NC0090247_Comments_20231017

SOUTHERN 48 Patton Avenue,Suite 304 Telephone [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL Asheville,NC 28801 Facsimile 828-258-2024
LAW
CENTER
October 12, 2023
Siying Chen RECEIVED
NCDEQ-DWR
Water Quality Permitting Section OCT 17 2023
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617 NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Re: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit No. NC0090247,Clear Creek WWTP
Dear Ms. Chen:
Please accept these comments on draft NPDES Permit No.NC0090247 on behalf of
MountainTrue and the Southern Environmental Law Center. MountainTrue is a nonprofit
membership organization whose mission is to champion resilient forests, clean waters, and
healthy communities in the Southern Blue Ridge. It is the home of the French Broad
Riverkeeper,the primary protector and defender of the French Broad River watershed.
MountainTrue works to ensure that thriving Blue Ridge communities are connected to and help
sustain both each other and our natural environment. Members of MountainTrue live in the
vicinity of the proposed new wastewater treatment plant(WWTP)and are concerned about the
effects of pollution in Clear Creek and the French Broad River watershed. The Southern
Environmental Law Center is a nonprofit legal organization working to protect the basic right to
clean air, clean water, and a livable climate;to preserve the South's natural treasures and rich
biodiversity; and to provide a healthy environment for all.
Our comments are guided by several principles. First,we are opposed to a new
wastewater discharge to Clear Creek because the creek is already impaired and, without a Total
Maximum Daily Load in place,there is no assurance that the new discharge will not deepen the
existing impairment. For multiple reasons explained below,this violates the Clean Water Act.
Second, connection to the existing wastewater treatment plant operated by the City of
Hendersonville,rather than construction of an entirely new county-operated wastewater
treatment plant,will lead to better environmental protections and cost savings in the long term.
This is the most environmentally sound and cost-effective treatment option.Third,while we
recognize that replacing failing wastewater treatment plants and septic systems with connections
to sewer systems can lead to improvements in water quality, any extension of a sewer line in the
Edneyville community risks disrupting the area's pristine character by facilitating urban sprawl.
Consistent with the preferences of the community as we understand them,we are opposed to this
type of development in this area. To protect the rural and agricultural character of the
community, any sewer extension should be paired with appropriate land use regulations.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington,DC

More immediately, for the reasons explained below this NPDES permit cannot be issued
as proposed.
I. Background
A. The Proposed Clear Creek WWTP
Henderson County is proposing to construct a new WWTP, pump station, and
approximately 6.9 miles of new sewer line to guide"population growth and commercial,
industrial, and residential development" in Edneyville.I The plant would provide sewer services
for future growth and replace three package treatment plants and other county facilities currently
on septic systems. The proposed NPDES permit would allow the Countyto discharge 200,000
gallons of wastewater per day at the confluence of Clear Creek and Laurel Branch. Clear Creek,
the largest tributary of Mud Creek, drains approximately 44 square miles of Henderson County
within the French Broad River Basin.2 The Project EA acknowledges that"[c]umulative impacts
to surface water quality could occur"as a result of this discharge.'
Clear Creek is designated as a"Class C"waterbody.4 Class C waterbodies"shall be . . .
suitable for""aquatic life propagation, survival, and maintenance of biological integrity
(including fishing and fish);wildlife; secondary contact recreation; [and] agriculture." 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 2B.0211(1), (2). Unfortunately, Clear Creek is not meeting these uses"because of
impaired biological integrity,"specifically because of"the highly degraded condition of its
benthic macroinvertebrate communities."5 As a result, it is included on North Carolina's list of
impaired waterbodies.6 In fact,the agency has been monitoring Clear Creek since the 1970s and
the condition of benthic macroinvertebrates has been a concern for nearly that entire time.
Human and livestock waste is one of the likely reasons for impairment, along with fertilizers,
pesticides,and sediment.? Several studies have shown that effluent from wastewater treatment
.plants can adversely affect aquatic life including benthic macroinvertebrates. For example, one
recent study found that"pharmaceuticals and personal care products [],natural and synthetic
hormones,micro- and macroplastics, [agricultural] and industrial chemicals, and metals"8 are
' Clear Creek Sewer System Environmental Assessment(EA)at 1.
