Uncategorized

Archive for Uncategorized

KERR LAKE LEVEL RISES – RUNS SOME CAMPERS OFF SITES

URGENT ALERT! The US Army Corps of Engineers this afternoon asked Kerr Lake Park Watch to assist in notifying the public with interest in the lake, that the lake is rapidly rising from an elevation of about 304.8 mean feet above sea level to 308.0 sometime Sunday. This rapid rise is due to high and somewhat unexpected rains yesterday and today ranging from 2 to 4 inches in the Roanoke River Basin all the way up to Smith Mountain Lake.

IF YOU HAVE CAMPING PLANS AT A KERR LAKE PARK, particularly those in the seven State Recreation Areas on the North Carolina side of the lake, you should call the state park office at Kerr Lake or the state reservation center. Generally, the parks on the Virginia side are not as impacted as NC at 308.0 above mean sea level. Normal full pool of Kerr Lake is 300.0.

On the NC side, rangers, maintenance people and practically all park staff have been moving some campers to available sites, sending others home and shutting down electrical camping boxes.

Posted in: KLPW - MAIN NEWS, KLPW - WATER RELATED, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

JUNE AT KERR LAKE IS GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN – WATCH THE MOVIE!

A lot of time and space on KLPW is taken up with public issues, governmental policies and concerns and the like.  So we thought we’d share with you FIVE (5) MINUTES of pure family fun from Hibernia State Recreation Area and beyond with a video from KLPW member families including the Baileys and the Matthews.  The video is shot and produced by Joshua Bailey and we want to warn you;  there are portions of this video that are a little “drone.”  With that said click on this link, and even though we can’t believe that June is gone, and enjoy the beauty and see the fun that makes all of us love Kerr Lake and work so very hard on Kerr Lake Park Watch.

 

 

Posted in: KLPW - Boating and Related Improvements, KLPW - MAIN NEWS, KLPW - WATER RELATED, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

BIG BLOW UP SCHEDULED FOR KERR LAKE JULY 4TH!

The Vance County Tourism Development Authority will hold the 20th annual fireworks display over the water at beautiful Satterwhite Point, Kerr Lake, Henderson, NC on July 4.   Frankie Faucet and “the Drips” will perform Beach and Oldie’s music along with your favorites from 7:00 pm – 10:00 pm.

July 4th Vance Tourism

Bring a lawn chair, blanket and flash light, kick back and enjoy.  Come early and grill your own meal or enjoy great food provided by vendors.  T-Shirts, glow sticks and homemade ice cream will be available for sale.  Representative from the American Legion will provide American flags for sale throughout the evening will present flags to veterans who served our country.

Fireworks will light up the waters over Kerr Lake at 9:15 pm.  NC State Parks will charge a $6.00 parking fee per car. Time: 6:30 PM – 10:00 PM NO ALCOHOL ALLOWED!

For more information contact:  Nancy Wilson, Vance County Tourism Dept.- 252-438-2222 www.kerrlake-nc.com.

 

Posted in: KLPW - MAIN NEWS, KLPW - Park Entertainment/Events, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

Steele Creek Marina Thanks Military & Customers with BBQ & a BEAT for Memorial Day

We the people…who use Kerr Lake appreciate the commitment of all the companies who provide goods and services for us. And as we at Kerr Lake Park Watch know, all the different kinds of companies and organizations that sell us, serve us and sometimes save us, well, that’s a bunch of businesses because it takes a lot to serve the more than one and a half million people who boat, fish, ski, hike, walk, run, camp, picnic and cook and more at, on and in Kerr Lake.

 DSC00831 (1024x768)

One of the newer businesses that’s really trying to make a mark with new and improved services, products and rentals is Steele Creek Marina and Campground.  It’s really good to see Charles and Jill Robinson, the new proprietors of Steele Creek Marina stepping up and out with new services for their customers and for celebrating special times like Memorial Day.  The marina has a real family feeling to it now.

We thought you’d like a two-minute look at this special celebration of patriotism and customer appreciation.  Here’s the link:  Steele Creek Customer Appreciation & Memorial Day

 

Posted in: KLPW - Boating and Related Improvements, KLPW - Campground Facilities and Improvements, KLPW - MAIN NEWS, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

THERE’S STILL TIME FOR YOU TO WRITE YOUR KERR LAKE WATER WITHDRAWAL COMMENTS TO NC DENR

PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE IBT  or water transfer from Kerr Lake can still be made through April 30th.  You may simply send an email with your views to: kim.nimmer@ncdenr.gov.

