSC projects which have 
potential impacts to parklands managed by M­NCPPC in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties.  The 
project consultant gathers data to address technical issues defined in the scope of work and develops 
alternatives.  Alternatives must meet specified public health standards and regulatory requirements, and take 
into account environmental, engineering, and economic considerations, together with community impacts. 
WSSC’s coordination with local, state, and federal agencies, and its public outreach program are part of the 
development of a draft facility plan.

b. Public Outreach Program – WSSC includes community outreach efforts throughout the 
facility planning process, with the goals of providing public information, encouraging community 
understanding, acquiring confidence and support from elected officials and the community in its planning 
process, and recommending alternatives.  In its outreach program, WSSC uses meetings (citizen advisory 
committees), publications (brochures and newsletters), formal notices (newspaper display ads), and visual 
aids (static displays, slide shows, and videos).  The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is a group of 
interested involved citizens who provide advice from the community's point of view and concerns on a 
project. The CAC reviews and provides input on screening criteria, project alternatives, community outreach 
materials, and the draft Facility Plan.  Members of the CAC include homeowners' and civic associations, 
environmental groups, and interested citizens whose participation is solicited by WSSC early in the facility 
planning process.  Public officials, including DEP staff, often participate along with WSSC staff in this 
program.

The public outreach process also includes the mandatory referral of WSSC facility plans to the 
Montgomery County Planning Board as required by State law.  In this “mandatory referral” process, the 
Board holds an independent public hearing on the project, and provides official, non­binding comments to 
WSSC, which incorporate specific land use and policy concerns along with appropriate community concerns 
presented as testimony.

The public outreach program is intended to improve WSSC’s responsiveness and sensitivity to 
community concerns.  While the program seeks community support for addressing public health and growth 
management needs, that support is pursued with the understanding that community involvement in the 
planning process does not always result in complete community acceptance of a proposed project.
 c. Implementation Through the Capital lmprovements Program – The implementation of a 
facility plan is initiated by the full funding of the project in the WSSC CIP.  Each facility plan receives a WSSC 
staff recommendation which staff transmit to the WSSC General Manager at the conclusion of the facility 
planning process.  The General Manager either endorses or modifies the staff recommendation and submits 
the project to the WSSC Commissioners.  The Commissioners in turn transmit the WSSC decision on the 
project to the Counties for inclusion in the CIP and the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage System 
Plans.

DEP prepares the necessary amendments to the County’s Water and Sewer Plan and includes 
any relevant comments on the CIP Project.  The County Executive reviews and if necessary modifies DEP’s 
recommendations then transmits the CIP amendments to the County Council.  The Council conducts a public 
hearing on the project recommendations as part of the Water and Sewer Plan and/or the CIP adoption 
processes.  The Montgomery County Planning Board may also review or comment on the facility plan as part 
of the Council’s public hearing process or as part of a designated mandatory referral process.

A plan’s adoption in the WSSC CIP by the two County Councils completes the plan adoption 
process.  The CIP provides a proposed design and construction schedule for projects WSSC expects to 
implement within the six year planning period of the CIP.  The adopted CIP schedule also identifies the 
necessary funding sources for the project.

B.  Individual and Multi­Use On­Site Systems ­­ These sanitary systems are primarily groundwater 
wells and septic disposal systems.  Much of the policy discussion concerning individual on­site systems and 
under what conditions they are appropriate to support development is included in prior sections of this 
chapter. In cases where a State Water Appropriation and Use Permit issued by MDE is required to establish 
a well or wastewater disposal system, DEP is responsible for the County’s approval of applications for those 
permits.  The following sections address specific types of on­site systems with special policy considerations.

1.  General Conditions for Interim Individual Systems ­­ Interim individual systems, wells and 
septic systems, provide water and/or sewer service in areas where community service is intended to be 
provided, but where existing community systems are either not adequate, not available, or not programmed 
to be provided within two years to six years.
  
a.  Such interim systems shall be determined by the County's DPS to be adequate, safe, and in 
compliance with State and local regulations, including COMAR 26.03.01, 26.03.05, and 26.04.02 ­ .04, and 
County Executive Regulation 28­93AM,”On­Site Water Systems and On­Site Sewage Disposal Systems in 
Montgomery County”;

b.  Permits for such interim systems shall bear a notice regarding the interim nature of the permit 
and stating that connection to a community system shall be made within one year after such system 
becomes available, and that the construction of such interim systems shall in no way impede or restrict the 
extension of community sewerage and water systems or create a public health hazard or nuisance in the 
process; and
 c.  Provisions shall be made to locate the individual systems so as to permit a future connection 
to the community system in the most economical and convenient manner.

2.  General Policies for Multi­Use Systems ­­ All multi­use systems in the County, as defined under 
Chapter 1, Section I.E., shall be approved as formal map and text amendments to this plan.  Multi­use 
systems will be identified in the Plan text in Chapters 3 and 4, and on the water and sewer category and 
systems maps.  The County has adopted a minimum peak flow requirement for multi­use systems of 1,500 
gallons per day (gpd)., which is more stringent than the State's requirement of 5,000 gpd.  This lower flow 
was adopted in order to give the County better information on the location of on­site systems with capacities 
in excess of those required for strictly residential uses.  This will help the County identify areas where multi­
use systems together may create cumulative impacts on ground and surface waters which would be difficult 
to evaluate on a case­by­case basis.  The identification of these systems in the plan also allows for a more 
comprehensive review of proposals for multi­use systems which are typically located in areas where the 
provision of community service is not anticipated.

Multi­use systems are generally provided for commercial, public, or private institutional uses in areas 
not intended to receive community water and sewer service.  The provision of such systems shall be 
consistent with the protection of surface and ground waters and shall require the concurrence of the DPS.  In 
order to ensure this protection, DEP may, upon consultation with the DPS, require hydrogeologic studies of 
the potential effects of the proposed systems on ground and surface water resources.

3.  Non­Potable On­Site Water Supply Systems ­­ These well water systems generally provide a 
water supply for irrigation, watering farm animals, and other uses not related to human consumption.  These 
wells can be established in areas of the county designated as categories W­5 and W­6 with the appropriate 
permits from DPS and MDE.  Requests for non­potable wells in areas served or intended to be served by 
community water supply systems (categories W­1 through W­4) are addressed by DEP on a case­by­case 
basis through its review and sign­off on State Water Appropriation and Use Permit applications.

IV.  WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS FINANCING

The following sections provide a summary of financing methods for the three community water supply and 
sewerage systems serving Montgomery County: the WSSD, the City of Rockville, and the Town of 
Poolesville. 
 
A. Washington Suburban Sanitary District ­­ The planning, design, land acquisition, and construction 
of water supply and sewerage system infrastructure is financed by two separate programs in the WSSD: the 
Major Systems and General Construction Programs.

1.  Major Facilities Program ­­ The WSSC major facilities program includes projects adopted in the 
WSSC CIP: water and sewage treatment plants, pumping stations, storage facilities, and program size 
mains.  Program size mains are water mains 16 inches in diameter and larger and sewer mains 15 inches in 
diameter and larger.  WSSC finances these projects through water supply and sewage disposal bonds, 
developer contributions, systems development charges (SDC), grant funds, and other less significant 
sources. Bonds to construct program­size facilities are amortized through revenues generated primarily by 
basic water and sewer user charges.  Rate­supported debt is used to fund capital projects providing general 
system and environmental regulation­related improvements.  Capital projects which support only new system 
growth are constructed through the System Extension Permit (SEP) process with either SDC funds or solely 
financed under Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) so that current water and sewer user rates do not 
support new growth.  This also applies to capital projects which only in part support new growth to the extent 
that WSSC determines.  During construction of major facilities, WSSC provides credit against SDC fees (in 
the amount of 50 percent of the estimated total construction fees) to the developer financing capital projects. 
Once the developer completes construction and WSSC performs a final audit, WSSC initiates quarterly 
reimbursements based on available SDC funds in the geographic area served by the facility.

In certain cases, WSSC may authorize a developer to not only construct, but to also maintain and 
operate, elements of the community system.  Most often, these are private, on­site, central wastewater 
pumping stations serving commercial development.  WSSC may also authorize the construction of private 
interim wastewater pumping stations to serve residential development pending the construction of 
permanent, WSSC­owned and ­operated facilities.  WSSC shall coordinate the approval of these private 
facilities with DEP prior to their authorization, especially where those facilities could appear, or have 
appeared, as projects in the WSSC CIP.

a. Water Consumption and Sewer Usage Charges ­­ These charges are both based on 
metered water consumption, with the rate charged per 1,000 gallons determined by the customer's Average 
Daily Consumption (ADC) during the billing period.  Under the conservation­oriented rate schedule, 
customers registering an ADC in the lower range of the schedule pay less per 1,000 gallons of total 
consumption than customers registering higher levels of ADC.  WSSC’s quarterly bills also include an 
account maintenance fee, based on the size of the service meter, covering the basic cost of maintaining a 
customer account.

WSSC uses revenue from  these sources to maintain and operate the water supply and 
sewerage systems and to pay the principal and interest on: 1) Water Supply Bonds which are issued to 
finance the planning, design, and construction of capital facilities: dams and reservoirs, filtration plants, water 
pumping stations, water storage facilities, and large supply pipelines (from water source to filtration plant and 
from plant to local distribution lines); and 2) Sewage Disposal Bonds, which are issued to finance the 
planning, design, and construction of capital facilities: trunk lines, sewage pumping stations and treatment 
facilities (including reimbursement of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority for any 
construction/improvement of the regional system used by the WSSC).  

WSSC reviews and establishes the water and sewer rates annually as part of the its operating 
and capital budget process.  The County Councils of both Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties then 
must review and approve these budgets.

b. Systems Development Charge (SDC) ­­ WSSC assess this charge to new customers within 
the WSSD to pay for capital improvements of the water and sewerage system to accommodate growth. 
Starting in July 1998, the Maryland General Assembly  approved an increase in the allowed SDC fees, 
changes to the SDC calculation, and changes to the criteria addressing who is required to pay the charge. 
WSSC exempts existing houses from the SDC requirement if both the house and the main providing service 
predate the establishment of the SDC in 1993.

Maryland has established a program to grant exemptions from the SDC for three types of 
development projects:

 biotechnology projects,
 elderly housing projects, and
 revitalization area projects.

Under this program, Montgomery County may authorize up to $500,000 in SDC exemptions 
annually; each individual development project considered is eligible for a maximum exemption of $50,000 per 
year.  The exemption program is administered by and additional information is available from the County's 
Department of Permitting Services (see Appendix B).

Maryland has also established a program to grant exemptions from SDC for affordable housing 
projects.  Customers requesting SDC exemptions for proposed construction of affordable housing units 
submit their requests to the County, which reviews their request to determine if the proposed building(s) 
meets the legislative criteria for a SDC exemption established in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 29. 
Once the County determines that the designated affordable housing units qualify for this waiver,  the County 
mails a written request to WSSC requesting the waiver for the applicant.  WSSC's issuance of a waiver is 
solely based on the County's assertion that the units meet the SDC exemption criteria.  

c. State Grants ­­  As part of the Chesapeake Bay Program, the State of Maryland  provides 
limited funding for nutrient removal at existing wastewater treatment plants.

Additional information on the funding of WSSC’s water and sewerage infrastructure is available from 
the WSSC Budget Group. 

2. Local Service Extension Programs ­­ These WSSC programs allow for the construction of 
smaller, non­CIP­sized water and sewer mains, primarily along streets adjacent to or abutting users’ 
properties.  Capital­sized water and sewer main extensions up to 2,000 feet in length are considered as 
“local service” extensions.  Water and sewer house connections are also constructed under this program. 
Funds for individual programs are provided primarily through general construction bonds and developer 
contributions.  For water and sewer mains constructed by WSSC, the general construction bonds are 
financed by front foot benefit assessment charges.  These assessment are levied annually for a period of 23 
years from the start of service on the County’s property tax bills to property owners connected to the 
community system.  Developer financing of new water and sewer mains is required under the System 
Extension Permit (SEP) process.

a. Developer Financing – Legislation approved by the Maryland General Assembly in 1998 
phased out the traditional front foot benefit assessment financing mechanism (see subsection b., below) for 
most service projects in the WSSD.  Applicants now must design, finance, and construct all new main 
extensions serving residential subdivisions of two or more homes, any commercial use, and any institutional 
facilities.  (Exceptions to this policy include service to individual homes or properties and to relieve health 
hazards.)  The applicant then dedicates the completed mains to WSSC for operation and maintenance. 
WSSC refers to this new system for providing non­program mains as the System Extension Permit (SEP) 
process.  Developers recoup their costs for new mains either by including the cost in the price of the house or 
building, or by levying their own private version of the front foot benefit assessment.

b. Front Foot Benefit Assessment ­­ This is an annual charge levied to finance local (non­
CIP) water and sewer transmission mains which pays for the principal and interest of General Construction 
Bonds issued by WSSC to construct these local water and sewer lines. Recent changes to WSSC’s 
extension financing regulations have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of projects which can be 
financed under this system.  Prior to 1999, most local development projects utilized the front foot assessment 
method; now only service to individual homes and public health problem relief cases may use the front foot 
assessment method of financing.  Applicants requesting main extensions to serve individual homes and to 
relieve public health hazards usually choose to finance those extensions through the general construction 
bond, or non­SEP program.  This is because the costs and responsibilities involved in constructing SEP 
projects (see the preceding subsection) usually exceed the resources available to individual property owners.

WSSC levies the front foot benefit assessment charge through County tax assessment bills for those 
qualifying properties abutting water and/or sewer lines.  By paying the annual assessment on their County 
Property Tax Bill, property owners contribute their share of the amortized capital expense of installing mains 
in the street to serve their properties.  Exceptions are made in the following cases:

 public properties such as schools, parks, libraries, and other government buildings;
 active agricultural properties not connected to WSSC's systems;
 properties ineligible for community water service by their water or sewer service area category*;
 properties with functioning potable water wells or septic systems*;
 properties with two or more units connecting to public service after 1998*.

* Under WSSC's current assessment policies.  Because these policies have changed over the past 
fifteen years, properties subject to older assessment policies pay front foot charges in these cases.

WSSC generally calculates the assessment charge on the basis of the actual length of frontage 
along the main, although WSSC policies allow for exceptions for a variety of situations including corner, 
oddly­shaped, and unusually small or large properties, and for properties with only partial frontage along a 
main.  Where a developer constructs water and sewer mains under the SEP program, WSSC does not levy 
assessment charges against the abutting properties.  WSSC currently defers, or places in hiatus, 
assessments on properties designated as service area categories 5 and 6, and on properties designated as 
categories 1 through 4 which use functioning wells and septic systems.  However, WSSC has modified its 
assessment policies over time and the current policy is not retroactive.  Varying assessment policies are 
generally keyed to when the abutting water or sewer main was constructed.  Current  information on 
assessment rates, policies and procedures is available from WSSC.
 The basic front foot benefit rate for water and/or sewer assessments is determined annually by 
computing water mains and/or sewer mains completed (and placed in service) during the year and 
apportioning this cost­­on the basis of each abutting property's front footage­­among the properties 
benefitted by the main’s construction.  The rates established each year apply uniformly to all assessable 
properties in a portion to be served by the new main.  Once set, the rates are not modified, unless the 
property use classification changes, and they remain in effect as an annual charge on the property tax bill 
during the life of the bonds issued to pay for the construction.  Bond issues of this type currently run 23 
years, although bond terms in past years have ranged from less than 20 years to more than 40 years.

The changes in WSSC's water and sewer main construction policies have resulted in sharply 
escalating the costs of main extensions financed through the non­SEP program.  Prior to 1999, most 
development projects used the general bond/front foot system.  Larger subdivision projects, where 
extensions were generally less expensive to construct per foot of main, tended to subsidize the smaller, more 
expensive extensions for individual homes.  Without that subsidy, the non­SEP program applicants now bear 
more of the true cost of these service extensions.  Applicants are finding that even relatively short service 
main extensions have become financially prohibitive.  This tends to force homeowners towards using 
individual, on­site systems in areas intended to utilize community service.  WSSC, together with Montgomery 
County and Prince Georges County staff, have formed an interagency Extension Cost Review Team to 
assess this concern and to develop recommendations by Fall 2003 addressing the problem.  

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

The extension of community water and sewer service must remain a reasonably affordable 
and competitive alternative to individual, on­site systems for individual property owners 
located within those areas of the county intended by this Plan for community sanitary 
service.  If needed, DEP will prepare Plan amendments to address the results of the work 
currently underway by the interagency Extension Cost Review Team, which are intended to 
address this issue.

c. Service Connection Fees ­­  These fees are paid with the property owner's application for a 
WSSC connection between the water and/or sewer main and the property line.  The fee amounts vary, 
depending on the size and type of connection.  Revenue from this source is used to pay the cost of laying 
connection lines from the WSSC's mains (usually in the street or in the public way) to the abutting property 
lines.  WSSC sets these fees based on the average cost of such connections throughout its service area. 
On­site water and sewer hookups, non­abutting (off­site) connections, and any on­site booster, ejector, or 
grinder pump systems are financed solely by the property owner or developer.  (Service connections were 
formerly referred to as “house connections.”)

Similar to the situation with non­SEP program main extensions, WSSC has instituted To assist 
residential property owners finance the escalated (non­subsidized) service connection fees, WSSC 
reinstituted the deferred payment option which allows (residential­only) owners to defer the cost of water 
and/or sewer service connections to their annual tax bill over a period of roughly 23 years.
 B. City of Rockville – The City of Rockville uses its Water and Sewer Funds to finance water supply 
and sewerage systems construction.  These funds provide for capital project expenditures through Capital 
Contribution Charges, bond financing and accumulated retained earnings.  The funds are also used to 
finance the operational costs of the water supply and sewerage systems.  Revenues to pay operational 
expenses are raised through user charges, which are generally based on metered water consumption.  The 
usage charge is billed monthly or quarterly to customers based on metered water consumption and is 
uniform throughout the RSD.  The user charge is reviewed annually as part of the Rockville operating and 
capital budget process.  The City makes payments to WSSC for treatment capacity at the Blue Plains 
WWTP, which WSSC in turn pays to WASA (District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority) for Rockville.  

  The Capital Contribution Charge is a charge to new development to buy into Rockville’s existing water 
and sewer infrastructure.  Other capital improvements, related to specific development projects, are designed 
and constructed by developers.  These improvements are installed through developer permits, issued by the 
Rockville Department of Public Works to individual developers.   Improvements to the City’s water filtration 
plant are financed, in part, through a State loan program. 

C. Town of Poolesville ­­The Town of Poolesville uses several methods to fund construction and 
operations of its water and sewerage systems.  The funding mechanisms consist of combined water and 
sewer user fees, impact fees on new construction, and developer­funded water system extensions.  The 
Town has adopted escalating variable water and sewer rate schedule costs, which increases with increased 
water usage, to cover operation and maintenance.  The escalating variable water and sewer usage fees are 
based on metered water use and were established to promote water conservation.  According to the Town of 
Poolesville, as of 1998, the combined water and sewer fee ranged from $4.87 to $8.71 per 1,000 gallons of 
water used during the quarterly billing period.  When revenues do not cover the cost of the system, they are 
supplemented with revenues from the general tax fund.  The Town does not levy front foot benefit 
assessments.  Developers are responsible for building the local water and sewer service mains. Facility 
expansions are funded through impact fees on new construction.

D. Individual Systems Financing – Property owners and developers using individual, on­site systems, 
such as wells and septic systems, pay for the planning, testing, permitting, installation, and if needed, repair 
and replacement of those systems.  

V. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTING AND AMENDING THE WATER AND SEWER PLAN 

Under State law, the authority to adopt and amend the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems 
Plan resides with the County Council.  State law requires that the Executive recommend, and the Council 
adopt, a comprehensive update of the Water and Sewer Plan at least once every three years.  In between 
these triennial updates, the Executive's goal is to transmit proposed Plan amendments to the Council 
semiannually in May and November, with corresponding final actions by the Council generally occurring in 
July and February, respectively.  Plan amendments may be considered outside the preceding schedule, upon 
the discretion and agreement of the County Council, for those cases involving exceptional circumstances 
such as severe hardships, public or quasi­public facilities, and other projects of critical public interest.
Following the submission of the plan or plan amendments from the Executive, the Council schedules a public 
hearing, providing State and local agencies thirty days notice of the hearing.  A public notice of the hearing 
must appear once at least ten days in advance of the hearing date in a newspaper of general circulation in 
the county.  Following the hearing, the Council holds a committee worksession on the plan or plan 
amendments.  The full Council then considers the committee recommendations and adopts a resolution 
acting on the plan or plan amendments.  The Executive has ten days following adoption of the resolution to 
comment on the Council’s action before the action is final.

The County Council, or any committee of the Council, must not hold a public hearing for or deliberate or act 
on any amendment to the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan after October 31 of a 
year when the Council is elected until the newly elected Council has taken office, unless the amendment is 
required to address a public health hazard.  The Council may introduce and set a public hearing date on any 
amendment during this period.  The administrative delegation process (see Section V.F.), conducted by DEP, 
is not affected by this provision.

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) reviews the County’s amendments to the Water and 
Sewer Plan and coordinates a review by the Maryland Office of Planning.  MDE may approve, approve with 
modifications, or disapprove the plan or any plan  amendment submitted by the County.  MDE has 90 days to 
review and take action on the plan or plan amendments, a period that may be formally extended by MDE, if 
necessary, for a second 90 days.  MDE must act within this maximum period of 180 days; otherwise, the plan 
or the plan amendments become automatically approved as submitted.

The Department of Environmental Protection may also amend both the plan text and maps under a limited 
delegation of authority from the Council, as specified under Section V.F.: Administrative Delegation. 
Administrative actions which require a public hearing follow a quarterly schedule, with hearings generally 
occurring in January, April, July, and October.  Public hearing notification requirements for this administrative 
process are the same as for the Council’s public hearings (Section V.G.: Public Outreach).  DEP may 
address cases not requiring a public hearing on an as­needed basis at the discretion of staff.

A.  Plan Amendment Actions ­­ County Council and administrative actions on plan amendments 
usually fall into one of the following types:

1.  Approval ­­ Action on development plans and authorization of water and sewer mains may 
proceed based on the County’s approval of a category change.  The County Council or DEP provides the 
appropriate agencies and the applicants with copies of  the final approval documents; however, the action is 
not formally adopted until the MDE notifies the County of the amendments approval.  The applicant can 
proceed with development approvals, at the applicant’s risk, during the State’s review period.   

2.  Conditional Approval ­­ In order to appropriately implement the policies included in this plan, the 
approval of plan amendments (including category changes) may be conditioned on some other action, on the 
use of a particular development option, or on any other requirement appropriate to the provision of water and 
sewer service.  The condition(s) shall be clearly stated in the action amending the plan.  It is incumbent upon 
the applicant to notify and document to DEP that the condition(s) for final approval has been satisfied.  The 
DEP Director shall then grant final approval of the amendment in accordance  with the original action and 
notify the applicant and all appropriate agencies of the change to the Plan.

3.  Deferral ­­ The County Council may elect to defer action on a specific plan amendment rather 
than approve or deny it.  A deferral may result from the need for additional information which is not readily 
available to properly evaluate an amendment.  A deferral can also occur to allow another process to proceed 
before making a decision on the amendment.  Often the other process involves a land use, zoning, or master 
plan decision which is relevant to the decision on water and sewer service, or which could be potentially 
influenced by the action of the Council on the issue of  water and sewer service.

Actions which include deferred amendments shall clearly state the reason for deferral.  Generally, the 
deferral period is intended to last no more than one year before an action on the amendment is anticipated. 
Upon resolution of the reason for deferral, an amendment may be brought back for further consideration by 
the Council.  To promote an orderly public process, whenever possible a deferred amendment should be
submitted to the Council as part of a semiannual amendment packet from the County Executive.  If a 
previously deferred amendment is re­submitted to the outside of the Executive’s semiannual amendment 
transmittal process, then the Council shall proceed according to the following process:

a. Deferred Amendments with Significant Changes – If the details of the proposed 

amendment have changed (for example, the water or sewer extension is different or the proposed use of the 
property to be served has changed) since the item last went to public hearing, then the Council must hold a 
new public hearing for the amendment.  The Council must provide at least 15 days notice to the reviewing 
agencies: DEP, DPS, WSSC, M­NCPPC, and MDE, and to all parties that submitted either oral or written 
testimony on the amendment at the Council’s prior public hearing. The Council must also advertise the
public hearing at least 15 days before the public hearing date. The Council may schedule a committee or
Council worksession on the item to occur anytime after the public hearing. However, the meetings must be
listed on the Council or Committee agenda at least ten days before the worksession.

b. Deferred Amendments with No Significant Changes – If the details of the proposed 
amendment have not changed since the item last went to public hearing (for example, the water and/or sewer 
alignment is the same and the applicant’’s plans for use of the property to receive service have not
changed), then the Coiuncil is not required to hold a new public hearing. A Committee or Council meeting on
this request must be listed on the Council agenda at least ten days before the meeting. In addition, if more
than 30 days have elapsed since a prior Council meeting on the amendment, then the Council must provide
a notice of the new meeting to the reviewing agencies, to the applicant, and to all parties that submitted
either oral or written testimony on the amendment at the prior public hearing. Although an additional public
hearing is not required, the Council President can choose to hold a public hearing for this deferred request.

Amendments initially recommended for administrative delegation actions may be deferred because 
they lack appropriate interagency concurrence for administrative approval, because they have been identified 
for deferral by one or more Councilmembers, or because the DEP Director has determined that issues 
involved with the amendment require consideration by the full Council.  Generally, amendments deferred 
from administrative actions are included with the next regular semiannual transmittal of amendments from the 
County Executive to the County Council, and are subject to the Council’s public review process, including a 
public hearing.
 4.  Denial ­­ As detailed under Section V.E., Refiling Denied or Withdrawn Amendments, applicants 
may file a new amendment request following a denial, but not within one year of the date of the denial action. 
In rare cases, a Councilmember who had voted to deny an amendment may request reconsideration of that 
amendment by the Council. The Plan's administrative delegation (Section V.F.) policies allow for the denial of 
an amendment through that process.  However, DPS, WSSC, M­NCPPC, or any individual Councilmember 
may request that DEP defer an amendment from the administrative process for consideration by the full 
Council.

5. Appeals – State law does not include a formal appeal process for the County's actions on the 
Plan or its amendments.  Most situations which have previously prompted inquiries with regard to appeals 
are naturally those involving denied amendments, although applicants could also seek appeal of conditional 
approvals or deferrals.  The administrative delegation process has built into its procedures an appeal through 
the County Council.  Individual Councilmembers who disagree or have concerns with regard to a 
recommended administrative action can direct DEP to defer an amendment from the administrative process 
for full Council consideration.  State law does provide for a ten­day review of the Council's actions on the 
Plan by the County Executive, who may then recommend for the Council's consideration any revision or 
amendment the Executive deems necessary, including presumably, an appeal of an amendment action.

Although the State of Maryland has a review period for and oversight of the County's Plan 
amendments through MDE and MDP, the State’s review does not function as an appeals process.

B.  Water and Sewer Category Map Updates ­­ DEP is responsible for preparing interim updates of the 
plan’s service area category maps.  Improvements in mapping technology resulting from the use of the 
County’s computer­based geographic information system (GIS), MC:MAPS, now allow for the preparation of 
more up­to­date maps than the triennial updates required by the State.   These interim updates are based on 
category change actions, map revisions and corrections, and informational updates approved  since the last 
interim or triennial update.  The interim update maps, which do not require approval by the Council, represent 
the County‘s official record for water and sewer service area categories pending the triennial updates 
approved by the County Council.

C.  Comprehensive Amendments Related to Master Plans  ­­ As new or updated local area master 
and sector plans are prepared, DEP staff participate in the master plan development, review, and approval 
process, addressing water and sewer service issues.  Following the County Council’s approval of the master 
plan and, if necessary, the adoption of related zoning map amendments, DEP may prepare any necessary 
amendments to the Water and Sewer Plan, including changes to service area categories, in order to 
implement the recommendations of the master plan.  DEP’s eventual goal is to use comprehensive category 
amendments wherever possible to reduce the number of individual map amendments (category change 
requests) filed by property owners and developers.  The need for and scope of these comprehensive 
amendments will vary with each completed master plan.  DEP will then transmit the proposed amendments, 
via the County Executive, for consideration and action by the County Council, usually as part of a semiannual 
transmittal of plan amendments.  This comprehensive approach to amending the Water and Sewer Plan’s 
service area categories began with the 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan.  The following master plan areas have 
been or have the potential to be addressed through the comprehensive amendment process:
 Table 1­T4: Master Plans and Water and Sewer Plan Comprehensive Amendments

Master Plan Comprehensive Amendments Status and Comments*

Clarksburg (1994) A comprehensive water/sewer map amendment based on the master plan 
staging recommendations was adopted under CR 13­89 on April 4, 1995.  A 
subsequent comprehensive map amendment, focused on advancing service 
area categories for area designated as development Stage 3, was approved by 
the Council under CR 14­772 in February 2001.

Cloverly (1997)** The Council approved the master plan on July 8, 1997 (CR 13­981) and 
approved the SMA on September 30, 1997 (CR 13­1059).

Damascus (1985) M­NCPPC will begin a general master plan revision in early 2003.

Fairland (1997)** The Council approved the master plan on March 25, 1997 (CR 13­835) and 
approved the SMA on July 8, 1997 (CR 13­980).

Olney (1980) A general master plan revision is underway.  M­NCPPC expects to release a 
staff draft for a revised master plan in Spring 2003.

Town of Poolesville  The Town is in the process of updating its master plan.  This update is expected 
(pending) to include the Town’s recommended water and sewer service areas.

Potomac Subregion  The Council adopted the master plan revision in March 2002, and approved the 
(2002)** SMA in October 2002.

Sandy Spring ­ Ashton  The Council approved the master plan on July 7, 1998 (CR 13­1364) and 
(1998)** approved the SMA on October 13, 1998 (CR 13­1458).

Upper Rock Creek  M­NCPPC released the staff draft revised plan in September 2002.
Watershed (1985)

White Oak (1997)** The Council approved the master plan on January 21, 1997 (CR 13­778) and 
approved the SMA on July 8, 1997 (CR 13­979).

* Proposed schedules for pending master plans can be obtained from M­NCPPC, Community­Based 
Planning Division.
** DEP continues to accept and consider individual service area category change requests pending the 
initiation of a comprehensive water/sewer map amendment.

A category change request for a property in an area where a new master or sector plan is in preparation 
will be deferred until the Council has adopted a plan for the area, unless the County Council and the 
Planning Board concur that the request is consistent with existing comprehensive planning policies and that 
the master plan update is not expected to change these policies.  A master or sector plan is considered "in 
preparation" at the time an M­NCPPC staff draft of the plan is complete.

D. Filing Individual Service Area Category Change Requests ­ Applications for service area 
category requests filed by the property owner, contract purchaser, or their representatives may be submitted 
to the Department of Environmental Protection at any time of the year.  These requests are considered either 
by the County Council or by DEP according to the schedules described in Section V.

1. General Application Requirements – An application for a service area category change must 
be made on a form available from:

Department of Environmental Protection
Watershed Management Division
255 Rockville Pike, Suite 120
Rockville, Maryland  20850­4166
phone: 240­777­7700  ­­ fax: 240­777­7715
website: www.montgomerycountymd.gov or www.askdep.com

The application must include all information requested, including a tax map showing the property or 
properties for which the category change is being sought.  Additional information on submitting a category 
change request is provided with the application packet.  DEP has also initiated a program for both 
downloading and filing service area category change request applications electronically through the County’s 
website at www.askdep.com.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

The County has never charged a fee for the filing of Water and Sewer Plan amendments, 
even though the amendment process can require substantial staff time.  The County 
Council requests that DEP investigate establishing a fee for the category change process, 
and forward its recommendations concerning such a fee to the Council in a timely manner.

2. Application Requirements for PIF Category Change Requests –  In cases involving service 
area category amendments for private institutional facilities (PIFs – see Section II.C.4.), the institution 
seeking to use the property must act as the category change applicant.  If a site is proposed for two or more 
PIF uses, then at least one of the proposed institutions must act as the applicant.  PIF applicants need to 
include a confirmation of their tax­exempt status as part of their category change request.

E. Refiling of Denied or Withdrawn Amendments ­­ Applicants may refile requests for previously 
denied or withdrawn plan amendments (usually category change requests), if relevant issues have changed 
since the previous denial.  However, new applications may not be filed with DEP sooner than one year from 
the date of the action denying the original amendment.  (i.e., An amendment originally filed with DEP on 
February 1, 2003, and denied on July 30, 2003, may not be refiled with DEP sooner than July 30, 2004.) 
Similarly, new applications may not be filed with DEP sooner than one year from the date of the applicant's 
withdrawal of the original amendment.

Exceptions may be considered upon a determination by DEP that circumstances or policies related to the 
original denial or withdrawal have changed significantly to justify an earlier reconsideration of the 
amendment.  In rare cases, a Councilmember who had voted to deny an amendment may request 
reconsideration of that amendment by the Council.  This reconsideration may occur either outside or as part 
of the Council's usual semi­annual cycle of action on plan amendments.

F. Administrative Delegation ­­ The County Council has delegated the authority to act on Water and 
Sewer Plan amendments under limited circumstances to the Executive branch of the County through the 
Director of DEP.  DEP may act to approve, conditionally approve, deny, or defer an amendment. This 
administrative authority is intended for amendments which are non­controversial with regard to Water and 
Sewer Plan issues and policies.  As such, the authority is discretionary, and the Director of DEP may, at his 
or her discretion, defer action on any potential administrative amendment to the County Council.  The specific 
policies and procedures under which a proposed amendment may be acted on through this administrative 
process, and the requirements for such actions, are outlined as follows:

1. Administrative Policies: Public Hearing Process ­­ DEP’s action on amendments under the 
following administrative policies shall require appropriate interagency review and a public hearing conducted 
by the Director of DEP or a designee.  The staff representatives of the following agencies, as appropriate, 
must recommend the amendments for administrative action: Department of Environmental Protection, 
Department of Permitting Services, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Maryland ­ National Capital 
Park and Planning Commission, and incorporated municipalities.  Concurrence for DEP’s recommended 
action must also be provided by the Planning Board and by the members of the County Council; any 
individual councilmember can request deferral of an amendment from the administrative process for review 
and action by the Council.  This shall apply to amendments which DEP staff recommend for either approval 
or denial.

In the event that DEP denies an amendment, the applicant shall have thirty­five (35) days from the 
date of DEP’s administrative action to request an appeal of the denial to the County Council.  DEP shall 
submit the requested appeal along with the County Executive’s next regular semi­annual transmittal of 
amendments to the Council.

a. Consistent with Existing Plans ­­ DEP may act on service area category changes 
consistent with the recommendations of the local area master plan and the general policies of this Water and 
Sewer Plan.
 Such cases may include sites developing under cluster­ or TDR­development options.  In cases 
where a preliminary subdivision plan proposing the use of the TDR­development option has been filed with 
the Maryland ­ National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M­NCPPC), the Director of DEP, upon 
concurring recommendations of DEP and M­NCPPC staff, may authorize the Planning Board to conduct a 
public hearing on the category change request in conjunction with its hearing on the associated preliminary 
plan.  The Director may be represented by a designee at this joint hearing.  DEP staff shall ensure that the 
Planning Board's hearing on the category change conforms with the appropriate requirements for 
administrative delegation public hearings.  The Director of DEP may then grant approval of category change 
requests under this policy upon written notice of the approval of the TDR­option preliminary plan from M­
NCPPC.

b. Properties Abutting Existing Mains: Residual and Combined Properties – DEP may act 
on service area category changes for properties which satisfy those parts of the abutting mains policy which 
address residual properties and combined properties, as specified under Sections II.E.3. Community Service 
for Properties Abutting Existing Mains, b. Single Hookups for Residual Properties, & c., Single Hookups for 
Combined Properties.  Note that these policies specify under what conditions such cases may be addressed 
through the administrative versus legislative (Council) processes. 

c. Public Facilities ­­ DEP may act on service area category changes for public facilities and 
private buildings affected by public projects, as specified under Sections II.E.5. Community Service for Public 
Facilities, and II.E.6, Community Service for Properties Affected by Public Improvements.

d. Individual Systems Regulations Changes ­­ DEP may act on service area category 
changes for properties which satisfy the specific requirements of Section II.E.10.: Community Service Due to 
Individual On­Site Systems Regulations Changes.

e. Community Development ­­ DEP may act on service area category changes for projects 
defined as community development projects as specified under Section II.E.7.: Community Service for 
Community Development Projects.

f. Child Lots ­­ DEP may act on water service area category changes where the provision of 
community water service will support the establishment of child lots consistent with Section II.E.9: 
Community Water Service for Child Lots.

g. Larger­Capacity Multi­Use Systems ­­ DEP may amend the water and sewer category 
maps to identify sites approved for multi­use water supply and/or sewerage systems.  Larger­capacity multi­
use systems, those with a peak capacity of 5000 or more gallons per day (gpd),are intended to be addressed 
under this policy, with its higher level of public notice and participation.  Appropriate text amendments 
identifying the proposed multi­use systems may be handled under the provisions of administrative policy 
III.F.3.c.: Informational Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments, although DEP staff will typically handle the 
required text amendment for a particular multi­use system through the same administrative process as is 
used for the related map amendment.  The provision of such systems shall be consistent with the protection 
of surface and ground waters and shall require the concurrence of the Department of Permitting Services.  In 
order to ensure this protection, DEP may, upon consultation with the DPS, require hydrogeologic studies of 
the potential effects of the proposed systems on ground and surface water resources.

