×

Warning

JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 887

Task force seeks answers to water shortages

As a task force continues to probe solutions to the drought-induced water shortage in Jackson County, one idea on the table is passing out low-flow showerheads and aerators for the public to install on their faucets.

Task Force Chairman Tom Massie said despite all the rain lately the region remains in a drought, which is threatening the water supply, particularly of wells. According to the Health Department, 25 percent of the new well permits issued last year were for people who had wells or springs run dry.

The logitics of passing out water-saving devices would still have to be worked out, said Massie. The devices only cost around $4, he said.

Massie said he does not know if the water-saving devices can be given to the public for free. They could possibly be distributed when someone obtains a building permit, he said.

Using cisterns and rain gardens to collect storm water to use for irrigation can also conserve water, he said.

Short-term solutions from the task force are expected to be ready in March and presented to the county commissioners and towns in the county in March, Massie said.

The task force was formed in the fall after several residents reported that their wells had run dry due to the drought. Some were forced to move out of their homes.

The task force is scheduled to meet again Feb. 19 at 6 p.m. in Jackson County Courthouse.

Task force members have learned about the scientific side of the water cycle in a presentation by task force member Dr. Mark Lord, who is the department head of the Hydrogeology, Geomorphology and Soils Department at Western Carolina University.

The average Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority residential customer uses an average of 216 gallons of water per day — far more than the national average of 70 gallons, TWASA Executive Director Joe Cline. That means a household of three is using about 20,000 gallons of water per month.

Cline said anyone with a well should be concerned about it running dry.

Massie stressed the importance of educating the public about the importance of saving water.

Cline said TWASA customers are “wasteful” with water.

Massie emphasized that TWASA customers represent a small number of the county’s overall population. But the large volume of water TWASA customers are using begs the question of how much those on wells are using.

It is unclear how public education could be achieved, but Massie said it could possibly be communicated through county public service announcements.

The task force is composed of a representative from the county and each town in Jackson County as well representatives from WCU, the Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority and Southwestern Community College

Jackson leaders grapple over ending fight with Duke

An effort to end a six-year-long dispute between Jackson County and Duke Energy failed in a 3-2 vote last week, as the county commissioners decided to move forward with the case to save the Dillsboro dam.

County Commissioner Tom Massie made a motion to end the legal fight against Duke, allowing the utility to dredge the river and move forward with tearing down the dam.

Massie has been the lone commissioner in favor of ending the fight against Duke, saying it is a waste of time and money for the county to continue. For the first time he was joined in that sentiment by Commissioner William Shelton.

By continuing to fight the matter, Jackson County is “squandering” taxpayer money on an “un-winnable case,” Massie said, adding that some $200,000 has been spent by the county so far on legal fees and technical assistance in the case.

County Commission Chairman Brian McMahan voted against dropping the case because he still thinks it is “winnable.”

Commissioner Mark Jones said the county might as well continue to fight the case because it has already invested so much money and it doesn’t look like much more will have to be spent to see it through.

“I am for the preservation of the Dillsboro dam,” said Jones.

Commissioner Joe Cowan also voted against stopping the fight.

Shelton, even though he voted to throw in the towel, also favors preserving the dam, but thinks it is a lost cause because Duke has so much more money and resources that it can bury the county.

“I agree with the fight in principle,” Shelton said.

 

Hedging its bets

There are basically three different tracks the county is pursuing to stop demolition of the Dillsboro Dam and to exact higher compensation out of Duke for its host of dams straddling Jackson County rivers.

One track is refusing to issue certain permits that the county says are necessary to tear down the dam. The county says it can’t issue the permits until the other matters are resolved, but Duke thinks the county is simply trying to delay the razing of the dam.

Another track involves a challenge to the state water quality permit needed to tear down the dam. According to the county, the permit is flawed for a host of reasons, from lack of public notice to the lack of a proper environmental review.

The county got word late last week that the challenge, which was previously denied a hearing, now has a green light to move forward under an administrative law judge (see related article).

The final track deals with a federal permit issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The county says that permit is invalid because it was granted based on the invalid state water quality permit. The county also claims that FERC has not required Duke to provide adequate compensation to the region and overlooked environmental issues related to Duke’s dams.

That case is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

Through the years, several decisions have been handed down against Jackson County, and Massie doesn’t think things will change.

“I am against a federal court challenge,” he stated.