Below are the three goals of the Kerr Lake area group, Preserve Our North Carolina Lakes Community and the message points that the group, the RRBA, KLPW, the Sierra Club and other groups all hope that citizens will use in their comments.

PHOTO_20150423_194849

Your email should speak to the proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System.  NCDENR will be accepting comments regarding the proposed certificate through April 30, 2015.  All comments received will be part of the public record, and will be included along with responses prepared by NCDENR as part of the Hearing Officer’s Report to the NC Environmental Management Commission.

The Environmental Management Commission is the decision-making body for the proposed IBT certificate.  NCDENR anticipates the final determination will be made at the Environmental Management Commission’s July 9th meeting.

Posted in: KLPW - Environmental, KLPW - MAIN NEWS, KLPW - WATER RELATED, KLPW - Water Safety, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

LACK OF MEDIA COVERAGE FORCES LAKE GROUP TO WORK EVEN HARDER AGAINST KERR LAKE WATER TRANSFER

 

They are not public speakers.  They are not tree huggers.  They are ordinary citizens, who farm, nurse, teach, promote Vance County, build houses and on and on, just citizens whose voices have been muffled as they try to slow precious water being taken from their homeland and sold for profit to more populous and thriving areas.  They want to be heard, they want their area around Kerr Lake to grow and prosper.  That’s it.

One must wonder who stifled the media coverage of a citizen’s group effort in Henderson last night. Ordinary folks are trying to slow a government-pushed fast track push to send Kerr Lake water outside of its service area.Those of us with Kerr Lake Park Watch saw WRAL extensively interviewing a City of Henderson official, and then, leave. KLPW’s Frank Timberlake was a speaker last night and sent his opinion to WRAL’s Adam Owens.

“Adam Owens – YOU DIDN’T EVEN STAY FOR THE MEETING! Yours is pitiful coverage of the Kerr Lake Water Withdrawal dilemma. You interviewed the bureaucrat and left. It’s not a debate. It is a battle of citizens against bureaucracy. It is the City of Henderson for profit, and the State of North Carolina for Tier 3 growth, trying to circumvent the intent of the law and to railroad through the Interbasin Transfer of 10 million plus gallons of Kerr Lake water to Franklin County and Raleigh, leaving the potential growth water for Granville, Vance and Warren Counties depleted. Understand that the City of Henderson gets over $2 million dollars a year for the water it now sells Franklin County, but Henderson spent nearly half a million building a pipeline to Franklin County, yet the west side of Kerr Lake doesn’t have any of the KLWRS’s water.


PHOTO_20150423_191241
More facts…

The truth is those 60 or so people last night at the Vance County Commissioners’ Room are trying to get signatures to stop the State of North Carolina’s DENR Division of Water Quality to approve the withdrawal, a process that was kept quiet and reduced from holding 3 public hearings to 1 and from advertising in 47 papers to 3 and the one used to promote the process to inform Vance, Granville and Warren citizens was the Mecklenburg Sun in Clarksville, VA, go figure.

 

So the band of citizens you left early last night are left with a half-ass story and must get petitions signatures without any strong media help, they must call their legislators and push not to stop the water transfer, but to halt it long enough for any Environmental Impact Study to be properly completed. Then they must decide if their citizen group, “Preserve Our North Carolina Lakes Community” along with the RRBA will take legal action.



PHOTO_20150423_194849
 

All this is about supplying water to Franklin County whose big industries have pulled Governor McCrory’s strings and said, “More water or we go.” For the people in the Kerr Lake area, once the water is sent elsewhere, the pipe will never again be cut off. The people of Vance, Warren and Granville look sadly down at the greedy City of Henderson which operates the Kerr Lake Water Resource System and say to all, “Let them build and expand their businesses here.”

If you want more info from the people and ordinary citizen side, go to the website www.Ej-pp.org. WRAL’S story says there’s a July deadline. The real deadline to stop the water sale and transfer is April 30th, only six days.

Adam, your excuse for leaving early as the group’s leaders begged you to stay, was that you needed some video of the lake. How many hours of B-roll video of Kerr Lake does WRAL have?

I fully expect to see you named as one of the Governor’s spokespeople. That’s what happens to reporters when they lose their objectivity.”

