JULY 2, 2009 ISSUE
Boone, Ashe Officials Met With Citizen Opposition at Water Intake Meeting
Process to Establish Intake Moves Forward Despite Concerns
Town of Boone officials told citizens during the June 23 meeting that, if the project was approved, the pump station located off Brownwood Road would be designed to look like a barn—complete with a barn quilt—set back from the river, helping ease aesthetic concerns.
As part of an effort to update the public about a proposed water intake facility in the Brownwood area of Watauga County, the Ashe County Board of Commissioners asked the Town of Boone to provide information in a public meeting on June 23 at Westwood Elementary School in West Jefferson. Approximately 125 concerned citizens attended the meeting—the first joint meeting between Boone and Ashe officials regarding the proposed project—which was extended from three hours to four in order to hear from all in attendance.
“The meeting was good for information. It was a good chance for people in Boone, Watauga County and Ashe County to learn more about the project. The tone of it was not the greatest, especially from the people in opposition,” said Ashe County Commissioner Gary Barber, who added that a majority of the attendees were in opposition to the proposed project. Barber said many of the citizens who spoke during the meeting made statements against the project as opposed to asking questions, but some of the speakers did ask questions that were “legitimate concerns,” such as questions about residual pharmaceuticals left in the water after it is replaced from the wastewater treatment facility and questions about water levels after the facility is in operation.
“There were certainly people [at the meeting] against the project—lot of people opposed—but I thought we did all we could to answer their questions,” said Boone Town Manager Greg Young. “Some had a concern over running the river dry, and we assured them all that was not the case.”
According to Barber, most of the opposition to the project comes from a group of citizens from Todd, who have gathered hundreds of signatures on a petition to stop the project. The group and other citizens have criticized Ashe County government for allegedly ignoring their concerns and not doing more to stop the project, said Barber. Barber said he and the commissioners are sensitive to those constituents’ concerns, but he does not believe all of the citizens of Ashe County are in opposition to the project. Even if all Ashe County citizens were opposed, Barber said, little can be done to stop Boone’s permitting process for the project.
“I would lean toward another option if it was available, especially with no one knowing about the pharmaceuticals and how that would play out, but the process for North Carolina towns and counties to obtain water is what it is and I don’t think county commissioners can have much impact on that,” said Barber. “[The Town of Boone] can move forward with permitting [the project] no matter what. This meeting was for information; we knew we couldn’t change anything.”
“The [Ashe County Commissioners] definitely engaged in conversations at the meeting in regards to legal activity to change something in another county,” said Young. “[The commissioners] also made a statement that they want to review the documents to make sure what we’re saying is correct, and I think they will.”
Young said Boone is still “going through the process” to complete the project. Currently, according to Young, the USDA is reviewing an environmental study on the proposed location, and if the review warrants any revisions, those revisions will be made available for public comment. Also, Boone is in the process of re-classifying the river so that it can receive better watershed protection, said Young.
During the meeting, Boone Mayor Loretta Clawson presented a PowerPoint presentation to attendees that explained the background and specifics of the project.
Background
In 2004, the Town of Boone commissioned a water supply study and found that its current water supply was quickly approaching capacity. In 2005, Boone began an active water conservation campaign throughout the town and began hearing water allocation requests on a case-by-case basis to limit excessive and/or unplanned growth. The conservation measures helped but did not eradicate the town’s need for a new raw water intake in the near future.
Prior to the current proposed project, Boone already pulled water from the New River. After the water is used, it is pumped through an advanced wastewater treatment facility and then returned to the river. According to Clawson, 99 percent of the removed water is returned, and it is cleaner once returned compared to when it was removed. According to Clawson, tests on the returned water show that it has higher levels of oxygen, which is good for aquatic life, and that it has a better turbidity, or clarity.
Still faced with a water deficit, Clawson announced on May 8 that the Town of Boone had entered into a contract to acquire 10 acres of property along the New River—roughly 12 miles from Boone on the Ashe and Watauga County line—for the purpose of developing a new raw water intake. The new intake site, coupled with existing intakes on Winkler’s Creek and the South Fork of the New River, would help provide a sufficient amount of water to meet the town’s 20-year needs, according to Clawson.