2 See U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program Success Story(2012)available
at:https://www.epa.¢ov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/nc clear.pdf.
EAat33.
4 Draft Permit at 2.
5 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,Clear Creek Watershed Nine Element Restoration Plan,at
83(2006)available at:https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2426424&cr=1.
6 See North Carolina 2022 Section 303(d)List at
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2738821&cr=1.
7EAat18.
Chelsea Aristone,et al.,"Impacts of wastewater treatment plants on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in
summer and winter,"Science of the Total Environment 820(2022),at:
https://abel.mcmaster.ca/publications/pdfs/Aristone et a12022.pdf,citing:Daughton and Ternes, 1999;Kolpin et al.,
2002;Ternes et al.,2004;Holeton et al.,2011;McCormick et al.,2016;Hamdhani et al.,2020.
2

often present in wastewater effluent and these, combined with other pollutants,can directly affect
aquatic life, and benthic life in particular, through exposure to contaminants and toxins.'
B. The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act(or"the Act")was passed in 1972"to restore and maintain the
chemical,physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).The Act
pursues that objective through four mechanisms relevant here. First,the Act prohibits the
discharge of pollutants from a point source without a permit.Id. § 1311(a);see Arkansas v.
Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 102 (1992). "[P]oint sources of pollution are those [where a discharge
flows] from a discrete conveyance, such as a pipe or tunnel."Friends of Pinto Creek v. United
States Env't Prot.Agency, 504 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9t'.Cir.2007).The necessary permits—called
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,or NPDES,permits—are issued under Section
402 of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. Under principles of cooperative federalism,North
Carolina administers NPDES permits within its borders.Acting under this authority,North
Carolina requires applicants for new NPDES discharges to"establish that the most
environmentally sound alternative was selected from the reasonably cost effective"treatment
options. 15A N.C.Admin. Code 2H.0105(c)(2). Because the proposed WWTP would discharge
wastewater from a point source into Clear Creek, it must obtain a NPDES permit.
Second, the Act requires states to identify"designated uses"for each jurisdictional
waterbody within their boundaries and then set"criteria necessary to protect the uses"as water
quality standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d);40 C.F.R. §§ 131.10, 130.3.North Carolina fulfills this
obligation by classifying waterbodies and assigning water quality standards for each
classification.See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.1; 15A N.C.Admin. Code 2B.0101, .0301.North
Carolina has promulgated both numeric and narrative water quality standards applicable to Class
C waters like Clear Creek.North Carolina's biological integrity standard is an example of the
latter.See Sound Rivers, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, 891 S.E.2d 83, 87(N.C. 2023).
Under that standard, Class C waterbodies must"support and maintain a balanced and indigenous
community of organisms having species composition, diversity,population densities, and
functional organization similar to that of reference conditions." 15A N.C.Admin. Code
2B.0202(13).
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires states to biannually identify and list
"impaired"waters not meeting applicable water quality standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(A).
"For impaired waters identified in the § 303(d)(1) list,the states must establish a[Total
Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)] for pollutants identified by the EPA."Friends of Pinto Creek,
504 F.3d at 1011. "A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of pollutant that can be discharged
or loaded into the waters from all combined sources, so as to comply with the water quality
standards."Id. As noted above, Clear Creek is included on North Carolina's list of impaired
waters but it is not currently subject to a TMDL.
Third, in addition to the requirements above,the Act requires that states"develop and
adopt a statewide antidegradation policy."40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a).A state's antidegradation policy
91d., citing:Brown et al.,2011;Holeton et al.,2011;Tetreault et al.,2013;Hamdhani et al.,2020.
3

is intended to ensure that"[e]xisting instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary
to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected."Id.North Carolina's
antidegradation policy requires that DEQ"protect existing uses [of waterbodies] and the water
quality to protect such uses." 15A N.C.Admin. Code 2B.0201. Here,this requires protection of
Class C uses and maintenance of Class C standards in Clear Creek and—in this instance in
particular—prohibits DEQ from taking action that would further any existing impairment.
