cmud_hor

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer

Hearing Officer’s Report

Public Hearing
December 11, 2001 – North Mecklenburg Water Plant, Huntersville

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources

Environmental Management Commission

February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources i Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer

Hearing Officer’s Report

Table of Contents

Part I: Hearing Officer’s Recommendations Page I - 1

Part II: Interbasin Transfer Certificate Page II - 1

Part III: Transcript of December 11, 2001 Public Hearing and Staff Response Page III - 1
Steven E. Reed – Hearing Officer’s Comments
Thomas C. Fransen – Staff Summary
Parker Wheaton
Rich Hoffman
Bruce A. Anderson

Part IV: Written Comments Received and Staff Response Page IV - 1
Alton C. Boozer
Charles B. Flowers, Jr.
Linda McCaw
Valerie Munei
Mary Ann Wade
William B. Evans
Chuck St. Clair

Part V: Attachments Page V-I
Applicant Supplemental Information – Catawba River Lake Level,
Hydropower, and Safe Yield Information

Notice of Public Hearing
List of Public Hearing Attendees
Rules and Regulations

Part I

Hearing Officer’s Recommendations

Part II

Interbasin Transfer Certificate

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 1 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

Certificate Authorizing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
to Increase Their Transfer of Water
from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin
under the Provisions of G.S. 143-215.22I

In August 2001, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) petitioned the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) for an increase in interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Catawba
River Basin to the Rocky River Basin. CMU requested an increase from the grandfathered IBT
of 16.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 33 mgd (maximum day basis). The proposed IBT is
based on additional water withdrawals from Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake in the
source basin (Catawba River Basin). The IBT will increase due to transfer of the water to the
receiving basin (Rocky River Basin) via consumptive use in eastern Mecklenburg County and
existing discharges at Mallard Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant [WWTP] and Water and
Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County’s [WSACC] Rocky River Regional (RRR) WWTP. CMU
requested an increase to 33 mgd, will allow CMUD to meet projected water supply demands
through the year 2030 in eastern Mecklenburg County. This IBT does not include transfers
associated with water or wastewater service provided to the Goose Creek watershed in the Town
of Mint Hill in Mecklenburg County. Public hearings on the proposed transfer increase were held
in Huntersville on December 11, 2001 pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22I.

The EMC considered the petitioner’s request at its regular meeting on March 14, 2002.
According to G.S. 143-215.22I (g), the EMC shall issue a transfer certificate only if the benefits
of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the proposed transfer, and the detriments
have been or will be mitigated to a reasonable degree.

The EMC may grant the petition in whole or in part, or deny it, and may require mitigation
measures to minimize detrimental effects. In making this determination, the EMC shall
specifically consider:

1. The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of the transfer.
2. Detrimental effects on the source river basin.
2a. The cumulative effect on the source major river basin of any water transfer or
consumptive water use.
3. Detrimental effects on the receiving basin.
4. Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer.
5. Use of impounded storage.
6. Purposes and water storage allocations in a US Army Corps of Engineers multi-
purpose reservoir.
7. Any other facts or circumstances necessary to carry out the law.

In addition, the certificate may require a drought management plan. The plan will describe the
actions a certificate holder will take to protect the source basin during drought conditions.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 2 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

The members of the EMC reviewed and considered the complete record which included the
hearing officer’s report, staff recommendations, the applicant’s petition, the Final Environmental
Assessment, the public comments relating to the proposed interbasin transfer, and all of the
criteria specified above. Based on that record, the Commission makes the following findings of
fact.

Finding of Fact

THE COMMISSION FINDS:

(1) Necessity, Reasonableness, and Benefits of the Transfer
The proposed transfer will provide water to Mecklenburg County, City of Charlotte, and
other communities in the county. The current population served is about 636,000 with a
maximum day water use of about 154 million gallons per day (mgd). Projections assume
a 2.6 percent annual increase through 2010 decreasing to 1.3 percent by 2030. The
projected 2030 serve population is 1,101,000 with a maximum day water use of about
245 mgd.

The western boundary of Mecklenburg county includes Lake Norman and Mountain
Island Lake which are CMU’s two water sources. CMU’s current combined withdrawal
capacity from both lakes is adequate to meet average day demands until about 2020.
CMU has requested an increase from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to increase their Mountain Island Lake withdrawal capacity. The requested
increase from 165 mgd to 330 mgd (instantaneous maximum) will meet projected 2030
demands and add pumping flexibility.

The transfer of water will benefit the Mecklenburg County region by guaranteeing water
to support the economic development and associated population growth that has occurred
and projected to occur in this region of the State.

Based on the record the Commission finds the transfer is necessary to supply water to the
growing communities of this area. Water from the source basin is readily available and
within a short distance from the service area. Therefore the transfer is a reasonable
allocation to these communities. The transfer will greatly benefit these communities by
providing raw water of high quality for residential and industrial purposes.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 3 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

(2) Detrimental Effects on the Source Basin
In order to assess the direct impacts of the proposed transfer on the source basin,
the petitioners utilized Duke Energy’s Hydro-Electric Operations and Planning
Model of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree model simulates
reservoir operations and withdrawals from Lake James in North Carolina to Lake
Wateree in South Carolina (see the following figure the Catawba-Wateree River
System). Details of the modeling analysis are included in this report Part V
Applicant Supplemental Information.

As required under G.S. 143-215.22I(f)(2), local water supply plans were
considered in developing the model. In addition, industrial and agricultural
withdrawals were model inputs. Model runs were evaluated for present
conditions, 2030 CMU water demands, and cumulative 2030 water demands.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 4 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

As seen in the following table, a summary of daily releases from Lake Wylie, the
transfer will have minimal impact on low flows. Similarly the model results show
minimal impacts to both lake levels and hydropower generation.

Percent of Time that Daily Flow Releases from Lake Wylie Would Equal or Exceed Selected Average Daily Flow Thresholds During the
Entire Year
400
cfs
500
cfs
700
cfs
1,000
cfs
1,250
cfs
1,500
cfs
2,00
cfs
Average Year
Existing
2000
100% 100% 97% 87% 82% 82% 79%
CMU
2030
100% 100% 96% 87% 82% 82% 78%
Cumulative
2030
100% 100% 96% 87% 82% 82% 79%
Dry Year
Existing
2000
100% 95% 88% 81% 76% 73% 61%
CMU
2030
100% 95% 88% 81% 76% 72% 60%
Cumulative 2030 100% 95% 88% 81% 75% 70% 59%
Drought Year
Existing
2000
100% 85% 82% 70% 52% 39% 29%
CMU
2030
100% 84% 82% 62% 44% 35% 28%
Cumulative
2030
100% 84% 79% 55% 41% 32% 26%

Based on the modeling results the Commission finds that the detrimental effects
on the source basin described in G.S. §143-215.22I(f)(2) will be insignificant.

