Conservationists press USFWS and EPA to fight Corps approval of King William reservoir

A decision today by a division of the Army Corps of Engineers allowing Newport News to build a controversial dam and reservoir in King William County ignores serious degradation to the environment, said a coalition of conservation groups that have long fought the proposed 1,500-acre impoundment. The groups are asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to seek to bump up the final decision to the Corps headquarters in D.C., where it would be reviewed for the first time by the Corps' top brass.

"The Corps has turned a blind eye to the fact that Newport News greatly exaggerated its need for this water," said Deborah Murray, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center who represents several groups challenging the project. "We also calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to exercise its power to veto the Corps decision."

The FWS and EPA have stated their concerns over the years about the project, which would result in the single largest destruction of wetlands in Virginia since the Clean Water Act was enacted more than 30 years ago. Murray said the groups will be sending letters soon to the agencies formalizing their requests.

The Mattaponi Tribe, who live in the river basins where the reservoir is proposed, are also urging the agencies to take action in the wake of the Corps decision. The reservoir would destroy hundreds of Native American archaeological and cultural sites, some thousands of years old, and jeopardize the vitality of the tribe's present-day livelihood and quality of life.

The Corps' Norfolk District, which originally reviewed the project, rejected it in 1999, stating that it would significantly degrade waters and wetland resources, and adversely impact the Native American tribes. Further, the district found that Newport News had greatly inflated its water needs. Then-Gov. Jim Gilmore asked that the project be passed up the chain of Corps command to the North Atlantic Division, which issued its decision today. Under federal law, the FWS can similarly seek to have the project review sent higher up in the Corps, Murray said. Likewise, federal law stipulates that the EPA has the authority to veto Corps projects that will have an unacceptable adverse effect on wetlands ecosystems that would likely result in significant loss of or damage to fisheries and wildlife habitat.

A number of Virginia lawmakers who have opposed the project expressed dismay over the Corps decision. "Having worked for years representing the citizens of my district who strongly oppose the King William reservoir, I am distressed and disappointed. The evidence against issuance of this permit is overwhelming," said Del. Harvey B. Morgan (R-98th).

"The fact that the opposition has been outspent 20-to-1 and has, until now, defeated this project so many times is a good indication of how flawed it is. You can't put lipstick on a pig and you can't make the King William reservoir innocuous, benign, or, even, necessary," said Del. Albert C. Pollard, Jr. (D-99th).

"I am disappointed that the Army Corps has chosen to ignore the citizens of King William and King & Queen Counties, who overwhelmingly object to the construction of the reservoir in their community," said Del. Ryan T. McDougle (R - 97th). "I hope other federal agencies will review and reject the Corps decision."

"Today's decision by the Army Corps is a disgrace," said Ann Jennings, Virginia Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "This project received extensive scrutiny by the Corps' Norfolk District, which rejected it in 1999 as 'contrary to the public interest.' Since then even more evidence detailing environmental damage has emerged, strengthening our conclusion that the King William reservoir should not be built. If the EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service do not reverse this decision, we will be forced to consider other options to ensure that these critical natural resources are protected."

The Corps permit is one of three needed for the project. The conservation groups have challenged a state-issued water-withdrawal permit; oral arguments in that case are scheduled before the Virginia Supreme Court this fall. The third permit, for construction of the intake pipe in state waters, was originally denied by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission due to the adverse impact on the state's fragile shad fishery. Following a settlement with the Attorney General's office, Newport News obtained another hearing before the commission. Notwithstanding recommendations from its own staff scientists, the commission reversed itself, and issued the permit in 2004.

Several expert and independent studies have shown that Newport News needs about half as much water as it says, and that those needs can be reasonably met by numerous alternatives to the massive reservoir in King William County, including desalination, water reuse, and conservation. Murray said that the conservation groups would be considering further options to stop the ill-advised project.

Facts

• Newport News sought to withdraw up to 75 million gallons of water every day
• Independent studies confirmed the region to be served by the reservoir would need less than half of the amount of water by 2040 that Newport News claims, eliminating any need for the reservoir.
• The project would involve a 78-foot high, 1,700-foot long earthen dam on Cohoke Creek, a tributary of the Pamunkey River.
• About 12 miles of pipelines would have to be built to transfer water from the Mattaponi River to the reservoir, and from there to Newport News' existing water supply in New Kent County.
• The reservoir would destroy 437 acres of wetlands. It would also inundate 21 miles of free-flowing streams.
• Another 187 acres of wetlands below the dam would be severely degraded due to reduced flow in Cohoke Creek