Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-02-10
Sewer Hookup
For Alexandra,
Fairfax Upheld
Another Hurdle
Faced Before
Project Can Begin

ment between Alexandria and
Fairfax County was upheld in
Fairfax Circuit Court yester-
day, eliminating one more hur-
die before construction of the
$10.4 million combined project
can begin.
The agreement now goes to
the Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals for final adjudication.
Attorneys for the Alexandria
Sanitation Authority and Fair
fax County recommended the
litigation before selling bonds to
finance the project.
In yesterdays decision, Judge
Brown upheld legality of the
agreement and constitutionality
Of the, Alexandria Sanitation
Authority. Both had been chal-
lenged although the agreement
or contract-was the major
issue.
Three Plaintiffs.
The suit was brought by Nor
man Farquhar of Mclean,
Henry l.. Moore of Groveton
and Henry r. Wharton III of
Alexandria.
Their attorney, Neville Hall,
jr., argued that the contract
violated restrictions in the Vir-
ginia Constitution against in
curing debts without a refer
endum. He said the 25-year
contract committed Fairfax
County Sanitary District No.
to a long term debt. Fairfax
County agrees in the contract to
pay its share of the sewer prof.
ect costs in Is annual INSTALL
ments.
Mr.. Hall challenged legality
of the Alexandria Sanitation Au-
thority on grounds that it was
device used by the city of Alex
andria to get around debt limi-
tations and referendum require
mentS of the State Constitution.
The authority proposes to sell
revenue-producing bonds to f.
nance the combined program
without a referendum.
"Service Agreement"
John Pershing. attorney for
the Alexandria Sanitation Au-
thority, told the court that the
contract should not be inter-
| preted as a long standing debt.
and called it a service agree
ment whereby the county agreed
to make certain payments in
each year for services received.
Frederick c. Gray. assistant
attorney general, represented
the Virginia State Water Control
Board which interviewed in behalf
Of contract. He reminded the
court that the Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals had upheld the
right of county school boards to
borrow more money from the
State Literary Loan Fund to
build schools without holding a
referendum.
He said in that instance. the
Supreme Court reasoned that
the school boards were required
to provide schools and had to
do something if bond funds were
not available.
Mr.. Gray said Alexandria and
Fairfax County were faced with
similar situation on sewage
problems:
THE water board has insisted
that Alexandria and Fairfax pro-
vide disposal service. They have
to find some way. This agree
ment is not subterfuge-it is
a device to permit the financing
OF disposal facilities in spite of
constitutional restrictions. It is a
way of doing something they
have to do"
Fairfax Case Cited.
Judge Brown recalled that
Fairfax County's school board
once borrowed money from the
literary fund right after a similar
loan was rejected in a bond
issue referendum. He said the
question before the court was not
a novel one. and pointed out that
Fairfax County had committed
itself to financial obligations
without referenda in the past.
He cited the establishment of a
health department in the county,
whereby the Board of Super
visors agreed to pay a portion of
the cost each year.
The Alexandria Sanitation Au-
thority was the first established
! under the Virginia Water and
Sewers Authority Act of 1850.
The authority and Fairfax
County entered into the joint
sewage disposal agreement after
engineering surveys showed the
two jurisdictions could save ap-
proximately $2.1 million in orig
inal costs by proceeding together
instead of Independently.