(2a) Cumulative effect on Source Basin of any transfers or consumptive water use
projected in local water supply plans
Local water supply plan data, including current and projected water use and water
transfers, were used to develop the input data sets for the model discussed in
Finding Number 2. The model was used to evaluate current and future scenarios
of basin water use.

The safe yield of the reservoir system has not been determined. Duke Power does
not have a policy on reallocation of power pool storage to water supply, for
example unlike the Corps of Engineers. However, based on two 2030 model
scenarios and current drought operations, the safe yield is at least as large or
larger than the cumulative 2030 scenario of 624 mgd.

Based on the modeling discussed in Finding No. 2, the Commission finds the
cumulative effects of this and other future water transfers or consumptive uses as
described in G.S. §143-215.22I(f)(2a) will be insignificant.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 5 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

(3) Detrimental Effects on the Receiving Basin
The proposed transfer will utilize existing permitted wastewater discharges to the Rocky
River basins; therefore no additional permitted capacities will be required. Previous
studies for the existing plant indicated no significant direct water quality or wastewater
assimilation on the receiving stream. Additional growth and development in the receiving
basin may impact water quality, stormwater runoff, frequency and intensity of flooding,
and land use.

The Goose Creek watershed in Mecklenburg County was removed from the area to be
served by this transfer certificate until the impacts of additional urban growth on
Federally listed endangered mussel specifies are fully evaluated.

Based on the record the Commission finds the transfer will support continued population
growth and the attendant impacts of that growth. These impacts include effects on
wastewater assimilation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality. However, these
impacts will be minimal. Reasonable mitigation includes:
1. Require the County to evaluate the feasibility of each element of the Surface
Water Improvement and Management Program (SWIM) on an annual basis.
2. Require the County and the Town of Mint Hill to consider the conclusions of
Wildlife Resources Commission’s Goose Creek watershed study when complete.
3. Require Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte to continue the
stakeholder process to investigate water quantity control from single-family
development and water quality control for all development.
4. The Goose Creek subbasin in Mecklenburg County is removed from the area to be
served by the IBT. A moratorium on the installation of new IBT water lines into
Goose Creek subbasin is in effect until the impacts of additional growth urban
growth on the endangered specifies are fully evaluated.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 6 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

(4) Alternatives to Proposed Transfer
The petitioners evaluated three alternatives to the proposed transfer. The alternatives
considered included:
1. No Action – Growth would be served by individual wells and septic tanks. The
region is already experiencing water quality problems related septic tanks and
package sewage plants. Also, a number of individual wells in this region have
both low yields and poor water quality.
2. Obtain Water from the Rocky River – New reservoir project. Development of
new impoundments for water supply in rapidly developing urban area face
significant regulatory requirements and considerable public controversy.
3. Return wastewater discharge to the Catawba – Return wastewater to the
McAlpine WWTP. Returning water to the Catawba would increase McApline’s
discharge by 17 mgd. SC DHEC considers the McAlpine plant to be a significant
contributor to phosphorus in the Catawba basin already at it’s current discharge
level.
4. Proposed Action. The proposed action of using the Mallard Creek WTTP and the
Rocky Regional WTTP increases the existing discharge of 8 mgd to 18 mgd by
2030 into the Rocky River.

Based on the information provided in the EA and the petition, the Commission finds that
the proposed alternative is the most feasible means of meeting the petitioners’ long-term
water supply needs while minimizing overall impacts and cost.

(5) Impoundment Storage
This criterion is not applicable, as the petitioners do not have an impoundment.

(6) The water to be withdrawn or transferred is stored in a multipurpose reservoir
constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
This criterion is not applicable, as the petitioners are using storage in Duke Power
reservoirs.

(7) Other Considerations
The Commission finds that to protect the source basin during drought conditions, to
mitigate the future need for allocations of the limited resources of this basin, and as
authorized by G.S. § 143-215.22I(h), a drought management plan is appropriate. The
plan should describe the actions that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities will take to
protect the Catawba River Basin during drought conditions.

The Commission notes that future developments may prove the projections and
predictions in the EIS to be incorrect and new information may become available that
shows that there are substantial environmental impacts associated with this transfer.
Therefore, to protect water quality and availability and associated benefits, modification
of the terms and conditions of the certificate may be necessary at a later date.

Part III

Summary of December 11, 2001 Public Hearing and
Staff Response

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 1 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
Summary of December 11, 2001 Public Hearing and Staff Response

Hearing Officer -- Steven E. Reed

I want to welcome all of you to this public hearing on the increase in interbasin transfer for the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities. I am Steve Reed, the hearing officer and a staff member of the Division of Water Resources.
The Division of Water Resources is holding this public hearing to receive comments on behalf of the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission.

This hearing has been called pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-215.22I for the purpose of inviting
public comment on the proposed interbasin transfer certification recommended by the Division of Water Resources.

Public notice of this hearing was provided by first-class mail on November 16, 2001 to over 80 parties in and around
the Catawba River Basin, including existing allocation holders, persons with registered withdrawals or permitted
discharges, local governments, public water systems, legislators, and other interested private and public parties.
Public notice was published in the Charlotte Observer on November 15, 2001. Public Notice was also published in
Volume 16, Issue 1, of the NC Register on November 15, 2001.

