in California, why can’t we do it here?” asked

in California, why can’t we do it here?” asked Sharon Kilpatrick.

Enabling legislation in the two states is different, Miller answered.

Dr. William Young asked if the county could plan effectively should the Dillon Rule be repealed.

"I would say that we could,” replied Miller, adding that Rappahannock’s comprehensive plan should be drawn up in accordance with state law and then revised if Virginia’s enabling legislation changes.

Mary Geverley interjected that natural factors, including land unsuitable for wells and sewage disposal, would limit development

Miller countered that he’d read of $10,000 selfcontained sewage disposal units in the Wall Street Journal. “So we can’t tie (development restrictions) just to sewer and water...to those economic barriers,” he maintained.

Realistically, said Miller, adoption of a comprehensive plan will just meet the state requirements that the county have one by July 1, 1980 and won’t help Rappahannock in its fight to control unplanned development. “Unless the laws change,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Young asked if the county couldn’t begin on the assumption that laws restricting local government powers would be altered. "Can't we start out with a tight comprehensive plan?”

This approach wouldn’t work. Miller argued, because the county wouldn’t know exactly what new state enabling legislation would allow and thus couldn’t comply with that legislation.

In response to a question on what needs to be changed besides the Dillon Rule, Miller admitted that he didn't know. “I just know that we need something that will allow us to decide our own destiny,” he explained.

To gain the support of local staite representatives George Beard and Nathan Miller in working towards repeal of the Dillon Rule, Phil Irwin suggested that the Rappahannock Supervisors pass a resolution, protesting the Dillon Rule’s “usurpation of power.”