Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Interbasin Transfers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional leaders warn proposed Charlotte interbasin transfer could strain Catawba basin
Summary
Western Piedmont Council of Governments staff warned Burke County commissioners that Charlotte Water’s request to increase its interbasin transfer could reduce flows and stress local intakes during droughts and that local governments are coordinating a joint response to the state review process.
Anthony Starr, senior planner with the Western Piedmont Council of Governments, told the Burke County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 17 that Charlotte Water has filed a notice of intent to request a modification to its interbasin transfer certificate and that the request could be large enough to equal or exceed much of the region’s current production.
Starr said Charlotte’s request would be for a term of 30 years and that the exact additional amount is still being determined; presentations to the Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) have suggested an increase of about 30–33 million gallons per day. He explained that the state treats some subbasin transfers the same as transfers between major basins, which increases regulatory scrutiny and public review.
"We are not opposed to Charlotte growing. We just don't want that growth to occur at the expense of our region," Starr said, noting two main concerns: reduced streamflows and reservoir levels during drought, and the possibility that extensive transfers could lead to future restrictions on downstream withdrawals that would limit Burke County’s growth.
Starr summarized the Catawba River Basin context — its relatively small watershed area, dense population, existing permitted transfers (including Charlotte Water’s current 33 million gallons-per-day certificate and Concord-Kannapolis and Mooresville transfers), storage and seasonal evaporation — and outlined the state review steps leading to a draft environmental impact statement and EMC hearings in 2026. He said a regional coalition of local governments has formed to respond to the Charlotte request; Burke County contributed preliminary funding to hire legal and engineering consultants and engaged an advocacy firm to coordinate with state leaders.
Commissioners asked about the history of Charlotte’s certificates, how the state process works and whether Charlotte has requested transfers recently; Starr noted Charlotte’s last certificate was issued in February 2002 and walked the board through the EMC’s factors (reasonableness, alternatives, detriments and required mitigation). He said Mooresville and Concord–Kannapolis took different approaches in preparing materials and that Charlotte has not yet provided as much detail as some other applicants.
The board voted to accept the Western Piedmont Council of Governments report as presented by Starr, 5–0.
Why it matters: local water withdrawals and interbasin transfers can affect lake levels, drinking-water intakes and permitted growth. The EMC can approve, modify or deny transfer certificates after an environmental review and public hearings; local governments can provide evidence and request conditions during that process.
