THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, June 24, 1994 TAG: 9406240543
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ESTHER DISKIN, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: 940624 LENGTH: Long
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - the last government hurdle for the $142 million pipeline - said Thursday that it must prepare an in-depth environmental impact statement before it can make a decision.
{REST} The study could take years, and there is no guarantee the commission will endorse the 76-mile pipeline. Unless quickly reversed, the decision virtually eliminates any hope Virginia Beach has of meeting its coming water needs on schedule.
The setback dwarfs any the city has faced in its fight to get a pipeline finished by 1997. Even if the commission eventually approves the pipeline, a prolonged delay could choke off the city's economic vitality.
The decision left Virginia Beach officials gasping. ``A quick environmental-impact statement is almost an oxymoron,'' said Virginia Beach City Manager James K. Spore. ``Deadlines mean nothing to these people.''
Mayor Meyera Oberndorf was furious.
``I think Washington has lost sight of the fact that there are more important species than the environment, and that is man, homo sapiens,'' she shouted into her car phone.
The commission's ruling abruptly reversed a pattern of decisions that appeared to favor Virginia Beach. Nearly one year ago, the commission's draft environmental assessment said the pipeline would not harm the environment. The agency has had the pipeline permit under consideration for over three years.
A letter announcing the agency's new position was released to the congressional delegations from North Carolina and Virginia Thursday afternoon.
The letter, signed by commission chairwoman Elizabeth Moler, said the agency would ``move promptly to decide this case.'' But in an interview, Moler said she could not give a ``rule of thumb'' for how long the environmental study will take.
The commission will first hold public hearings to decide the scope of the investigation, she said. ``Based on that determination, our staff does whatever studies are necessary. I can't tell you three months, one year, five years.''
Virginia Beach's plans to become a thriving economic center and tourist mecca hinged on getting millions of gallons of water from Lake Gaston by late 1996 or early 1997. The commission's ruling, instead, offers the prospect of cutbacks in residential and commercial development.
The city now draws all of its water from Norfolk supplies, which already are at their limits.
Restrictions on watering lawns and washing cars, in effect in Virginia Beach since 1992, will likely continue and could grow more severe.
The city might have to further restrict the number of newcomers allowed to hook into its water supply, which could crimp new home construction.
Beach officials said it is unlikely the pipeline could be built on schedule, unless a federal judge intervenes.
Beach officials, caught by surprise, don't yet have a plan of attack. They said they will write a letter to Moler and mobilize the state's congressional power brokers to argue their case. They are also considering whether to head for the courtroom, where many past pipeline disputes have been decided in protracted legal battles.
They hope, at least, to get the commission locked into a deadline for completion of the environmental impact statement.
``We'll see if a higher authority will make her commit,'' said Thomas Leahy, the city's pipeline expert. ``I think this is a case where the court will be extremely concerned that FERC took three and a half years to decide to do the environmental-impact statement.''
But North Carolina officials, who were applauding the decision, said Moler's commission had finally cut through the legal arguments and political maneuvering to take a dispassionate, scientific look at the pipeline.
North Carolina argues that drawing water for Virginia Beach will hurt the environment around the lake, which straddles its border with Virginia.
North Carolina Attorney General Mike Easley said his state has fought for a decade to get such a study.
``FERC has some real credibility, resources and knowledge to conduct a study that will be impressive to all concerned,'' he said. ``I don't believe they begin with a bias one way or another. I don't think any stones will be left unturned.''
The energy commission's approval is necessary to allow Virginia Power, which uses the lake as a hydroelectric project, to give Virginia Beach access to build the pipeline into the lake.
The practicality and environmental effect of the pipeline have been studied since the late 1970s. Virginia Beach and North Carolina officials have argued about the results of nearly every study, and the documents have fueled a decade of legal wrangling.
On Thursday, Moler said those studies are not enough. Analysis of alternatives to the project has been based on out-of-date cost estimates, she said.
That decision reversed the commission's previous stand: Eleven months ago, its draft environmental assessment said the project would have ``minimal'' impact on wildlife, including striped bass and walleye that spawn in the Roanoke River. The pipeline would have only ``insignificant effect'' on Virginia Power's energy output, it said.
``The preliminary finding was `no significant impact,' which is a technical buzzword for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required,'' Moler said. `That was a draft. . . . The comments showed the holes in it.''
After the initial ruling, North Carolina vowed to mail thousands of pages of documents supporting its position to the commission.
In May, on the day that Virginia Beach celebrated a separate positive pipeline ruling, from the U.S. Commerce Department, North Carolina officials produced a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency that requested an environmental impact statement.
At the time, Virginians attributed the EPA's request to political maneuvering by North Carolina. But the request got attention: Moler mentioned itin her letter released Thursday, and cited support for it from other federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.
Moler said the environmental impact statement is necessary to make sure that the commission's final decision on the pipeline permit will not be vulnerable in court.
Moler said the environmental-impact statement is necessary to make sure that the commission's final decision on the pipeline permit will not be vulnerable in court.
``I've seen lots and lots of people in a hurry to do things in this town, and they end up getting reversed,'' she said.
She said she understands the project's importance and Virginians' agony over delays. ``I entirely understand people's frustration over federal government. As administrators complying with the laws, we have things we have to do . . .'' she said. ``We are the lead agency. We have to have our record. We can take account of things done by other agencies, but we can't rely on that.''
Staff writer Mac Daniel contributed to this story.
{KEYWORDS} LAKE GASTON PIPELINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
by CNB