Cape Fear River Watch Position on the Proposed North Carolina International Terminal

Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection and improvement of the water quality of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin through education, advocacy, and action.  With this mission in mind, we have taken careful consideration in evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal to construct an international terminal along the banks of the Cape Fear River.  The North Carolina State Ports Authority purchased a 600-acre site along the west side of the Cape Fear River, north of Southport, with plans to construct a large deepwater container terminal.  After careful review of the proposed construction plans, CFRW has determined a port at this ecologically sensitive location would cause irreparable harm to the important natural resources in and around this site.  Our goal is to minimize the impact and maximize the health of the river through no or low impact development that minimizes the potential damage to both the river and the surrounding onshore areas.  Clearly the proposed international terminal will not comply with this goal and therefore CFRW has taken a strong position opposing the development of this project and is in agreement with the North Carolina Ports Authority decision to suspend the project.  Furthermore, CFRW applauds Representative Mike McIntyre’s vocal concern with the potential environmental impacts the planned port would bring to the Cape Fear River and associated habitats.

Of utmost concern to the members of this community are the many acres of wetlands that would be lost and or degraded during construction and with site placement.  The site is separated from the Cape Fear River by approximately 86 acres of ecologically significant estuarine wetlands (No Port Southport, 2010).   An additional 413 acres of the site have been designated as “marsh” by the Brunswick County assessor (Rising Water Associates, 2009).  This area also includes 27 acres of inland wetlands and ponds.  The North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan describes these habitats as significant as they offer refuge, foraging areas, and nursery habitat for many species of fish, invertebrates, birds, and mammals.  Any loss of these habitats would lead to the degradation of the lower Cape Fear River.

In order to accommodate vessels with a 50-foot draft, the depth of the river will be increased from a depth of merely several feet at the location of the terminal to a depth of 54.5 feet below sea level.  Blasting and dredging will not only occur at the terminal site, but will extend from the river channel into state and federal waters offshore.  The Castle Hayne aquifer, which is an important local source of drinking water, lies under the terminal site and extends under the Cape Fear River.  At the terminal site, test wells place the top of the aquifer at 43 feet below sea level.  Dredging to more than 54 feet would penetrate the aquifer over a large area creating a hydraulic connection between the aquifer and the Cape Fear River.  The effects of directly connecting brackish to normal salinity seawater from the river to the aquifer are unknown but may be potentially damaging.  Furthermore, the effects of dredging to this depth will promote the encroachment of salt water further up the river leading to potential detrimental impacts to anadromous fish species including striped bass and the shortnose sturgeon.

Along with contaminating the aquifer, the extensive dredging will effectively destroy shallow soft bottom habitat as well as shellfish beds and hardbottom habitats found within the river as well as offshore.   In the Army Corps report Section 905(b) Analysis they state that “dredging may impact ~202 acres of shallow water habitat and 442 acres of deep water habitat within the Cape Fear River”.  The offshore habitats are recognized by National Marine Fisheries Service as Essential Fish Habitats and, similar, the wetlands are considered to be important for the health of scores of species.

Upon review of the proposed project, the US Fish and Wildlife Service stated “while direct adverse environmental impacts would be substantial, the most significant environmental damage would result from long-term secondary impacts.  Examples of such secondary impacts include increased disposal of dredged materials on nearby beaches… and changes to the hydrology of the Cape Fear River and local groundwater resources… The project, when considered in its entirety, is very likely to result in substantial permanent loss of environmental value…”.   Part of that loss would be attributable to increased stormwater runoff both during construction and with the site itself.  And even if controlled, the loss of the wetlands and replacement with impervious surfaces removes a valuable buffer to the riverine system.

Based on the above mentioned environmental impacts, Cape Fear River Watch has significant concerns with the proposed North Carolina International Terminal, and formally opposes the development of the proposed North Carolina International Terminal project.  Furthermore, not only do we agree with the suspension of plans for the project as proposed but that we oppose any port or other facility of that size that would remove and/or impact the important wetland sites, bottom communities, aquatic resources, aquifer, and the other potential impacts that the US Army Corps of Engineers states are important environmental considerations in their February 2010 Analysis of the NC International Terminal Site.