The public is invited to comment on the applicants’ petition and supporting environmental documentation. The
Commission is considering and seeking comments on three options with regard to the interbasin transfer request.
The options, in no particular order, are: (a) grant the certificate for the 33.0 mgd interbasin transfer request; (b) deny
the 33.0 mgd interbasin transfer request; or (c) grant the certificate including any conditions necessary to achieve the
purposes of the statute or to provide mitigation measures. The public is encouraged to comment on the following
possible conditions and to suggest any other appropriate conditions, including other limitations on the amount of the
transfer.
1. Require Mecklenburg County to summarize progress in implementation of watershed management approaches
of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program (SWIM) on an annual basis. The Division of
Water Resources shall have the authority to approve modifications to and need for continued reporting as
necessary.
2. Require Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte to continue the stakeholder process to investigate water
quantity control from single-family development and water quality control for all development until completed.
To accomplish this end, the stakeholder group should consider evaluating the feasibility of single-family
detention and recommending ordinance revisions based on technical, political, long-term maintenance, cost, and
benefits related to the proposed ordinance changes.
3. The Goose Creek subbasin in Mecklenburg County is removed from the area to be served by the IBT. A
moratorium on the installation of new IBT water lines (water lines crossing the ridgeline) into Goose Creek
subbasin is in effect until the impacts of additional growth urban growth on the endangered species are fully
evaluated. This moratorium will not impact Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility’s ability to fully utilize existing
water lines.
Require applicants to develop a compliance and monitoring plan for reporting maximum daily transfer amounts,
compliance with certificate conditions, progress on mitigation measures, and drought management activities. The
Division of Water Resources shall have the authority to approve modifications to the compliance and monitoring
plan and drought management plan as necessary.

I have a few administrative announcements to make. As you entered, you should have filled out one of the
registration forms so that we will have a record of your attendance. You should have also indicated on the form
whether or not you wish to speak this evening. Please go to the registration table at this time if you have not already
registered. Also, copies of the hearing notice that was mailed are available at the desk.
At this time, Tom Fransen will summarize the interbasin transfer recommendations.

[Staff presentation by Tom Fransen]

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 2 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
I will now call on those persons who have indicated a desire to comment on the recommended allocations. Please
limit your comments to matters relevant to the proposed recommendations. The hearing officer reserves the right to
question speakers or respond to comments as appropriate. All speakers must come up to the microphone so that we
can pick up your comments on our tape recording. If you have a written statement of your comments please give
them to the person at the registration table. When your name is called, please step up to the microphone and identify
yourself and your affiliation.

[Speakers are called]

If there are no further comments, we will close the hearing at this time. For persons wishing to comment later, the
record will remain open for written comments until 5:00 PM Friday December 14, 2001. Written comments will be
considered equally with oral comments. All comments will be a part of the permanent public record, which will be
presented to the Environmental Management Commission before making a decision on this matter at an upcoming
meeting.

Thank you for your interest in the management of North Carolina’s water resources and for your participation in the
public hearing on this important issue.

Staff Presentation – Tom Fransen

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities is requesting an increase from the grandfathered Interbasin Transfer of 16.1 million
gallons per day (mgd) to 33 mgd (maximum day basis). The proposed Interbasin Transfer is based on additional
water withdrawals from Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake in the source basin (Catawba River Subbasin).
Interbasin Transfer will increase due to transfer of the water to the receiving basin (Rocky River Subbasin) via
consumptive use in eastern Mecklenburg County and existing discharges at Mallard Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant and Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County’s Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities is requesting a permitted Interbasin Transfer increase to 33 mgd, which will allow
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities to meet projected water supply demands of 163.5 mgd through the year 2030 in
eastern Mecklenburg County. This Interbasin Transfer does not include transfers associated with water or
wastewater service provided to the Goose Creek watershed in the Town of Mint Hill in Mecklenburg County.

In the source basin, storage in and flow through the Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs, lost electrical generation,
and reduced flow in the Catawba River immediately below the Wylie development would be the major resources
directly affected. The indirect and cumulative impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources, water quality, threatened
and endangered species and other resources would result primarily from changes in flow or lake levels. Operations
of the Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs were modeled using Duke Power’s reservoir operations model during
average, dry, and drought year conditions.

The model results indicated that there will be no changes in the surface water elevations of Lake Norman, Mountain
Island Lake, or Lake Wylie due to the proposed increased Interbasin Transfer. Under normal and drought inflow
conditions, Duke Power would manage the lakes and its power generation to offset increased water withdrawals to
maintain the minimum release requirements and operating lake surface elevations. Direct impacts on water supply,
water quality, wastewater assimilation, fish and wildlife resources, navigation, or recreation are not expected since
there will be no significant changes in the hydrology of the system due to the increased withdrawal. The Interbasin
Transfer will not require any increase in the currently permitted levels of wastewater discharges or any construction
in either the source or receiving basins.

There are no secondary impacts related to growth in the source basin due to the transfer of water. However, the
Interbasin Transfer will provide additional water supply to support growth and development in the receiving basin.
Mitigation measures presented in this Interbasin Transfer Petition are expected to mitigate secondary impacts related
to growth and development. The proposed Interbasin Transfer will not result in significant cumulative impacts in
either the source or receiving basins.

Issues the Environmental Management Commission is seeking comment on.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 3 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
The public is invited to comment on the applicants’ petition and supporting environmental documentation. The
Commission is considering and seeking comments on three options with regard to the interbasin transfer request.
The options, in no particular order, are: (a) grant the certificate for the 33.0 mgd interbasin transfer request; (b) deny
the 33.0 mgd interbasin transfer request; or (c) grant the certificate including any conditions necessary to achieve the
purposes of the statute or to provide mitigation measures. The public is invited to comment on the following
possible conditions and to suggest any other appropriate conditions, including other limitations on the amount of the
transfer.

1. Require Mecklenburg County to summarize progress in implementation of watershed management
approaches of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program (SWIM) on an annual basis. The
Division of Water Resources shall have the authority to approve modifications to and need for continued
reporting as necessary.

2. Require Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte to continue the stakeholder process to investigate
water quantity control from single-family development and water quality control for all development until
completed. To accomplish this end, the stakeholder group should consider evaluating the feasibility of
single-family detention and recommending ordinance revisions based on technical, political, long-term
maintenance, cost, and benefits related to the proposed ordinance changes.

3. The Goose Creek subbasin in Mecklenburg County is removed from the area to be served by the Interbasin
Transfer. A moratorium on the installation of new Interbasin Transfer water lines (water lines crossing the
ridgeline) into Goose Creek subbasin is in effect until the impacts of additional growth urban growth on the
endangered species are fully evaluated. This moratorium will not impact Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility’s
ability to fully utilize existing water lines.

4. Require applicants to develop a compliance and monitoring plan for reporting maximum
daily transfer amounts, compliance with certificate conditions, progress on mitigation
measures, and drought management activities. The Division of Water Resources shall
have the authority to approve modifications to the compliance and monitoring plan and
drought management plan as necessary.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 4 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
Public Comment

Staff had problems with the audio equipment and was not able to get a full transcript of the
hearing. The following is a summary of the key issues raised by each speaker that did not
provide a written copy of their comments.

