20051457 Ver 1_FW reservoir question_20120509

FW reservoir question
From: Karoly, Cyndi
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:27 PM
To: Matthews, Matt; Mcmillan, Ian; Higgins, Karen
subject: FW: reservoir question
This is probably related to Cleveland County. I discussed with Tom today. I'll
catch up with Karen and
Ian - something we need to prepare for as a potential bill review.
From: Reeder, Tom
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:01 PM
To: 7eff Warren (President Pro Tem's office); 7effrey Hudson
Cc: Smith, Robin; Wakild, Chuck; Barsness, Kari K; Karoly, Cyndi
subject: Re: reservoir question
7eff - I would agree with 7eff H's answer. To our knowledge the GA has never
directed DENR to issue a
401. one thing to remember is that a 401 is basically a state certification that
allows a project to proceed
provided that the project complies with a set of conditions in the 401 certification
that will ensure the
protection of State water quality standards. So, a 401 Certification is much more
than a yes or no decision. It
is a decision that allows a project to move forward provided that a number of
conditions to protect State
water quality standards are complied with. If the GA did mandate the issuance of a
401 certification, I think
that there is a good probability that this action would have the unintended
consequence of directly bringing
EPA into the process to heavily scrutinize the project and also become directly
involved with the federal 404
permitting decision. This would, in all likelihood, be counter - productive to the
intent of moving the project
forward and would exacerbate the situation with federal regulatory authorities
associated with the proposed
project.
If this is about Cleveland County, I wanted to mention to you that I went down to
Cleveland County and met
with Butch Smith and his water board in March. After listening to their concerns I
advised them that, in my
mind, the only chance that they had to get this project permitted by the Army Corps
was to convince Colonel
Baker and his staff in Wilmington of the necessity of the reservoir and the fact
that the other proposed
alternatives would not be suitable. To this end, I communicated with Colonel Baker
and he said that he
would be happy to meet with the Cleveland County folks and hear them out. They
haven't met with the
Colonel yet, but are planning to. lust so you know, I still believe what I told the
County in March in that they
need to convince the Colonel. I advised Butch Smith today at an EMC Committee
meeting that they should
be concentrating and putting their efforts into that end.
lust let me know if you need anything else. Thanks.
Tom Reeder
Director, NC Division of Water Resources
Phone: 919 - 707 -9027
email: [e-mail]
Page 1

FW reservoir question
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: "3eff Warren (President Pro Tem's office)" <[e-mail]>
Date: wed, 9 May 2012 15:31:54 -0400
To: 7effrey Hudson <7effrey.Hudson @ncleg.net>
Cc: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
subject: RE: reservoir question
I tend to agree with you, 3eff. I promised to at least ask the question.
-jeff
Jeffrey D. Warren, PhD
senior Policy Advisor
Environment, Energy, Regulatory Affairs
office of the President Pro Tempore
North Carolina senate
Legislative Building room 1408B
(919) 301 -2008
From: 7effrey Hudson (Research)
sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 03:31 PM
To: Jeff Warren (President Pro Tem's office)
Cc: '[e-mail]'
subject: RE: reservoir question
3eff,
I've done several searches of our computerized legislative records and haven't found
any evidence of a
legislative directive on the issuance of a 401 permit. Tom and his staff would
probably have direct experience
with implementing such legislation if it had been enacted.
I'm not sure that such an act at the state level would really address the underlying
issue, which is
federal /Corps approval of the project. In fact, this kind of action at the state
level (a legislative directive that
takes a permitting decision away from the agency experts) might prejudice the feds
against the project. Tom
and his folks might have a better feel for this as well.
3eff
From: Jeff Warren (President Pro Tem's office)
sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:52 PM
To: [e-mail]; 7effrey Hudson (Research)
subject: reservoir question
Tom and 3eff,
Has GA ever directed DWQ /DWR to move forward with the 401 permitting process on a
specific project? Is it
feasible and are there any potential federal issues with a directive such as this?
-jeff
Jeffrey D. Warren, PhD
senior Policy Advisor
Environment, Energy, Regulatory Affairs
office of the President Pro Tempore
North Carolina senate
Legislative Building room 1408B
(919) 301 -2008
Page 2