2. Administrative Policies: Direct Approval Process ­­ DEP’s action on plan amendments under 
the following administrative policies shall require only interagency review, as appropriate; neither a public 
hearing, nor interagency concurrence for administrative approval, nor County Council review and 
concurrence for administrative approval shall be required, unless requested by the Director of DEP.

a. Public Health Problems ­­ DEP may act on service area changes to allow community 
service for properties to relieve existing or anticipated public health problems, as specified under Section 
II.E.2.: Community Service to Relieve Public Health Problems.  Under this administrative authority, only one 
residential water and/or sewer hookup may be provided to qualifying lots or parcels.  Such actions may occur 
after DEP has directed WSSC to expedite the provision of community service to a property and, in some 
cases where existing community service is immediately available, after that service has been provided.

b. Properties Abutting Existing Mains: Single Hookups ­­ DEP may grant service area 
changes to allow community service for properties which abut existing or authorized water and/or sewer 
mains, as specified under Section II.E.3.a.: Community Service for Properties Abutting Existing Mains. 
Under this administrative authority, only one residential water and/or sewer hookup may be provided to the 
whole of qualifying lots or parcels.   Such actions may occur after DEP has directed WSSC to provide 
community service to a property, and in some cases after WSSC has provided that service.

c. Interim Individual Systems ­­ DEP may amend the water and sewer category maps to 
identify sites approved for interim, on­site wells and septic systems, as specified under Section III.B.1.: 
General Conditions for Interim Individual Systems.

d. Smaller­Capacity Multi­Use Systems ­­ DEP may amend the water and sewer category 
maps to identify sites approved for multi­use water supply and/or sewerage systems.  Only smaller­capacity 
multi­use systems, those with a peak capacity of less than 5000 gallons per day (gpd), may be addressed 
under this policy.  Text amendments identifying these multi­use systems may be handled under the 
provisions of administrative policy in Section V.F.3.c.: Informational Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments. 
(Map amendments for multi­use systems with a capacity of 5000 or more gpd are addressed by 
administrative policy V.F.1.g.: Larger­Capacity Multi­Use Systems.)

3. Administrative Policies: Staff Approval Process ­­ DEP’s action on plan amendments under 
the following administrative policies shall require only an interagency review, as appropriate.  The approval 
authority resides with the DEP Director of his or her designee, who may directly approve the amendments. 
Neither a public hearing, nor interagency concurrence for administrative approval, nor County Council review 
and concurrence for administrative approval shall be required, unless requested by the Director of DEP.

a. Water and Sewer Map Corrections, Revisions, and Informational Updates ­­ DEP may 
amend service area categories as necessary to correct verified service area mapping and other errors. 
These cases most often involve revisions to identify properties with existing community service not shown on 
the category maps and to correct improperly mapped prior amendments.  Changes from service area 
categories W/S­3 to W/S­1 or from W/S­1 to W­/S­3 for areas approved for service may be approved to 
reflect the actual status of community service.  Informational updates for the maps addressing existing or 
proposed infrastructure, right­of­way dedication or abandonment, and other non­policy issues may also be 
approved.

b. Interim Water and Sewer Service Area Category Map Updates -- Interim
water and sewer map updates are based on approved amendments to the Water and Sewer
Plan: category changes, map corrections and revisions, and informational updates. DEP is
able to update these GIS-based maps to show these amendments on a more frequent
schedule than the State’s required triennial comprehensive updates, providing more up-to-
date information to the public, to the development industry, and to public agencies. DEP will
update the GIS database as water and sewer map amendments are approved in order to
maintain an accurate and current record of the county’s service area categories. DEP’s
administrative approval of the published maps adopts them as the interim official record of
the County’s approved service area categories, pending the County Council’s approval of the
triennial update of the plan.

c. Informational Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments ­­ DEP may approve text 
amendments which provide informational updates to the Water and Sewer Plan.  These may include, but are 
not limited to, information updates concerning approved community water supply and sewerage systems 
infrastructure, information concerning multi­use water supply and sewerage systems, and general 
background information concerning the county and its municipalities.  Informational updates may relate to 
specific water and/or sewer service area category change requests under consideration for approval through 
the administrative delegation process.  Text amendments that are other than informational updates, or that 
concern policy issues, will not be included for administrative approval and will be referred to the County 
Council.

G. Public Outreach ­­ Much of the Water and Sewer Plan adoption and amendment process includes 
opportunities for public outreach and comments.  Most plan amendments are acted on through processes 
that require a public hearing before either the County Council or DEP.  State law requires that a notice of 
each public hearing appear in a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least ten days prior to the 
hearing.  This published notice of the hearing should identify the proposed amendments and information on 
how to testify.  In addition to this notice, DEP provides a notice of each hearing to the amendment applicants, 
to other interested parties, and to a group of local civic and environmental groups who have requested such 
notice.  DEP uses a combination of mailings, internet postings, and e­mail notifications on Water and Sewer 
Plan amendments, as appropriate.   DEP also holds public meetings to present proposals for general 
water/sewer map amendments related to master plan updates.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation
The County Council requests that DEP investigate a broader public notification process for 
Water and Sewer Plan amendments.  DEP shall research other public notification 
procedures used in the County, such as M­NCPPC’s neighbor notification for subdivision 
 plans and the Board of Appeals property postings, and determine how a similar approach 
might work for the category change process.

 
/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch0/9777079.doc

CHAPTER 2: GENERAL BACKGROUND

I. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2 presents general background information about the county relevant to issues
involving water supply, sewerage systems, rural sanitation planning, and water resources.
The chapter presents this information in two general categories: the natural environment
and the cultural environment. The various characteristics of the natural environment–
geology, topography, soils and water resources–strongly affect water supply, sewerage, and
rural sanitation needs, problems, and solutions in the county. A second group of relevant
characteristics are classified as the cultural, or human-made, environment, which include
patterns and density of existing and proposed residential, commercial, and institutional
development; and the various legal requirements, policies, and plans that shape the cultural
environment.

Much of the data presented in this chapter generalizes information about Montgomery
County’s 500-square-mile area. Many of the individual planning efforts described in
subsequent chapters address much smaller areas and are supported by more site-specific
data.

II. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

This section addresses natural, physical features of the county which affect the feasibility,
nature, location, design, and implementation of community and individual water and
sewerage systems. For example, the basic topography of the county is a significant factor in
determining the location and design of water storage facilities and trunk sewer lines. Soil
and geologic characteristics are a major factor in determining the suitability of specific areas
of the county for subsurface disposal of wastewater. Other data presented are similarly
relevant to the Plan's subsequent chapters.

A. Topography -- The general topography of Montgomery County, illustrated in Figure 2-

F1, is dominated by a rolling plain or "low hill" landscape. Hills are concentrated in the
northern part of the county adjacent to the major stream valleys. The highest point in the
county is 873 feet above sea level; the lowest point, 52 feet above sea level. The average
elevation gradient is 29 feet per mile.

B. Climate -- Montgomery County’s average winter temperature is 35 degrees

Fahrenheit (F), with an average daily minimum of 25 degrees F. The summer average
temperature is 74 degrees F, with an average daily maximum of 86 degrees F. Average total
annual precipitation is approximately 40 inches. Of this, more than 22 inches (55 percent)
usually falls during the period from April through September.

C. Geology -- The general position of the bedrock units across Montgomery County, and
the strike of their foliation and cleavage, lies in a northeast-southwest direction, but no one
particular lithology appears to have had significant control on the topography. The county
lies almost entirely within the Piedmont physiographic province where the bedrock consists
predominantly of metamorphic rocks of Paleozoic age. Consolidated sedimentary rocks of
Early Triassic age occupy a down-faulted basin in the western part of the county. On hills
and ridges along the county's eastern border, small erosional remnants of unconsolidated
Cretaceous sedimentary rocks extend westward from the Coastal Plain in Prince George's
County. (See Figure 2-F2.)

The bedrock in the eastern two-thirds of the county's Piedmont province consists of rocks
of the Wissahickon Group. The best example of these rocks is exposed in the quarry of
Rockville Crushed Stone Company in northern Travilah, where the serpentinite is quarried for
use as crushed stone aggregate. Quarries for building stone from micaceous quartzite are
located in several places of the western schist belt.

Fine-grained slaty rocks mapped as the Urbana (e.g., Harpers), Ijamsville, and Marburg
phyllites occupy the county's Piedmont province west of a line running north-northeast from
Blockhouse Point on the Potomac River to a point on the Patuxent River north of Etchison, at
Annapolis Rock. A large area in the western corner of the county is underlain by consolidated
sedimentary rocks of Triassic age, which represent a small portion
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 2: General Background Approved 2003 - 2012 Plan: Page 2-61
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 2: General Background Approved 2003 - 2012 Plan: Page 2-62
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 2: General Background Approved 2003 - 2012 Plan: Page 2-63

of the large Culpeper Basin in neighboring Virginia. Red sandstone of Triassic age was
quarried for building stone at several places along the bluffs north of the Potomac River
during the 19th century.

Alluvial deposits consisting of gravel, sand, silt, and clay of recent age are present along
the Potomac River, particularly in the wide bottomlands in the area of Triassic rocks west of
Seneca. This alluvial fill is much less developed where the river channel has been cut into
hard metamorphic rocks such as along the Potomac River east of Seneca, along the Patuxent
River, and in the larger streams tributary to these rivers.

A large, high-level gravel terrace lies on Triassic age bedrock between Martinsburg and
Elmer in the western part of the county. The Potomac River laid down these gravels as
floodplain deposits when it flowed at a higher elevation in the late Tertiary or early
Quarternary, before eroding down to its present channel. Smaller patches of this same
material occur to the south along the bluffs overlooking the floodplain of the river.

D. Soils -- The soils of Montgomery County are mapped on Figure 2-F3 and can be
summarized as follows under six general descriptions:

Table 2- T1: County Generalized Soils Descriptions

Soil Groups Area Description

*

Nearly level to strong sloping, well drained, deep and very

deep soils that are loamy throughout. This soil type is found
Glenelg-Gaila- in the central part of the county and extends to the east and
Occoquan 41% south. It is found on broad ridge-tops and side slopes.

Nearly level to moderately steep, well and poorly drained,

moderately deep soils that are loamy throughout. This soil
Brinklow-Baile- type is found in the northern part of the county. It is found on
Occoquan 16% broad ridge-tops and side slopes.

Nearly level to strongly sloping, well drained, very deep soils

that are loamy throughout. This soil type is found in primarily
Urban land- in the Germantown area and in southern and eastern portions
Wheaton-Glenelg 16% of the county. It is found on broad ridge-tops and side slopes.

Penn-Brentsville- 14% Nearly level to steep, well and moderately well drained,
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 2: General Background Approved 2003 - 2012 Plan: Page 2-64

moderately deep and deep soils that are loamy throughout.

This soil type is found in the western part of the county. It is
Readington found on broad ridge-tops and side slopes.

Gently sloping to steep, well drained and moderately deep

soils that are loamy throughout. This soil type is found in the
Blocktown-Brinklow- northern part of the county. It is found on broad ridge-tops
Linganore 10% and side slopes.

Chillum-Croom- Nearly level to steep, well drained and moderately well

Beltsville drained, very deep soils. This soil type is found in the eastern
part of the county along the Prince George’s County line. It is
3% found on broad ridge-tops and side slopes.

* Percent area of the county.

E. Water Resources -- The county's water resources affect many aspects of its water
supply and wastewater disposal needs. Surface water flows, influenced by the underlying
geology, have created the county's hills and valleys, establishing its watersheds. The
resulting topography strongly influences the structure and alignment of wastewater collection
systems and the need for various water supply pressure zones. Surface water resources
provide the majority of the county's community water supply. Surface waters also receive
treated flows from several wastewater treatment plants. Groundwater, specifically its depth
and availability, more strongly affects individual water and sewerage systems, municipal
water systems dependent on wells (such as Poolesville), and also provides the base flow to
surface streams.
 1. Groundwater -- Figure 2-F4 shows the major hydrogeologic units in the county.
Most of the groundwater in these units occurs in the soil and weathered surface mantle
which has an average thickness of 20-50 feet. Other groundwater is found in cracks and
pores of the underlying rock.

The soil mantle over the rock of the Manassas (New Oxford) formation is particularly
thin, generally less than five feet. However, open spaces in this rock are estimated to
comprise 5 or more percent by volume near the surface. Other rock formations generally
have up to only about 1 percent by volume of pore spaces.

Groundwater obtained from rock formations derives primarily from cracks in the rock,
called joints. Near the surface, these cracks may be open and subject to weathering and
accumulations of rock fragments and clay. At greater depth, under the weight of the
overlying rock, these cracks are forced together. At depths generally in excess of 200-300
feet the cracks tend to become tightly pressed together and provide little space for the
penetration and movement of water.

The average annual depth of the groundwater table in Montgomery County varies
considerably from place to place depending on the type of rock, and the topographic
situation, as well as the annual rainfall. At an observation well at Fairland, in the Wissahickon
schist of the eastern part of the county, average annual depth to groundwater is between 8
to 10 feet. The comparable depth at an observation well at Damascus in the Ijamsville
phyllite, in a more rugged topography, is between 30-45 feet. In scattered wells in the
Manassas (New Oxford) siltstones and sandstones, the water table lies at about 70-120 feet.
However, this formation contains thin, saturated zones five to ten feet thick at lesser depths
from which small quantities of water can be obtained. Water at significantly greater depths
in the Manassas formation has been reported from a well adjacent to the Potomac River. In
general, however, groundwater lies chiefly in a surface zone approximately 150 to 250 feet
thick.

Faults–joints along which there has been significant movement or shearing–may serve
as pathways for water movement, as do particularly large joints insofar as the collection of
water is concerned. However, because of rock decomposition in the presence of water, both
faults and joints tend fill with silt and clay whose water-bearing properties are similar to
those of the surface materials. No open voids or joints, indicative of subsurface removal of
these fine particles, have been observed in this county. It appears that the flow of
groundwater in the county is generally too weak to accomplish this. It is estimated that
groundwater, under natural conditions, moves laterally toward springs, seeps, ponds, or
streams at a rate of approximately 10 to 100 feet per year.
 Wells in the county are unlikely to provide sufficient quantities of water for municipal
supply. Only the Poolesville municipal water supply system depends on groundwater supply.
Depending upon the host rock, groundwater well yields average from less than 1 gallon per
minute to more than 25 gallons per minute. Under the County's regulations, permitted
domestic wells must yield a minimum of 1 gallon per minute.

2. Surface Water and Watersheds -- The county's rivers, lakes, and streams
provide drinking water, recreational opportunities, and vital habitat for aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife. Surface water resources from the Potomac and Patuxent Rivers provide the majority
of the county's community water supply. Surface waters also receive treated flows from the
county's four publically-owned wastewater treatment plants:

 Magruder Branch from the Damascus WWTP

 Great Seneca Creek from the Seneca Creek WWTP
 Dry Seneca Creek from the Poolesville WWTP
 Little Bennett Creek from the Hyattstown WWTP

Surface water comes from groundwater, which provides the base flow in streams, and
from run-off from rain and snow, which provide storm flows in excess of the base flow. All of
the lakes in the county are man-made. The larger lakes were built for flood and sediment
control and water supply. Some county
streams also receive treated wastewater discharges. Ultimately, all waterways flow into the
Chesapeake Bay. Montgomery County’s major surface drainage patterns are illustrated in
Figure 2-F5.

The county’s surface water drainage pattern provides a template for the alignment of
much of its community sewer transmission main network. Most sewer mains operate by
gravity and generally follow the “low flow” path downhill towards treatment or pumping
facilities. This, of necessity, often requires the construction of sewer mains in close proximity
to the county’s rivers and streams.

Surface waters flow within 27 major watersheds, which include 270 subwatersheds and
1500 miles of streams flowing into four major rivers: the Anacostia, the Monocacy, the
Patuxent, and the Potomac. The Potomac River borders the county to the west and
southwest, the Patuxent River borders the county to the northeast. Twelve percent (12%) of
the county drains to the Anacostia River which, in turn, drains to the Potomac River in the
District of Columbia. Ten percent (10%) of the county drains toward the Monocacy River
which, in turn, drains to the Potomac River just upstream of the Montgomery-Frederick County
border. Twelve percent (12%) of the county drains into the Patuxent River. The remaining
sixty-six percent (66%) of the county drains directly into the Potomac River and its major
tributaries. The county’s watersheds and their associated drainage areas are listed on Table
2-T2.

Table 2- T2: County Watershed Drainage Areas

Watershed Area Watershed Area (acres)

(acres)

Anacostia River 38,0 62 Potomac River ( Direct) 20 6,23 1

Watersheds Watersheds

Little Paint Branch 3,496 Broad Run 9,227

Northwest Branch 19,603 Cabin John Creek 15,836

Paint Branch 9,453 Dry Seneca Creek 12,335

Sligo Creek 5,510 Great Seneca Creek 45,679

Monocacy River 31 ,90 3 Horsepen Branch 6,733

Watersheds

Bennett Creek 6,179 Little Falls Branch 3,184

Fahrney Branch 829 Little Seneca Creek 25,145

Furnace Branch 493 Minehaha Branch 909

Little Bennett Creek (2 parts) 12,831 Muddy Branch 12,163

Little Monocacy River 11,571 Potomac River Direct 18,155

Monocacy River Direct 340 Rock Creek 39,363

Patuxent River 38,498 Rock Run 3,211

Watersheds

Hawlings River 18,017 Watts Branch 14,291

Lower Patuxent River 7,226

Upper Patuxent River 13,255 Total County Watersheds 3 1 4,69 4

Source: Countywide Stream Protection Strategy, Feb. 1998

3. Wetlands -- The important role of wetlands as natural filters in maintaining water

quality is acknowledged at the federal, state, and local levels. It is recognized that loss of
wetlands means decreased water quality protection, flood control, and wildlife habitat.
Wetlands are vulnerable to off-site, indirect impacts such as hydrologic alterations and
pollution.

Regulations regarding the definition of, and allowable impacts to, wetlands continue to
evolve. Wetlands are defined by the Planning Board's guidelines of February 1997 for
Environmental Management of Development in Montgomery County as "an area that is
inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions,
commonly known as hydrophytic vegetation."

Information on the location of major wetland areas in the county is available through
National Fish and Wildlife Service maps. The County's Department of Park and Planning
requires more accurate delineations of wetlands by a developer's engineer during the
development review process. This detailed delineation is also required by federal and state
agencies as a part of their wetland permit review processes.

Several levels of government regulate the impacts of development and construction

activities on wetlands. The intent of the various county, state, and federal regulations and
guidelines is to first, avoid impacts; secondly, minimize and mitigate impacts; and thirdly,
replace wetlands lost through development. The creation of functional and sustainable
replacement wetlands is both land intensive and expensive.

MDE has identified twelve areas in the county as being non-tidal wetlands of special
state concern. These areas include the Germantown Bog, Canal Bottomland, and McKee-
Beshers West Swamp. The State designates these wetlands for special protection under its
non-tidal wetlands regulations because they exemplify Maryland’s best non-tidal wetland
habitats. Excavation, filling, or other modification within a buffer of 100 feet from these
wetland areas needs state permits. In contrast, disturbance within 25 feet of other non-tidal
wetlands requires state permits. Both cases require water quality certification by the MDE as
required by the Clean Water Act. The county’s wetland areas are shown in Figure 2-F6, Non-
Tidal Wetlands.

4. Water Quality Conditions -- MDE water quality standards place the surface
waters of the State into water use designations with specific water quality criteria. The
county's waters are covered under use designations listed below in Table 2-T3 and mapped
on Figure 2-F7.

Table 2- T3: State Watershed Use Designations

Designati Definition
on

Natural trout waters. Waters which are suitable for the growth and
propagation of trout, and which are capable of supporting self-sustaining
Use III trout populations and their associated food organisms.

Use III- P Natural trout waters and public water supply. Waters which include
 Table 2- T3: State Watershed Use Designations

Designati Definition
on
all uses identified for Use III waters and are used as a public water supply.

Recreational trout waters. Waters which are capable of holding or

supporting adult trout for put and take fishing, and which are managed as a
special fishery by periodic stocking and seasonal catching (cold or warm
Use IV waters).

Recreational trout waters and public water supply. Waters which

include all uses identified for Use IV waters and are used as a public water
Use IV- P supply.

Water contact recreation and protection of aquatic life. Waters

which are suitable for: water contact sports, play and leisure time activities
where the human body may come in direct contact with the surface water;
fishing; the growth and propagation of fish (other than trout); other aquatic
Use I life, and wildlife; agricultural water supply; and industrial water supply.

Water contact recreation, protection of aquatic life and public

water supply. Waters which are suited for all uses identified in Use I and
Use I- P are used as a public water supply.

Shellfish harvesting waters. Waters where shellfish are propagated,

stored or gathered for marketing purposes; and where there are actual or
potential areas for the harvesting of oysters, softshell clams, hardshell
clams, and brackish water clams. (Note: There are no Use II waters within
Use II Montgomery County.)

5. Water Quality Programs -- In 1994, DEP reestablished a monitoring presence on

county streams, focusing on measurement of biological communities (fish, macro
invertebrates), habitat indicators, stream base flows, and conductivity as well as on the
previous dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature criteria in
State water quality standards. The biological and habitat indicators are used to determine
overall stream health and to assess whether physical runoff impacts (excessive peak flows
and velocities, stream erosion, sedimentation) or chemical pollutants are the primary cause
of observed stream degradation. DEP has also measured baseline stream conditions in the
County's least disturbed and highest quality watersheds and uses these reference indicators
as a benchmark to assess relative stream health in the other county streams.

DEP and M-NCPPC cooperatively developed a County-wide Stream Protection Strategy

(CSPS, February 1998) to rank the overall biological health of each county watershed, and
assess the potential for improving conditions in degraded streams. This potential will be
determined based upon the degree of existing or planned watershed development and the
estimated effectiveness of practical and appropriate management tools available for
mitigation. The County’s current ratings of stream conditions, based on biological monitoring,
are shown in Figure 2-F8. Results from the CSPS are being used to help the County set
priorities for resource allocations for future watershed protection initiatives. The County plans
to update the CSPS every 3-5 years thereafter as new trends and monitoring data become
available. DEP provides information from the CSPS on its website at www.askdep.com.

Since the mid-1980's, the County has gradually and substantially improved the
effectiveness of controls to mitigate the impacts of runoff and sediment from new
development activity. In the late 1980's, the County also began to implement programs to
restore habitat in streams impacted by serious stream erosion, sedimentation, and localized
flooding problems. This work is focused to mitigate impacts in watersheds caused largely by
uncontrolled runoff from development which occurred before stormwater and sediment
controls were legally required. However, much more work remains to be done and only
limited resources are available to rectify these types of problems, particularly in watersheds
containing the county's older developed areas. These efforts are particularly important in
areas of the county where erosion and down-cutting of the stream beds has resulted in
exposure of sewer lines, water lines and impacts to road crossings and other infrastructure
that are costly to address, yet result in further impairment to the stream system if not
addressed.

The County has also long recognized the need to protect its groundwater resources.
Approximately 80,000 county residents rely on groundwater as their only source of water
supply. In 2001, the County began to develop a program intended to address its groundwater
protection needs. The November 2001 Groundwater Protection Strategy (GWPS) represents
the first major step in achieving this goal. The GWPS emphasizes a need to establish a
baseline existing condition of the county's groundwater resources, and to establish a long-
term groundwater monitoring program. The GWPS also recognizes the need to establish
appropriate policies, guidelines, and regulations to minimize future contamination, and then
to ensure that future development will comply with environmental laws and regulations
affecting groundwater quality. In the first steps of this strategy, DEP has conducted a limited
survey of available well and septic permit records, noting the location of each. The well
permits also provided information on the depth to the water table throughout much of the
county. DEP is instituting a county-wide network of fifty sampling wells to establish a
baseline groundwater condition and to serve as future monitoring sites.

In 2002, the County implemented a Water Quality Protection Charge through County
tax bills to provide funding for a comprehensive Stormwater Facility Maintenance Program to
pay for structural maintenance of residential and associated nonresidential stormwater
facilities. The program itself will ensure the ongoing inspection and maintenance of
stormwater management facilities within the County. These stormwater facilities, which
include wet ponds, dry ponds, sand filters, infiltration trenches, oil and grit separators, and
underground storage structures, play a vital role in the protection of the county’s streams,
water supplies, and personal safety. Inspection and maintenance of stormwater
infrastructure is essential to keep these valuable components functioning properly, allowing
them effectively to remove pollution, recharge groundwater, protect stream banks, and
protect roads and properties from flooding. The water quality protection charge will help
provide funds for maintenance of stormwater facilities owned by the County.

a. County Water Quality Goals -- In November 1994, Montgomery County adopted

water quality goals as follows (Montgomery County Code, Chapter 19, Article IV):

 Protect, maintain, and restore high quality chemical, physical, and biological
conditions in the waters of the state in the County;
  Reverse the past trends of stream deterioration through improved water
management practices;

 Maintain physical, chemical, biological, and stream habitat conditions in County

streams that support aquatic life along with appropriate recreational, water
supply, and other water uses.

 Restore county streams, damaged by inadequate water management practices

of the past, by reestablishing the flow regime, chemistry, physical conditions,
and biological diversity of natural stream systems as closely as possible.

 Help fulfill interjurisdictional commitments to restore and maintain the integrity

of the Anacostia River, the Potomac River, the Patuxent River, and the
Chesapeake Bay.

 Promote and support educational and volunteer initiatives that enhance public
awareness and increase direct participation in stream stewardship and the
reduction of water pollution.

These goals are applied to guide the planning and implementation of the County's water
resources protection programs as described below.

b. Water Resources Management Programs -- A number of local agencies

administer coordinated programs to manage and protect county water resources. These
programs help protect streams, water quality, and aquatic life by regulating and mitigating
the impacts of land use change as it occurs in County watersheds. For example, requirements
for stormwater management applied at the time of new land development involve a variety
of active and passive techniques to reduce the amount of surface runoff, sediment and
pollutants generated and introduced into the stream system. These measures are designed
to maximize runoff infiltration into the soil profile and reduce peak runoff flows delivered to
streams. They also help maintain stream base flows, limit erosion and other damage to
stream habitat and aquatic resources, and complement localized flood protection. Some
programs regulate wells and septic systems to protect groundwater water quality. Others
apply a variety of monitoring, inspection, enforcement, maintenance, and educational
programs to track water quality and limit pollution discharges.

c. State Programs -- MDE provides general oversight to water and sewerage

system planning stormwater, sediment control, and NPDES stormwater permit and related
facility implementation programs administered by DPS, DEP, WSSC, and M-NCPPC. Treated
wastewater discharges and industrial stormwater runoff discharges to County streams are
permitted directly by MDE as part of the NPDES municipal discharge permit program.

Disturbances to wetlands require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
MDE, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Stream channel alternations,
surface and groundwater appropriations are also regulated directly by MDE and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources.

d. Chesapeake Bay Protection -- Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Washington,

D.C., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission signed
the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement to provide comprehensive guidance for minimizing the
negative impacts of land activities in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. The Agreement
provides specific goals for improving the Bay such as a 40 percent reduction in nutrient
pollution by the year 2000.

Montgomery County is a member of the Mid-Potomac Tributary Team and Patuxent

River Commission which Maryland established to develop the agency/citizen/business
partnerships necessary to meet this target in these Bay tributaries. Additional information on
the principal programs which help manage the county's water resources are included in
Chapter 1, Section I.D.
III. CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

This section presents data on projected growth and densities required for planning the public
facilities addressed by this Plan. For example, the projected population of the county is a
major determinant of future water supply demands and wastewater flows. Projected changes
in land use from rural categories to suburban and urban uses direct where community water
and sewerage systems will be needed in the future. The changes can result in impervious
areas, increasing peak stormwater runoff flows that affect streams and create stormwater
management needs.

A. Legal Requirements and Other Policy Guidance -- Legal and policy guidance and
requirements for water supply, sewerage, stormwater management, and rural sanitation
planning are provided by Federal, State, and County governments and by regional
agreements. The County government’s major relevant policy vehicles are outlined below.
The staging mechanisms of these policy and regulatory tools provide for managing the
timing and extent of growth in the county. As an important element in growth management
and staging, the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan accounts for the
land use plans and staging policies of individual areas of the county, for the current status of
development in each area, and for the future expectations of population, employment, and
housing trends. In this way, the Water and Sewer Plan can project the county’s future water
supply and sewerage systems needs and coordinate those needs with development in the
county.

1. General Plan -- Montgomery County's comprehensive land use plan, the General
Plan, was adopted in 1964 and most recently refined in 1993. The General Plan provides a
comprehensive framework for guiding physical development and managing limited resources
in the county. It identifies the general location, function, intensity, and pattern of various
land uses; provides direction for integrating future development and redevelopment with
existing development; addresses the relationship between human activity and the built and
natural environment; addresses the varying needs and desires of a diverse and changing
county population and economic community; and promotes connections among all areas of
the county and between the county and the region.

The General Plan is an evolving and dynamic policy document containing generalized
concepts that provide the basis for more specific area master plans, functional plans, and
sector plans. Each master plan, sector plan, and functional plan, after approval by the
County Council and adoption by the M-NCPPC, constitutes an amendment to the General
Plan. Master plans can provide specific water and sewer policies which are then
implemented by the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan. As the
county's longest-range and most visionary document, the General Plan provides a broad
image for the county’s evolution and establishes a frame of reference to make that vision
become a reality. It is specific enough to provide clear guidance for realizing its vision, while
retaining enough flexibility to respond to unforeseeable circumstances as they arise.

The General Plan establishes a basic policy of concentrating development in a ring

around the District of Columbia, and along major transportation corridors extending outward
from this ring. The corridors are separated from each other by rural or low density wedges.
The initial 1964 General Plan developed this Wedges and Corridors Concept, which the County
reaffirmed in a 1969 update and refined in1993. This concept is viewed as the means to avoid
sprawl, and, instead, to achieve an efficient, orderly, and attractive pattern of development.

The 1993 General Plan Refinement divides the county into four geographic
components: the Urban Ring, the Corridors, the Suburban Communities, and the Wedge. With
the exception of the Wedge, the borders between these areas are gentle transitions, not stark
interruptions of an otherwise continuous pattern. Each area is defined in terms of
appropriate land uses, scale, intensity, and function. The geographic components are
illustrated in Figure 2-F9: Wedges and Corridors, Geographic Components.

An objective of the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan is to

plan for community service to implement and reinforce the Wedges and Corridors Concept.
Wedge preservation policies are complemented by the limitation of community water and
sewer service, except as may be necessary to resolve public health problems and permit
limited expansion of existing settlements.
 The Wedges and Corridors concept reinforces and coordinates closely with Maryland's
Smart Growth program. Under the Smart Growth Priority Funding Areas Act of 1997, the
program's purpose is to limit sprawl development by directing State funding to areas where
local governments want State investment to support future growth: higher-density
development areas, redevelopment areas, and municipalities identified as Priority Funding
areas. The legislation covers growth-related projects under most State programs that
encourage or support growth and development. These can include highways, water and
sewer construction, economic development assistance, and State leases or construction of
new office facilities. In practice, State funding for water and sewer infrastructure in
Montgomery County is primarily focused on improvements to water filtration and wastewater
treatment plants. In following the guidance of the General Plan and its accompanying local
area master and sector plans, this Water and Sewer Plan supports the Smart Growth program.
The county’s designated State Smart Growth/Priority Funding areas are shown in Figure 2-F10.

2. Staging Plans and Policies -- Guidance for the staging of development is

contained in the General Plan, in the Annual Comprehensive Planning Policies Report, in
various master plans, and in policies developed to guide the administration of the Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance.

3. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance -- The Adequate Public Facilities

Ordinance (an adjunct to the Subdivision Ordinance) places conditions on the County
Planning Board’s subdivision or recordation of land based on the availability of existing and
programmed public facilities, such as transportation systems, water and sewerage systems,
schools, police, fire and health facilities.

4. Capital Improvements Program -- The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is

the document through which the County government decides the extent and timing of the
provision of its public facilities. This is a six year planning document that identifies the
extent, timing, and funding of approved capital projects. The water supply and sewerage
systems capital planning originates at WSSC with coordination with County agencies. This
WSSC CIP is reviewed and approved jointly by the Prince George's County Council and the
Montgomery County Council. Appendix A provides a listing and brief description of currently
approved capital water supply and sewerage systems projects throughout the county.

B. Land Use -- The amount of land in the county is fixed; how it is used is not. The land
area of the County is approximately 505 square miles, or about 323,000 acres. Residential
development is the most common land use, accounting for about 60 percent of the
developed land in 1995, with approximately 93,000 acres of land in residential use. The next
most common developed uses were park and recreation uses with about 24,000 acres. Other
community facilities, government and other open space accounted for about 23,000 acres.
Office, commercial, retail, and industrial uses have consumed about 8,400 acres while
transportation and utility rights-of-way accounted for about 6,000 acres in the developed
areas.

Between 1960 and 1995, the amount of developed land in the county more than tripled
from approximately 49,000 to about 160,000 acres. Developed land includes residential,
community facilities, parks and recreation, commercial and industrial, as well as other uses
such as rights-of-way for transportation and utilities.

The pattern of residential growth in the county has basically followed the Wedges and
Corridors Concept since the adoption of the General Plan. The attached map represents the
geographic distribution of households in 2000 as shown in Figure 2-F11. Approximately 97% of
the population in Montgomery County is served by community water and approximately 93%
of the population in Montgomery County is served by community sewer.

Figure 2-F11 illustrates that growth has occurred predominantly in the I-270 Corridor, the
Urban/Suburban Ring, and the Satellite Communities, especially Olney. Growth in Residential
Wedge areas has been substantial and is generally consistent with the land use
recommendations expressed in the General Plan and subsequent area master plans. Table 2-
T4 shows total population, household, and employment forecasts for the county in five-year
intervals from 1990 through 2025. The County is divided into 28 planning areas. The
planning areas are shown in Figure 2-F12. Continuing past trends, the I-270 Corridor is
expected to lead all other planning areas in household population growth over the 2000 to
2025 forecast period, both in the rate of growth (39.1 percent) and in actual household
population (74,200). Other leaders in percentage household
growth over this period are expected to be Damascus (21.5 percent/9,300 population), North Bethesda (23.2 
percent/20,200 population), and Potomac (21.8 percent/17,400 population).  Most of this population growth 
will occur in areas with sanitary service from existing or proposed community water and sewerage systems. 
Appendix C provides more detailed information on these forecasts, assembled by planning area.

Table 2­T4: County­Wide Population, Household and Employment Forecasts

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Total Population  749,000 801,500 855,000 910,000 945,000 975,000 1,000,000 1,020,000

A

No. of  280,000 299,000 317,500 336,500 356,500 376,500 392,000 402,000

A
Households 

Total  465,970 462,490 545,000 595,000 630,000 660,000 675,000 685,000

B
Employment 
A
"Total Population" includes all residential population from households and institutions (group quarters).
1990­1995: Round 6.1 Forecast (M­NCPPC, Research and Technology Center, & MWCOG – May 1999)
2000­2025: Round 6.2 Forecast (M­NCPPC, Research and Technology Center, & MWCOG – June 2000)
B
"Total Employment" includes all office, retail, industrial, and other jobs. 
1990­2025: Round 6.3 Forecast (M­NCPPC, Research and Technology Center, & MWCOG – February 2002)

The distribution of employment locations in the county has followed the Wedges and Corridor pattern of 
the General Plan, as illustrated in Figure 2­F13.  The darkest patterns indicate the highest concentration of 
jobs.  Traffic zones with more than 5,000 jobs are generally located in the Urban/Suburban Ring and in the 
I­270 Corridor.  In the Ring, the highest concentrations are in the four central business districts, the City of 
Rockville, and the Rock Spring and West Farm office/industrial park areas.  Employment is generally intense 
throughout the I­270 Corridor and centered along I­270 for the most part, with the Airpark to the northeast the 
most distant intensive location.  In addition, the larger town and the satellite communities of Olney and 
Damascus have significant numbers of jobs, generally providing goods and services to local residents.

IV. REFERENCES

"Bedrock Geology of Montgomery County", compiled by Jonathan Edwards, Jr., Maryland Geological Survey, 
Baltimore, Maryland, December 1992.

"Soils Survey of Montgomery County, Maryland", U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service in cooperation with the Montgomery Soil Conservation District, July 1995.

General Plan Refinement Goals and Objectives on Wedges and Corridors, Public Hearing Preliminary Draft, 
Montgomery County Planning Department, August 1992
General Plan Refinement Goals and Objectives, Supplement Fact Sheets, Montgomery County
Planning Department, August 1992.

General Plan Refinement Goals and Objectives for Montgomery County, Approved and
Adopted, Montgomery County Planning Department, August 1993.

"1994 Water Productions Projection's Report", WSSC, 1994.

"Report on Pitometer Water Distribution Study," by Pitometer Associates, City of Rockville,

1994.

"Strategic Sewerage Study", WSSC, 1994.

"Groundwater Protection Strategy", Montgomery County Department of Environmental

Protection, 2001

/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch0/9777079.doc

CHAPTER 3: WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses the County’s water supply, demand, treatment, and distribution
issues. It discusses the major water supply facilities that have been approved by various
federal, state, and local agencies in recent years to provide for the mid- and long-range
water supply needs of the County and the Washington Metropolitan Region. As part of this
discussion, this chapter provides information which addresses water consumption, water
system transmission, storage facilities, planning, and financing issues, and projected water
treatment and area distribution systems needs.

This Plan recognizes the importance of protecting the quality of water supply resources to
increase water supply resources and minimize treatment costs. Current sources of drinking
water supply and the capacity to store, treat, and distribute it are limited. Therefore, at some
point in time, new raw water sources and/or changes in current use patterns may be
necessary to provide adequate service to increasing regional populations. The maintenance
and improvement of surface water quality serves.
 A. Water Service Area Categories -- As discussed in Chapter 1, this Plan classifies all
areas of the county into one of five category designations for water service areas. The
categories range from areas currently served by community systems (W-1), to areas where
improvements to or construction of new community systems will be planned in the future (W-
3, W-4, and W-5), to areas where there is no planned community service (W-6). Note that in
practice, Montgomery County does not use category W-2, which the State uses to designate
areas where community water system projects are in the final planning stages. Figure 3-F1
shows a generalized distribution of water service area categories throughout the county. For
additional detailed information on water service categories, please refer to Chapter 1.

