Thread: Meters on Wells in NC? Rep. Gillespie defends efforts on wel

Rep. Gillespie defends efforts on well monitoring issue

By BRITT COMBS
jcombs@mcdowellnews.com
Tuesday, August 12, 2008


It's probably just as well that no one in Raleigh wants to take credit for the latest attempt to place meters on private wells. Many politicians, on the other hand, are lining up to take credit for getting the provision out of the latest drought-preparedness bill.

The bill, S.L 2008-143, was signed into law by Gov. Mike Easley after weeks of wrangling in the House and Senate. The bill, intended to address the perceived need for standardized drought-management procedures, empowered the Environmental Management Commission to record data relating to water use throughout the state, and empowered the governor to declare "water emergencies" based on the recommendations of the commission.

While several provisions of the law are far-reaching, attempts were made in the House, where the bill originated, to bring private drinking water and other home use under the scope of the commission's powers.

The controversy has involved McDowell County's elected representatives to the state in heated dispute. The governor's office has long maintained that Easley did not want and would not support regulatory power over private wells. Others have said it was his idea in the first place.

Section 6 of the bill, as amended by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, called for a "study whether and to what extent private groundwater wells and the use of water produced by private groundwater wells should be regulated by the state or units of local government."

The bill was sponsored in the House by Reps. Lucy Allen, D-Franklin; Pryor Gibson, D-Anson; and Russell Tucker, D-Duplin.

How the study provision got into the bill in committee remains a matter of debate. Gibson said, "There was no regulation of private wells anywhere (in the bill)."

Co-sponsor Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake, said that Gibson and Allen "stated that they removed restrictions on private wells from the bill." Allen did not respond to requests for an interview.

Recently, The McDowell News received a letter from Vance Caudle of the McDowell County Republican Party, praising Rep. Mitch Gillespie, R-McDowell, for his work in getting the section tossed.

"They tried to meter private wells," he said. "I'm sure there'll be further attempts at that, but Mitch stopped it."

State Sen. Joe Sam Queen, D-Haywood, said the claims made by Caudle were "falsehoods" and "deceptions."

"When that bill left the House it was broken," said Queen, "and Mitch did absolutely nothing to fix it. Section 6 is out of the Senate bill. I voted to take it out. I and Sen. Walter Dalton, (D-Rutherford) passed two amendments to remove any reference to monitoring wells or studying the issue. We don't need to have a study because we are never going to do it.

"If it's used for household or farm use," he added, "then it's out of the bill."

Queen said drought management legislation was needed because last year many municipalities made sacrifices and adhered to their own drought-response plans while others did nothing. The result, he said was "that many towns were not conserving and we drew down Lake James a lot faster than we should have."

In a recent interview, Gillespie disputed nearly everything Queen said, beginning with the reasons for Lake James's troubles last summer.

"Lake James was drawn down to cool the nuclear power plant, not because of any municipal water use," he said.

He agreed that some water systems were not taking effective drought-response measures last year. "There were 17 of them," he said, "but none of those were in the Catawba River Basin."

Gillespie stated that while there was some hope that a bill could be crafted "in a bipartisan spirit" those hopes were soon dashed. In the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, he said, he fought to include language specifically exempting "deepwater wells."

He provided extensive documentation to show his involvement in the issue. During floor debate, he submitted an amendment to the effect that the bill "shall not be construed to authorize a unit of government ? to regulate ? a well located outside its jurisdiction ? or any other private well."

Several of his points, he said, were included in a bundled amendment submitted by House Minority Leader Paul Stam, R-Wake.

Gillespie said their efforts resulted in Section 6(b), which called upon the Commission to study the construction of new reservoirs and amending state law as needed to facilitate that construction. He asserted that the "real issue" was water management into the future, and that would be accomplished through reservoir construction.

"When it left the House," he added, "it said 'no private wells anywhere could be regulated by any unit of government.' Queen said I never opened my mouth, well, that's my voice. I voted against it. I never voted for that bill in any version."

He said that by the time the Senate had modified the bill, it was as objectionable as ever. Sen. Daniel Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, the bill's sponsor in the Senate, "stripped it of everything we had fought for and substituted a new bill that had the 'study' in it. I was right there. I was seated right behind (Sens.) Jacumin and Berger, helping them every way I could. Jim Jacumin (R-Burke) got the study in Section 6 out, not Queen."

Jacumin, trumpeting the accomplishment, released a statement saying that a homeowner's well cannot be considered part of the problem.

He said that large water systems typically allow a leak to continue for years. Private well owners, by contrast, fix any problem the same day. "They're part of the solution," he said.

The wrangling continued, according to Gillespie, as Sen. Phil Berger, R-Guilford, was able to re-insert language protecting private wells.

At that point, he added, Clodfelter recalled the amendment, and Sen. Fletcher Hartsell, R-Cabarrus, ran a "perfecting amendment" changing "private well" to "private drinking water well."

This, said Gillespie, is the harm of the bill, and why he could not support it in the end. Many private wells have uses other than or in addition to human consumption. Such wells are now, under the new law, subject to departmental regulation and to the governor's emergency powers.

"We could have been bipartisan about it," he concluded, "if they had just been willing to address our concerns. Democrats run the show. We fought it and they passed it."

Renee Hoffman, the governor's press secretary, had said last winter, in an interview with The McDowell News, that the governor would never consider regulating or monitoring private wells.

When asked about the new law she said, "It looks like the final bill accomplishes the governor's goals."

http://www.mcdowellnews.com

This attempt to regulate or monitor private wells in NC makes my blood boil. You won't find a more conservative bunch than folks who have to depend on well water. We know if our wells run dry we're in deep doodoo, not to mention a LOT of out of pocket expense to drill a new one. If the pump goes or there's a leak in the lines, we fix it right then!

What needs to be addressed is the RICH COUNTRY CLUB TYPES IN THE ELITE NEIGHBORHOODS and their GRASS WATERING practices! I've seen lawn sprinklers running WHILE IT WAS RAINING for Pete's sake! But THEY don't have a well so they really don't give a rat's backside HOW much water they waste so their lawns will stay green and pretty. And does the city ever actually question the excessive usage? Why, NO they don't - not where I live they don't.

Leave the private well owners alone!

forgal wrote:

Leave the private well owners alone!

Ditto that! Leave my darn well alone.

If this happens I might be in jail because I will protect MY PROPERTY with all that I have. Physically and financially!

This communism has got to stop.

If the city plays nice I might sell give them some of my water if things get really tight.