Understand that we at Kerr Lake Park Watch are as much opposed to the fast track approach and rule bending as we are the lack of an Environmental Impact Study being performed. Governor McCrory told us that he would cut red tape but he did not mention that he would lead the effort to circumvent the law or have the laws changed to make that happen, lessening citizen involvement.

It’s your lake up there, take it back or lose it.

Posted in: KLPW - MAIN NEWS, KLPW - WATER RELATED, KLPW - Water Safety, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

Roanoke River Group Says “It’s Against Riparian Rights” To Take Water From Kerr and Send to Raleigh and Elsewhere

Although the group, Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA), is working on a layman’s version of its opposition to the withdrawal of large amounts of water from Kerr Lake by the Kerr Lake Regional Water System to sell and send to Raleigh and other locations, Kerr Lake Park Watch is compelled to release the RRBA’s legal response to the proposal.

In supporting Deborah Ferruccio’s emergency meeting to get local citizens to help thwart approval of the plan, RRBA president Gene Addesso said, “Read our legal response to DENR on the KLWRS IBT Request at your emergency meeting.  The RRBA will be taking a position of opposing the transfer by April 30th.   Added points are:

1) The basis for just an EA and the FONSI is a flawed amendment to the IBT Statute and is illegal.

2) The Public Hearing conducted was not done according to the rule of the statute.

3) The request as presented is out of date and in error. E.G.  water being sold to Creedmoor by Oxford. “

That reference to Oxford’s plan is when an Oxford city employee suggested that Oxford might pay for all its water system and equipment by buying extra Kerr Lake water and selling around the Triangle. That plan was earlier thwarted.

The emergency meeting of the Preserve Our North Carolina Lakes Community is Thursday night, April 23 at 6:00 PM at the Vance Commissioners’ Room, 122 Young Street in Henderson.

AS A PUBLIC SERVICE, Kerr Lake Park Watch presents in its entirety the legal response by the Roanoke River Basin Association to increased water withdrawal from Kerr Lake.

 

Environmental Law & Policy Clinic                                         Ryke Longest, Director

Box 90360                                                                                     Telephone: (919) 613-7169

Durham, NC 27708-0360                                                              Toll Free: (888) 600-7274

Fax: (919) 613-7262

February 20, 2015

Harold Brady

DENR-Division of Water Resources

Planning Branch

1611 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

By fax (919) 733-3558 and

e-mail to: harold.m.brady@ncdenr.gov

RE: Environmental Assessment of Proposed KLRWS Interbasin Transfers Dear Harold,

On behalf of the Roanoke River Basin Association, we submit the following comments regarding the environmental document submitted by Kerr Lake Regional Water System and the responsive document issued by Tom Fransen, “Finding of No Significant Impact,” and submitted to the North Carolina’s Department of Administration for review in the Clearinghouse. In that notice, your office directed that comments regarding the environmental document be directed to you by February 20, 2015. Based upon review of the materials presented as well as readily available peer-reviewed literature, this document does not adequately meet the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.

Please note that these comments, while critical of the documents prepared and the FONSI which resulted from them, are not directed at the substance of the request presented. RRBA has a long history of holding state and federal agencies accountable for thoroughly analyzing the impacts of transfers of water from the Roanoke River Basin. Pointing out the deficiencies in the supporting documents does not necessarily indicate RRBA’s ultimate opposition to the underlying request, as these are separate and distinct issues.

  1. This IBT Proposal Should have Triggered the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement not an Environmental Assessment

In North Carolina, Inter-Basin Water Transfers (“IBTs”), or large surface water transfers between river basins, are regulated by the Environmental Management Commission (“EMC”) under General Statute § 143-215.22L. This regulation requires that all proposed IBTs exceeding 2 million gallons per day (“mgd”), calculated as a daily average of a calendar month and not to exceed 3,000,000 gallons per day in any one day, first require EMC certification and approval. Certification is additionally required for

February 20, 2015 Page 2

water transfer increases by 25% or more above the average daily amount during the period between July 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993, and for increases to transfers permitted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §162A-7. This law requires an environmental impact statement be prepared for every proposed transfer of water from one major river basin to another for which a certificate is required.