B. Sanitary Districts -- The county is divided into three publically-operated and largely
separate sanitary service areas or districts. These districts are: the Washington Suburban
Sanitary District (WSSD), the largest system, serving most of the county; and two smaller
municipal districts, one owned and operated by the City of Rockville and the other by the
Town of Poolesville. (See Figure 3-F2.) Each district has its own water supply sources,
treatment facilities, and distribution systems. Information for the districts serving Rockville
and Poolesville was provided primarily by those municipalities and incorporated into this Plan
consistent with State law.

This chapter addresses each of these districts independently, starting with the WSSD, with
a primary focus on community water systems and service. Within each sanitary district,
some properties are served by individual, on-site systems, rather than community systems.
The vast majority of these individual systems are within the WSSD. Information on individual,
on-site systems, or rural sanitation service, follows at the end of the chapter.

II. WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY DISTRICT

The WSSD, established by State law, includes most of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and 
encompasses a total area of approximately 1000 square miles.  Guided by the policies included in this Plan, 
the provision of community water service within Montgomery County generally follows the patterns 
established by the County's General Plan for development, "On Wedges and Corridors."  Community service 
is established and planned for the central and southern part of the county, following three major 
transportation corridors of higher density development north from the District of Columbia:

 The U.S. Route 29 (Colesville Road/Columbia Pike) corridor to Burtonsville,
 The Georgia Avenue (State Route 97) corridor to Olney. and
 The U.S. Interstate 270/State Route 27 (Ridge Road) corridor to Clarksburg and Damascus.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 3: Water Supply Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 3­90
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 3: Water Supply Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 3­91
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 3: Water Supply Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 3­92

County water service policies also allow for some limited provision of community service to lower­density 
areas adjacent to and between these major corridors.  Community service in the WSSD depends on surface 
water supply from two major rivers: the Potomac River and the Patuxent River.  Elsewhere, primarily in the 
western and northeastern parts of the county, water service depends on individual, on­site systems, which 
receive their water from groundwater.

By an agreement with WSSC, Frederick County supplies community water service to the Rattlewood Golf 
Course, operated by the Montgomery County Revenue Authority.  The golf course is located at the 
northernmost tip of the county,in the WSSD, approximately 4­1/2 miles north of downtown Damascus.  The 
community water supply is provided by three groundwater wells in Frederick County's Mill Bottom water 
supply system; all three wells are located in Frederick County. 

A. Government Responsibilities ­­ The responsibilities for planning for and providing water service 
within the WSSD are multi­jurisdictional and depend on the cooperative efforts of municipal, County, State, 
Federal, and regional authorities.  This is especially true with regard to the Potomac River, a shared raw 
water source for several jurisdictions.  These agencies include the following:

 Montgomery County Government
• Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
• Department of Permitting Services (DPS)
 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC)
 Maryland ­ National Capital park and Planning Commission (M­NCPPC)
 Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)
 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG)
 State of Maryland
• Department of the Environment (MDE)
• Department of Planning (MDP)

These agencies, and their primary responsibilities and programs, are described in detail in Chapter 1, 
Section I.D.

B. Water Supply Sources ­­ Community water service in the WSSD depends on surface water 
supplied from the Potomac and Patuxent Rivers on either side of the county (see Figure 3­F3).  

1. Potomac River ­­ The Potomac River is the larger of the two sources of surface water supply for 
Montgomery County.  The river forms the southwestern border of Montgomery County with Virginia and 
serves as the source of drinking water to many communities in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and 
Washington D.C.  The Potomac River supplies over 40 billion gallons of water annually to the bi­county area 
of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties.  WSSC withdraws water from the Potomac River at Watkins 
Island, approximately two miles upstream from Great Falls, near the mouth of Watts Branch.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 3: Water Supply Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 3­93

In the Metropolitan area, the Potomac River is also a major source for Washington, D.C. (supplied by 
the Washington Aqueduct Division [WAD] of the U.S. Corps of Engineers), the City of Rockville, and the 
Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA).  All three utilities withdraw raw water from the Potomac River along 
the reach of the river within Montgomery County.  The WAD withdraws water from the river at Great Falls and 
at Little Falls; Rockville withdraws water near its treatment plant at Sandy Landing Road; FCWA withdraws 
water from the Virginia side of the river near Great Seneca Creek and the Seneca Pool.

Two impounded water supplies can supplement flows directly to the Potomac River during periods of 
low flow.  The Jennings Randolph Reservoir is located near Bloomington, Maryland, on the North Branch of 
the Potomac River on the State boundary with West Virginia, 200 miles upstream from the WSSC Potomac 
intake.  This reservoir was completed in 1981 and provides 30 billion gallons of raw water storage with 13 
billion gallons currently allocated to water supply.  The Washington Metropolitan Area (WMA) water suppliers 
(WSSC, WASA, et al.) have purchased ownership of this storage capacity from the Federal government.  The 
remaining capacity is for flood control and environmental flow augmentation.  The Jennings Randolph 
Reservoir (formerly, the Bloomington Reservoir) is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
 The COE's original intent was to supplement flows released from the Jennings Randolph Reservoir 
with flows from the Savage Reservoir, located north of Bloomington.  Flows from the Savage Reservoir, 
which are relatively basic, were intended to neutralize releases from the Jennings Randolph Reservoir, which 
the COE expected to be acidic due to upstream mine drainage.  However, the acidity problem never 
developed, and the COE had not needed to make water supply or water quality releases from the Savage 
Reservoir until 2002 when WMA water suppliers demanded them.  The WMA water suppliers pay 80 percent 
of the Savage Reservoir's capital replacement and operating costs, but have not received any benefit from 
that investment until 2002.  In active discussions with the Upper Potomac river Commission, the WMA water 
suppliers are reevaluating the purpose, use, and financing of the Savage Reservoir.

The other impoundment, Little Seneca Lake, built primarily for water supply, is located near Boyds in 
western Montgomery County, and impounds 4 billion gallons of raw water storage.  WSSC operates the dam 
and release facility as part of the Metropolitan Low Flow Agreement.  Table 3­T1 lists information on the 
impounded water supplies within Montgomery County, which are also shown on Figures 3­F3 and 3­F4.

The cost allocation formulas for Jennings Randolph and Savage Reservoirs and for Little Seneca
Lake were developed in 1982 and incorporated into the agreements listed on this page. These formulas are
the subject of active re-negotiation by the three WMA utilities. The allocation percentages in the agreements
for the three utilities were based on projected growth in demand between 1982 and 2000. The actual growth
pattern turned out to be substantially different resulting in a mismatch between the cost allocations and the
actual use of the regional facilities. The utilities are currently negotiating a revised cost-allocation formula,
one that will more closely match financial contribution to usage. This will eliminate the current regional
inequities in financing these three reservoirs.

 Table 3­T1:  Inventory of Existing Impounded Supplies in Montgomery County 

Source Potomac River Patuxent River

A
Public:  WSSC: Triadelphia  WSSC: T. Howard Duckett 
D
Owner Little Seneca Lake Reservoir Reservoir 
Name (Little Seneca Dam) (Brighton Dam) (T. Howard Duckett Dam)
Crest Elevation (above sea level) 385 feet 366.45 feet 286.45 feet
Spillway Length 300 feet 234 feet 189 feet
Total Length of Dam 600 feet 995 feet 840 feet
Height of Crest Above Stream Bed 77 feet 66.45 feet 125.45 feet
Flooded Area at Crest Elevation 530 acres 800 acres 810 acres
Shore Line Length at Crest Elevation ­ 19 miles 35 miles
Area of Land Owned 530 acres 
A
2,963 acres 3,023 acres

First Overflow of Dam Crest ­ 1944 1955

Capacity of  Reservoir
B B
5.5 (7.0  ) billion  5.2 (6.4  ) billion gallons
gallons
C B
4.5 billion gallons  Total Capacity =  10.7 (13.4  ) billion gallons

Safe Yield ­ 45.3 MGD
Average daily withdrawal ­ 42 MGD
  Table 3­T1:  Inventory of Existing Impounded Supplies in Montgomery County 
A D
Financed by WSSC, District of Columbia, and Fairfax County Water Authority. Formerly Rocky Gorge 
B
Total volume; additional volume in excess of water supply capacity is used for flood mitigation. Reservoir
C
Total capacity of reservoir is 4.5 billion gallons; useable capacity is 4 billion gallons.

2. Patuxent River ­­ The Patuxent River forms the northeastern border of Montgomery County with 
Howard County, and serves as another major source of water supply for the two counties supplied by WSSC. 
There are two water supply impoundments along the Patuxent River operated by WSSC, the Triadelphia and 
the Rocky Gorge Reservoirs, created by the Brighton and T. Howard Duckett Dams, respectively.  They are 
used mainly for water supply (10.7 billion gallons), with some capacity (2.7 billion gallons) used for flood 
control.  The Triadelphia Reservoir is located at Brighton in Montgomery County, 14 miles north of the
northernmost tip of Washington and has a storage capacity of 7.0 billion gallons.  The Rocky Gorge 
Reservoir is located approximately two miles northwest of Laurel, in Prince George's County and has a 
storage capacity of 6.4 billion gallons.  Table 3­T1 lists the existing impounded water supplies along the 
Patuxent River, which are also shown on Figures 3­F3 and 3­F4.

C. Water Supply Sources Programs and Policies ­­ The use of water supply sources in this region is 
managed and protected through a number of Federal and regional programs and agreements.  The following 
include a brief description of some of these programs and policies currently in place.  

1. Regional Drought Management in the Potomac River Basin ­­  In order to provide regional 
service during drought conditions and ensure that there is adequate flow in the River to meet the 
environmental flow­by, the Cooperative (CO­OP) Section of the Interstate Commission of the Potomac River 
Basin (ICPRB) coordinates releases from the Jennings Randolph Reservoir, located near Bloomington, 
Maryland, on the North Branch of the Potomac River, and the Little Seneca Lake in the County on Little 
Seneca Creek.  These two sources of water augment the Potomac River during periods of extreme low flow 
in the Washington Metropolitan area.  The agencies that have intakes in Montgomery County and which are 
considered the Regional Water Supply system during a drought are: 1) The Washington Suburban Sanitary 
Commission, 2) the Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA), and 3) the Washington Aqueduct Division 
(WAD) of the Corps of Engineers that serve the District of Columbia, Arlington, Falls Church, and a small 
portion of Fairfax County.  The City of Rockville and the Town of Leesburg also draw their water from the 
Metropolitan area of the Potomac River.

Nine agreements determine how water the region's utilities distribute and use water during drought 
and how they pay for it.  The agreements, in chronological order, are:

Table 3­T2: Potomac River Regional Drought Agreements

Signatories Major Provisions

Low Flow Allocation Agreement (LFAA) (1978)

 State of Maryland
 State of Virginia
 District of Columbia
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  WSSC
 FCWA
This agreement establishes allowable withdrawals among major water 
users of the Potomac River during periods when there is not sufficient 
supply to allow unrestricted withdrawals.  As a result of the 1982 
Regional Water Supply Agreements, the chance of invoking the LFAA is 
projected to be less than 5 percent during a repeat of the worst drought 
of record.

Modification No. 1, Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement (1982)

 State of Maryland This amendment to the LFAA provides for releases from the Jennings 
 State of Virginia Randolph and Savage Reservoirs and Little Seneca Lake to be subject to 
 District of Columbia the allocation formula of the LFAA.  Most importantly, as long as there 
 U.S. Army  Corps of  are legally enforceable Regional Water Supply Agreements, the 1988 
Engineers freeze provision of the LFAA will be inoperative.  The 1988 freeze 
provision would have limited FCWA, WSSC, and District of Columbia 
withdrawal ratios to 1988 actual levels unless a water supply agreement 
 Table 3­T2: Potomac River Regional Drought Agreements

Signatories Major Provisions
was reached.  Since the District of Columbia is the largest withdrawer of 
water, the District would have attained a disproportionately large share of 
water versus need over time.  The Regional Water Supply Agreements 
are predicated on all water users obtaining water as needed and the 
sharing of resources.

Water Supply Coordination Agreement (1982)

 Corps of Engineers
 Fairfax Co. Water Authority
  WSSC
 District of Columbia
 ICPRB.
This agreement establishes the precedents that the major water 
suppliers will operate systems in a coordinated manner during a drought 
and that water withdrawal will be based on need, not on the relative 
share paid for water storage facilities.  This agreement also identifies the 
CO­OP section of the Interstate Commission of the Potomac River Basin 
(ICPRB) as the agency to administer provisions of the Drought Related 
Operations Manual, such as issuing long­range water supply projections 
and directing releases from Jennings Randolph and Little Seneca lakes 
during a drought.  The water utilities fund the activities of the CO­OP 
section as follows: WSSC ­ 50 percent, FCWA ­ 20 percent, and WASA ­ 
30 percent.

Agreement for Future Water Supply Storage Space in the Bloomington Reservoir (1982)

 District of Columbia
 Corps of Engineers
  WSSC
 Fairfax Co. Water Authority  Areas share would equal 13.37 billion gallons when the reservoir is full.
This agreement entitles the District of Columbia, the Fairfax County 
Water Authority and the WSSC to 36.78 percent of Jennings Randolph 
Reservoir storage capacity known as future supply.  The Metropolitan 
 
In return, the three non­federal signatories are required to pay 27.4% of 
the construction cost (local share estimated at $54.2 million, includes 
interest over 50 years), 34.75% of the cost of major replacement items 
and 28.56% of the annual operation and maintenance costs.  Jennings 
Randolph water not contracted for water supply is used for water quality 
improvement in the North Branch of the Potomac River.  Water Quality 
releases upstream also indirectly benefit local jurisdictions by delaying 
the time when low flows are experienced in the Washington area.  The 
WMA water utilities fund the capital, operations, and maintenence costs 
for the water supply storage in the Jennings Randolph Reservoir.

Note: The Maryland Potomac Water Authority (MPWA) was created in 1978 to coordinate local governments 
in the acquisition of water storage of the Jennings Randolph Reservoir.  However, the agreements of 1982 
which provided for purchasing of storage by the District of Columbia, the Fairfax County Water Authority 
and WSSC have made the function of the MPWA unnecessary.

Bloomington Payment Agreement (1982)

 Fairfax Co. Water Authority This agreement delineates the three major water users individual 
 District of Columbia responsibility to pay for Jennings Randolph water supply in the agreed to 
 Table 3­T2: Potomac River Regional Drought Agreements

Signatories Major Provisions
  WSSC ratios.  This agreement was necessitated because the Corps of Engineer 
required that payments had to be guaranteed.  The District of Columbia 
was unable to make such a guarantee because their budget must be 
approved annually by Congress.  Under the provisions of the agreement, 
should a user default in payment, another user can make the payment 
and sue the defaulter for payment plus penalty.  In addition, the defaulter 
loses right to use Jennings Randolph water supply while in default.

Little Seneca Lake Cost Sharing Agreement (1982)

 District of Columbia
 Fairfax Co. Water Authority
  WSSC
This agreement establishes the cost shares and payment mechanisms to 
fund construct on of Little Seneca Lake in Montgomery County.  Capital 
and operating and maintenance cost were distributed according to the 
following ratios:  WSSC 50%; District of Columbia 40%; and Fairfax 
County Water Authority 10%.

Savage Reservoir Maintenance and Operation Cost Sharing Agreement (1982)

 District of Columbia
 Fairfax Co. Water Authority
  WSSC
 Allegany County, Md.
  Upper Potomac River  water supply gained without requiring local funds for the construction of
Commission (UPRC)
This agreement addresses water releases from the Savage Reservoir, 
which as relatively basic, were intended to neutralize releases from the 
Jennings Randolph Reservoir, which were expected to be acidic due to 
upstream mine drainage.  This dilution effect can be viewed as additional 
 
the Savage Reservoir.  The signatories exclusive of the UPRC have 
agreed to fund the annual operations and maintenance, and replacement 
and repair costs of Savage Reservoir according to the following 
percentages: Fairfax County Water Authority 16%; District of Columbia 
24%; WSSC 40%; and Allegany County 20%.  (See the preceding 
discussion of the reservoir for additional information.)

Metropolitan Washington Water Supply Emergency Agreement (1994)

 District of Columbia This agreement establishes three plans for coordinating regional actions 
  Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun,  in the event of emergencies that affect water supply from the Potomac 
Montgomery, Prince George's  River to the Washington Metropolitan Region.  The first plan provides a 
and Prince William Counties regional response mechanism for health­related emergencies in the 
 Towns or Cities of Alexandria,  Washington Aqueduct Division system.  The second plan provides a 
Bowie, College Park, Fairfax,  mechanism for emergencies that affect more than one of the utilities that 
Falls Church, Gaithersburg,  withdraw raw water from the Potomac River.  The final plan describes the 
Greenbelt, Manassas,  routine planning and cooperative operating procedures which have 
Rockville, Takoma Park, and  significantly reduced the risk of drought affecting the region's water 
Vienna supply.  Background information describing the conditions leading up to 
  Council of Governments the plan and the procedures for updating it is also provided.
  Fairfax Co. Water Authority
  Loudoun Co. Sanitation Auth.
 Table 3­T2: Potomac River Regional Drought Agreements

Signatories Major Provisions
  WSSC

Metropolitan Washington Water Supply and Drought Awareness Response Plan: Potomac River 
System (2000)

 District of Columbia This COG plan provides implementation steps during drought conditions 
  Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun,  for the purpose of coordinated regional response.  The Plan consists of 
Montgomery, Prince George's  two interrelated components: a regional year­round plan emphasizing 
and Prince William Counties wise water use and conservation, which is currently under development; 
 Towns or Cities of Alexandria,  and a water supply and drought awareness and response plan.  The 
Bowie, College Park, Fairfax,  water supply and drought awareness plan contains four stages:
Falls Church, Gaithersburg,  ∙  Normal: Wise Water Use Program
Greenbelt, Manassas,  ∙  Watch: voluntary water conservation measures
Rockville, Takoma Park, and  ∙  Warning: voluntary water restrictions
Vienna ∙  Emergency: mandatory water restrictions
  Council of Governments This plan is primarily designed for those customers who use the Potomac 
  Fairfax Co. Water Authority River for their drinking water supply source.  The Plan will eventually be 
  Loudoun Co. Sanitation Auth. expanded to incorporate all water supply systems throughout the region.
  WSSC

2. Regional Drought Operations – During times of declared drought, the regional water supply 
system will operate according to the Drought Operations Manual of the 1982 Water Supply Coordination 
Agreement.  Operations rules and procedures for reducing the impacts of severe droughts in the Potomac 
River for the Washington Metropolitan Area Water Suppliers are as follows:

 Make the most efficient use of all water supply facilities, including but not limited to the Potomac 
River, Jennings Randolph Lake, Occoquan Reservoir, Triadelphia Reservoir, Rocky Gorge 
Reservoir, and Little Seneca Lake to meet all water supply needs for the Washington 
Metropolitan Area.
 Maintain the probability of invoking the Restriction Stage of the Potomac River Low Flow 
Allocation Agreement at less than 5 percent during a repeat of the historical stream flow record.
 Maintain the probability of entering the Emergency Stage of the Potomac River Low Flow 
Allocation Agreement at less than 2 percent with full reservoirs on June 1 of any year.
 Maintain the probability of not refilling any reservoir used for Washington Metropolitan Area water 
supply to 90 percent of useable capacity by the following June 1 at less than 5 percent during a 
repeat of the historical stream flow record.
 Maintain flows in the Potomac River below Seneca Pool as agreed to by the signatories to the 
Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement.
 Minimize conflict between normal utility operations and drought operations.
 Provide consistency with the requirements of the Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement.
 The underlying principle in this operation procedure is to reduce unneeded reservoir releases by 
making larger releases only as necessary to meet water needs.  The capability of existing suppliers can be 
substantially extended in this manner.  The Water Supply Coordination Agreement for cooperative system 
management is the critical element which allows the users to obtain the maximum benefits and reduce water 
wastage.

During a drought, WAD and the CO­OP Section of the ICPRB play key roles in determining the 
operation of the Regional Water Supply System.  The WAD is charged with determining when to declare 
alert, restriction, or emergency drought stages.  If a restriction or emergency stage is declared, the WAD 
allocates each user's fair share of withdrawal based on previous usage.  Prior to restriction or alert stage 
designation, the CO­OP Section is responsible for coordinating water withdrawals to make the most efficient 
use of all water supply facilities.  To accomplish this objective, CO­OP produces forecasts of water supply 
and need and determines how much water the WSSC and FCWA should be withdrawing from non­Potomac 
River supplies on a daily basis.  The CO­OP in consideration of the needs of the WAD, WSSC, and FCWA, 
also directs releases from Jennings Randolph Reservoir and Little Seneca Lake.

The signing of the Water Supply Agreements of 1982 and the completion of Little Seneca Lake in the 
fall of 1984 resulted in a regional consensus that area raw water supply needs are satisfied, at least through 
the year 2020.  Recent water demand forecast and resource adequacy analysis by ICPRB/CO­OP confirms 
that presently available resources will be adequate for the region until approximately the year 2020 in the 
event of a repetition of the drought of record.  Although ICPRB’s recent analyses extended forecasts to 2040, 
the water demand forecasts beyond 2020 were considered to be only rough approximations based on 
extrapolations of population projections.

3. Potomac River Environmental Flow­By ­­ As a heavily­used water resource, the Potomac 
River requires careful management to ensure its value for the utilities which draw its water and the health of 
its natural ecosystem.  Part of the purpose of the preceding group of agreements is to ensure that the river 
has an adequate flow­by through and downstream from the Washington region sufficient to maintain its 
biological health, even under severe drought conditions.  These agreements have assumed a minimum flow­
by requirement of 100 million gallons per day (MGD) necessary to support the biological health of the river 
system.

However, the scientific basis for and adequacy of the 100 MGD flow­by requirement is under review. 
Maryland DNR, supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ICPRB, and Montgomery County DEP, 
launched a study of the river's environmental flow­by needs.  During the summer and fall of 2002, DEP staff 
supported this effort, participating in field research in and along the river.  A task force will examine the study 
data in April 2003 with the intent of recommending the best way to establish appropriate low flows for the 
Potomac River.  Montgomery County will continue to pursue vigorously these issues through appropriate 
forums, as necessary.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation
Montgomery County supports continuing scientific evaluation of the Potomac River flow­by 
necessary to support the river’s natural ecosystem.  The County recognizes that an 
 agreement on a flow­by substantially different from the existing 100 MGD will require 
review and possible revision of the inter­jurisdictional agreements on the Potomac River, 
including the funding of any necessary expansion of low flow augmentation.

4. Potomac Water Filtration Plant Source Water Assessment – MDE and WSSC recently 
completed a source water assessment (SWA) for the Potomac River and WSSC’s water filtration plant.  The 
SWA addresses issues involved with the quality and safety of the raw water the plant draws from the river for 
treatment and does not directly address finished water quality.  From its findings, the SWA recommends the 
development and implementation of a source water protection plan for the Potomac Plant and for other 
similar facilities which draw their source water from the river.  The SWA predicts the following improvements 
as a result of the successful implementation of such a plan:

 Reducing the solids loading to the plant,

 Reducing the magnitude and frequency of high pH, high natural organic matter
(NOM) events which result from algal, phytoplankton, and macrophyte activities in the
Potomac and its tributaries,
 Improving protection from pathogens including Cryptosporidium and Giardia,
 Reducing the number and severity of taste and odor episodes which occur in the
WSSC system, and
 Reducing ammonia levels and chlorine demand in the raw water

5. Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Protection Agreement ­­ The Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed

Protection Group (PRWPG) was formed by agreement in October 1996 to protect the long-term biological,
physical, and chemical integrity of the Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs watershed. Signatories to
the agreement include Montgomery County, Howard County, Prince George’s County, the Montgomery and
Howard Soil Conservation Districts, the M-NCPPC, and the WSSC. The first Action Plan, approved in 1997,
listed 10 tasks in three categories:

 Data Analysis and Collection Tasks
∙ Expand reservoir and tributary water chemistry monitoring
∙ Expand tributary biological and habitat monitoring
∙ Perform stream corridor assessments and identify erosion hot spots for potential remediation
∙ Develop and apply a GIS­based watershed modeling tool
∙ Develop a coordinated data and information exchange process

 Implementation Tasks
• Establish an enhanced agricultural management initiative
• Initiate regular referral of development proposals for WSSC input
• Seek enhanced on­site septic system treatment efficiency for new replacement systems

 Public Information Tasks
• Enhance public outreach and involvement initiatives
• Complete annual reports
 These tasks were based on the consensus recommendations of the 1997 Comprehensive
Management Planning Study for the Patuxent Reservoir Watershed to protect six priority resources:

 Reservoir/water supply
 Terrestrial habitats
 Stream systems
 Aquatic biota
 Rural character and landscapes
 Public awareness and stewardship

Since then, the signatories and support agencies have successfully accomplished the following:

 Expanded reservoir and tributary water chemistry monitoring necessary for baseline and trends
analysis
 Conducted and analyzed at least one round of biological and habitat monitoring to assess 
tributary streams
 Completed stream corridor assessments to locate, assess, and rank habitat and water quality 
problems on tributary streams and begun inventories of projects to address these problems 
 Developed watershed­wide geographic information system (GIS) coverages of physical and 
natural features
 Developed a GIS­based watershed loading model linked to a reservoir eutrophication model to 
predict changes in reservoir water quality based on changes in watershed land cover 
characteristics
 Implemented a local­cost share program for streamside agricultural best management practices
 Established a network of programs and contacts through local agencies, schools, and citizen
groups for more effective public outreach on watershed awareness and reservoir protection

The member agencies are currently evaluating progress to date, the establishment of quantifiable 
measures to judge success in protecting these priority resources, the feasible rate of implementation of 
projects or control strategies, and the need to revise or add additional goals.

The PRWPG has already begun working with the Maryland Department of the Environment as it 
develops Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the reservoirs.  These TMDLs will set limits for pounds per 
year of sediment that can enter the Triadelphia Reservoir and of nutrients that can enter the Triadelphia and 
Rocky Gorge Reservoirs.  Achieving these regulatory limits is expected to require enhanced water quality 
best management practices on new development and on agricultural lands,  stormwater retrofits on existing 
development,  and increased stewardship by citizens in their yards and everyday activities.  It is highly 
unlikely that achieving the TMDLs will require any changes in existing zoning in these watersheds.

The 1982 “Water Supply Coordination Agreement” also affects the use of the Patuxent River’s 
reservoirs under that agreement’s Drought Operations Manual.  See Section II.C.1. for additional information.

D. Water Treatment Facilities – The WSSC operates two major filtration plants in its sanitary district 
which provide water treatment for Montgomery County.  These plants draw"raw" or untreated water from the 
Potomac and Patuxent Rivers and process it into "finished" or drinking water of high quality.  Figure 3­F3 
shows the location of these plants, and their current status and capacities are provided in Table 3­T3.

Table 3­T3: WSSC Water Treatment Facilities

Facility Rated Plant Capacity
Owner/Operating Agency Average Production
Plant Location &  Water Source Maximum Peak Flow Sludge and/or 
Coordinates Treatment Type Storage Capacity Filter Backwash Status/Comments

Potomac Filtration Plant Potomac River capacity: 285 MGD discharged to  Various treatment 

WSSC lime, alum, flocculation,  production: 109.3 MGD Potomac River  processes are currently 
River Road filtration, chlorination,  peak flow: 161.7 MGD after solids are  being upgraded (see 
N439,000/E727,000 fluoridation  storage: 22.05 MGD removed Section II.F.2.a.).

Patuxent Filtration Plant Patuxent River (Rocky  capacity: 56.0 MGD discharged to  The plant is currently 

WSSC Gorge Reservoir) production: 35.4 MGD sanitary sewer under extensive 
Sandy Spring Road (Prince  lime, alum, flocculation,  peak flow: 47.7 MGD renovation and 
George's Co.) filtration, chlorination,  storage: 18.36 MGD upgrade.
fluoridation

See Figure 3­F3 for the locations of these facilities.
See Table 3­T11 for information on the City of Rockville's filtration plant.

 1. Potomac Water Filtration Plant ­­ This facility, located on River Road (Route 190) at Lake 
Potomac Drive, two miles upstream from Great Falls, serves both Montgomery and Prince George's 
Counties.  The plant draws water from the Potomac River just downstream from the mouth of Watts Branch. 
The Potomac Water Filtration Plant has a State­permitted maximum intake capacity of 400 million gallons per 
day (MGD), and a rated treatment capacity of 285 MGD.   However, the plant  generally operates in a range 
of 105 to 160 MGD.

Until recently, solids removed from the intake water were discharged directly back into the Potomac 
River.  In 1996, MDE and WSSC entered into consent agreement for WSSC to build facilities for the removal 
of the sedimentation basin solids from the plant discharge, except for periods of high river flow when direct 
discharge will be allowed.  This solids handling facility recently started operation; solids from this process are 
land applied under contracts with WSSC.  Anticipating future demand, WSSC has studied and is beginning to 
implement treatment process improvements at the plant to guarantee its sustained rated capacity of 285 
MGD.  (See Section II.E.2.a. for additional information.)

2. Patuxent Water Filtration Plant ­­This facility is located on Sandy Spring Road (Route 198) at 
Sweitzer Lane near Laurel in Prince George's County, approximately one­half mile east of the Montgomery 
County border.  Although the plant serves primarily Prince George's County, its effective reach extends west 
into Montgomery County to approximately Georgia Avenue (Route 97), according to a recent WSSC study. 
The plant draws water from the T. Howard Duckett Reservoir on the Patuxent River.  WSSC is currently 
replacing the Patuxent Filtration Plant with an advanced conventional water treatment plant on the existing 
facility site.  The new plant will have a nominal treatment capacity of 56 MGD and the capacity to provide up 
to 72 MGD.   Solids removed from the water of the Patuxent River are thickened in basins along Route 198 
(across from the plant) and then are discharged to a sewer that leads to the Parkway Wastewater Treatment 
Plant.  Most of the plant's processed water is gravity fed to the WSSC sewerage system in Prince George's 
County.  Pumping and transmission capacity also exists to provide approximately 18 MGD to the 
Montgomery High Zone and 36 MGD to the Montgomery Main Zone.  Anticipating a need to improve water 
supply system redundancy in the WSSD, WSSC has proposed a second phase of improvements at the plant 
which will expand its sustained capacity to 72 MGD and its peak rated capacity to 120 MGD.  (See Section 
II.E.2.a. for additional information.)

E. Water Distribution and Storage Systems ­­  WSSC delivers finished drinking water from its 
treatment plants to consumers throughout the WSSD community water service area in Montgomery County 
by a series of pumping facilities and transmission mains.  Providing adequate water service also requires 
strategically located water storage facilities serving sections of the county.  The following sections discuss 
these distribution and storage systems.

1. Water Service Pressure Zones ­­ The WSSD community water service area within Montgomery 
County is divided into separate pressure zones.  These are grouped into two major zones, as shown in 
Figure 3­F6: the WSSD Main Zone serves the southern and eastern parts of the county, and the Montgomery 
County High Zone serves the northern and western parts.  The division between these two major pressure 
zones traverses the county west to east through western Potomac, Travilah, Rockville, Norbeck, Cloverly, and 
Fairland.  Each of the major zones consists of several smaller pressure zones as shown in Table 3­T4 and 
Figure 3­F5.   The WSSD Main Zone also serves Prince George's County.

WSSC divides areas of the county into water pressure zones based primarily on ground elevations. 
Each pressure zone must have its own source or sources of supply, transmission systems (i.e., pumping 
stations or pressure reducing valves and transmission mains), and storage facilities to transport water from 
the sources to the points of use.  A water supply source for a pressure zone may be a water filtration plant 
and/or another adjacent pressure zone.  Water supply to zones at higher elevations must be pumped, while 
water supply to lower elevations must be controlled by pressure regulation valves.  The water supplied to 
each zone is maintained at a pressure sufficient to provide adequate quality and quantity of service to the 
consumers in that zone.  The water system within each of these zones may be designed to serve the 
population of that zone as well as adjacent zones. Because of the large area and the number of pressure 
zones within the County, the availability of mutual backup support capabilities is extremely important.  This is 
accomplished through the use of interconnected pressure zones, the two sources of supply, and water 
storage facilities.  Table 3­T4 lists the hydraulic grade and primary water supply for the pressure zones within 
Montgomery County, showing which zones are interdependent with others.  WSSC establishes new pressure 
zones and adjusts zone boundaries in response to projected development demands and improvements to 
system efficiency. 

TABLE 3­T4: WSSC Water Pressure Zones in Montgomery County  

Major Pressure Zones Normal Hydraulic  Primary  Water Supply Source

Grade

WSSD Main Zone Potomac Plant

Prince George’s Co. Main Zone 320 Feet Potomac Plant

 TABLE 3­T4: WSSC Water Pressure Zones in Montgomery County  

Major Pressure Zones Normal Hydraulic  Primary  Water Supply Source

Grade

Montgomery Co. Main Zone 495 feet Potomac Plant

Cabin John Zone 350 feet Montgomery County Main Zone

Falls Road Zone 552 feet Montgomery County Main Zone

Montgomery County High Zone Potomac Plant

Colesville Zone 560 feet Browns Corner Zone

Brown’s Corner/Shady Grove Zone 660 feet Potomac and Patuxent Plants

Airpark Zone 685 feet Shady Grove Zone

Brink Zone 760 feet Shady Grove Zone

Cedar Heights Zone 836 feet Brink Zone

Damascus  Zone 960 feet Cedar Heights Zone

The County is divided into 28 planning areas, each area forming a fairly cohesive district bounded by 
a major highway or natural border such as a stream valley.  These planning areas are determined by 
legislative action of the County Council.  The pressure zones serving each of the planning areas are shown 
in Figure 3­F5.

2. Water Pumping Stations  ­­ Community water service in the Montgomery County portion of the 
WSSD depends on pumping systems from both the Potomac and Patuxent Filtration Plants.   Because all 
finished water leaving the Potomac Plant must be pumped, the plant output cannot exceed its finished water 
pumping capacity.  The Potomac Plant Main Zone Pumping Station has a pumping capacity of 234 MGD; the 
High Zone pumping station provides a pumping capacity of 66 MGD.  The Patuxent Main Zone Pumping 
Station has a capacity of 36 MGD; the Patuxent Plant High Zone Pumping Station has a capacity of 18 MGD. 
(Note:  Water leaving the Patuxent Plant for Prince George's County may also flow by gravity).  These 
pumping stations at the filtration plants are complemented by other stations located throughout the county 
which boost water pressures to the hydraulic grade of pressure zones rising progressively higher in elevation 
(see Figure 3­F6).  Capacities of water pumping facilities are shown on Table 3­T5.
 Table 3­T5: WSSC Water Pumping Facilities

Pumping Station Capacity (MGD) Pumping Station Capacity (MGD)

WSSD Main Zone Montgomery County High Zone

Potomac Plant 234.0 Brink 4.0

Patuxent Plant  36.0 Cedar Heights 10.0

Falls Road 7.8 Colesville 8.0

Montgomery County High Zone Goshen Road 20.0

Potomac Plant 66.0 Neelsville 10.0

Patuxent Plant  18.0 Norbeck 15.0

Air Park 5.5 Wheaton 34.0

3. Water Transmission Mains ­­ Major water transmission mains move finished water from 
WSSC’s pumping stations into the various pressures zones, to their associated storage facilities, and 
ultimately to the smaller, local service mains which serve consumers.  These mains generally decrease in 
diameter as they progress through the system from supply to the point of consumption, depending upon their 
relationship with other elements of the network.  Major transmission lines (over 12 inches in diameter) are 
shown in Figure 3­F6.  Transmission mains leading from the Potomac Filtration Plant consist of 36­inch and 
60­inch lines for the High Zone; and 48­inch, 66­inch, and 96­inch diameter lines for the Main Zone. 
Transmission lines leading from the Patuxent Filtration Plant consist of 20­inch, 24­inch, 30­inch, and three 
42­inch lines.

4. Water Storage Facilities ­­ Associated with each water pressure zone are water storage 
facilities.  These facilities for potable water storage are important elements of the water distribution system, 
performing the following essential functions:

 Reduce loads on sources of water supply, filtration plants, pumping stations and transmission 
and distribution mains during periods of peak water demand.
 Provide an essential reserve capacity in meeting fire service demand and provide water pressure 
during short­term interruptions caused by localized power failures or the need for system repairs.
 Provide "cushions" to pump against while maintaining pressures within the distribution system in 
certain cases.  The cushioning effect of stored water helps prevent damage to piping and other 
water distribution appurtenances arising from inadvertent surges in pumped water pressure and 
resultant damage from "water hammer" effects.
 Reduce capital costs required for relatively expensive transmission mains by strategic placement 
of adequate storage facilities.
 Permit the use of pumping equipment during periods of off­peak electrical demand.
 Provide better stabilized system flow rates over entire water service areas.
 The determination of how much storage capacity each pressure zone and each individual facility 
requires varies widely between utilities.  There are no national standards for determining acceptable levels for 
each of these storage purposes.  WSSC has set its storage standards based on the generally accepted 
levels of reliability and risk.  WSSC designs water its water storage facilities to meet the following three 
storage needs:

 Equalization Storage: Meets hourly fluctuations in demand, satisfying all hourly demands in 
excess of the maximum day demand.
 Fire Protection Storage: Provides fire protection due to high flow rates required during a major 
fire, preventing substantial drawdowns or reversals in water system pressure.
 Emergency Storage: Maintains service during emergencies such as pipeline breaks, power 
outages, and equipment failure, providing 4 hours of maximum day demand.
 When designing and siting a proposed water storage facility, WSSC staff first consider the need for 
elevated, gravity­fed storage within a pressure zone. Elevated storage provides advantages over ground­
level, pumped storage in terms of greater system reliability and faster response time to flow demands. 
Because elevated storage structures have the a greater potential for affecting the visual landscape of a 
neighborhood, WSSC designs and constructs facilities in an architecturally desirable manner to minimize the 
impact on the surrounding neighborhood.  In rare cases, ground­level or below­ground­level storage may 
provide gravity­fed storage to a pressure zone, but only where sufficiently high ground elevations exist which 
allow for such facilities.  WSSC develops siting studies for water storage facilities with the involvement of 
local community.  WSSC traditionally locates water storage facilities within or at the periphery of the 
community water service envelope, which minimizes both transmission costs and intrusion into areas not 
intended for community service.