Solid Waste Management for New Hanover County

New Hanover County Landfill

Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW) supports the environmentally safe and efficient handling of solid waste in New Hanover County (NHC) to maximize re-use and recycling and minimize the need to landfill and incinerate. We of course realize that the large amount of waste generated by the county requires the operation of a “state of the art landfill”, which NHC currently has, and an upgraded incinerator that will meet or exceed both the current and the forthcoming EPA guidelines for emissions and fly ash.

We have attended the meetings held by the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) which served to review the numerous issues surrounding solid waste handling and management in NHC. At that time, CFRW offered its opinions on the management of Solid Waste in the county with specific recommendations, some of which were those researched by SWAB. Recommendations formulated by the SWAB were presented to the NHC County Commissioners on January 20, 2009. Following this presentation, the NHC County Commissioners elected to develop a request for proposals (RFP) and solicit bids from private contractors to manage the County’s solid waste needs. This recently released RFP does not provide incentives or reward the bidder’s efforts to reduce loadings to the landfill, reduce emissions from the incinerator, or provide a plan to move New Hanover County towards an encompassing system that will serve us in the future. It is structured instead to favor a low cost bidder without any incentives to increase recycling or to upgrade WASTEC. The RFP should be structured to reward the investment of the bidders in a system that is designed to serve the public good rather than just reducing the short-term cost. It would have also been beneficial to allow public and scientific input into this plan. We hope, in this regard, that you will consider our input when you are reviewing the RFPs.

CFRW believes that the County should leave the important job of managing our solid waste in the hands of the county employees currently managing our waste or award the contract to a company who will put forth an aggressive set of goals to reduce our solid waste by a total county-wide recycling program. We should focus on the reduction of county demands for additional landfill space and waste incineration but without “just transporting” our waste problem to another site. In order to accomplish these goals, the County and/or the contractor should develop and implement county-wide plans for increased re-use and recycling of both household and construction and demolition materials. These materials should be viewed as resources and not waste. Our goal should be a more sustainable solid waste management plan that is both economically and environmentally attractive to businesses, tourism, and to our residents. It should be one that minimizes harm to our natural areas and reduces the use of natural resources.

In order to accomplish the above, a comprehensive strategy must be developed that incorporates a transition strategy to cope with current demands and realities while setting the stage for an environmentally friendly solid waste management plan. We list several of our recommendations below that should be considered in this comprehensive plan.

County-Wide Curbside Recycling

The inclusion of a mandatory curbside recycling program for all residential and commercial customers in the unincorporated areas of New Hanover County is a critical factor that would reduce the amount of solid waste going into the landfill or incinerator, as well as to increase the responsible re-use of natural resources. The existing drop-off sites in the county are inadequate for the county and do not promote active recycling. To address this problem, CFRW encourages the County to explore partnering with the City of Wilmington’s successful curbside recycling program. If immediate county-wide recycling cannot be implemented (economic concerns), then a phased approach should be initiated with high density areas given priority. Drop-off sites will be maintained to insure that all residents have the opportunity and are encouraged to recycle until county-wide curbside recycling is available.

CFRW proposes that a single-stream recycling or a materials recycling facility be developed in the future plan. The facility should be a regional collection point and a model for recycling that could serve the local and regional needs. Single stream recycling means that recyclable items do not need to be separated prior to collection, saving transport and handling costs and making it easier for people to recycle. Such a facility will generate additional, much needed jobs within the County. And with new state rules restricting the disposal of certain materials (plastic, etc.), recycling is not only a potential revenue source but a state mandate as of October 1, 2009. Furthermore, trash haulers should be required to pick up hazardous materials from residences such as auto wet cell batteries, electronics, and paint from residential customers several times annually and provide a drop-off location for disposal throughout the year.