Parker Wheaton
Mr. Wheaton was concerned about any impacts the transfer would cause on the 30 miles of free
flowing river below Lake Wylie in SC.

Staff Response
In order to assess the direct impacts of the proposed transfer on the source basin, the
petitioners utilized Duke Energy’s Hydro-Electric Operations and Planning Model of the
Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree model simulates reservoir operations
and withdrawals from Lake James in North Carolina to Lake Wateree in South Carolina.
Details of the modeling analysis are included in this report Part V Applicant
Supplemental Information.

As show in the table in the finding of fact, a Summary of Daily Releases from
Lake Wylie, the transfer will have minimal impact on low flows. Similarly the
model results show minimal impacts to both lake levels and hydropower
generation.
.

Rich Hoffman
Mr. Hoffman objected to the short comment period and lack of time to be able review the
petition and EA.

Staff Response
As required under G.S. §143-215.22I(d) public notice was provided by was provided by
first-class mail on November 16, 2001 to over 80 parties in and around the Catawba
River Basin, including existing allocation holders, persons with registered withdrawals
or permitted discharges, local governments, public water systems, legislators, and other
interested private and public parties. Public notice was published in the Charlotte
Observer on November 15, 2001. Public Notice was also published in Volume 16, Issue
1, of the NC Register on November 15, 2001. The close of the comment period was 5:00
PM December 14, 2001. Copies of the petition and EA were available on the Division’s
website or mailed upon request.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 5 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
Bruce A. Anderson (written comments submitted after speaking)

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 6 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 7 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 8 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources III - 9 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
Staff Response
In order to assess the direct impacts of the proposed transfer on the source basin, the
petitioners utilized Duke Energy’s Hydro-Electric Operations and Planning Model
of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree model simulates reservoir
operations and withdrawals from Lake James in North Carolina to Lake Wateree in
South Carolina. Details of the modeling analysis are included in this report Part V
Applicant Supplemental Information. Three model scenarios were done the existing
situation, projected 2030 CMU demands, and the cumulative 2030 projected
demands.

As show in the table in the finding of fact, a Summary of Daily Releases from Lake
Wylie, the transfer will have minimal impact on low flows. Similarly the model
results show minimal impacts to both lake levels and hydropower generation.

Part IV

Written Comments Received and Staff Response

North Carolina Division of Water Resources IV - 1 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

Staff Response
In order to assess the direct impacts of the proposed transfer on the source basin, the
petitioners utilized Duke Energy’s Hydro-Electric Operations and Planning Model
of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree model simulates reservoir
operations and withdrawals from Lake James in North Carolina to Lake Wateree in
South Carolina. Details of the modeling analysis are included in this report Part V
Applicant Supplemental Information.

As show in the table in the finding of fact, a Summary of Daily Releases from Lake
Wylie, the transfer will have minimal impact on low flows. Similarly the model
results show minimal impacts to both lake levels and hydropower generation.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources IV - 2 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
Subject: Interbasin Transfer for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:16:00 -0500
From: "Chuck Flowers" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>

Tom,
My name is Charles (Chuck) Flowers and I am with the City of Belmont Water Treatment Plant. I have a few concerns with the
IBT that CMUD has requested. The first is an equitable allocation of the water along the lower Catawba River basin below the
Mountain Island Lake dam. Since September of this year the water level at our intake, located 600 yards south of the HWY. 29-74
bridge, has dropped over nine (9') feet. After contacting Duke Power in the middle of September with our concerns of the sudden
drop of approximately five (5') feet in the lake level, they advised at that time the current lake level would be maintained. But since
that time the lake level has dropped an additional four (4') feet. When modeling the storage and flows in the Catawba-Wateree
reservoirs was the current drought and the fifty (50) low water levels in the lakes taken into consideration? This is a major concern
for the people of Belmont considering we are the sole major water user below the Mt. Island dam in North Carolina and we do not
have an alternative source of water supply. With the current and projected growth for Belmont and the surrounding area we serve
with a potable water supply adequate water supply is also a concern for our area and needed for our continued growth.
With the increasing demand for adequate water supply along the Catawba River Basin any additional transfer from it to another
stream could be detrimental in the years to come for the people who solely rely on it for their drinking water. So, I would request that
the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission would deny the request of Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities to transfer
an additional 16.9 mgd of water to the Rocky River Basin.

Respectfully Submitted
Chales B. Flowers, Jr.
City of Belmont
WTP Superintendent

Staff Response
In order to assess the direct impacts of the proposed transfer on the source basin, the
petitioners utilized Duke Energy’s Hydro-Electric Operations and Planning Model
of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree model simulates reservoir
operations and withdrawals from Lake James in North Carolina to Lake Wateree in
South Carolina. Details of the modeling analysis are included in this report Part V
Applicant Supplemental Information.

The model results show minimal impacts to both lake levels under normal and
drought conditions. The transfer is a small portion of CMU’s total withdrawal and
this water would bypass Belmont’s intake even if there were no transfer because the
treated wastewater is returned to the Catawba River downstream of Lake Wylie.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources IV - 3 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Subject: Catawba/Rocky River transfer
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:35:55 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]

I strongly oppose the increase of water transfer from the Catawba corridor. Right now Lake Wylie is highly eutrophic and the loss of
water means that to keep levels up enough for any use means more stagnancy as we are robbed of normal flow. Please don't add any
more burdens to this lake as we are already about the face the assault of a 4100 home development. That doesn't even take into
account the people downstream in South Carolina. I note that the hearing was held in Huntersville, quite a long way from the people
it will most affect. And then to read in the newspaper that the benefit here is more development can then happen to the Rocky River
corridor! How long will it take for development to bury us? I would really hope that the Division of Water Quality would take a
strong stand in promoting WATER QUALITY and I don't think that will happen in the Catawba chain if they keep taking water out.
Linda McCaw

Staff Response
The Applicant Supplement Information included in Part V of this report indicates the
transfer has minimal impact on water quality.

