week of 1/14/04
 
 
 


What has Duke done for you lately?
By Becky Johnson

This year Duke Power will apply for a new permit to operate 11 hydro-power dams on the Tuckasegee and Nantahala rivers. In exchange for using a public resource for a private, for-profit enterprise, Duke must compensate the public with various kickbacks. If granted, Duke’s permit will be good for 30 to 40 years according to federal regulations.

So far, Duke has agreed to provide economic development grants, funds for aquatic research, funds for environmental restoration, new public access areas along both rivers and a park along the shore of Lake Glenville.

Duke contends that the removal of the Dillsboro dam also should qualify as part of its compensation package to the region. A free-flowing river through Dillsboro would benefit river recreation and would have environmental benefits by allowing unfettered migration of aquatic species, according to Duke. Duke claims it is providing this benefit at an expense — it is not only giving up profits from future power production at the dam, but will spend $500,000 on the dam removal.

But opponents disagree. According to Roger Turner with the regional environmental group WNC Alliance, getting rid of the Dillsboro dam will not be a sacrifice for Duke, but will be a boon to the company.

The Dillsboro dam is the second smallest dam in the state, Turner said. It produces a minimal amount of electricity in the scheme of Duke’s operation. The dam is 80 years old. The average lifespan of concrete is 100 years, so the dam will need a major overhaul in the next decade, Turner said.

In addition, the dam was poorly maintained by its former owner and thousands of tons of sediment were allowed to accumulate behind the dam. A major dredging process would be required by Duke in the next 15 years, Turner said. Duke’s plan to remove the dam and let the sediment simply flow downstream would save Duke this expense, Turner said.

“It’s in Duke’s interest not to have to deal with this dam,” Turner said.

David Wheeler with the Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee River agreed.

“They (Duke) are going to come out way ahead by removing the dam. This is a cost savings for them,” Wheeler said.

If it is beneficial to Duke to remove the dam, it should not qualify as part of Duke’s compensation package in its permit application, critics said.

“Removal of the Dillsboro dam should only serve as mitigation for the Dillsboro dam, not for other hydro projects (on the Tuck),” stated a letter of opposition filed by the Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District with the federal government.

“They are getting mucho bang for their buck out of the dam removal,” Turner said.

Dam removal or no dam removal, several citizen groups and local government agencies are unhappy with Duke’s concessions and believe the company should do more for the region.

The decision lies in hands of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as to what compensation Duke must provide the region to be issued a new permit.

Those who oppose Duke claim it is now or never to get appropriate compensation from the utility for its use of public resources in the region. Several entities, from national environmental groups to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners, plan to lobby FERC during the permit process this year.