Landfill Management

NHC has one of the best designed and operated landfills in North Carolina. The landfill exceeds North Carolina and Federal standards for containing solid waste, and the leachate created is treated through constructed wetlands and/or with a water treatment facility that provide for the proper management of this potentially harmful material. However, the real issue is space. Currently the capacity of the northern site is about 9 million cubic yards, of which 6 million cubic yards have already been used. Reducing the introduction of recyclable materials (household and Construction and Demolition) and other waste (Waste Incineration – see below) into the landfill will help but until we can approach a zero-waste program we will still need some additional landfill space. Well planned and designed use of the current cell areas and limited expansion south of the current area can provide needed storage and extend the life of our landfill. It is critical that any expansion does no harm to the surrounding areas and that leachate be handled as it is now to prevent any contamination of the groundwater and/or the adjacent NE Cape Fear River.

One other consideration for the landfill involves the possible installation of landfill gas collection facilities, assuming adequate gas is now being generated. Capture and use of the landfill gas (CH4, CO2, and minor other gases) provides important energy and environmental benefits. Landfill gas may provide an energy source that directly reduces atmospheric pollution while qualifying for renewable energy production incentives.

WASTEC Management

WASTEC

The WASTEC incinerator functions to ultimately reduce the volume of material entering the County’s landfill. WASTEC currently handles approximately 46% or 140,000 tons of the solid waste generated in NHC on an annual basis (SWAB study). In this regard, it is a critical component in the management of NHC’s current solid waste. However, according to SWAB, upgrades are needed to bring it up to a peak operating efficiency of +90%.

Utilizing already installed technologies and upgrading WASTEC with the best available technologies to insure strict compliance to state and federal standards are critical facets of an interim strategy to handle NHC solid waste. Along with these upgrades, continuous monitoring of emissions is essential. With these improvements Cape Fear River Watch supports the use of the incinerator as a component of the overall solution. The upgrade would allow the incinerator to operate at peak efficiency, handle more wastes, and with improved materials handling and decreased by-products, the energy generated may qualify for Renewable Energy tax incentives. A peak operating WASTEC could produce up to 30,000 Mwh of electricity annually (enough to power 3,500 homes – SWAB study).

Incineration, like landfilling, is not a preferred method for waste handling but we recognize its need to handle a portion of our waste. We believe that upgrades would allow the incinerator to minimize emissions while handling even more trash. As EPA considers and will soon implement new limits on GHG and other emissions, perhaps including particulates, it is critical that upgrades will insure that the incinerator meet and hopefully exceed the new standards. This would illustrate to NHC and the State that our county is committed to an environmentally friendly place to live, work, and visit.

Construction & Demolition Debris Recycling

CFRW supports the building of a state of the art C& D recycling facility that insures that the maximum amount of C&D materials are recycled.

Educational Campaign

It is critical that the residents of NHC be educated about the issues of solid waste handling and management. Citizens have a major role to play by not only reducing the amount of solid waste but also in insuring that more hazardous waste is kept out of residential bins. These types of waste create additional problems for both the landfill and the incinerator as leachate and emissions, respectively. As mentioned above, additional hazardous waste collection days and a drop off location would help this issue.

CFRW believes that investments in county-wide recycling, state of the art recycling facilities, improved C&D facilities, upgrades and maintenance of WASTEC, and expansion of the landfill are essential. These steps will provide NHC with the opportunity to handle all of its solid waste and the potential to become a recognized leader in solid waste management in the region and in NC as we transition from waste handling to waste reduction that will lead to reduced needs for landfill space and incineration.

Not one.

Make of that what you will.

Sirs,

On behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Cape Fear Group of the North Carolina Sierra Club, Friends of the Lower Cape Fear, Pender Watch and Audubon North Carolina, I am requesting that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners formally ask the Secretary of the State Department of Natural Resources (DENR) to review and regulate the proposed Carolinas Cement plant along the Northeast Cape Fear River under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA.)  I am further requesting a minimum of 45 minutes at the April 6th, 2009 Commissioners‘ Meeting for myself and representatives of other groups to present their rationale as to why they believe the Commissioners should make this request.

