We, the concerned citizens, business leaders, officials and other supporters of Stanly County’s fight to preserve the right to prevent private interests being granted unfair use of North Carolina public resources, are taking our concerns directly to the state government.

Next Monday, March 31, and again two weeks later on April 14, we will be protesting in downtown Raleigh at the Bicentennial Mall near the intersection of Salisbury and Edenton streets from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. We have received official demonstration permits allowing us to do this peacefully. We will be sporting protest signs as well as listening to speakers discuss the issues confronting us.

This protest is occurring in the area in front of the N.C. Legislature Building, which will provide an excellent opportunity to let members of the General Assembly and other state officials know how strongly we hold our convictions about the need to intervene in the proposed relicensing of Alcoa’s hydroelectric operations on the Yadkin River in Stanly County. Alcoa wants another 50-year license granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in April to use power generated from this public water resource for its own benefit. We want the state to realize this would put the county into a long-term disadvantage on how to use its resources, not only due to the control being granted to this multinational firm with virtually no ties to the local community, but also that same firm’s slow response to environmental damages its previous operations on the Yadkin have inflicted on the county.

We anticipate at least 300 people will attend these protests and will notify the media about our activities in hopes that they will cover it and explain our concerns to our fellow North Carolinians. Not all will be from Stanly County alone, for this issue is more than just a county matter – it is a question of whether natural resources in the 21^st century can and should be used by local residents for the public good versus outside private interests receiving rights to those same resources for decades without accountability for their own personal financial benefit.   

Won’t you join us in hearing what we have to say? We would appreciate all who would participate as a fellow protester or just a supporter. If you would like more details on how to get involved, please e-mail us at nalmond@uwharrie.com.

Thanks, and we look forward to seeing you on March 31 and April 14.

Elaborating on our recent blog on the “Yadkin River as a Water Resource,” a poll of North Carolina residents taken by Elon University in March found that most North Carolinians are concerned about the state’s water supplies. The poll also found that most people consider water conservation to be a long-term issue that will last more than five years.

According to the poll, 63 percent of respondents said they are “very concerned” about the drought, and 62 percent said they were very concerned about water supply levels in the state.

Also, respondents identified the following water users as being “very responsible” for reducing statewide water use:

Local government: 62 percent
State government: 62 percent
Residents: 61 percent
Manufacturing industry: 57 percent
Business: 56 percent
Environmental groups: 56 percent
Builders and developers: 54 percent
Power companies: 53 percent

These identified majorities are quite interesting in light of the situation Stanly County faces with its major water resource, the Yadkin River – a resource for all of North Carolina. Alcoa (a business as well as a power company that has been involved in manufacturing) wants to renew its 50-year license for use of the public waters of the Yadkin over the objection of Stanly’s local government and most of its residents, as well as environmental groups. Federal law clearly says that such licensing should occur for the best adapted use of the water, and it is up to the state of North Carolina to determine whether Alcoa or Stanly County will be more responsible for the use of the Yadkin’s water now and in the future.

Given that Alcoa’s sole interest in the river right now is to generate hydroelectric power it can sell at a profit – or even sell its right to a third party should the license be granted – it appears obvious that Stanly County would be more concerned and proactive about reducing water use in the Yadkin than would be Alcoa.

Hunter Bacot, director of the Elon University Poll, said that “These results suggest that government strategies aimed at fighting the drought and conserving water should enjoy widespread support among citizens across the state as many are already taking action to reduce water use in their own homes.” Keeping that assessment in mind, the state should not allow Alcoa to receive a license valid through the year 2058 if it wants to be “very responsible” in reducing water, as most North Carolinians believe it should.

Contact Speaker of the House Joe Hackney
2304 State Legislative Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1096
Phone: (919) 733-3451
Fax: (919) 828-6257
joeh@ncleg.net

Contact Senator Richard Burr
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3154
Fax: (202) 228-2981
Email form available at: http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Contact Senator Elizabeth Dole
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: 202.224.6342
Fax: 202.224.1100
Email form available at: http://dole.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.ContactForm

Contact Senator Marc Basnight
North Carolina Senate
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2007
Raleigh, NC 27601-2808
Phone: (919) 733-6854
Marcb@ncleg.net

North Carolina is the only state in the country where every part of the state is in a designated Drought condition. Until August ‘07 North Carolina had been spared the worst effects of Southeastern US drought conditions centered on Alabama and spreading into neighboring states, notably Georgia. As of last week, every part of North Carolina was designated as either D2 Drought, Severe, D3 Drought , Extreme or D4 Drought, Exceptional by the USDA Drought Monitor. No part of North Carolina met the criteria for D1 Drought, Moderate. Last week 46% of the state was found to be in D4 Exceptional Drought conditions, a slight decrease from 49% the previous week. Every other state in the country has at least some area designated D0 Abnormally Dry or better. Even if you’ve been living under a rock and have missed the media attention you can’t have failed to notice the drying earth beneath you.

