The Story
Debate on King William Reservoir Spills Over to the College
The King William County Reservoir/Mattaponi River debate has continued for more than twelve years: river or reservoir? Tuesday, April 13th at 7pm in Andrews 101, panelists from both the environmental and development sides of the controversy, along with about fifty students and community members, discussed the issues surrounding the reservoir at a panel sponsored by the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC). The panel is part of the club’s Earth Week, a series of talks, films, and other events SEAC hopes will raise awareness about environmental issues on campus.
The Mattaponi River controversy centers around a reservoir the City of Newport News has approved to be built on the Mattaponi River. Those against the plan say that the reservoir is unnecessary, would kill various forms of wildlife living in and near the river, and would harm the nearby Mattaponi Indian tribe. But the water is needed to supply Newport News’s growing population and to support industries that may come to the area, to comply with health standards, and to maintain the present quality of life, say proponents of the reservoir.
“I was kind of heartened by the fact that we could sit in this room and have a discussion,” said Tyla Matteson, the Sierra Club representative on the panel. “That people from such different sides of the issue can sit in a room and talk about this – this kind of debate is very healthy.”
The other four panelists were Clyde Hoey of the Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, Don Philips of the King William Hunt Club, Tom Rubino, Co-Chair of The Alliance to Save the Mattaponi River, and Rich Costello of the Peninsula Housing and Builders Association. SEAC also invited Newport News Waterworks and the Virginia Peninsula Association of Realtors to send representatives, but neither came on Tuesday night.
Professor Timmons Roberts, facilitator of the panel and chair of the College Environmental Studies Department emphasized the value of having both sides of the debate represented at the forum. A less balanced event would not be press worthy, and attracts more diverse interests and a larger crowd, Timmons Roberts said.
But at first it appeared as if the discussion would be one-sided - Hoey and Costello, the two panelists supporting the reservoir, were thirty minutes late to the debate, which lasted about two hours, private post-panel discussions excluded.
“I was really looking forward to hearing the other side of the argument because it never seems to hold water,” Rubino said before Hoey and Costello arrived. While there were moments of tension and some sparks flew as panelists and the audience became more emotional about the issues, a sense of propriety characterized by Rubino’s opinionated pun reigned.
According to Rubino, the reservoir, which would destroy 427 acres of wetlands in King William County, would cost about $300 million to plan and build (other sources predict the project’s cost would be about $160 million). Rubino pointed out that on October 2, 2001, the US Army Corps of engineers denied the permit to build the reservoir. A year and a day later the North Atlantic Division of the Corps overturned this decision. Rubino is concerned about the beaver ponds, acres of wetlands, heron rookey, begonias (an endangered species), and American shad that would be negatively affected by the reservoir.
“We must protect endangered species as if our lives depended on it,” said Rubino.
Costello disagrees. He said that a similar reservoir was built in Virginia Beach that to his knowledge has had no impact on the environment. Further, he argued, with the population growth some researchers expect in Newport News in coming years, the water will be needed in homes and industrial plants he would like to see brought to the area, plants that would create news jobs for the growing population.
“We think this is probably the best solution that can be found,” said Costello. “The bottom line is that thirty-five to forty years from now if you go to the tap and you don’t have a quality water supply you’re going to have a major problem.”
But Philips claims there is enough water to support the population. If lawn watering restrictions were imposed, even during a drought the current water supply would be sufficient, he said.
According to Philips, Costello’s numbers are inaccurate. The amount of land that can be developed, the amount of money that will stay in the area, and many other factors that researchers have used to predict population growth are overestimated, he says.
Philips, Matteson, and Rubino argue that there are alternatives to building the reservoir, including water reuse, conservation, and desalinization. But Costello and Hoey say that these methods are not realistic or cost-efficient.
“It’s a lot easier to talk conservation than to make people do conservation,” said Hoey. “Most people just say, ‘fix the problem, find more water,’” he said.
The arguments and issues surrounding the King William Reservoir are endless. According to Philips, the Environmental Impact Statement for the reservoir is three and a half feet thick. The public is overwhelmingly against the plan, leading one student to ask, “Why is this issue still alive?”
“Good ideas never die,” answered Hoey.
“Hopefully in the future we’ll be able to use our intellect,” said Rubino.