When the Commissioners approved the incentive package to invite Titan America to our county it did so with the understanding that any new mining or manufacturing operation along this beautiful stretch of the river would be subject to complete, thorough and rigorous scrutiny from the state and federal regulating agencies.  The most relevant standards are those of SEPA.  Holding a company to a less rigorous standard, or allowing a company to bypass the most relevant standard, is contrary to the promises made by the Commissioners at the time Titan was formally invited into the community and is frankly an insult to the voters of New Hanover County.

It is appropriate for DENR to regulate Carolinas Cement under SEPA and it is certainly appropriate for the Board to request that the Secretary invoke his authority.

“An environmental document is required when the Secretary determines that”:

(1) Proposed activity may have a potential for significant adverse effects on wetlands; surface waters such as rivers, streams and estuaries; parklands; game lands; prime agricultural or forest lands; or areas of local, state or federally recognized scenic, recreational, archaeological, ecological, scientific research or historical value, including secondary impacts; or would threaten a species identified on the Department of Interior’s or the state’s threatened and endangered species lists; or

 

(2) the proposed activity could cause changes in industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural, or silvicultural land use concentrations or distributions which would be expected to create adverse water quality, in stream flow, air quality, or ground water impacts; or affect long -term recreational benefits, fish, wildlife, or their natural habitats; or

 

(3) the proposed activity has secondary impacts, or is part of cumulative impacts, not generally covered in the approval process for state action, and that may result in a potential risk to human health or the environment;

I look forward to speaking before you on the 6th as you consider this matter.  If you require any additional information, background or action from me, feel free to contact me at 910-602-3862 or by e-mail at dspringer@cfrw.us.

Sincerely,

Doug Springer,

Riverkeeper

Community Selection:
Find a place where you will run into the least opposition ~ target a “Cerrell” community. (21 years ago the California Waste Management Board paid Cerrell Associates half a million dollars to define communities that won’t resist siting of LULUs [ Local Undesirable Land Use]. Cerrell provides important proof that siting is 99% politics and 1% science)
The Cerrell study says:
Least Likely to Resist:

Southern/Midwestern
Rural
Open to promises of economic benefits
Conservative
Above middle age
High school or less education
Low income
Catholics
Not involved in social issues
Old-time residents (20 years +)
“Nature exploitive occupations” (farming, ranching, mining)

Most Likely to Resist:

Northeastern, western, California
Urban
Don’t care or benefits are minor concern
Liberal, welfare state
Young and middle aged
College educated
Middle and upper income
Activist
Residents for 5 – 20 years
Professional occupations

Scope out the opposition:

__ monitor news media to identify community activists
__ assess potential opponents past behavior
__ determine their self-interests and vulnerabilities
__ keep good, up to date files on opponents
__ determine their sources of funding, if any
__ find out who their friends are

Don’t’ waste time or money trying to win over the NIMBYs:

__ follow all of the steps in #2, scoping out the opposition, plus:
__ involve them in the process, painlessly and ineffectively, through devices like Citizens Advisory Committees.
__ take them on trips to see “models” on which our LULU will be based.
__ find out what they need (or would like) and promise it (jobs, money for schools, public services, free trash service, direct grants to the community, increased tax base, donations for community projects, museums, the arts, etc.) Don’t worry about delivery.
__ determine what benefits they will get from the LULU and make sure they understand what’s in it for them.
__ find backers who have “name appeal”, who will sway others.
__ get opinion-shapers and community leaders bought in by offering them shares in the project either at reduced cost or for free, or promise them jobs or business for their companies or economic benefits for the community in general.

Let our allies take on the NIMBYs for us.
Use sophisticated public relations methods:

__ use “quality” public relations materials, the slicker the better.
__ use our greater resources by use of the media through paid ads in local newspapers, television and radio.
__ have good, well-trained people representing us. Recruit tired, disgruntled staff from environmental groups who are tired of working for public interest wages.
__ use quality audio-visual materials (videos, slides, tape, displays, movies.)
__ prepare and distribute quality materials for the children and donate them to local schools. Cartoon or coloring books are an excellent tool.