Subject: CMUD interbasin transfer
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:31:10 -0500
From: Valerie Munei <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: Donna <[e-mail]>

Dear Mr. Fransen

I am very concerned about this proposal to transfer water out of the Catawba River system. With the continued urban growth along
the shores of the Catawba, I cannot understand how taking water out this already endangered river system will not have an impact on
water quality as pollutant loads increase. We've all seen dramatic decreases in the water levels of Lake Norman and Lake Wylie with
these years of ongoing drought, and again I cannot understand how the modeling cited in the Staff Summary can be correct to
indicate that taking 33 million gallons a day from the Catawba would have no effect on surface water elevations. How can we be
guaranteed that Duke will increase the flow of water to make up for this loss when the water basins above Lake Norman are also
suffering through this drought? And what about any future prolonged droughts?

Please do not approve this CMUD petition that will affect the drinking water and health of so many citizens in the Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Gaston, and Union counties in North Carolina as well as York County in South Carolina.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter!

-- Valerie Munei
Lake Wylie Lakekeeper | 803/831-0678

Staff Response
In order to assess the direct impacts of the proposed transfer on the source basin, the
petitioners utilized Duke Energy’s Hydro-Electric Operations and Planning Model
of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree model simulates reservoir
operations and withdrawals from Lake James in North Carolina to Lake Wateree in
South Carolina. Details of the modeling analysis are included in this report Part V
Applicant Supplemental Information. Also, the Applicant Supplement Information
indicates the transfer has minimal impact on water quality.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources IV - 4 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
From: Mary Ann Wade [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:00 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Donna Marie Lisenby
Subject: Catawba/RockyRiver transfer

I am opposed to the increase of water transfer from the Catawba corridor! My home is on Lake Wateree and the flow of clean water
is vital to our existence, life style and homes on the lake. North Carolina should take a long look at the future of us all and
stop/control the developments along the corridor.

Mary Ann Wade

Staff Response
Comment noted.

From: William Evans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:43 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Save the Catawba for Down Stream (SC) Citizens

Dear Mr. Fransen:

I concur with the comments from our River Keeper, Donna Lisenby.

We urge the State of North Carolina to consider the rights and needs of its friends to the South. Please don't divert the river flow.

William B. Evans

Staff Response
Comment noted.

Subject: Catawba/Rocky River transfer
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:53:02 -0500
From: Mary Ann Wade <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

This is to let you know that as a member of WHOA (Wateree Home Association) of Kershaw County, South Carolina that I oppose
the increase of water transfer from the Catawba corridor. My home is on Lake Wateree and the flow of clean water is vital to our
existence, life style and all homes on the lake. North Carolina should take a long look at the future for us all and
stop/control the developments along the corridor

Staff Response
Comment noted.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources IV - 5 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
Subject: CMUD interbasin transfers
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:43:44 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

I oppose any increase in the interbasin transfer as I feel it encourages
growth in inappropriate areas. In fact, I believe the current transfers
should be reduced as quickly as possible. When an area's resources limit
growth, then growth should proceed only to the extent that resources are
freed up by reductions in existing need-for example if a plant closes its
water needs would be available to others.

Chuck St. Clair
725 Southwest Dr.
Davidson, NC 28036
704-895-4653

Staff Response
Comment noted.

Part V

Attachments

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 1 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 2 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 3 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 4 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 5 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 6 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 7 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 8 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 9 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 10 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 11 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 12 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 13 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 14 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 15 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 16 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 17 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 18 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 19 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 20 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 21 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 22 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 23 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 24 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 25 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 26 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 27 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

Public Hearing Notice
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) will hold a public hearing to receive
comments on the petition for an increase in interbasin transfer from the Catawba River Basin to the Rocky River
Basin. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMUD) is requesting an increase from the grandfathered Interbasin
Transfer (IBT) of 16.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 33 mgd (maximum day basis). The proposed IBT is based
on additional water withdrawals from Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake in the source basin (Catawba River
Basin). The IBT will increase due to transfer of the water to the receiving basin (Rocky River Basin) via
consumptive use in eastern Mecklenburg County and existing discharges at Mallard Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant [WWTP] and Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County’s [WSACC] Rocky River Regional (RRR)
WWTP. CMUD is requesting a permitted IBT increase to 33 mgd, which will allow CMUD to meet projected water
supply demands through the year 2030 in eastern Mecklenburg County. This IBT does not include transfers
associated with water or wastewater service provided to the Goose Creek watershed in the Town of Mint Hill in
Mecklenburg County. Notice of these hearings is given in accordance N.C. General Statute 143-215.22I(d).

The public hearing will start at 5:00 PM on December 11, 2001 at the North Mecklenburg Water Treatment Plant,
7980 Babe Stillwell Road, Huntersville, NC. In addition, Division of Water Resources staff will be available to
answer questions from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM at the hearing location. The public may inspect the staff’s
recommendation report, the interbasin transfer petition, and the final Environmental Assessment (EA) during normal
business hours at the offices of the Division of Water Resources, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 1106, Archdale
Building, Raleigh. These documents may also be viewed at the Division’s web site:
http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/Status/Cmud/.

The purpose of this announcement is to encourage those interested in this matter to provide comments and to
comply with the public participation requirements regarding this matter. You may attend the public hearing and
make relevant oral comments and/or submit written comments, data, or other relevant information. Written
submissions of oral comments at the hearing are requested. The hearing officer may limit the length of oral
presentations if many people want to speak. If you are unable to attend, written comments can be mailed to Tom
Fransen, Division of Water Resources, DENR, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611. Comments
may also be submitted electronically to [e-mail]. All comments must be received before 5:00 PM,
December 14, 2001.

Under the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act (G.S. 143-215.22I), persons intending to transfer 2.0 mgd or
more, or increase an existing transfer by 25 percent or more, must first obtain a certificate from the Environmental
Management Commission. As part of the petition process, the applicants completed an environmental assessment.
Review of the environmental assessment by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has been
completed in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act.

North Carolina G.S. 143-215.22I(e) requires the notice of public hearing include a conspicuous statement in bold
type as to the effects of the water transfer on the source and receiving river basins.

The proposed transfer is an increase of 16.9 mgd, an increase from the grandfathered transfer of 16.1 mgd to
33 mgd (maximum day basis). The proposed IBT is based on additional water withdrawals from Lake
Norman and Mountain Island Lake in the source basin (Catawba River Basin). IBT will increase due to
transfer of the water to the receiving basin (Rocky River Basin) via consumptive use in eastern Mecklenburg
County and existing discharges at Mallard Creek WWTP and Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus
County’s Rocky River Regional WWTP.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
December 11, 2001, 5:00 PM

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 28 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

In the source basin, storage in and flow through the Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs, lost electrical
generation, and reduced flow in the Catawba River immediately below the Wylie development would be the
major resources directly affected. The indirect and cumulative impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources,
water quality, threatened and endangered species and other resources would result primarily from changes
in flow or lake levels. Operations of the Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs were modeled using Duke
Power’s reservoir operations model during average, dry, and drought year conditions.