The first step in the certification process is the Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to file an IBT Petition. In February 2009, the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (“applicant”) submitted a NOI to Request an IBT Certificate to the EMC. The proposed project, as revised in 2014, will transfer 14.2 mgd, calculated as the average day of a (maximum) calendar month, from the Roanoke River IBT basin to the Tar River (10.7 mgd), Fishing Creek (1.7 mgd), and Neuse River (1.8 mgd) IBT basins. According to the applicant, this transfer volume represents the projected 2045 demands of the existing customer base and anticipated growth of the service area. The applicant has a current “grandfathered” IBT of 10 mgd, calculated as a maximum day, which is equivalent to 9.7 mgd, calculated as the average of a calendar month.

Then, the EMC shall conduct a study of the environmental impacts for the proposed IBT. The law provides that

“The study shall meet all of the requirements set forth in N.C. GEN. STAT. 113A-4 and rules adopted pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. 113A-4. An environmental assessment shall be prepared for any petition for a certificate under this section. The determination of whether an environmental impact statement shall also be required shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes; except that an environmental impact statement shall be prepared for every proposed transfer of water from one major river basin to another for which a certificate is required under this section.”

See N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.22L(d) (emphasis added).

According to law, every IBT from one major river basin to another requires an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). The source and the receiving river basins of the proposed project are within the seventeen “major river basin” of North Carolina. N.C. GEN. STAT. §143-215.22G(1). For this reason, we maintain that an EIS should have been prepared for this proposal, rather than an Environmental Assessment as the document was captioned.

Any EIS produced in compliance with this section must include:

“(1) A comprehensive analysis of the impacts that would occur in the source river basin and the receiving river basin if the petition for a certificate is granted.

February 20, 2015 Page 3

  • An evaluation of alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer, including water supply sources that do not require an interbasin transfer and use of water conservation measures.
  • A description of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may arise from the proposed interbasin transfer.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.22L(d)

Also, IBT certificate applicants are subject to the general EIS requirements of SEPA (N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 113A 4), which is supplementary to the requirements of other statutes. One of the enumerated purposes of SEPA is “to require agencies of the State to consider and report upon environmental aspects and consequences of their actions involving the expenditure of public moneys or use of public land.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-2. SEPA’s provisions “provide a mechanism by which all affected State agencies raise and consider environmental factors of proposed projects.” In re Environmental Management Com. etc., 53 N.C. App. 135, 141 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981) “The primary purpose of both the state and federal environmental statutes is to ensure that government agencies seriously consider the environmental effects of each of the reasonable and realistic alternatives available to them.” Orange County v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 46 N.C. App. 350, 383 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

To effectuate SEPA’s stated policy, the General Assembly restricted state agency actions by imposing procedural requirements. SEPA’s procedural requirements were supplemental to any other requirements set by law. The General Assembly recognized that absent procedural requirements, agencies could not be held accountable by the people, who hold the rights. The very caption of this section of SEPA explains its purpose: “Provisions Supplemental.” As the law provides:

“The policies, obligations and provisions of this Article are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of and statutory provisions applicable to State agencies and local governments. In those instances where a State agency is required to prepare an environmental document or to comment on an environmental document under provisions of federal law, the environmental document or comment shall meet the provisions of this Article.”

See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -10.

SEPA has provisions specifying when an environmental document is not required. There is a list of actions which are exempted from coverage. Had the General Assembly intended to allow the state agency to not prepare a document when a federal document was being prepared, it would have added that to the list found in SEPA. See N.C. Gen. Sta. § 113A-12 (List of exempted actions, like water lines, shellfish leases and driveway connections to public roads).

Thus any IBT related environmental document prepared for EMC review of an IBT request must also address these standard issues:

“(a) The environmental impact of the proposed action;

February 20, 2015 Page 4

  • Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
  • Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact;
  • Alternatives to the proposed action;
  • The relationship between the short term uses of the environment involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity;
  • Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-4

For this reason, we contend that the submitted “Environmental Assessment” does not satisfy the requirements of North Carolina’s law. We recognize that the Division and the applicant appear to be operating under the assumption that a section contained in last year’s regulatory grab bag bill supports their decision. See N.C. Sess. Law 2014-120, Section 37. This change in the law, does not exempt all IBTs from bi-state Army Corps of Engineer’s reservoirs from SEPA. Rather the section states that an EIS isn’t required “unless it would otherwise be required by Article 1 of Chapter 113A.”

