[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17091-S17092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself and Mr. Faircloth):
  S. 1413. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
require that an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
for a license, license amendment, or permit for an activity that will 
result in a withdrawal by a State or political subdivision of a State 
of water from a lake that is situated in two States shall not be 
granted unless the Governor of the State in which more than 50 percent 
of the lake, reservoir, or other body of water is situated certifies 
that the withdrawal will not have an adverse effect on the environment 
in or economy of that State, and for other purposes; and the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.


                 THE LAKE GASTON PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today Senator Faircloth and I are 
introducing the Lake Gaston Protection Act of 1995. The States of North 
Carolina and Virginia have been locked in a dispute for a decade as to 
whether the city of Virginia Beach should be able to withdraw water 
from Lake Gaston, which straddles both States.

  Our bill stops the withdrawal of water from the lake until Federal 
officials listen to the concerns of countless thousands of citizens of 
both North Carolina and Virginia.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] approved a permit 
allowing the daily withdrawal of 60 million gallons from Lake Gaston--
but the FERC officials did not look closely enough at the potential 
negative environmental effects of withdrawing 60 million gallons a day 
from the lake. In short, they failed to consider either the 
environmental problems or the adverse impact on striped bass and other 
fish species. A sharply reduced quantity of water flowing through the 
lower Roanoke River basin may very well be harmful to the estuaries of 
the Albemarle Sound in the spawning of many fish species.
  And, Mr. President besides the environmental impact, the withdrawal 
could very well pose dire consequences to the commercial and 
recreational fishing industry that depends so heavily on an adequate 
exchange of fresh water and salt water in the estuary.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have obtained 
certification from the State of North Carolina that there would be no 
degradation of water quality or the environment. Instead, FERC ran 
roughshod over the concerns of North Carolina.
  Mr. President, Senator Faircloth's and my bill would require FERC to 
obtain certification from North Carolina that this project will have 
no, and I emphasize, no adverse impact on the environment or the local 
economy.
  Mr. President, for the record, I believe a brief history of this 
dispute may be helpful.
  Virginia Electric Power Co., on behalf of Virginia Beach, applied to 
the FERC for permission to construct a water intake on Pea Hill Cove of 
Lake Gaston and a 76-mile pipeline to withdraw up to 60 million gallons 
per day.
  Both the City of Virginia Beach and the State of North Carolina have 
marched back and forth in the Federal courts over this issue. North 
Carolina raised many concerns of water quality and the adverse effects 
on the downstream ecosystems. North Carolina officials assert that FERC 
did a far too hasty job on its environmental analysis. FERC allowed 
only 2 months for the review of the reams of environmental data.
  Furthermore North Carolina asserts that FERC staff failed to conduct 
studies requested by several Federal agencies, including the EPA, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, and independent 
biologists.
  After much litigation, a Federal mediator was appointed by the 
Federal courts within the past 18 months, to look into the possibility 
of bringing the State of North Carolina and the city of Virginia Beach 
to an agreement on the issue.
  A final settlement agreement was reached on June 26, and was 
supported by both Virginia Senators. I have a copy of a letter signed 
by both Senators to the Governors of North Carolina and Virginia in 
support of the agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
letter be placed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the settlement was subject to ratification 
of an Interstate compact by both State legislatures and approval by the 
Congress. According to the officials in North Carolina, this agreement 
protects the interests of the three North Carolina counties that 
surround the lake. As of now, neither State has ratified the compact.
  The communities that surround the lake in Northampton, Warren, and 
Halifax Counties in North Carolina are greatly dependent on it to 
support their economies. According to a November 2, 1993, article in 
the Lake Gaston Gazette, property owners around the lake paid over $253 
million in 1993 real estate and personal property 

[[Page S17092]]
taxes. Also it is estimated that there has been $125 million in new 
home construction each year.
  Mr. President, North Carolina and Virginia have a history of 
cooperation on matters affecting both States. For example the joint 
North Carolina and Virginia efforts to stem Lake Gaston's having been 
infested by hydrilla, an aquatic weed similar to kudzu. These five 
counties and both State governments have worked together to bring this 
nuisance weed under control.
  If Virginia and the city of Virginia Beach object to this 
legislation, there is a way out; this proposed law will not apply if 
and when the June 26 settlement is resurrected and there is an 
interstate compact. So each State can urge its Governor and legislature 
to ratify the agreement and the compact. This will give everyone a 
chance to take a second look at North Carolina's environmental 
concerns.
  This legislation is narrowly drawn to apply only to this particular 
situation and would not adversely affect our western friends.
  We realize how sensitive our western friends are on the issue of 
water rights. Senator Faircloth's and my staffs have consulted with 
numerous experts in western U.S. water rights and have been assured 
that this legislation exempts western water projects.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1413