WSSC’s efforts to develop aesthetically pleasing storage facilities are widely recognized.  Examples 
include the Germantown Elevated Storage Tank­­or the "Big Blue Ball"­­ on the Montgomery College 
campus, which is painted to resemble the Earth as seen from space; and the Airpark Tank near Montgomery 
Village in eastern Gaithersburg, which is designed to resemble a cluster of farm silos.

WSSC currently has 23 water storage facilities distributed throughout Montgomery County.  Including 
the water storage reservoirs at the Potomac and Patuxent Filtration Plants, total available storage capacity is 
approximately130 million gallons.  The capacity of individual public potable storage facilities are indicated on 
Table 3­T4.  The locations of WSSC’s water storage facilities are shown in Figure 3­F6. 
 
Table 3­T6: WSSC Water Storage Facilities Serving Montgomery County

Capacity
Water Storage Facility Pressures Zones  (million gallons gross storage)

WSSD Main Zone

Cabin John Elevated Tank Cabin John 0.5

Falls Road Standpipe Falls Road 3.24

Alta Vista Standpipe Montgomery County Main 0.475

Bradley Hills Standpipes Montgomery County Main 2.5 + 2.6

North Woodside Standpipe Montgomery County Main 7.52

Wall Lane Standpipe Montgomery County Main 2.5

Wheaton Reservoirs Montgomery County Main 4.0 + 4.0 + 15.0 + 10.0

Montgomery County High Zone
Air Park Elevated Tank Air Park 2.0

Brink Elevated Tank Brink 1.0

Brink Reservoir Browns Corner/Shady Grove 10.0

Germantown Elevated Tank Browns Corner/Shady Grove 2.0

Glenmont Elevated Tank Browns Corner/Shady Grove 0.5

 Table 3­T6: WSSC Water Storage Facilities Serving Montgomery County

Capacity
Water Storage Facility Pressures Zones  (million gallons gross storage)

Goshen Road Pumped Storage Browns Corner/Shady Grove 4.0

Hampshire Greens Elevated  Browns Corner/Shady Grove 1.25 + 1.25 + 1.25

Tanks*

Olney Standpipe Browns Corner/Shady Grove 2.54

Shady Grove Standpipe Brown's Corner/Shady Grove 5.05

Cedar Heights Reservoir Cedar Heights 2.45

Colesville Pumped Storage Colesville 1.0

Colesville Elevated Tank Colesville 2.2

Damascus Elevated Tank Damascus 1.5

Potomac Plant Reservoirs** 23.34

Patuxent Plant Reservoirs** 18.36

TOTAL STORAGE AVAILABLE TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY 130.03

* Replaces the Browns Corner Standpipe (2.0 mg) demolished in 2002
** Provides storage at the filtration plants for flows pumped to either the Main or High Zones.

5. Distribution System Interconnections – WSSC serves or has system interconnections with the 
jurisdictions shown in Table 3­T7.  Some of these jurisdictions have agreements with WSSC for water supply 
as everyday supply, and/or for emergencies only and/or to meet peak demands.  If all supply commitments to 
other jurisdictions were fully utilized, including current withdrawals where no agreement exists, the total 
withdrawals would exceed 15 MGD.

Table 3­T7: Interconnections with the WSSC Water System

Jurisdiction Allowable Withdrawal Average Withdrawal

Andrews Air Force Base* No Agreement** 2.3 MGD**

City of Bowie* No Agreement 0 MGD

Charles County 1.4 MGD 0 MGD

Howard County 5.0 MGD 0.9 MGD

City of Rockville*** 6.0 MGD 0.02 MGD

Washington, DC No Agreement 0.04 MGD

* Within Prince George's County
** An agreement is currently under negotiation; regular withdrawal only recently began.
*** Within Montgomery County; see Table 3­T13 for specific interconnection locations.
 6. System Redundancy ­­ This plan promotes general water supply system designs where large 
water pressure zones, such as the WSSD Main Zone and the Montgomery County High Zone, have equal 
and adequate protection from prolonged major service interruptions.  Such service interruptions could include 
a filtration plant outage similar to that which occurred in 1977, which resulted in 15 hours of complete 
shutdown and 2.5 days of partial shutdown, or breaks in major transmission mains, or any other occurrence 
that could substantially reduce water service to WSSC customers.   WSSC designs the water supply system 
within some pressure zones to allow it to also serve an adjacent pressure zone.  WSSC uses interconnected 
pressure zones, the two sources of supply, and water storage facilities to accomplish this important mutual 
backup support capability.  

There are a small number of interconnections between the District of Columbia and WSSC systems 
in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties.  However, they are too small to transfer adequate supply of 
water between the systems during emergency situations caused by damage to treatment and distribution 
facilities.  At this time, there are no system interconnections which provide for substantial system redundancy 
from outside the WSSC service area. 

The Patuxent Pumping Station that serves Montgomery County can provide up to 20 mgd to the High 
Zone and 36 mgd to the Main Zone during an emergency.  WSSC has initiated planning for an expansion of 
this filtration plant’s capacity (see Section II.F.2.v.).

F. Projected Water Demand and Supply System Needs  ­­ A critical role of the County's Water and 
Sewer Plan is not only addressing current water supply needs, but also projecting and adequately planning 
for future water needs based on the County's growth forecasts and historic water demand.  The following 
sections provide the basis for and determination of future community water demand in Montgomery County 
and the WSSD.  The Plan also provides a summary of the major capital facilities needed to satisfy that 
projected demand.

1. Overall Water Supply System Demand ­­ Table 3­T8 presents WSSC’ s daily average and 
maximum water production levels since 1980.  Based upon analysis of the latest water production and 
consumption data, WSSC has developed the following the water production use for growth projections for 
planning water system improvements:

 Single­Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU): 231 gallons/day (gpd)  Employees: 51 gpd

 Multi­Family Dwelling Unit (MFDU): 209 gpd

Table 3­T8: WSSC Historic Water Production
Average Maximum Day Average Maximum Day
Calendar Production  Production  Maximum to  Calendar Production  Production  Maximum to 
Year (mgd) (mgd) Average Ratio Year (mgd) (mgd) Average Ratio

1980 143 193 1.35 1991 171 256 1.5

1981 140 187 1.33 1992 162 220 1.36
1982 142 196 1.38 1993 167 243 1.45
 Table 3­T8: WSSC Historic Water Production
1983 147 215 1.46 1994 173.5 231 1.33
1984 145 199 1.38 1995 167.1 234 1.4
1985 149 197 1.33 1996 161.3 199 1.24
1986 161 227 1.41 1997 164.7 245.8 1.49
1987 163 239 1.46 1998 166.6 219.8 1.32
1988 170 267 1.57 1999 168.2 263.4 1.57
1989 165 228 1.38 2000 162 200.8 1.24
1990 167 235 1.41 2001 167.4 253.2 1.51
Note: Data includes all of the WSSC service area ( Montgomery and Prince George’s counties) Source:  WSSC­ Planning Group

WSSC has prepared water demand projections through the year 2020 for Montgomery County (Table 
3­T9), using COG/M­NCPPC Round 6.2 population forecasts and current water use factors for single­family 
dwelling units, multi­family dwelling units, and employees.

Table 3­T9:  Projected Average Daily Water Demands for 
Montgomery County

Total Production (MGD)
Calendar
Main Zone High Zone Total
Year

2005 49.13 47.53 96.66

2010 50.59 51.03 101.62

2015 51.62 54.03 105.65

2020 52.65 56.46 109.11

Source: WSSC Planning Group

To account for hourly variation in consumption and for the use and refilling of water storage facilities, 
consumption criteria must span at least a 24­hour time period.  To account for seasonal variations, the 
criteria specifies the 24­hour period of greatest projected consumption within a given year, generally referred 
to as the maximum day consumption.  The specific numbers are obtained by multiplying the average daily 
consumption for the year and the maximum day factor, and distributing the result over a typical 24­hour 
consumption pattern.  The maximum day demand factor is the ratio of the peak day demand to the average 
day demand, and is used in sizing the capacity of the water system facilities.  The current maximum day 
demand factor used by WSSC is 1.49 for system wide facilities, based on a 20% probability exceedance. 
Table 3­T10 lists WSSC's daily average and maximum water production projections and planned capacity. 
 Table 3­T10: Projected Water Supply Demands and Planned Capacity 
Washington Suburban Sanitary District 

Projected Demand (MGD)
Calendar  Planned Capacity (MGD)*
Year Daily Average  Maximum Daily Daily Maximum 

2005 178.7 266.2 341

2010 188.3 280.5 357

2015 196.6 292.9 357

2020 205.2 305.7 357

Source: WSSC Planning Group
* This is planned treatment capacity at both Potomac and Patuxent treatment facilities

As shown in the preceding table, total water consumption is anticipated to increase in the future, as 
the population increases.  Estimated water consumption at full development represents the average 
consumption expected when all parcels of land are developed to the extent allowed under current zoning 
classifications.  Since zoning classifications for individual parcels may change and the consumption factors 
used may also change, the full estimated development needs for production may change and are not shown 
in the preceding table.

2. Projected Water Supply System Needs –  WSSC has identified two mechanisms needed to 
address the forecasted water demands for the WSSD.  The first involves projects which will upgrade and 
expand the elements of WSSC's water supply systems.  Projects which respond to near­future and long­term 
needs (5­ and 10­year priorities) are included in the WSSC FYs 2003 ­ 2008 capital improvement program 
(CIP).  Appendix A of this Plan includes a summary listing of WSSC's current community water systems CIP 
projects affecting the county.  For specific information on any of these projects, please contact the 
appropriate agency or municipality.  The second mechanism involves reducing consumer demand for water. 
Under the Total Water Management Study, WSSC has investigated potential water demand reduction 
programs intended to conserve  water resources, extend the usefulness of existing facilities, and reduce or 
delay the demand for future system improvements.

a. Projected Source Water and Treatment Facility Needs – The following sections include 
brief descriptions of WSSC’s current and planned studies and facilities needed to meet the projected 
treatment capacity at each of its water treatment plants.  

i. Potomac Water Filtration Plant Reliability/Water Quality Study ­­ The purpose of the 
study, which is currently in its final stages, is to determine requirements and alternatives to enable the 
Potomac Plant to meet the projected water demand of 275 MGD, while reliably meeting the evolving 
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The study examined improvements to flocculation, 
sedimentation, filtration, disinfection processes, and proposed alternatives to improve treatment capability 
and overall treatment reliability.  A number of major projects have been recommended through this study (see 
the following subsections).  Potential new projects include significant modifications to existing treatment 
processes and the addition of new process facilities.  Also as part of its analysis, the study began an 
examination of the feasibility and impact of an off­shore raw water intake and raw water storage in a nearby 
quarry.  Further review of these two proposals will proceed under separate projects (see below).
  
ii. The Potomac Water Filtration Plant Filter Upgrades ­­This project, currently in 
progress, was recommended through the Potomac Water Reliability Study.  The project provides for 
improving filter hydraulics, including the replacement of filter media and underdrain; adding new monitoring 
equipment; replacing filter effluent piping; and improving electrical systems. 

iii. Potomac Submerged Channel Raw Water Intake ­­ This project originated in the 
Potomac Plant Reliability Study, but now stands as a separate study.  This raw water intake would replace 
the existing Potomac intake at the river channel’s bank below the plant at the C&O Canal National Park.  The 
relocated intake would provide the advantage of drawing cleaner raw water, with less sediment load, into the 
plant for treatment.

iv. Travilah Quarry Reservoir ­­ This project also originated in the Potomac Plant 
Reliability Study, but eventually will stand as a separate study.  The existing Travilah Quarry (also referred to 
as the Rockville Quarry) presents an opportunity to provide a substantial volume of raw water storage for the 
Potomac Water Filtration Plant, as much as 17 billion gallons.  The quarry is located approximately 3­1/2 
miles northeast of the plant.  Some of the options for the quarry which WSSC will examine include raw water 
emergency storage and filtration to improve water quality by reducing suspended sediments.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

Montgomery County supports WSSC's investigation of the potential uses of the Travilah 
Quarry to improve the WSSD community water supply system.  The future implementation 
of a plan to utilize the quarry for raw water storage will, of necessity, require a 
reexamination of the region's drought management agreements and procedures.  The 
revised Potomac Subregion Master Plan, adopted by the County Council in March 2002, 
endorses this recommendation.

v. Patuxent Water Treatment Plant Implementation – By early 2005, this project will 
replace the existing Patuxent Water Treatment Plant with a new advanced conventional water treatment 
facility.  The replacement plant, located on the existing site, will have a nominal treatment capacity of new 
plant with 56 MGD and the capability to provide emergency capacity up to approximately 72 MGD.  A second 
phase, to support future growth,  would include an additional 16 MGD of nominal treatment capacity and the 
ability to provide up to 120 MGD of emergency capacity.  

b. Projected Distribution and Storage System Needs – The following sections include brief 
descriptions of major projects that are either currently underway or planned to address the water distribution 
system needs in the Montgomery County High Zone and Main Zone.    
 i.  Olney Water Storage Facility ­­ WSSC has identified a need for additional water storage 
in the Olney vicinity to prevent a water shortage deficit from occurring by 2005.  The proposed location for 
this facility is on the site of the existing Norbeck Water Pumping Station.

ii. Germantown/Clarksburg Area Projects ­­ These transmission and storage projects are 
in response to the growth in the up­county area, primarily in Germantown and Clarksburg.   These projects 
have been identified in the General Plan, the Clarksburg Master Plan, the Montgomery County High Zone 
Facility Plan, the 1990 M­NCPPC Round 5 population forecasts, and numerous other studies.

iii. Laytonsville Elevated Tank and Pumping Station ­­ The Town of Laytonsville officials 
have requested that the County consider extending community water service to the town, citing concerns 
over groundwater contamination and septic failures as the need for service.  WSSC's October 1999 
preliminary study concluded that the extension of community water service to the town will require 
establishing a new water service pressure zone supplied from the existing Airpark Zone.  The creation of a 
new pressure zone will require new transmission mains and storage and pumping facilities.  The study 
identified two alternative routes for the required water service extension, either along Olney ­ Laytonsville 
Road (Route 108) from near Riggs Road, or along Warfield Road from the Airpark Elevated Storage Tank 
site.  WSSC has estimated the construction cost of the needed facilities at approximately $3.14 million.  In FY 
2002, WSSC began a more detailed facility plan for this project, building on the results of the preliminary 
study.  A recent category map amendment, assigning categories W­4, W­5, and W­6 to parts of the town, 
started the implementation of a staging plan for the extension of water service in the town.

The County Council still must approve both the provision of community water service for the 
town in this Plan and the facilities necessary to implement that service in WSSC's CIP budget.  In that event, 
this Plan shall limit that service as directed by the County Council and detailed in Chapter 1 (Section  
IV.D.12.g.).  The general intent of these limitations restrictions is to permanently restrict community water 
service from those areas of the town and the nearby county zoned for agricultural preservation as of May 8, 
2001.  The restriction will affect properties zoned AG within the town and zoned RDT within the county.

iv. Potomac Bi­County Supply Main ­­ This project will significantly increase transmission 
capacity from the Potomac Water Treatment Plant to the Montgomery County Main Zone and to Prince 
George’s County.  The project proposes the construction of approximately 30,200 feet of an 84­inch diameter 
water main between the intersection of Tuckerman Lane and I­270 and the western terminus of the Bi­County 
Water Tunnel near the Capital Beltway (I­495).
 
v. Patuxent Supply Project ­­ This project proposes the construction of approximately 
9,700 feet of 30­inch diameter water main from Norwood Road to New Hampshire Avenue (Route 650).  This 
new main will eventually supply the Hampshire Greens Water Storage Facility and provide redundancy in the 
event of an outage and subsequent interruption of supply from the Potomac Water Treatment Plant to the 
Montgomery County High Zone.

vi. Wheaton Water Main Modifications ­­ Several segments of the existing water 
transmission mains the Wheaton area are at elevations too high to allow for unrestricted use of existing water 
storage.  This project provides for an eductor system with connections to the existing 48­inch transmission 
main in Kensington Boulevard and Wheaton Hill Road.  The eductor system would deliver the water stored in 
Reservoirs No.3 and No.4 into the Main Zone system to meet demands on either side of the system’s high 
points.

c. Programs for Sustained Water Conservation and Waste Reduction – WSSC has a 
variety of programs to promote water conservation. These efforts include:

i. Public Outreach and Education Programs ­­ WSSC provides educational brochures 
which promote the importance of water conservation (including its relationship to reduction of waste water 
loads) and to acquaint County citizens with the "tools" available to accomplish conservation.  Special projects 
focus on water­saving and to promote the use of "common sense" tools of conservation in existing customer 
units.  These projects include the distribution of WSSC's Bottle Kit/Dye Pill distribution and 3 gpm shower 
flow controls, water­saving idea and conservation poster contests, sponsorship in cooperation with the 
Montgomery County Recreation Department of "Plumbing Repair Clinics"; and other activities timed to 
reinforce and to support the WSSC's public education efforts.

WSSC is also a partner in COG’s Wise Water Use campaign, a regional program which is 
coordinated with the 2002 Metropolitan Washington Water Supply and Drought Awareness Response Plan 
for the Potomac River System.  The campaign represents the plan’s response to “normal” water supply 
conditions and includes many ideas for water conservation by users.  WSSC provides the largest single 
source of funding for the regional campaign.

ii. Plumbing Code – Federal regulations require the installation of water saving fixtures

(e.g., toilets, shower heads, and sink faucets) in new installations and in applications where plumbing fixtures
are being replaced. The WSSC is proceeding with adoption of a model plumbing code that will enable
greater regulatory consistency with surrounding jurisdictions.

iii. Rate Structure –WSSC uses a conservation­oriented water/sewer rate structure, which 
is based on Average Daily Consumption (ADC) in each metered billing period.  The rate structure, in effect, 
charges lower rates per 1,000 gallons for the individual customer unit's total volume of consumption in the 
lower level of ADC.  The billing rates are scaled up on progressively increasing 16 steps as the customer 
unit's ADC moves up.

iv. Total Water Management Study ­­ In 1999, WSSC conducted a Total Water 
Management Study, with the objectives of identifying and developing strategies to conserve water resources, 
extending the life of available capacity in existing capital facilities, and reducing future capital and operating 
costs.  The study examined a variety of potential conservation measures and projects, including the 
promotion of and financial incentives for installing water­efficient appliances and fixtures, water­efficient 
retrofits for existing housing stock, and public education programs.  The study's conclusion indicated that 
WSSC can best meet these objectives through programs designed to improve public education and 
community outreach concerning water conservation measures and programs.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

County agencies, including WSSC and M­NCPPC, should lead by example with respect to 
 water conservation measures.  DEP needs to work with these agencies to develop a plan 
that encourages the use of  appropriate water conservation measures in County facilities. 
Such a plan could be coordinated with the proposed County Environmental Policy.

3. Facility Planning – WSSC performs a comprehensive study, called a facility plan, for each 
major project to balance the technical components of engineering and economic factors with environmental 
issues and public concerns about the design and construction of the project.  The study process identifies 
alternative approaches and their impacts, obtains technical information about alternatives, and determines 
measures to minimize or mitigate community and environmental impacts.  A facility plan determines ways to 
meet system demands with sufficient lead time in order to avoid a reduced level of service to customers, and 
to gather and incorporate public input into the technical work.   Additional information concerning WSSC’s 
facility studies is provided in Chapter 1, Section III.A.6.

4. Financing the Water Supply System ­­ WSSC uses several methods to fund the construction 
and operation of the water supply system.  Detailed information concerning WSSC’s funding methods is 
included in chapter 1, Section IV.A.

III. ROCKVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT

The City of Rockville owns and operates its own water supply system­­separate from the WSSC community 
system–from source water to distribution.  The City provides community water service to an area located 
outside the designated limits of the Washington Suburban Sanitary District (WSSD).  This boundary does not 
completely coincide with the City's corporate limits.  For the sake of convenience, this Plan refers to the City's 
service area as the Rockville Sanitary District (RSD).

A. Service Policies ­­ Approximately 90 percent of Rockville residents and businesses receive their 
water from the City's Filtration Plant and distribution system.  The remaining 10 percent receive water from 
WSSC.  Periodically, the city’s boundary changes through property annexations.  Historically, most 
annexations were driven by the property’s location outside the WSSD.  Rockville has a policy of providing 
water and sewer service only to properties located within the city limits.  Accordingly, the City requires that 
properties located outside of both the city limits and the WSSD must annex into Rockville to receive public 
water and sewer.  The City desires to maintain its own water supply system for two primary reasons: to 
control and manage development growth, and to provide less costly and more responsive water service. 
(See Figure 3­F7).
 Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

As in the 1999 ­ 2008 Water and Sewer Plan, this Plan recommends that the County, City, 
and WSSC begin discussions on aligning the city's corporate and sanitary district 
boundaries.  This recommendation–which calls for discussions only­­is made with the 
understanding that Rockville generally opposes an actual realignment of the city’s 
corporate and/or sanitary boundaries.

B. Water Supply Source ­­ Rockville draws raw water from the Potomac River at an intake structure 
located on the east bank of the river at Sandy Landing Road on the C&O Canal, approximately 0.8 mile 
southeast of Swains Lock and five miles southwest of the city.  Other than several interconnections with the 
WSSC water supply system (see Section IIE.3.), this functions as the City's only water supply source.

Rockville received its first Water Appropriation and Use Permit from the State of Maryland in 1958.  The 
State issued this permit for a daily average of 5.5 MGD and a maximum daily withdrawal of 8.0 MGD.  In May 
2002, the State issued a Water Appropriation and Use Permit to Rockville increasing the daily average to 7.1 
MGD and increasing the maximum daily withdrawal to 12.1 MGD.

C. Water Source Policies and Drought Management ­­ Because they share a common raw water 
source, the Potomac River, the RSD and WSSD also share some of the same policies and agreements 
affecting their use of the river, especially during drought events.  The City of Rockville abides by the 1978 
“Low Flow Allocation Agreement” when the restriction stage is declared in the Washington Metropolitan area 
as required by MDE’s Water Management Administration.  Rockville is accorded the same status as the 
WSSD under the Maryland Drought Monitoring and Response Plan.  The City is also a signatory of the 1994 
"Metropolitan Washington Water Supply Emergency Agreement" and the COG Drought Management Plan 
(See Section II.B.).  Notwithstanding, the City has an agreement with WSSC which allows the City to request 
as much as 6 MGD of water from the WSSC system to respond to emergencies and to meet peak demands 
as indicated in the WSSC’s 1994 Water Production Projections Report.  Rockville’s water supply system
benefits from water supply releases from the Jennings Randolph Reservoir and Little Seneca Lake; the
Washington Metropolitan Area water suppliers and the City have entered into discussions about Rockville’s 
financial participation. 

D. Water Treatment Facility ­­ The Rockville Water Filtration Plant has intake capacity of 14 MGD and 
a treatment capacity of 8 MGD.  The treatment capacity will be increased to 14 MGD by 2004, but the plant 
may only withdraw up to 12.1 MGD under MDE’s recently issued Water Appropriation and Use Permit. 
Currently, the Plant generally operates in a range of 4.0 to 6.4 MGD.  (See Table 3­T11.) 

Table 3­T11: RSD Water Treatment Facility

Facility Rated Plant Capacity
Owner/Operating Agency Average Production
Plant Location &  Water Source Maximum Peak Flow Sludge and/or 
Coordinates Treatment Type Storage Capacity Filter Backwash Status/Comments

Rockville Filtration Plant Potomac River capacity: 8.0 MGD land application Expansion to 14 MGD 

City of Rockville sodium hydroxide,  production: 4.7 MGD capacity approved in 
 Table 3­T11: RSD Water Treatment Facility

Facility Rated Plant Capacity
Owner/Operating Agency Average Production
Plant Location &  Water Source Maximum Peak Flow Sludge and/or 
Coordinates Treatment Type Storage Capacity Filter Backwash Status/Comments
Sandy Landing Road polyaluminum chloride,  peak flow: 8.0 MGD 2002.  Interconnec­
N433,000/E734,500 flocculation, filtration,  storage: 12.2 MGD tions with WSSC allow 
chlorination, fluoridation  the City to draw up to 
an additional 6 MGD in 
emergencies.

See Table 3­T3 for information on WSSC's filtration plants.

Since 1996, Rockville has designed and constructed multiple CIP projects to upgrade its 40­plus­year old 
Water Filtration Plant.  Although the main objective of most of these projects has been to update the old 
plant, the City has also designed and implemented these projects to meet higher EPA standards and to meet 
projected higher water demand, based on Rockville’s Master Plan.  These projects are addressed under 
Section III.E.5.

E. Water Supply Distribution and Storage System ­­ Rockville maintains its own water distribution 
system, supplying water service to residents, businesses and institutions within the RSD.  The major 
elements of that system are as follows.

1. Pumping and Major Transmission Facilities ­­ Treated water leaving the Rockville Water 
Filtration Plant is pumped through 27,940 feet of 24­inch prestressed, steel cylinder, concrete pipe before it 
enters the distribution system at Glen Mill Road and Veirs Drive. The RSD has only one primary water 
service pressure zone, and therefore no intermediate pumping stations.  The major distribution system 
consists of 24­inch, 20­inch, and 16­inch trunk mains.  (See Figure 3­F7.)

2. Water Storage Facilities ­­ The City has four potable water storage facilities ranging in capacity 
form 0.2 to 8.0 million gallons with total storage capacity of 12.2 million gallons.  The capacities of individual 
public potable storage facilities are indicated on Table 3­T12.

Table 3­T12: Water Storage Facilities ­ City of Rockville

Storage Facility Capacity (Million Gallons)

Carr Avenue Tank 3.0

Filter Plant Clearwell 0.2

Hunting Hill Tank 8.0

Talbot Street Tank 1.0

Total 12.2
 3. System Redundancy­ Existing interconnections with the WSSC water system are listed on 
Table 3­T13.   These interconnections serve primarily to increase the flow for available fire protection and to 
serve as an automatic emergency water source.  The  maximum allowable withdrawal from WSSC is 6 MGD 
based on the City’s  agreement with WSSC.  The City’s withdrawals from the WSSC system have generally 
averaged 1.5 MGD up to five times per year.  In 1997 Rockville withdrew approximately 15 MG, during the 
course of 10 separate withdrawals, to meet peak demand.  However, this trend is decreasing due to recent 
investments Rockville has made to replace the aging plant equipment and to increase the Plant’s treatment 
capacity.  In 2001, when the average annual withdrawal for the RSD was 0.005 MGD, the City withdrew less 
than 2 MG total from the WSSC, all of which was required due to five to six intermittent power failures at the 
treatment plant.  One significant exception within the last five years occurred during 1998 when Rockville 
withdrew approximately 37 million gallons of water from WSSC over the course of one week while the City 
shut down the filtration plant in order to install new and upgraded equipment at the intake structure.  

Table 3­T13: Existing Interconnections with WSSC ­ City of Rockville

Diameter Size Diameter Size
Location Location
 (inches)  (inches)
12 Redland Rd. and Piccard Dr. 8 Stratton Dr. and Dunster La.

8 College Pkwy. north of Nelson St. 24 Glen Mill Rd. and Circle Dr.

8 Wintergreen Terr. and Larkspur Terr. 24 Glen Mill Road and Lakewood Drive

12 Southlawn La. south of E. Gude Dr. 24 Glen Mill Rd. and Lloyd Rd.

16 Rockville Pk. and Rollins Ave. 24 Glen Mill Rd. and Pheasant Drive

12 Montrose Rd. and Farm Haven Dr. 24 Glen Mill Rd. and Valley Drive

6 Canterbury Way and WSSD Boundary 12 Shady Grove Rd. and Darnestown Rd.

4.  Projected Water Demand ­­ The average daily production for 1997 was 4.97 MGD with a 
maximum day of 8.0 MGD, which is Rockville’s Filtration Plant capacity limit.  The average daily production 
for 2001 was 4.66 MGD with a maximum day of 8.0 MGD.  

Table 3­T14 shows the following information: population projections for that part of Rockville outside 
the WSSD (or within the RSD), projected water demands, and planned water plant capacity.  The average 
day demand projection for 2015 is 7.1 MGD with an ultimate average day demand of 8.2 MGD, which 
exceeds the current capacity of the Rockville Filtration Plant of 8.0 MGD.  The maximum daily demands are 
projected to be 12.0 MGD in 2015 and 14.0 MGD ultimate, both of which exceed the Plant’s existing capacity.

Table 3­T14: Projected Water Supply Demands and Planned Capacity 
City of Rockville 

Projected Demand (MGD)
Calendar Population  Planned Capacity (MGD)
Year (RSD)* Daily Average  Maximum Daily Daily Maximum 

2005 7.0 8.2 14.0

 Table 3­T14: Projected Water Supply Demands and Planned Capacity 
City of Rockville 

Projected Demand (MGD)
Calendar Population  Planned Capacity (MGD)
Year (RSD)* Daily Average  Maximum Daily Daily Maximum 

2005 7.0 8.2 14.0

2010 7.1 8.2 14.0

2015 7.1 11.9 14.0

Source: Water Demand Forecast, Rockville Dept. of Public Works, April 2000
*Note: This data for the RSD only; does not include properties served by WSSC; population data pending from 
Rockville.

5. Projected Water Supply System Needs ­­ Beginning in 1995 Rockville has designed and 
constructed multiple CIP projects to upgrade its Water Filtration Plant.  While the main objective of most of 
these projects has been to update the old plant, the City has also designed and implemented projects 
needed to meet higher EPA standards and to meet higher projected water demand (based on the Master 
Plan).  The first major Water Plant project, which was completed in 1996, was the addition of the filter press. 
Other projects that have been completed recently include Rehabilitation of the Intake Structure (1999), 
Clarifier Upgrade (2000), and Filter Upgrade (2003).

Two projects remain to be implemented: the Water Plant Pump Upgrade and the Glen Mill Pump 
Station.  These projects are both under design, with construction planned to begin in 2003.  MDE has 
approved over $8 million in three separate loans to Rockville to fund some of the above listed projects.

The City’s Department of Public Works is managing two design projects, which will improve the City’s 
water distribution system.  One of these projects is a pump upgrade, located at the water treatment plant. 
The other project is a new water pumping station, rated at 1.4­MGD, located at Glen Mill Road adjacent to 
Sandringham Court in Potomac.  These projects are planned for construction in 2003 and will be operational 
in 2004.  The City is also considering a second water pumping station located within the Fallsgrove 
community.  The need for this second pump station is under review. 

Projected water treatment and area distribution system projects intended to address anticipated 
demands in the RSD include:

 Refurbishing all three plant pumps to attain 14.0 MGD production
 Adding a new pumps, motor, controls, piping, etc. capable of producing 14.0 MGD
 Increasing filter capacity to provide continuous production of 14.0 MGD
 Constructing a total of 18,430 feet of new water mains, ranging from 8 inches to 12 inches, 
by 2009
 TABLE 3­T15:  Immediate, 5­, and 10­Year Priorities for Water Supply Development
 City of Rockville
Fiscal  Estimated  Costs* Project Status ­ Construction Start
Year ­­ Federal  Immediate
Project  and/or Priority Five and Ten
Number Location Description Total State Local Projects Year Period Projects
Before  Sandy Landing  Treatment Plant  $4,000,000 $4,000,000 none Replace Pumps &  none
2004 Road ­­ Glen  Improvements Construct new 
Mill Road Pump Station
Before  Varies New  Water  $3,609,200 none $3,609,200 Adclare Rd. , N.  Jefferson St. & Lewis 
2009 Mains Horners Lane, &  Ave.
(18,430 feet) Beall Ave/Park Rd
Before  Varies Clean & Line  $376,000 none $376,000 Nelson St &  Crawford Dr
2010 Water Mains  Mannakee St.
(8,930 feet)
NA Fallsgrove  Northwest  $779,000 none $779,000 none none
Pump Station Booster Pump 
Station

  * Based on Costs from Adopted 2003­2008 CIP

6. Financing Water Systems – Information on the City’s water system financing methods is 
included in Chapter 1, Section IV.B.

IV. TOWN OF POOLESVILLE  

The Town of Poolesville, located in western Montgomery County (see Figure 3­F1), has operated its own 
community  water supply, storage, and distribution system since 1964.  It is the only community water supply 
system in the County which relies on groundwater for its source water supply.  Poolesville's water supply 
system serves only residences, businesses and institutions within the town, forming a sanitary district 
concurrent with the Town's corporate limits and exclusive from the WSSD.

A. Water Supply Source -- The Town presently has nine municipal groundwater wells in
operation, which have a combined total average constant sustainable yield per day of 734
gpm, or 1,057,000 gpd (assumes 24 hours pumping).

The Town’s well #1, with an average constant sustainable yield of 30 gpm (43,000 gpd),
developed turbidity and fecal coliform contamination problems in 1999. The Town
unsuccessfully attempted to rehabilitate the well and subsequently abandoned it in May 2000.
In June 2000, the Town drilled a replacement well. Its average yield was estimated to be 35
gpm (50,000 gpd). Unfortunately, this well also has similar water quality problems as the
original well #1. At this time, the Town is not planning to use either of these wells.
 The Town’s well #2, with an average constant sustainable yield of 100 gpm (144,000 gpd)
has shown signs of possibly being under the direct influence of bacterial contamination. The
Town only uses this well when testing shows no presence of coliform.

Water quality in the Town’s eight remaining wells is good and conforms with current EPA
drinking water standards. The Town currently withdraws groundwater from the New Oxford
Formation aquifer and has four watersheds within its corporate boundaries: Horsepen Branch,
Broad Run, Dry Seneca Creek, and Russell Branch. In December 2002, MDE issued the Town
new Water Appropriation and Use (WAU) permits for the Horsepen Branch, Dry Seneca Creek,
and Russell Branch watersheds, which allow the Town to withdraw a total daily average of
550,000 GPD (382 GPM) on a yearly basis and a daily average of 770,000 GPD (535 GPM) for
the month of maximum use. Since the Town does not currently withdraw water from the
Broad Run watershed, no WAU permit is currently issued for this watershed.
According to MDE, on a yearly basis the Town has a total daily average of 651,000 GPD
(452 GPM) of groundwater theoretically available within the corporate boundaries. The
permitted groundwater yield for both the Horsepen and Russell Branch watersheds are
essentially "tapped out." The Dry Seneca Creek and Broad Run watersheds have an
additional 17,000 GPD (12 GPM) and 140,000 GPD (97 GPM) of available groundwater supply on
a daily average basis, respectively. According to MDE, this theoretical "untapped" available
groundwater supply would support approximately 1,500 additional persons.

The Town wells and available groundwater supply per watershed are described on Tables
3-T16 and 3-T17, respectively, and are mapped in Figure 3-F8.

Table 3- T1 6: Available Groundwater Supply By Watershed – Town of Poolesville

Theoretically Remaining
Watershed - Available Ave. Daily Max. Monthly Available
Community Area Groundwater Allocation Average Allo- Potential Groundwater
System Wells ( Acres) ( GPD) ( GPD) cation ( GPD) Well Yields ( GPD)
( GPD)

Horsepen Branch
Wells 2,4,6, & 8 588 149,000 293,000 410,000 468,000 0

Broad Run
(No Wells) 551 140,000 0 0 0 140,000

Dry Seneca
Creek
Wells 3 & 5 973 247,000 142,000 199,000 230,000 17,000

Russell Branch
Wells 7, 9, & 10 450 115,000 115,000 161,000 359,000 0
Totals 2,562 651,000 550,000 770,000 1,057,000 157,000

Table 3- T1 7: Inventory of Existing Community System Wells -- Town of Poolesville

Ave.
Well*** Constant
MDE Name Sustainable Potential
Appropriation or Coordinate Depth Diameter Yield ( gpm) Daily Yield Water
Permit Number Aquifer Location ( Feet) ( Inches) * ( gpd) ** Quality

#M01970G007(10
) 2 N477,190 (144,000)***

#M01970G107(01) 3 E682,120 453 6 (100)**** * ****

#M01970G007(10 N477,190

) 4 E685,030 285 6 60 86,400 Good

#M01970G107(01) 5 N477,000
E680,000 600 6.5 35 50,400 Good
#M01970G007(10
) N479,350
6
E681,850 500 6 100 144,000 Good
#M01970G207(01) 7
#M01970G007(10 N474,000
E684,000 500 6 130 187,200 Good
) 8
N543,500
#M01970G207(01
E687,500 700 8 50 72,000 Good
) 9
N472,000
E637,500 500 8 60 86,400 Good
N534,100

New E1,198,275 800 8 124 179,600 Good

#M01770G207(01 Oxford N532,950

) 10 Formation E1,198,360 762 8 75 108,000 Good

TOTAL 634 1,057,000

* Based on well yield data and pump tests performed by the Town. Source: Town of Poolesville.
** Assumes 24 hours of pumping per day.
*** The Town removed Well #1 from service due to turbidity and fecal coliform contamination.
**** The Town uses Well #2 only intermittently, when in dry weather and when tests show no evidence of coliform
contamination.
 The Town has experienced problems with reduced well yield during dry periods.
Historically, the Town’s average well yields have been reduced by as much as 35 percent
during drought conditions, which can reduce the available water supply to as low as 280 gpm
or 406,000 gpd. During the summers of 1993, 1995, 1999, and 2002, the Town enacted
mandatory water restrictions to ensure adequate water supply to meet basic needs. Water
restrictions imposed by the State also affected the Town during the 2002 drought.

B. Source Water Protection Programs -- When water is pumped from community

wells, the groundwater level in the wells’ vicinity draws down and forms cones of depression.
The wellfield, or circle of influence of a well, is the outer perimeter of this cone of depression.
If wells are placed too close together so that their wellfields overlap, interference occurs such
that, the capacity rate of water pumped decreases for each well. Future well sites, for which
the Town is currently exploring locations, may have to be located outside of the town's
corporate limits so that wellfield areas do not overlap.

