THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 2, 1995 TAG: 9507010110
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 308 lines
April 27, 1995
Sen. Stanley C. Walker (D-Norfolk)
Hunter B. Andrews (D-Hampton)
Senate Majority Leader
Joseph B. Benedetti (R-Richmond)
Senate Minority Leader
Thomas W. Moss Jr. (D-Norfolk)
Speaker of the House
C. Richard Cranwell (D-Roanoke)
House Majority Leader
S. Vance Wilkins (R-Amherst)
House Minority Leader
As you may know, I support construction of the Lake Gaston pipeline, and I am prepared to assist any workable effort that will achieve that goal in a manner consistent with the interests of all Virginians, including residents of the Roanoke River basin. . . .
I recognize that the decision whether to enter an interstate compact along the lines envisioned by Virginia Beach and North Carolina ultimately will be made by the Virginia and North Carolina legislatures. Under the terms of the agreement approved by Virginia Beach, action by each General Assembly must occur within 60 days. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you designate a bipartisan working group, task force or other appropriate panel comprised of members of the General Assembly to work with my administration and to assume principal responsibility for the development of the actual provisions of a proposed interstate compact that can command the respect of the General Assembly.
I am prepared to call the General Assembly into special session to act on this matter if and when:
(1) The specific terms of an interstate compact acceptable to both Virginia and North Carolina have been endorsed by a majority of members of both houses of the Virginia General Assembly; and
(2) You, the bipartisan leadership of the General Assembly, advise me of your agreement that a special session is warranted, and that this session will be limited by procedural rule to (a) a fixed time period and (b) the subject matter of the Lake Gaston pipeline and any related issues raised by the agreement between Virginia Beach and North Carolina.
I look forward to your designation of an appropriate legislative working group, and to working with you on this important matter.
George Allen
May 23, 1995
To: Gov. George F. Allen
In response to your letter of April 27, 1995, suggesting that the legislature take over the Lake Gaston pipeline issue, please be advised that I have appointed a special subcommittee . . . I will instruct them to proceed with all due haste. However, I am extremely concerned that the process cannot be completed within the time frames envisioned by North Carolina and Virginia Beach.
While you have expressed support for the construction of the Lake Gaston pipeline, I am distressed that you have taken no leadership role to resolve the differences between the various in-ter-ests. Were you informed that the attorney general was going to decline the invitation to participate in the negotiations, even though he acknowledged readily that Virginia had a vital interest? Does the Executive Branch have some suggested plan that they propose putting forth to guide the legislative process or are we on our own?
Lastly, you should understand very clearly that the terms outlined in your letter regarding the calling of a special session are certainly not acceptable to me as speaker of the House of Delegates. I do not believe it is appropriate to bind members of the legislature to any vote, particularly as a precondition to calling a legislative session.
Governor, unless you intend to be more involved and provide more leadership than you have exhibited thus far, I am fearful that this proc-ess is ordained to fail. That would be tragic, as I am sure that Norfolk's concerns can be worked out and I suspect there are protections that would, if not satisfy, at least placate many of the fears in Southwest and Southside Virginia.
Thomas W. Moss Jr.
May 24, 1995
To: Thomas W. Moss Jr.
. . . It has been nearly a month since I first wrote to you asking that you designate members of a House of Delegates panel that could work with members of my administration to develop a viable, bipartisan approach regarding the Lake Gaston matter. . . . I noted the tight, 60-day deadline established in the agreement between Virginia Beach and North Carolina. However, until today I had received no response from you.
Moreover, your published statements to the news media as recently as last week indicated your opposition to any move toward the convening of a special session prior to the resolution of Norfolk's still-unresolved objections to the proposed Lake Gaston settlement agreement. . . .
As you may know, Senator (Clancy) Holland (D-Va. Beach) - who chairs the subcommittee that was appointed several weeks ago to consider this matter - has already schedfuled public hearings around the state. Now that you have appointed a House of Delegates panel to address the issue, representatives of my administration can commence to work in earnest with designated members in both houses to address the substantive issues raised in the proposed settlement and interstate compact. . . .
(A)bsent a reliable indication that a legislatively viable result is achievable, taxpayer dollars should not be expended to convene the General Assembly in Richmond.
Despite the unfortunate partisan tone of your May 23 communication, I stand ready to work with you and the bipartisan leadership of the General Assembly to bring this matter to a successful conclusion - one that will clear the way for construction of the much-needed Lake Gaston pipeline while safeguarding the very legitimate economic development and other interests of citizens in the Roanoke River basin.