In spite of very recent precipitation (half normal rates) North Carolina is facing a water resource problem that is more than transitory and is compounded by divergent trajectories of supply and demand. Last Saturday a community Water Forum was held in Raleigh at the NCSU McKimmon Center by WakeUP Wake County to address water challenges and to examine the broad range of interrelated issues involved. The Forum was co-sponsored Capital Group Sierra Club, City of Raleigh, NC Conservation Network, Neuse River Foundation, Triangle Community Foundation, UNC Water Resource Research Institute, Wake Audubon, Wake League of Women Voters and several individual sponsors including my wife and myself.

The Forum attended by 250-300 people, including city, county and state leaders, covered a lot of ground focused on Wake County and applicable to the whole state and in turn was covered by a lot of media:

Some of the presentations have been posted online by WakeUP Wake County:

While some officials are trying to dismiss long-term water concerns, treating the drought as an anomalous event, they can’t seem to agree whether it is an 800-year or 113-year event. Of course the NC population curve didn’t start its upward climb until about 500 years ago and the only event most people care about is when supply does not meet demand. Raleigh Planning Director Mitch Silver asked, somewhat rhetorically, somewhat defensively, if any city had ever run out of water. Dr David Moreau responded that most municipalities respond to drought before such events occur but did point out that New Orleans during Katrina and eastern NC towns during Floyd lost public water supply due to flooding.

Duke Professor Rob Jackson saw no ambiguity in this drought event. He described the drought as an episodic event caused by elevated temperatures which increased demand, coupled with decreased precipitation to meet that demand. Our normal sources of moisture, the Jet Stream and the Gulf Stream, have been passing us by. He sees the increased intensity of such episodic events as consistent with predictions of global climate change and only sees more of them, without human intervention.

Regardless of the episodic nature of drought events it is clear that at current rates of consumption and current population growth rates North Carolina will approach the limits of safe yield of current and future water supplies. The margin of error for drought events is becoming narrower and NC per capita water use is high relative to other parts of the country. Conservation is essential to future growth and response to drought.

In a telling slide Tommy Esqueda, Director, Wake County Environmental Services compared normal potable water use by Cary households to that of Cary households using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation systems. The increased use by typical households of treated drinking water for outdoor use during summer months (ie lawn irrigation)was clearly visible and clearly a target for reduction or substitution with reclaimed or recycled water.

Due to the drought NC DENR is rapidly expanding the permitting of reclaimed water under current rules. Reclaimed water is treated wastewater effluent that is normally discharged to waterways but, with a little extra treatment, can be used for a variety of non-potable purposes. This is not to be confused with graywater which must be treated before use under current health rules and building codes.

The widespread use of rainwater collection faces some obstacles, though not insurmountable. Under current building codes rainwater can not be used in plumbing systems without separate piping and with some form of treatment, similar to graywater systems. Such rainwater harvesting system exists in the Rashkis Elementary School and Smith Middle School in Chapel Hill and in the new Chapel-Hill Carroboro High School. The new Northern Guilford High School uses treated rainwater for toilet fixture flushing and also uses a “living machine” to treat sanitary waste from which treated effluent is also used for subsurface irrigation of playfields.

Widespread use of these systems will require fine tuning of building codes and economic incentives, such as conservation tax credits or tiered rates for consumption that penalize profligate use of tap water. At the consumer level the obstacles may be more immediate for users who can not afford a $100 rain barrel or the cost for a plumber to install otherwise inexpensive low-flow devices. Municipal water systems will need to figure out how to get through the initial cost barrier ad may need to use rebates in conjunction with increased or tiered consumption rates.

Community well systems run by private companies are not under the control of counties, municipalities or DENR. They are regulated by the NC Utilities Commission and conservation measures can not be mandated without going through the Utilities Commission. DENR regulations require minimum flow rates for wells but there are no maximum limits. Large drawdowns by community well systems can cause the individual wells of neighboring families, businesses and institutions to run dry. This may be addressable as a public health issue if individuals on private wells have no water for sanitation purposes but will have to be addressed through the General Assembly to give counties some measure of control over community water systems.

