© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
MP3 file derived from WAV preservation master, which was derived from original analog cassettes.
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digitization project, Documenting the American South.
An audio file with the interview complements this electronic edition.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar and spelling have been preserved.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as "
All em dashes are encoded as —
Interview conducted in Daniel Okun's University of North Carolina office
Transcript on deposit at the Southern Historical Collection, the Louis Round Wilson Library
Citation of this interview should be as follows:
“Interview
K-0021, in the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern
Historical Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill”
In this interview, Daniel Okun, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel at the time of the interview, lays out the case for creating the Cane Creek reservoir. His knowledge about water quality allows him to make a compelling argument, and he uses logic that might be painful to opponents of the reservoir. For example, he claims that the best way to preserve rural communities is with watershed protections, which prevent development. Opponents of the reservoir might argue that its construction will displace some residents and force damaging regulations on those who remain. Okun appears frustrated with the length of the legal battle over the project, which seemed necessary fifteen years before this interview. For Okun, the ultimate blame falls with the university, which moved too slowly early in the project and allowed opposition to build.
Daniel Okun, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel at the time of the interview, lays out the case for creating the Cane Creek reservoir.
START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A
Laura Drey briefly describes project and the students' topics.
(Occasionally some of the tape was accidentally erased while transcribing.)
Could you tell me something about your educational and experiential background?
Well, I'm an engineer by background. I have specialized throughout my career in water: water supply, water pollution control [erased up through here], everything that has to do with water quantity, and more especially, water quality. You see, water quality issues have become of great importance as the population grows. It's a very big issue. I've studied in this area.
When did you move to Chapel Hill?
1952.
[Talks about what Okun's resume covers]
As general background, before World War II I did some graduate work, and
I also did some work in the Haw River Pollution Center, studying the Haw
River. [This was] the first river where there was major studies made in
the kinds of pollution. Then when the war came, I joined the Army.
Enlisted for four years, doing work, most of the time, in drinking water
until I left with troops and did some infantry duty. When the war was
over, I went back to school and got my doctorate. I worked for a
consulting engineering firm, doing water work, and
I do a lot of consulting. I did before I came here, and I still do a lot of consulting work. I've been involved in the impacts of development on the water supply. In fact, I just came back yesterday. I was in Houston. The last time I'd been in Houston was 35 years ago. At that time they were beginning to have a very serious problem which foretold the problems they're now having, which are very, very serious indeed. The city is sinking, and the ( ). It was known 35 years ago. They just didn't do anything about it. So I have a lot of experience over the years throughout the United States and other countries in the world. So I'm sort of narrowly focused, but in that, I have a lot of experience.
How did you become involved in the Cane Creek reservoir issue?
Well, in the first place I live here, though I don't use the OWASA
water. We live out of town, but when the Cane Creek issue began, we were
living in town. [Laughter]
When the water system was built, it was planned in 1930. It was completed in 1932, the present system that we have now. It was, at that time, quite large enough, but when I got here in '52, twenty years later, it was clear that it was inadequate. In the postwar period the University was very happy with it.
I had my class every year studying. . . . The title of my class was Additional Water Supply for Chapel Hill [discussion on class]. So I gathered a lot of data and kept it, and I provided them with a lot of data. Then they had to take the data and conclude [what] the best thing to do was.
In fact, I wrote a letter to the University. I'd been telling them about this, but then I felt I had better put it on paper. So I wrote them a letter saying they needed to do something, or there would be a very serious problem [because of the rate the student and community population was growing]. Really, nothing too much was done until we had this very serious drought in 1968. [Continued discussion about class] ( ) the fact that the University wouldn't let them in the fall. The football would have to be canceled. Anything else doesn't matter but when you can't play football. . . . [The University was talking of closing for a time]
One of the options for our water supply, based upon the information that we had—the best option, the one that seemed the most appropriate—was enlarging University Lake. The reason for that was. . . .
That was back in '68?
That was in the 50s and 60s. The reason that that was the answer that we
used was because. . . . We were not being paid. We had no money to go
out and do surveys. At that time there weren't any maps of the area west
of here. So our students could only work with the maps that existed.
[Discussion of maps] [Discussion of maps]
Then many of our students used new maps, and it became quite clear that
there were some additional [reservoir sites] west of here. You need not
only a watershed drain, you need a place that's a suitable place for a
dam. At that time also the new Council of Governments made a survey of
water resources. As soon as the maps were finished, they did this. And a
good reservoir site existed out at Cane Creek. There were a few others
also. So we were able to enlarge our field of study at that time. [Discussion of maps]
So Cane Creek seemed very desirable. Of course, one of the reasons it was
very desirable was that it was of adequate size. But the more important
reasons—because Jordan Reservoir is of
That would be one of the proposals for taking water out of Jordan and
putting it into University Lake. But the problem there is that you're
taking a very good lake and putting very bad water into it, and that's
not desirable. In this case, with Cane Creek [having] as high quality of
water as University Lake, and having high quality yield, and it's
[being] much more economical than enlarging University Lake. . . .
