News

State sets hearing on Clear Creek sewer plant

Map shows 6.9 miles of new sewer line running from the WNC Justice Academy (upper right) to a new wastewater treatment on Clear Creek near Fruitland Road (lower left). [CDM-SMITH ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION]

By Bill Moss, Published: January 12, 2024

It’s “speak up now or forever hold your peace” time for those who have questions about or are opposed to a new sewer plant on Clear Creek that could ignite development in Edneyville.

The state Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing on Feb. 5 at North Henderson High School to hear from the public on the proposed wastewater treatment near Fruitland Road.

Henderson County and its consulting engineers are seeking the state’s approval to build a plant treating 200,000 gallons a day, with a planned expansion up to 500,000 gallons, fed by 6.9 miles of new sewer line. The treatment plant would cover around a half-acre of a 15-acre site at the confluence of Clear Creek and Laurel Branch. Once on line, the new public sewer would treat wastewater currently being discharged into creeks or streams by older facilities, including ones at the WNC Justice Academy, Edneyville Elementary School, Blacksmith Run and Camp Judea. In addition, it’s expected that some homeowners and businesses on septic systems would tie into the new public sewer. The project, estimated to cost $21 million, is funded by a state grant and $12.7 million in American Rescue Plan money.

The state has already issued a draft permit, which County Commissioner Bill Lapsley reads as a near-certain signal that the regulators will follow through and issue the permit for construction.

“That’s 99.9 percent sure the state’s going to issue the permit,” he said. “They’ve reviewed all of the application details and they put out a public notice saying that they’re going to issue the permit and if anybody has any objections, speak up now or forever hold your peace.”

Even so, an attorney for MountainTrue, which works to protect air and water quality and preserve sensitive land, and the Southern Environmental Law Center argues in a nine-page objection to the permit that a new sewer plant would further impair Clear Creek, be less cost-effective than piping wastewater to Hendersonville’s existing sewer plant, encourage urban sprawl and threaten the rural character of the apple country.

“We appreciate efforts to improve water quality in the French Broad River watershed but for the reasons explained above, DEQ cannot permit the discharge from a new WWTP as proposed,” Patrick Hunter, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, wrote as he concluded his 4,665-word argument urging state water quality regulators to deny the permit. “We additionally underscore the need to consider the growth-inducing effect of constructing a new sewer line and ensuring any new sewer system is paired with land-use regulations to preserve the rural and agricultural nature of Edneyville.”

The case for and against the plant

Here are the main arguments Hunter makes in his letter opposing the treatment plant and comments from Lapsley, who spent 40 years as a civil engineer and was the chief engineer for some 25 treatment plants approved by the state.

Hunter asserted that the state should not approve the new discharge unless it required the applicant to measure “Total Maximum Daily Load.”

“First, we are opposed to a new wastewater discharge to Clear Creek because the creek is already impaired and, without a Total Maximum Daily Load in place, there is no assurance that the new discharge will not deepen the existing impairment,” he said. “For multiple reasons explained below, this violates the Clean Water Act.”

Lapsley said: “The state apparently disagrees with that. I agree with the state. The first point is the quality of the water that’s produced by the treatment plants is higher quality than the wastewater” discharged by other package plants or septic tanks in the Clear Creek watershed. And because the new discharge point is “miles further downstream” than existing discharge points, he said, the treated water will be more diluted. The creek “is not going to be as impaired as it is today. Even though we’re gonna be adding more, we’re adding a better quality of treatment and adding it to a larger stream so I would argue that it will be cleaner.”

New plant v. using city’s plant

“Connection to the existing wastewater treatment plant operated by the City of Hendersonville, rather than construction of an entirely new county-operated wastewater treatment plant, will lead to better environmental protections and cost savings in the long term,” Hunter said. “This is the most environmentally sound and cost-effective treatment option… Additionally, it is unclear why taxpayers should be forced to fund construction and operation of a new WWTP when an existing WWTP— presumably also constructed and operated with public funds— is capable of handling the wastewater associated with sewer expansion in Edneyville.”

Lapsley conceded that tying into Hendersonville’s sewer plant would be a reasonable option but for the cost.

“It’s debatable whether it’s ecologically better but the argument that it’s cheaper — we had to present that argument” in the permit application, he said. “It’s cheaper to do what we’re doing. Would I like to see it work with the city of Hendersonville? I probably would, but it’s not economically the best and I don’t think the argument that they’re polluting the (Clear Creek) stream is a viable argument.”

Inviting urban sprawl

 “While we recognize that replacing failing wastewater treatment plants and septic systems with connections to sewer systems can lead to improvements in water quality, any extension of a sewer line in the Edneyville community risks disrupting the area’s pristine character by facilitating urban sprawl,” Hunter wrote. “Consistent with the preferences of the community as we understand them, we are opposed to this type of development in this area. To protect the rural and agricultural character of the community, any sewer extension should be paired with appropriate land use regulations.”

Lapsley and other commissioners have emphasized a point that Hunter concedes: replacing smaller, outdated treatment plants and failing septic systems with public sewer will make upstream Clear Creek tributaries cleaner.

As for urban sprawl, “That’s a debatable point,” Lapsley said. “There are some people in Edneyville that would agree with that — that don’t want to see a single new house built out there. And there are others that would like to see economic development out there. Will putting sewer out there encourage development? I suppose it would but what guides that is the zoning.

“If the county commissioners zone to limit density then that argument goes away. If the county commissioners zone it for massive industrial sites and apartment houses then I agree with their argument” that the new sewer plant would result in sprawl, he said. “So it comes down to what the commissioners do as we complete the comprehensive plan. It’s what we as a commission do with updating the zoning map to match up with the future land-use plan. That’s the key.”

* * * * *

The N.C. Division of Water Resources public hearing on the Clear Creek wastewater treatment plant permit is scheduled for 6-8 p.m. Monday, Feb. 5 at the North Henderson High School auditorium, 35 Fruitland Road. Speaker registration opens at 5:30 p.m. Written comments will also be accepted through 5 p.m. Feb. 6. Mail comments to Wastewater Permitting; Attn: Henderson County-Clear Creek WWTP Permit; 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C., 27699-1617. Comments must be postmarked no later than Feb. 6. Public comments may be submitted by email to publiccomments@deq.nc.gov. Include “Clear Creek WWTP” in the email subject line. Comments will be accepted via email until 5 p.m. Feb. 6.