Powerful thirsts

A permit system for large users would help ensure a fair, sustainable allocation of North Carolina's water supplies

in chemicals, perhaps, or paper -- that needs a tremendous amount of water. The company does some hydrological research, drills test wells, scouts property for sale along rivers. It finds a site where, either from surface or underground sources, it can obtain all the water it needs.

Full speed ahead -- soon a plant is up and running. Let's say it sunk wells for its water supply. But then it develops that the wells are being pumped so vigorously that the underlying aquifer -- a water-bearing formation of rock or sand that can stretch for miles -- is being depleted faster than it is replenished through seepage into the ground.

What about the company down the road that also needs water from that aquifer? What about the town that gets drinking water from it?

A scarce, essential resource shouldn't be allocated on the basis of which consumers have the sharpest elbows, the most money or the most clout. But for all practical purposes, that's the way it works in North Carolina -- which doesn't require large water users to obtain a permit from state water officials.

Now, in a study commissioned by the General Assembly, two leading voices on the environment and sensible water usage call for a permitting system that would give the state more leverage over major withdrawals from rivers and aquifers.

The study's authors are Richard Whisnant, professor at the UNC School of Government and a water-law expert, and Bill Holman of Duke University, past secretary of the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources. With demands on water resources intensifying year by year -- and with recent droughts showing how vulnerable those resources actually are -- permits of the sort they recommend would make a world of sense.

There's no question that state government -- probably through the department Holman used to head -- would become more powerful with a permit system in place. If major water users must seek approval for their withdrawals, they could be turned down, or have to meet certain conditions. That is likely to prove unpopular in some quarters, to say the least.

Yet there will be support as well. For instance, Anita Watkins, who is legislative counsel for the N.C. League of Municipalities, told The N&O, "Our folks see this as a way to make sure the supply of public water is protected and that you have a level playing field." What's not to like about that?

Whisnant and Holman suggest that water usage exceeding 100,000 gallons a day be subject to a permit. They estimate that would cover between 1,000 and 1,500 users -- factories, meat-processing facilities, municipalities, power plants. Large-scale industrial farms typically use less than the threshold, perhaps suggesting that if anything, 100,000 gallons a day as the point where permitting kicks in would be on the high side.

Water supplies cross all kinds of boundaries and must be logically and fairly allocated, especially as demand grows. Legislators who called for the study capably performed by Whisnant and Holman now should take its findings to heart.