University Lake would be very expensive, and we would not have much
additional water, because we would be just adding to what exists now.
Whereas, this [way], we keep what exists and we're getting—if
we enlarge University Lake, we grow to the maximum yield. The maximum
yield for about 30 square miles is about 10 million gallons a day. We
had about three in University Lake, and if we enlarge it, we can get
about ten. Going to Cane Creek we get a whole new ten, because it's a
different watershed. So we add the ten to the present, and pretty soon
we've got more, and the cost for the construction is even less than
[for] University Lake. It always costs more to enlarge an existing lake
than to ( ) in the
In fact, I was on a sabbatical leave in '68-'69, and when I came back, I found that the University was beginning to consider what was happening [and looking for an] additional water supply. They were considering Jordan Reservoir because when the Corps of Engineers were planning on that, they were looking for customers. When I found that out, I objected strenuously. I went to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees said, “Well, doesn't Jordan Reservoir meet the standards?” I said, “Sure, it meets the standards, but that's not adequate standards. The standards are way behind the times,” and I urged them to go to Cane Creek.
Had the standards been improved since then?
They'd been improved. They'd been changed. They'd gotten more
restrictive. They added more chemicals. Yes, they'd been changed since
then, but they're still way behind the times. Jordan Reservoir would
meet the drinking water standards today, but that's not the issue. The
drinking water standards are based upon very little knowledge. It takes
10-20 years before the information you get is finally embodied in
standards. I have a report, let's see if I have a copy, which
illustrates the problem. I have another case where I am a consultant,
which
So that's contaminants versus the number of industries that are dumping into the. . . .
No, no, it's got nothing to do with. . . . These are the standards.
The point is that this is how they're increasing. In the year 2000 there may be 100-120. We're aware that these are new things that are health problems. If we build a new water supply today that is going to serve until way past the year 2000, the 1930 reservoir is going to serve until 2000, University Lake. . . . So the standards really have to be planned, not for what they are today, but what they're going to be far into the future.
So there doesn't seem to be any question that we ought to take the
highest quality source. Then the standards also say one other thing
which is very clear. It says that priority should be given to selection
of the purest source. Polluted sources should not be used unless other
sources are economically unavailable. Well, that's clear—Cane
Creek is a much purer source than Jordan Reservoir, and economically the
difference in cost is almost no
So the objective of the thing we're pointing out in this report, which is going to the East Bay area—Berkeley, Oakland, that whole area—we're pointing out the same thing there. That the best thing is to take the highest quality source. For this area that is quite clear. University Lake is the high quality source, and we have to get additional water from Cane Creek because Cane Creek is a high quality source. So it'd seemed to us an open and shut case. It really is not relevant whether Jordan Reservoir is good for drinking or not for drinking. Jordan Reservoir is clearly more polluted than Cane Creek. Jordan Reservoir receives all the wastes from Greensboro, from Burlington, from Mebane. There are 130 some odd sewers discharging into Haw River which flows into Jordan Reservoir, and there are no sewers discharging into Cane Creek, no sewers discharging into University Lake. So if you just look at those two things, it's quite clear that according to the principles involved in providing water supply we go to the purest source that's available.
Of course, this makes a real problem for the people who live on the
watershed, which is what you're concerned about. There's no question
that if people need to have a road to go from here to there that some
people who live along that road are going to be discomforted. But we
have to build things, and individuals are
Do you know how many people it displaced?
I don't really remember but they were in the hundreds, many more than Cane Creek, in the hundreds, in the high hundreds. Randleman Dam is another one that they're proposing that's going to displace a lot of people, and here I think there were only two families that were physically displaced.
But it's not the question of displacing two people or not displacing two
people. If we didn't need it, then certainly there's no reason to
displace two people. But what you are benefiting is the population
that's served by OWASA. That's 50,000 people now, and possibly by the
end of the century may be 100,000. They're going to be guaranteed
getting good water at the sacrifice of two people being obliged to move
somewhere else. For those two people, they're going to be recompensed.
But still if we could get the water without doing it, that'd be better.