Proposed Project
The major elements of the project, according to Brian Tripp of W.K. Dickson—the firm contracted by the Town of Boone to handle the project—are a new 4 million gallons per day raw water intake structure on the South Fork of the New River, near Brownwood, just west of the Watauga and Ashe County line; approximately 63,000 linear feet of raw water transmission line to connect the proposed intake to Boone’s water treatment plant on Deck Hill Road; and onsite improvements at the water treatment plant to increase its capacity from 3 million gallons per day to 4.5 million gallons per day.
During her presentation on June 23, Clawson said the proposed intake off Brownwood Road would put back the removed water upstream from the intake, making the river flow close to “original” levels.
Clawson acknowledged concerns over pharmaceuticals in the returned water and, while admitting that the town was sensitive to the concerns, stated that neither the federal nor state government has any standards or regulations regarding levels of pharmaceuticals in water discharged from a water treatment facility.
“No one knows how to regulate [pharmaceuticals in the water] yet,” said Barber. “[The group in opposition from Todd], for the most part, had every right to ask questions and make statements [about fearing pharmaceutical pollution] that they did. It is a concern.”
Barber admitted the Ashe County Commissioners, as a governing body, had no power to stop the project, even if it referenced speculations about potential pharmaceutical pollution since those regulations do not currently exist.
Using numbers in the town’s defense during the meeting, Clawson referenced studies conducted by local media that reported that in 2008 the South Fork of the New River recorded a flow of 96 cubic feet per second, which equals 62 million gallons of water per day. What’s more, Clawson said, the all-time lowest recorded flow of that section of the river was 65 cubic feet per second, which equals approximately 42 million gallons of water per day. According to Clawson, the town’s permit is requesting a maximum of 4 million gallons per day at the proposed site, and that at first, the town would only pull 1.5 million gallons of water per day from the site.
“Almost all of the water withdrawn would be returned to the river after going through one of the most advanced wastewater treatment facilities in the state,” added Clawson.
If the N.C. Senate approves House Bill 972, the proposed water intake would be allowed to be located in the riverbed and under the river, making the intake virtually invisible on the surface and clearing the river for recreational use (pictured on top). If the bill does not pass, the intake pipe would not be allowed to be placed in the riverbed and would instead be placed on the bank of the river (pictured on bottom).
Location & Design
During the meeting, Clawson said engineers hired by the town explored more than 27 possible water sources for the project. Some were interbasin transfers—or options that would move water from one basin to another—that are discouraged by state and environmental groups. The engineers even proposed using wells but found that 220 wells would be needed as well as 220 acres for their placement.
Clawson said the engineers chose the Brownwood site as the best option because it has sufficient water flow and meets strict governmental requirements, according to two independent engineering consultants.
Acknowledging that the New River is a national treasure, Clawson argued that the proposed project would actually bring on new watershed protection regulations, which she believed local conservation groups would be in favor of—especially the National Committee for the New River (NCNR), which was the first group to learn of the project, according to Clawson. In addition to alerting NCNR, Clawson said the town hosted four informational meetings in fall 2008 to hear concerns from citizens.
If the proposed project is given the green light, Clawson said that the pump station at the site would be designed to look like a barn—complete with a barn quilt—set back from the river.
“We want this project to be environmentally sensitive just like everybody else,” said Young. “We want [the pump station] to blend in with the environment and also want more buffering between the facility and the river.”
According to Maggie Tilley, president of G&T Communications—the company hired by the Town of Boone for communications regarding the project—some meeting attendees and opponents of the project are expressing confusion over House Bill 972, which if passed, according to Tilley and Clawson, would allow the water intake itself to be in the riverbed and under the river, making the intake virtually invisible on the surface and clearing the river for recreational use. If the bill does not pass, Clawson said the intake pipe would not be allowed to be placed in the riverbed and would instead be placed on the bank of the river. Attendees at the June 23 meeting did not discuss or ask questions concerning House Bill 972, according to Tilley and Young.
“There was some confusion [about House Bill 972]; a lot of people thought the bill would give us special privileges to go around the permitting process, but that’s not the case. We still have to continue on with the normal permitting process,” explained Young.
According to the North Carolina General Assembly’s website, House Bill 972 cleared the N.C. House last session after being introduced by Rep. Cullie Tarleton (D-93) and is now in a N.C. Senate committee. To read the bill and follow its progress, click to www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=H+972&submitButton=Go.
Community Interest
News & Notes
Events
Arts & Entertainment
BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT
