THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, October 9, 1996 TAG: 9610090003
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 52 lines
I read associate editor Glenn Allen Scott's Oct. 2 Perspectives column on the Gaston pipeline project with great interest. Let me add a few items I consider important to any fair consideration of this project.
Item 1: Virginia Beach faces the very real prospect of a North Carolina veto of the Gaston project. On Sept. 11, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to decide whether the license amendment granted to Virginia Power to allow the Gaston pipeline to go forward requires a certification or waiver from North Carolina. The matter will return to the court after FERC makes its determination. If the court ultimately rules that the license can't be amended without North Carolina's certification or waiver, the state will have the power to veto the pipeline project. Such a veto could be challenged only in North Carolina state courts.
Item 2: Whether or not it has the power to veto the license amendment now, North Carolina has the unquestioned power to veto or condition the license when it is up for renewal in 2001. Virginia Power recognized this as a potential problem and insisted on language in its agreement with Virginia Beach that requires Virginia Beach to terminate its withdrawals if stringent release conditions are imposed on Virginia Power in relicensing.
Item 3: Virginia Beach previously argued that betting $200 million or more on a project that might be authorized for only six to 10 years would be irrational. But the Beach subsequently made the bet. The city has gone forward with pipeline construction on an expedited basis even though it may not be permitted to withdraw water after 2001. The Beach is assuming that, given the city's huge expenditures on the project, no agency would deny it permission to complete construction or to operate the project. But will North Carolina feel any responsibility for any loss resulting from Virginia Beach's gamble? Virginia Beach has repeatedly acknowledged that it is going forward with construction at its own risk.
Item 4: Several of Virginia Beach's neighbors successfully developed other ways to meet their water needs while Virginia Beach was insisting that no viable alternatives to the Gaston pipeline exist. What will Virginia Beach do if or when the day comes that North Carolina vetoes the project?
Item 5: An integrated regional water system would greatly reduce the projected water deficit. How can Virginia Beach insist that the people of the Roanoke River basin give up water when the cities in Southeastern Virginia refuse to cooperate with each other to reduce their water deficit?
Item 6: Virginia Beach recognized in 1981 that the Gaston pipeline was not a viable option without ``a bi-state agreement between Virginia and North Carolina on the use of shared water resources.'' What changed the city's mind?
PATRICK M. McSWEENEY, counsel
Roanoke River Basin Association
Richmond, Oct. 3, 1996 by CNB