But it's not likely you can do anything for the general public without
impacting on some one thing. Roads, if you build a school somewhere,
somebody's going to be affected. If you build anything, someone's going
to be affected. There are no projects that I know of, in recent times,
that impact people as little as
I think the farmers' response would be, which is one of the things I wanted to ask about, that there are standards for runoff. I guess my question was how compatible is dairy farming with water supply? There are organic things, I guess, from manure but also then there is the fertilizers.
Pesticides. There is no question that there has to be, and there would have to be anyway, more and more improved farming practices. Because if you have a lot of pesticides draining into the water, this is going to have an impact on the fish, whether the people are impacted or not. If you're going to have a lot of fertilizers, you're going to have a detrimental impact, and these practices are wasteful. So you have to have improved farming practices, and that's required whether it's in the drinking water supply or not. So as far as drinking water is concerned, if it's just agricultural practices, we know that fertilizers are not harmful with ( ). There's no danger at all. Pesticides can harm, and we know which pesticides they are, and knowing which ones are being used, it's easy to monitor for them and protect ourselves against them ( ) which should be necessary. Agriculture is certainly compatible with drinking water.
Now certainly it'd be nice if we had a watershed. Some cities do.
Asheville does; San Francisco does. Some cities in Connecticut own the
whole watershed, and there is no development. They have no development
and that's fine. But that's not
So the question is what kind of development is the most compatible. Well,
of all the kinds of development that can take place, of all uses, if
there's going to be any use at all, certainly recreation would be the
best. Recreation would do very well, but you can't dedicate 30 square
miles to recreation and that sort of thing [in Orange County]. So you're
going to have some kind of development. Well, of all the kinds of
development, of all the uses it can be put, the most compatible is
agriculture. Because if you look at the other kinds—[they]
would be industrial development, urban development—those
produce waste that are far less manageable than what is produced in
agriculture, because there are new chemicals being used in industries
every day. And there are so many, in one industry you can use 100
chemicals. Whereas in farms, the pesticides are registered. They're
known. We can examine what they do. Industry, there's so many kinds of
different things. Urban runoff is a very serious problem because [of
what is] in the homes, and automobiles and the exhaust from the cars.
The stuff that washes in from the rain from the streets, you get a lot
of detrimental impact from urban development on watersheds—a
very, very serious impact. It's very hard to control because there's so
many contaminants. It's hard to measure them. So if we look at it from a
water supply standpoint. . . if the farmers there are worried about
protecting the water supply, we have to say if
But there's another issue which is far more important for the people of Cane Creek, and that is. . . . They had a sign—Save Cane Creek, Save Cane Creek Community, Save Cane Creek. If you really want to save Cane Creek, the only way it can be done in our modern, social/economic development in North carolina is to build the reservoir. Because building the reservoir will force the county, and the regulatory bodies, to restrict the kinds of activities that take place on the watershed. In other words the Cane Creek area will be very restricted now in what can take place.
Is that state regulations or local regulations?
Local regulations, county regulations. The counties are doing it because [of] the fact that you have drinking water there. As we keep perceiving that we need to get a good quality drinking water, ( ). If you go and you drive through Carrboro, you see a lot of multifamily housing. But as soon as you get into the University Lake watershed, it becomes rural because [the regulations are] protecting our watershed. It becomes an obligation to the public.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that there have been many court
cases, and the court cases have all demonstrated that any local, state,
or federal organization has responsibility [to protect the watershed].
Whenever they have made a regulation about the use of watershed lands,
to restrict development, they've been sued. This has happened
everywhere. Developers
If there were no Cane Creek Reservoir, if there was not a drinking water
supply, you could have developments like you have all over. Agriculture
would disappear. With [a reservoir at] Cane Creek, we can preserve
agriculture indefinitely. If agriculture can be preserved, if
agriculture's economically viable, then the reservoir will help preserve
the agricultural nature of that community. If there were no Cane Creek
reservoir, in ten, or fifteen, or twenty years there'd be no agriculture
I'll say this. I wouldn't say that in a public meeting but I don't mind, you may as well know it—some of the people most vociferous against the Cane Creek reservoir are those who had an economic stake. They owned the land, and the Cane Creek reservoir is going to keep them from making a killing of it. I'm not saying that the opposition of the most of the people wasn't real. They wanted to preserve their community.
I'm really the most troubled of all by the Stanford family. They're the
ones on the site. They had to give up, they were the ones that were
completely displaced. What bothered them—they were willing to
sell right at the beginning—what bothered them was extending
this battle, not knowing which way it would go. They couldn't make an
investment in their farm because they
I live right out here, not far, not on the watershed. There are some farms between Chapel Hill and where I live. I live about a mile south of town, not yet in Chatham County. The farmer there is keeping it as a farm. But one of these days he's going to sell it to a developer, and we're going to have intensive development. That farmer's not going to be able to last, and I don't expect it to last. The only way you can get it to last is to have the activities reinforce each other. The agriculture reinforces. . . .