Keep the debate focused on our agenda and make the NIMBYs react:

__ create a sense of the inevitable with remarks like, “it’s got to go somewhere.”
__ speed up the process, or at least create the impression the process is moving along rapidly to keep the NIMBYs on edge.
__ emphasize every single step of the process so NIMBYs see each stage as a life-or-death situation.
__ bring in and keep in the forefront an array of “bi-lingual” technical experts (who can speak plainly when appropriate, but are good at scientific double talk.)
__ only do battle with the NIMBYs in forums that are either friendly (e.g. government-run public hearings) or controlled by us.
__ have hearings and meetings held in rooms that are much, much larger than the anticipated crowd, it makes it look like not many people are concerned.
__ do all we can to subtly avoid meeting the NIMBYS on their turf, but without running the risk of seeming cowardly.
__ if we must meet the NIMBYs, try to select who and how many of them we meet.
__ make NIMBYs feel they must answer our technical arguments, point by point, by stressing rules of government procedure that require decisions to be made on the legal and technical merits, discounting public sentiments and politics.
__ make arrangements with government hearing officers so our technical experts make
their presentations first. Have our technical experts take their time.
__ dismiss NIMBYs during and after encounters as “emotional, hysterical, selfish, unfactual, irrelevant, selfishly motivated, anti-jobs, tree huggers, socialists (or worse), unrealistic, ignorant, hypocritical” (by focusing on household toxics use and other consumer behavior.)
__ try “sand-bagging” (it’s fun) Get hearing dates changed at the last minute, sinceNIMBYs have little money or access to technical experts and changing a hearing date will make them panic

__ try to get hearings scheduled during the daytime on a working day or during the Thanksgiving to Christmas period.

Use “state of the art” language:

__ start with “state of the art”
__ “acceptable risk” – what our experts, not to mention our accountant, feels would be ok for the turkeys in this community
__ best available technology
__ best available European technology
__ use poly-syllable, hyphenated terms derived from Latin or Greek or explanations like, “the hydro-geological characteristics of these soil strata indicate a excellent permeability co-efficient of ten to the minus 7, meaning that compounds such as VOCs will leach at the rate of less than 1 ug per milliliter per meter per year, but that’s not a problem since our state of the art leachate collection system will capture any ambient discharge that
escapes our double-lined 60-mil polyethylene liner, which as you all know, is the height of the science of such technologies.” Ok?
__ only talk about what we want to talk about, in terms we want to use. If NIMBYs don’t use our language, treat them as ignorant and unworthy of respect, talking down to them is the best way to do this.

Carefully monitor the NIMBYs’ activities:

__ Monitor the media. Keep a good clippings file. Record any television coverage.
__ Have a representative at their meetings. They need not identify themselves, though there could be backlash if discovered. If our rep does identify him or herself, it could have a useful chilling effect on the group or could make the representative a “lightning rod” for anger (which isn’t so bad, since s/he isn’t a policy maker).
__ listen to what people are saying on the street, on radio talk shows, in the letters to the editor column, etc.

Be prepared to get tough with the NIMBYs:

__ When the NIMBYs hold a public meeting, it’s perfectly legal for us to invite our supporters, including employees, to attend in force and speak their minds.
__ if NIMBYs make uncomfortable accusations about us, don’t be bashful about having our lawyer send them a letter warning them of the consequences of breaching libel orslander laws (even if there’s no such breach evident).
__ If, heaven forbid, a member of the NIMBYs works or does business for us, take all necessary steps to remind him/her about basic loyalty and self-interest
__ if the NIMBYs sue us, we’re well without our rights to counter-sue
__ if the NIMBYS sue us, make sure our counsel wages an aggressive defense. Don’t hold back in tactical use of the deposition, interrogatories, etc.
__ use higher authorities. If the NIMBYs block us through local government, see if a higher authority (state, federal or the courts) can override that local decision
__ everybody’s got their price. Determine the price of key NIMBY leaders and be prepared to pay it
__ rough stuff, like getting physical, isn’t nice and could backfire in a real serious way. But be prepared to do damage control should one of our employees view our frustration with the NIMBYs as a signal we want them “dealt with”

Have a back up site in mind, or a Plan B if we fail to defeat the NIMBYs.

