For a number of years, Newport News officials have been backing a controversial plan to build a 1,500 acre reservoir on a creek off the Mattaponi River which would divert 75 million gallons of water a day to Newport News.  The motivation for the plan is to lay the groundwork for more industrial development and population growth. However, there are a number of arguments against this plan.  The project would destroy hundreds of acres of upland habitat and sensitive wetlands in which there are endangered rare plant species such as tropical water hyssop, the rare sensitive joint-vetch and the small whorled pogonia, a rare orchid.  American Rivers has listed the Mattaponi among this nation's 20 most endangered rivers; the Nature Conservancy has called the Mattaponi ôthe heart of the most pristine freshwater
complex on the Atlantic Coast.  This could change if the reservoir is built.  The damming of the waters may potentially drive up the salinity and lower water levels downstream of the dam. Carl "Lone Eagle" Custalow, son of Chief Webster Custalow, and assistant chief of the more than 450 members of the Mattaponi tribe states that "the river is a year-round source of food and income for the tribe" and that he can remember fishing for shad, herring, striped bass and catfish ever since he was a boy.  The Mattaponi tribe has recently built a state-of-the-art shad fish hatchery with a potential for producing 20-25 million shad a year that will help to bolster their shad fishing.  An additional complication is that the tribal burying grounds and archaeological sites that are as much as 8,000 years old will be flooded by the reservoir.

Dave Morris, Planning and Program manager of the Newport News waterworks, states that two acres of new wetlands would be created for every one acre that was lost.  Environmentalists warn that artificially created wetlands will not contain the diversity of natural wetlands that have developed over hundreds of years.  Rare plants could be lost in the process.

 The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Southern Environmental Law Center have filed suits in the past against the project.  The Sierra Club has also opposed the project and has organized forces against it.  An additional note of interest: the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency also oppose the reservoir due to its impact on valuable wildlife habitat. One motivation for building of the reservoir is money.  Bob Diggs, a member of the Board of Supervisors of King William County, where the reservoir is to be located favors its development.  It
seems Newport News would pay King William County up to 1.5 million dollars a year and let them use some of the water from the reservoir if the project is approved.
 
There is also controversy over whether Newport News actually needs the water. Newport News officials contend their area will need almost 40 million gallons a day by the year 2040 and that they would still, even with a reservoir, have to ration water occasionally.  The Army Corps of Engineers, on the other hand, based on their study concluded that the city and surrounding towns will need only 16 to 19 million gallons a day.  That demand could be achieved by alternatives such as desalinization and conservation measures.  However, Newport News officials said in 1999 they are determined to build the reservoir and are not looking at alternatives.

This is the present status of the King William Reservoir (KWR) project: Newport News Waterworks, in pursuit of a permit to build the KWR, submitted a revised water needs study on December 1, 2000 to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.  This study is now being forwarded to the Corps Institute for Water Resources (IWR) for evaluation.  The evaluation may take 1-2 months.

The findings of the IWR will be incorporated into the Norfolk district's Record of Decision, which will be published for a [45 day public comment period] (probably beginning in January or February of 2001).  Next, Colonel Allan Carroll of the regional U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will review all comments and will forward his final record of decision to General Rhoades of the North Atlantic Division of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

 General Rhoades will offer a 30-day comment period to those who made comments during the previous 45-day comment period.  He will then review the record and the comments and render a final decision.

During the comment period, and ONLY during the comment period, please write to:

  Colonel Allan Carroll, District Engineer
  U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
  Norfolk District803 Front Street
  Norfolk, VA  23510

Ann Messick,   Conservation Chair
 

Home