END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A
START OF TAPE 1, SIDE B
[I was] highly, not highly, a little bit embarrassed because my daughter
joined the Cane Creek cloggers [laughter]. [Tells about daughter's wedding.] [laughter]
You'd said a little earlier about being able to know what pesticides and herbicides the farmers were using. Would the farmers be required to disclose that sort of information?
Yes, yes.
How would it. . . ?
Well, the pesticides are registered. They're required to do this in any
case. It didn't used to be the case, but now certain pesticides are
pretty tightly regulated. The way
What the farmers may have a right to worry about, but it's not likely in this area that this would be a problem. . . . In the Middle West they have cattle feed, intense cattle feeding, where you have a farm where you put the cattle feed, and there you get waste from the cattle, and that has to be handled. That can be a real nuisance. But I don't think that's the kind of cattle raising we're going to come to here. This will be dairy farming and pasturing, and that doesn't really create a serious problem. The bacteria that come from cattle manure and that sort of thing, that's easily managed. We can disinfect the bacteria. The bacteria are not really a problem.
What is a problem, and why I was so much opposed to Jordan Reservoir, is
that Jordan Reservoir receives a lot of chemicals which we can't even
detect, and chemicals which we also have good reason to believe are
responsible for health impacts. Well, that doesn't hurt them, dairy
farming. The farmers will be obliged to employ sound practices. They may
be obliged to employ them somewhat quicker, although I don't think so.
In fact, what OWASA has done—and this was not only for Cane
Creek but for University Lake, and they did this also for Jordan
Reservoir—they are
Could you address a little bit more why Cane Creek was chosen over. . . . I guess I've heard about University Lake and Jordan Lake and Haw River. My understanding from reading some newspaper articles is that there now exists a waterline between Chapel Hill and Durham, [and OWASA has] been using that some more, and there's supposed to be some rock quarry that has been. . . .
Yes, that has been used.
But here are other ones. Originally, I heard 15 in these. . . .
Yes, that's right. There were about 15 options. We included going to
Durham, several small reservoir sites that were good, some that I won't
admit. We examined all of them. The reason that Haw River and Jordan
River Reservoir were thrown out is because the quality of the watersheds
is suspect. It will always be suspect. It goes through the city of
Greensboro. Now they've got textile industries. The textile industries
are in trouble, so there'll be other kind of industries, microelectronic
Could you explain what that is because I've. . . .
A lot of the water that we need does not have to be of drinking water
quality. You don't have to have drinking water quality to water your
law, and a lot of the water we use is for watering your lawn. So you can
use other water, poorer quality water, to water your lawn. Well, if we
get so tight on high quality water, we can have a separate line for
watering our lawn, and even a separate line for flushing our toilets. So
in the
Could you say something about what water is currently being used besides University Lake?
In this area?
Yes.
There's some ground water being used, but that's not in very big supply. But no, in this area right now we're using University Lake. Now, we're taking a little water from Cane Creek. The quarry was used, and we had a connection to Hillsborough, and we had a connection to Durham. These interconnections are always wise to have, because we may have a shortage here, and Durham may have excess. But in the future, when Cane Creek is built, we may have an excess and Durham may need the connection. A regional water supply makes a lot of sense, and I very much believe in that.
What extent would Cane Creek be a regional water source, because it sounded to me more like it was local, only for Chapel Hill-Carrboro?
As soon as we connect, as we have connected to Chapel Hill and Durham
and Hillsborough, it becomes part of a regional source, because it all
feeds into the same tripod. So if Hillsborough runs out, then Cane Creek
can be used to provide water to Hillsborough. Also, Hillsborough is
connected to
Has the Jordan been allocated out?
No, none of it's been allocated. But that water supply, if there was a very serious drought, even if it hasn't been allocated, it would be used to, or is reserved for, agricultural purposes and other purposes. Facing a real serious drought, ( ) human use. So that the consequences of using Jordan Reservoir, if it were used for a few weeks or months out of a 10-20 year period, is much less serious. Because the problem with the chemicals in water is not a problem of acute toxicity, we can ( ) acute toxicity. It's a problem of long term ingestion, of drinking this water for a lifetime. Well, if the Jordan Reservoir were used in a emergency, every 10-20 years, there'd be no problem. Just as you go and spend two months in Cincinnati, you're drinking pretty cruddy water, but if I drink it one day, occasionally, [instead] of drinking it all my life, it's a different problem. But why should we force the people here to drink that cruddy water for a lifetime? That's the problem.
