INTERBASIN TRANSFER INFORMATION

North Carolina leaders to be recognized during Catawba Riverfest on September 15

Area government leaders discuss strategies in its opposition of the IBT

Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer Update

Decision on Interbasin Transfer Request Postponed

Message from Mayor Rudy Wright and Bus Information

Petition to send to Governor Mike Easley

News Release about IBT Petition

Letter to Governor Mike Easley from Mayor Rudy Wright

Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the Interbasin Transfer (IBT) of Water to Concord and Kannapolis from Catawba and Yadkin River basins.    

Where did the request come from? Concord and Kannapolis petitioned the N.C. Department of Natural Resources to allow an IBT of water from the Catawba and Yadkin River basins.  Concord and Kannapolis have asked for a minimum of 22 million gallons per day up to 36 million gallons per day.  To put it in perspective: Thirty- six (36) million gallons per day is equal to:

• Almost half the summer time flow of the Linville River flowing into Lake James.
• More than twice the daily water production of the Hickory's regional water plant.

 Why is the City of Hickory, along with the 27 other governments within the Greater Hickory Metro opposed to this request? 

• Permanent removal of water from the Catawba River will reduce lake levels in all 11 Catawba River lakes including the following lakes: James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Lookout Shoals, Norman, Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek and Wateree. Evaluations and documentation supporting the IBT are inadequate and deficient, making it impossible to know the true Environmental Impact of the IBT on the Catawba and on the Yadkin/Pee-Dee. The water quantity modeling information for the Yadkin/ Pee Dee was left blank in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing process for Duke Energy to continue the operation of dams on the Catawba River is not finished; therefore water requirements, low inflow protocols and lake levels are not approved by FERC yet. Drought times would cause flows and water levels to decrease substantially. All public water suppliers in the Catawba Basin would face at least eight (8) extra months of water conservation measures during a drought.  This extra conservation for users outside the Catawba River Basin will seriously reduce the revenues needed to operate the public water and sewer systems inside the basin. Aquatic life would lose water during critical summer low flow conditions.
• Cities and Counties within the Catawba River Basin would lose water resources for future economic and population growth.

 Water is a valuable resource that is finite in nature.  As the population increases so does the consumption of water.  In 1999, the Greater Hickory Metro experienced the first year of a drought that lasted until 2003.  Do you remember docks that were high and dry?  Many towns found their water resources were not adequate and were forced to make significant decisions.  To be fair Concord and Kannapolis were required to enact water restrictions, but that happened in the Greater Hickory Metro area as well.   Concord and Kannapolis are saying that regionalism is important to the future of their area.  That is true.  It is also important to the future of the Greater Hickory Metro.  We all experience similar challenges for economic growth and development.  This proposal should not be considered as "us" versus "them."  Opposition to this request extends well beyond the Metro.  Lake organizations from Lake James to Lake Wateree are opposed.  Caldwell and Lincoln Counties have passed resolutions in opposition.  Gaston County, Belmont, and Mount Holly have passed resolutions asking for the decision to be delayed until the FERC relicensing is completed.  Chester, Lancaster, Kershaw, and Fairfield counties in South Carolina have passed resolutions in opposition. 

CONCORD-KANNAPOLIS INTERBASIN TRANSFER TALKING POINTS

Shenandoah River Study conducted by VaTech

 

Written comments on the FEIS should be mailed to:

Phil Fragapane, Division of Water Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

Comments may also be submitted electronically to Phil.Fragapane@ncmail.net. Mailed and emailed comments will be given equal weight.

The comment period closes on September 30, 2006. Comments should also be copied to the members of the Environmental Management Commission

David H. Moreau - dmoreau@email.unc.edu
Charles H. Peterson - cpeters@email.unc.edu
Delilah Blanks - blanksdb@carolina.net
Donnie W. Brewer - Dbrewer@riversandassociates.com
John S. Curry - jscattorney@bellsouth.net
Marion E. Deerhake - med@rti.org
Tom Ellis - tellis3@msn.com
John Gessaman- jrgessaman@econdev.org
E. Leo Green, Jr. - Elg@greeneng.com
Freddie Harrill - ffharill@carolina.rr.com
Larry M. Jordan - lgjordan@bellsouth.net
Kevin C. Martin - Kmartin@sandEC.com
Dickson Phillips III - dphillips@lapgh.com
Frank S. Shaw - rfsshaw@earthlink.net
Stephen Smith - smith@mspraleigh.com
Kenny R. Waldroup - Kwaldroup@ci.zebulon.nc.us
Charles Wakild - cwakild@NewStartProperties.net
Steven D. Weber - steveweber@parkerpoe.com
Forrest R. Westall, Sr. - forrest@mcgillengineers.com

North Carolina Department of Natural and Environmental Resources regarding this issue.

Catawba River Keepers website concerning the IBT