The model results indicated that there will be no changes in the surface water elevations of Lake Norman,
Mountain Island Lake, or Lake Wylie due to the proposed increased IBT. Under normal and drought inflow
conditions, Duke Power would manage the lakes and its power generation to offset increased water
withdrawals to maintain the minimum release requirements and operating lake surface elevations. Direct
impacts on water supply, water quality, wastewater assimilation, fish and wildlife resources, navigation, or
recreation are not expected since there will be no significant changes in the hydrology of the system due to the
increased withdrawal. The IBT will not require any increase in the currently permitted levels of wastewater
discharges or any construction in either the source or receiving basins.

There are no secondary impacts related to growth in the source basin due to the transfer of water. However,
the IBT will provide additional water supply to support growth and development in the receiving basin.
Mitigation measures presented in this IBT Petition are expected to mitigate secondary impacts related to
growth and development in the receiving basin. The proposed IBT will not result in significant cumulative
impacts in either the source or receiving basins.

The public is invited to comment on the applicants’ petition and supporting environmental documentation. The
Commission is considering and seeking comments on three options with regard to the interbasin transfer request.
The options, in no particular order, are: (a) grant the certificate for the 33.0 mgd interbasin transfer request; (b) deny
the 33.0 mgd interbasin transfer request; or (c) grant the certificate including any conditions necessary to achieve the
purposes of the statute or to provide mitigation measures. The public is invited to comment on the following
possible conditions and to suggest any other appropriate conditions, including other limitations on the amount of the
transfer.
1. Require Mecklenburg County to summarize progress in implementation of watershed management approaches
of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program (SWIM) on an annual basis. The Division of
Water Resources shall have the authority to approve modifications to and need for continued reporting as
necessary.
2. Require Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte to continue the stakeholder process to investigate water
quantity control from single-family development and water quality control for all development until completed.
To accomplish this end, the stakeholder group should consider evaluating the feasibility of single-family
detention and recommending ordinance revisions based on technical, political, long-term maintenance, cost, and
benefits related to the proposed ordinance changes.
3. The Goose Creek subbasin in Mecklenburg County is removed from the area to be served by the IBT. A
moratorium on the installation of new IBT water lines (water lines crossing the ridgeline) into Goose Creek
subbasin is in effect until the impacts of additional growth urban growth on the endangered species are fully
evaluated. This moratorium will not impact Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility’s ability to fully utilize existing
water lines.
4. Require applicants to develop a compliance and monitoring plan for reporting maximum daily transfer amounts,
compliance with certificate conditions, progress on mitigation measures, and drought management activities.
The Division of Water Resources shall have the authority to approve modifications to the compliance and
monitoring plan and drought management plan as necessary.

For more information, visit the Division of Water Resources’ website at:
http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/Status/Cmud/. You may also contact Tom
Fransen in the Division of Water Resources at 919-715-0381, or email: [e-mail].

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 29 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

December 11, 2001 -- Public Hearing
LIST OF ATTENDEES

1. Donna Lisenby
Catawba Riverkeeper
926 Elizabeth Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28204

2. Bruce A. Anderson
Catawba Riverkeeper
16125 Weatherly Way
Huntersville, NC 28078

3. Rich Hoffman
Catawba County Government
PO Box 389
Newton, NC 28658

4. Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M Hill
4824 Parkway Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28226

5. Chip Smith
CH2M Hill
5502 Crosshill Court
Charlotte, NC 28277

6. Heather Dyke
CH2M Hill
115 Perimeter Center
Atlanta, GA 30346

7. Terry A. Gross
City of Concord
PO Box 308
Concord, NC 28026

8. Parker Wheaton

9. Joe DeBruhl
Willis Engineers
1520 South Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28203

10. Charles B. Flowers, Jr.
City of Belmont
PO Box 431
Belmont, NC 28012

11. Jeff Slough
City of Concord
PO Box 308
Concord, NC 28027

12. Henry Waldroup
City of Concord
PO Box 308
Concord, NC 28025

13. H. Carson Fisher
Town of Mooresville
PO Box 878
Mooresville, N C28115

14. Wilce Martin
Town of Mooresville
PO Box 878
Mooresville, NC 28115

15. Charles A. Willis
Willis Engineers
1520 South Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28211

16. Barry Gullet
CMUD
5100 Brookshire Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28216

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 30 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

Statutory Authority for Regulating Interbasin Transfers

Part 2A. Registration of Water Withdrawals and Transfers;
Regulation of Surface Water Transfers.
' 143-215.22G. Definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in G.S. 143-212 and G.S. 143-213, the following definitions apply to this Part.
(1) "River basin" means any of the following river basins designated on the map entitled "Major River Basins and
Sub- basins in North Carolina" and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on 16 April 1991. The term "river basin"
includes any portion of the river basin that extends into another state. Any area outside North Carolina that is not included in
one of the river basins listed in this subdivision comprises a separate river basin.
a. 1-1 Broad River.
b. 2-1 Haw River.
c. 2-2 Deep River.
d. 2-3 Cape Fear River.
e. 2-4 South River.
f. 2-5 Northeast Cape Fear River.
g. 2-6 New River.
h. 3-1 Catawba River.
i. 3-2 South Fork Catawba River.
j. 4-1 Chowan River.
k. 4-2 Meherrin River.
l. 5-1 Nolichucky River.
m. 5-2 French Broad River.
n. 5-3 Pigeon River.
o. 6-1 Hiwassee River.
p. 7-1 Little Tennessee River.
q. 7-2 Tuskasegee (Tuckasegee) River.
r. 8-1 Savannah River.
s. 9-1 Lumber River.
t. 9-2 Big Shoe Heel Creek.
u. 9-3 Waccamaw River.
v. 9-4 Shallotte River.
w. 10-1 Neuse River.
x. 10-2 Contentnea Creek.
y. 10-3 Trent River.
z. 11-1 New River.
aa. 12-1 Albemarle Sound.
bb. 13-1 Ocoee River.
cc. 14-1 Roanoke River.
dd. 15-1 Tar River.
ee. 15-2 Fishing Creek.
ff. 15-3 Pamlico River and Sound.
gg. 16-1 Watauga River.
hh. 17-1 White Oak River.
ii. 18-1 Yadkin (Yadkin-Pee Dee) River.
jj. 18-2 South Yadkin River.
kk. 18-3 Uwharrie River.
ll. 18-4 Rocky River.
(2) "Surface water" means any of the waters of the State located on the land surface that are not derived by pumping
from groundwater.
(3) "Transfer" means the withdrawal, diversion, or pumping of surface water from one river basin and discharge of
all or any part of the water in a river basin different from the origin. However, notwithstanding the basin definitions in G.S.
143-215.22G(1), the following are not transfers under this Part:
a. The discharge of water upstream from the point where it is withdrawn.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 31 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

b. The discharge of water downstream from the point where it is withdrawn. (1991, c. 712, s. 1; 1993, c. 348, s. 1;
1997-443, s. 15.48(b).)