While current proposed IBT is significantly smaller than the originally proposal, the “preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.” Sierra Club v. United States Dep´t of Transport, 753 F.2d 120 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Describing extraordinary measures taken by Agency to reduce all impacts of noise from larger aircraft using Jackson Hole Airport). The Applicant has not demonstrated that it has included extraordinary measures to reduce impacts to a minimum. Rather the applicant only supposes that since no new construction will be directly required by the IBT, there will be no impacts from the IBT.

The reduced scope of the request is direct proof that applying complete SEPA review to IBT requests works as the drafters intended. By assembling better information on the actual water supply demand, the proposal now more accurately represents projected demand. While many water supply infrastructure construction related impacts have been avoided, the development growth fueled by the new water supply has not been evaluated at all.

SEPA’s reason for existence is to cause agencies to examine the environmental impacts before they make a decision. Like the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the SEPA statute is aimed to produce better decisions and to arm citizens with procedural tools to hold agencies accountable for making those decisions transparently. The predicate for requiring an EIS is the significance of the potential environmental impacts. Until and unless an agency studies the impacts and reports their study the public cannot be satisfied that the agencies are seriously considering the environmental effects of each alternative available to them. Orange County v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 46 N.C. App. 350, 383 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

February 20, 2015 Page 5

Even if the decision to do an EIS instead of an EA was discretionary, it is clear that an IBT of this size would trigger the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-4. The General Assembly itself has declared the importance of all issues involving the allocation and use of waters within the Roanoke River Basin, especially as they relate to Kerr Lake. “The State reserves and allocates to itself, as protector of the public interest, all rights in the water located in those portions of Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston that are in the State.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.22B. Thus these water rights are state property and their use and allocation are subject to protection by the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, above and beyond the statutory minimum provisions set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.22L.

  1. This Environmental Document was Inadequate to Support a Finding of No Significant Impact

To support a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), we expect to see analysis of all the direct impacts of the proposal as well as the cumulative and secondary impacts of the proposal itself. Major secondary impacts of this proposal were not analyzed, creating undue segmentation of the analysis and major gaps. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act requires that agencies take a hard look before making a decision on a proposal. The “hard look” doctrine indicates:

“What constitutes a “hard look” cannot be outlined with rule-like precision. At the least, however, it encompasses a thorough investigation into the environmental impacts of an agency’s action and a candid acknowledgment of the risks that those impacts entail. See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (agencies must assure that “the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated”); Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Johnson, 165 F.3d 283, 288 (4th Cir.1999) (Hughes River II ) (same); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (agencies shall “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives”) (emphasis added)”.

Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Dep’t of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 185 (4th Cir. 2005)

According to this doctrine, this environmental document does not provide such a hard look. The following examples support our contention.

The Water Treatment Plant (“WTP”) expansion’s potential impacts on wildlife were not discussed in section 5. Construction expanding the WTP’s capacity to 20 mgd depends on the approval of this IBT request. Lack of construction in this proposal is cited as the reason behind the conclusion of no direct impacts on species, yet no details are provided as to any ramifications of the WTP expansion-related construction (section 2.1). Further, these expansions will also certainly spur growth and development and the secondary impacts of this development are not assessed at all. No discussion of the impact of “smaller water line construction” or its impacts on species is provided in section 5.

February 20, 2015 Page 6

Analytical evidence and sufficient discussion are lacking throughout section 5 to support the conclusions that there are no impacts on federally listed species (sections 5.12 and 5.13). The conclusions of no direct impacts or no significant secondary and cumulative impacts are made without supporting information behind the claims. For example, although 5.12.1 states that no significant changes will occur in lake elevation, lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in the source basin, there is no data provided as to which levels are considered significant for the involved species. Secondly, in section 5.12.2, minimal impacts to water quality and sensitive species aquatic habitat in the Tar River basin aren’t further defined or explored. As a third example, section 5.13.1 fails to include any consideration of downstream effects on species in the source basin. Analysis in sections 5.12 and 5.13 do not specifically address the endangered and threatened species present including: Atlantic Sturgeon, Roanoke Logperch, Southern Bog Turtle, James Spinymussel, Dwarf Wedgemussel, Tar River Spinymussel, Small Whorled Pogonia, Small-anthered Bittercress, and Smooth Coneflower that are discussed in 4.12 and 4.13.

