By Lynn Hotaling
The deadline has passed, and local government units in Jackson
County remain divided in their support of a non-binding agreement
that's part of Duke Power's application to continue operating
six hydroelectric plants in Jackson County.
With regard to the consensus agreement signed May 16 by members
of the Tuckaseigee River Cooperative Stakeholders Team, Sylva
and Dillsboro town governments are still on board, while county
commissioners and the town of Webster have withdrawn from further
negotiations.
The agreement, which includes plans to remove the Dillsboro
Dam pending the results of further study, is non-binding. Continuing
talks through the summer are expected to produce a legally binding
document that team members will have the opportunity to sign
this fall. More than two dozen governmental units, agencies
and organizations were represented on the stakeholders' team,
and most will continue negotiating through the summer.
Despite the Dillsboro Town Board's continued opposition to Duke's
plans to remove the Dillsboro Dam, Mayor Jean Hartbarger signed
the agreement as a "four" (don't like or don't endorse
the agreement but won't try to block) because she said she felt
it was vital for Dillsboro to remain in the negotiation process.
Sylva Mayor Brenda Oliver said she signed as a "three"
(agreement with minor reservations) on most things but as a
"four" with regard to removal of the Dillsboro Dam.
"I wasn't pleased with the lack of money for recreation
along the shores of the lakes, and I wanted to see more money
put into greenways along the Tuckaseigee," Oliver said.
"But I represent the town of Sylva, which technically is
not along the river but along Scotts Creek, a tributary.
"I thought Duke's effort was valid; they did not have to
do that (stakeholders') process," Oliver said.
Jackson County Manager Ken Westmoreland and Webster representative
Susan Leveille registered their disagreement with the May 16
agreement by signing as a "five," which means "strongly
disagree and will try to block." At least two other members
of the stakeholders' team - Watershed Authority of the Tuckasegee
River and Western North Carolina Alliance - also signed as fives.
Both Westmoreland and Leveille said they cannot support the
agreement because it lacks money for greenways construction
and would not adequately compensate Dillsboro for the proposed
loss of the 90-year-old Dillsboro Dam.
Leveille, Webster's representative, said she doesn't think the
agreement addresses the recreational needs of the general population.
"There was lots of attention given to those who live on
the lakes and own boats and also to those who like to fish,"
Leveille said. "But there are thousands who would like
to walk along the river or lakeshore. There was so much emphasis
on what happened around the lakes and the concerns of governmental
agencies but little time spent on the concerns of the average
citizen."
Another point of disagreement is the level of compensation being
offered to Dillsboro ($50,000) for the potential loss of the
dam.
"$50,000 is a drop in the bucket for what the town is giving
up," Leveille said. "Historically, the dam is a symbol
of the town and a tourist draw. It's an intangible bit of beauty
that's been there for decades."
Leveille said the agreement should also include a trust fund
to address things that might be left out of this agreement.
Given the 40-year term of the licenses Duke is requesting, it
is impossible to predict what problems might develop, Leveille
said.
"The idea is to have money in hand to serve needs that
surface," she said.
Westmoreland's objections were similar, though he also criticized
the agreement for not including funding to implement a master
plan (developed by Duke Power and given to the county several
years ago) for upgrading Andrews Park, a county-owned campground
on Lake Glenville.
In addressing county commissioners, who unanimously voted June
17 to back his decision to opt out of negotiations, Westmoreland
said he couldn't support the agreement because it offered nothing
to the county and only $25,000 to Dillsboro. During questioning
after the meeting he acknowledged the agreement does designate
some $450,000 for lake and river access improvements within
the county and $50,000 for Dillsboro.
"Even still, $500,000 is not a fair bargain for a 40-year
license," he said. "Most settlements over the last
decade are in the $10-$15 million range.
"Neither Dillsboro or the county is being treated fairly,"
Westmoreland said. "The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
is mandated to ensure that the public is given the greatest
benefit."