Fourth,the Act prohibits North Carolina from issuing a NPDES permit that would cause
or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1312. More
specifically, no"permit may be issued until the applicant provides sufficient evidence to ensure
that the proposed system will comply with all applicable water quality standards and
requirements." 15A N.C.Admin. Code 2H.0112(c). Further, "[n]o permit may be issued when
the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality
standards and regulations."Id.;see also 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i)(prohibiting issuance of a NPDES
permit to"a new source or a new discharger, if the discharge from its construction or operation
will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards.").
This prohibition makes it more difficult for permitting agencies to authorize new
discharges into waters listed on the Section 303(d) list because those waters are already violating
water quality standards. See City of Dover v. United States Env't Prot.Agency, 36 F. Supp. 3d
103, 117 (D.D.C.2014) ("Under 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i),once a body of water has been listed as
impaired, it becomes much more difficult for'new sources'or 'new dischargers'to obtain an
NPDES permit.").Those discharges are only allowed in the limited circumstance where"there
are sufficient remaining pollutant load allocations to allow for the discharge"—i.e.,where the
discharge will not cause an exceedance of a TMDL or other document allocating pollution loads.
40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i). In that instance,the state must also be satisfied that"existing dischargers
into that segment are subject to compliance schedules designed to bring the segment into
compliance with applicable water quality standards."Id. The objective of this section"is not
simply to show a lessening of pollution, but to show how the water quality standard will be met
if[the permitee] is allowed to discharge pollutants into the impaired waters."Friends of Pinto
Creek, 504 F.3d at 1014. In other words, a state may only issue a permit for new discharges into
impaired waters like Clear Creek where the State has prepared a TMDL and concluded that there
is adequate buffer between the prospective discharge and the load limit,and that the buffer is
likely to continue to exist in the future. Where a state cannot make that showing,the discharge is
prohibited.See San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. Browner, 147 F. Supp. 2d 991, 995 (N.D. Cal.
2001),aff'd sub nom. San Francisco BayKeeper v. Whitman, 297 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2002)
("there cannot be a new source or a new discharger if the waterbody is . . . [an] impaired
waterway unless the state completes a TMDL . . .beforehand.").
II. DEQ may not authorize a new NPDES discharge into Clear Creek without
first allocating pollution loads through a TMDL.
Without a TMDL, DEQ may not issue a NPDES permit for the proposed WWTP because
the agency cannot demonstrate that"there are sufficient remaining pollutant load allocations to
allow for the discharge."40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i). This is particularly true because the proposed
discharge appears likely to exacerbate impairment of Clear Creek,which is already overburdened
4

by multiple pollution sources including human waste which will be treated and discharged
through the proposed WWTP.Authorizing a new discharge into Clear Creek,without preparing a
TMDL demonstrating that there are sufficient pollutant load allocations available to allow for the
discharge, violates the Clean Water Act.See 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i).
Courts around the country have interpreted TMDL requirements under the Clean Water
Act to prohibit the issuance of NPDES permits under these circumstances. Recently,the Arizona
Court of Appeals denied a NPDES permit for a point source discharge into an impaired
waterway, in part because the State failed to first prepare a TMDL. The court held that the state
environmental agency may not issue the relevant NPDES permit until"(1) [the agency] finalizes
a TMDL plan for the receiving water segment; (2) [the permitee] demonstrates the existence of
sufficient [load allocations] to allow for the proposed discharge; and(3) [the permitee]
demonstrates the existence of water quality compliance schedules for the segment."10 San Carlos
Apache Tribe v.Arizona et al., No. 1 CA-CV 21-0295, 2022 WL 16938292 (Ariz. Ct.App.
11/15/22).