' 143-215.22H. (V2)(Effective March 1, 2000) Registration of water withdrawals and transfers required.
(a) Any person who withdraws 100,000 gallons per day or more of water from the surface or groundwaters of the State or
who transfers 100,000 gallons per day or more of water from one river basin to another shall register the withdrawal or
transfer with the Commission. A person registering a water withdrawal or transfer shall provide the Commission with the
following information:
(1) The maximum daily amount of the water withdrawal or transfer expressed in thousands of gallons per day.
(1a) The monthly average withdrawal or transfer expressed in thousands of gallons per day.
(2) The location of the points of withdrawal and discharge and the capacity of each facility used to make the
withdrawal or transfer.
(3) The monthly average discharge expressed in thousands of gallons per day.
(b) Any person initiating a new water withdrawal or transfer of 100,000 gallons per day or more shall register the
withdrawal or transfer with the Commission not later than six months after the initiation of the withdrawal or transfer. The
information required under subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted with respect to the new withdrawal or transfer.
(b1) Subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to a person who withdraws or transfers less than 1,000,000
gallons per day of water for activities directly related or incidental to the production of crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamental
and flowering plants, dairy products, livestock, poultry, and other agricultural products.
(c) A unit of local government that has completed a local water supply plan that meets the requirements of G.S.
143-355(l) and that has periodically revised and updated its plan as required by the Department has satisfied the requirements
of this section and is not required to separately register a water withdrawal or transfer or to update a registration under this
section.
(d) Any person who is required to register a water withdrawal or transfer under this section shall update the registration
by providing the Commission with a current version of the information required by subsection (a) of this section at five-year
intervals following the initial registration. A person who submits information to update a registration of a water withdrawal
or transfer is not required to pay an additional registration fee under G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1a) and G.S. 143- 215.3(a)(1b), but is
subject to the late registration fee established under this section in the event that updated information is not submitted as
required by this subsection.
(e) Any person who is required to register a water transfer or withdrawal under this section and fails to do so shall pay, in
addition to the registration fee required under G.S. 143- 215.3(a)(1a) and G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1b), a late registration fee of five
dollars ($5.00) per day for each day the registration is late up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00). A person who
is required to update a registration under this section and fails to do so shall pay a fee of five dollars ($5.00) per day for each
day the updated information is late up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00). A late registration fee shall not be
charged to a farmer who submits a registration that pertains to farming operations. (1991, c. 712, s. 1; 1993, c. 344, s. 1; c.
553, s. 81; 1998-168, s. 3.)

' 143-215.22I. Regulation of surface water transfers.
(a) No person, without first securing a certificate from the Commission, may:
(1) Initiate a transfer of 2,000,000 gallons of water or more per day from one river basin to another.
(2) Increase the amount of an existing transfer of water from one river basin to another by twenty-five percent (25%)
or more above the average daily amount transferred during the year ending July 1, 1993, if the total transfer including the
increase is 2,000,000 gallons or more per day.
(3) Increase an existing transfer of water from one river basin to another above the amount approved by the
Commission in a certificate issued under G.S. 162A-7 prior to July 1, 1993.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a certificate shall not be required to transfer water
from one river basin to another up to the full capacity of a facility to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility
was existing or under construction on July 1, 1993.
(c) An applicant for a certificate shall petition the Commission for the certificate. The petition shall be in writing and
shall include the following:
(1) A description of the facilities to be used to transfer the water, including the location and capacity of water
intakes, pumps, pipelines, and other facilities.
(2) A description of the proposed uses of the water to be transferred.
(3) The water conservation measures to be used by the applicant to assure efficient use of the water and avoidance of
waste.
(4) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission for review of the proposed water transfer.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 32 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

