Do RSA Signers Regret Favoring Alcoa on Yadkin Project?

Alcoa proclaims in its quest to retain a monopoly on water rights for the Yadkin River via the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project that some stakeholders in the licensing process approved of its plans by signing the Relicensing Settlement Agreement, or RSA. But these groups signed the RSA in 2007, and what has emerged since then regarding Alcoa's activities with the Project, which encompasses four dams and powerhouses along a 38-mile stretch of the Yadkin River at High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows and Falls Reservoirs in Davie, Davidson, Rowan, Montgomery and Stanly counties, has no doubt led several of the organizations to regret signing it. These revelations have included:

  • Alcoa deciding two months after receiving a 401 Water Quality Certification from the N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) to reverse its support for the decision and not only oppose the conditions of the certification but actually sue the state, claiming the conditions were unfair. One of those was to pay a $240 million surety bond for the Project - the same amount Alcoa said it would pay as part of upgrades to the Project in the RSA. Why did Alcoa say it would pay $240 million in the RSA but will not guarantee that payment to the state?
  • Alcoa also suing over a state requirements to post notice of a Fish Consumption Advisory for Badin Lake, which is part of the Project. The advisory states that pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, and children under 15 should avoid eating catfish and largemouth bass from Badin Lake due to high levels found there of mercury and PCBs, which are believed to cause cancer.
  • Alcoa's plan announced this year to explore strategic ventures with Chinalco, an aluminum manufacturer owned by the Chinese government. This has led many to wonder if Alcoa will sell the 50-year license it seeks for the Project to Chinalco, or any other international firm, and that new firm would have the terms of the license remain in effect for its duration. A foreign entity could own dams in North Carolina and make tens of millions in profit with little reinvestment, and there would be virtually nothing the state could do to stop them for decades.

Given these facts, we in the N.C. Water Rights Coalition respectfully urge that the media check with all the RSA signatories and see if they remain the ardent backers of the plan that Alcoa portrays them as being. We believe that, if allowed, several of the RSA signatories from 2007 will indicate their support for Alcoa is at best neutral at this time, faced with the company's obvious focus on making money rather than being a good steward of the Project. But are the RSA signatories legally bound by Alcoa to remain silent on this issue? Will Alcoa sue these groups for speaking out? The fact that most state legislators appear ready to endorse a bill creating a Yadkin River Trust that would go beyond the guarantees Alcoa promises in the RSA for jobs, the economy and the environment only underscores the inadequacy of Alcoa's supposed improvements for the Project.

21 of the RSA signatories are listed below. We encourage interested parties to ask each where they stand now. Some may remain supportive of Alcoa, others may not.

  • American Rivers
  • Badin Lake Association
  • Badin Historic Museum
  • Catawba Indian Nation
  • City of Albemarle, NC
  • High Rock Business Owners Group
  • High Rock Lake Association
  • Land Trust for Central North Carolina
  • Montgomery County, NC
  • The Nature Conservancy (S.C. Chapter)
  • N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
  • Pee Dee River Coalition
  • Piedmont Boat Club
  • Rowan County, NC
  • Salisbury/Rowan Association of Realtors
  • S.C. Coastal Conservation League
  • S.C. Department of Health & Environmental Control
  • S.C. Department of Natural Resources
  • Town of Badin, NC
  • U.S. Forest Service
  • Uwharrie Point Community Association

|Home|