Should Rock Hill region ‘give up’ growth potential so Charlotte has enough water?
A coalition of local governments representing 1.5 million people in South Carolina say they won’t support a Charlotte Water plan to divert water from the Catawba River. That kind of water transfer could stunt economic growth south of the state line, they argue.
Charlotte Water, the drinking water and wastewater provider for more than 1 million Mecklenburg County customers, started a process earlier this year to increase how much water it can draw out of the Catawba River system without replacing it. The approval process could take several years.
South Carolina communities, though, aren’t waiting that long to speak up against the plan. Three large governmental agencies — one that represents cities and towns across York, Lancaster and Chester counties — sent an opposition letter stating water availability is crucial for economic development, population growth, agriculture and quality of life.
“The regions adjacent to and downstream from Charlotte should not be forced to give up potential growth opportunities to subsidize Charlotte’s growth with collective water resources,” they wrote.
What water transfer does Charlotte want?
Charlotte Water withdraws surface water from Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman in the Catawba River basin.
The utility is allowed to take out up to 33 million gallons per day and transfer it to areas in the Rocky River basin. That river basin serves parts of Mecklenburg County outside of the Catawba watershed, Concord, Kannapolis, Davidson, Huntersville, Cornelius and other areas in North Carolina.
Now, Charlotte Water wants the ability to take almost double that amount, as it plans for growth in those areas. That approval process goes through the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
But there’s concern in South Carolina, where other fast-growing communities like Fort Mill, Lake Wylie, Tega Cay and Rock Hill will need more water in coming years, too.
A similar water transfer, known as an interbasin transfer, sparked controversy two decades ago that resulted in a “Water War” in which South Carolina sued North Carolina. Three years of debate and a case filed with the U.S. Supreme Court ended in a 2010 resolution that called for water withdrawal reductions, delays and limits during drought.
That prior controversy began when Concord and Kannapolis, the cities that had to agree to those limits, received an interbasin transfer from state regulators.
Who in SC opposes the Charlotte Water transfer?
The Catawba Regional Council of Government represents government bodies in York, Lancaster, Chester and Union (S.C.) counties. It specifically works on larger issues that impact communities across the region. It’s similar to the Central Midlands and Santee Lynches councils of governments.
Those three groups combine to represent 12 counties in South Carolina. Together, they endorsed a letter calling for Charlotte Water to look at other options. Catawba Regional’s board offered its support of the letter last week in Rock Hill.
“Much of the population in our regions is reliant upon water from the Catawba-Wateree basin, and many areas throughout our respective regions are experiencing rapid population and significant commercial and industrial growth,” they wrote.
The councils of government argue recent droughts have shown that the Catawba River is not an unlimited supply of water, and that much of the Charlotte region is a high-growth area.
“Interbasin transfers of the magnitude proposed by Charlotte Water will effectively subsidize growth in the benefitting area while depleting the limited and collective water resources of the entire Catawba-Wateree Basin,” they wrote.
Reduced water flow in the Catawba could lead to greater concentration of pollutants, which would harm ecosystems, recreation and public health, they wrote. The letter also asked Charlotte Water to wait until an ongoing basin-wide water supply master plan is complete.
The interbasin transfer request should only be considered, if at all, “as an emergency and very temporary measure” after Charlotte Water takes steps to limit water loss through its existing system, according to the letter. Conservation and preservation efforts should come before any transfer, the letter argues.
The letter references the 2010 settlement agreement for the prior transfer as evidence of South Carolina communities having a stake in the North Carolina decision.
Rock Hill impact of Charlotte Water withdrawal decision
In late July, Charlotte Water held a public information meeting in Rock Hill. Community members heard about plans to request up to 30 million gallons of water per day more from the Catawba basin. Local, state and federal officials spoke out with concerns about losing water.
“This is a huge deal, for North Carolina but for South Carolina as well,” said U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, a Republican representing South Carolina’s 5th congressional district.
Fort Mill Mayor Guynn Savage referenced a drought in the area that lasted most of three years. It would be almost impossible for her to support a withdrawal, she said that night, for something as critical as water. From Fort Mill’s growing population to Chester County’s growing industry, water is key, Savage said.
“I cannot see supporting additional withdrawals from the water source that is to serve this area,” she said. “We must find better ways of managing growth and how it affects the infrastructure, rather than taking from those that would be downstream.”
Norman wants to see a South Carolina water plan incorporated into the decision, and said he, like Savage, is “probably going to be on opposite ends” of the issue with Charlotte Water.
“Water is the linchpin for not only growth, but really for livability,” Norman said.
Both states will be part of the decision process, said Rob Devlin with the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services.
“South Carolina’s role in this is to just make sure that we are engaged,” he told the Rock Hill crowd this summer, “and that all water that is transferred will not adversely affect anything we do in our state.”
“Science will run the process,” Devlin said.
This story was originally published September 25, 2024 at 5:00 AM.