The Town is currently developing a Wellhead Protection Program to protect its

groundwater supply from contamination. In January 1995, the State used a combination of
hydrogeologic models and fracture trace analyses to estimate the wellhead protection
boundaries for the Town's wells. The limits of the Town's wellhead protection area are
depicted in Figure 3-F8 and extend outside of the town's corporate limits.

The U.S. EPA has designated the Town’s groundwater supply as part of a Sole Source
Aquifer (see Section V.B.3.).

C. Water Distribution System -- The Town of Poolesville has one pressure zone
maintained by eight well pumps and two storage facilities. These two water storage facilities
have a combined capacity of 1.5 million gallons. The storage facilities provide the Town with
several days capacity to respond to unexpected and non-catastrophic events such as well
pump malfunction or water line breaks (see Figure 3-T8). The recently constructed one
million gallon ground level standpipe storage tank has a booster pump station with a
capacity of 1500 gpm. Under normal operating conditions, the standpipe tank operates via
gravity. The Town has approximately 110,000 feet of water mains ranging in diameter from 1"
to 16”.

D. System Redundancy -- The Town of Poolesville currently has no immediate means of

obtaining additional water supply other than the Town’s existing wells. The two closest
potential connection points with the WSSC water system are located in Darnestown along
Route 28 and south of Darnestown along River Road and are a considerable distance
(approximately seven and twelve miles, respectively) from Poolesville. The Potomac River, a
possible source of surface water, is located approximately 4 miles from the Town. The Town
has no plan at this time either to develop a treated surface water supply or to connect to the
WSSC system.

E. Projected Growth and Water System Demand -- Table 3-T18 summarizes the Town
of Poolesville's past and projected population along with projected water supply demands and
planned capacity for the town. The Town’s current six-year Master Plan, published in March
1996, calls for an ultimate population of 7,500 but establishes a firm growth limit of 5,500 for
the life of the Plan. 2000 census data indicated that the town's population was 5,151.
Population projections for the year 2005 and beyond are expected to be revisited when the
Town updates its Master Plan in 2003.

Table 3- T1 8: Projected Water Supply Demands and Planned Capacity -- Town

of Poolesville

Population CAPACITY ( MGD)

GPCD
Desig
n Unserve (gallon Averag Peak Monthly
Year Total Served d s) e Demand

2000 5,151 5,050 50 94 0.480 0.720

2005 5,500 5,450 50 100 0.550 0.770

2010 5,500 5,450 50 100 0.550 0.770

2015 5,500 5,450 50 100 0.550 0.770

2020 5,500 5,450 50 100 0.550 0.770

 Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) for the year 2000 based on actual data. Future GPCD projections
estimated by the Town.
 For planning purposes, the Town estimates the peak monthly demand to be 1.5 times the average monthly
demand.
 The Town may reconsider their population projections for the year 2005 and beyond when they update
their Master Plan in 2002.
 Unserved population utilizes private, individual wells.

To ensure that sufficient water supply exists to meet peak summer demands during
drought conditions, the Town has estimated that it needs a total average constant
sustainable water supply capacity of 770 gpm (1,110,000 gpd) or an additional 335 gpm
(485,000 gpd) to support its current population. To support a population increase to 5,500
persons, the average water supply capacity will need to increase to 885 gpm (1,274,400 gpd)
or an additional 450 gpm.

F. Projected Water Supply System Facility Needs – To provide system redundancy, the Town has 
aggressively pursed new groundwater supply sources.  The Town’s consultants identified approximately 12 to 
15 test wells through fracture trace analyses and field reconnaissance.  During the Spring of 2001, the Town 
drilled three of six possible test wells (all located within the Town’s corporate boundary), four of which 
appeared promising as potential production wells; they had an estimated combined yield of approximately 
439 gpm.  The Town conducted pump and water quality tests during the Summer of 2001 and placed these 
two new wells in service in the late Summer/early Fall of 2001 (no. 9 and no. 10; see Table 3­T17), and plan 
to place the other two wells in service in the Fall of 2003 (no. 11) and in 2005 (no. 12).

 The 1.5 million gallon storage capacity currently provided in the Town is sufficient to serve the ultimate 
population of 7,500.  While no chronic water pressure problems exist within the Town's distribution system, 
there are several areas within the distribution system that could benefit from additional water line extensions 
and looping.  Potential future water distribution projects are included on Table 3­T19.

TABLE 3­T19: Immediate, 5­, and 10­Year Priorities for Water Supply Development
Town of Poolesville
Estimated  Costs* Project Status ­ Construction Start

Fiscal  Federal  Immediate Five and Ten

Year Location Description Total and/or State Local Priority Projects Year Period Projects

To be  Well #11 & well  $450,000 $450,000

2003 determined House X

To be  Well #12 & well  $450,000 $450,000

2005 determined House X

2006* West Willard Water main $171,000 $171,000 X

2006* Fisher Avenue  Water main $135,000 $135,000 X

2006* West Willard Water main $116,000 $116,000 X

* This water main extension project could be completed sooner than projected if the extension is needed to 
place a new well into service

G. Financing Water Systems – – Information on the Town’s water system financing methods is 
included in Chapter 1, Section IV.C.

V. INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS AND RURAL SANITATION

In the more rural, less­densely populated parts of Montgomery County, residents, businesses and institutions 
depend primarily on wells supplied by groundwater for their water supply.   Approximately 80,000 county 
residents rely on groundwater for their only source of water supply.  The areas dependent on groundwater 
wells form an irregular crescent starting in the southwestern part of the county, sweeping around to the west, 
then north of Clarksburg and around Damascus, then south and east along the Patuxent River watershed 
(see Figure 3­F10).  The county has approximately 50,000 individual wells in use.  Although  most wells are 
located in areas not served by the community water supply systems, older wells may be found throughout the 
county, including areas served by community systems.

Of the wells within the county, only Poolesville's municipal wells are part of a community water supply 
system.  This Plan refers to private or non­municipal wells as "individual water supply systems," consistent 
with State law.  Some larger individual water supply systems are referred to as "multi­use systems."  (See 
Section V.C.).

A. Groundwater Supply Geologic Conditions ­­ Most of Montgomery County is located in the 
Piedmont physiographic province.  A thin section of Coastal Plain sediments overlays the crystalline rocks of 
the Piedmont formations in the area east of U.S. Route 29.  The crystalline rocks of the Piedmont are chiefly 
phyllites and schist.  In the southwestern portion of the county, red and gray siltstone and sandstone 
sedimentary formations overlay the crystalline rock.  Most of the area underlaid by schists or Coastal Plain 
sediments have already been developed on the WSSC or Rockville public water systems.  Remaining areas 
in these geologic units are within the proposed water service envelope or are planned for relatively low 
density development.

All of the bedrock in the county is fractured to some extent, some formations more than others.  Wells 
that intercept fractures usually provide the best groundwater yields.  However, fractures do not normally 
extend great distances, and there is little or no interconnection between adjoining basins or sub­basins. 
Drainage divides for surface streams also define the boundaries for subsurface water movement.  The flow in 
streams following the dissipation of storm flows is known as base flow and represents the gradual discharge 
of groundwater to the surface.

The Phyllite rock underlying the western and northwestern portions of the county have moderately 
shallow soils with bedrock outcrops, particularly in stream valleys.  Although these areas have some of the 
lowest well yields of any area of the county, these yields are generally adequate for individual dwellings and 
businesses.  Water quality is considered good; it seldom requires treatment for use, and there are no known 
areas of widespread pollution though localized pollution is a problem in some areas.

The southwestern portion of the county is characterized by sedimentary deposits of shale, sandstone 
and siltstone, which provide the source of water for the Town of Poolesville.  The Town uses all the water 
withdrawn from the sedimentary area for potable use.  These sedimentary deposits, along with the phyllite 
areas, are not considered good aquifers from the standpoint of yield.  Water in the sedimentary rock strata is 
chiefly found in fractures and crevices.  Since the soil and overburden above the bedrock is thin, it offers little 
opportunity for groundwater storage.  The yield of wells in this area can decline dramatically during extended 
drought periods, as has been experienced by the town of Poolesville.  During normal rainfall periods, well 
yields remain constant and adequate.  To counter low yields during periods of drought, additional wells may 
be required.

The water in the sedimentary area tends to be hard and mildly alkaline.  Occasionally iron and/or 
manganese needs to be removed for aesthetic reasons.  The water quality in this area is similar to water 
quality in other sedimentary areas of Maryland and Virginia that have primarily rural agricultural land uses 
and is generally considered to be good.
 B. Groundwater Regulations and Protection Programs ­­ The following programs regulate the 
establishment and use of groundwater wells and protect the county's groundwater resources.

1. Well Permitting ­­ The County's Department of Permitting Services (DPS), Well and Septic 
Section, is responsible for the administration and enforcement of County and State laws and regulations 
governing on­site, individual water supply systems.  This authority is delegated from the State's Department 
of the Environment (MDE).  Relevant regulations are included in COMAR 26.03.01, 26.03.05, and 26.04.02 
­.04,and in County Executive Regulation 28­93AM, ”On­Site Water Systems and On­Site Sewage Disposal 
Systems in Montgomery County.” 

DPS accomplishes these responsibilities by reviewing preliminary plans and record plats for 
properties served by on­site systems; issuing permits for, and inspecting, the construction of new and 
replacement wells; sampling water supplies for potability; and by responding to complaints about on­site 
systems.  New wells for potable uses are normally sampled for nitrates, coliform bacteria, and turbidity.  On­
going well monitoring is done when some subsequent licensure or approval is required, such as child care 
licenses, group or nursing homes, food service facilities, or swimming pools.  There are no requirements for 
ongoing monitoring of wells used solely for single family residences.  A typical residential demand is often 
calculated at 500 gpd per average single family residence for septic system design purposes.  COMAR 
regulations require a well yield of at least one gallon per minute and at least 500 gallons of water to be 
available during one two­hour period each day.

MDE maintains a permitting authority for commercial, institutional, and residential subdivision 
projects though its Water Appropriation and Use permit.  This permit is also required for wells for non­potable 
uses such as irrigation or commercial uses.  As the County authority responsible for water and sewer service 
planning, DEP reviews and signs off on these permits to ensure that they comply with the Water and Sewer 
Plan.

2. Groundwater Protection Strategy ­­ With approximately 80,000 of its residents dependent on 
groundwater for their potable water supply, the County, through the Department of Environmental Protection 
(DEP), has recognized the need to ensure the quality of its groundwater resources.  In 2001,the County 
Executive through  DEP initiated a program intended to address the County's groundwater protection needs, 
resulting in the November 2001 Groundwater Protection Strategy (GWPS), the first major step in achieving 
this goal.  The GWPS emphasizes a need to establish a baseline existing condition for the condition of the 
county's groundwater resources, and to establish a long­term groundwater monitoring program.  The GWPS 
also recognizes the need to establish appropriate policies, guidelines, and regulations to minimize future 
contamination, and to ensure that future development will comply with environmental laws and regulations 
affecting groundwater quality.  In implementing the first steps of this strategy, DEP has conducted a limited 
survey of available well and septic permit records, noting the location of each.  The well permits also 
provided information on the depth to the water table throughout much of the county.  DEP is also instituting a 
county­wide network of fifty sampling wells to establish a baseline groundwater condition and then to serve 
as future monitoring sites.

3. Sole Source Aquifer ­­ The Sole Source Aquifer Program, established under Section 1424(e) of 
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, authorizes the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to designate aquifers as the "sole or principal" source of drinking water for an area. 
The program provides for EPA review of Federally­financed assisted projects planned for the area and to 
determine their potential for contaminating the aquifer so as to create a significant hazard to public health. 
EPA may approve, disapprove, or approve conditionally with modification a project using Federal funds.  In 
August 27, 1980, EPA announced the designation of parts of Montgomery County as part of the Maryland 
Piedmont Sole Source Aquifer.  The sole source aquifer within Montgomery County is shown in Figure 3­F10.

C. Ground Water and Well Problem Areas ­­ Although DPS does not currently maintain a 
comprehensive database of well yields and contamination problems throughout the county, that agency has 
provided information concerning groundwater problem areas based on staff experience as identified in Table 
3­T20 and are identified on Figure 3­F11.
 Table 3­T20: Groundwater and Well Problem Areas

Location Problem Potential Solutions Actions Taken

Oaks Landfill Vicinity ­­ near   contaminated wells;   bottled water The County has extended 

Mt. Zion, between Olney  DEP's groundwater   community water service community water service to 
and Laytonsville monitoring confirmed  properties in the vicinity of 
leakage from the northwest  the landfill, as per the 
quadrant of the Oaks  County's agreement with the 
Sanitary Landfill as the  local community. 
contamination source Community service replaced 
 Mt. Zion: old, hand­dug  bottled water service, also 
wells out of date with State  provided by the County. 
and County regulations

Meredith Drive, Mt. Zion ­  contaminated wells   community water service As part of the extension of 

east of Muncaster Road
(hydrocarbons)  individual GAC filters service to the Oaks Landfill 
vicinity (see above), the 
County was also able to 
provide community water 
service to this street.

Town of Laytonsville polluted aquifer   community water service The County and WSSC are 

(hydrocarbons and nitrates)
 individual GAC filters
 handle old wells properly
investigating the extension 
of community water service 
to the town and nearby 
properties.  (See Section 
II.F.2.b.iii.)

Town of Boyds polluted aquifer  community water service

 individual GAC filers

Hyattstown contaminated wells  community water service

 appropriate on­site 
treatment

Patuxent River Watershed low well yields DPS requires pretesting of 

 northeast of Damascus wells for adequate yields in 
 Between Routes 108 and  these areas.  Some areas 
97 have limited access to 
community water service.

Western & Southern  elevated nitrate levels DPS has required advanced 

Darnestown treatment on larger, multi­
use septic systems in this 
area.
Properties near Routes 28 
and 112 have access to 
community water service.

Jerusalem Terrace polluted aquifer community water service

CAG: granular activated carbon
 D. Multi­Use Water Supply Systems ­­  As described in Chapter 1, multi­use water supply systems are 
defined as individual, on­site water systems with a capacity of 1,500 or more gallons per day.  Because of 
their greater potential for environmental impacts, these systems require approval in the Water and Sewer 
Plan.  These facilities are generally large­capacity well water systems, although some facilities use more 
advanced treatment systems.  Almost all depend on groundwater for their water supply. DEP coordinates the 
Water and Sewer Plan amendments for these systems with DPS.  Appendix B includes a listing of the multi­
use water supply facilities in Montgomery County approved in this Plan.

VI. REFERENCES

"Report on Pitometer Water Distribution Study," by Pitometer Associates, City of Rockville, 1994. 

"Town of Poolesville Master Plan", March 1996.

"Maryland Model Wellhead Protection Ordinance", Maryland Department of the Environment, Water 
Management Administration, Public Drinking Water Program, February 1997.

"2001 Water Production Projections", WSSC.

"A Comprehensive Long­Range Macro­Level Analysis of the WSSC Water Supply And Wastewater 
Systems", WSSC, Updated December 1990.

"Facility Planning and Environmental Assessment Manual", WSSC, June 1992.

WSSC, Fiscal Year 2003 CIP, Water and Sewerage Projects.

City of Rockville, Fiscal Year 2003 CIP, Water and Sewerage Projects.

Town of Poolesville, Fiscal Year 2003 CIP, Water and Sewerage Projects

“Potomac River Source Water Assessments for Maryland Plants, Washington Suburban Sanitary 
Commission Potomac Water Filtration Plant,” Becker and O’Melia, LLC for MDE and WSSC, May 2002 

CHAPTER 4: SEWERAGE SYSTEMS

I. INTRODUCTION

This Chapter describes the county's existing and planned community and private, individual sewerage 
systems.  It incorporates components and related discussions of major programs, policies, and issues 
concerning sewerage systems serving the residents and businesses in Montgomery County. It also projects 
sewerage collection/conveyance and treatment systems needs.  
 A. Sewer Service Area Categories ­­ As discussed in Chapter 1, this Plan classifies all areas of the 
county into one of five category designations for sewer service areas.  The categories range from areas 
served by community systems (S­1) to areas where improvements to or construction of new community 
systems will be planned in the future (S­3, S­4, and S­5) to areas where there is no planned community 
service (S­6).  (In practice, Montgomery County does not use category S­2, which designates areas where 
community sewerage system projects are in the final planning stages.)  Figure 4­F1 shows a generalized 
distribution of sewer service area categories throughout the county.  For additional detailed information on 
sewer service area categories, please refer to Chapter 1.

B. Sanitary Districts ­­ A sewer service area can be defined by a sewage system operating authority, 
and/or by a geographic or structural separation of a group of related treatment and transmission facilities. 
The county is divided into three publically­operated and largely separate sanitary service areas or districts: 
the Washington Suburban Sanitary District (WSSD), the largest system, serving most of the county; and two 
smaller municipal districts operated by the City of Rockville and the Town of Poolesville.  (See Figure 3­F2.) 
Each district is served by its own sewage collection and transmission systems.  Sewage from the WSSD is 
treated at several local plants operated by WSSC and at one regional facility, the Blue Plains Wastewater 
Treatment Plant (WWTP), located in the District of Columbia.  Flows from Rockville eventually enter the 
WSSD system for transmission to and treatment at the Blue Plains WWTP.  Poolesville's treatment plant, for 
the most part, serves only the town itself.  Information for the districts serving Rockville and Poolesville has 
been provided primarily by those municipalities and is incorporated into this Plan consistent with State law.

Some properties within each sanitary district are served by individual, on­site systems, rather than 
community systems.  The vast majority of these individual systems are within the WSSD.  Information on 
individual, on­site systems follows at the end of the chapter.

C. Wastewater Treatment Service Areas ­­ Based on function, there are two components to a 
wastewater disposal system: collection/conveyance facilities and treatment facilities.  A wastewater treatment 
service area is a geographic region comprised of a section of one or several sewer basins, where both 
collection/conveyance and treatment are provided.  Presently six community wastewater treatment service 
areas provide service within Montgomery County: Blue Plains, Seneca, Damascus, Hyattstown, and Mill 
Bottom within the WSSD, and Poolesville, largely separate from the WSSD, as shown in Table 4­T1.  The 
Rockville Sanitary District (RSD) is located within the Blue Plains service area.  Figure 4­F3 shows the areas 
served by each of these six wastewater treatment plants.   

D. Watersheds and Sewersheds:  The county is bounded by two rivers: the Potomac to the southwest 
and the Patuxent to the northeast.  Most of the county’s streams flow into the Potomac River, either through 
local tributaries, such as Watts Branch, Rock Creek, Cabin John Creek, and Great Seneca Creek, or through 
watersheds that drain to two major tributaries outside the county: the Anacostia and Monocacy Rivers.  The 
southeastern part of the county, south of Olney and east of Georgia Avenue, slopes toward the Anacostia 
River, and includes the Sligo Creek, Northwest Branch, Paint Branch, and Little Paint Branch watersheds. 
Portions of the northwest part of the county slope toward the Monocacy River, and include the Little 
Monocacy River, Bennett Creek, and Little Bennett Creek watersheds.  The northeastern part of the county, 
along the border with Howard County, slopes toward the Patuxent River.  
  
 To take advantage of gravity to the greatest extent possible, sewage collection and conveyance systems 
generally follow streams and waterways within various drainage basins.  Because of this, the sewer basins 
(or sewersheds) in this chapter are often referred to by the name of their related watershed (e.g., Watts 
Branch, 
Seneca Creek, etc.).  Through major trunk lines and pumping facilities the sewage flows from individual 
sewersheds are collected, combined. and conveyed for their eventual treatment at a wastewater treatment 
plant.  The major drainage basins in the county are shown in Figure 4­F4.

The county is also divided into 27 land use planning areas, each area forming a fairly cohesive district 
bounded by a major highway or natural border such as a stream valley.  These planning areas have been 
established by legislative action of the County Council.  An overlay of the drainage basins and planning areas 
is shown in Figure 4­F5.  All of the county's community sewerage systems, wastewater treatment service 
areas, sewersheds, and planning areas contained in each community sewerage systems, are listed in Table 
4­T1. 

Table 4­T1: Montgomery County Sewer Service Areas

Community  Treatment Plant 
Sewerage Systems Service Area Sewer Basins Planning Areas
Muddy Branch Aspen Hill..........................................(PA 27)
Rock Creek Bethesda­Chevy Chase....................(PA 35)
Watts Branch Cloverly ­ Norwood............................(PA 28)
Cabin John Creek Colesville ­ White Oak.......................(PA 33)
Rock Run Fairland ­ Beltsville............................(PA 34)
Little Falls Branch Gaithersburg Vicinity.........................(PA 20)
Sligo Creek Gaithersburg & Washington Grove....(PA 21)
Paint Branch Germantown......................................(PA 19)
Northwest Branch Kemp Hill Four Corners.....................(PA 32)
                                                   Kensington ­ Wheaton.......................(PA 31)
Note: See Figure 4­F5 for   North Bethesda ­ Garrett Park...........(PA 30)
detailed information on the   Olney.................................................(PA 23)
relationships between sewer   Patuxent Watershed Conservation....(PA 15)
basins and planning areas in   Potomac ­Cabin John........................(PA 29)
the Blue Plains and other   Rockville............................................(PA 26)
treatment plant service areas.  Silver Spring......................................(PA 36)
Takoma Park......................................(PA 37)
Travilah..............................................(PA 25)
BLUE PLAINS Upper Rock Creek Watershed...........(PA 22)
Darnestown.......................................(PA 24)
Clarksburg.........................................(PA 13)
Gaithersburg Vicinity.........................(PA 20)
Gaithersburg & Washington Grove....(PA 21)
WASHINGTON 
SENECA Seneca Creek* Germantown......................................(PA 19)
SUBURBAN SANITARY 
DISTRICT Portions of Seneca Creek, 
DAMASCUS Patuxent, and Monocacy River Damascus..........................................(PA 11)
HYATTSTOWN Monocacy River Bennett & Little Bennett.....................(PA 10)
POOLESVILLE** Portions of Seneca Creek Poolesville..........................................(PA 17)
Portions of Patuxent River and 
MILL BOTTOM Bennett Creek Damascus .........................................(PA 11)
ROCKVILLE Portions of Cabin John, Watts 
SANITARY DISTRICT BLUE PLAINS and Rock Creek Rockville............................................(PA 26)
TOWN OF  Portions of both Seneca Creek 
POOLESVILLE POOLESVILLE and Potomac River Poolesville..........................................(PA 17)
* The Seneca Creek WWTP currently offloads and treats flows from the Blue Plains Service Area, but will be separate and 
 Table 4­T1: Montgomery County Sewer Service Areas
independent from the Blue Plains system in 2003.
** The Poolesville WWTP serves the communities of Jonesville and Jerusalem in the WSSD.

II. WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY DISTRICT

The Washington Suburban Sanitary District (WSSD), established by State law, includes most of Montgomery 
and Prince George's Counties, encompassing a total area of approximately 1000 square miles.  Within 
Montgomery County, areas excluded from the WSSD include most of the City of Rockville and some 
surrounding areas, and the Town of Poolesville.  Sewer service areas managed by the Washington Suburban 
Sanitary Commission (WSSC)  within Montgomery County include the Blue Plains, Seneca, Damascus, and 
Hyattstown service areas.  WSSC also manages a small portion of the WSSD served by the Poolesville 
WWTP.  The City of Rockville, also part of the Blue Plains service area, manages its own collection and 
conveyance systems, but relies on Blue Plains for treatment.  The Town of Poolesville manages its own 
sewerage system, including collection, conveyance and treatment systems.

Guided by policies specified in this Plan, the provision of community sewer service within Montgomery 
County generally follows the patterns established by the County's General Plan for development, "On 
Wedges and Corridors."  Community service is established and planned for the central and southern part of 
the county, following three major transportation corridors of higher density development north from the 
District of Columbia:

 The U.S. Route 29 (Columbia Pike) corridor to Burtonsville,
 The Georgia Avenue (State Route 97) corridor to Olney. and
 The U.S. Interstate 270/State Route 27 (Ridge Road) corridor to Clarksburg and Damascus.

Elsewhere, primarily in the western and northeastern areas of the county, wastewater disposal service 
generally depends on individual, on­site systems, which discharge their effluent to the ground.

A. Government Responsibilities ­­ The responsibilities for planning for and providing water service 
within the WSSD are multi­jurisdictional and depend on the cooperative efforts of municipal, County, State, 
Federal, and regional authorities.  This is especially true with regard to the Blue Plains WWTP, a wastewater 
treatment facility shared by several jurisdictions.  These agencies include the following:

 Montgomery County Government
• Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
• Department of Permitting Services (DPS)
 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC)
 Maryland ­ National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M­NCPPC)
 District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA)
 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG)
 State of Maryland
• Department of the Environment (MDE)
• Department of Planning (MDP)

These agencies, and their primary responsibilities and programs, are described in detail in Chapter 1, 
Section I.D.

B. Programs and Policies ­­ The following sections provide an overview of the major policies and 
programs relating to WSSC’s role and functions in providing sewer services within Montgomery County's 
portion of the WSSD.

1. Facility Planning, Project Development and Approval Process ­­ This information is 
consolidated in Chapter 1, Section III.A.6.
 2. Interjurisdictional Agreements – The Washington Metropolitan Area has several regional 
sewerage facilities that support a number of jurisdictions.  Two major regional facilities are the Blue Plains 
WWTP and the Potomac Interceptor (PI) sewer.  The use of these facilities has been governed by a series of 
regional agreements dating to the 1950's.  The following is a summary of major Intermunicipal agreements 
affecting the flow of wastewater and available treatment capacity for Montgomery County.

a. Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) of 1985 ­­  The parties to the Blue Plains 
Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) of 1985 include the District of Columbia; Fairfax County, Virginia; 
Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland; and WSSC.  This agreement is the basic accord 
under which the regional facilities such as the Blue Plains WWTP and the Potomac Interceptor are managed 
and operated.  The IMA:
 Recognizes the expansion of the Blue Plains WWTP from 309 mgd to 370 mgd to meet the 
projected wastewater treatment and associated biosolids management needs of the 
signatories through the year 2010.
 Defines the rights, obligations and responsibilities of the signatories regarding the use and 
management of facilities for wastewater transmission and treatment and for biosolids 
management.   
 Allocates average and peak flows to the major interceptor sewers leading to the Blue Plains 
WWTP.
 Allocates the Blue Plains WWTP treatment capacity in accordance with projected 2010 
needs.  
 Arranges for sharing among the signatories capital facility costs in proportion to capacity 
allocation and for sharing facility operating costs in proportion to actual flow.  
 Defines the process of making future planning decisions.
 Provides a mechanism for continuing coordination, cooperation and communication among 
the signatories.
 Supports a continuing water quality monitoring and evaluation program.

The Blue Plains WWTP was officially rated at 370 MGD in 1997, an increase of 61 MGD from its 
prior capacity of 309 MGD.  The allocated capacities for each jurisdiction, based on the 370 MGD, are 
identified in Table 4­T2:

Table 4­T2: Blue Plains IMA Capacity Allocations

Blue Plains WWTP Capacity Allocations at:
IMA Participants 309 mgd 370 mgd

WSSC 153.3 mgd 169.6 mgd

District of Columbia 135.0 mgd 148.0 mgd

Fairfax County 16.0 mgd 31.0 mgd

Other Potomac Interceptor Users 4.7 mgd 11.4 mgd

 Reserved for Potomac Interceptor Users ­­ 10.0 mgd*

* Approximately 5.0 mgd reserved for Loudoun County, Virginia.

Since the IMA’s signing in 1985, several significant changes have occurred in the region that the 
signatories could not foresee at that time.  These changes are a result of actions that have affected 
wastewater and biosolids management policies, administrative structure and organization of participating 
jurisdictions, and regulatory initiatives and policies.  The result is that the IMA is presently out of date in some 
areas.

The Blue Plains Chief Administrator Officers (BPCAOs) recognized this concern and 
recommended that the Blue Plains IMA committees  (BPRC and BPTC) review the IMA and suggest a format 
and process through which it could be updated.  The IMA committees worked in 2000 to define the key 
updates and attempted to define a process for updating the IMA.  At this time, the IMA committees have 
proposed attaching an annotation to the IMA which would leave the original IMA language unchanged, but 
would specify the significant changes and updates to policies and facilities since 1985.  The review and 
approval of the annotation is presently under consideration by the BPCAOs.  This annotated agreement is 
anticipated to serve as the updated IMA until the regional jurisdictions complete an updated regional long­
term wastewater management plan.  This regional plan, initiated in 2002, is expected to take two years to 
complete.  The process of renegotiating the IMA should begin following the completion of the regional long­
term wastewater management plan, and may take two to three years to complete.  Accordingly, the IMA 
signatories currently expect that the region should have a renegotiated IMA to operate from in the 2006­2008 
time frame.      
b. Bi­County Capacity Agreement ­­ In the late 1960's, it was realized that the Montgomery 
County's wastewater treatment needs would not be met indefinitely at the Blue Plains WWTP.  In 1970, the 
lack of allocated treatment capacity for the county at the Blue Plains WWTP resulted in the imposition of a 
building moratorium in the county.  The County responded by conducting a number of studies and 
reexamining its wastewater treatment needs.  In the mid­1970's, the County approved the construction of two 
interim wastewater treatment plants, the Seneca and Rock Creek WWTPs,  to address the immediate 
capacity problems.  During 1978­1981, a permanent 20 mgd treatment plant was proposed for the Rock Run 
site In Potomac, Maryland, and a conceptual design was developed.  During this time the WSSC’s allocated 
capacity of 153.3 mgd at the Blue Plains WWTP was divided between Montgomery and Prince George’s 
Counties and the City of Rockville as shown in Table 4­T3:

Table 4­T3: WSSC Blue Plains Capacity Allocations by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Allocation (mgd)

Montgomery County 77.6

Prince George’s County 66.4

City of Rockville 9.3

WSSC Total 153.3
 To remedy an anticipated future capacity shortfall at the Blue Plains WWTP, Montgomery and 
Prince George's Counties finalized the Bi­County Capacity Agreement in 1983.  The agreement detailed how 
the two Counties will share the available wastewater treatment capacity at the Blue Plains WWTP, and 
identified the next steps for WSSC to provide treatment capacities beyond the then­existing limiting capacity 
of 309 mgd  at Blue Plains.  Some of the major provisions of this agreement are as follows:

 WSSC shall allocate all existing and future WSSD wastewater treatment capacity in the Blue 
Plains Service Area on a first­come, first­served basis, regardless of County.
 The Blue Plains WWTP expansion is the preferred long­range solution to meet the WSSD 
wastewater treatment needs within the Blue Plains Service Area.  Both Counties and WSSC 
will vigorously pursue implementation of this solution.
 When WSSD capacity in the Blue Plains Service Area is exhausted, including any expansion 
of the Blue Plains WWTP, then the proposed Rock Run WWTP would be constructed and 
shall become the next increment of capacity for the Blue Plains service area.
 If, for reasons beyond the control of the two Counties and WSSC, the Blue Plains WWTP 
cannot expand and Rock Run WWTP cannot be built, the two Counties and WSSC will 
undertake discussions to revise short­term flow management provisions and to redefine the 
long­range plan.
 Once the 20 mgd Rock Run WWTP begins operations, the policy of both Counties and 
WSSC shall be to operate the WSSD as a unified entity where wastewater treatment 
capacity is built and wastewater flow is managed in a cost­effective manner­­after a thorough 
examination of economic, environmental and community impacts­­regardless of jurisdictional 
boundaries.

c. WSSC ­ Rockville Agreements ­­  The City of Rockville's sewage collection system conveys 
flows to six different interconnections with WSSC pipelines for ultimate delivery to the Blue Plains WWTP. 
The city's use of WSSC conveyance facilities has been defined through several transmission agreements.  A 
1956 agreement provides for the City to discharge a peak flow of 6.8 MGD into the Cabin John Basin; the 
City's negotiated capacity in the Cabin John basin downstream of Booze Creek increases to 8.0 MGD.   A 
1966 agreement provides for a maximum discharge of 8.0 MGD to the Watts Branch Basin.  The City of 
Rockville is also permitted to discharge a peak flow of 9.84 MGD into the Rock Creek Basin.  In 1975, the 
City of Rockville and WSSC executed a treatment capacity agreement which specified that WSSC would 
provide up to an additional 0.4 MGD per fiscal year of treatment capacity to Rockville from the WSSC's 
proportionate share of Blue Plains WWTP  capacity, up to a total annual average City flow of 9.31 MGD.  The 
City acknowledges that it has not purchased sufficient peak capacity in all sewers to convey an annual 
average of 9.31 MGD to the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Furthermore, the 1975 agreement 
provides that WSSC may rent treatment capacity not required by the City of Rockville.

d. WSSC ­ Poolesville Agreements ­­ A 1984 agreement between WSSC and the Town of 
Poolesville allows WSSC to send a maximum flow of 20,000 GPD from the Jonesville and Jerusalem 
communities just north of the town in the WSSD into the Poolesville WWTP for treatment.
 3. Wastewater Flow Analysis ­­ Flow projections are based on the County's adopted land use 
plans and approved service areas for future growth, and are in accordance with the County's latest master 
plans for development.  The projected future flows are estimated in proportion to population projections with 
an allowance for planned commercial and industrial growth and factors such as infiltration (extraneous 
groundwater) and inflow (water discharged into sewer systems from roof leaders, area drains, etc.).   WSSC 
is responsible for conducting wastewater flow measurements and flow analysis for all areas within the WSSD. 
Various aspects of WSSC’s flow management system are discussed in the following sections.

a. Flow Monitoring ­­ WSSC’s program for field monitoring of sewage flows provides 
continuous data on the status of peak and average wastewater flows throughout the WSSC system.  The 
current monitoring system consists of permanent stations which telemeter flow data to a central computer, 
reducing labor­intensive field collection of data and analysis of charts, and providing greater reliability through 
immediate reporting of any malfunctions.  Fifty permanent sewer flow monitors and seven permanent rain 
gauges have been installed throughout the various sewer basins in Montgomery County.  In addition, WSSC 
uses temporary flow meters which it can install at various locations for special studies.  The following table 
presents permanent flow meter and gauge locations by sewer basin:

Table 4­T4:  WSSC Montgomery County  Sewer Meters and Rain Gauges by Watershed

Sewer Basin Flow Meters Rain Gauges Billing Meters

Cabin John 8 1 3
Little Falls 1 0 1
Muddy Branch 4 0 3
Northwest Branch 6 0 0
Paint Branch  1 1 1
1

Rock Creek 19 2 4
Rock Run 0 0 1
Seneca Creek  8 3 1
2

Sligo Creek  3 0 0
1

Watts Branch 0 0 2
Total 50 7 15

 Montgomery County only
1

 Includes Magruder Branch (Damascus) and Jonesville/Jerusalem (Poolesville)
2

The WSSC Planning Section is responsible for the maintenance and operation of part of the 
Consolidated Engineering System (CES), a computerized record keeping system which tracks the status of 
unconnected sewer commitments by geographic area (basin), type of future connection (residential, 
commercial, etc.), estimated average daily flow contribution, and expected connection date.  WSSC uses 
data from CES to calculate remaining available treatment capacity in a particular service area, and to assist 
in projecting future sewage flows at various points in the transmission system, once appropriate peaking 
factors and existing peak flows have been established.

Currently, CES tracks future additional flow on the basis of authorizations granted by the WSSC, 
plumbing permits and actual hookups.  A review of the CES system with Montgomery and Prince George’s 
counties staff is recommended (see subsection b, below).   The CES system is frequently the process by 
which needs and priorities for sewer infrastructure are identified and linked with population projections.  

b. Flow Reporting ­­  WSSC generates the following reports on a regular basis:

 Quarterly Available Capacity Report – This report consolidates and replaces three separate 
WSSC reports: Sewage Flow to Blue Plains; Quarterly Addendum for WSSC Operated 
Plants, Mattawoman, Poolesville, and Hyattstown; and Uncommitted Capacity Summary, 
which summarized WSSC’s available sewage transmission capacity for which connection 
permits have not yet been issued.
 Report to MDE on Sewage Flows and Record Plat Commitments – This quarterly report  for 
the State tabulates existing flows, flows committed through record plat, and remaining 
uncommitted flows at each of the wastewater treatment plants receiving flows from the 
WSSC sewerage system..
 Flow Forecast for Montgomery County Sewer Service Areas – This report is issued on an 
as­needed basis.  Forecasts are by major basin and mini­basins or some other small 
geographical unit, as determined by WSSC staff.  Predicted sanitary flow is based on current 
M­NCPPC growth forecasts and the latest unit flow factors projected for 5­, 10­, and 20 ­year 
periods. 
 Unit Flow Factor Report for Montgomery County Sewer Service Areas – This report is 
produced periodically and presents current unit flow factors to be used in the sewage flow 
report.  It includes evaluation of the prior winter’s water consumption for various user 
categories to detect any trends in projected sanitary flow.  This report includes a reasonable 
allowance for unit infiltration/inflow based on rainfall and groundwater level probability 
analyses.

c. Flow Modeling ­­ WSSC conducts wastewater flow modeling primarily in conjunction with 
facility planning studies.  WSSC maintains a sewer model which consists of sewer pipe inventory data 
throughout the sanitary system, as well as data from the comprehensive flow monitoring system described 
above.  This information is used to determine existing and baseline flow conditions. Then land use and 
demographic data obtained from the M­NCPPC are superimposed on the existing flows to project future flow 
conditions for a particular study area.

In addition, WSSC applies various levels of more finite sewage flow modeling.  For selected 
sewer basins, available capacity reports are produced periodically.  These reports track plumbing permits, 
hook­ups, and outstanding authorizations for development, by study point, and link this information to the 
physical capacity of trunk sewer segments within a particular sewer basin.  Other analyses include 
investigation of trunk sewers that are operating at or near capacity.  The results provide information regarding 
the relative risk of surcharge and overflow in the selected sewer segments.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

 Montgomery County suggests that opportunities to integrate this model, or an updated 
model, with the MC:MAPS Geographic Information System (GIS) be examined.  This will 
provide direct access to population, employment, land use, and natural feature information 
data pertinent to the computation of sewage flow projections.

