Dillsboro residents: 'Keep the dam'

By Rose Hooper

That team, organized about 18 months ago, is working on a consensus agreement for Duke Power Co.'s relicensing proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Two weeks ago, Duke officials shared with the stakeholder team a preliminary proposal ("trial balloon") that included removing the Dillsboro Dam and giving the powerhouse and 3 acres across the river to the town of Dillsboro.

From discussions at their Monday night meeting, none of Dillsboro Town Board members seemed in favor of that recommendation.

"The dam is so much a part of our heritage, not just Dillsboro, but Jackson County," Mayor Jean Hartbarger said.

Using electricity generated by Dillsboro's hydroelectric plant, the Dillsboro and Sylva Electric Co. supplied electric power to Dillsboro and Sylva from 1913 until Nantahala Power and Light (now Duke Power/Nantahala Area) purchased the Dillsboro hydroelectric facility in 1957.

"Could we afford this gift?" board member Emma Wertenberger asked. "Would Duke also provide some endowment with the gift?"

An endowment is not currently in the plan, but the plan could change, said Fred Alexander, district manager for Duke/Nantahala.

Board member Jim Cochran asked the cost of removing the dam, which he said would be great, "especially considering all the silt that would have to be removed."

No cost estimates for either dam removal or silt removal have been done yet, Alexander told the group.

Before the dam can be removed, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must give permission, he said, and several other thresholds must be met.

During discussion, the endangered elk-toe mussels that live in the streambed below the dam were mentioned. The presence of those mussels prevented Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority's plan to bury water and sewer lines in the river bed because doing so would threaten the mussels' habitat. Removing the dam would be more threatening, several board members said.

Sediment from the dam removal could also injure or kill fish, said Dillsboro Inn owner T.J. Walker, "and we have a lot of fishermen who fish that area."

Walker, whose bed and breakfast is located just downstream of the dam and powerhouse, said he is also concerned about flood control if the dam were removed.

"Has anyone looked at the tourism aspect?" asked former board member John Clark. "That dam attracts a lot of tourists."

"It's a symbol of our community; a symbol of renewable energy," said Walker.

The dam apparently holds significance for many in Dillsboro, said Hartbarger, who has spoken with a number of residents who favor preserving the dam.

"Jackson County, especially those of us on the lower Tuckaseigee, are inadequately represented on the stakeholder team. It alarms me that at the last meeting (March 21) most of the participants were in favor of the dam removal," said Walker, a member of the stakeholder team.

Dillsboro's appointment of Parris to the stakeholder team should help address that inadequacy, board members agreed.

Those who favor the dam removal say it would be beneficial for boaters because it would add 11 miles of unimpeded river. Other proponents say it would benefit migratory fish by enabling them to move freely up and down the river.

The power company presented the trial balloon only to stimulate discussion within the stakeholder team, Alexander said.

"Duke has no strong company feeling one way or the other about whether the Dillsboro dam remains," said Alexander. "But we would like to reach a consensus agreement that we could recommend to FERC." FERC is an independent federal commission within the Department of Energy that has jurisdiction over all hydropower dams not owned by the federal government.

Historically, FERC focused on rivers as sources for power generation. That changed in 1986 when FERC was required to give equal consideration to energy conservation, protection of fish and wildlife, protection of recreational opportunities and preservation of general environmental quality, specifically water quality, Alexander said.

"We would like to reach agreement by November of this year so we can produce a draft license application for stakeholder review in January 2003," said Alexander, noting Duke's relicensing proposal must be submitted to FERC in July 2003.

A consensus agreement from the stakeholder team should speed relicensing, Alexander said, because the FERC would prefer to review a relicensing application that has been obtained through input from the various groups.

Back to Archive: 04/04/02.