The Case Against Inter-Basin Transfer of Water
Why the opposition? What is it about these withdrawals that make the RRBA and its
constituents so opposed to them? To find some answers to these questions we should
start by looking at the classic definition of Riparian Rights.
The following was extracted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Riparian water rights (or simply riparian rights) is a system of allocating water among the
property owners who abut its source. It has its origins in English common law.
It is used in the United Kingdom and the eastern United States. Under the riparian principle,
all landowners whose property is adjacent to a body of water have the right to make reasonable
use of it. If there is not enough water to satisfy all users, allotments are generally
fixed in proportion to frontage on the water source. These rights cannot be sold or transferred
other than with the adjoining land, and water cannot be transferred out of the watershed."
The principle of Riparian Right is written into Virginia and North Carolina law.
In the case of the Virginia Beach withdrawals, it is clearly a violation of the principle of
Riparian Rights and, therefore, a violation of the rights of the citizens who live in the Basin.
Beyond that here are a few other factors to consider when evaluating such proposals.
First, when water is withdrawn under riparian rights it is always returned to the source
after it is used. When water is transferred to another watershed it is lost forever.
Considering the rate of growth and development in the cities of North Carolina and Virginia
it is clear that whether you believe in global warming or not, water in terms of both supply
and quality will be a critical resource in the future. Is it too much then to ask those
without riparian rights to a water source to consider how they are going to support future growth
in their own region? Is it wise to over develop in an area without critical infrastructure support
and then look outside your region to resolve the problem? This was clearly the case in the
Virginia Beach pipeline case. The RRBA feels these actions are tantamount to someone
"putting their straw in someone else's drink".
Therefore, it remains a key function of the RRBA to stay aware of these threats, and where
appropriate make our opposition known. We also stand ready to rally our constituents and
fight serious threats in any way we can.
Gene Addesso
Almost from inception the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) has been vigilant in it's
opposition of the inter-basin transfers of water. In fact our Association and members
spent years and a lot of dollars fighting the construction of a pipeline that could
withdraw up to 60 MG (million gallons) of water daily from the Roanoke River basin for
use out of the basin by Virginia Beach. That city had developed beyond its ability to
supply a critical resource, water, and had to look elsewhere for a solution.
Sadly after long court battles and appeals the fight was lost, and now the City of
Virginia Beach contracts a portion of the water supply storage of Kerr Lake and has an
intake from Lake Gaston, which lies downstream of Kerr Lake on the Roanoke River.
What is also clear is that there are other major regions in Virginia and North Carolina with
existing, pending or already forecasted water shortage problems. Among them for instance are
the Triad and Triangle areas in North Carolina. These are the largest consumers, however
there are many smaller regions facing the same dilemma. The Association is fully aware of
studies in these areas that would suggest pipelines to the river and lakes in the Roanoke
River Basin. Specifically a major study was concluded in the not too distant past by the
City of Raleigh to plan for their future forecasted water needs. In that study among other
solutions was a proposal to build a pipeline to Kerr Lake for their water. Other smaller
withdrawals are either pending or approved. Among those are plans for an inter-local system
to withdraw water from the Dan River near Milton for Roxboro, Person County and Yanceyville,
and a plan to transfer 20 mg a day from two river basins in Western Carolina to the cities
of Concord and Kannapolis. Regardless of the size of withdrawal all these plans are problematic
since they set dangerous precedents regarding riparian rights.
Finally, the one common thread to be found in all these projects is that they inherently and
almost without exception approve the movement or transfer of a critical resource from a needy,
under developed, less economically endowed region, to one more powerful and likely over
developed. Sadly when opposed, the politically and economically powerful groups seem to
prevail regardless of fairness and rights.
Vice President, RRBA