Massie added that the county’s arguments against Duke are merely technicalities.

The permits the county refuses to give Duke deal with dredging sediment backlogged behind the dam. The county says the silt must be dredged to prevent it from rushing downstream and causing environmental problems when the dam is removed.

Duke says it may not even need the county permits because it already has a state permit. But Duke has said it will not move forward without the county permits. Meanwhile, the state permit Duke is relying on is what’s being contested by the county.

Massie sees no reason why the county should withhold the permits for Duke to dredge, saying dredging the river “benefits all.”

There are several reasons why some want to save the Dillsboro dam. The dam is seen by some as a water feature that draws tourists, while others think it has historical significance. The dam could also be used to generate hydroelectricity.

 

Re-licensing

Duke must have a federal license to operate it series of hydropower dams, but those licenses are up for renewal. In order to get the new licenses, Duke must give back to the area it has profited from.

Duke has profited from using the Tuckasegee River to generate electricity, and therefore should make some payment to Jackson County when it comes time to re-license its dams.

Duke has proposed that it can pay back Jackson County by tearing down the dam, which will open up the river. Whitewater enthusiasts, such as the American Whitewater organization, have favored this.

Shelton said rather than Duke giving something back that benefits the entire county, it is simply pleasing special interests.

Instead of tearing down the dam (which Duke is no longer using to generate power anyway), Duke could give back to the county by providing slope stability and conservation easements, Shelton said.

What Duke is proposing doing for Jackson County “pales in comparison” to what it and other utilities have done in other areas in re-licensing agreements, Shelton said.

Duke may be refusing to give in to the county because it doesn’t want to set a precedent of giving more than it wants to, Shelton said.

Also Duke has proposed to give Jackson County $350,000 over the term of the re-licensing — potentially 40 years. Massie and Shelton agree that $350,000 over 40 years does not come close to compensating Jackson County for what Duke has made off its series of dams.

Shelton said Duke has not acted in good faith and said it is giving “very little back.”

“Our area deserves to be compensated for our resource,” he said.

Shelton said another option is taking over ownership of the dam through condemnation. By giving into Duke, Shelton said he is waving his white flag of surrender but at the same time the flag says, “Shame on Duke.”

Dillsboro dam fight heads into state hearing

In the latest in Jackson County’s quest to save the Dillsboro dam from demolition, the county will get its day in court to argue the merits of a state water quality permit that makes or breaks whether the dam comes down.

The county has secured a rehearing over the permit by an administrative law judge. The judge, Selina M. Brooks, ruled that based upon the county’s arguments there should be a rehearing to determine whether the state violated the N.C. Environmental Policy Act when issuing the water quality permit to Duke Energy.

The county alleges that the state did not assess whether dam removal was in the best interest of water quality compared to other alternatives. The county also charges that the state violated the State Environmental Policy Act by failing to conduct an analysis of the impacts of dam removal.

County Manger Ken Westmoreland said SEPA kicks in when public funds are used for a project, and in this case, the state has allocated $400,000 to help Duke with dam demolition. That should have triggered an extensive environmental review to determine whether state funds are being used in the best way

“They have done no such studies, and those studies don’t just happen overnight,” Westmoreland said.

The rehearing on the state permit could spark a rehearing on Duke’s federal permit as well. Westmoreland said the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington has ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct a rehearing into granting Duke a dam removal permit.

As a side note, an endangered species survey of the Appalachian Elktoe mussel is out of date, Westmoreland said. Duke’s survey of the elktoe mussel in the river is three years old, but federal law requires a survey no more than two years old before embarking on an activity that could impact the species’ habitat.

“There is a lot of backtracking that needs to be done,” Westmoreland said.

Massie questions permit hold-up

Jackson County Commissioner Tom Massie is skeptical of whether it is legal for the county to withhold permits that Duke Energy may need to tear down the Dillsboro dam.

Massie also questions whether Duke actually needs the county permits to tear down the dam.

“First, I am unsure that Duke even needs a permit from Jackson County, as the state of North Carolina and the Army Corps of Engineers are responsible for issuance of any permits for sediment removal within the state’s waterways,” Massie stated in a letter to County Manager Ken Westmoreland dated Dec. 15.

Massie is the lone commissioner wanting to back down from the fight with Duke over saving the dam, urging fellow commissioners for the past six months to back down, but to no avail.