George Allen
June 9, 1995
To Southside Delegates Charles R. Hawkins (D-Pittsylvania), Lacey E. Putney (I-Bedford), Frank M. Ruff (R-xxxxxxx), Joyce K. Crouch (R-Lynchburg), S. Vance Wilkins Jr. (R-Amherst), Allen W. Dudley, (D-xxxxxxx), Stephen D. Newman (D-xxxxxx), Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (D-xxxxxxx).
. . . As you know, I have supported, and continue to support, construction of the pipeline because years of exhaustive study hav shown that it is the most practical and environmentally protective alternative for meeting the water supply needs of Southeastern Virginia. The scientific evidence establishes that the project will have negligible impact on the water level of Lake Gaston. . . .
(C)ertain protections necessary to safeguard the economic development and other legitimate interests of the people of the Roanoke River basin are not included in the proposed interstate compact as presently drafted. . . .
If representatives from the Roanoke River basin will work in good faith to address these concerns within the context of approval of the pipeline, I am hopeful that a result satisfactory to all affected areas of the state can be achieved. . . .
You may rest assured that I will convene the General Assembly in special session only after I have been satisfied that an interstate compact will be approved that clears the way for the construction of the Lake Gaston pipeline while adequately safeguarding the economic development and other legitimate interests of citizens, localities and enterprises in the Roanoke River basin.
George Allen
June 26, 1995]
To: The Hon. Thomas W. Moss Jr.
Speaker of the House
I am writing to report on the activities of the Special Committee on the Lake Gaston Pipeline. . . . Delegates Heilig (D-Norfolk) and Croshaw (D-Va. Beach) and Senator Clancy Holland in particular were tireless in their determination to make the process work. Remarkable progress was made in narrowing the issues in the short time available to us. . . .
Nevertheless, I must report to you that deep divisions in philosophy remain, as well as disagreement over the terms of the compact . . .
These divisions reflect those we heard in our public hearings in the affected regions. Feelings are running high, and opinion in sharply divided by region, with Republicans and Democratic legislators on both sides of the question. There is no consensus on the best course for the commonwealth.
The Lake Gaston pipeline issue will set a precedent for water policy in every river system in the commonwealth, and a number of unanswered questions have been raised. Leaving aside the serious bissue of whether it is proper to demand to know the outcome of a legislative session before it is called, I cannot conclude that there is sufficient support in the General Assembly, on either side of the aisle, to approve the compact. . . .
I see no need to rush to judgment at this time.
As you know, the governor is free to call a special session at any time and to place before us any legislation he favors.
Franklin P. Hall
D-Richmond
June 26, 1995
To: The Hon. Joseph V. Gartlan Jr.
(Chairman, Senate Committee on
Privileges and Elections)
. . . I am pleased to report that the subcommittee has completed its work. Delegate George Heilig Jr. of Norfolk, which included representatives from Southside Virginia, Virginia Beach, Norfolk, a business coalition of the Roanoke River Basin and the state of North Carolina. This group addressed the issues of concern by the above-mentioned entitites, along with the issues of the governor of Virginia, who also had a representative at these working sessions.
I am happy to report that those efforts have succeeded. The working group has proposed changes and substantial revisions to the settlement agreement as well as substantial revisions to the original proposed interstate compact that go a long way toward addressing all of the concerns and needs expressed around this table. As is the case in any substantially contested matter,none of the parties has gotten everything it wanted, but by the same token, every party has made substantial progress in addressing its respective concerns and needs in a framework that is capable of obtaining majority support in the General Assembly. . . . (W)hat has been accomplished is a compromise that addresses the critical need for safe drinking water for Southeastern Virginia, yet does so in a manner that is fair and equitable in my opinion for the communities of Southside Virginia.
My subcommittee has reviewed this proposed compromise, and a majority of that subcommittee is prepared to recommend it favorably to the full Senate Privileges and Elections Committee.
Accordingly, our work has reached a juncture at which it is necessary for the legislative process to commence. . . . As you know, the window of opportunity within which the General Assembly must act is a narrow one;the settlement agreement requires action by both the North Carolina and Virginia legislatures this week. . . .
Clarence A. Holland
(D-Va. Beach)
June 27, 1995
To: The Hon. George F. Allen
. . . In an effort to cooperate with you as chief executive, I attempted to assist by appointing a special committee to lay the issues, the settlement and the proposed compact before the members of the General Assembly and most importantly, before the public. . . .
