Alcoa faces more hurdles for relicensing

The decision by the N.C. Division of Water Quality to revoke Alcoa Power Generating's water quality certification muddies the water on the company's efforts to gain a new 50-year license from the federal government.

Alcoa's license expired two years ago, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued yearly contracts as the relicense application has been delayed. First, FERC was awaiting the state's approval of a water quality certificate. Although the certificate was issued, legal challenges ensued. Then the state challenged Alcoa's relicense attempt and sought to regain control of the Yadkin River, its lakes, including High Rock and Badin, and four dams.

Reaction to the Division of Water Quality's decision was predictable. Alcoa opponents, including the Yadkin Riverkeeper and Davidson County elected officials, expressed support for the state's decision. Alcoa officials promised to contest the revocation. So the latest chapter in the continuing saga really provided more of the same, another step in the legal process and split reactions from proponents and opponents of Alcoa.

The state's charge is certainly a serious one: that Alcoa deliberately fudged data in an attempt to gain the water quality certificate. DWQ officials cite e-mails that were submitted as evidence before an administrative law judge, who is hearing Stanly County's challenge to the initial issuance of the water quality certification. The issue in question involves how much dissolved oxygen was present in the water. The state's interest is justified, since too much dissolved oxygen can be disastrous to aquatic life.

Alcoa responded by saying the e-mails were taken out of context, a typical defense when supposedly smoking-gun e-mails surface in controversial cases （such as global warming）. Company officials also cited efforts that are under way to improve water quality and said those efforts weren't given enough time to measure their success.

The situation touches on many issues that produce strong reactions: Should a private company have control of public waters? Can the state take away a private company's assets? Have past Alcoa practices （it ran an aluminum smelter on Badin Lake for many years） polluted the water? Is the company a good corporate citizen or a large business simply attempting to maximize its profits?

One thing is for certain: All the various state parties now appear to be in alignment against Alcoa, where previously some division seemed to be present between the different parties. This could make gaining the water quality certification even more difficult for Alcoa. The final decision may still rest with the courts, but a resolution to the ongoing uncertainty seems as distant as ever.