Massie is also concerned that Duke isn’t being treated fairly by the county: “If anyone else had the necessary state and federal permits our issuance of a Land Development Compliance Permit or any others would be simply a formality to comply with our local laws.”

Massie added that the county must avoid any appearance of discrimination against Duke.

Moreover, Massie said the removal of the sediment from the river is a benefit to all, and the denial of the permits can be “construed as petty and/or obstructionism at best.”

The legality of withholding the permits is “questionable” and could embroil the county in an unnecessary legal battle, Massie wrote in the letter.

In the letter Massie urged Westmoreland to make sure the county is within its legal rights prior to issuing or denying the permits, including checking with the N.C. Attorney General.

“If these permits are denied, I would like to have a copy of the formal findings, including the legal basis for any denial,” Massie wrote.

If the legal findings are unclear, Massie urges the county to issue the permits.

County may meet with attorney on Duke permit dispute

The attorney representing Jackson County in its legal fight against Duke Energy was expected to meet with county commiseting Tuesday (Jan. 20).

The meeting will fall after The Smoky Mountain News’ deadline, but be sure to check smokymountainnews.com for a Web Extra or any developments in the case.

Jackson County Commissioner Tom Massie said the county’s attorney on the matter, Paul Nolan of Alexandria, Va., was scheduled to meet with the commissioners Tuesday.

In the latest in the legal battle, Duke has sued Jackson County for failing to issue permits the county says are needed to tear down the dam.

Massie said he will have lots of questions for Nolan, including whether the county has a legal basis for withholding the permits from Duke.

Massie has suggested that the county stop fighting Duke in the case and allow destruction of the dam. The county has exhausted all its legal options in the case, Massie has said.

Massie has questioned whether Duke actually needs county permits to tear down the dam.

“First, I am unsure that Duke even needs a permit from Jackson County, as the state of North Carolina and the Army Corps of Engineers are responsible for issuance of any permits for sediment removal within the state’s waterways,” Massie stated in a letter to County Manager Ken Westmoreland dated Dec. 15.

Massie also called the legality of withholding the permits “questionable.”

The county is requiring Duke to remove 70,000 cubic yards of sediment from the river before tearing down the dam but is refusing to issue the permits to do the work.

The county says it does not want to grant the permits until all appeals regarding the dam’s demolition are resolved.

The county wants to save the dam, and Duke wants to tear it down.

Duke says the county’s withholding of the permits is simply a move to delay demolition of the dam.

Duke, county at odds over permits

Duke Energy, which sued Jackson County two weeks ago for failing to issue county permits to tear down the Dillsboro dam, says it may not even need the contested permits.

But Jackson County Manager Ken Westmoreland and County Planner Linda Cable are adamant that Duke indeed needs the county permits.

Even though Duke doesn’t believe it needs the county permits it has applied for them anyway and doesn’t plan to go forward without them.

Duke is seeking permits to dredge the sediment out of the Tuckasegee River that has backlogged behind the Dillsboro dam. The state is requiring Duke to remove 70,000 cubic yards of sediment before tearing down the dam to prevent the sediment from rushing downstream and causing environmental problems.

Cable said Duke needs a Land Development Compliance Permit and the Floodplain Development Permit, but the county thus far has refused to grant them until the county’s legal appeals over tearing down the dam are resolved.

Duke believes the county is simply attempting to delay the demolition of the dam because the county wants to save it. Duke has obtained a state permit to dredge the river, raising the question of whether a county permit is also required.

“While the state permit and the local permits are not identical, we question whether such local permits are needed and have not received any explanation for the basis of the county’s withholding them,” said Duke Business Relations Manager Fred Alexander.

County Manger Ken Westmoreland admitted that it is “questionable” whether Duke needs the county Floodplain Permit but said the Land Development Compliance Permit is definitely required.

Effort to end Duke fight fails in Jackson County

An effort to end a six-year-long dispute between Jackson County and Duke Energy failed in a 3-2 vote Tuesday night (Jan. 20), as the county commissioners decided to move forward with the case to save the Dillsboro dam.

County Commissioner Tom Massie made the motion to end the legal fight against Duke and allow the utility to dredge the river and move forward with tearing down the dam.

Massie has been the lone commissioner in favor of ending the fight against Duke, saying it is a waste of time and money for the county to continue, but he was joined in that sentiment Tuesday by Commissioner William Shelton.