It appears that no consensus has developed among the public or the members of the General Assembly. . . . Members of both parties have vigorously opposed the settlement and compact. Members of both parties have vigorously suported the settlement and compact.
As you are aware, the city of Norfolk could not support the settlement as originally proposed; however, I am advised that Norfolk's concerns have been addressed, and I will support the new proposal. I cannot speak for the other members of the Norfolk delegation.
At this point I would respectfully suggest that you, as chief executive of the commonwealth and its highest elected officer, are charged both constitutionally and politically with exercising leadership on this issue. The Constitution empowers you to call a special session when you believe it is in the interest of the com-mon-wealth. . . .
Thomas W. Moss Jr.
(D-Norfolk)
June 27, 1995
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR GEORGE ALLEN
. . . Although it is far from clear that the compromise worked out in recent weeks will be approved by the General Assembly if convened this week, I am prepared to give it a chance by calling the legislature into special session and working actively for its passage. . . .
However, my willingness to convene a special session remains contingent nupon the bipartisan legislative leadership reaching agreement with me on an appropriate procedural resolution that (1) limits the special session to the Lake Gaston subject matter (without prejudice to executive appointments) and (2) requires adjournment by the deadline set by the parties to the settlement agreement - June 20, 1995.
For 60 days . . . all members of the General Assembly have known that I would require a procedural resolution limiting the duration and subject matter of any special session before I would convene it. . . . Yet until today, no member of the leadershuip, nor of the full General Assembly, had communicated to me any objection or reservatiom regarding these conditions. . . .
Frankly, I do not know what other legislative or political objectives may be prompting the leadership to insist on a special session of infinite duration.
It may be that the leadership, knowing my conditions, wants to put me in the position of having to refuse to call a special session. Certainly, the speaker's letter today suggests a lack of enthusiasm for the proposed settlement. . . .
It would be unfortunate indeed if this fleeting opportunity to settle the longstanding Lake Gaston pipeline dispute were missed because of the leadership's unwillingness to confine the special session to the Lake Gaston issue and to the time frame established under the settlement agreement. . . .
June 27, 1995
STATEMENT OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM
AND THE MA-JOR-I-TY LEADER OF THE SENATE
As we all learned in school, our system of government is based on the principle of separation of powers. Each branch of government has its own responsibilities and prerogatives. It is the responsibility of the governor to call a special session of the legislature. It is the responsibility of the General Assembly to draft and adopt the procedural resolution setting the rules for the session. Never before in this commonwealth has a governor attempted to dictate the procedural resolution as a condition for calling a special session. . . .
If the governor decides that a special session is in the best interest of the commownealth, he will call one. Shoudl he do so, we will convene such a session in good faith and give full consideration to the issues before us. That is our duty and our constitutional responsibility as members of the legislative branch of government.
Thomas W.Moss Jr.
(D-Norfolk)
Stanley C. Walker
(D-Norfolk)
Hunter B. Andrews
(D-Hampton)
June 28, 1995
VIRGINIA BEACH STATEMENT
ON LAKE GASTON PROJECT
The city of Virginia Beach remains committed to a resolution of the Lake Gaston pipeline issue by Friday, June 30, 1995, and has asked its General Assembly delegation to oppose attempts to extend any special session on the matter to a later date.
According to Virginia Beach City Manager James K. Spore, ``There are two very good reasons for the Virginia legislature to go into session this week, and conclude its business by June 20. The first is that our settlement agreement with North Carolina expires on that date. The second is that North Carolina's General Assembly is scheduled to adjourn on that day as well. These reasons have been known by the members of the General Assembly for two months.'' . . .
June 29,1995
To: All Media
From: Ken Stroupe,
governor's press secretary
. . . Governor Allen and his staff have been working closely with Virginia Beach officials today to pursue further options for a settlement with the state of North Carolina that will clear the way for construction of the Lake Gaston pipeline.
Although a special session cannot now occur because of the General Assembly leadership's refusal to cooperate with Virginia Beach and the governor on a limited time frame for the session, Governor Allen remains hopeful that a settlement ending North Carolina's opposition to the pipeline can be achieved.
Discussions with officials representing North Carolina are ongoing. ILLUSTRATION: Photo by Virginia Power
A YEAR'S WORTH OF WATER OVER THE DAM: Opening five flood gates in
the Kerr Reservoir in two days during 1993 ``spilled'' more than 22
million gallons of water. That amounts to a year's worth of Lake
Gaston water for Virginia Beach.
KEYWORDS: LAKE GASTON PIPELINE WATER SUPPLY PLAN by CNB