4. Transmission System Capacity Requirements and Moratorium Policies ­­ For planning 
purposes, the WSSC conducts comprehensive analyses on a regular basis to determine the wastewater 
transmission needs within the WSSD.  In conjunction with these analyses, Montgomery County has 
developed and adopted policies to prioritize the County’s transmission capacity needs.  WSSC must follow 
these criteria and policies for each basin classification, by designating part or all of each sewered drainage 
basin in the county as either an Adequate Capacity Basin, Potential Overflow Basin, or Existing 
Overflow Basin, depending upon the transmission system's ability to handle sewerage flows.  For existing 
and potential overflow basins these designations will be limited to the area above and tributary to the problem 
that causes the designation.  References to the "Director" refer to the Director of the Montgomery County 
Department of Environmental Protection.

Table 4­T5:  WSSC Sewerage Basin Designations and Policies

Designation Description Policy

Part or all of any basin in   WSSC may permit additional sewer hookups and commitments 
which regular overflows  subject to the availability of adequate treatment capacity.
and user backups have 
not been experienced and 
the observed or 
calculated peak sewage 
flow, allowing for an 
appropriate wet weather 
Adequate  reserve, does not exceed 
Capacity  the sewer operating 
Basin capacity.

Potential  Part or all of any basin   WSSC, after consultation with the Director, should declare by 

Overflow  which has not  resolution that it will not permit additional sewer hookups or 
Basin experienced regular  commitments which would significantly increase the probability 
overflows or user  of sewer overflows or user backups until a facility plan is 
backups, but for which the  initiated or relief measures are under construction.  The WSSC 
calculated or observed  may continue to permit additional sewer hookups or 
peak sewage flow,  commitments which would result in peak sewer operating 
allowing for an  capacity being exceeded if the calculated peak sewage flow will 
appropriate wet weather  not result in an increased significant probability of overflows or 
Table 4­T5:  WSSC Sewerage Basin Designations and Policies

Designation Description Policy

reserve, exceeds the  user backups prior to completion of a relief project.  The 
peak sewer operating  identical exemptions defined for immediate public health 
capacity hazards, public service buildings, and individually­owned 
abutting lots in the policy for Existing Overflow Basins below 
also apply to this policy for Potential Overflow Basins.

Part or all of any basin  WSSC, after consultation with the Director, should declare by 
which is experiencing  resolution that it will not permit additional sewer hookups or 
regular sewage overflows  commitments which would increase the frequency of overflows 
or user backups such that  or user backups until relief measures are underway with a 
an immediate public  projected completion date of a year or less.  Exemptions: public 
health problem exists.  service buildings approved by the Director, and existing 
"Regular" is defined as  unconnected buildings creating immediate public health hazards 
having already occurred  as determined by the WSSC or the Director are exempt from 
and projected to occur  any sewer hookup or commitment prohibition.  Lots serving 
more than once in ten  existing or proposed individually­owned single­family dwelling 
years, other than  units abutting an existing sewer line and which the applicant 
Existing  maintenance­related  owned or contracted for prior to the date of the moratorium 
Overflow  occurrences. resolution are exempt from any sewer hookup or commitment 
Basin prohibition.

5. Sanitary Sewer Overflows ­­ Sanitary sewers serve a vital function in the transport of 
wastewater from the customer to the treatment plant.  Wastewater either flows by gravity or is pumped to the 
nearest wastewater treatment plant.  WSSC’s wastewater collection system is comprised of over 5,000 miles 
of sewer line and forty­four wastewater pumping stations.  When sewers become blocked by things like 
grease or tree roots, wastewater can back up in the line and eventually overflow from a manhole.  This is 
known as a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO).  There are a number of other possible causes of SSOs including 
pipe deterioration, undersized sewer lines, excess infiltration or inflow of stormwater and power outages at 
sewage pumping stations. 

Most of WSSC's overflows are due to blockages caused by grease, tree roots, or other foreign 
objects and a small percentage are caused by power outages.  Less than one percent are caused by "wet 
weather," i.e. the inflow of storm water.  This attests to WSSC's commitment to maintaining and upgrading its 
system to keep up with the infrastructure needs of its expanding customer base.

Over the past several years the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has developed specific 
Federal regulations to address SSOs.  In 1999, EPA released "strawman" regulations for comment.  These 
proposed regulations would require utilities to develop and implement a “Capacity, Management, Operation, 
and Maintenance (CMOM)” program.  The CMOM will outline specific ways a utility such as WSSC will 
prevent and respond to SSOs.  WSSC already has a number of procedures in place to minimize the 
occurrence of SSOs and to mitigate their impacts when they do occur.  WSSC has started the process of 
adapting its procedures to EPA’s proposed CMOM requirements.

The USEPA and the U.S. Department of Justice have initiated the development of an enforcement 
strategy for all major sewer systems with reported SSOs.  In Maryland, this federal policy has included 
WSSC.  Presently the WSSC is negotiating a consent agreement (order) with the U.S. Department of Justice 
to address past overflows and to adopt a monitoring and management system to prevent the occurrence of 
SSOs in the future.
  
The State of Maryland has placed new emphasis on its requirement to report all SSOs to the 
Department of the Environment (MDE) within twenty­four hours of their occurrence, as well as the need to 
notify the public whenever an SSO has any significant potential to affect public health or the environment. 
MDE has provided guidance suggesting that wastewater utilities need to work closely with local 
environmental and health departments to identify any such potential impacts and to notify the public when 
warranted.  WSSC, in conjunction with Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, has developed 
procedures for this coordination and public notification.
Montgomery County DEP and WSSC are fundamentally committed to excellence in the safeguarding 
of public health and the protection of the environment and are committed to aggressive sanitary sewer 
overflow programs.

6. Sewer Sizing Policies ­­ WSSC's Design Manual provides both general and specific sewer 
design criteria and designates the WSSC Development Services Group with the responsibility for sizing the 
new sewer mains to be constructed within a proposed development.  In general, sewer systems are designed 
for ultimate flow within the drainage area unless the WSSC determines that the County's land use policies 
allow for a lesser requirement. 

For sewers serving a complete sewershed, the ultimate sewage flow is determined by assuming that 
the entire basin will develop in accordance with approved master plans.  Sewer systems which serve only 
part of a sewershed are sized to serve the entire sewershed.  Normally, sewer systems are designed to 
function by gravity.  In special cases, gravity lines will be allowed to flow under a slight pressure head or 
surcharge. 

7. Pressure Sewer Systems ­­  Where gravity sewers are not appropriate for use, WSSC can 
approve the use of pumping stations and force mains or grinder pumps and low­pressure sewers.  Pumping 
systems are used where there are no receiving gravity sewers lower in a drainage basin (as in the Hawlings 
River watershed), or where the construction of gravity mains needed to connect with the existing gravity 
sewage system is either uneconomical or environmentally unacceptable (as at the Sheffield subdivision 
served by the Redland Park WWPS in the Rock Creek watershed).

WSSC's experience with grinder pumps and small­diameter, low­pressure sewer mains has revealed 
problems in some cases with objectionable odors and corrosion in the receiving gravity sewer mains.  Before 
these problems became evident, WSSC had constructed several projects substantially dependent on grinder 
pump systems.  Once they became aware of these problems, WSSC instituted a policy limiting the number of 
allowed grinder pumps within individual projects.  WSSC also uses techniques such as weirs in house 
connections and filters in manholes to mitigate the odor problems affecting customers connected to the 
receiving gravity sewers.  As WSSC's experience with grinder pump systems has grown, empirical evidence 
has shown that the number of dwelling units connected to the pressure systems is not necessarily the critical 
factor in creating odor and corrosion problems.  Rather, the evidence points to sewage lag time in the 
pressure system prior to its discharge into the receiving gravity sewers.  A WSSC task force is currently 
evaluating this evidence and is expected to make new policy recommendations for the use grinder pump 
systems during 2003.  Once adopted by WSSC, the County will incorporate those policies as a part of this 
Plan.

8. Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Control Program ­­ Infiltration of groundwater into aging, defective 
or damaged sewers and the inflow of water from sources such as direct connections of roof leaders, area 
drains, drains from springs and swampy areas, and manhole covers may contribute to sewage collection 
system overloading or may stress the capacities of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. 

WSSC has reviewed its collection system data and is aware of excess I/I in several of the sewer 
basins in the WSSD.  In the past few years, WSSC focused a significant effort on evaluating the county's 
Rock Creek basin, which led to the development of a Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) for that basin. 
The SSES recommendations included corrective actions for specific problems identified in manholes and 
sewer pipelines.  The total estimated cost to rehabilitate the system defects identifies in the study area was 
approximately $10.6 million.

WSSC has identified other sewer basins in the WSSD as priority basins requiring SSES work. 
However, limited financial resources have limited WSSC’s ability to address these issues in a timely fashion. 
In the FY 2003 WSSC budget both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties identified funding policies to 
begin addressing these I/I problems through the Sewer Reconstruction Program.  Accordingly, WSSC has 
begun an SSES in the Cabin John basin and has agreed to provide the Counties with a list of problem basins 
and their priority for future SSESs.  Analysis of the Cabin John basin flows revealed not only a problem with 
I/I, but also a potential sewage exfiltration problem.
  
The I/I control program also directly supports renewed federal initiatives for controlling Sanitary 
Sewer Overflows (SSOs) which include facility and manhole overflows as well as basement back­ups.  Using 
I/I assessment techniques, WSSC explores the causes for each SSO event, and seeks resolutions to 
preclude future occurrences.  Survey tools deployed during I/I or related work (physical inspection of 
manholes, TV inspection of sewers) yield rehabilitation recommendations which are implemented in the 
Sewer Reconstruction Program.  In this manner, WSSC routinely detects and corrects leaking as well as non­
leaking structural defects.

The sewer rehabilitation program needs greater coordination between WSSC and Montgomery 
County.  WSSC needs to communicate to the County information related to how sewerage systems are 
evaluated, how capital resources are allocated within the program, and what systems have been and are 
scheduled for work.  The County has similar information needs with regard to the water main rehabilitation 
program.  The WSSC CIP allocates for both counties a total of $27.4 million in FY 2000 for these programs 
(Information Only Projects W­1.00 and S­1.00).  The County presently has no basis to ensure that WSSC 
allocates these financial resources appropriately with regard to areas or systems with the greatest needs. 
County assessment of rehabilitation programs could lead to a better­coordinated infrastructure planning effort 
and better timing of required new capital projects.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

WSSC needs to provide Montgomery and Prince George's Counties with a list of sewer 
basins prioritized for SSES work based on the impact of excess flows on sewer 
conveyance systems and treatment facilities.  This list will need to be updated annually 
and accom­panied with a financial plan to allow these problems to be addressed in a 
timely manner.

9. Industrial Pretreatment Program ­­ WSSC implements a federally­required pretreatment 
program, the Industrial Discharge Control Program (IDCP).  The IDCP has four primary goals:

 To monitor and control the discharge of industrial waste into the sanitary sewer system.
 To prevent the discharge of pollutants which will interfere with the operation of wastewater 
treatment plants, including interference with sludge use and disposal.
 To prevent the discharge of pollutants which will pass through the treatment works or otherwise 
be incompatible with such works.
 To improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewater and sludge.

The program also helps protect WSSC personnel and WSSC sewerage systems by regulating the discharge 
of toxic, corrosive, and other prohibited substances into the sanitary sewer.

IDCP requirements apply to all industrial users within the WSSD, and include those industrial users 
whose wastewater is treated at the District of Columbia’s Blue Plains WWTP.   WSSC regulates industrial 
users in the WSSD through a variety of activities including field investigations and sampling, permitting, 
compliance reviews, and enforcement measures.  In order to comply with WSSC discharge limitations, some 
industrial users are required to install pretreatment equipment to treat their wastewater prior to discharging it 
to WSSC’s sanitary sewers.  In some cases, the equipment may be relatively minor (e.g., silver recovery 
units or grease traps); in other cases, the  required level of pretreatment can be extensive.

WSSC achieves the pretreatment program's goals by performing the following primary functions:

a. Investigation/Monitoring ­­ WSSC conducts on­site investigations of industrial users, 
evaluating industrial user processes, chemical usage, types and volumes of wastes generated, and methods 
of waste disposal.  Compliance monitoring is conducted independently of the industrial user to determine 
whether their discharges meet WSSC standards.  Grab and composite samples of the industrial user’s 
processed wastewater are collected using manual and automatic sampling methods.  Analytical results are 
then compared to WSSC limits to determine the industrial user’s compliance status.

b.  Compliance/Enforcement ­­ Discharge permit applications are sent to industrial users to 
determine if they should be permitted through the IDCP.  WSSC issues discharge authorization permits to 
those industries qualifying as significant industrial users.  The discharge permits authorize industrial users to 
discharge their process wastewater to WSSC’s sanitary sewer system, specifying discharge limitations, 
restrictions and self­monitoring requirements.  The permitted industrial user is required to perform monitoring 
of its wastewater discharges and report the results to WSSC.  IDCP staff review the user industry’s self­
monitoring reports to determine compliance with its authorized discharge limitations.  This review also 
assures that the sample collection, preservation, and analyses performed by, or on behalf of, the industrial 
user are conducted in accordance with approved methodologies and that the results accurately are represent 
the industry’s discharges.

c. Enforcement Action ­­ WSSC takes enforcement actions against those industrial users who 
violate discharge limits or fail to comply with other regulatory requirements.  Enforcement actions can include 
notices of violation, civil citations with monetary penalties, administrative orders, and termination of 
water/sewer service.   

d. Data Management ­­ Through its pretreatment program, WSSC  maintains electronic files 
and databases of information on industrial users.  This information includes the results of industrial 
investigations, analytical data from the industrial user as well as WSSC, permit information (including 
limitations and special conditions), and enforcement actions taken against violators.  WSSC recovers a 
portion of the pretreatment programs costs through an annual fee assessed to the permitted industrial users. 
The varying annual fees are based on the anticipated level of effort associated with the industrial users within 
specific industrial categories.

In addition to activities associated with regulating industrial users, WSSC also evaluates the 
wastewater characteristics of its wastewater treatment plants (Damascus, Parkway, Piscataway, Seneca and 
Western Branch).  WSSC also annually sampling of the influent and effluent for each plant for EPA 
designated priority pollutants.  The analytical data is used to develop local limits for industrial users and to 
evaluate treatment plant compliance with water quality standards.  WSSC is also required to report its 
monitoring results for each treatment plant to the State’s DNR.

10. Wastewater Treatment System Requirements: General Provisions ­­ In addition to discharge 
and construction permit requirements on existing and new treatment plants administered by the State of 
Maryland, Montgomery County shall review and approve all new facilities and all significant modifications to 
existing facilities within the county.  All new community and multi­use treatment systems and points of 
discharge shall be specifically delineated in this Plan prior to the issuance of final construction and discharge 
permits by the State of Maryland.  In addition, the County government may require stricter levels of treatment 
where warranted by projected receiving water quality impacts resulting from the discharge.  These 
requirements also apply to all individual systems exceeding 1,500 gallons per day average daily flow and all 
individual systems of any size requiring a groundwater or surface water discharge permit, except heat pump 
discharges.  Permit applicants have the burden of adequately demonstrating to the County that the proposed 
facilities will not have a significant, detrimental impact on the surrounding community or receiving waters.   

Proposed modifications to existing treatment facilities, including both system upgrading and 
expansion, are also subject to the County's approval.  This includes any proposed community multi­use or 
individual system treatment facility or discharge point modification which requires a State construction and/or 
discharge permit.  Any modifications requiring MDE's review and approval shall also require prior 
incorporation of the proposed modification in this Plan, as either a text amendment or as an adopted capitol 
improvement program (CIP) project.  Specific proposals for new or modified facilities shall be submitted to 
the Director of DEP with supporting documentation as required by the Director.

The State of Maryland, as part of its efforts to improve the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay, 
is investigating the impact of lowering the wastewater treatment plant nitrogen discharge standard from 8 
milligrams per liter (mgl) to 3 mgl.  This new standard would affect all of the wastewater treatment plants 
serving Montgomery County, and would have significant financial implications for WSSC and WASA with 
regard to the facility upgrades and treatment process improvements needed to comply with the lowered 
standard.

11. Financing Sewerage Systems ­­ WSSC uses several methods to fund the construction and 
operation of the sewerage system.  Detailed information concerning WSSC’s funding methods is included in 
Chapter 1, Section IV.A.

C. Existing and Planned Sewerage Systems and Projected Needs ­­  The sewage collection and 
conveyance system within the WSSD consists of over 4,000 miles of gravity and force mains ranging from 6 
to 102 inches in diameter and 52 wastewater pumping stations, including 26 stations in Montgomery County. 
This section presents an overview of the County's long­term sewerage system needs and anticipated 
constraints within each service area and individual sewershed.  The anticipated sewerage system needs and 
constraints discussed in this section focus on the major components of WSSC's transmission and treatment 
facilities.  The information presented here is based on the results of various studies as referenced at the end 
of this chapter.

The planned projects programmed in the WSSC CIP are intended to address the county's current and/or 
short­term wastewater conveyance or treatment needs.  The CIP projects include funding and schedules for 
planning, design, land acquisition, and construction of facilities.  These facilities often support new 
development in accordance with the County's approved plans and policies for orderly growth and 
development.  Other projects are for system improvements and/or for compliance with environmental 
regulations and policies.

Flow projections within the WSSD are based on the County's adopted plans and approved service areas 
for future growth, and are in accordance with the County's latest master plans for development.  M­NCPPC 
provided the population and growth estimates used in WSSC's studies.  WSSC has developed flow 
projections to determine the approximate time a planning decision for each facility should be made. 
Wastewater flow forecasts are developed from detailed analyses of existing flow records and projected 
additional future flow based on projected demographics, wastewater flow per household and per 
employment, and other factors such as infiltration (extraneous groundwater) and inflow.  Population 
forecasting and flow projection are based on the best available data at the time the planning is conducted. 
WSSC re­evaluates actual conditions, project needs, etc. before implementing proposed projects.

Projected flows for all sewered basins in Montgomery County are summarized in a table included for 
sewershed.  WSSC based these findings on an 80 th percentile of historical flows and on Round 6 Cooperative 
demographic forecasts.  The data also includes updated information regarding I/I control.  WSSC' evaluation 
of the County's long­range sewerage system needs is based on these projections. 

A comprehensive long­range strategic plan is under development at WSSC in coordination with 
Montgomery and Prince George’s counties to evaluate the validity of adopted planning concepts, many of 
which were developed over twenty years ago and have not undergone a comprehensive review since their 
original adoption. These issues include sewage flow factors, capacity of regional facilities, updated 
environmental regulations, etc.  This long range plan will also incorporate the results of the Potomac 
Interceptor Study.  Relevant to this evaluation are the recent changes in water consumption patterns.  The 
study will provide the WSSC and Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties with a valuable tool for planning 
long­term sewage treatment needs, addressing concerns such as transmission capacity to and treatment 
capacity at the Blue Plains WWTP, and the timing and need for major capital investments.  This 
comprehensive plan will be coordinated with the Blue Plains regional long­term Wastewater Management 
Plan which COG initiated in 2002.  

"Planned Sewerage Systems” refers to those projects which have been approved and programmed in a 
relevant capital improvements program (CIP).   Appendix A provides a summary listing of CIP projects 
approved for FYs 2003 ­ 2008. 

1. Blue Plains Service Area ­­  Most of the wastewater generated in Montgomery County (83.62 
mgd in 2001) is treated at the Blue Plains WWTP, a facility located along the Anacostia River in Washington, 
D.C., and owned and operated by WASA.  The county’s flow contribution accounts for approximately 30 
percent of the total flow at the facility.  The Blue Plains Service Area encompasses much of the central and 
eastern part of the county (see Figure 4­F6).  Currently, this service area also includes the Seneca Creek 
basin.  The Seneca Creek WWTP offloads 5 mgd of sewage flow for treatment from the Seneca Creek basin 
system; remaining flows are pumped to the Muddy Branch basin for transmission to Blue Plains.  During 
2003, WSSC will complete an upgrade and expansion of the Seneca Creek WWTP from 5 mgd to 20 mgd. 
When WSSC completes this new facility, its serv ice area will become independent from the Blue Plains 
service area.  Owing to this pending separation, this Plan generally treats the Blue Plains and Seneca Creek 
service areas as separate entities.

The Blue Plains service area also includes the Rockville Sanitary District.  Specific information on 
the City's sewerage systems begins at Section III.

a. Collection and Conveyance Systems ­­ The principal sewer lines which convey the 
county's wastewater to the Blue Plains WWTP include the Potomac Interceptor (PI), the Maryland­Upper 
Potomac Interceptor (MUPI), the Rock Creek Trunk Sewers, the Little Falls Trunk Sewer, and the Anacostia 
Trunk Sewers.  The general location and the sewer basins served by these major sewer lines are shown in 
Figure 4­F7.  All the major sewer lines transferring flows to the Blue Plains WWTP are subjected to  annual 
average and peak flow limitations identified in the IMA of 1985.  The IMA annual average and peak flow 
limitations for the above sewer lines are listed in Table 4­T6.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­160
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­161
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­162

Table 4­T6: Average Basin Flows and IMA Limitations for the
 Montgomery County Portion of the Blue Plains Service Area

Receiving  IMA Limit (mgd)
Sewer Basin Interceptor Annual Average Peak
Muddy Branch* PI 15.5 40.3
Cabin John MUPI & PI 11.0 48.3
Rock Run PI 0.9 3.7
Watts Branch PI 4.5 14.2
Little Falls UPI 7.6 20.8
Rock Creek RCTS 33.5 56.6
Other Basins** Anacostia & PI NA NA
Total to Blue Plains WWTP NA NA
* Current flows to Blue Plains from Muddy Branch includes flows from the Seneca Basin. 
This will discontinue in mid­2003 after the Seneca WWTP expansion is 
completed.  
** Other Basins include flows from Anacostia and direct connections to the Potomac 
Interceptor.  

 All data include flows from the City of Rockville.
 Anacostia is a Bi­County Basin and capacity is available to both Counties on first come­first 
served basis.  Flows from Montgomery County to the Anacostia Trunk Sewer 
are from the Northwest Branch, the Paint Branch, and the Sligo Creek sewer 
basins.

PI = Potomac Interceptor MUPI = Maryland 
Upper Potomac Interceptor
RCTS = Rock Creek Trunk Sewers NA = Not Analyzed or Not Applicable 

i. Potomac Interceptor and Tributary Sewersheds ­­ In June 1960, the U. S. Congress 
authorized the District of Columbia to design, construct, operate, and maintain the Potomac Interceptor (PI), 
an interceptor sanitary sewer to connect Dulles International Airport with the District of Columbia system. 
The Act also directed the District of Columbia to build the sewer with sufficient transmission capacity to 
provide sewer service for projected community growth and development in the adjacent areas in the States 
of Maryland and Virginia .  Because of the original purpose of this sewer, it is also referred to as the “Dulles 
Interceptor” by some of its user jurisdictions.  The PI was completed in 1963 and consists of 42 miles of 
sewer line.

The Potomac Interceptor receives wastewater from various sewerage basins (sewersheds) 
along the length of its main stem, and drains into the Upper Potomac Interceptor Relief Sewer (UPIRS) in the 
District of Columbia.  To take full advantage of the its hydraulic capacity and to control the flow, the PI has 
been interconnected at several locations with other principal sewers such as the Maryland­Upper Potomac 
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­163

Interceptor (MUPI).  Sewersheds served within Montgomery County by the PI include the Muddy Branch, 
Watts Branch, and Rock Run basins. The Maryland Upper Potomac Interceptor (MUPI) is the upstream 
continuation of the UPIRS upstream across the District boundary where it carries flow principally from the 
Cabin John sewershed.   Flows in excess of the MUPI’s capacity are diverted to the PI through the PI­MUPI 
interconnection.  (See Figure 4­F8.)
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­164

Figure 4- F8: Montgomery County Sewage Flow to the Potomac Interceptor

SENECA CREEK MUPI - PI

SEWERSHED SENECA WWTP INTERCONNECTION

SENECA
WWPS #2 *

CABIN JOHN
_
SEWERSHED

WATTS
BRANCH
SEWERSHED

MUDDY
BRANCH ROCK RUN
SEWERSHED SEWERSHED

IMA LIMITS
AAF = 10.3
PF = 23.3

IMA LIMITS IMA LIMITS IMA LIMITS IMA LIMITS

AAF = 15.5 MGD AAF = 4.5 MGD AAF = 0.9 MGD AAF = 0.7 MGD
PF = 40.3 MGD PF = 14.2 MGD PF = 3.7 MGD PF = 25.3 MGD

MARYLAND- UPPER
POTOMAC
INTERCEPTOR

( MUPI)

POTOMAC INTERCEPTOR ( PI)

Montgomery County, MD District of

All sewage flows are in millions of gallons per day (MGD): AAF = Annual Average Flow PF = Peak Flow
* The majority of pumpover of flows from the Seneca sewershed into PI via the Muddy Branch sewershed will cease
in mid-2003 on the completion of the Seneca WWTP expansion. Pumped flows from the Lower Seneca Basin will
continue until a new trunk sewer connecting that basin with the Seneca WWTP is completed in Spring 2006.

Flows from the county’s sewersheds to the PI are regulated through the Intermunicipal 
Agreement of 1985 (IMA).  Figure 4­F8 is a schematic of the Potomac Interceptor and the tributary 
sewersheds from Montgomery County along its main stem.  Also shown are the IMA flow limitations. 
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­165

Existing and projected flows from various sewersheds in Montgomery County to the PI relative to the IMA 
flow limitations are also discussed in this section.

The Blue Plains user jurisdictions conducted 1995 “Potomac Interceptor Engineering Study.” 
This study utilized existing data on flows and conducted a static analysis of the PI's capacity.  The consultant 
then used this information to project the impact of future flows on the interceptor’s capacity.  This analysis 
identified several sections of the PI that may experience capacity problems if development proceeded as 
planned in the user jurisdictions.  The most immediate concerns were in the area below the Upper Maryland 
Spur and a section of the interceptor just above the District line.  However, plans to expand the Seneca 
WWTP to a 20 mgd facility will remove enough sewage flow from the PI that these capacity concerns will not 
be a continuing concern.

The “Potomac Interceptor Engineering Study” helped to identify the priority areas for 
potential capacity concerns and the timing of these capacity issues.  However, this study was a static 
analysis based on existing data.  The Blue Plains user jurisdictions understood that this fairly simple analysis 
was limited in its scope and utility.  A large interceptor such as the PI has very complex hydraulic 
characteristics and actual capacity of the interceptor needs a much more detailed analysis.
In 2000, the Blue Plains user jurisdictions tasked COG to develop a dynamic hydraulic model 
of the PI in order to adequately characterize the existing flows in the interceptor and evaluate the capacity of 
this vital regional sewerage facility.  The dynamic model was completed and its results presented to the user 
jurisdictions in 2002.  The model's analyses indicate that the PI has enough capacity to convey flows to Blue 
Plains for the next 25 years, based on the IMA allocations and on the planned implementation of the Seneca 
WWTP expansion and the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority’s (LCSA) Broad Run WWTP.  It is 
noteworthy that this model does not indicate a need for any further off­loading of flows from the PI.  This 
conclusion has a direct impact on the prior assumptions developed in the early 1980's that recommended the 
Rock Run WWTP in Potomac  as an off­load facility for the PI.  The dynamic model clearly shows that the 
Rock Run WWTP is not needed to ensure PI capacity for the jurisdictions using the regional interceptor to 
carry sewage flows to the Blue Plains WWTP.

The PI dynamic hydraulic model will be useful as a tool to evaluate and plan various 
strategies for managing future wastewater flows in the basins that contribute flows to the PI.  The PI dynamic 
model will be useful in the development of strategies for the Blue Plains long-term
Wastewater Management Plan.

The following sections provide a general basin-by-basin description of existing

and planned sewerage systems and projected needs for the sewersheds in Montgomery
County served by the Potomac Interceptor.

( a) Muddy Branch Basin – The Muddy Branch basin originates in

Gaithersburg in the central part of the county. The stream flows generally southwest and
enters the Potomac River near Pennyfield Lock. The upper part of the basin is developed
with moderate to high-density residential, commercial and institutional uses. The lower half
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­166

of the basin has significantly lower density, characterized by large-lot residential

development which uses septic systems.

( i) Existing Systems -- Wastewater collection service is provided by a

system of trunk sewers which extend up into the basin along the main stem of Muddy
Branch. The Muddy Branch Basin boundary, the sewerage systems layout, and the
approximate locations of future capacity constraints in the Muddy Branch sewer lines are
shown in Figure 4-F9.

Currently the Muddy Branch Trunk Sewer receives about 60 percent

(approximately 9 MGD) of all the wastewater collected from the Seneca Basin. The transfer
of sewage flows from the Seneca Basin into Muddy Branch system will discontinue in mid-
2003, with the completion of the Seneca WWTP expansion. All wastewater flows that either
originate in the Muddy Branch Basin, or transfer into the Muddy Branch Basin from the
Seneca Basin, are discharged into the Potomac Interceptor system and conveyed to the Blue
Plains WWTP in the District of Columbia. The Muddy Branch basin also receives pumped
flows from the Sandy Branch WWPS located in the Watts Branch watershed near Travilah
Road. WSSC currently maintains five permanent flow monitoring stations in this basin.

( ii) Projected Needs – Projected flows based on forecasted population

and other flow factors for the Muddy Branch Basin are summarized in Table 4-T7. WSSC's
Planning Group generated the data based on Round 6 Cooperative demographic forecasts
and assuming 80th percentile flows based on flow records during the past 10 years.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­167
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­168

Table 4- T7: Future Wastewater Flows to the Potomac

Interceptor from Muddy Branch Basin

Year Average ( mgd) Peak ( mgd)

Projected Flow 5.69 22.12

IMA Limitation 15.50 40.30

20 0 5 Balance + 9.81 + 1 8.1 8

Projected Flow 6.37 24.75

IMA Limitation 15.50 40.30

20 1 0 Balance + 9.1 3 + 1 5.55

Projected Flow 6.92 26.89

IMA Limitation 15.50 40.30

20 1 5 Balance + 8.58 + 1 3.41

Through the 1994 WSSC Strategic Sewerage Study, and the 1988 Western
Montgomery County Facility Plan, WSSC determined that the projected flows within the
Muddy Branch Basin will exceed the Muddy Branch Trunk Sewer capacity in the future and
will require relief. Approximately 2,000 feet of 36-inch sewer will be needed in the vicinity of
Muddy Branch Park by the year 2010. Eight thousand feet of 24-inch relief sewer will be
required around Haywire Farms and Travilah Acres by the year 2020.

( b) Watts Branch Basin – The Watts Branch basin originates in Rockville

in the central part of the county. The stream flows generally southwest through western
Potomac and enters the Potomac River just west and upstream from the WSSC Potomac
Water Filtration Plant.

( i) Existing Systems -- Sewer service in Watts Branch Basin is

presently provided by a trunk sewer system extending along Watts Branch which generally
flows from northeast to southwest. The Watts Branch Basin serves an area of 22.6 square
miles and includes a portion of the City of Rockville. WSSC operates two permanent flow
monitoring sites in the Watts Branch Basin: one at the point of connection with the City of
Rockville system and one at the lower end of the basin where the trunk sewer connects with
the PI. The sewerage system is shown in Figure 4-F10.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­169

Wastewater collected from the Watts Branch Basin is discharged to the PI

and is treated at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. Discharges to the Potomac
Interceptor are regulated through the Blue Plains IMA of 1985 and the 1966 Rockville-WSSC
Agreement. The capacity of the Watts Branch
Trunk Sewer is divided between the City of Rockville and the WSSC by their 1966 agreement.
The peak flow capacity of Rockville's component of the trunk sewer is approximately 8 mgd,
which corresponds to an average wastewater flow of 3 mgd. The trunk sewer's remaining
capacity is allocated to flows collected from the WSSD.

A large percentage of this basin is not served by community sewerage

systems, containing both open land and single family homes on larger lots with septic
systems. Areas undergoing current or anticipated future development that will increase
Watts Branch Basin wastewater flows include the following sites in the City of Rockville: the
King Farm (440 acres), the Thomas Farm (270 acres), the Chestnut Lodge site (40 acres); and
in Montgomery County: the Traville Tract (190 acres) in the headwaters of the Piney Branch
Watershed and redevelopment sites at the Shady Grove Metro and along Route 355. Both the
city and the county also have a limited number of small in-fill residential development sites.
Future development using community sewer service within the Montgomery County portion of
the basin will be directed to a large degree by the 2002 update of the Potomac Subregion
Master Plan.

Service to the King Farm project in Rockville includes a wastewater pumping

station and force main constructed to avoid the need for a relief sewer along Watts Branch
through west Rockville.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­170
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­171

Pumped flows discharge into the Watts Branch Trunk Sewer near Glen Hills. Appendix A
provides a summary of planned WSSC Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects,
addressing wastewater conveyance needs and service improvements in the Watts Branch
Basin.

( ii) Projected Needs – Projected flows and related IMA limits for the
Watts Branch Basin are summarized in Table 4-T8. The WSSC Planning Group have generated
this information based on Round 6 Cooperative demographic forecasts and on the 80th
percentile of flows during the past 10 years.

Table 4- T8: Future Wastewater Flows to the Potomac

Interceptor from Watts Branch Basin

Year Average ( mgd) Peak ( mgd)

Projected Flow 4.87 12.63

IMA Limitation 4.50 14.20

200 5 Balance -0.37* + 1 .57

Projected Flow 5.53 14.34

IMA Limitation 4.50 14.20

20 1 0 Balance -1 .0 3* -0.1 4*

Projected Flow 5.76 14.95

IMA Limitation 4.50 14.20

20 1 5 Balance -1 .26* -0.75*

* Watts Branch flows in excess of IMA limits are off-set by under

utilization of the PI upstream at Muddy Branch.

Both projected annual average and peak flows from the Watts Branch basin
will likely exceed the IMA limits by 2010, although this will not be a major concern. Flows into
the PI from the Muddy Branch basin, upstream from Watts Branch, will be significantly
reduced due to the diversion of flows to the expanded Seneca WWTP which were previously
routed through the Muddy Branch sewerage system to the PI. In 1995, WSSC evaluated
existing and future sewerage system needs within the Watts Branch Basin through the Watts
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­172

Branch Sewerage Basin Needs Analysis, which indicated that the basin's conveyance facilities
will be able to handle the basin's anticipated wastewater flows through the year 2020. Based
on ultimate flow projections, as shown in Figure 4-F10, the entire Watts Branch trunk sewer
from Rockville-WSSD boundary downstream to the PI will require relief sometime beyond the
year 2020. Future wastewater capacity constraints will be affected by the timing and type of
development occurring on some of the major development sites within the sewershed.

( c) Rock Run Basin – The Rock Run basin is located in the southern part of
the county. For the purposes of this Plan, the basin includes areas served by sewerage
systems which feed directly to the PI, rather than through the Rock Run Trunk Sewer. Rock
Run originates in Potomac Village and flows southeast into the Potomac River near Carderock.
Development within the basin is largely residential, with higher densities dependent on
community sewer service generally east of Falls Road (Route 189).

( i) Existing Systems -- Wastewater collected within the Rock Run

Basin is discharged into the PI system and conveyed to the Blue Plains WWTP in the District
of Columbia. The Rock Run Basin is a relatively small basin, with predominantly moderate to
low density zoning. The wastewater collection and conveyance facilities within the Rock Run
Basin are adequate; there are no planned wastewater collection/conveyance projects, or
proposed system modifications. The Rock Run Basin boundary and its major sewer lines are
shown in Figure 4-F11.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­173
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­174

( ii) Projected Needs – Projected flows based on forecasted population

and other flow factors and related IMA limits for the Rock Run Basin are summarized in Table
4-T9.

Table 4- T9: Future Wastewater Flows to the Potomac

Interceptor from Rock Run Basin

Year Average ( mgd) Peak ( mgd)

Projected Flow 0.97 3.03

IMA Limitation 0.9 3.7

200 5 Balance -0.0 7* 0.67

Projected Flow 1 3.13

IMA Limitation 0.9 3.7

20 1 0 Balance -0.1* 0.57

Projected Flow 1.03 3.23

IMA Limitation 0.9 3.7

20 1 5 Balance -0.1 3* 0.47

* Rock Run flows in excess of IMA limits area off- set by

under utilization of the PI upstream at Muddy
Branch.

ii. Maryland- Upper Potomac Interceptor and the Cabin John Basin --
The Maryland-Upper Potomac Interceptor (MUPI) receives wastewater from the Cabin John
basin, including parts of the City of Rockville, and from several mini-sewer basins within the
Cabin John area along the Potomac River. The MUPI has a maximum capacity of 18.7 mgd. A
30-inch sewer line connects the MUPI to the PI just downstream from where wastewater from
Cabin John Trunk Sewer discharges to the MUPI. When flow from the Cabin John Basin
reaches the MUPI's maximum capacity, an automatic valve diverts the excess flow to the
Potomac Interceptor. Both the MUPI and the PI drain into the Upper Potomac Interceptor
(UPI) and Upper Potomac Interceptor Relief Sewer (UPIRS) in the District of Columbia.

The Cabin John basin encompasses the entire 33 square mile drainage area of
Cabin John Creek and includes portions of the Bethesda, Cabin John, Glen Echo, and Potomac
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­175

communities, and portions of the City of Rockville. The stream originates in Rockville and
flows south into the Potomac River near the Interstate 495 American Legion Bridge in Cabin
John.

( a) Existing Systems -- Service within the basin is presently provided by a

system of trunk sewers reaching up along Cabin John Creek, which runs generally from north
to south, crossing Montrose Road, Democracy Boulevard, Interstate 495, and River Road.
Major trunk sewer lines in this basin include the Buck Branch Trunk, the Minnehaha Branch
Trunk, Booze Creek Trunk, and the Snakeden Branch Trunk. The sewerage system and basin
boundaries are shown in Figure 4-F12.

