WSMU_MRSV_Email_19970306

Page 1
Note for Lisa Martin
From: Steve Zoufaly
Date: Thu, Mar 6, 1997 11:31 AM
Subject: FW: Back Creek
To: Lisa Martin
Cc: Liz Kovasckitz
I spoke to Erskine Smith and told him I had spoken to Kannapolis staff about Back Creek,that they
use it still and want to keep it as a WS,etc. (as we discussed yesterday.) I told him that as long as it
was still being used for a water supply that we would not remove the WS class. He said he had
spoken to you about the EMC's ability to grant exceptions/variances based on socio-economic
considerations. I told him that if I remembered correctly the EMC has the ability to grant major
variances but that I could pretty much guarantee that if a local government came before the EMC that
the EMC would want showing that all other avenues of flexibility granted local governments in the
rules had been exhausted. He said he understood and would ask the same of anyone coming to them
for a variance. He said they might try to work with the two counties to look at averaging within the
watershed. So we'll see what happens in six months.
From: Liz Kovasckitz on Thu,Mar 6, 1997 11:10 AM
Subject: FW: Back Creek
To: Steve Zoufaly
From: Steve Zoufaly on Wed, Mar 5, 1997 10:39 AM
Subject: Back Creek
To:Lisa Martin
Cc: Liz Kovasckitz
Lisa, as I mentioned,I spoke to Erskine Smith yesterday about Back Creek. As you know,he is
concerned about the impact of the WS rules (WS-II) on Mooresville. We discussed how the water
supply is being used (backup for the City of Kannanpolis). I asked him if they had exhausted all the
possibilities allowed in the rules. I'm not convinced they have, or more to the point, want to. But,
anyways... (as of 1/97 CGIA shows Mooresville as having 622 acres in the watershed which is
about 14% of their jurisdiction. Iredell County has 4,908 acres, 1%,in the watershed. Overall the
watershed is 37,950 acres.)
As you suggested I spoke with Kannapolis (Melvin Raper- Utility Dir.). Melvin confirmed the
City's use of Back Creek as a backup water supply. He said that they have for years planned on
building a reservoir on Back Creek and are still considering that primarily due to thier concerns with
their existing supplies. He thought that ultimately they may have to go to the Yadkin River. He said
the City wants to retain the Back Creek watershed as a water supply source due to its size since it
provides a significant source of water when needed. They use the water(about 6mgd)for
approximately 3 months out of the year and have done so consistently for years.
I told him about Erskines concerns and Melvin said that he understood since a prime indutrial area
was in the watershed. Melvin wants the watershed protected but said he thought that there could be
some flexibility. He said their city did a good job of looking at all the possibilities the rules offer.
When you have some time I'd like to get your input on this issue before I call Erskine back. Thanks.
Steve