The Tennessee Valley Authority reported a quarterly loss of $17 million attributed to drought conditions in the South causing a reduction in hydroelectric power generation. One TVA nuclear reactor in Alabama was shut down briefly last summer due to drought conditions. Both nuclear and coal-fired power generation plants depend on copious amounts of water for steam generation and cooling. They require a stable flow of cool water, some of which is lost to evaporation with the balance discharged back downstream from the source with elevated temperatures within an environmentally acceptable range to avoid cooking the ecosystem. Drought can reduce flow, elevate intake temperatures, lower water levels below intakes and reduce the rate of discharge thus limiting the power generation capacity of existing power plants and construction of new plants. Water and power are inextricably linked. In fact an estimated 20% of municipal electricity consumption is used to treat and pump water and wastewater.

Because water doesn’t respect political boundaries many of the solutions to water woes will require regional cooperation at a level that does not currently exist in North Carolina. While some water systems have rudimentary connections to their neighbors the distribution of water at a regional level is haphazard and cumbersome. Regionalism has been suppressed with the decline in Federal funding of regional infrastructure projects and the tug-of-war between the state and local governments over funding and responsibilities. As with transportation the most efficient use of our water resources will come with regional cooperation that avoids a mad scramble to the bottom of the sediment pond.

I’m here at the McKimmon Center with about 300 people attending the WakeUp Wake County Water Forum. Among the attendees are numerous concerned citizens, experts, elected officials, hopeful candidates and a lot of media. We’re on a break between sessions. Lots of questions from the audience. The forum runs until 12pm so come on over if you’re close by.

Early session:

Who provides water in Wake County, where does it come from?
Tommy Esqueada, Director, Wake County Environmental Services
Climate change and water availability.
Rob Jackson, Director, Duke University Center on Global Change
Environmental considerations of water use:
Chris Goudreau, Special Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Update:

We’re back in session, Dr David Moreau, Director, UNC Water Resources Research Institute and Chairman N.C.Environmental Management Commission, is speaking, taking a historical view of water use and planning in Wake County and “safe yield” in particular.

Up next Bill Holman, Senior Fellow, Duke University and former Secretary of NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources on paying for water resources. Bill ended with the observation that electricity generation is also heavily dependent on water resources, primarily for cooling and that limitations on the intake and discharge of water can place limitations on generation of electricity from nuclear and fuel fired power plants.
Points from the earlier session on private water supply: Community well systems run by private companies are regulated by the Utilities Commission and conservation measures can not be mandated by the County without going through the Utilities Commission. Another factor with community well systems is the large drawdown of water causing neighboring single family wells to run dry. DENR regulations require minimum flow rates for wells but there are no maximum limits. May be addressed as a public health issue if individual homes on private wells have no water but will ahve to be addressed through the General Assembly to give counties some measure of control over community water systems.

Last speaker:
Water Conservation: What other communities are doing and recommendations of the Raleigh Water Conservation Task Force
Mary Brice, Co-Chair, Raleigh Water Conservation Task Force

We’re in the short rows and the rows lining up at the microphones for questions are getting long. Raleigh City planning director Mitch Silver asks whether a city has ever run out of water? David Moreau answers that New Orleans after Katrina and Eastern NC towns after Floyd lost public water supply. Most municipalities take measure before water actually runs out.

Ever wonder about rising construction costs and why it’s so absurd to expect spending on infrastructure to stay within the limits of consumer inflation (CPI) while keeping up with growth?

After years of minimal cost increases, prices of many construction materials skyrocketed from 2004 to mid-2006. Since mid-2006, some input prices have moderated, while others have fallen. But the cumulative increase in the producer price index (PPI) for construction inputs since December 2003 (28 percent through August 2007) remains more than double the 13 percent increase in the most common measure of overall inflation, the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers. Labor costs, in contrast, have risen at similar rates for construction and for the private sector as a whole.

Cumulative Change in Consumer, Producer & Construction Prices

Source: Associated General Contractors of America, Data Digest.

The cumulative difference matters because the estimates for many projects now being bid, especially public facilities, were prepared in 2003-2005 under the assumption that construction costs would escalate at the same rate as the CPI. That divergence explains why some projects are being canceled, delayed or redesigned. In the next several months, the PPI for construction inputs, which covers items used up in construction such as diesel fuel as well as materials that go into a project, is expected to accelerate to a 3-5 percent annual rate of increase from the recent 1.5- 3 percent range. By the end of 2008, and indefinitely thereafter, construction input costs are likely to be rising at 6-8 percent. Labor cost increases could top 5 percent by the end of 2007 and 5-6 percent in subsequent years.

For more information read the AGC Construction Inflation Alert

The bottom line: Owners, budget setters and contractors should expect larger materials and labor cost increases in 2008 than they have experienced in the past 12 months. Nonresidential construction activity is still likely to grow, as will demand for construction materials that are used in other industries and other countries.

