Agenda - 11-19-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i . . • . -- ' , . * . , 1 . Mr. Ken R. Thompson Page -3- May 15, 1985 . -, • Although the Upper Eno River Basin concerns a relatively small portion of North Carolina, how we deal with these issues may have ( long-range statewide ramifications on our natural resources. . . Therefore, we must concentrate on downstream as well as upstream needs. Headater water supply problems should not be resolved at the x . vi complete expense of downstream interest. • 4; 1 • . :t'• streams that are significantly dewatered or are artificially dried up are of concern to the State. The Eno River is of value to the - State for purposes in addition to water supply. It is a fundamental r and valuable! element of the State's natural resources and natural heritage. The history of the Eno and the public's interest in the E o are well docUmented. Recent history indicates that government agencies at 1611 levels should be much more aware of environme-atal, historical, aesthetic, recreational, riparian, as well as water supp y problems developing on the Eno River. . . The* records from the Eno River Gage. at Hillsborough indicate that for the 40 years of record (1931-1970) , there was some flow in the river every day. Only 6 years of that 40-year record show periods of 7 days where the flows were less than one cfs. k i However, the Eno hydrology is quite fragile. The record indicate . ' there are extensive periods where the flow is less than 10 cfs. In fact, 19 out bf the 40 years had periods of 60 days or more where the i: flow was less than 10 cfs. As such, the flow is very much affected b , small diversions. f ( Beginning in 1969, with the Orange-Alamance system diversion, and • , followed in 1977 by the much larger OWASA diversion, stream flows On the Eno have been unnaturally reduced. Apparently, the downstream impacts of these diversions have not been evaluated. We cannot locate any record'of consideration by the Environmental Management Commissio L under provisions of GS 162A-7/GS 153A-285. 1 ;i Downstream interests include private and public riparian i . landowners, general recreational and aesthetic values (particularly in ' the State Pari ) , aquatic habitat, water supply for Durham (and Raleigh for the longer range) , water quality concerns, and possibly long-range hydroelectric bonsiderations. Developments and changes that would impact water resources must take into account downstream interests. Because of, the current critical water supply situation and actions • underway to provide additional water supply storage, you indicated • that the County would be in a better position to deal with downstream flows in one year and would, in fact, incorporate downstream flow i releases in the plan (ordinance) , effective May 1986. Based on the current critical situation, this seems like a prudent approach until May 1986. Forlthe interim period, we would recommend the following: i 1 • • Water Storage Stage Minimum Release of Lake Orange • . Normal (100-60% storage) 1. 7 cfs I Alert (60-50% storage) 1. 7 cfs II Warning (50-40% storage) . 7 cfs III Danger (40-30% storage! - . 7 cfs IV Emergency (30-20% storage) • No Requirement V Crisis ( 20-0% storage) • No Requirement • . .