Cape Fear River Watch

Position Statement Summary

Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection and improvement the water quality of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin through education, advocacy, and action.  With this mission in mind, we have carefully considered and evaluated the potential impacts associated with Carolina Cement Company’s (Titan America) plans to develop a cement plant and mining operation here in New Hanover County.  Unfortunately we have learned that this proposed industry, which would be situated along the banks of the Northeast Cape Fear, would undoubtedly cause irreplaceable harm to the important natural resources in and around the plant.  Therefore, CFRW has taken a position strongly against the development of this project as it is proposed.

The natural communities in and around the Northeast Cape Fear River in proximity to the proposed cement production facility are widely considered to be pristine.  These communities include vast wetlands, habitats for threatened species, and prime fishing and recreation areas.  CFRW is specifically concerned about the following environmental impacts that would be encountered if this plant to be built:

·      The destruction of up to 600 acres of pristine wetlands, which the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish & Wildlife has referred to as a “Resource of National Importance” in their initial comments to the Corp of Engineers. They have agreed with our position that these wetlands aren non-replaceable by indicating that the “impact to these resources may be unmitigable.”

·      The contamination of air and water quality due to emissions of high levels of mercury, Chromium-VI, and other pollutants into waters that are already declared mercury impaired on the Federal 303d list.

·      Dewatering and depletion of the aquifer due to the mining of limestone and the potential to contaminate the aquifers through salt water intrusion or the quarrying process.

·      The direct discharge of sediment and contaminants into the Northeast Cape Fear River.

We have developed the enclosed in-depth statement that outlines in great detail the concerns we have with the development of the Titan America plant. It is extremely important that we do not allow Titan America to bring the pollution and destruction of natural resources associated with their industry to the banks of the Northeast Cape Fear River.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.  Feel free to contact me to discuss further.

Sincerely,

Doug Springer

Cape Fear River Watch Executive Director

RiverKeeper

Click HERE for the full position statement

Titan Site Tagged Aquatic Resource of National Importance  by Marina Giovannelli on WHQR

Titan No Show, Forum Goes On by Keith Barber in Lumina News

Cement Company Eyes Pender by Amanda Hutcheson in Topsail Voice

Following is CFRW’s comments on the matter as submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers as part of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.  But first – and even better – have a look at the comments submitted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.   A few excerpts:

“These forests are regularly to irregularly flooded with freshwater lunar or wind tides and there is little or no salinity in the water. Tidal flooding brings seawater-derived nutrients and varying amounts of sediment into the community which probably makes the tidal forests more productive than the non-tidal blackwater subtype of cypress gum swamp.” (page 5)

“Because of the juxtaposition of oceanic saline, mesohaline and oligohaline conditions coupled with the highest diurnal tidal range of any North Carolina estuary, the Cape Fear River estuary, including the tidal portion of the Northeast Cape Fear River, has a high fish species diversity, with in excess of 250 species documented, from 88 families . . . An ecosystem with so many distinct ecological features merits the highest level of conservation measures to ensure its future sustainability.” (page 8 )

and my favorite:

“Given the uniqueness of the fish and wildlife resources at the Castle Hayne site, it is likely that careful analysis will reveal that these anticipated impacts are unmitigable.” (pp. 13-14)

It’s a real SAT word, but now that the US Fish and Wildlife service has broken the ice the word becomes one I’m looking forward to dropping into casual conversation.   Say it out loud: “unmitigable”

And now, with no further ado, CFRW’s own comment letter to the Corps:

July 15, 2008

Near the end of every state legislative session, environmental advocates must block attempts to sneak anti-environment bills through the legislature at the last minute. This year will be no different.

This week a new anti-environment bill appeared in the state Senate: H822. This legislation would weaken the 13-year-old set back requirements for hog houses, allowing them to be re-built too close to neighboring homes and businesses.

