Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 23, 1995 TAG: 9511240038
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: HOLIDAY
SOURCE: TODD JACKSON STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The suit stems from a 1992 bill passed by the General Assembly that contained an amendment for Virginia Beach's withdrawal of water from the Roanoke River basin.
The attorney who crafted the suit, Keister Greer of Rocky Mount, said Wednesday that it breaks new ground in the 12-year struggle over the pipeline. He said it cuts straight to the heart of the matter: Does Virginia Beach have the right to go outside its own boundaries to take water from the Roanoke River basin?
Greer, a nationally known water rights lawyer who has argued controversial cases in California, filed the 19-page Lake Gaston suit in Mecklenburg County Circuit Court. The Virginia portion of the Lake Gaston Reservoir, from which Virginia Beach proposes to divert water, is in Mecklenburg and Brunswick counties. A portion of the reservoir is in North Carolina, which also is fighting the pipeline.
The complainant list attached to the suit is lengthy: state Sens. Virgil Goode of Rocky Mount, Charles Hawkins of Chatham and Richard Holland of Isle of Wight County; Dels. Ward Armstrong of Henry County, William Bennett of Halifax County, Whitt Clement of Danville, Joyce Crouch of Lynchburg, Allen Dudley of Rocky Mount and Frank Ruff of Mecklenburg County; the Lake Association and several other Virginia and North Carolina companies and landowners.
The argument addressed in the suit boils down to the 1992 legislation. The bill had an amendment attached to it offered by Richard Holland's brother, Sen. Clarence Holland, whose legislative district includes Virginia Beach. The amendment called for the allocation of 60 million gallons of water from the Roanoke River to the beach city - words that opened the door for the pipeline.
But, according to the suit filed by Greer, the process that turned the bill into a law was distorted and improper.
Because the bill dealt with an amendment specifically addressing the city of Virginia Beach - instead of the state in general - it should have fallen into the category of "special" legislation defined by the Virginia Constitution.
In that case, it would have required a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the legislature to pass.
While the bill passed the House by a two-thirds vote, it didn't in the Senate.
The suit asks that the 1992 act be found unconstitutional and a violation of the water rights of the Virginia and North Carolina landowners named as complainants.
The suit also asks that the court find that Virginia Beach "cannot as a matter of Virginia law divert 60 million gallons of water per day, or any quantity whatsoever, from the Roanoke River."
Virginia Beach officials have argued that they don't need the General Assembly's permission to build the pipeline.
Assistant City Attorney Bill Macali said of the 1992 bill: "That allocation was symbolic, anyway. We didn't need the state to allocate water to us."
He said he doesn't know what the complainants in the lawsuit hope to accomplish.
The Lake Gaston case will set precedent in Virginia, where there have been no cases of its magnitude involving the interbasin transfer of water.
Said Greer: "My great fear, based on the California experience, is that this will be just the first draw of water from the Roanoke River basin."
Staff writer Richard Foster and Karen Weintraub of Landmark News Service contributed to this story.
by CNB