VA • Water regulation prospects irk Virginia farmers

JUNE 19, 2006 | A state regulatory plan that some western farmers might have considered too laissez-faire is drawing a hot response from Virginia farmers, as they contemplate Governor Tim Kaine's veto of a measure that might have erased the regulation.
Virginia's water law system has long been based on the riparian model, allowing land owners to withdraw water running through or adjacent to their properties.  The dispute started with new proposals from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, where some concern was expressed about whether the use of water by some farmers was stressing the system. The agency was exploring a possible permit system of water withdrawals for farmers.
That drew sharp opposition in the agriculture community, and on its behalf Delegate  Steven Landes, R-Weyers Cave, introduced House Bill 1185, which sought to block any such permit system. 
The measure passed both houses but was vetoed by Kaine.  The governor remarked, ""The common law of Virginia establishes a framework that protects the riparian rights of those who use our waterways for agricultural, municipal, industrial, recreational and other beneficial uses.   This bill would single out agricultural use in a way that could have significant long-term consequences for downstream uses. My administration is working with farmers in a cooperative spirit to make sure that new regulations address the concerns of all stakeholders, and that is the appropriate way to address this subject."
The veto worried farmers who expressed concern about their access to water and the cost of doing business. DEQ officials said that an advisory committee meeting on the subject was expected to be held in June, and no regulatory legislation was immiment.

Dam work authorized

DECEMBER 11, 2005 | U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service Chief Bruce Knight in December authorized federal assistance for the rehabilitation of three dams in Virginia at an estimated cost of $4.1 million. The work performed on these dams will ensure the projects continue to serve Virginia residents safely for the next 50 years.
The projects in this announcement are Robinson Hollow Dam, Thomas Branch Dam and Inch Branch Dam in the South River Watershed in Augusta County, Virginia. The Robinson Hollow and Inch Branch Dams were built in 1956 and the Thomas Branch Dam was built in 1957. The rehabilitation of these dams will reduce the threat to more than 1300 people who live in 263 homes downstream from the dams, as well as provide continued protection of 29 roads, 13 bridges and 10 business structures.
The projects will provide $179,000 in monetary benefits each year for the next 50 years. The Federal Government will pay 65 percent of the total cost of the projects.
Work on these projects is being conducted as authorized by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566) at the initiative of citizens of Virginia. Locally, the project is being sponsored by the Headwaters Soil and Water Conservation District, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors and the City of Waynesboro.
Authorized rehabilitation for each of the dams will include: raising the tops of the dams by 4 to 5 feet with a concrete parapet wall, armoring the auxiliary spillways with articulated concrete blocks, replacing the existing square risers with rectangular risers, and widening the northern auxiliary spillway by 5 feet (Robinson Hollow Dam only).
Installation is expected to take two years.
Contact: Terry Bish (202) 720-3210, December 7.

TAKING ON THE MEXICO CITY FORUM A guest opinion in the Cook County News Herald of Grand Marais, Minnesota, blasted the approach taken at the March Fourth World Water Forum in Mexico City which equated water rights with human rights.
"After the first day of the meeting, however, it became clear that the government and corporate agents were only interested in turning water management into a business opportunity, whereupon the NGOs and activists established an alternative forum intent on identifying access to clean water as a fundamental right . . . If we accept the position that water is a common good, and an inalienable right shared by all people, does that mean that folks in China or France have as much right to Lake Superior’s water as we do?
Perhaps we would be better served if we didn’t use the concept of human rights to justify our control of Lake Superior’s water, but rather, focused on Cibber’s observation that possession is eleven points in the law."