What is LeaveThatDamAlone, and Why Does It Leave Out Facts?

A new Web site called LeaveThatDamAlone.com recently blitzed media outlets with announcements and radio ads containing numerous inaccuracies about the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. Among other things, the ads perpetuate Alcoa's misrepresentation of the Governor's effort to recapture the project license on behalf of the public, stating that these efforts by the state constitute a "taking of private property." The sponsors of LeaveThatDamAlone.com should answer the following questions:

  • Who is leading LeaveThatDamAlone? It credits former Raleigh City Councilor Kieran Shanahan as chairman, but he is the only person identified on the Web site. If there are any others involved, the site should be transparent about its leaders.
    Members of the N.C. Water Rights Coalition requested a meeting with Shanahan prior to the launching of LeaveThatDamAlone. A meeting has yet to occur. N.C. Water Rights Coalition remains committed to meeting with Shanahan and explaining to him the reasons why the overwhelming majority of our legislators favor a state trust to oversee the Project rather than Alcoa.
  • What is the exact relationship between Alcoa and LeaveThatDamAlone? It seems cozy, seeing as how Alcoa representative Gene Ellis wrote three blogs about the Web site within 24 hours last week (July 23 and 24). In fact, July 23 was the same day the Web site was launched.
    That begs more questions in itself: is Alcoa paying Shanahan to lobby on behalf of the company? Is Alcoa dictating what LeaveThatDamAlone should say and do? Why is the company spending so much time and money on this, as well as fighting environmental restrictions being place on it by the state rather than improving the dams, as it says it will do once it gets the federal license?
  • Why does LeaveThatDamAlone insist Alcoa is involved in a private property rights fight for the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project when that is untrue? The issue is not eminent domain - Alcoa expressly agreed as a condition of its 1958 license to operate the Project that the federal government would have the right to recapture the license when it expired and to do what it feels is best for the public. Recapture of the license by the federal government would thus not be a "taking" at all but the exercise of legal rights that Alcoa expressly gave to the federal government in exchange for receiving an extremely valuable federal license. The Web site's conclusion that denying Alcoa a license will lead to seizures of private property either shows a lack of understanding of the law or intentionally misrepresents the law..

All these questions deserve answers before anyone allows serious consideration of LeaveThatDamAlone. Otherwise, it is serving only as a copy of what Alcoa has been saying, with much of the same language and inaccuracies (no one but Alcoa and LeaveThatDamAlone believes that having a state trust operate the Project will cost anywhere near $500 million, for example). It only hurts honest conversation about this very critical issue of water rights for North Carolinians.

|Home|