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lake Gaston Protection Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWALS OF WATER FROM LAKES SITUATED IN 2 STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(a)(2) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) Upon receipt'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Action by the administrator.--
       ``(A) In general.--On Receipt''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Lakes situated in 2 states.--
       ``(i) Certification of no adverse effect.--Except as 
     provided in clause (ii), in the case of an application to the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license, license 
     amendment, or permit for an activity that will result 
     directly or indirectly in the withdrawal by a State or 
     political subdivision of a State of water from a lake, 
     reservoir, or similar body of water that is situated in 2 
     (and not more than 2) States, the Commission shall not grant 
     the license, license amendment, or permit unless the Governor 
     of the State in which more than 50 percent of the lake, 
     reservoir, or other body of water is situated certifies that 
     the withdrawal will not adversely affect the environment in 
     or the economy of that State.
       ``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) does not apply to an 
     application for a license, license amendment, or permit for 
     an activity that will occur with or affect waters located 
     within a river basin that is subject to an interstate 
     compact, decree of the Supreme Court, or Act of Congress that 
     specifically allocates the rights to use the water that is 
     the subject of the application.''.
       ``(b) Retroactive Effect.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall apply to any application made on or after January 
     1, 1991, unless the application has been granted and is no 
     longer subject to judicial review.
                                                                    ____


                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 5, 1995.
     Hon. George F. Allen,
     Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia, State Capitol, Richmond, 
         VA.
     Hon. James B. Hunt, Jr.,
     Governor, State of North Carolina, State Capitol, Raleigh, 
         NC.
       Dear Governors: The City of Virginia Beach has advised us 
     that it hopes to finalize a settlement with the State of 
     North Carolina regarding the Lake Gaston pipeline project 
     within the next few days.
       It is our understanding that one feature of the settlement 
     contemplates that you will seek to have introduced and passed 
     in your respective General Assemblies an Interstate Compact 
     that will place limits on out of basin transfers of water 
     from the Roanoke River Basin in Virginia and North Carolina.
       We wish to assure you that we believe a settlement of the 
     issues will facilitate the construction of the Lake Gaston 
     project which we fully support. We also pledge our support to 
     the proposed Interstate Compact should it be passed by the 
     General Assemblies of Virginia and North Carolina and if the 
     settlement becomes effective and is not terminated by the 
     parties after action by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission (FERC) on VEPCO's application.
       Following enactment by both state legislatures, it is our 
     intention to promptly introduce the Compact in the United 
     States Senate and take every appropriate action to obtain the 
     expeditious consent of the Congress to the Compact.
       With kind regards,
           Sincerely,
     Charles Robb.
     John Warner.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Helms 
today in introducing a bill to help resolve a long-standing dispute 
between Virginia and North Carolina over Lake Gaston, a lake spanning 
the border between our two States. The dispute concerns Virginia's 
plans to construct a water pipeline from Lake Gaston to Virginia Beach 
for that city's municipal use--60 million gallons a day.
  I am disappointed that this disagreement has come to the point where 
we must introduce legislation. Last spring the two States came very 
close to resolving the issue and actually had a settlement ready, 
signed, and waiting for ratification by the States and the Congress. 
Unfortunately, logistical problems prevented the settlement from being 
closed by the Virginia State legislature before their adjournment. Soon 
after they adjourned, however, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
approved a permit allowing for the project to proceed. Of course, with 
approval in hand, Virginia was refused to return to the negotiating 
table. They simply have a permit. As it now stands, the citizens of 
North Carolina and the residents of Lake Gaston have lost the water 
without any agreement whatsoever between the States on how much water 
can be withdrawn from the lake, and other critical factors.
  Mr. President, it is wrong for the Federal Government to allow this 
pipeline to take millions of gallons of water from Lake Gaston and 
North Carolina without North Carolina's approval and agreement. It is 
only fair that a project with this kind of impact should proceed only 
after an agreement has been reached between the two States--especially 
when an agreement is very nearly at hand--until the Federal Government 
went ahead and issued the permit.
  Reasonable restrictions should be in place and agreed to by both 
States, such as the amount of water that can be withdrawn each day. The 
impact of withdrawing millions of gallons of water from the Roanoke 
River Basin is, frankly, unknown and in dispute.
  I am particularly concerned about the impact the new pipeline will 
have on the economy of North Carolina. Many industries and towns depend 
on water from the Roanoke River. The property owners around the lake 
paid nearly $250 million in property taxes this year alone. What 
happens, Mr. President, when all this water is diverted to Virginia 
Beach? Even if the effect right now may not be severe, it could hamper 
growth in the future. You simply will lower the lake level to a degree 
where it will be unattractive. No one can tell with any certainty what 
the effect will be on the local economy, but predictions from 
homeowners and others are that they will be severe.
  The environmental effects are equally unknown. Every day people are 
turned down for wetland permits by the Federal Government because of 
relatively minor environmental impacts. But here, with lake Gaston, 
where we are talking about an enormous and unprecedented impact on 
water flow and quality--and the agencies let the permit sail on 
through. The environmental impact study--which sometimes drag on for 
years--took only 3 months to sail it through.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is there are simply too many questions 
to allow this project to proceed over the objections of North Carolina. 
Too much is on the line here. An agreement is just around the corner if 
we give it a chance and give it time.
  Senator Helms and I are representing North Carolina as a whole, the 
State legislature, the State house, the State Senate, and the Governor. 
In North Carolina we are totally unified as to what should be done--and 
that is not build a pipeline until an agreement is reached. An 
agreement is at hand, and around the corner. With some help here today 
it can be reached.
  We look forward to working with the Senators from Virginia to 
conclude it, and to bring it to a proper conclusion.
                                 ______