Letter to Governor Easley
Dear Governor Easley:
The cities of Concord and Kannapolis are seeking an inter-basin transfer certificate permitting an average diversion of 22 million gallons of water a day from the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins, and permitting a maximum daily transfer of 36 million gallons from the Catawba River Basin and 10 million gallons from the Yadkin River Basin. Since this application is before the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, a signed copy of this letter is being sent to the commission for consideration and for inclusion in the record of its next hearing.
We write to express our adamant opposition to the proposed Inter-Basin Transfer (IBT). The Catawba River and the Pee Dee River flow through both North and South Carolina, and any decision to transfer water from these basins has an impact on both states.
The stated purpose of this transfer is to meet the cities' projected need for water in 2035 and to insulate Concord and Kannapolis in Cabarrus County, North Carolina from shortages of the sort that were suffered during the drought that lasted from 1999 to 2003. Other parts of North Carolina and South Carolina suffered the same severe water shortages as Cabarrus County during that drought, and all were forced to adopt stringent water conservation measures to ensure adequate drinking water and industrial water supplies. We too want to mitigate the impact of water shortages in the future, but we are concerned that a diversion of water to Cabarrus County, particularly a diversion as large as 46 million gallons per day, would only impair the ability of downstream users to respond to droughts in the future.
There is no doubt that lower water levels on the Catawba and Yadkin Rivers would have an adverse impact on downstream owners of river-front property. For example, the removal of 36 million gallons of water per day from the Catawba is equal to almost half the summertime flow of the Linville River, a tributary of the Catawba which feeds Lake James in the mountains of North Carolina. The transfer of 36 million gallons per day is also equal to the total daily flow of Crowders Creek, a major source feeding Lake Wylie in South Carolina. During the drought of 2002, the water depth at Lake James fell to 1191.3 ft. (full pool is 1200 ft.). This drop closed the lake to public recreation and caused significant damage to residential and commercial interests. In an exceptional drought, the lake could drop from 18 to 39 feet below full pool, and the damage would be even more severe. Property owners on Lake James, or any of the other lakes and reservoirs that the Catawba and Yadkin Rivers supply, could be severely limited in their enjoyment of their property in the event that low water levels force additional lake closures. Commercial interests, like marinas, that depend on lake-related business could be even more economically affected. Transferring up to 46 million gallons from the Catawba and the Yadkin would remove any buffer property owners, businesses, and communities have to prevent lowered lake levels that result in lake closures.
Most of all, we are concerned that the proposed IBT would restrict downstream development in North and South Carolina. The Catawba River basin is positioned to grow and needs to after the closure of major manufacturing plants in the region. But the ability to recruit industrial prospects will depend on the ability to assure adequate water for process, cooling, and discharge. We are convinced that the proposed IBT would restrict the number of new downstream industries due to water limitations. This problem is compounded by the fact that the proposed IBT results in a near permanent removal of water from the Catawba River basin.
With most appropriations of water for industrial use, the user removes the water, treats it, and then returns it to the same basin so that downstream impacts are minimized. With this IBT, the transfer of water to the Rocky River basin would be permanent. The flows out of the Catawba would never return to the basin where they originated. Concord and Kannapolis project significant additional water needs by 2035, but the Catawba Basin is likely to grow even more and will need this water to sustain its growth. When the prospect of additional industrial activity is combined with the re-licensing of the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project operated by Duke and the Yadkin Hydroelectric Projects operated by Alcoa and Progress Energy, clearly water flows in this growing area should not be restricted.
We are not alone in our concerns. Caldwell County, Lincoln County, Gaston County, the City of Mount Holly, and others in North Carolina have passed resolutions opposing this IBT until FERC re-licensing of these hydroelectric plants is completed. The South Carolina General Assembly and nearly all South Carolina counties along the Catawba River have gone even further, passing resolutions opposing the IBT altogether.
In the eastern half of the United States, the doctrine of equitable apportionment governs riparian and water rights. Downstream users have a stake in decisions about the appropriation of upstream waters. Recognizing the concerns that this proposed IBT has raised, we appreciate the commission's willingness to schedule public hearings on September 7 and September 19 about the IBT, including one near the North Carolina-South Carolina border. We hope that this will lead to reconsideration of this proposal. We urge the commission to reject the pending application, and in all events, to work closely with the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Advisory Commission to make sure that the rightful concerns of downstream users are protected in any decision you make.
Thank you for considering our views on this vitally important issue, which could have a profound and permanent effect on the future of our region. We are ready to work with you in the search for better solutions, but we cannot support the pending application.
Respectfully,
John M. Spratt, Jr.
Member of Congress
James E. Clyburn
Member of Congress
http://www.house.gov/list/press/sc05_spratt/water_transfer.html