THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, August 4, 1994 TAG: 9408040007
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: By WILLIAM M. CAMP JR.
LENGTH: Medium: 81 lines
Regarding the letter from Tom Meeker, president and CEO of Churchill Downs (``Gaston won't affect Churchill Downs,'' July 16):
Quite frankly, I do not see how Mr. Meeker can say in earnest that his project is not affected by the Lake Gaston pipeline. The Churchill License Application to the Virginia Racing Commission states:
``The primary and permanent source of water for the racetrack will be a connection to the City's water system'' (Churchill Downs Racetrack Application, p. 60, Jan. 3, 1994). ``It is fully anticipated that the Lake Gaston Water Supply Project will be operational at the time the racetrack is ready for City water service. However, as a backup-interim supply (emphasis added), groundwater will be used to provide water service to the racetrack'' (p. 61).
The Rust Report, an independent environmental and engineering company hired by the racing commission to review the applications, stated: ``(Water supply) is a critical element to the success of the (Churchill Downs) project. This facility proposes to use the Virginia Beach municipal system as its long-term water source . . . (Churchill Downs) anticipates that the Lake Gaston Water Supply Project will be operational at the time the racetrack is ready for City water service'' (Rust Report, p. 2-40. June 1994.)
The Department of Environmental Quality has issued a draft permit for Churchill Downs to withdraw up to 45,126,750 gallons of water per year, but not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day at its site. Mr. Meeker stated to the VRA at a meeting in Virginia Beach in May 1993 that peak use of water at the track would be 500,000 gallons per day during the summer months' thoroughbred meet.
Churchill Down's application to DEQ states that it needs, at a minimum, 406,400 gallons per day, peak use. This includes 42,000 gallons per day for horse consumption, 70,000 gallons per day for horse washing, 90,000 gallons per day for track irrigation and 116,400 gallons per day for landscape irrigation among other uses. The DEQ permit prevents Churchill Downs from using any well water for irrigation, and Churchill Downs advised the DEQ that it will have 14 acres of lakes on site to provide this irrigation. Yet Churchill's only lake on the site plan filed with the Virginia Racing Commission is in the center field and is three to four acres.
Even if the site storm-drainage ditches are included as ``lakes,'' the area totals far less than the ``14 acres of lakes'' represented to DEQ. More to the point, Churchill Downs made no proffer that the 14 acres of lakes would adequately supply irrigation needs during summer droughts.
Water is still a significant problem for the Churchill Downs Virginia Beach site. The DEQ permit does not cure all problems as Mr. Meeker would lead one to believe.
Most important, the DEQ permit automatically terminates within 120 days of the cessation of the current Virginia Beach Water Supply Emergency, which was declared by ordinance on Feb. 11, 1992; then Churchill Downs must connect to the Virginia Beach water system (Va. DEQ Groundwater Permit no. GW0030700 to Churchill Downs Inc., Part II, Paragraph 10). Thus, when Virginia Beach cancels the water emergency, Churchill Downs gets City water even if the Gaston pipeline never materializes. Is it wise or prudent for Virginia Beach to increase its water needs without having an adequate and permanent remedy for its current homeowners and businesses?
The water issue/crisis deserves close examination by taxpayers and citizens. The water emergency was declared in February 1992, yet Mr. Meeker, during this emergency, represents that he can get adequate water for a 400,000-plus-gallons-per-day new operation. If this can happen, why are there no remedies for Virginia Beach homeowners?
Why are we restricted from washing our cars when Churchill Downs can get water to wash horses daily? Why are Virginia Beach homeowners unable to irrigate their lawns, yet Churchill Downs can irrigate both a dirt and turf track?
If the ``lake system'' is a stable source of water supply, why can't Virginia Beach augment its municipal system with lakes to give relief to its homeowners? MEMO: Mr. Camp is chairman of the Virginia Racing Associates, a group of
Virginia investors seeking to put the first Virginia racetrack in
Portsmouth. He is also a Virginia Beach homeowner.
by CNB