(d) Upon receipt of the petition, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed transfer after giving at least
30 days' written notice of the hearing as follows:
(1) By publishing notice in the North Carolina Register.
(2) By publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the river basin downstream from the
point of withdrawal.
(3) By giving notice by first-class mail to each of the following:
a. A person who has registered under this Part a water withdrawal or transfer from the same river basin where the
water for the proposed transfer would be withdrawn.
b. A person who secured a certificate under this Part for a water transfer from the same river basin where the
water for the proposed transfer would be withdrawn.
c. A person holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit
exceeding 100,000 gallons per day for a discharge located downstream from the proposed withdrawal point of the proposed
transfer.
d. The board of county commissioners of each county that is located entirely or partially within the river basin
that is the source of the proposed transfer.
e. The governing body of any public water supply system that withdraws water downstream from the withdrawal
point of the proposed transfer.
(e) The notice of the public hearing shall include a nontechnical description of the applicant's request and a conspicuous
statement in bold type as to the effects of the water transfer on the source and receiving river basins. The notice shall further
indicate the procedure to be followed by anyone wishing to submit comments on the proposed water transfer.
(f) In determining whether a certificate may be issued for the transfer, the Commission shall specifically consider each of
the following items and state in writing its findings of fact with regard to each item:
(1) The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of the amount of surface water proposed to be transferred
and its proposed uses.
(2) The present and reasonably foreseeable future detrimental effects on the source river basin, including present and
future effects on public, industrial, and agricultural water supply needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and
wildlife habitat, hydroelectric power generation, navigation, and recreation. Local water supply plans that affect the source
major river basin shall be used to evaluate the projected future municipal water needs in the source major river basin.
(2a) The cumulative effect on the source major river basin of any water transfer or consumptive water use that, at the
time the Commission considers the application for a certificate is occurring, is authorized under this section, or is projected in
any local water supply plan that has been submitted to the Department in accordance with G.S. 143-355(l).
(3) The detrimental effects on the receiving river basin, including effects on water quality, wastewater assimilation,
fish and wildlife habitat, navigation, recreation, and flooding.
(4) Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer, including their probable costs, and environmental impacts.
(5) If applicable to the proposed project, the applicant's present and proposed use of impoundment storage capacity
to store water during high-flow periods for use during low-flow periods and the applicant's right of withdrawal under G.S.
143-215.44 through G.S. 143-215.50.
(6) If the water to be withdrawn or transferred is stored in a multipurpose reservoir constructed by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, the purposes and water storage allocations established for the reservoir at the time the reservoir
was authorized by the Congress of the United States.
(7) Any other facts and circumstances that are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Part.
(f1) An environmental assessment as defined by G.S. 113A- 9(1) shall be prepared for any petition for a certificate under
this section. The determination of whether an environmental impact statement shall also be required shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes. The applicant who petitions the
Commission for a certificate under this section shall pay the cost of special studies necessary to comply with Article 1 of
Chapter 113A of the General Statutes.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 33 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002
(g) A certificate shall be granted for a water transfer if the applicant establishes and the Commission concludes by a
preponderance of the evidence based upon the findings of fact made under subsection (f) of this section that: (i) the
benefits of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the proposed transfer, and (ii) the detriments have been or
will be mitigated to a reasonable degree. The conditions necessary to ensure that the detriments are and continue to be
mitigated to a reasonable degree shall be attached to the certificate in accordance with subsection (h) of this section.
(h) The Commission may grant the certificate in whole or in part, or deny the certificate. The Commission may also
grant a certificate with any conditions attached that the Commission believes are necessary to achieve the purposes of
this Part. The conditions may include mitigation measures proposed to minimize any detrimental effects of the proposed
transfer and measures to protect the availability of water in the source river basin during a drought or other emergency.
The certificate shall include a drought management plan that specifies how the transfer shall be managed to protect the
source river basin during drought conditions. The certificate shall indicate the maximum amount of water that may be
transferred. No person shall transfer an amount of water that exceeds the amount in the certificate.
(i) In cases where an applicant requests approval to increase a transfer that existed on July 1, 1993, the Commission
shall have authority to approve or disapprove only the amount of the increase. If the Commission approves the increase,
however, the certificate shall be issued for the amount of the existing transfer plus the requested increase. Certificates
for transfers approved by the Commission under G.S. 162A-7 shall remain in effect as approved by the Commission and
shall have the same effect as a certificate issued under this Part.
(j) In the case of water supply problems caused by drought, a pollution incident, temporary failure of a water plant,
or any other temporary condition in which the public health requires a transfer of water, the Secretary of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources may grant approval for a temporary transfer. Prior to approving a temporary
transfer, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall consult with those parties listed in
G.S. 143-215.22I(d)(3) that are likely to be affected by the proposed transfer. However, the Secretary of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources shall not be required to satisfy the public notice requirements of this section or
make written findings of fact and conclusions in approving a temporary transfer under this subsection. If the Secretary
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources approves a temporary transfer under this subsection, the
Secretary shall specify conditions to protect other water users. A temporary transfer shall not exceed six months in
duration, but the approval may be renewed for a period of six months by the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources based on demonstrated need as set forth in this subsection.
(k) The substantive restrictions and conditions upon surface water transfers authorized in this section may be
imposed pursuant to any federal law that permits the State to certify, restrict, or condition any new or continuing
transfers or related activities licensed, relicensed, or otherwise authorized by the federal government.
(l) When any transfer for which a certificate was issued under this section equals eighty percent (80%) of the
maximum amount authorized in the certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Department a detailed plan that
specifies how the applicant intends to address future foreseeable water needs. If the applicant is required to have
a local water supply plan, then this plan shall be an amendment to the local water supply plan required by G.S.
143-355(l). When the transfer equals ninety percent (90%) of the maximum amount authorized in the certificate,
the applicant shall begin implementation of the plan submitted to the Department.

(m) It is the public policy of the State to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within North Carolina.
Further, it is the public policy of the State that the cumulative impact of transfers from a source river basin shall not
result in a violation of the antidegradation policy set out in 40 Code of Federal Regulations ' 131.12 (l July 1997
Edition) and the statewide antidegradation policy adopted pursuant thereto. (1993, c. 348, s. 1; 1997-443, ss.
11A.119(a), 15.48(c); 1997-524, s. 1; 1998-168, s. 4.)

North Carolina Division of Water Resources V - 34 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

Administrative Code for Interbasin Transfer

TITLE 15A. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 2. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SUBCHAPTER 2G. WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS
SECTION .0400 - REGULATION OF SURFACE WATER TRANSFERS

.0401 APPLICABILITY
(a) Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22G(3), the amount of a transfer shall be determined by the amount of water moved
from the source basin to the receiving basin, less the amount of the water returned to the source basin.
(b) Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22G(3)(a) and 143-215.22G(3)(b), and notwithstanding the definition of basin in G.S.
143-215.22G(1), the following are not transfers:
(1) The discharge point is situated upstream of the withdrawal point such that the water discharged will
naturally flow past the withdrawal point.
(2) The discharge point is situated downstream of the withdrawal point such that water flowing past the
withdrawal point will naturally flow past the discharge point.
(c) The withdrawal of surface water from one river basin by one person and the purchase of all or any part of this
water by another party, resulting in a discharge to another river basin, shall be considered a transfer. The person owning
the pipe or other conveyance that carries the water across the basin boundary shall be responsible for obtaining a
certificate from the Commission. Another person involved in the transfer may assume responsibility for obtaining the
certificate, subject to approval by the Division of Water Resources.
(d) Under G.S. 143-215.22I(b), a certificate is not required to transfer water from one river basin to another up to the
full capacity of a facility to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility was existing or under construction on
July 1, 1993. The full capacity of a facility to transfer water shall be determined as the capacity of the combined system
of withdrawal, treatment, transmission, and discharge of water, limited by the element of this system with the least
capacity as existing or under construction on July 1, 1993.

History Note:Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.22G; 143-215.22I; 143B-282(a)(2);
Eff. September 1, 1994.

.0402 JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial Review of the Commission's decision shall be as provided in G.S. 143-215.5.

History Note:Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.5; 143B-282(a)(2);
Eff. September 1, 1994.