Westmoreland also objected to what he termed "coercion"
in the consensus agreement.
"If Jackson County doesn't sign, (Duke) would withhold
funds from the other municipalities," he said.
Westmoreland said Duke tailored the consensus agreement to please
certain agencies - U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
and N.C. Department of Water Quality - that have veto power
over relicensing applications. He also said that the $500,000
allocated to accomplish removal of the Dillsboro Dam is insufficient
funding for the task.
Duke Power/Nantahala Area District Manager Fred Alexander said
he "regrets the situation with (Westmoreland)" and
believes "communications is the root issue."
Duke chose the "stakeholder" approach rather than
the "pot of money" approach to relicensing to give
the people who live on the river and lakes a voice, Alexander
said.
"We felt that if we worked collaboratively we would all
have a better chance of achieving our goals," Alexander
said. "Otherwise we'd send a federal agency dozens of possibly
mutually exclusive requests and leave it to them to sort out.
We felt that environmental, recreational and power production
needs would be better balanced by those who live here than by
asking a regulatory agency to make those decisions. That's neither
fair to the agency or customers in this area."
Alexander confirmed the veto power of the USFS, Fish and Wildlife
and DWQ with regard to relicensing agreements.
"Congress has given them mandatory conditioning authority,"
Alexander said. "Essentially, they can write requirements
into the licenses that FERC grants."
Duke's goals for relicensing were to address project-related
issues with sustainable, cost-effective solutions; encourage
meaningful stakeholder input prior to filing of license applications;
ensure hydro projects benefit stakeholders while still serving
their primary purpose (cost-effective energy production in competitive
market); and retain operational flexibility (peaking, lake level
variability, voltage and load support), Alexander said.
The Duke spokesman said Westmoreland's charge of coercion is
"inaccurate and misleading."
"The only municipality mentioned in the consensus agreement
is Dillsboro, and the ratings from the senior Jackson County
representative on the consensus agreement have no bearing whatsoever
on the funding that is identified for Dillsboro. It also has
no bearing whatsoever on the total amount of any funding that
would be made available by Duke Power under the consensus agreement,"
Alexander said.
Only one thing has been changed by the county decision not to
participate in discussions this summer and not to be eligible
to sign the settlement agreement in the fall, Alexander said,
and that is that Duke Power's match of cost-sharing funds that
might come from a variety of sources is automatically re-allocated.
"(Cost-sharing funds) now go to riparian habitat enhancement
activities and soil and water conservation enhancement,"
Alexander said. "If all of the team's local government
representatives had concurred with the consensus agreement,
a portion of any additional cost share funds would also have
gone to a category called 'Other Recreation Planning and Facilities
Improvements.' It is probably several years too early to tell
if there will be any cost-share money to match and allocate."
The stakeholders' consensus agreement includes a number of provisions
aimed at improving access to Jackson County lakes and the Tuckaseigee
River, and includes the possibility of water releases in the
West Fork below the Glenville Dam, provided suitable access
points for boaters can be identified.
To view the entire document, visit the Web site at www.nantahalapower.com
and click on "relicensing."
Duke Power is seeking relicensing of its Jackson County hydroelectric
facilities because current operating licenses expire in 2005
and 2006. The company operates Thorpe and Tuckasegee power plants
on the Tuckaseigee's West Fork, and Wolf Creek, Tanassee Creek,
Bear Creek and Cedar Cliff on the river's East Fork. Dillsboro,
the company's smallest generating facility, is the only hydro
plant on the Tuckaseigee's main stem.
Duke's 65,000 Nantahala Area customers pay lower bills than
customers in other parts of Duke's system because Nantahala
Area rates are the old Nantahala Power & Light rates, which
continue since NP&L became part of Duke Power in 2000, Alexander
said. The reduced power bills reflect the low-cost generation
of Duke's hydroelectric plants in Jackson, Macon, Swain and
Clay counties, he said.
