To the Editor:

I grew up in Gaston County and have no sentimental attachment to the Dillsboro Dam or town, but I spent six years fighting the removal of that dam because I believe that the removal of the dam has no environmental benefit and no benefit to the general public.

Before Duke Power acquired Nantahala Power and Light (NPL), NPL contracted regular dredging of Dillsboro Pond, which allowed the dam and the relatively still waters of the pond to act as a sediment trap. When Duke Power took over they ceased the dredging operations, which allowed the pond to fill up to capacity and it no longer functions as a sediment trap. I do not recall anyone claiming that muddy water going into Dillsboro pond crossed the dam clear. In relative terms I am sure there is some truth to the statement, whether or not it was actually made.

The Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee River still monitors the river for turbidity and certain pollutants. No one before the preparations for the dam relicensings regularly monitored the Appalachian Elktoe Mussel or any of the other threatened species that occur in the watershed.

Fred Alexander has been fond of making the statement that there will be more generation without Dillsboro Dam than with the dam. He has now modified the statement to say that the loss of generation will be minimized with the removal of the Dillsboro dam. What he is actually saying is that because Duke Power has agreed to give “recreational flows” for the rafting businesses benefit, they will use those releases to generate electricity in the NPL area during the middle of the night when there is little local demand for more generation but they can sell it out of area so Duke still comes out.

This is called co-opting, or you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. The rafting companies all signed the stakeholder agreement for Duke. I do not consider the rafting businesses general public recreation. To me they are more a tourist entertainment. The percentage of electricity used in the NPL area that is actually generated in the NPL area is about 40 to 45 percent of the total usage. If the Dillsboro dam were to be left in place and the generation equipment brought up to state-of-the-art standards, then the total generation of Duke’s NPL facilities would be increased and they could still give the rafting companies increased flows.

Here is what I believe to be the crux of the matter. Mitigation costs may not be recovered by including them in the rate base, they can not cause your electricity costs to go up. If Duke is allowed to remove the Dillsboro Dam as the major part of its mitigation package for the relicensing of their several dams they will not have to spend many millions of dollars on mitigation they cannot recover through the normal course of their business.

They will take approximately $1.2 billion out of the NPL area as revenues if prices and usage stay the same as now if the licenses are for 40 years. They will spend about $8 million, by Duke’s calculation, and remove the dam for this privilege. If the dam is not removed then Duke will have to renegotiate the mitigation package and maybe we will get some truly significant and needed mitigation.

Bill Lyons

Cullowhee