Roanoke-Ad-Hoc-February-2011-Update

NC Roanoke River Basin Advisory
Committee

Water Allocation Ad Hoc Committee

Update

February 28, 2011

Ad Hoc Committee Members
Name Organization
Committee Member
Gene Addesso Roanoke River Basin Association
Bill Cox Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech.
Tom Fransen (Co-Chair) Division of Water Resources, NC DENR
Bill Holman Nicholas Institute, Duke University
Scott Kudlas (Co-Chair) Office of Water Supply Planning, VA DEQ
Brian McCrodden HydroLogics, Inc.
Rick Seekins Kerr-Tar Regional COG
Support Staff
Jason Ericson Office of Water Supply Planning, VA DEQ
Steve Reed Division of Water Resources, NC DENR
Tammy Stephenson Office of Water Supply Planning, VA DEQ
Allen Piner US Corps of Engineers
Richard Whisnat UNC Institute of Government
Disclaimer
The Allocation Scenarios are options identified by
the Ad-Hoc Committee for the Commission's
consideration. The Committee is not
recommending any scenario as the preferred
option. We can not official support any of the
alternatives at this time. Neither State
representative at this time can say which if any
of the alternatives our State supports, that
needs to come from the Governors’ Office. Our
role is to provide technical expertise to assist the
Commission.

AD HOC WATER ALLOCATION
COMMITTEE’S ASSIGNMENT
The ad hoc committee's objective is
to develop a draft agreement of
understanding that can be used
Virginia, North Carolina, and the
USACE regarding the allocation and
withdrawals of water out of the John
H. Kerr Reservoir.
AD HOC WATER ALLOCATION
COMMITTEE’S STARTING POINT
•We started with a misinterpretation of the
Water Supply Act of 1958.
•We assumed up to 50,000 ac-ft can be
reallocated to water supply.
•To be able to reallocate more than 50,000
ac-ft would require Congress to change the
project's authorization.
•We were developing an agreement to
allocate the unallocated amount 28,621 ac-
ft.
Significant Events
March 2010 – Ad Hoc Water Allocation
Committee presented Status Report to the
RRBC.
August 2010 – Symposium in Clarksville, VA.
One the presenters stated the 50,000 ac-ft limit
is a “myth”. The 50,000 ac-ft is a USACE internal
“rule of thumb”.
December 2010 – Letter from the USACE
clarifying the 50,000 ac-ft.
December 2010 – Settlement of the SC vs. NC
Supreme Court Lawsuit.
USACE Water Allocation Guidelines
Water supply is NOT an authorized project
purpose at J.H. Kerr.
Water supply requires reallocation of the power
storage to water supply.
Headquarters can approve reallocations for
allocations of 15% of the total storage or
50,000 ac-ft, whichever is less.
Large allocations require approval from the
Assistant Secretary of the Army.
Reallocations that significantly impact authorized
project purposes require Congressional approval.
Settlement of Supreme Court
Lawsuit - SC vs. NC
Originally filed by SC in 2007
Disputed NC’s use of Catawba River water
Precipitated by Concord-Kannapolis IBT
Parties reached a settlement in November 2010
SC/NC/Duke Energy/Catawba River Water Supply Project
Settlement includes an agreement to share data
and do joint basin modeling and planning.
Dismissed from Supreme Court in December 2010
Catawba Bi-State Commission played a pivotal role
in negotiating the settlement.
Ad Hoc Water Allocation Committee’s
Revised Starting Point
Clarification from the USACE on the
reallocation process.
No 50,000 ac-ft limit. A different approval
process depending on the size of the
allocation.
Received comments on the March 2010
Status Report.
December 2010 Catawba agreement
between NC and SC.
Draft Agreement
Part I – Purpose
Part II – Declaration of Policy
Part IV – Allocation of Water Supply
Storage
Alternative 1 – Status Quo
Alternative 2 – Modified Status Quo
Alternative 2A – Modified Status Quo with
Basin Water Supply Plan
Alternative 3 – States purchase the storage.
Alternative 4 – Interstate Compact
Alternative 5 – A 3rd party purchase the
storage
PART I. PURPOSES
The purposes of this agreement are:

1.For the State of North Carolina and the
Commonwealth of Virginia to provide the
U.S. Army of Engineers a set of guidelines
for allocation of John H. Kerr water supply
allocations.
2.To preserve and protect the water
resources of the Roanoke River Basin.
3.To facilitate integrated comprehensive
water resources planning of the Roanoke
River Basin.
PART II. DECLARATION OF POLICY

Summary of the 6 policy statements.

1. Sustainable use of the basin’s water
resources.
2. Coordinated planning.
3. Drought management.
4. Use of the water shall not cause injury,
quality or quantity.
5. Allows for nonriparian use of the water.
6. Use of water outside the basin is
subordinate to in basin uses.
2A - Modified Status Quo with
Basin Water Supply Plan
Let the USACE handle the allocation based on a
jointly developed Basin Water Supply Plan.
JH Kerr Allocation concept is to do a joint bi-state water supply plan that includes Kerr allocation recommendations. The USACE would use the plan’s recommendation to make allocation decisions. An allocation would be approved if it is consistent with the plan and there are no adverse impacts.
Why this new “Status Quo”
Approach?
It is going to be difficult to find an allocation split
that all (most) parties can agree upon as being
fair.
There is not a fixed amount of available storage.
To re-allocation more than 50,000 ac-ft to water
supply is possible just requires a higher level
approval and more supporting documentation.
The planning approach is more flexible and easier
to handle the fact we are not limited to 50,000
ac-ft. This approach will allow both States to be
sure the needs of the towns and industries are
met while protecting the resource.
Draft Agreement
Part I – Purpose
Part II – Declaration of Policy
Part IV – Allocation of Water Supply Storage
Alternative 1 – Status Quo
Alternative 2 – Modified Status Quo
Alternative 2A – Modified Status Quo with
Basin Water Supply Plan
Alternative 3 – States purchase the storage
Alternative 4 – Interstate Compact
Alternative 5 – A 3rd party purchase the storage
Discussion - Questions