HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_1344tiv'7
PARKER: O.K. They have to sample flow on a continuous method. In other words they have a
recorder that records a continuous flow. The (net clear) and the demand for B.O.D. (not clear) is
sampled twice a month. Total suspended residue is sampled twice a month, ammonia is sampled
monthly, fecal chloroform, which is your bacteria count, is sampled twice a month, residual chlorine
is sampled daily, temperature is sampled weekly, total nitrogen is sampled quarterly, and total
phosphorus is sampled quarterly.
POPE: Who does these samples that you are talking about?
PARKER: This is the limitations that are developed by our technical services group.
POPE: Your people do that?
PARKER: Right. Our people in Raleigh.
POPE: O.K. Thank you. Any more questions of Mr. Parker?
BRYAN: I think you meant, Mr. Parker, who literally does that? Who takes the sample out of
thn unit, your people? Or Mid -South?
PARKER: (not clear)
POPE: It's turned into you all for you to evaluate.
PARKER: Right. In the monthly monitoring report.
POPE: Mrs. Hicks?
,,;,... HICKS: Do they monitor for viruses then?
PARKER: There is no specific monitoring for viruses.
POPE: Thank you. I'll take closing statements, apparently being no further evidence. The
opponents will go first.
BRYAN: The main concern, and I'll be somewhat repetitive, because you have heard this a couple
or three years ago. The main concern that I have for Lake Norman is even though I'm located maybe
fifteen miles from Lake Norman, it is my contention and people laughed when I said it the first
time, and it is still my contention that everyone that lives on Lake Norman has common boundary with
everybody else on Lake Norman, and that's the lake itself. What happens ten miles upstream affects
the property owners who have lake shore lots further on down the lake. So, in my opinion, even
though I'm aware of the fact that law does not view it as such as being a common boundary, I
certainly feel that with Lake Norman the common boundary line that everyone has is the lake itself.
If that is so, logic tells me that's so, even if the law may not say it is so, my logic says, then,
that what happens in any one part of the lake eventually affects the whole lake. The problem that I
have ascertained and which I spoke about earlier is that a million gallons of effluent every two
weeks being discharged into this neck is an awful lot of effluent. I think that I have asked Mr.
Parker this, and he didn't testify to it, so if you don't take my word for it, we may have to get
him back, there are no studies currently have been done on current flow within a neck like this.
There are no flows. We know that topography underneath the water because this originally was mapped
land, so we can see where the ravines and the depths and curves are which might affect effluent
being dumped into the lake. We can see how if you are dumping and there is a ridge 50' in front of
you, where, and it's below that, how the effluent could build up behind the ridge and then spill
over and not be diffused as we think it's being diffused. Because it is not being dumped into a
moving body of water. It is basically being dumped into a static body of water, and I don't believe
h there is an expert in the room, or in the state, that can tell us what is going to be the result of
after five years of dumping a million gallons of effluent every ten days or two weeks into this body
Al of water. That nothing has been done on that. Now, we have talked with great scientific sounding
things about computer models. Computer model is no better than the model that is built. The
computer model that the state has got is not a computer model is not a computer model of this lake
or of this area that we are proposing to dump this effluent. The computer they have is a textbook
model lake. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there is no current flow here. They
just take the amount of water and the amount of effluent, they punch the numbers in and it comes up
good, fine, and if it doesn't come up good, they change it, tell them to move the pipe somewhere.
And I'm saying this because I sincerely believe that Lake Norman is a natural resource that we
cannot afford to let go bad. This was bourne out, in my opinion, by the state writing the letter
saying that it is more environmentally sound to use septic systems on Lake Norman than it is package
treatment plants. I still feel the same way. I think the state still feels the same way. We have
the same danger here that we had when Heronwood first proposed what they wanted to do. You know, it
turned out that they couldn't do w'lat they wanted to do. And I think that if everytime an agency
approves something, it gives more strength to the argument when they go to the next agency. And
what I would like to see happen is for you not to approve anything until this question is answered,
because if you conditionally approve it based upon the state saying something, that gives a stronger
argument to them to go ahead and get it done because they can say, Iredell County Cnmmissioners
approved it. I'm not arguing against the rezoning if they will dispose of the effluent on the land,
but I would sincerely argue to you that we should not do things in an unknown fashion, and believe
me, there is no empirical data about this Davidson neck here. No one knows what happens in there.
And for us to go ahead and do it, what's happening is the Department of Human Resources, which is
going to have to approve it, and I don't even know if they've been contacted yet, but with the
Davidson water intake right across the lake from it, somebody is going to have to answer the
question of what's going to happen to the water intake after a couple of years or three years, and
' at this point nobody can do it, no one can do it. So instead of approving it and then depending on