In addition, the statement that “water quantities needed to protect aquatic habitats would remain available” in the Secondary and Cumulative Impacts section of 5.12.1 does not meet the standard of a hard look. Further definition of these quantities and discussion of how their appropriate levels would be monitored and ensured is missing. Without the data and analysis, this is a simply an unsupported conclusion. The Environmental Assessment’s Section 5’s examination of the proposed IBT’s impacts on shellfish, fish, wildlife, natural vegetation and their habitat lacks any real supporting detail to merit the FONSI.

In sum, our comment is that the environmental document provided is legally insufficient to meet the requirements of SEPA and factually to support a FONSI. These defects must be corrected for a thorough and accurate analysis of impacts. This is the minimum that is required to achieve the statute’s objectives of informed public debate that results in an informed decision.

Very Truly Yours,

Ryke Longest

——

KLPW will follow with additional input and efforts to squelch the water withdrawal proposal by the Kerr Lake Water Resource System.

Posted in: KLPW - Environmental, KLPW - US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KLPW - WATER RELATED, KLPW - Water Safety, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

EFFORTS TO AGAIN TAKE HUGE AMOUNTS OF WATER OUT OF KERR LAKE & SEND IT ELSEWHERE HAVE ONE GROUP IRATE AND MANY OTHERS ASKING QUESTIONS

A fairly visible lake support group is up in arms about a proposed and scheduled-to-be-signed water use agreement that could take 10 million gallons of water a day out of Kerr Lake, which could affect lake levels.

A news release sent to KLPW and authored by Deborah Ferruccio, a leader the lake support group called Preserve our North Carolina Lakes Community calls for an emergency meeting urging local area citizens to attend to discuss how to stop local Henderson, Vance and Warren officials from signing an agreement that would “permanently send massive amounts of water from Kerr Lake to the Neuse and Tar Rivers.”

That meeting is scheduled for this Thursday, April 23rd at 6:00 PM in the Vance County Commissioners’ Room at 122 Young Street, Henderson, NC.

Known for her advocacy of protecting lakes and rivers, Ms. Ferruccio has pointed to confusing and hurried manner public officials have moved on obtaining the excessive amount of water from Kerr Lake.  She continues that the governmental efforts have not been transparent and now her group and those persons from the general public must get involved.

Continuing with the bullet-pointed issues and questions, Ms. Ferruccio wrote:

  • The Kerr Lake Regional Water System, including the City of Henderson and Vance and Warren County Commissioners, are seeking certification from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to transfer ten additional million gallons of water per day (MGD) from Kerr Lake Reservoir in order to “meet the system’s projected water demands.”
  • According to Henderson City Councilman Mike Inscoe, the water transfer is “vital to rural communities for future growth and economic prosperity.” Which rural communities is he talking about, those outside cities such as Raleigh and Louisburg?
  • Upon closer examination of the potential      impacts of such a water transfer, it is not the water that needs to be      diverted.  Rather, it is the direction of economic development that      needs to be diverted to where the water already is, here in the Kerr Lake      region. On what basis then can local Henderson, Vance and Warren officials      honestly justify sending the most valuable resource of this “economically      distressed” Tier 1 area — our precious water supply —  to “economically      prosperous” Tier 2 and 3 counties hungry for growth and economic      development?
  • The Neuse River begins in a pond in Durham      County and flows into Falls Lake which supplies water to a half      million people in Raleigh and six other municipalities in eastern Wake County: Garner, Knightdale, Rolesville, Wake Forest,      Wendell and Zebulon. Falls Lake has water quality problems. The Neuse River Basin is one of the fastest growing river basins      in the country. The Tar River provides      water to Franklin County and Louisburg.
  • If you don’t think there could be a likely      giant sucking sound from the water transfer and that the water removal      would be only “a drop in the bucket,” then you don’t know where the Neuse      and Tar Rivers flow and that Raleigh is projected to run out of water in      20 years.
  • If you don’t think that sucking sound,      combined with global warmings’ inevitable droughts, could turn Kerr Lake’s      shoreline into mudflats and concentrate pollutants that would affect      wildlife and water quality, then you’ve not seen the look of western      over-drained, dried-up lakes.
  • What data and comprehensive studies,      including independent assessments, have determined that the water transfer      will cause “no significant environmental impact” and that “the level of Kerr      Lake won’t be impacted?” Whose drought and economic development models      have been used in these studies?  Why have local officials not      insisted on a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to make a      sound interbasin transfer decision instead of basing the decision on an      abbreviated Environmental Assessment (EA), which, according to the EPA, is      only a preliminary step to an EIS concerning projects that may have a      significant environmental impact? Do Tier 1 “distressed” counties      officials believe that their constituents don’t rate the unabridged truth      about the potential impacts of the basin transfer? Do they think we don’t      have equal rights to information.
  • According to the EPA, “Ensuring environmental      justice means not only protecting human health and the environment for      everyone, but also ensuring that all people are treated fairly and given      the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the development,      implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and      policies.”
  • The public hearing notification process has not been transparent or just; therefore, citizens are calling on officials to extend the April 30 public comment deadline indefinitely so that a series of public hearings can allow for a public information campaign, a proper Environmental Impact Statement to be discussed and drafted, and so that stakeholders who have the most to lose can be partners in the decision-making process.
  • The people of this region have the right and esponsibility to protect their own natural resources and economic      interests, and their sentiment should determine the region’s future, not a      handful of political and government officials. According to Abraham      Lincoln, “In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything.      With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.”

