Editorial

Editorial

Closing ill-advised

We look with sadness on the Virginia Department of Transportation’s action in closing the roadside spring on U.S. 211 west of Sperry ville.

It appears, based on the information available, to have been the quick and easy solution to a difficult problem. But it has not satisfied anyone.

We understand the reluctance — even the inability — of the Virginia Department of Health to certify the water supply as safe. As Regional Health Director Dr. Malcolm Tenney explained, as an official charged with protecting the public health, he cannot and would not certify such an unprotected and untreated source of water as safe for public consumption.

The only solution acceptable to the health department, Dr. Tenney said, would be treatment of the water to eliminate any possible contaminants. Of course, such treatment would eliminate the very reason that people visit the spring: to get untreated, “pure” water.

Such a course, VDOT Resident Engineer Robert Moore acknowledged, would be prohibitively expensive and eliminate the reason for the spring’s popularity.

But in the absence of conclusive evidence of any contamination of the spring’s water, we think the highway department’s action in closing the spring was precipitous and ill-advised.

Indeed, the only tests done, by a resident at his own expense, indicated that the spring water met health department standards for drinking water. The health department said that tests done some years ago resulted in evidence of contamination, but added that the records had been lost or destroyed when the Rappahannock County Health Department moved to its new offices.

The health department also acknowledged that they have never received a report or complaint of anyone becoming ill after drinking water from the spring.

And, even the person who made the original inquiry about the spring’s safety says his intent was not to have the spring closed, but to get some answers to basic health questions. He has still not received those answers, he added.

Why, we wonder, could not some interim measures be taken — perhaps a monitoring program — especially given the most recent test which indicated that there was no contamination of the water supply.

The health department retorts that such an unprotected source of water may in fact test negative on some occasions — but may test postive for contamination at other times.

Why could the spring not be posted with a sign; not the vague ones posted in February which read: “Danger, Contaminated Water, Do Not Drink,” but a more precise one which spelled out the unprotected and unmonitored nature of the supply and perhaps advised, “Drink At Your Own Risk.”

The bottom line is that the public is usually ill-served when government rushes in and over-reacts to a situation which is more complicated than it appears at first glance. We think, in this case, a more in-depth and thoughtful examination of the options would have produced a solution more acceptable to the public.

VDOT’s decision, we fear, was motivated more by a desire to avoid any questions of liability arising in the future than by a desire to reach some solution which accomodated both the wishes of the public and the understandable concerns of the Department of Health.

In light of the available evidence, VDOT’s action was hasty and, we think, unwise.