Minutes - 19860325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

returns only about 50 - 60% of the water to the streams and the remaining percentage does not come back to the Eno River. There are more impacts on the river as growth continues. The riparian law states that there is a right to use the water, but there is no ownership of the water. The State has jurisdiction over the water as well as a statutory responsibility and public trust. With prudent planning and implementation the conflict between water supply and in-stream flow can be resolved but it will be costly. There is a need to determine who pays if something is done. There is also a question of what flow to be released. The State had made a recommendation using 7Q10. Wray continued that 7Q10 was about 1.78 for the period 1929 - 1950 (1. 462) ; up to 1960 ( .869) ; and up to 1970 ( . 67) . The natural 7Q10 of the Eno River is low. Chair Willhoit asked that Wray emphasize that these figures represent cubic feet per second rather than million gallons per day. Wray noted that cubic feet per second x 1.55 or 1 mgd. = 1. 5 cfs. 10 mgd would be equal to 15 cfs. Chair Willhoit noted that these would range from . 4 mgd to about 1. 1 mgd and Wray concurred. Wray noted that the Hillsborough permit to discharge wastewater was coming up for renewal and he asked for comments from Meg Kirk on the renewal of the permit. Meg Kirk stated that the Eno River is stressed at times which does threaten the fish and other aquatic life. She noted this was an indication of a need for water quality protection. There was a question from the audience as to what the State considers a safe minimum instream flow for the Eno River. Wray responded that 1.7 was the interim recommendation to maintain survival of aquatic life and to address water quality problems. He noted there was no real answer at this time with specific numbers. He expressed the feeling that with the engineering capabilities available, a much better instream flow could be obtained. The question was raised if the State was specifying a minimum figure during the interim and Wray responded that 1. 7 cfs was recommended during the interim and this would be cut back if a critical situation did occur. John Hartwell inquired about the amount of flow below the treatment plant. Wray responded that the flow at the treatment plant is known but no precise study estimates have been made. He noted a reasonable figure could be developed. Josephine Barbour asked if the recommendation of 1.76 will be enforced by the State. Wray responded that the State would be working with the County and the County's response would be evaluated. There is the possibility of State enforcement, but it is still in the working stage at this time. Ms. Barbour continued asking about fish reproducing and returning to the streams after the drought was over. Wray referred the question to Scott Van Horn. Van Horn responded that fish have a tremendous reproductive capability so a few survivors can repopulate a stream fairly quickly. He noted that the timing is critical as to whether the drought occurs during spawning season. The question was asked if 1.76 was considered safe to dissipate wastewater. Meg Kirk responded that when a permit is issued it is issued with the flow of the river in mind and it is calculated to