Updated -- see below.
Several noteworthy developments are emerging in the great Catawba water war – the request by Concord and Kannapolis to take a maximum of 26 million gallons a day from the Catawba River basin and send it into the Yadkin-Pee Dee basin.
The request has been hotly contested along the upper Catawba and in South Carolina. I wrote about it in Urban Outlook for Saturday's Observer. If you have thoughts, please feel free to comment below.
One significant development came in December, and it got discussed at Friday’s meeting of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Advisory Commission in Rock Hill:
--- Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities has waded into the water war. A letter from CMU chief Doug Bean to N.C. Sen. Dan Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, who chairs the basin commission, suggests the cities suspend their original request for a year, under a proposed agreement in which a water management group would be set up to look at water supply issues basinwide. Or, the letter says, the two cities should accept an EMC proposal for only 10 million gallons a day from the Catawba and not ask for any more for a year. (Note, I updated the previous paragraph Tuesday after a state environmental officer called to point out that CMU's proposal wasn't to defer the lower, 10 mgd amount.)
CMU has been the very big, very silent elephant sitting over in the corner during this fight. It dwarfs most of the other water users. And it already has an IBT certificate to shift 33 million gallons a day from the Catawba into the Rocky River (Yadkin-Pee Dee) basin. It has obvious reason to care about the basin losing more water, but it can’t really get out there and fight IBTs on general principle.
Bean’s letter notes that if the Concord-Kannapolis IBT goes to court, which seems likely if the full amount is granted Wednesday, court decisions might not please anybody.
--- Also Friday, Clodfelter and the commission made clear they’re looking at how they might declare the Catawba basin a “Capacity Use Area.” That’s a mechanism set up under the 1967 N.C. Water Use Act that, basically, gets all major water users to the table to hash out what to do if it looks as if the water supply won’t serve everyone wanting to use it. The Catawba basin isn’t at that point yet. But within 50 years, it may well be.
The Capacity Use Area process so far has only been used in Eastern North Carolina, in regions using groundwater.
--- Wednesday Mecklenburg County commissioners passed a resolution asking the N.C. General Assembly to improve the state process for considering and approving IBT requests and for managing conflicts over shared water resources. The commissioners didn’t come out and say don’t – or do – approve it. (See CMU, above.) But they’re right that the process needs improvement.
As Clodfelter pointed out Friday, if you hold an IBT certificate from the state, then your rights to the water from another river basin are superior to the rights of the people in that basin, “which is just bizarre,” he said. “It’s all outta whack in North Carolina.”
The state Environmental Management Commission is scheduled to decide the issue Wednesday. My prediction? Look for either a deferral, or granting of the lower, 10 million gallons a day option.
Links added: In Tuesday's Observer’s, the Viewpoint page presented a pro-con package by elected officials throughout the Catawba region, and in Concord and Kannapolis. Here's a link to the pro side of the argument, and a link to the "con" side.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Behind the lines of Catawba's water war
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Delaying the decision of whether to grant a transfer of Catawba River water to Concord and Kannapolis is absolutely the right thing to do. Both the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Advisory Commission and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities have recommended such a delay.
The “water war” hysteria that took over many of the public meetings needs to cool down while the Advisory Commission works out equitable measures between North and South Carolina and while a regional water management group works out a water supply plan.
Under the scrutiny that this transfer request generated, our water laws and water resource plans have come up short and need to be rethought. An additional and equally important reason to delay the decision is that it should be made using the best scientific data which is not yet available.
The mathematical models used to predict how much water will be available and how thin it can be spread are based on a myriad of assumptions, but until the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues its final order regarding Duke Energy’s new license to use the river to generate electricity, we won’t know how accurate many of those assumptions are. There may be more or less water available in the river system depending on the final outcome of the license proceedings.
Since the decision whether to transfer 10-20 million gallons per day of water outside of the Catawba basin will likely last beyond our lifetimes it should be made with all due diligence and prudence. This is a chance to do it right, and set a precedent for future actions.
Delaying the decision, scheduled for Wednesday, is the right thing to do.
Detente in Water War?
EMC says no, not interested.
Well Mary, Vicki and The Observer Editorial Board I am sorry to tell you the EMC did not think delaying a decision on the IBT was the right thing to do. I just got back from the EMC meeting in Raliegh today. They discussed the Concord/Kannapolis Interbasin transfer request for little more than an hour after viewing a power point presentation from the Division of Water Resources staff. Then they rubber stamped the hearing officers recommendation to transfer 10 millions of gallons a day of Catawba River water to Concord and Kannapolis. One of the EMC members actually asked fomr more information about the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Advisory Commission recommendation to delay the decision so the Commission could work on a bi-state and regional solution that would be acceptable to all of us here in the Catawba Basin and to Concord and Kannapolis. The EMC member wanted to know whether the Bi-State Commission offer to mediate a solution and therefore avoid an interstate and intrastate water war was a substantive offer capable of success. NC Senator Austin Allran who is a member of the Bi-State Commission stood up and asked to speak so he could answer the question. EMC Chair Dr. David Moreau refused to let Senator Allran speak and then he dismissed the Commission's capacity to develop a positive and proactive solution. So it was apparent to me after seeing the EMC discussion today that they really don't value cooperative, multi-lateral decision making that is inclusive of all those impacted by these permenant water takings. It seemed to me that the EMC prefers the broken and failed NC policy of allocating water on a first come, first served basis. Too bad, because the result of their refusal to allow any chance of a collaborative resolution to the conflict means a cascade of lawsuits in multiple venues from multiple parties. The Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center will be one of those parties taking legal action. So sad that the EMC didn't listen to you guys. Perhaps the judges will listen more carefully to the many substantive and procedural deficiencies in this deeply flawed interbasin transfer proceeding. It should be a very interesting court case. And it will establish the precedent that the Catawba River Basin will band together and aggresively fight any attempt to permenently remove water from the basin.
Donna Lisenby
Catawba Riverkeeper
Post a Comment