A Discriminating View Of Public-Private Partnerships

Ken Orski

Not all forms of public-private partnerships received an unreserved endorsement at the19th annual Conference on Public-Private Ventures in Transportation, staged recently by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. Long term leases of existing toll roads, as exemplified by the Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road, were viewed with skepticism by some speakers. Coming in for particularly severe criticism were leases whose proceeds would be dedicated to non-transportation purposes.

“If the motivation for a P3 project is to generate upfront cash that can be used to solve statewide budget problems or finance other expenditures not related to transportation, we will oppose that deal,” announced AAA’s Robert Darbelnet in a luncheon address. However, “public private partnerships are certainly one of the options, and I am here to say that AAA believes that these partnerships have a role to play.”

Opposition to Chicago Skyway-type deals was also expressed by Jack Schenendorf, Vice Chairman of the federal commission on transportation policy and revenue, who cited the potential diversion of cash raised from long-term assets leases as a reason why the public and Congress are questioning the wisdom of letting out toll road concessions to private operators.

The current targets of this criticism — proposals to lease the New Jersey Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike — were absent from the program after having been prominently featured in past conference programs. Was this a subtle sign that the P3 community wishes to distance itself from these initiatives or at least to represent them as outside the mainstream of private sector involvement? That would be the hope of those who contend that the true purpose of public-private partnerships is to share in the risks (and rewards) of investing in new capacity-enhancing “greenfield” projects.

Confusing “monetization” of existing public assets with public-private partnerships sends a wrong message about the true purpose of the P3 process, and could lead to a withdrawal of congressional support from public-private ventures, or to the promulgation of restrictive congressional guidelines governing their use.

To Tax Or Not To Tax?

Many speakers voiced skepticism about the prospect for increased gasoline taxes and doubted that a small tax increase would make a dent in the infrastructure deficit. In sum, the consensus was that public resources will never be enough and complementary private capital will be needed to accomplish public purposes. A small increase in the fuel tax would be a band-aid solution, and with oil prices predicted to push past the $100-a-barrel mark, the prospect of Congress and state legislatures approving major increases in fuel taxes is remote.

Congressional reluctance to increase gas taxes was underscored by the news, made public on the eve of the Conference, that Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, bowed to political reality and withdrew his proposal for a 5-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax increase to fund his bridge reconstruction program. Oberstar’s proposed tax hike was vetoed by the Congressional leadership and received little support from rank-and-file Democrats as well as Republicans. A gas tax increase faces bleak prospects heading into an election year, Oberstar acknowledged.

Discussions in the breakout sessions revealed a growing sophistication with the concepts of public-private ventures and a more cautious assessment of the rate of their penetration of the infrastructure market. Setbacks, such as the Texas moratorium, have moderated the initial “irrational exuberance,” and the tendency now is to shift focus from high profile megadeals and long-term asset leases to more modest ventures, such as the public-private concessions in Mississippi and Georgia. New financing techniques such as “availability payments” that are tied to performance, and “shadow tolling” are emerging as alternatives to the first generation concession model.

The best way of figuring out what the developer and builder lobbyists are doing in Wake is to read the Charlotte Observer..and the blogs. Here is an editorial from today’s CO.

Published Nov.2, 2007

Transfer tax campaign

This year the N.C. General Assembly threw a fiscal life preserver to counties struggling to meet costly community needs. It gave them permission to ask local voters to levy a 0.4 percent transfer tax on real estate transactions. If approved, the countywide tax would amount to $800 on a $200,000 house.

Until now, growth-burdened local governments have had few revenue options other than leaning harder on the property tax. That why on Tuesday’s ballot 15 of the state’s 100 counties (including nearby Union) will put a transfer tax proposal before their voters.

But that doesn’t mean it’s just a local issue. Local voters are getting a hard nudge from some well-financed outside interest groups that don’t want a new tax on real estate sales.

Read the rest of this entry »

from Smart Growth Around America

Efforts aimed at ‘free” parking abound in Raleigh and Cary.

Some of the best things in life are free - but not parking spaces. As the cost of land goes up, so does the cost of parking. In NYC a single spot in a prime location was sold for $250K. Read on..

The high cost of driving — and free parking

While transit critics are quick to complain about subsidies required to operate public transportation, rarely is it noted roads are subsidized at least as heavily, because so-called user fees — gas taxes, tolls, and fees — fall well short of covering the public cost.

From a new study by Mark Delucchi at U.C. Davis, soon to be published in the journal Transportation Research: “Current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use by approximately 20-70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel. (Note that in this accounting we include only government expenditures; we do not include any “external” costs of motor-vehicle use.) “Taxpayers dig deep in using general revenues to cover the gap in funding for construction, maintenance, policing, cleaning up the human and material damage from accidents, etc. The study does not account for the costs to individuals or to the planet.

Read the rest of this entry »