Several other courts have recognized the importance of both preparing TMDLs and only
issuing NPDES permits based on the limits established in the TMDL.11 For example, in Friends
of Wild Swan v. U.S. Env Prot.Agency,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a district court's order that"[restricted] the issuance of new permits or increased discharges"for
impaired water segments until the state prepared a TMDL for the relevant segment. 74 F.App'x
718, 724 (9th Cir. 2003). To be sure,the purpose of preparing a TMDL is not simply to check a
procedural box. Rather, as described above,TMDLs are important tools for determining how
water quality standards will be met if additional pollution is added to a waterway. In Friends of
Pinto Creek,the court vacated a NPDES permit for discharges into a waterway that was impaired
under Section 303(d)due to"non-attainment of water quality standards"for the same kind of
pollutant that the proposed discharge would contain. 504 F.3d at 1009.The court held that the
issuance of a NPDES permit is not lawful without a showing of"how the water quality standard
will be met if[the permittee] is allowed to discharge pollutants into the impaired waters."Id. at
1014. In the absence of a document like a TMDL demonstrating what those water quality
standards require in a given waterway—particular to specific pollutant load allocations—it is
1°This third requirement is also relevant to our concerns about the draft permit.The segment of Clear Creek which
will receive the proposed discharge also receives discharges from three other NPDES permit holders.See
NC0033430,NC0088056,NC0086070.Additionally,there are two upstream permitted discharges.See NC0076082,
NCG550798.The EPA defines"compliance schedule"as an"enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading
to compliance with a[water quality-based]effluent limitation"as required by section 502(17)of the CWA.U.S.
EPA,"Compliance Schedules for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in NPDES Permits,"May 10,2007,at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/2015-09/documents/memo complianceschedules may07.pdf;see also 40
C.F.R. § 122.2.To our knowledge,none of these other dischargers are subject to compliance schedules.More
troubling,not all of the discharges into the segment of Clear Creek at issue are in compliance with their permitted
effluent limitations.Permit NC0088056 has received multiple Notices of Violation.Permit NC0086070 has received
multiple Notices of Violation and Notices of Deficiency.However,each of the three NPDES permit holders have
indicated interest in connecting to the proposed facility.EA at 5.
n Multiple courts have recognized the importance of TMDLs.See Scott v. City of Hammond,Ind.,741 F.2d 992,998
(7th Cir. 1984)(recognizing"the intent of Congress that TMDLs be established promptly");Alaska Cir for Em' v.
Browner,20 F.3d 981,984(9th Cir. 1994)(generally recognizing the importance of TMDLs for achieving the
939 F.Su pp.865,871 (N.D.Ga.
1996)
(recognizing the
purposes of the Clean Water Act);Sierra Club v. Hankinson, pp ( gn g
"Congressional intent that TMDLs be established promptly").
5

impossible for a permittee to adequately show how they will be met. This is especially true here
where the proposed discharge contains the same types of pollutants that are responsible for
impairing the waterway in the first place. Because Clear Creek lacks a TMDL or other document
allocating pollution loads, DEQ may not issue the permit as proposed.
We recognize that DEQ has included monitoring requirements in the draft permit—
presumably in an effort to track the effects of the discharge on Clear Creek—but those
monitoring requirements do not satisfy the requirement to first prepare a TMDL or similar
document. If anything,the inclusion of monitoring requirements confirms that the discharge may
adversely affect water quality-otherwise monitoring requirements would not be necessary—
which underscores the need to prepare a TMDL to ensure the discharge will not cause or
contribute to a violation of water quality standards in Clear Creek.
Indeed, addition of a discharge from the proposed WWTP is likely to exacerbate the
existing impairment. The draft permit authorizes effluent discharges for parameters known to
cause negative impacts to benthos.12 For example,Total Suspended Solids can smother benthic
organisms when they settle in a stream bed.13 Ammonia can be "toxic to benthic or surface water
biota."14 And Biochemical Oxygen Demand can decrease the amount of dissolved oxygen—
which is critical for maintaining aquatic life—in a waterway.'The Project's EA also
contemplates that"toxic substances may be introduced into the environment if there are
operational failures in the WWTP,pump station, or sewer lines"which can also harm benthic
macroinvertebrates.16
In sum, additional pollution from the proposed discharge will unacceptably risk further
impairment of Clear Creek. With no pollutant-allocating document like a TMDL,DEQ cannot
grant a NPDES permit for new point source pollution into Clear Creek without violating the
Clean Water Act.
