Flood damage prevention ordinance, dam removal still on the table
Lake Emory Dam. File photo
Despite a lack of quorum at the November planning board meeting, both the flood damage prevention ordinance and now the removal of Lake Emory Dam remain on the table for Macon County, during a time when much of Western North Carolina is still recovering from damage caused by flooding and winds due to Hurricane Helene.
The Water Quality Advisory Committee was set to present its latest report, detailing potential impacts of revising the Macon County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, at the Nov. 7 planning board meeting, the same meeting the planning board would consider its recommendation to the county commission regarding the ordinance.
The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is the third of three that have been up for revision over the course of the year.
The planning board and the commission have been considering revising the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, which currently prevents placement of fill in floodplains, to allow for fill on up to 25% of the flood fringe area of any property.
The Water Quality Advisory Committee (WQAC) opposes changing the ordinance to allow for 25% fill, saying in its report that it instead advocates “for a variance process to allow for exceptions to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, while keeping floodplain protections intact.”
The Water Quality Advisory Committee is made up of nine volunteer members with careers in varying aspects of aquatic management.
Related Items
Jackson, Macon, Swain reach FRL agreement
Macon votes to retain environmental health fees
Macon votes no, again, to quarter-cent sales tax
State of the waterways: Water Quality Advisory Committee releases new report
While one of the three ordinance revisions has already been passed by the board of commissioners — in August the board voted to change the required land disturbance from half an acre to an acre before any plans are required for soil erosion control on a project in the Soil Erosion Sedimentation Control Ordinance — commissioners are not set to make final decisions on the Water Supply Watershed Protection or Flood Damage Prevention ordinances until January.
Despite the WQAC presenting findings from a similar report about potential impacts of revisions to the Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance at the planning board’s Oct. 3 meeting, the planning board voted against the recommendations of the WQAC and made an official recommendation to the county commission to remove a clause from the ordinance that says RV parks are not eligible for special nonresidential intensity allocations (SNIA) from the ordinance.
Kayaker paddles on the Little Tennessee River. File photo
Due to a lack of quorum, there was no official planning board meeting on Nov. 7.
“I apologized to everyone in attendance and let them know that there would not be an ‘official’ meeting, but we welcomed anything they wanted to present,” said Planning Board Chairman Jean Owen. “As there was no official meeting, there was no recommendation to the county commissioners.”
According to Owen, the planning board will take up the proposed revision to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance at the Dec. 5 planning board meeting.
Despite the lack of quorum, there was public turnout at the Nov. 7 planning board meeting with several people voicing their opposition to the proposed change, in addition to presentations by the WQAC, as well as Lewis Penland, who presented about how to manage floodplains and restore damaged floodplains, and from Kenneth McCaskill of Farm Bureau about the loss of agricultural land and the importance of the floodplain for agriculture.
Throughout the entire process of considering revisions to the ordinances that affect the floodplain, there has been regular and vehement opposition to the changes from members of the public. While some commissioners and planning board members claim the changes to the ordinances were proposed after hearing complaints from members of the public, only two proponents of the changes have voiced their opinion in public comment, compared to dozens against the changes.
“These are not things that I pulled out of thin air, these are real issues that people in the public, people in the community have come to me about over the years,” Young said at the May commissioners meeting.
Other commissioners also said they had heard questions from the community about the ordinance.
While members of the public have been vocal in opposition to the changes throughout the year, that opposition became somewhat more pronounced after flooding and wind damage caused by Hurricane Helene.
“All of this is very, very important stuff and I really just have one question. Why are we doing this right now?” said one speaker at the Oct. 3 planning board meeting. “Our region has suffered one of the worst catastrophes that I can think of … This can wait. Our people are suffering.”
During the Nov. 12 commissioners meeting, Christopher Baxter took to public comment to point out the lack of support for changes to the ordinances impacting the floodplain.
“I see that growing public opinion in Macon County is against weakening flood protection at a time when our neighbors are still struggling to recover,” said Baxter. “The overwhelming majority of people in this room have respectfully but repeatedly and intelligently, as very concerned citizens, spoken out against this change.”
“In this democratic process the voice and will of the people are to be listened to, respected and responded to,” Baxter continued. “The voice of the people has been heard here but I don’t believe that it has been responded to in a way that’s commensurate with how they have been expressing their concerns.”
After the commission’s Nov. 12 meeting, the planning board has a new task on its plate in addition to discussion and recommendation on proposed changes to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
At the beginning of the meeting, Commissioner John Shearl asked that discussion about the removal of Lake Emory Dam be added to new business. Commissioner Paul Higdon had brought the issue up earlier this year, but there has been no movement on the topic.
“All I’m asking for is if this board agrees, let’s just task the planning board at doing some homework and see if this is even feasible to even consider the Lake Emory Dam,” said Shearl. “I’m not saying let’s go remove the dam next month, but in January we are going to be talking about this floodplain and you want to have an impact on the floodplain, it’s the removal of this dam.”
Higdon seconded Shearl’s motion to task the board with investigating the possibility of removing Lake Emory Dam, saying the planning board should conduct a comprehensive feasibility study.
Today, Northbrook Power Management owns the dam at Lake Emory, the same company that owns the Ela Dam and inadvertently released a massive amount of sediment there in October 2021, blanketing the downstream reach and severely damaging its aquatic communities. Northbrook also owns the Mission Dam on the Hiawassee River.
In an effort to generate electricity for the local community, as well as income from tourism, in 1925 the Town of Franklin created Lake Emory by funding a $300,000 bond to pay for a 35.5-foot tall, 463-foot long dam on the Little Tennessee river.
After one failed attempt to offload the dam to Northwest Carolina Utilities, the town eventually transferred title of the dam to Nantahala Power and Light Company in 1932, which later morphed into Duke Energy. Over the last several decades the lake has been plagued by the buildup of silt from storm damage and development activities upstream of the dam.