Ms. Ferrucio and her group are taking the message directly to as many public venues as they can and ask, “Please be part of the sentiment that helps protect our region’s interests. Convince your friends, families, and colleagues to join you at Thursday’s meeting. Meanwhile, contact your local officials by phone, email, text, tweet, and in person. Tell them to cancel the interbasin public notice deadline and to let citizens weigh in at future, well-publicized public hearings. Go to: ej-pp.org for the contact list and Facebook: Preserve our North Carolina Lakes Community.”

If you want to contact Ms. Ferruccio directly, write to info@kerrlakeparkwatch.org and we will provide you with that information.

And, if you are interested in the long term future of Kerr Lake as we are at Kerr Lake Park Watch, then go to the meeting.

###

End

 

 

Posted in: KLPW - Environmental, KLPW - MAIN NEWS, KLPW - WATER RELATED, KLPW - Water Safety, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

KERR LAKE TRIATHLON SWIMS, BIKES & RUNS THIS WEEKEND

KERR LAKE TRIATHLON SWIMS, BIKES & RUNS THIS WEEKEND

 

If you are camping or boating near Bullocksville and Satterwhite Point this weekend, you may notice that the Kerr Lake Triathlon will get underway from Bullocksville State Recreation Area Sunday morning.

Up to 350 swimmers, bikers and runners will compete in the Sunday event that brings participants from all over the country as it is a sanctioned event.

That also means that boat traffic will be watching and covering swimmers from Bullocksville to Satterwhite Point. If you are not involved with the triathlon, you may want to avoid the area Sunday.

If you would like more information about the event, go to: http://www.setupevents.com/?fuseaction=event_detail&eventID=2588#top. The Triathlon’s charity for the event is the American Cancer Society.

Posted in: KLPW - Park Entertainment/Events, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

NC DENR STILL HOLDING ON TO “NO COAL ASH IN KERR LAKE” – WORDS HEATING UP

On the morning before what some say will be a huge public forum in Henderson, NC on coal ash, words are heating up between NC DENR and the public.

Deborah Ferruccio was at the ERC meeting yesterday (Tuesday) and she said  that at the meeting Tom Reeder , Director of the Division of Water Resources stood up in the beginning and said there is NO coal ash in Kerr Lake, she refuted that, but it is obvious that the state is boldly lying according to Ms. Ferruccio and her group.  Pressure to say whatever it takes to make the public feel like everything is OK is mounting. The pressure to change the amount of coal ash spilled has continued also.

Reeder told KLPW earlier that coal ash was in Kerr Lake.  Last week, there was a video news report showing Reeder straightforwardly saying that coal ash is in Kerr Lake.  Friday, DENR made Reeder recant his position, but later Friday afternoon, Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality reaffirmed that coal ash indeed, is in Kerr Lake. 

Attendees with her said, “The truth about what is really happening will have to be found out through other channels. What is going to be the narrative going forward for those of us who love our lake? Is it going to be a narrative of lies and deceit?”
 
Tonight a public forum on how to monitor and clean up coal ash in Kerr Lake will be held in Henderson. The organizational meeting of the yet unnamed group will be held at the Leslie Perry Library in Henderson from 6:00 to 8:00 PM.

Posted in: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 3 123