III. The draft permit violates North Carolina's antidegradation policy.
The draft permit also violates North Carolina's antidegradation policy.As explained
above, DEQ must classify waterbodies according to their best use and ensure that the water
quality of a given waterway is sufficient to protect its use designation. See 15A N.C.Admin.
Code 2B.0201. Here, Clear Creek is already not meeting the designated uses of Class C waters,
which include"aquatic life propagation, survival, and maintenance of biological integrity." 15A
N.C.Admin. Code 2B.0211(1). "Sources of water pollution that preclude [uses] on either a short-
term or long-term basis shall be deemed to violate a water quality standard."Id. Yet DEQ is
poised to authorize a new discharge into Clear Creek without demonstrating that the discharge
12 EA at 24.
13 Wetzel,R.G.,"Limnology:Lake and River Ecosystems(3rd ed.),"San Diego,CA:Academic Press(2001).
14 Lapota D,Duckworth D,Ward J,"Confounding Factors in Sediment Toxicology,"Issue Papers 1-19.Space and
Naval Warfare Systems Center,San Diego CA(2000).
15 See U.S.Geological Survey,"Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Water,"available at:
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod-and-water.
16 EA at 28.
6

will not further degrade water quality or cause further harm to biological integrity, including the
maintenance of benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Benthic communities provide several
ecosystem services to waterbodies and the fish species who live there."They are also central
components of freshwater food webs.18 DEQ has already failed to protect Clear Creek's
biological integrity and aquatic life as demonstrated by the Section 303(d) listing. DEQ may not
act to further impair the Creek's use without violating the Clean Water Act and North Carolina's
antidegradation requirements.
IV. The draft permit does not ensure compliance with narrative water quality
standards.
As noted above, Clear Creek is subject to and already violating narrative water quality
standards including the biological integrity standard.Nevertheless,DEQ made no attempt to
apply this standard in the draft permit.The agency must apply the standard and determine limits
necessary to prevent the discharge from causing further biological impairment in Clear Creek. If
the agency cannot impose limits to ensure compliance with the biological integrity standard, it
cannot issue the permit.See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1312; 15A N.C.Admin. Code 2H.0112(c).
V. DEQ has not selected the most environmentally sound, reasonably cost-
effective treatment option.
The draft permit also violates North Carolina law because the preferred alternative is not
the most environmentally sound, cost-effective alternative. When permitting new wastewater
treatment facilities,North Carolina law requires"the most environmentally sound alternative [to
be] selected from the reasonably cost-effective options." 15A N.C.Admin. Code 2H.0105(c)(2).
Here,the alternative of connecting to an existing wastewater treatment system is more
environmentally sound and reasonably cost effective.
The project's NPDES permit application notes that five alternatives were considered19
and two were determined to be feasible: 1)Alternative A-connecting to the City of
Hendersonville's sewer system near the confluence of Clear Creek and Wolfpen Creek and 2)
Alternative D - constructing a new WWTP at the confluence of Clear Creek and Laurel Branch
and establishing a new county-run sewer district.20 As an initial matter,the project applicant
needs to clearly disclose the cost of these two alternatives to the public and DEQ. The Summary
Cost Table in the draft permit lists costs for Alternative A (connection to the existing WWTP)as
$12.3 million and for Alternative D(constructing a new WWTP)as$9.8 million.21 But the
Project's EA lists the estimated cost of connecting to Hendersonville's WWTP at$7,948,000 and
1
Zoobenthic species
Alan P.Covich,et al.,"The Role of Benthic Invertebrate Species in Freshwater Ecosystems: oobe p
influence energy flows and nutrient cycling,"BioScience,Volume 49,Issue 2,February 1999,Pages 119-127,at:
https://doi.org/10.2307/1313537.
18 Id.
19 Clear Creek NPDES Permit Application at PDF pg.67.
20 Id.at 78.
21 Id.at 81.
7

the cost of constructing an entirely new WWTP at $4,830,000.22 Additionally,the line item cost
of a 200,000 GPD WWTP is listed as $3.5 million in the draft permit fact sheet23 but$4.75
million in the Project EA.24 DEQ cannot meaningfully compare alternatives without more clarity
on the costs associated with these options.