By continuing to fight the matter, Jackson County is “squandering” taxpayer money on an “un-winnable case,” Massie said, adding that some $200,000 has been spent by the county so far on legal fees and technical assistance in the case.

County Commission Chairman Brian McMahan voted against dropping the case because he still thinks it is “winnable.”

Commissioner Mark Jones said the county might as well continue to fight the case because it has already invested so much money and it doesn’t look like much more will have to be spent to see it through.

“I am for the preservation of the Dillsboro dam,” said Jones.

Commissioner Joe Cowan also voted against stopping the fight.

Shelton, even though he voted to end the case, also favors preserving the dam, but the thinks it is a lost cause because Duke has so much more money and resources to fight the case.

“I agree with the fight in principle,” Shelton said.

 

Three issues

There are basically three different tracks the county is pursuing to stop demolition fo the Dillsboro Dam and to exact higher compensation out of Duke for its host of dams straddling Jackson County rivers.

One track is refusing to issue certain permits that the county says are necessary to tear down the dam. The county says it can’t issue the permits until the other matters are resolved, but Duke thinks the county is simply trying to delay the razing of the dam.

Another track involves an appeal of the state water quality permit needed to tear down the dam. According to the county, the permit is flawed for a host of reasons, from improper public notice to the lack of a proper environmental review.

The county’s challenge of that permit is now awaiting a decision from an administrative law judge.

The final track deals with a federal permit issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The county says that permit is invalid because it was granted based on the invalid state water quality permit. The county also claims that FERC has not required Duke to provide adequate compensation to the region and overlooked environmental issues related to Duke’s dams.

That case is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

Through the years, Jackson County has been ruled against in several decisions, and Massie doesn’t think things will change.

“I am against a federal court challenge,” he stated.

Massie added that the county’s arguments against Duke are merely technicalities.

For example, another reason the county says Duke’s state water quality permit is invalid is that the permit states that no public money will be used to pay for the demolition of the dam. In fact, $400,000 of state money has been earmarked for the demolition of the dam.

The permits the county refuses to give Duke deal with dredging sediment behind the dam. The county says the silt must be dredged to prevent it from rushing downstream and causing environmental problems when the dam is removed.

Duke says it may not even need the county permits because it already has a state permit. But Duke has said it will not move forward without the county permits.

Massie sees no reason why the county should withhold the permits for Duke to dredge, saying dredging the river “benefits all.”

There are several reasons why some want to save the Dillsboro dam. The dam is seen by some as a water feature that draws tourists, while others think it has historical significance. The dam could also be used to generate hydroelectricity.

 

Re-licensing

When a utility such as Duke re-licenses it must give back to the area it has profited from.

Duke has profited from using the Tuckaseegee River to generate electricity, and therefore should make some payment to Jackson County when it comes time to re-license its dams.

Duke has proposed that it can pay back Jackson County by tearing down the dam, which will open up the river. Whitewater enthusiasts, such as the American Whitewater organization, have favored this.

Shelton said rather than Duke giving something back that benefits the entire county, it is simply pleasing special interests.

Instead of tearing down the dam (which Duke is no longer using to generate power), Duke could give back to the county by providing slope stability and conservation easements, Shelton said.

What Duke is proposing doing for Jackson County “pales in comparison” to what it and other utilities have done in other areas in re-licensing agreements, Shelton said.

Duke may be refusing to give into the county because it doesn’t want to set a precedent of giving more than it wants to, Shelton said.

Also Duke has proposed to give Jackson County $350,000 over the term of the re-licensing — 40 years. Massie and Shelton agree that $350,000 over 40 years does not come close to compensating Jackson County for what Duke has made off the Dillsboro dam’s hydroelectricity.

Shelton said Duke has not acted in good faith and said it is giving “very little back.”

“Our area deserves to be compensated for our resource,” he said.

Shelton said another option is taking over ownership of the dam through condemnation.

By giving into Duke, Shelton said he is waving his white flag of surrender but at the same time the flag says, “Shame on Duke.”

Duke sues Jackson County for holding permits hostage

Duke Energy filed a lawsuit against Jackson County and county Planning Director Linda Cable on Monday (Jan. 5) for failing to issue permits necessary for the removal of the Dillsboro dam.

Duke warned the county about a month ago that if the Land Development Compliance Permit and the Floodplain Development Permit were not issued within a month that further legal action would follow. Yet the county has continued to hold up the permits.

