Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 23, 1994 TAG: 9402230105
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C3 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: DALE EISMAN STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
In a brief filed in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Gilmore's office argued Tuesday that the Tar Heel State's contention that it has a right to review the pipeline plan under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act "is not based on sound science or law."
Gilmore's "friend-of-the-court" brief was lodged in support of Virginia Beach in a suit the city filed against North Carolina and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Until December, when it reversed a stand taken by two former commerce secretaries, the Commerce Department agreed with Virginia that the coastal zone law could not not be used by one state to challenge projects wholly within another. The 75-mile pipeline would be entirely within Virginia, though the water it would remove from the lake and pump to Virginia Beach would otherwise flow south and east into North Carolina.
Gilmore's brief argues that "there is no federal statutory or common law which makes a state's coastal zone protection policies enforceable outside its borders." Indeed, he adds, "the express language of the [law] clearly precludes interstate review."
The Gaston proposal already has survived several environmental reviews, and Virginia Beach officials say they are confident it would stand up through another. But they argue that North Carolina's attempt to invoke the coastal protection law is simply a delaying tactic, designed to drive the $174 million price tag for the pipeline higher.
"Enough is enough. Virginia Beach needs water . . . [North Carolina's] position threatens not only the city of Virginia Beach, but also the integrity of Virginia's sovereignty and the well-being of all Virginia citizens," Assistant Attorney General Dennis Treacy wrote in the state's brief.
by CNB