It is also unclear if the cost estimate for Alternative A accounts for long-term operating
costs. The permit application lists"recurring costs"for Alternative A as $0.13 million and for
Alternative D as$0.12 million.25 Under Alternative A,the county would incur no long-term
operating costs associated with a WWTP because Hendersonville has agreed to assume the costs
of treatment.26 It is hard to imagine that the recurring costs associated with simply owning a
sewer line(Alternative A)would be higher than the long-term costs associated with operating a
new WWTP(Alternative D). While unclear based on publicly available materials, our
assumption is long-term operating costs are not accurately captured in the cost estimate
associated with Alternative D.These costs must be accounted for in any comparison of
alternatives.
Additionally, it is unclear why taxpayers should be forced to fund construction and
operation of a new WWTP when an existing WWTP—presumably also constructed and operated
with public funds—is capable of handling the wastewater associated with sewer expansion in
Edneyville.The City of Hendersonville WWTP only utilizes 49%of its 4.8 MGD capacity on
average,and it has the potential ability to expand its capacity to 12 MGD.27 The proposed
Edneyville sewer extension will generate 0.2 MGD.28 This means that Alternative A would only
amount to approximately 4%of Hendersonville's existing capacity.Thus, Hendersonville's
existing WWTP has ample capacity to treat additional wastewater from the county without
requiring taxpayers to fund construction and operation of an entirely new WWTP.
More to the point,the draft permit fact sheet explains that the project will be "partly
funded by$12.7 Million ARPA grant funds, administered by the Division of Water
Infrastructure."29 Since both alternatives (under either the EA's or the permit application's
estimates) fall under the amount,of funds provided by the grant,both should be considered
reasonably cost effective and economically feasible. The fact that Alternative A avoids any long-
term WWTP maintenance costs and liability suggests that it is more cost effective than
Alternative D.
Alternative A (connection to the existing WWTP) is the most environmentally sound
alternative for the primary reason that it does not discharge into an already impaired stream
segment, avoiding the significant environmental and Clean Water Act challenges associated with
22 EA at 8-9.
23 Fact Sheet-NPDES Permit No.NC0090247 at PDF pg.33.
24 EAat Ill.
25 Clear Creek NPDES Permit Application at PDF pg. 81.
26 Id.at PDF pgs.91-115.
27EAat7.
28 Id.at 9.
29 Fact Sheet-NPDES Permit No.NC0090247 at 2.
8

•
Alternative D that are discussed above. Further,while the EA notes that there may be some
environmental impacts associated with construction of the gravity line under Alternative A,these
are likely to be relatively minor compared to the construction necessary to build an entirely new
W WTP 3°Alternative D is expected to result in"topographic impacts,""direct impacts to soil,"
"temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands"due to the installation of sewer lines,temporary
"air quality impacts"from construction, and some"clearing and disturbance of natural
vegetation within the project area."31 These activities will "result in direct impacts to aquatic
organisms and habitats [at] construction sites and stream crossings, or indirectly as a result of
stormwater runoff."32 Given the already impaired state of Clear Creek's aquatic life,the risk of
further harming aquatic life through construction-related impacts associated with the proposed
WWTP must be taken seriously. Because Alternative A is more environmentally sound and both
alternatives are cost-effective,permitting Alternative D violates state law.
VI. Conclusion
We appreciate efforts to improve water quality in the French Broad River watershed but
for the reasons explained above, DEQ cannot permit the discharge from a new WWTP as
proposed. We additionally underscore the need to consider the growth-inducing effect of
constructing a new sewer line and ensuring any new sewer system is paired with land use
regulations to preserve the rural and agricultural.nature of Edneyville.Thank you for considering
our comments and please let us know if we can answer questions or provide additional
information.
Sincerely,
Patrick Hunter
Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
[e-mail]
30 Id
31 EA at 23-26.
32 Id.at 26.
9