The state is requiring Duke to remove approximately 70,000 cubic yards of sediment backlogged behind the dam before tearing it down.

Duke already has state permits in hand for the dredging, but seems to need permits from the county as well. But the county refuses to grant them until an administrative appeal over tearing down the dam is resolved. It is unclear when the appeal may be resolved.

Duke believes the county is purposely delaying tearing down the dam. The county wants to save the dam and has been involved in a lengthy battle against Duke over the issue. (see article on page 8)

The lawsuit seeks damages in “excess of $10,000 for defendants’ illegal actions.”

The removal of the dam is required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Duke notes in the lawsuit.

“Jackson County’s actions are utterly without legal foundation and taken for an improper purpose in violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights and have and will continue to cause the plaintiff damage,” the lawsuit states.

Duke has met all requirements for the permits, and the county’s withholding of them is arbitrary and capricious, according to the lawsuit.

And the county’s refusal to grant the permits violates the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution and the equal protection and law of the land clauses of the N.C. Constitution, the lawsuit states.

Duke Business Relations Manager Fred Alexander of Franklin said Duke does not believe it needs the permits but in an effort to be non-confrontational applied for them. Duke applied for the Land Development Compliance Permit in July and the Floodplain Permit in November.

The normal practice of the county is to issue the permits within one week, the lawsuit states.

Duke received a state permit from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources in June for the sediment dredging.

County Commission Chairman Brian McMahan had no comment on the lawsuit Monday, saying he had not read it.

Smart Roads calls on county to step up in 107 planning

A member of the Jackson County Smart Roads group told county commissioners on Monday (Jan. 5) that there needs to be more planning when it comes to the proposed N.C. 107 connector, a.k.a. Southern Loop.

The proposed road would connect N.C. 107 with U.S. 23/74 to relieve congestion on N.C. 107.

The Smart Roads representative, Jeanette Evans, said it is up to the county to develop a vision for future growth and development, particularly along the county’s primary commercial artery. She suggested that now is a good time for the county to launch a plan for N.C. 107 since the N.C. Department of Transportation is footing the bill to come up with solutions to congestion, whether it’s building a by-pass or improving the existing roadway.

It may be a good idea to develop an individual plan for N.C. 107 similar to what has been done on the 441 corridor, Evans said.

Evans, who is the Smart Roads representative on the Jackson County Transportation Task Force, said whatever is done to N.C. 107 will have a permanent affect on the county. The transportation task force is just in the “modeling stage” of determining how growth will affect N.C 107.

The fear is that the Southern Loop would destroy mountain landscapes.

County Commissioner Joe Cowan said N.C. 107 has been discussed for 10 years and has been “talked to death.” Cowan said Smart Roads has not developed one plan that addresses traffic concerns on N.C. 107. He said Smart Roads is “stagnant.”

But Susan Leveille, who is also a member of Smart Roads, said it is not her organization’s fault that progress has been slow. She laid the blame on DOT.

Cowan said DOT is not going to “decimate” a scenic area but said a bypass needs to be built to provide motorists with some relief.

Evans said Smart Roads is in place to advocate the community’s input on the road.

County Commissioner Tom Massie said there is already a county land use plan in place that addresses protecting scenic and cultural resources. Massie noted that the land use plan should be used in planning for N.C. 107 since the plan was developed with input form the public.

Massie suggested that the county planner and DOT planner communicate more about the county’s land use plan.

DOT takes input on N.C. 107 project

Jackson County residents weighed in on proposed road improvements for N.C. 107 at a citizens informational workshop Feb. 25 at Western Carolina University’s Ramsey Center.

Smokey Mountain News Logo
SUPPORT THE SMOKY MOUNTAIN NEWS AND
INDEPENDENT, AWARD-WINNING JOURNALISM
Go to top
Payment Information

/

At our inception 20 years ago, we chose to be different. Unlike other news organizations, we made the decision to provide in-depth, regional reporting free to anyone who wanted access to it. We don’t plan to change that model. Support from our readers will help us maintain and strengthen the editorial independence that is crucial to our mission to help make Western North Carolina a better place to call home. If you are able, please support The Smoky Mountain News.

The Smoky Mountain News is a wholly private corporation. Reader contributions support the journalistic mission of SMN to remain independent. Your support of SMN does not constitute a charitable donation. If you have a question about contributing to SMN, please contact us.