Collected wastewater flows by gravity down the basin's sewer mains into
the MUPI, then flows into the Upper Potomac Interceptor Relief Sewer in the District of
Columbia, and is treated at the Blue Plains WWTP. Wastewater flows from this basin to the
MUPI and the PI systems are is regulated through the 1985 Blue Plains IMA. The WSSC’s
allocated capacity from this basin to MUPI is divided between the City of Rockville and the
WSSC as specified in the Rockville-WSSC Agreement of 1956.

The Cabin John basin is heavily to moderately developed, and wastewater

flows from the basin are not expected to increase significantly during the next 15 years. The
total annual average and peak flows allocated to the Cabin John basin in the MUPI-PI
crossover system equals 11.0 MGD and 48.3 MGD respectively. Using the 1990 Cabin John
Basin Reevaluation Study, WSSC has determined that sufficient capacity exists in the MUPI-PI
system to handle the peak flows for ultimate conditions in this basin.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­176

The wastewater collection and conveyance facilities within the Cabin John
basin are currently adequate and need no planned wastewater collection/conveyance
projects or proposed system modifications. As part of the WSSC’s new rehabilitation program
to reduce potential Infiltration and Inflow (I/I), WSSC and Montgomery and Prince George's
counties agreed that the Cabin John basin undergo a comprehensive basin study which is
scheduled to start in July 2003.

( b) Projected Needs – Projected flows based on latest forecasted

population (Round 6) and other flow factors for the Cabin John Basin are summarized in
Table 4-T10. This table presents projected flows from the Cabin John Basin to the MUPI-PI
crossover system and the IMA limitations. As can be seen, the projected annual average
flows from this basin will exceed the IMA limit, although this will not be a major concern.
Flows into the PI from the Muddy Branch basin, upstream from the Cabin John sewershed, will
be significantly reduced due to the diversion of flows to the expanded Seneca WWTP which
were previously routed through the Muddy Branch sewerage system to the PI.

Table 4­T10: Future Wastewater Flows to the Maryland­Upper Potomac 
Interceptor (MUPI) and the Potomac Interceptor (PI) from the Cabin John Basin.

Cabin John Basin Flows

Year Average (mgd) Peak (mgd)

Projected Flow 11.92 31.13

IMA MUPI 10.3 23.3

2005
Limitatio
PI 0.7 25.0
n 11.0 48.3

Balance -0.92* + 1 7.1 7

Projected Flow 12.24 31.96

IMA MUPI 10.3 23.3

2010
Limitatio
PI 0.7 25.0
n 11.0 48.3

Balance -1.24 * + 1 6.34

Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­177

Table 4­T10: Future Wastewater Flows to the Maryland­Upper Potomac 
Interceptor (MUPI) and the Potomac Interceptor (PI) from the Cabin John Basin.

Cabin John Basin Flows

Year Average (mgd) Peak (mgd)

Projected Flow 11.92 31.13

IMA MUPI 10.3 23.3

2005
Limitatio
PI 0.7 25.0
n 11.0 48.3

Balance -0.92* + 1 7.1 7

Projected Flow 12.6 33.77

IMA MUPI 10.3 23.3

2015
Limitatio
PI 0.7 25.0
n 11.0 48.3

Balance -1 .60 * + 1 5.39

NOTE: Data include flows from the City of Rockville

* Cabin John Flows in excess of IMA limits area off-set by under utilization
of the PI upstream at Muddy Branch.

The 1990 "Cabin John Reevaluation Study" evaluated the adequacy of sewage
collection and conveyance facilities within the Cabin John basin. The study concluded that,
despite insignificant flow increases in this basin, approximately 11,500 feet of sewer may have
insufficient capacity by the year 2010 and that frequently occurring surcharged conditions are
expected. However, hydraulic evaluations indicate that the surcharge will not produce
overflows until sometime after the year 2010. In addition, the 1995 "Rock Creek Conveyance
Needs Analysis,” indicated that the projected ultimate flows from the Cabin John basin may
exceed the capacity of approximately 30,300 feet of existing Cabin John sewer mains. The
approximate locations of projected capacity constraints in this basin are shown in Figure 4-
F12.

iii. Rock Creek Basin – The Rock Creek basin is located in the southern and
central parts of the county. The headwaters of Rock Creek originate in largely rural areas
between Olney and Laytonsville. The stream flows generally south and enters the District of
Columbia near Chevy Chase. The basin boundaries are roughly defined on the west by the
Old Georgetown Road/Rockville Pike corridor and on the east by Georgia Avenue, and include
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­178

portions of the following planning areas: Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Silver Spring, North
Bethesda-Garrett Park, Kensington-Wheaton, Rockville, Aspen Hill, Olney, Gaithersburg, and
the Upper Rock Creek Watershed. Rock Creek is the most intensely developed sewer basin in
Montgomery County.

( a) Existing Systems -- The Rock Creek Trunk Sewers consist of two

parallel gravity interceptor sewers which carry the accumulated wastewater from of the
Montgomery County's portion of the Rock Creek Basin south into the District of Columbia and
to the Upper Potomac Interceptor Relief Sewer. These wastewater flows are treated at the
Blue Plains WWTP. The Rock Creek Basin boundary, the major sewer lines layout, and the
approximate locations of projected capacity constraints in this basin are shown in Figure 4-
F13.

A portion of the wastewater generated in the Olney area in the Hawlings

River (Patuxent River) Watershed is pumped into the Rock Creek Basin through the Reddy
Branch WWPS, located just east of Brookeville. Within the basin, the North Branch WWPS
pumps flows from development located north of Bowie Mill Road into a gravity sewer main at
Cashell Road, conveying those flows to the North Branch Trunk Sewer. This pump around
was constructed to avoid extending the North Branch Trunk Sewer upstream through
environmentally sensitive park land.

A substantial amount of the County’s current and anticipated development

depends on the sewerage infrastructure in the Rock Creek Basin. The basin receives flows
from much of the development and redevelopment planned for the Bethesda, Grosvenor,
Nicholson, Rockville, and Shady Grove areas in the west and the Silver Spring, Wheaton, and
Olney areas in the east.

The limited wastewater transmission capacity in the Rock Creek Trunk

Sewers at the point where they enter the District of Columbia has been a major constraint in
meeting the wastewater conveyance needs in the Rock Creek Basin since the early 1980s.
The 1985 IMA limits the peak flow from Montgomery County through the Rock Creek Basin to
the Blue Plains WWTP 56.6 MGD. The IMA also limits the trunk sewers' annual average flow
to 33.5 mgd.

In 1983, the "Rock Creek Transmission Relief Facility Plan" provided for relief
of existing surcharging and overflows in the Rock Creek sewers. This study also
recommended a phased solution approach for providing future increases in wastewater flows
while meeting the Blue Plains IMA limit. The Phase I recommendation was the Rock Creek
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­179

Storage Facility, which WSSC built in 1991 just south of Randolph Road. This facility offloads
and stores excess peak flows from the trunk sewers; the stored wastewater is gradually
returned to the trunk sewers during times of lower flow. The storage facility provides
flexibility in meeting the IMA peak flow limit of 56.6 mgd. WSSC assumes that the Rock
Creek Storage Facility provides an additional 24 mgd to the IMA peak flow limit of 56.6 mgd
(1994 WSSC Strategic Sewer Study). The Phase II recommendation from the 1983 study
included the construction of a pump station and a force main to transfer the excess flows
from the Rock Creek Basin to the Cabin John Basin. However, the latest interagency review
of the flow data and sewer conditions through the recently completed Rock Creek Wastewater
Facilities Project focused on providing additional peak flow storage within the Rock Creek
sewershed, rather than pumping excess flows into the Cabin John sewerage system, which is
also exceeding its average allocated capacity.

( b) Projected Needs – Table 4-T11 summarizes projected flows from the

Rock Creek Basin, based on latest forecasted population (Round 6) and other flow factors,
and the related IMA limitations at the District of Columbia line.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­180
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­181

Table 4- T1 1 : Future Wastewater Flows to the Rock Creek

Trunk Sewer

Year Average ( mgd) Peak ( mgd)

Projected 30.40 80.75

20 0 5 Flow

IMA 33.5 56.6 (+24)

Limitation

Balance + 3.1 -0.1 5

Projected 31.39 82.18

20 1 0 Flow

IMA 33.5 56.6 (+24)

Limitation

Balance +2.1 1 -1 .58

Projected 32.06 80.75

20 1 5 Flow

IMA 33.5 56.6 (+24)

Limitation

Balance + 1.44 -2.87

Notes: - WSSC has assumed that the Rock Creek Storage Facility (WSSC Strategic
Sewerage Study of 1994) provides an additional 24 mgd to
the IMA peak flow limit of 56.6 mgd. However, WSSC also
expects that the 24 mgd is expected will gradually diminish
as the peak flows become larger.
- Data includes flows from the City of Rockville.

The 1994 Strategic Sewerage Study characterized the conveyance situation in

this basin as critical and recommended immediate action to address the basin's future
sewerage needs. WSSC’s 1995 Rock Creek Conveyance Needs Analysis examined the current
and future wastewater flows and sewer capacities in Rock Creek. This analysis also
examined wastewater flows in adjacent sewersheds which could be involved in the
alternatives analysis for a pumpover of excess flows from the Rock Creek Basin. Based on
the projected ultimate wastewater flows, this analysis concluded that the capacity of
approximately 54,300 feet of existing sewer mains in the Rock Creek Basin may be exceeded
by the year 2010. Figure 4-F13 shows the approximate locations of projected capacity
constraints in this basin.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­182

As indicated in the preceding table, the peak flows from the Rock Creek Basin
will exceed the IMA limit by the year 2005, even with full utilization of the 24-MGD Rock Creek
Storage Facility. The recommendations from the latest study of the sewerage conditions in
the Rock Creek Basin (conducted during late 1990s and early 2000s through the Rock Creek
Wastewater Facilities Project) included long-term relief project focused on providing additional
peak flow storage within the Rock Creek sewershed, rather than pumping excess flows into
another adjacent sewerage system. Short-term recommendations from this study included:
construction of a limited amount of relief sewer, installation of control improvements to
optimize the operation of the existing storage facility, and implementation of an
infiltration/inflow control program in an effort to reduce excess peak flows in this basin.

iv. Little Falls Sewerage System – The Little Falls Basin is relatively small
and substantially developed. The basin encompasses the southern portions of the
communities of Bethesda and Chevy Chase, near the District of Columbia.

( a) Existing Systems -- The Little Falls Trunk Sewer receives wastewater

from the Little Falls basin and conveys it into the Upper Potomac Interceptor Relief Sewer
(UPRIS) in the District of Columbia, where these flows are treated at the Blue Plains WWTP.
Flows from the Little Falls Trunk Sewer into the UPRIS are regulated by the 1985 Blue Plains
IMA.

Sewerage service is presently provided by a system of trunk sewer lines,

reaching up into the basin along Little Falls Branch, with a major extension north of
Massachusetts Avenue along Willett Branch. The wastewater collection and conveyance
facilities within the Little Falls Basin are adequate and there are no planned wastewater
collection/conveyance projects or proposed system modifications. Figure 4-F14 shows the
Little Falls Basin boundary and its major sewer lines.

( b) Projected Needs – Table 4-T12 summarizes projected flows, based on

latest forecasted population and other flow factors, and IMA flow restrictions for the Little
Falls Basin.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­183
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­184

Table 4- T1 2: Future Wastewater Flows from Little Falls Basin

Year Average ( mgd) Peak ( mgd)

Projected Flow 4.27 14.36

IMA Limitation 7.6 20.8

200 5 Balance +3.33 + 6.44

Projected Flow 4.48 14.93

IMA Limitation 7.6 20.8

20 1 0 Balance +3.1 2 + 5.87

Projected Flow 4.56 14.95

IMA Limitation 7.6 20.8

20 1 5 Balance + 3.0 4 + 5.85

As indicated in the preceding table, WSSC does not expect the annual
average and peak flows from the Little Falls Basin to exceed the IMA limitations before the
year 2015. The 1994 WSSC Strategic Sewerage Study determined that the annual average
IMA limitation will not be exceeded before 2030. The Little Falls Trunk Sewer has adequate
capacity to receive the projected wastewater flows over the next 30 years.

v. Anacostia Interceptor System -- This sewerage system originated in the

1930's and is one of the oldest within the WSSD. Sewer service is presently provided to more
than 80 percent of the Anacostia River Basin in Montgomery County, encompassing an area
of about 39 square miles, and including communities in the following planning areas:
Fairland - Beltsville, Colesville - White Oak, Cloverly - Norwood, Kemp Mill - Four Corners,
Takoma Park, Silver Spring, Kensington - Wheaton, Aspen Hill, and Olney. Nearly all of the
sewered portion of Eastern Montgomery County is situated within the upper reaches of the
Anacostia River Basin. The Paint Branch sewer basin includes the watersheds of both Paint
Branch and Little Paint Branch.

( a) Existing Systems – The Anacostia Interceptor System receives

wastewater from both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties. The wastewater collection
system consists of a network of trunk sewers reaching up along Sligo Creek, and Long,
Northwest, Little Northwest, Buckhorn, Hollywood, Paint, and Little Paint Branches. The
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­185

wastewater flows by gravity down the basin through Prince George's County to the Anacostia
Pumping Station near the District of Columbia adjacent to the Anacostia River. From there,
the wastewater is pumped through a force main to a gravity sewer parallel to the Anacostia
River, then on to the Blue Plains WWTP for treatment. WSSC's use of the tributaries to
Anacostia Interceptor System is governed by both the 1985 IMA and the Bi-County Agreement.

Major sub-basins served by the Anacostia Interceptor System in Montgomery

County include Paint Branch, Northwest Branch, and Sligo Creek. A brief description of the
sewerage systems in each of these three sub-basins follows.

( i) Sligo Creek Basin -- The Sligo Creek Basin is relatively small and
substantially developed, covering an area from downtown Wheaton south to downtown
Silver Spring. The trunk sewer parallels Sligo Creek and enters the Prince George's County
east of the Silver Spring commercial center. This basin is shown in Figure 4-F15.

( ii) Northwest Branch Basin -- In addition to the wastewater

generated within the Northwest Branch watershed, this sewerage system receives
wastewater flows pumped from other watersheds through three pumping stations. In the
Olney Planning Area, the James Creek WWPS pumps flows from the Hawlings River Watershed
(from the area generally north of Route 108 and east of Georgia Avenue). In the Cloverly -
Norwood Planning Area, flows are pumped from the Hawlings River Watershed
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­186
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­187

(north of Route 108) through the Sandy Spring Meadows WWPS; flows are also pumped from
the Patuxent River Watershed (northeast of New Hampshire Avenue) through the Sam Rice
Manor WWPS. The Northwest Branch Basin is shown in Figure 4-F16.

( iii) Paint Branch Basin -- The Paint Branch Trunk Sewer traverses
much of the southeastern part of Montgomery County. Trunk sewers parallel Paint Branch
and its major tributaries, including Little Paint Branch. The Paint Branch Trunk Sewer enters
Prince George's County in the White Oak area. The Paint Branch sewer basin is shown in
Figure 4-F17.

( b) Projected Needs -- The available sewer capacity in the Anacostia

Interceptor System service area is shared between Prince George's and Montgomery Counties
on a first come-first served basis as specified in the Bi-County Capacity Agreement.
Projected annual average and peak flows in this basin, which includes flows from both
counties, are compared to the IMA limitation in Table 4-T13.

Table 4- T1 3: Future Wastewater Flows from Anacostia River

Basin

Year Average ( mgd) Peak ( mgd)

Projected 60.39 151.77

Flow

IMA 83.2 185

Limitation

20 0 5 Balance +22.8 1 + 33.23

Projected 62.02 154.88

Flow

IMA 83.2
Limitation 185

20 1 0 Balance +21 .1 8 + 30 .1 2
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­188

Table 4- T1 3: Future Wastewater Flows from Anacostia River

Basin

Year Average ( mgd) Peak ( mgd)

Projected 63.73
Flow 158.23

IMA 83.2
Limitation 185

20 1 5 Balance + 1 9.47 + 26.77

As indicated in the preceding table, the combined projected flows from both
Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in the Anacostia Interceptor system will not
exceed the IMA limitation before 2015.

( i) Sligo Creek Basin -- Much of the development potential in Sligo

Creek is limited to redevelopment of existing commercial areas, such as the downtown areas
of Silver Spring and Wheaton. WSSC does not anticipate future sewage capacity constraints
within this basin.

( ii) Northwest Branch Basin -- The existing and anticipated future

flows in the Northwest Branch Basin were analyzed in 1995 through the Rock Creek
Conveyance Needs Analysis. The results indicate that the projected 2010 wastewater flows
from the basin could exceed the capacity of approximately 12,700 feet of existing sewer
mains (see Figure 4-F17). At present, major sewer lines within the basin have adequate
capacity, and there are no planned CIP projects in this basin.

( iii) Paint Branch Basin -- Major sewer lines tributary to Anacostia

Interceptor System in this basin have adequate capacity at present, and there are no planned
CIP projects in this basin. However, considerable growth is expected to occur in this area
along the U.S. Route 29 corridor. To examine the adequacy of the sewer system relative to
the projected growth in this basin, WSSC performed an analysis in 1995 under the Eastern
Montgomery County Master Plan Analysis. This analysis concluded that 9,500 feet of Paint
Branch Trunk Sewer within Montgomery County will have capacity constraints under ultimate
flow conditions. Results from this analysis and from the Paint Branch Sewer Facility Plan,
conducted in 1984, are shown in Figure 4-F17.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­189
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­190
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­191
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­192

b. Treatment Facilities -- The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP)

treats the majority of the wastewater generated within the Blue Plains service area. The
Seneca WWTP offloads approximately 6 mgd of flow from the Great Seneca Creek system; the
remaining 9 mgd flow is pumped into the Muddy Branch sewershed for transmission to the
Blue Plains facility. However, by mid-2003, the expanded Seneca WWTP will treat all the
wastewater generated within the Seneca Basin; none of these flows will be treated at Blue
Plains. The planned Rock Run WWTP is considered as part of the Blue Plains service area
since it was planned to off-load flows from the Potomac Interceptor system.

A general description and a brief discussion of issues relevant to each treatment

plant are presented in the following sections. Table 4-T14 provides additional information on
treatment plants the Blue Plains Service Area. Included in this table are other community
system wastewater treatment plants located in the county.

Table 4- T1 4: Community Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Montgomery

County

· Facility Name & Owner/ Operating · Point of Design

Agency Type of Discharge Capacit
· Facility Location Treatment · Permit No. y ( mgd) Comments/ Status
· Facility Coordinates

SENECA SERVICE AREA FACILITIES

Seneca WWTP -- WSSC Activated Great Seneca 5.0 Expansion to 20 MGD

Great Seneca Highway - Germantown Sludge Creek by Summer 2003; until
N475,200/E721,900 91-DP-0156 then, the plant treats
flows offloaded from
the Blue Plains WWTP
service area. Ultimate
design capacity is 26.0
MGD.

DAMASCUS, HYATTSTOWN, AND POOLESVILLE SERVICE AREA FACILITIES

Damascus WWTP -- WSSC Activated Magruder Branch 1.5

Log House Road - Damascus Sludge 93-DP-0162
N514,500/E741,500

Hyattstown WWTP -- WSSC Physical/Bi Little Bennett 0.015

Routes 355 & 109 - Hyattstown o-logical Creek
N527,000/E710,500 96-DP-3200

Poolesville WWTP -- Town of Poolesville Sequencing Dry Seneca Creek 0.625 MDE issued draft
Fisher Avenue - Poolesville Batch 95-DP-0781 permit for process
N476,250/E688,100 reactor upgrade and
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­193

Table 4- T1 4: Community Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Montgomery

County

· Facility Name & Owner/ Operating · Point of Design

Agency Type of Discharge Capacit
· Facility Location Treatment · Permit No. y ( mgd) Comments/ Status
· Facility Coordinates
expansion to 0.75
MGD.

i. Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant – The District of Columbia Water

and Sewer Authority (WASA) owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater treatment
facilities at Blue Plains, situated along the Anacostia River. The Blue Plains WWTP has been
the primary wastewater treatment facility for the Washington Metropolitan Area since its
construction in 1938. WASA is responsible for the design and construction of all projects at
the plant. The facility has been improved and expanded over the years to provide better
quality effluent and to increase capacity for population growth in the plant's service area.
The principal jurisdictions using the Blue Plains facilities include: the District of Columbia;
portions of Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in Virginia; and most of Montgomery and
Prince George's Counties in Maryland. The utilities serving these jurisdictions pay their 
proportionate share of capital and operating costs based on their treatment capacity allocation and actual 
flow to the plant. The use of this treatment plant is currently governed by the Intermunicipal
Agreement of 1985 (IMA). The approximate boundaries of this service area are shown in
Figure 4-F7.

The current total annual average allocated capacity at the Blue Plains WWTP is 370
mgd, the design capacity of this plant. The unit processes employed at the Blue Plains
WWTP include the following:

 Primary Treatment: Screening, grit removal, primary clarification with metal

salt addition for phosphorus removal
 Secondary Treatment: Activated sludge, addition of metal salts for
phosphorus removal and secondary clarification
 Advanced Treatment: Nitrification with chemical addition, final clarification
and filtration, denitrification
 Disinfection: Chlorination with sodium hypochlorite
 Dechlorination: Sulfur Dioxide
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­194

 Solids Conditioning: Centrifuge and belt filter dewatering

 Solids Handling: Land application by outside contractors and incineration at
Fairfax County (see Section II.C.1.c. for additional information).

Appendix A of this Plan provides a summary of capital projects planned and

currently underway to upgrade and expand the wastewater treatment plants serving the
county, and to address facility maintenance.

Historically, nearly all of the wastewater generated in Montgomery County has

been treated at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The plant currently
receives more than 75 percent of Montgomery County's wastewater, or approximately 80
million gallons per day (MGD), accounting for approximately 30 percent of the total flow
received at Blue Plains. All the wastewater collected by the county's community sewerage
systems in the following basins is presently treated at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant: Muddy Branch, Rock Creek, Watts Branch, Cabin John Creek, Rock Run, Little Falls
Branch, Northwest Branch, Paint Branch, and Sligo Creek Basins. Although most of the WSSC
wastewater generated within the Seneca Creek Basin is treated at the Seneca WWTP, the
transfer of flows from this basin through the Muddy Branch basin to Blue Plains WWTP will
discontinue in mid-2003 when the expansion of the Seneca WWTP to 20 MGD is complete.

Table 4-T15 summarizes the actual flows received at Blue Plains during 2001 from
each jurisdiction. In terms of flow contribution, the District of Columbia has historically been
the largest user. For example, in 2001, WSSC flows accounted for 39 percent of the flows to
the plant and the District of Columbia accounted for 49 percent. Blue Plains users daily
average flows for the year 2001 and their respective IMA limitations are shown in Figure 4-F18.

Table 4­T15: 2001 Actual Daily Average Wastewater Flows to the Blue Plains WWTP and IMA Limitations

Total Flows to Blue  District of Columbia  All Other Jurisdiction 

2001 Plains (mgd) Flows (mgd) WSSC Flows (mgd) Flows (mgd)

January  296.8 143.8 115.6 37.4

February  300.9 138.7 123.3 38.9

March  322.0 153.3 128.9 39.8

April  324.5 154.7 130.3 39.5

May  326.0 157.2 129.4 39.4

June 339.5 166.0 133.1 40.4

July 362.8 195.3 128.7 38.8

Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­195

Table 4­T15: 2001 Actual Daily Average Wastewater Flows to the Blue Plains WWTP and IMA Limitations

Total Flows to Blue  District of Columbia  All Other Jurisdiction 

2001 Plains (mgd) Flows (mgd) WSSC Flows (mgd) Flows (mgd)

August 328.6 164.5 126.1 38.0

September 319.5 164.1 116.9 38.5

October 287.6 138.1 112.0 37.5

November 280.4 132.5 111.0 36.9

December 276.5 127.0 111.7 37.8

Daily Average 313.76 152.93      122.25 38.58

IMA Limitation 370.0 158.0 169.6 42.4

Source: Blue Plains Service Area ­ Monthly Flow Report
Notes: The allocation of 158 MGD annual average for the District of Columbia includes the 10 mgd reserved capacity for the 
Potomac Interceptor Users. 
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­196

As depicted in Figure 4-F18, WSSC has over 45 MGD in its remaining allocated
capacity at Blue Plains. Presently, the District of Columbia often exceeds its allocated
capacity, especially during wet weather
conditions. WSSC’s ability to use its full capacity allocation at Blue Plains will depend on
significantly reducing the District's actual flows to the system. The District's excessive flows
to Blue Plains will not conflict with WSSC's need for additional capacity until WSSC actually
needs additional capacity. However, presently the District is using plant capacity allocated to
and paid for by other Blue Plains user jurisdictions, including the WSSC.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties and WSSC need to encourage

WASA to proceed with its recently released plan to reduce extraneous flows
from the District’s collection system. This to ensure that WSSC can utilize its
allocated capacity at Blue Plains when Montgomery and Prince George’s
Counties need that additional capacity. In addition, the IMA signatories should
investigate whether WASA should reimburse the other Blue Plains users for
treatment capacity used in excess of the District of Columbia’s IMA Allocation.
This issue is being addressed through the Blue Plains Regional Long-Term
Wastewater Management Plan and through the development of the annotated
IMA.

Based on data from all four publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants serving
Montgomery County, as presented in Table 4-T16, the daily average of wastewater generated
in Montgomery County during 2001 was 86.773 MGD. As shown in Figure 4-F18, the Blue Plains
WWTP receives approximately 91percent of all community-system wastewater generated in
Montgomery County.

Table 4- T1 6: Wastewater Generated In Montgomery County

in 200 1*

Service Area Treatment Daily Average Flow

Facility Treated ( mgd)

Blue Plains WWTP 83.620

Blue Plains Seneca WWTP 6.495

Damascus Damascus WWTP 0.869

Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­197

Table 4- T1 6: Wastewater Generated In Montgomery County

in 200 1*

Service Area Treatment Daily Average Flow

Facility Treated ( mgd)

Hyattstown Hyattstown WWTP 0.042

Poolesville Poolesville WWTP 0.596

TOTAL 86.773

* Community systems only.

ii. Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant – The Seneca WWTP offloads and
treats approximately 6 mgd of the 15 mgd flow from the Great Seneca Creek sewerage
system. However, with the completed expansion of the Seneca WWTP from 6 mgd to 20
mgd, expected by mid-2003, the majority of wastewater generated within the Seneca Basin
will be treated at the Seneca WWTP. WSSC will temporarily continue to pump approximately
3.5 MGD from the Lower Seneca Basin, via the Muddy Branch sewerage system and the PI, to
the Blue Plains WWTP. This pumpover will cease in Spring 2006 upon completion of the
Lower Seneca Basin Sewer project, which will connect this sewerage system directly to the
Seneca WWTP. This Plan generally treats the Seneca Service Area as separate from the Blue
Plains Service Area. See Section II.C.2. for additional information.

c. Biosolids Management – Biosolids is a term adopted in recent years to refer to

the municipal wastewater solids formerly referred to as sewage sludge. These solids are the
residuals from the primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment processes at wastewater
treatment plants. The residuals are usually thickened and dewatered into a “cake” that
generally consists of 12-to-30-percent solids, depending on the technologies employed. Both
federal and state regulations define the stabilization or pathogen reduction
techniques required to allow these solids to be recycled as biosolids. Biosolids are generally
recycled as soil amendments or fertilizers by either direct land application or after being
composted. Industrial pretreatment regulations ensure that metals and/or toxics are not
significant components of biosolids. Both the EPA and MDE strongly support the beneficial
reuse of biosolids, as opposed to disposal techniques such as incineration and land filling.

Biosolids are defined in State law as solid waste. The significance of this designation
is that MDE requires the County to report on the planning and management of biosolids in
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­198

the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan. A restatement of the information reported in the
Solid Waste Management Plan is contained here for the purpose of continuity, since biosolids
are a product of wastewater treatment and must be managed as part of the wastewater
treatment plant operations.

WSSC manages biosolids from each of the treatment plants they operate in
Montgomery County and a portion of the biosolids from the Blue Plains WWTP in Washington
D.C. Currently, the average finished biosolids production at the Blue Plains WWTP is
approximately 1250 wet tons per day (wtpd), of which approximately 400 wtpd is land-applied
by WSSC contractors. Biosolids production from the Seneca and Damascus WWTPs are
approximately 15 wtpd and 2 wtpd, respectively. The biosolids from these facilities are
managed by the WSSC through contracts for land application on farm lands.

i. Biosolids Under the Intermunicipal Agreement of 1 98 5 -- Treatment and

disposal of biosolids produced at the Blue Plains WWTP is governed by the 1984
Memorandum of Understanding on Sludge (MOUS) and the 1985 IMA. The 1984 MOUS
establishes an understanding with respect to soliciting and entering into contracts for the
management of biosolids from Blue Plains between the District of Columbia, Montgomery and
Prince George’s Counties, WSSC, and Fairfax County. WSSC manages 80 dry tons/day (dtpd)
of biosolids from the Blue Plains WWTP, the equivalent of 400 wtpd at 20 percent solids. The
1985 IMA originally provided for permanent biosolids management facilities at Blue Plains
consisting of in-vessel composting and incineration, and for WSSC to use static pile
composting at the Montgomery County Regional Composting Facility (MCRCF).

The 1985 IMA envisioned that WSSC would compost all of its share of biosolids at
the MCRCF, located in the southeastern part of the county in the Calverton - White Oak area.
As a regional facility, the MCRCF's capital and operating costs were shared by the Blue Plains
users, under the terms of the IMA. The MCRCF was the only facility identified in the IMA for
sludge management that was actually constructed and placed into operation. In 1998, DEP
prepared a comparative economic analysis of biosolids composting at the MCRCF versus land
application, concluding that annual cost savings to the region of approximately $4.0 million
could be realized if the MCRCF were closed and the federal and State grants used to
construct the facility did not have to be repaid. Closure of the MCRCF would also avoid any
requirement for additional capital investment in the facility, enable the savings to be
invested in the upgrades of the proposed biosolids facilities at Blue Plains, and relieve odor
problems in surrounding communities caused by the facility. Accordingly, the County
Executive recommended that the facility be closed. The IMA signatories agreed with the
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­199

closure and U.S. EPA agreed WSSC did not have to repay the federal loans for the facility. As
a result, WSSC ceased composting operations at the MCRCF in April 1999, diverting the
approximately 200 wtpd of biosolids previously composted there to the land application
program. WSSC maintains land application contracts to fulfill its responsibilities in this area.
All the remaining Blue Plains biosolids are either land applied or incinerated in the Fairfax
Resource Recovery Facility.

ii. Land Application -- Biosolids that are land applied are subject to
requirements of State-issued sewage sludge utilization permits and nutrient management
plans. The locations of the permitted sites are determined by the contractor that manages
this material. The bidding process requires that each bidder have the necessary permitted
sites to manage the biosolids. Historically, these sites have been on the Maryland Eastern
Shore;, Frederick, Howard, and Prince George’s Counties; or in Virginia. These areas are
preferred for biosolids land application because they have large farms on gently sloping or
flat land with well drained soils. Generally, most of the biosolids from the other WSSC
treatment plants in Montgomery County (Seneca , Damascus, and Hyattstown WWTPs), are
managed on farms in the county.

iii. Blue Plains Biosolids Management Study of 1 996 -- In 1996, the Blue
Plains users conducted a study of Blue Plains biosolids issues. The Blue Plains Biosolids
Management Study (BPBMS), evaluated both short-term and long-term issues associated with
the management of the biosolids generated at Blue Plains. The justification for this study
was that the long-range sludge management plan agreed to by the region in the 1985 IMA
had not been implemented. The District of Columbia, according to the IMA plan, was to have
built a sludge incinerator and an in-vessel composting system to manage all biosolids
generated at Blue Plains, except for the 80 dtpd designated for WSSC. However, indications
were that the IMA plan never would be implemented, since the District indicated in 1995 that
they were not going to implement either the incinerator or the composting systems based on
anticipated permitting problems and limited space at the Blue Plains plant. Accordingly, the
regional Blue Plains partners initiated the biosolids management study to evaluate options
for biosolids management given the identified District limitations.

The BPBMS evaluated the biosolids generation at Blue Plains, confirming that the
generation rate was significantly lower than had occurred in previous years and was well
below prior estimates. This lower production rate was due to significantly lower phosphorus
levels in the influent to the plant and improved dewatering technology. Long-term biosolids
production was nearly half of prior estimates (1000 wtpd versus 2000 wtpd). After a review of
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­200

biosolids re-use and disposal options, land application was determined to be the most cost
effective, long-term viable disposal option. The Blue Plains users then agreed to recommend
a capital improvement program at Blue Plains that would optimize the biosolids for land
application. This study recommended the construction of twelve egg-shaped anaerobic
digesters at Blue Plains at an estimated cost of $175 million. These digesters would improve
the quality and reduce the quantity of biosolids generated at the plant by 30 to 50 percent.
Several other capital improvements were also recommended, including dewatering
centrifuges, belt filter presses, chemical addition facilities, etc. The total biosolids program
was estimated to cost $300 million. The implementation of this recommended program was
identified as a high priority to the WASA Board of Directors and is included in the WASA CIP.

Based on the assumptions used in the study, it was also recommended that the
MCRCF be included in this long-term biosolids management plan. However, Montgomery
County's subsequent economic feasibility study of the MCRCF revealed that several key
assumptions (e.g., grant repayment) were invalid and that the MCRCF was not a significant
aspect of biosolids management plan for Blue Plains.

iv. WASA Biosolids Study -- In 1998, WASA funded a biosolids study for the Blue
Plains WWTP to review the assumptions and technologies proposed in the 1996 Blue Plains
Biosolids Management Study (BPBMS). WASA conducted this new study because the 1996
study was conducted prior to the existence of the WASA Board and management staff. Since
the BPBMS proposed new capital spending of approximately $300 million, WASA felt it that it
was important to update the BPBMS and to secure regional support for any recommended
biosolids plan. Accordingly, during 1999 the WASA Biosolids study was conducted, including a
"decision-science" regional participation process.

The conclusions of this new study process are very similar to the original
conclusions of the BPBMS. It supports the investment of funds for digesters at Blue Plains,
new dewatering centrifuges, and reliance on land application for the recycling of biosolids.
The 1999 study also supports an investment in heat dryers/pelletization of biosolids if
economical land application becomes a problem in the mid-Atlantic area. The Bi-County
portion of the current WSSC CIP includes these facilities for the Blue Plains WWTP.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

Montgomery County should continue working actively with WASA to implement
the capital and operational improvements to the Blue Plains WWTP
recommended in the 1996 Blue Plains Biosolids Management Study and 1999
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­201

WASA Biosolids Study.

c. Blue Plains Service Area Projected Wastewater Treatment Needs --

Securing adequate wastewater treatment capacity to meet development objectives and
related issues has been a major concern in Montgomery County since the early 1970's. A
crisis in treatment capacity was marked by the enactment of a building moratorium in
Montgomery County in 1970 due to limited treatment capacity at the Blue Plains WWTP.
Since that time, the County has entered into regional wastewater treatment agreements to
address its treatment needs at the Blue Plains WWTP. The available treatment capacity at
the Blue Plains WWTP continues to be governed by the IMA, which allocates the Blue Plains
treatment capacity among its users which includes the WSSC. WSSC's allocated capacity is
then shared between Montgomery and Prince George's Counties and the City of Rockville
through the 1983 Bi-County Agreement and the WSSC-Rockville Agreements.

Projected flows based on forecasted population and other flow factors for Blue Plains
service area are summarized in Table 4-T17. This data, produced by WSSC, is based on COG's
Round 6 Cooperative demographic forecasts and WSSC's latest wastewater flow factors. As
shown in this table, the county's projected wastewater treatment needs within the Blue Plains
service area will be met well beyond the year 2015.

Table 4- T1 7: Projected Flows and Available Treatment Capacity in the Blue

1
Plains Service Area

Projected Flows ( mgd)

Sewer Basin 200 5 20 1 0 20 1 5

6 60.39 62.02 63.73
Anacostia

2 11.92 12.24 12.6

Cabin John

Little Falls 4.27 4.48 4.56

Muddy Branch 5.69 6.37 6.92

2 30.4 31.39 32.06
Rock Creek

Rock Run 0.97 1.0 1.03

2 4.87 5.53 5.76
Watts Branch

5 0.44 0.44 0.45

Other Montgomery County Flows
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­202

Table 4- T1 7: Projected Flows and Available Treatment Capacity in the Blue

1
Plains Service Area

Projected Flows ( mgd)

Sewer Basin 200 5 20 1 0 20 1 5

Flows from Prince George's 8.06 8.26 8.47

4
County

TOTAL 3 3 3
1 27.0 1 1 3 1 .73 1 35.58

Treatment Capacity ( mgd)

169.6 169.6 169.6

Blue Plains WWTP
Available Capacity ( mgd)

42.59 37.87 34.0 2

1
Data are based on latest (2002) WSSC projections.
2
Projected flows in Rock Creek, Cabin John and Watts Branch include flows from Rockville.
3
The allocated capacity to WSSC includes 9.3 mgd for the City of Rockville.
4
Other flows from Prince George's County include flows from Oxon Run, Piney Branch and Watts
Branch.
5
For flows from smaller basins directly connected to the Potomac Interceptor.
6
Anacostia flows include flows from the Prince George's County.

i. Proposed Rock Run Wastewater Treatment Plant -- The previously-

proposed Rock Run WWTP reflected the result of a search during the 1970's for additional
treatment capacity within the Blue Plains service area of the Washington Suburban Sanitary
District (WSSD). In 1978, in response to limited treatment capacity, Montgomery County
conducted the “Mid-Term Study” to locate a site for a wastewater treatment plant and to
identify the County’s wastewater treatment capacity needs through the 1990's. After
examining many alternatives, a site was selected in the Rock Run Basin for a 20 MGD plant.
In conjunction with the selected site, studies were conducted for alternative levels of
treatment and points of discharge. The recommended alternative was to pump flow from the
Potomac Interceptor to the Rock Run WWTP for treatment, and to convey the treated effluent
to the confluence of Little Falls Branch and the Potomac River. This would keeps the plant's
discharge downstream of the District of Columbia water supply intake at the Little Falls Dam.
This effluent routing assumed that a part of the Maryland-Upper Potomac Interceptor (MUPI)
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­203

would be used to serve as a portion of the discharge pipe, and that existing sewer
connections to the MUPI would have to be transferred to the Potomac Interceptor.

