Before anyone can get permission to permanently remove water from a river in NC, they must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Interbasin Transfer Petition. NC law requires that the applicant meet a very high burden of proof and show that the benefits of the interbasin transfer outweigh the detriments. One way an applicant might try to sidestep this burden of proof is to file incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information. The applicant might tell one side of the story and then manipulate statistics, study results and water modeling exercises in such a way that it appears there are no detriments caused by the transfer.

Here are critical facts and information that Concord and Kannapolis and their engineering consultant, CH2M Hill have left out of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and petition:

1. They describe the impacts of the 2002 drought on Concord and Kannapolis and fail to provide the same information for the Catawba, for example:
•  they never included the fact that some Catawba Basin drinking water providers (cities and counties) nearly ran out of water and had to enact severe water conservation measures to sustain water supplies in 2002;
• they did not provide factual information that almost every boat ramp and public access area on all eleven Catawba River lakes were closed because water levels were so low.
2. They include the Safe Yield data from their local water resources because it shows how little water is left there but they fail to include the same data about the Catawba. If the Safe Yield data was provided for the Catawba River it would clearly illustrate that the Catawba has very little water left to use. Concord, Kannapolis, CH2M Hill and the Division of Water Resources were repeatedly told that the Safe Yield data from the Catawba is missing and they still refuse to include the information even though it is readily available. All they have to do is cut and paste the data from the Duke studies and place it in the petition or the EIS.
3. Future growth plans for Concord and Kannapolis are included to illustrate the demand for water is growing there. No growth plans were included for any county, city or town in the Catawba. No mention is made of the fact that several cities and counties in the Catawba Basin have a much greater rate of growth than Concord and Kannapolis.
4. Water quantities were modeled using a computer simulation developed specifically for computing the hydropwer operation impacts of the 11 Duke Power dams on the Catawba River. The model used was not designed to measure the impacts of interbasin transfers. Nowhere in the record do Concord and Kannapolis disclose that the inputs used to run the computer model are speculative and unapproved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The truth is that the modeling results are unreliable because the model was misapplied to evaluate something it wasn't designed for and because the inputs are subject to change by FERC. Rather than disclose these facts, Concord and Kannapolis continue to tout the flawed, misapplied model results as justification that the IBT should be approved.
5. A crucial fact left out of the evidence is that the Yadkin-Pee Dee basin is 2.2 times larger than the Catawba but has only about 25 percent more people. Both basins have essentially the same average annual rainfall. Therefore, the Yadkin-Pee Dee has almost twice as much surface water per person from rain as the Catawba.
6. Concord-Kannapolis list the costs of 6 different alternatives to meet water demands. Their "preferred alternative" of removing water from both the Catawba and the Yadkin Pee-Dee is the most expensive alternative. Alternative 2 draws all its water from the Yadkin-Pee Dee basin and returns it there. It costs $22.4 million less than the "preferred alternative".  The cost information comparing different alternatives was provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statment. Here are the cost estimates calculated by Concord and Kannapolis:

   • Alt 1                $   86.5 M

   • Alt 2                $ 116.3 M

   • Alt 3                $   80.4 M

   • Preferred Alt   $ 138.7 M

   • Alt 4A              $   93.4 M

   • Alt 4B              $ 107.7 M

7. North Carolina Interbasin Transfer law (NCGSA § 143-215-22i) requires Concord and Kannapolis to determine “the present and reasonably foreseeable future detrimental effects” on the source river basin, including present and future effects on: 

   • “public, industrial and agricultural water supply needs,”

   • “wastewater assimilation,”

   • “water quality,”

   • “fish and wildlife habitat,”

   • “hydroelectric power generation,”

   • “navigation and recreation.” 

   Concord and Kannapolis failed to conduct any wastewater assimilation studies, water quality modeling, navigation & recreation studies or fish & wildlife habitat impacts as specifically required by law.  None of this information is provided anywhere in the petition, the Final EIS or any other document made available to the public. Therefore the conclusions that there are no impacts to the Catawba are based on an incomplete record that fails to meet the standard of law.

8. The request by Concord and Kannapolis is excessive. The amount of water they requested is more than double the production of any public water supplier in either the upper or lower Catawba Basin. They request more water than currently used by either Hickory, Belmont, Mount Holly, Rock Hill or Chester. When combined with the Charlotte IBT, the amount of flow removed exceeds all of the current public water production in the upper or lower Catawba. Concord and Kannapolis did not disclose comparison information showing that their request exceeds the current usage of almost every city and county currently depending on the Catawba for drinking water, except Charlotte. When put into context and compared against existing water users it becomes apparent that Concord and Kannapolis request is  excessive. The Catawba River should not be removed to water lawns in eastern Cabarrus County. 

The practice of cherry picking data and using only the information that supports a flawed proposal and then failing to provide the other half of the data because it illustrates the detriments of the proposal, is fundamentally dishonest. Why do Concord and Kannapolis refuse to present a balanced set of facts and tell the whole truth? Because if an unbiased study reporting a complete anaylisis of the benefits and detriments of this interbasin transfer was conducted it is unlikely this petition would succeed.

The history of the Colorado River and many other western rivers proves that the policy of allowing anybody to permanently remove millions of gallons of water from a river on a daily basis is an utter and complete failure. It devastates the ecology of the river and impacts all those that depend on the water for life. It is bad public policy to take water out of one river to fuel unsustainable and uncontrolled growth for cities in another river basin.

New public policies being established in the United States and Canada acknowlege the absurdity of interbasin transfers. In December 2005, the federal governments of Canada and the US as well as 8 states and 2 Canadian provinces banned any further interbasin transfers from the Great Lakes. This new interstate and international agreement is called the Great Lakes Sustainable Water Agreement.

North Carolina has a choice with the Concord and Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer. It can either repeat the mistakes of the west or it can embrace the wisdom sustainability.

The way to do that is to to cap interbasin transfers from the Catawba River like the governments of Canada and the US did for the Great Lakes last year.  Concord and Kannapolis water supply needs can and should be met from Charlotte’s existing IBT allocation, and another permanent withdrawal should not be approved. Charlotte already has an IBT permit for a 33 million gallons per day from the Catawba. Currently, Charlotte is using approximately half of 33 mgd IBT allotted to them by the EMC several years ago. If Concord and Kannapolis want Catawba River water then they need to parter with Charlotte for regional progress and negotiate a water sharing agreement that does not require any additional IBT's from the Catawba River.

Before they complete this agreement though, the EMC should require Concord and Kannapolis to correct the deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement. It does not serve the state of NC to allow IBT applicants to get away with filing incomplete and unbalanced information. The practice of accepting sub-standard IBT petition's and Environmental Impact Statements and then rewarding that activity by granting them permanent use of more water than most existing water users, only encourages the next applicant to do the same. Write a letter to Phil Fragapane at the Division of Water Resources and EMC members today. Tell them to deny the Concord/Kannpolis IBT because the petition/EIS does not meet the standard of law,  the request is exessive and if granted will harm the Catawba River for generations to come.