Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-11-10

drainage streams could carry sewage directly
into the Potomac above Little Falls. Ill
Fairfax present policy is to attempt to
stall intensive development in this area
through zoning standards which require
large building lots-as long as possible. The
idea is that large lots can support septic
tanks, and do not require sewers. Intensive
development would be encouraged south of
the Annandale area, where future sewers
could drain into the Potomac at several
points below Alexandria -
A Virginia court recently ruled against
the large-lot coming plan for the undeveloped
western two-thirds of Fairfax County, con-
tending there were not reasonable grounds
to support it. The Fairfax County Board, by
a 4-3 vote, last week decided to appeal.
Member William H. Moss, who opposes
the coming plan, doesn't believe development
can be held down. He feels Fairfax should
take the lead in developing Potomac inter-
ceptor sewer conduit along the entire Vir-
GINA side of the river similar to that in
Maryland - or make some deal to get Fairfax
sewage across the Potomac to the Maryland
District conduit.
Member Anne Wilkins, who champions
the coming plan, contends the restriction of
growth is essential. Fairfax, she says, will
have neither the money nor the time to work
out any such elaborate scheme If develop
ment runs wild in the upper Potomac area.
She points out that the new Central Intel
ligence Agency headquarters in the Langley
area near the river, already is stimulating
intense drives for urban development.
Can coming controls really be effective
in hating such developments?
Dr. Wolman doubts it. His report sug-
gestS that Fairfax attempt to hold develop
ment up as long as it can. But it proposes
that no later than 1875
. Sewage from the Fairfax area above
Great Falls be carried across the river in
conduit and tie into the Maryland Potomac
interceptor sewer.
. Sewage in the Fairfax area between Great
Falls and Chain Bridge should be pumped
into an Arlington County sewer line which
already runs along the Potomac from the
Arlington Fairfax line to National Airport.
Arlington's Potomac conduit already is
inadequate for its own needs, and the county
Is planning to expand 1t. The expansion
plans however, do not even enviSion the pos
sibility of absorbing future Fairfax sewage.
In fact, no discussions about such POSSIBLE
tiles have begun on either side of the river.
The Wolman report sees urban develop
ment extending up the river in Maryland,
as well as Virginia. BY 1870, it says, the
WSSC should extend its interceptor line as
far as Great Falls. BY $780, it says, it should
go as far as Watts Branch and, by 1890, all
the way to Seneca Creek.
The report also warned, however, that
metro Washington must go to the upper
river to control silt if 1t ever hopes to have
a clean Potomac. The logical course" the
report said, is to trap and hold the big
quantities Of silt behind huge-and highly
controversial-dam, proposed for two miles
above Great Falls at River Bend.
This idea, however, points up another
great deficiency in regional planning for a
clean Potomac: There is no unanimity on
just what kind of river we want.
Advocates of the River Bend dam, for
example, see unlimited new recreational
possibilities in the natural lake that woEld
be formed. Opponents-led by the National
Park Service-argue that such dam would
inundate and destroy the rivers natural
gorge They like the upper river as it is.
Unless such arguments are settled By