July 20, 2026 Editor, The News-Gazette: Thank you for your coverage of the recent Virginia Department of Environmental Quality public hearings regarding the draft Water Protection Permit for Tribrook Club. I believe the articles captured the community’s concerns well, but I would like to clarify several statements attributed to the club that I believe are inaccurate or misleading.
First, Tribrook asserts that they were not required to apply for this permit because of their “grandfathered” status and that they did so voluntarily as good stewards of our water resources. Per the VADEQ, however, the change in the club’s ownership and scope of the project means Tribrook is no longer grandfathered and is required to obtain a Water Protection Permit.
Second, I am confused by the suggestion that connecting to the Public Service Authority water system would somehow “take water away from city residents.” My understanding is that the city has sufficient capacity to supply water to the club without affecting service to its residents. While it is true that the club could be required to reduce or suspend its use of public water during periods of severe drought, similar restrictions would also apply to withdrawals from Woods Creek.
Finally, I question the assertion that most of the water in the irrigation pond comes from rainfall rather than from Woods Creek. If that is the case, why is the club seeking a permit to withdraw 27–42 million gallons of water from the creek each year?
If Tribrook truly wishes to be a good steward of our shared water resources, I encourage the club to consider a compromise: connect its irrigation system to both the existing irrigation pond fed by Woods Creek and the public water main located on the property. With this infrastructure in place, the club could meet their irrigation needs while significantly reducing the amount of water withdrawn from the already impaired Woods Creek. GRETCHEN SUKOW Lexington
