Court Date Set for Referendum on Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 19, 2009, Palmyra VA. -- The citizens of Fluvanna County will get their day in court on the Fluvanna/Louisa Joint Water Authority. The Circuit Court of Fluvanna County has ordered a hearing for May 15 to determine whether a referendum regarding the proposed water authority may proceed.

The following court order was issued on April 16:

"It is accordingly ORDERED that a hearing shall be conducted on May 15,
2009, at 9:30 a.m. concerning the Petitioner's motion to enter the attached
order."

Fluvanna and Louisa supervisors agreed on January 26 to create a joint authority charged with managing construction and operation of a water pipeline to serve Zion Crossroads and other key population centers. The counties agreed to split roughly $52 million in construction costs, with Fluvanna chipping in an additional $3.8 for lateral lines to serve the Fork Union community. Organized for a 50-year term, the authority would have the right to condemn land for pipes and facilities and could charge the two counties for capital and operating expenses.

Since March, scores of Fluvanna citizens have urged their supervisors to put the joint water authority on the ballot for voters to decide. They have mounted two separate petition drives in an effort to satisfy apparently incompatible requirements of two Virginia Code sections. At the March 18 public hearing on the water authority, citizens presented the Board of Supervisors with petitions containing more than 2100 signatures. However, County Attorney Fred Payne argued that, to force a referendum, petitioners must satisfy conditions of both code sections. The second petition, which led to the judge's ruling Thursday, contained more than 2,200 signatures.
At both meetings, Supervisors Gene Ott and Donald Weaver entered motions to put the water authority on the ballot. Each time, they were outvoted 2-4 by a majority led by Board Chairman Marvin Moss.

"Although 1822 signatures (on the original petition) were validated by the County -- a sufficient number to gain a referendum -- the County attorney interpreted the law in a way that disenfranchises the petition signers," said Johnson, one of the petition drive leaders. "The County attorney maintained that the second alternative should have been followed for the petitions."

Leaders of the petition drive disagreed. But instead of throwing in the towel, citizens jumped to the challenge and undertook a whole new petition drive conforming to the second legal alternative and the County attorney's criteria. In just over a week, dedicated citizens gathered more than 2200 signatures on the new petition. Those signatures were presented to the Circuit Court on April 15 prior to a Board of Supervisors vote that evening on the joint water authority.

"This new set of petitions was a truly amazing feat -- more than 2200 signatures gathered in just over a week by tireless and committed volunteers who went out into the community and did all over again what they'd done before in the first petition drive," said Leroy McCampbell, chief organizer of the petition drive. "We actually wound up with more signatures than the first batch."

At the Fluvanna supervisors' April 15 board meeting, McCampbell presented the Board with a courtesy copy of the new set of petitions accepted by the Circuit Court earlier that day. Despite such overwhelming support for a referendum and the fact that citizens had gathered the second petitions under the statute deemed pertinent by the County, the Board approved creating a joint water authority with Louisa County in a 4-2 vote.

During the two petition drives, citizens raised sovereignty, eminent domain and taxpayer issues. Many objected to Louisa authority board members having equal say-so over a utility running exclusively through Fluvanna County. Others didn't think Louisa officials should have eminent domain authority over Fluvanna lands; the County estimates some 200-300 Fluvanna properties will be affected. Still other citizens expressed concerns about water authority spending decisions that could force Fluvanna taxes to go up to meet funding. Yet other citizens were concerned that the 50-50 Louisa/Fluvanna makeup of the water authority board would dilute Fluvanna residents' influence over a pipeline running through their county.

The referendum, if ordered by the Court, will put this question to voters: "Shall Fluvanna County join Louisa County in the formation of a joint water authority."