[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2197-E2198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   LAKE GASTON PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                            HON. L.F. PAYNE

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 16, 1995

  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker; today I am pleased to join as a 
cosponsor of the Lake Gaston Protection Act of 1995, which was 
introduced by Congressman David Funderburk. This bill is a companion to 
identical legislation introduced yesterday in the Senate by Senators 
Helms and Faircloth of North Carolina.
  This bill is intended to achieve a fair and equitable solution to a 
long-standing dispute between the States of North Carolina and 
Virginia. This dispute centers on Lake Gaston, which is a manmade lake 
that straddles 34 miles of Virginia's southern border with North 
Carolina. For more than 10 years, Virginia Beach has been engaged in a 
fierce legal struggle with North Carolina and southside Virginia over 
the city's plan to withdraw some 60 million gallons of water per day 
from Lake Gaston. Pipeline opponents, including my House and Senate 
colleagues from North Carolina, have used every appropriate means at 
our disposal to fight this plan.
  Those of us who have fought this pipeline have done so because of 
several fundamental concerns, none of which has been adequately 
addressed by the Federal Government during the licensure and review of 
this massive pipeline project.
  First, the pipeline poses a direct threat to economic growth and 
expansion in the huge river basin which empties into Lake Gaston, which 
is known as the Roanoke River Basin. Anyone involved in economic 
development knows full well that one of the first questions that a 
potential business asks when it comes into an area is about the 
availability of water.
  With more than 1,200 manufacturing firms in south Central Virginia 
alone, the region around Lake Gaston has an intensive need for water. 
Our leading manufacturers--some of whom have faced water use 
restrictions in the past--are unanimous in opposing the pipeline. They 
have seen what has happened in other States when industrial users 
upstream face various restrictions in order to protect water supplies 
downstream.
  One local executive from Danville, VA told me last spring that 
concerns about the pipeline might force his firm to look elsewhere when 
it considers expanding its Danville operations. That is not an isolated 
case.
  Second, pipeline opponents believe that the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, which issued the final license for this project late last 
summer, has ignored completely the 

[[Page E 2198]]
environmental impacts of this pipeline on the Roanoke River Basin. The 
environmental impact statement which was prepared for this project was 
rushed through at breakneck speed. It failed to consider fully the wide 
range of pipeline alternatives. It relied heavily on facts and studies 
supplied by the city of Virginia Beach. And other agencies with 
expertise on a project of this nature were not adequately consulted 
during the preparation of the EIS. This is particularly true with 
respect to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  And why are North Carolina and my region of Virginia we being asked 
to potentially forego economic development and to suffer the 
environmental impacts of the pipeline?
  So Virginia Beach, which is Virginia's largest city and certainly one 
of its most prosperous, can continue to grow and develop. They want to 
build an 80-mile pipeline across Virginia to withdraw up to 60 million 
gallons of water that now belongs to the people in North Carolina and 
Virginia.
  The bill that I am cosponsoring today is a fair and equitable means 
of addressing these concerns. It is a narrowly drawn bill to assure in 
cases such as this, where a lake staddles the border of two States, 
that the Governor if the State from which more than 50 percent of the 
water is withdrawn must certify that the proposed withdrawal will not 
have adverse environmental impacts on his or her State, as defined by 
the Clean Water Act. The bill only applies to matters involving a FERC 
license or license amendment, and the bill is made retroactive to the 
present controversy.
  The bill in essence gives the Governor of the State of North Carolina 
some authority to certify that a water withdrawal and the construction 
of facilities associated with it will be in full compliance with the 
Clean Water Act. This is not a new requirement of the law, but rather a 
clarification of the proper meaning of section 401 of the act. The 
certification process is suspended in cases where an interstate compact 
is in force and applicable to the proposed withdrawal. It is our hope 
that this provision will encourage the States of North Carolina and 
Virginia to enter into an interstate compact that is negotiated not by 
the city of Virginia Beach but by the Commonwealth of Virginia acting 
on behalf of the interest of all Virginians.

                          ____________________