THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, September 7, 1995 TAG: 9509070003
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: By WILLIAM B. ELLIS
LENGTH: Medium: 72 lines
I read Sen. Clarence Holland's ``Refuting Ruff's tale of water torture'' (letter, Aug. 8) with great interest.
Among Senator Holland's contentions were: (1) Downstream withdrawals on the Roanoke River cannot harm upstream communities (``Delegate Ruff would have to rewrite the laws of nature to find a negative upstream environmental impact from this project''). (2) Desalination of brackish groundwater cannot play a significant role in meeting Virginia Beach's water needs even though ``no one claims that Virginia Beach could not develop up to a 5 million gallons per day (mgd) brackish-groundwater facility.'' (3) ``Virginia Beach has now received a permit from FERC that will allow it to resume construction of the pipeline.''
These contentions deserve more careful attention.
First, upstream jurisdictions very definitely can and often are harmed by substantial withdrawals downstream, whether or not one considers such harms to be ``environmental.''
Envision a river flowing from City A through Lake B to County C. Suppose a newly approved and substantial withdrawal occurring at Lake B leaves the streamflow in River Segment BC at or near its assimilative capacity for waste, and at or near its minimum allowable flow. Now suppose a new industrial discharger or water withdrawer wishes to locate in City A. Its discharges would increase pollutants in River Segment BC to impermissible levels. Its withdrawals would further decrease streamflow in River Segment BC to below permissible levels. If it can locate in City A at all, it will face increased restrictions on wastewater discharges or river withdrawals that would not have been necessary but for the downstream withdrawal from Lake B. This is not merely a theoretical concern; I have observed water-quality regulators act on exactly this basis.
Second, Senator Holland is correct in saying that Virginia Beach could successfully implement a 5 mgd groundwater desalination facility. But he is wrong in saying no one claims otherwise. Virginia Beach has repeatedly claimed that groundwater desalination can play no role whatever in meeting its water needs, and its arguments have been accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The reason: Such a 5 mgd facility would solve Virginia Beach's alleged water emergency, an emergency the Beach claims is solvable only through immediate construction of the proposed pipeline.
Third, the FERC permit received by Virginia Beach does not entitle it to resume construction of the pipeline. The earliest pipeline construction could possibly begin will be sometime after a decision by Judge Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as to whether the Department of Commerce acted properly in overruling North Carolina's objections to the proposed pipeline pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act.
A decision presently is expected on or before Sept. 22. If Judge Hogan finds in North Carolina's favor, the pipeline may never be built. Even if he finds in Virginia Beach's favor, opponents of the pipeline will seek to prevent construction until their remaining claims are heard and resolved.
Even if pipeline construction cannot be blocked, its operation most definitely can be. The Roanoke Rapids/Lake Gaston hydroelectric facility must be relicensed in 2001 - an event that will allow North Carolina to impose whatever water-quality conditions it deems necessary on the new FERC license. That may include undoing - in whole or in part - the recent FERC license amendment permitting withdrawal of project waters for transmission to Virginia Beach.
Senator Holland has been seriously misinformed. The contentions of project promoters ought not to be accepted uncritically as fact, nor should the legitimate fears of project opponents be dismissed without understanding. MEMO: Mr. Ellis is counsel for the Roanoke River Basin Association, a longtime
opponent of the proposed Lake Gaston Pipeline.
by CNB