H822 appears headed on a fast track to the Senate floor with little to no debate. Ammonia emissions and odors from hog houses have been shown to represent a public health risk to community members – especially to children who live or play nearby.

Under current law, hog producers must get the approval of their neighbors to rebuild or modify farm structures if they cannot meet the legal set back requirements. H822 would remove that requirement and allow construction or repair without notifying neighbors. H822 is a threat to the public health of people living near hog farms – we need your help to stop it before it goes any further.

Tell your legislators and the Governor to oppose H822!

Click Here to Take Action Now

The Waterkeeper Alliance® threw a big outdoor birthday party on the lawn in front of the Legislature Building in Raleigh last week for the thousands of children in eastern NC who can’t have outdoor birthday parties because of the pervasive and nauseating stench of “it” (hog waste) that emanates from the region’s slaughterhouses and “lagoons” attached to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The birthday party was the centerpiece of the Alliance’s annual 50 hour vigil on the lawn to urge the governor and the legislature to get off their collective tookus and do something about “it.” Following the party, a delegation led by Lower Neuse Riverkeeper Larry Baldwin walked over to the Governor’s Mansion to hand deliver a gallon jug of the sweet contents of one of those lagoons to Governor Mike Easley, who once promised to eliminate such lagoons in 5 years. That was in 1999. After being told that the Governor wasn’t home, the delegation walked back to the Governor’s office in the capitol and delivered the jug there with a polite note. The current whereabouts of the jug of “it” are unknown, but there are millions more gallons where it came from. Just a guess, but there will probably need to be another vigil on the lawn next year. Here’s hoping our next Governor does more than make promises. Text of open letter delivered with “it” to the Governor:

Text of open letter delivered with “it” to the Governor:

Dear Governor Easley:

Today at noon a broad-based coalition of grassroots community and environmental representatives will arrive at the front gate of the Governor’s Mansion in Raleigh to deliver one gallon of hog waste to you.

Where you reside and work in Raleigh, you and your family do not have to live with the terrible odor and other consequences of hog waste, including its serious health impacts. We suffer from it daily. It makes our lives unbearable.

When asking for our votes, you made a written promise to us that you would rid this state of hog lagoons in five years or less. Unfortunately, your promise made remains a debt unpaid. Today all of the lagoons that existed when you took office are still there, disrupting our lives and injuring our health as before. Our streams and rivers continue to be poisoned by hog pollution. In fact, under your term as Governor the situation has worsened as many more lagoons have been added.

In recent media reports you claim to have solved this problem through legislation passed last year. It is foolish and inappropriate to take that position. We live with the problem and we know the truth. Say what you will; history will judge you, not on your words, but on your actions, or the lack of them.

It is not our goal in bringing this hog waste to you to cause you any physical harm. Our purpose is to share just one gallon of this unhealthy fecal marinade with you. We were specifically denied permission to bring hog waste to Halifax Mall as it was deemed “hazardous”. This is the same substance that is sprayed over our homes and communities, but when we bring it to your backyard it becomes toxic waste. It is our hope that you will open it and take a deep breath as we do daily. Then you will know what kind of existence you have condemned us to suffer. When you are finished, please dispose of the waste by applying it to your garden. You will find its lingering effects to be present for many days.

It is our request that you have the courage to meet with us at the Mansion. You will find us cordial and willing to listen to what you have to say. If you choose not to meet with us we will walk to your office and deliver our package there.

Governor, we are not law breakers. We will not bring hog waste onto Halifax Mall. However, we will not stop reminding you of your responsibility to honor your promises. We will be back every year until our lives and communities get the respect and protections that they deserve. We respect the laws, especially those granted under the Constitution of the United States, but we have been denied the most basic of protections: the rights to breathe clean air, drink clean water and fully enjoy our property. In large measure, you are responsible for that.

Sincerely,

Cape Fear River Watch

Concerned Citizens for Tillery

NC Environmental Justice Network

Neuse River Foundation

New River Foundation

Pamlico-Tar River Foundation

Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help

Waterkeeper Alliance