While finalizing the design of the Rock Run WWTP, an agreement was reached
through the 1985 IMA on expanding the Blue Plains WWTP to 370 mgd to meet regional
wastewater treatment needs through 2005 for the entire metropolitan Washington area,
including Montgomery County. Since there was no longer an immediate need to construct
the plant at Rock Run, implementation of the proposed Rock Run WWTP was postponed to a
time when the Blue Plains WWTP’s available capacity would again approach full utilization.
The construction of the Rock Run WWTP was one of the requirements of the 1983 Bi-County
Agreement, which stipulated that the Rock Run WWTP would serve as the next increment of
wastewater treatment capacity within the Blue Plains service area. The decision in the mid-
1990s to expand the Seneca WWTP to 20 mgd further postponed the need for any additional
treatment capacity in the Blue Plains Service Area for a minimum of 15 years. Although the
1983 Bi-County Agreement originally envisioned Rock Run WWTP as the next increment of
wastewater treatment capacity in the WSSD, the Seneca WWTP effectively serves as that
increment.

The Rock Run WWTP project has been included for many years in the planned
WSSC Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The purpose of retaining the Rock Run WWTP
facility in the CIP has been to keep the proposed facility in an active planning document,
since the timing for the facility was not known. The Rock Run WWTP facility is shown in the
CIP to have design and construction funded in the out-years, beyond the active six-year CIP
period for capital project funding.

ii. Rock Run WWTP Policy Issue – In 1983, when there was a plan to build
the Rock Run Wastewater Treatment Plant, the region was contending with and seeking
solutions for several sewerage issues related to:

 A need for more treatment capacity in the Blue Plains Service Area.
 A perception that the PI would not have sufficient capacity for future PI users.
And,
 A decision that Montgomery County should be the location for the next
increment of treatment capacity the WSSC Blue Plains Service Area.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­204

Several events and subsequent policies were adopted that today invalidate the
crisis and concerns of the early 1980s. The major points of concern identified above have
been resolved during the past twenty years as follows:

 The Blue Plains WWTP was approved for a significant capacity expansion by
EPA in 1984, from 309 MGD to 370 MGD. This expansion increased WSSC’s
allocated capacity by 16.3 MGD from 153.3 MGD to 169.6 MGD. In addition,
recent flow projections for the WSSC Blue Plains Service Area indicates that
there is sufficient treatment capacity at Blue Plains for future planned
development for beyond the next twenty years.

 The Blue Plains user jurisdictions recently completed the first dynamic
hydraulic model of the PI and it shows that there is sufficient capacity in the PI
for all planned uses in the next twenty years. And,

 In 1997, Montgomery County supported the replacement of the interim 5.0

MGD Seneca WWTP with a permanent 20.0 MGD WWTP that can be upgraded
to 26.0 MGD if needed. Through this expansion, all Seneca Basin flows will be
removed from the Blue Plains Service Area providing additional capacity in the
PI system and the Blue Plains WWTP. This new capacity is the 20 MGD that
was previously envisioned to be at Rock Run. Seneca WWTP is therefore the
next increment of treatment capacity in the WSSC Blue Plains Service Area that
was agreed to in the 1983 Bi-County Agreement. The Seneca WWTP expansion
is 95% complete and expected to begin operation in mid 2003.

Montgomery County recognized the need to update not only these prior
assumptions, but also to update and reevaluate the 1994 WSSC Strategic Sewerage Plan,
based on the results of new capacity and flow analyses performed by both WSSC and WASA
for the Blue Plains sewerage basins in the WSSD, the Potomac Interceptor, and the Blue
Plains WWTP. This Water and Sewer Plan update represents a step in that continuing
reevaluation process, bringing together these transmission and treatment capacity issues to
make the following recommendation:

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

Based on the resolution of all the issues that resulted in the planning of Rock
Run WWTP in late 1970s and early 1980s, it is now appropriate to remove the
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­205

Rock Run WWTP from this sewerage system planning document and for the
County to work with Prince George’s County and WSSC to remove it from their
plans. However, this Water and Sewer Plan does not make any
recommendation concerning the disposition of the Rock Run WWTP site, which
would be addressed, if necessary, through the appropriate review and
coordination process by WSSC.

2. Seneca WWTP Service Area -- The Seneca Service Area includes substantial portions
of the Great Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek watersheds and serves the communities
of Gaithersburg, Germantown and Clarksburg (see Figure 4-F19). The Great Seneca Creek
watershed is the largest watershed in Montgomery County, with a drainage area of
approximately 128 square miles. A rolling, hilly topography is characteristic throughout this
drainage basin, and natural slopes of 15 percent or greater are not common. Steep slopes
are found along some of the principal stream valleys. The I-270 corridor is the major
development corridor extending from Bethesda to Clarksburg. For the most part, the areas
within the watershed outside the I-270 corridor are low density residential and agricultural
land uses, and are largely served by individual, on-site septic systems.

The expansion of the Seneca WWTP from 5.0 MGD to 20.0 MGD is presently at the final
stages of construction. The facility design anticipates an eventual capacity expansion to 26.0
MGD. At the time of this Plan update, approximately 9 MGD of the wastewater generated in
the Seneca Basin is conveyed to the Blue Plains WWTP for treatment via a pumpover to the
Muddy Branch sewerage system. Because of existing conditions, the Seneca Basin is
technically considered as part of the Blue Plains Service Area. Note that the Seneca Basin
excludes the Damascus and Poolesville Service Areas, which are independent of the systems
currently feeding into the Seneca and Blue Plains facilities. The Seneca WWTP expansion is
expected to be completed in mid-2003,and all wastewater flows in this basin will be treated
at the Seneca WWTP; no further wastewater flows will be transferred to the Blue Plains
WWTP. Since the completion of the Seneca WWTP expected within the development time of
this Plan, the sewer system in the Seneca Basin is addressed henceforth as the Seneca
Service Area.

WSSC will continue to pump a small portion of the Seneca basin sewage flow into the
Muddy Branch system for treatment at Blue Plains for an interim period following the start of
operations at the expanded Seneca WWTP. These flows currently enter the Seneca system
below the treatment plant's flow diversion. WSSC's Lower Seneca Facility Plan provides
alternatives for conveying these sewage flows to the expanded plant. Implementation of this
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­206

facility plan will result in the complete separation of the Seneca basin from the Blue Plains
service area.

The removal of Seneca flows from the Blue Plains service area provides many benefits
for the sewerage systems in Montgomery County and the Washington Suburban Sanitary
District (WSSD). These benefits include:

 Minimizing the length of new and relief sewers required, with associated
environmental and community benefits.
 Alleviating capacity constraints in the Muddy Branch sewer system.
 Relieving capacity and flow limitations in the Potomac Interceptor.
 Opening up additional treatment capacity for the WSSC at the Blue Plains WWTP.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­207

a. Collection and Conveyance Systems -- Approximately 25 percent of the

Seneca Creek Basin is presently sewered. In accordance with adopted land use master plans,
approximately 35 percent of the basin will ultimately be sewered. Sewerage service is
presently provided by a system of trunk sewers which reach up into the Basin along Great
Seneca Creek and Long Draught, Whetstone, Cabin, and Gunners Branches. Sewers also
extend upstream from the Little Seneca Pumping Station along Little Seneca Creek. The
Churchill Pumping Station also serves a portion of this basin. The Redland Park WWPS and
Force Main pump flows from the Sheffield (Redland Park) subdivision, located in the upper
part of the Rock Creek Watershed, into the Seneca Creek Basin near the County Airpark.

Growth within the Seneca Creek Basin during recent years has significantly
affected the need to plan wastewater facilities in this basin. The basin has been one of the
most active basins in the County in providing new wastewater services during recent years.
A summary of the Seneca Creek sewerage system projects approved by the County in the
WSSC Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the current fiscal year is provided in Appendix
A; these projects address wastewater conveyance constraints/needs and improve service in
the Seneca Creek Basin.

The Seneca Creek Basin boundary, the sewerage system layout, and the
approximate locations of future capacity constraints in the Great Seneca portion of the
Seneca Creek Basin are shown in Figure 4-F19.

Projected flows based on forecasted population and other flow factors for the
Seneca Creek Basin are summarized in Table 4-T18. These projections have been developed
by the WSSC and are based on Round 6 Cooperative demographic forecasts.

Table 4- T1 8: Future Wastewater Flows from

the Seneca Creek Basin

Annual Average Peak Flow

Year Flow ( mgd) ( mgd)

20 0 5 17.11 41.92

20 1 0 18.76 45.40

20 1 5 20.64 49.36
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­208

WSSC evaluated the sewer system in the Seneca Creek Basin through the 1988
Western Montgomery County Facilities Plan (WEMCO), which was based on M-NCPPC Round
3.5 forecast populations and ultimate holding capacity. The Study identified a need for
extensive relief of the Seneca Creek and Gunners Branch Trunk Sewers in order to meet
projected capacity needs. Since then, WSSC has already constructed many of the relief
sewers identified in WEMCO. Beyond the capacity constraints already being addressed by
relief projects, WEMCO projected that 3,600 feet of the Great Seneca Trunk Sewer will have
capacity constraints by the year 2010. Under ultimate development conditions, an additional
25,800 feet of the existing Great Seneca Trunk Sewer and its side branches will have capacity
constraints as follows:

 Great Seneca Trunk Sewer 3,200 feet

 Whetstone Branch Sewer 5,100 feet
 Cabin Branch Sewer 17,500 feet

b. Treatment Facility -- The Seneca WWTP expansion is now near completion.

The new treatment plant will have a 20 MGD treatment capacity, with the potential for
expansion to 26 MGD ultimate capacity, and the following unit processes:

 Primary Treatment: Screening, grit removal

 Secondary Treatment: Activated sludge, secondary clarification
 Advanced Treatment: Phosphorus removal by chemical addition and settling,
nitrification/denitrification, dual-media gravity filtration, post aeration
 Disinfection: Chlorination and dechlorination
 Chemical addition: Phosphorous removal, alkalinity adjustment, and pH
control
 Solids Conditioning: Gravity belt thickeners and dewatering
 Solids Disposal: Land application of approximately 15 wet tons per day by
contractor

Unlike some other major sewersheds in the county such as Rock Creek or
Northwest Branch, the Seneca Creek Basin does not receive significant inflows of wastewater
pumped in from other watersheds. In order to preserve projected treatment at the Seneca
WWTP for proposed development within the basin, this plan proposes to continue this policy.
However, small-scale pumpovers which do not significantly or cumulatively affect treatment
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­209

capacity, such as the Redland Park project, may occur. This policy would be reevaluated as
part of any future analysis of long-term sewage treatment needs.

3. Damascus WWTP Service Area -- The Damascus Service Area is centered along the
ridges of three major drainage basins in upper Montgomery County which include the
headwaters portions of Seneca Creek, Patuxent River, and the Monocacy watersheds. Even
though most of the Damascus Service Area is within the Seneca Creek Basin, it is not
connected to the sewer network that drains into the Seneca WWTP system because of
considerable distance between Damascus and Germantown. Most of the existing service
area lies within the Magruder Branch Valley between Routes 27 and 124. The treatment plant
and sewerage system are shown in Figure 4-F20.

The Damascus sewerage system is owned and operated by the WSSC and therefore,
sewerage system planning, financing, and other associated programs/policies in Damascus
service area are generally identical to those of the Washington Suburban Sanitary District.

a. Collection and Conveyance Systems -- Much of the sewerage system in

Damascus Service Area was constructed in early 1970's. The Magruder Branch Trunk Sewer
transports wastewater from the collection system to the Damascus Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP). The trunk sewer follows Magruder Branch from near Main Street in the
Damascus commercial center downstream to the Damascus WWTP influent pump station,
located near Log House Road. The trunk sewer capacity varies along its length from 3.25
mgd to 18.24 mgd (Damascus Sewerage Facility Plan). The influent pumping station which
conveys the collected wastewater into the treatment plant has a 5.0 mgd capacity (Little
Seneca Creek Sewerage Facility Plan, 1982). These capacities are consistent with the peak
flow needs of the system.

Two wastewater pumping stations convey flows from adjacent watersheds into the
Damascus sewerage system. The Spring Garden WWPS pumps sewage flows generated in
the Little Bennett Creek watershed on the west side of Damascus. The Damascus Center
WWPS pumps flows generated in the Patuxent River watershed to the north of the Damascus
commercial area. The Watkins Road WWPS pumps flows generated in the Wildcat Branch
subwatershed of Great Seneca Creek, which does not drain into Magruder Branch, to the
Damascus WWTP.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­210

The wastewater collection and conveyance facilities within the Damascus service
area currently have adequate capacity and there are no planned wastewater
collection/conveyance projects or system modifications.

b. Treatment Facility -- The Damascus WWTP is located approximately six miles

upstream of the Great Seneca Creek Trunk Sewer. The original 0.75-MGD Damascus WWTP
was built in 1974 as a temporary, secondary treatment plant to replace poorly functioning
septic systems and allow new commercial and residential development in the area. In 1979
the plant was upgraded to include filtration and tertiary processes for the removal of
phosphorus. In 1990, to provide additional treatment as Damascus grew and flow increased,
the plant was re-rated by MDE to a 0.90 MGD facility.

To provide adequate treatment capacity for future growth, the “Damascus Area
Facilities Plan” in 1989 identified the need for additional treatment capacity at the Damascus
WWTP and recommended that the
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­211
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­212

interim plant be replaced with a permanent facility with an expanded average daily flow of
1.5 MGD. The new 1.5 MGD plant, completed in 1999, provides treatment capacity for the
Damascus Service Area through year 2010. The new plant employs the following treatment
processes:

 Primary Treatment - Fine screen and grit removal

 Secondary Treatment - Extended aeration and secondary clarification
 Advanced Treatment - Phosphorus removal by chemical addition and
nitrogen removal by Bardenpho (MLE); dual media gravity filters, pH
adjustment, post aeration
 Disinfection - Ultra-violet light
 Solids Conditioning - polymer addition, dewatering with filter press and post
lime stabilized
 Solids Disposal - Land application of approximately 2 wet tons per day by
contractor

Sewage collection and treatment needs in the Damascus service area are
provided based on anticipated development and land use patterns recommended in the
Damascus Master Plan. WSSC evaluated long term (year 2010) wastewater collection and
treatment needs in this service area in 1983 through the “Damascus Sewerage Study”. The
study concluded that the collection and conveyance systems in the Damascus service area
have adequate capacity to handle the projected flows at least through the year 2010. In 1989,
WSSC conducted the “Damascus Sewerage Facility Plan,” estimating the projected 2010
annual average and peak wet weather wastewater flows for the Damascus service area to be
approximately 1.50 mgd and 4.3 mgd, respectively. The findings were based on the existing
flow factors and the M-NCPPC Intermediate Fall 1986 Population Forecast.

The M-NCPPC's latest population projection (Round 6.2 Forecast, April 1996) is
slightly lower in the Damascus Service Area than previously projected. Assuming other flow
factors, such as infiltration/inflow, remain unchanged, the flow projections developed through
the 1989 Damascus Sewerage Facilities Plan remain valid.

4. Hyattstown WWTP Service Area -- The Hyattstown Service Area includes the
Hyattstown Historic District, located along Frederick Road (Route 355) between Hyattstown
Mill Road and Frederick County. The Hyattstown community consists of approximately fifty
residential and commercial structures. In 1997, Montgomery County and WSSC agreed to
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­213

build a community wastewater collection and treatment system to resolve chronic, long-term
public health problems in Hyattsville resulting from failed septic systems. This sewerage
system was primarily intended to be limited to the existing historic Hyattstown community,
with an allowance for some growth within this area in conformance with the existing zoning
and historic district designation. In 1998, the Montgomery County Council also approved
community service for the Hyatt Center. Portions of this property, which abut the historic
district, are located in both Montgomery and Frederick Counties, and the shopping center
itself is located in Frederick County. The County Council approved sewer service for this site
located outside Hyattstown historic district, due to the potential for this facility’s septic
systems to contaminate domestic wells in Hyattstown located downgrade from the shopping
center. WSSC completed construction of the treatment plant in 1999.

a. Collection and Conveyance System -- The wastewater collection system

uses a conventional gravity sewer line located primarily within the existing right-of-way of
Frederick Road (Route 355) and consists of approximately 2,500 feet of 8-inch diameter PVC
piping. This system will handle all expected wastewater flows from the Hyattstown
community for the foreseeable future.

b. Treatment Facility -- The Hyattstown WWTP consists of a prefabricated,

15,000-GPD package treatment plant with extended aeration that discharges treated effluent
to Little Bennett Creek. The construction of the treatment facility was completed in 1998.
The existing treatment facility will handle all expected wastewater flows from this sewerage
system for the foreseeable future.

5. Mill Bottom Service Area -- Through an agreement between WSSC and

Frederick County, the Rattlewood Golf Course receives community sewerage service from the
Mill Bottom WWTP located near Interstate 70. The golf course is operated by the
Montgomery County Revenue Authority, and is located at the northernmost tip of the county,
directly north of Damascus. No other properties in Montgomery County in the vicinity of the
golf course are eligible to receive community sewer service.

III. ROCKVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT

The City of Rockville owns and operates an independent sewerage collection system largely
within the city limits. WSSC's systems convey the city's flows to the Blue Plains WWTP for
treatment. The City is responsible for planning, design, construction, and financial activities
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­214

related to the sewage collection system. The area served by the City's sewerage systems
lies outside the State's adopted limits of the Washington Suburban Sanitary District (WSSD).
For the sake of convenience, this plan refers to the City's service area as the Rockville
Sanitary District (RSD).

Although the RSD includes most of the City of Rockville, there are several areas within the
city limits located within the WSSD and receive sewer service from WSSC. In some cases, the
RSD extends beyond the city's existing corporate limits. Rockville desires to maintain its own
sewerage system for two primary reasons: to control and manage development growth; and
to provide less costly and more responsive sewer service. The City recommends that the
WSSD/RSD boundary should remain unchanged. It was set based on topographic limits and
the feasibility of the City versus WSSC to provide water or sewer service to an area.
Rockville has a policy of providing community water and sewer service only to properties
located within the city limits. Accordingly, properties located outside the city limits and
outside the WSSD must annex into Rockville to receive community water and sewer service
from the City. Over time, as the properties along the WSSD/RSD border develop, the RSD
boundary and city limits will coincide, except where city overlaps the WSSD.

Water and Sewer Plan Recommendation

The City of Rockville has a policy to only provide community sewerage

service to properties within the Rockville corporate limits. Accordingly,
properties must annex into the city in order to receive community service
from Rockville's sewerage system. However, Montgomery County believes
that a more flexible policy would be appropriate, given the need for both the
City and WSSC to provide sewer service in a reasonable and cost-effective
manner. The County intends to pursue this issue with the City in relation to
the recommended discussions concerning the WSSD and RSD boundaries
(see Chapter 3, Section III.A.).

A. Intergovernmental Agreements -- The City's use of WSSC's conveyance facilities

has been defined by several transmission agreements. A 1956 agreement allows the City to
discharge a peak flow of 6.8 MGD into the Cabin John Basin. The City has also purchased 8.0
MGD peak capacity for a portion of the Cabin John sewershed below Booze Creek. A 1966
agreement with WSSC allows for a maximum discharge of 8.0 MGD to the Watts Branch
Basin. The City is also permitted to discharge a peak flow of 9.84 MGD into the Rock Creek
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­215

Basin. In 1975, the City and the WSSC executed an agreement specifying that WSSC would
provide up to an additional 0.4 MGD per fiscal year of treatment capacity to the City from the
WSSC's proportionate share of Blue Plains capacity up to a total annual average City flow of
9.31 mgd. Rockville acknowledges that the City has not purchased sufficient peak capacity in
all sewers to convey 9.31 mgd to the Blue Plains WWTP. Furthermore, the 1975 agreement
provides that the WSSC may rent treatment capacity at Blue Plains not required by the City.

B. Financing Sewerage Systems ­­ Information on the City's sewerage systems financing is

included in Chapter 1, Section IV.B.

C. Collection and Conveyance Systems ­­ The City's flow collection system consists of

approximately 132 miles of sewer mains in the Watts, Cabin John and Rock Creek Basins (see
Figure 4-F21). The City's system has a total of fourteen interconnections with the WSSC
sewerage system. These include five WSSC inflows into the City's system and nine outfalls
into WSSC's systems. Six of these outfalls are major
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­216
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­217

interconnections with WSSC to convey flows to the Blue Plains Treatment Plant in the District
of Columbia. Three of these major outfalls are metered.

The City has two wastewater pumping stations. One is located at the corner of Frederick
Avenue and North Horners Lane. The second is located in the Fallsgrove community on
Route 28.

Projected flows based on forecasted population and other flow factors for the City of
Rockville are summarized in Table 4-T19, including Rockville-WSSC agreed flow limitations and
projected flows from the City of Rockville to the Watts, Cabin John, and Rock Creek Basins for
ultimate delivery to the Blue Plains WWTP.

A summary of planned Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that address

wastewater conveyance constraints/ needs and improve service within the RSD is provided in
Appendix A of this Plan.

Table 4- T1 9: Projected Wastewater Flows from the City of Rockville and

WSSC- Rockville Flow Limitations.

Cabin John Basin Rock Creek Basin Watts Branch Basin

YEAR Average Peak Average Peak Average Peak
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)

Projected Flow 2.21 6.21 2.3 6.84 2.32 6.62

WSSC-
Rockville
Flow
Limitation n/ a 6.8* n/a 9.84 n/a 8.0

2005 Balance n/ a 0.59 n/a 3.00 n/a 1.38

Projected Flow 2.25 6.28 2.16 7.09 2.42 7.2

WSSC-
Rockville
Flow
Limitation n/ a 6.8* n/a 9.84 n/a 8.0

2010 Balance n/ a 0.52 n/a 2.75 n/a 0.8

Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­218

Table 4- T1 9: Projected Wastewater Flows from the City of Rockville and

WSSC- Rockville Flow Limitations.

Cabin John Basin Rock Creek Basin Watts Branch Basin

YEAR Average Peak Average Peak Average Peak
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)

Projected Flow 2.21 6.21 2.3 6.84 2.32 6.62

WSSC-
Rockville
Flow
Limitation n/ a 6.8* n/a 9.84 n/a 8.0

2005 Balance n/ a 0.59 n/a 3.00 n/a 1.38

Projected Flow 2.28 6.37 2.35 7.12 2.64 7.23

WSSC-
Rockville
Flow
Limitation n/ a 6.8* n/a 9.84 n/a 8.0

2015 Balance n/ a 0.43 n/a 2.72 n/a 0.77

n/a: The agreements between the City and WSSC only specify peak sewage flow
limitations for each sewer basin; the average flows limitation is for the City as a whole,
not for each basin.
* The City's allowed peak flow downstream of Booze Creek is 8.0 MGD.

D. Treatment Facilities -- Rockville is located within the Blue Plains Service Area, and is
served by the Blue Plains WWTP. The City does not own or operate any separate wastewater
treatment facilities. The city’s wastewater is ultimately delivered to the Blue Plains WWTP
through WSSC’s conveyance facilities. The use of these facilities is governed through several
agreements, as described previously.

IV. TOWN OF POOLESVILLE SERVICE AREA

The Town of Poolesville operates its own sewerage system, which has been in operation since
1964, and is the only publicly owned sewerage system in Montgomery County with total self-
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­219

sufficiency outside the Washington Suburban Sanitary District. The existing facility serves
approximately 1,500 residences. The majority of the sewer service area is within the Dry
Seneca Creek watershed.

A. Intergovernmental Agreements -- A 1984 agreement between WSSC and the Town

of Poolesville allows WSSC to send up to 20,000 gpd from the Jonesville/Jerusalem area,
located within in the WSSD, into the Poolesville WWTP. The Department of Environmental
Protection’s (DEP’s) review of recent WSSC flow monitoring indicated that sewage flows from
proposed development projects in the Jonesville/Jerusalem area, when added to existing and
committed flows, will come close to exceeding this maximum flow allowance. Consequently,
this Plan limits future community sewer service in the Jonesville/Jerusalem area as specified
in Chapter 1.

B. Infiltration and Inflow Control Program -- The Town of Poolesville continues to

aggressively pursue the identification and removal of excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I)
sources from its sewer collection system. Although the average groundwater infiltration rate
is currently within acceptable limits for the facility (i.e. less than 150,000 gallons per day),
excessive amounts of inflow enters the collection system during significant precipitation
events. In January 2003, snowmelt and rainfall conditions resulted in daily peak inflows in
excess of 2 MGD, and an average monthly inflow of 1.3 MGD. Flow monitoring activities
during this period revealed that a significant portion of the inflow entered the collection
system from the Wesmond subdivision. This neighborhood, was constructed in the 1970s, and
its collection system consists primarily of terracotta pipes. To address the inflow problems in
this community, the Town is currently planning to completely rehabilitate its collection system
by inserting PVC liners within the existing pipes, including the portion of the laterals located
within the public right-of-way. A pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of
the relining program is planned in 2003. If the pilot project is successful, the total
rehabilitation program would likely be implemented in 2003 at an estimated cost of almost
$2,000,000.

C. Financing Sewerage Systems -- Information on the Town's sewerage system

financing is included in Chapter 1, Section IV.C.

D. Collection and Conveyance Systems -- The Town's sewerage collection system

consists of 90,000 linear feet of 6- to 18-inch diameter gravity sewers, 5,000 linear feet of 4- to
8-inch diameter force mains, and five permanent pumping stations ranging in capacity from
75 to 600 gallons per minute (see Figure 4-F22). Flows from two areas north of the town
within the WSSD, Jonesville and Jerusalem, are also conveyed to the town’s sewerage system.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­220

A combined low-pressure and gravity sewerage system in these areas conveys flows to an
outfall sewer feeding into the Town’s treatment plant. These mains are owned and
maintained by WSSC.

E. Treatment Facilities -- The current Poolesville WWTP employs advanced treatment

with a design capacity of 0.625 mgd. The plant is an activated sludge facility, utilizing three
sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) to biologically treat the wastewater, including nitrification.
The facility processes also chemically precipitate and remove phosphorus through aluminum
chlorhydrate addition. The unit processes employed at the WWTP include:

 Primary Treatment - Grinder, chemical addition (phosphorus removal), rotary filter

screen, compactor
 Secondary Treatment - Activated sludge process (including nitrification) and
clarification occur within the same reactor
 Advanced Treatment - Dual media filtration - pressure vessels
 Disinfection - Ultraviolet Irradiation
 Solids Conditioning - Two stage aerobic digestion, chemical conditioners (polymer),
belt filter press
 Solids Disposal - Land application

Although the Town’s current WWTP effluent discharge permit expired on November 30,
2000, the permit still remains in effect until it is removed by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE),. In the Fall of 2000, the Town formally requested MDE to renew the
WWTP effluent discharge permit with a revised average daily treatment capacity of 750,000
GPD. In March 2003, MDE issued a new draft discharge permit, which includes new ammonia
limitations and a total nitrogen load goal for the facility. At a yearly flow of 0.750 MGD, the
Town's new discharge permit will likely contain a total nitrogen limitation of 6.6
milligrams/liter and will retain existing mass discharge limitations for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and phosphorus (P). MDE has agreed to
provide grant funding to the town for 50 percent of all costs associated with the WWTP
enhancements to ensure compliance with the anticipated BNR requirements.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­221
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­222

To address both discharge and treatment capacity issues at the WWTP, the Town prepared
a preliminary engineering report (PER) to investigate technical alternatives to upgrade and
expand the facility. The PER concluded that the most reliable and cost-effective alternative to
upgrade the facility was to replace the existing equipment with sequencing batch reactor
(SBR) technology specifically designed for nutrient removal, including modifications to the
influent distribution system, air distribution system, decanting system, and pressure filtration
system. The proposed system will enhance nutrient removal by establishing an efficient
anoxic cycle, increasing aeration efficiency within the basins, and increasing filter capacity for
more efficient total nitrogen reduction during peak flows. The total estimated cost for the
upgrade and expansion is approximately $2.3 million (2003 dollars). The Town has received
preliminary approval from MDE for a $500,000 grant to assist with the funding of the upgrade.
WSSC will participate proportionately in funding the treatment process upgrade.

DEP and MDE have conducted biological monitoring of Dry Seneca Creek both upstream
and downstream of the Poolesville WWTP outfall. The resulting data indicates a stressed
aquatic biological community downstream of the plant’s discharge point. The Town has
acknowledged sewage overflows into Dry Seneca Creek from the Jonesville/Jerusalem outfall
main, resulting from a faulty diversion valve at the treatment plant which the plant operates
during wet-weather, peak flow events. WSSC reinforced the manhole in October 2000, and
the Town repaired the diversion valve in July 2001. The Town has also adopted operational
changes for peak flow conditions at the plant to further reduce the potential for raw sewage
overflows to the stream.

However, MDE and DEP monitoring in 2002 continues to show degradation downstream of
the plant’s discharge outfall. In discussions concerning the proposed WWTP, DEP staf urged
the Town and State to ensure that the plant’s design allow for the treatment of typical peak
capacity flows, without bypassing the plant’s filters and discharging untreated sewage from
the storage lagoon into the stream. The NPDES permit addresses lagoon and filter bypass
control as part of its special conditions for the proposed plant. In addition, DEP urged that
MDE include the following conditions as a requirement of the permit for the plant upgrade
and expansion as part of the hearing record for the Town’s requested NPDES discharge
permit:

 An annual biological monitoring program of the conditions in Dry Seneca Creek

upstream and downstream of the plant discharge outfall;
 A limit on the number of new sewer connections allowed for two years following the
expansion of the plant to 0.75 MGD, with a review and acceptable finding by MDE of
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­223

the plant’s performance under the new permit requirements after two years before
any additional sewer connections are approved;
 A best management practices plan/program to help control 1) excessive wastewater
collection systems discharges to the plant and 2) unauthorized overflows from the
plant; and
 A reporting system for all wastewater collection system overflows.

The final permit prepared by MDE included DEP’s first recommendation addressing biological
monitoring of Dry Seneca Creek. With regard to DEP’s other proposed conditions, MDE
advised that:

 the proposed 0.75 MGD design is acceptable and included in the County’s Water and
Sewer Plan;
 the 2 MGD peak capacity of the expanded plant is expected to address prior overflow
conditions; and
 controlling excessive collection system flows and resulting overflows from the plant
are addressed by the Clean Water Act, which considers all overflows reaching water
bodies, such as Dry Seneca Creek, a violation.

V. INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS AND RURAL SANITATION

In the more rural, less-densely populated parts of Montgomery County, residents, businesses
and institutions depend primarily on septic systems which discharge effluent to the ground
for their wastewater disposal needs. The areas dependent on septic systems generally
coincide with the county’s well service areas, forming an irregular crescent starting in the
southwestern part of the county, sweeping around to the west, then north of Clarksburg and
around Damascus, then south and east along the Patuxent River watershed (see Figure 4-
F23). Although most septic systems are located in areas not served by the community
sewerage
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­224

systems, older septic systems may occasionally be found scattered throughout the county,
including areas served by community systems. Some larger individual sewerage systems are
referred to as "multi-use systems." (See Section V.C.).

A. Septic Systems Permitting -- The County's Department of Permitting Services

(DPS), Well and Septic Section, is responsible for the administration and enforcement of
County and State laws and regulations governing on-site, individual sewerage systems, and
authority delegated from MDE. Relevant regulations are included in COMAR 26.03.01, 26.03.05,
and 26.04.02 -.04,and in County Executive Regulation 28-93AM,”On-Site Water Systems and
On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems in Montgomery County.”

DPS fulfills these responsibilities by reviewing preliminary plans and record plats for
properties served by on-site systems, issuing permits for, and inspecting, the construction of
new and replacement systems, and by responding to complaints concerning on-site systems.
Testing a property for a new septic systems involves two tests: 1) the water table test to
determine the probable highest level of water-saturated soil, and 2) the percolation test to
determine the speed at which fluids percolate through the soil. The percolation test may be
done at almost any time of the year. The water table test can only be done the late winter
through early spring when the water table is at its highest level. The duration of the water
table testing period depends on overall precipitation conditions for the preceding year or
years. Dry conditions, particularly prolonged droughts, can require DPS to shorten the
duration of the water table testing period.

B. Septic Problem Areas -- Although DPS does not currently maintain a comprehensive
database of septic problems throughout the county, that agency has provided information
concerning problem areas based on staff experience as identified in Table 4-T20 and are
identified on Figure 4-F24.

Table 4- T20 : Septic Problem Areas

Location Problem Potential Solutions Recommendations/ Actions

Taken

Town of Boyds  failing septic DPS recommends: This will require further
systems, some on  community sewer investigation by DEP and DPS.
relatively small lots service Sewer extension issues to this
part of the county could have
dramatic effects on
development demand.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­225

Table 4- T20 : Septic Problem Areas

Location Problem Potential Solutions Recommendations/ Actions

Taken
Hyattstown  failing septic  community sewer Provided community sewer
systems, most on service service to replace failing septic
relatively small lots  innovative/alternative systems.
(I/A) systems for
properties outside the
sewer envelope

Town of polluted aquifer  community water The County and WSSC are
Laytonsville (hydrocarbons and service investigating the extension of
nitrates)  individual GAC filters community water service to the
 handle old wells town and nearby properties.
properly (See Section II.F.2.b.iii.)

South failing septic  community sewer DEP continues to approve sewer

Burtonsville: Miles systems service category change requests within
Rd., Duvall Rd., this area. The pending
Tolson Pl., and development of a new
Maple Hill Rd. residential subdivision along
Miles Rd. will bring additional
sewer mains into the area,
expanding the availability of
service.

Damascus: Gue failing septic DPS recommends: Because of the implications of

Rd., Howard systems - unable to  community sewer providing sewer service to these
Chapel Dr., Ridge repair service areas, they should be studied as
Rd. and adjacent part of the upcoming Damascus
areas Master Plan revision.

Glen Hills - failing septic  community sewer The 2002 Potomac Subregion
southwest side of systems, poor soils service Master Plan calls for a
Rockville  innovative/alternative comprehensive sanitary study of
on-site systems Glen Hills prior to the further
extension of sewer mains into
the area. The earliest DEP and
DPS could undertake such a
study is summer 2003.

Southlawn La. - failing septic DPW and County DPS Rockville is initiating a water
Northeast side of systems, poor soils recommend community and sewer feasibility study. The
Rockville sewer service study will identify alternative
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­226

Table 4- T20 : Septic Problem Areas

Location Problem Potential Solutions Recommendations/ Actions

Taken
locations for community water
and sewer extension and
recommend a specific project.
Rockville will pursue main
extensions via the special
assessment process in 2004.

Rural communities failing septic DPS recommends: These communities are beyond
- Barnesville, systems - unable to  community sewer the reach of the County's
Comus (Slidell repair service existing and proposed
Rd.), and  innovative/alternative community sewerage systems.
Beallsville on-site systems Solutions for these problems
may require a Hyattstown-type
approach or different concepts
such as community-based
septic systems.

C. Multi-Use Sewerage Supply Systems -- As described in Chapter 1, multi-use sewerage

supply systems are individual, on-site wastewater disposal systems with a capacity of 1,500 or
more gallons per day. Because of their greater potential for environmental impacts, these
systems require approve in the Water and Sewer Plan. These facilities are generally large-
capacity septic systems, although some facilities use more advanced treatment systems.
DEP coordinates the Plan approvals for these systems with DPS. Appendix B includes a
listing of the multi-use sewerage facilities in Montgomery County approved in this Plan.

VI.REFERENCES

"Strategic Sewerage Study", WSSC, Greeley and Hansen, 1994.

"Strategic Sewerage Study", Seneca/Potomac Issue Report, WSSC, Greeley and Hansen, 1994.

“WSSC Adopted Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Year 2003­2008.

“A Comprehensive Long­Range Macro­Level Analysis of the WSSC Water Supply and Wastewater Systems”, 
WSSC, Water Resources Planning Section, 1990.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­227

“Montgomery County Future Sewer Capacity Constraints Report, WSSC, Water Resources Planning Section, 
1996.

“Potomac Interceptor Engineering Study”, Metropolitan Washington Council Of Governments, O’Brien and 
Gere, 1995.
Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan
Chapter 4: Sewerage Systems Approved 2003 ­ 2012 Plan: Page 4­228

 “Facility Planning and Environmental assessment Manual”, WSSC, 1992.
 
"Western Montgomery County Facilities Plan", WSSC, Gannett Fleming Environmental Engineers,  1988.

“Blue Plains Briefing to the Prince George’s and Montgomery County Councils”, WSSC, 1993

"A Mid­Term Study", Montgomery County, 1978.

"The Blue Plains Feasibility Study", District of Columbia, Greeley and Hansen, 1984.

"Hyattstown Water and Sewerage Facilities Plan", WSSC, Chester Environmental, 1994.

"Watts Branch Sewerage Basin Needs Analysis", WSSC, Water Resources Planning section, 1995.

"Cabin John Basin Reevaluation Study", WSSC, Camp Dresser & McKee, 1990.

"Rock Creek Conveyance Needs Analysis", WSSC, Greeley and Hansen, 1995.

"Rock Creek Wastewater Facility Plan", WSSC, Parsons Engineering Science, 1996.

"Rock Creek Transmission Relief Facility Plan", WSSC, Gannett and Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, 1983.

"Damascus Area Sewerage Facility Plan", WSSC, O’Brien and Gere, 1989.

"Little Seneca Area Facility Plan", WSSC, Whitman, Raquardt and Associates, 1996.    

“Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Washington Metropolitan Region, 1993­1994, Metropolitan Washington 
Council of Governments, 1995.