So we have many options for the future, and I'm sure there'll be other
things that will develop. So the thing was that if we had developed
Jordan Reservoir and not developed [a
So one of the policies I'm espousing around the state and the
nation—in fact, we just made a recommendation to the federal
government that they take some initiative in this regard, but it's
important to the state to do it—is to identify all of the Cane
Creeks in the state, all of the good sources of water. Identify them now
and begin to preserve them now for the future. Even if you don't build a
reservoir now, at least pass the regulations to protect the quality of
the water in that area and to prevent the development of urban and
industrial surprises and that sort of thing. So it would seem to. . . .
[Interruption]
I think that Cane Creek, the selection of Cane Creek, was by far the best thing for the people of this community, for the people of the Cane Creek community, and for the state of North Carolina. I think there's no question about it. And it's a good model, I think, for other communities to do the same thing.
Could you talk a little bit about different governmental bodies, like the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the Corps of Engineers and EMC [Environmental Management Commission]. What have their roles been? Do you know about that?
Oh yeah, I know. The Chapel Hill Town Council, of course, Chapel Hill in
general has been supportive of this. OWASA in general has been
supportive of it, I think, and OWASA is made up of representatives of
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. Of course, I think part of the
agreements that OWASA made when they took over the water supply was. . .
. The state more or less obligated, the University more or less
obligated, them to go in this direction because they had already made
some investment along this line. And being the biggest customer, the
University would have been very unhappy to have been obliged to take
Jordan Reservoir water. So
What investment had they already made?
Well, they had already started to collect some money from people against
this, and a lot of the engineering had been done. The engineering report
had been done. They had employed the engineers. So this was all ( ). And
also OWASA was interested in protecting the quality of the water. The
water had been ( ), and they didn't want to turn over to somebody and
immediately go to Jordan Reservoir. So the University, and the towns, I
think they've all agreed we have had no difficulty with the people in
town, other than the editor of the Chapel Hill newspaper, which for some
strange reason still wants us to go to Jordan Reservoir. He's the
only—I don't know why, it beats me. But more or less all the
people in the community, the mayors, and the town council, they've been
no problem at all. I've been in
The Corps of Engineers, of course, was in an ambivalent position. They
were really in a very sorry position because they built this reservoir.
And the Corps of Engineers—I don't know how much you know
about the Corps of Engineers and how it operates—but in order
to get a project like the Jordan Reservoir, they have to prove to
Congress that the benefits outweigh the costs, because Congress provides
all the money. That didn't cost the University. It was built without a
penny of money from this area. It all came from Washington. But in order
for it to come from Washington, they have got to prove to people that
the benefits will be greater than the costs. Well, among the benefits
they counted were water supply. They didn't know that anyone wanted the
water supply. They said, “We've got a water supply.”
The Corps of Engineers doesn't care a damn about quality. They didn't in
the past. [Talks about being on a committee that reviewed the Corps'
studies for providing water to the Washington metropolitan
area.] [Describes a representative of the Corps of Engineers who
preferred Cane Creek over Jordan Reservoir.]
The problem with the state agencies is that they have not in the past given much leadership. The Environmental Management Commission doesn't play much of a role. The State Health Department, interestingly enough, is the primary agency responsible for water supply, the problem of human resources. But in Raleigh that Department is about as wishy-washy as any Department I've ever seen. They have never taken a stand on anything. They're afraid of their shadow. On the other hand, one of the regional representatives has testified on behalf of Cane Creek. He's always been a strong witness.
Could you say who that person's name is?
His name is Venrick. If I remember, he has an office in Fayetteville.
Wally Venrick, I think that's his name. Incidentally, you can go to
OWASA and get copies of the hearings and oral testimony, and everything
I'm saying is in the testimony. But the state, generally, if you meet
the regulations, they have nothing more to say. And that applies to EMC.
In other words, the EMC is now in a difficult position. The reservoir's
been built, and they were asked to classify the drinking water, and they
have done that. [Discusses colleague who was on the Commission]
Now there is a city that wants it very badly. That's Cary. Cary gets water from Raleigh now, and they want to be independent. Of course, that's the wrong direction to go. I'm always in favor of regional relations. Now they get it from Raleigh, and they want to be separate only for damn real estate purposes. That's the only reason. It has nothing to do with what's good for the people or anything. [It has only to do with] what's good for the real estate agents and what's good for Cary making more money. So they want that water, and they figure they can grow a lot faster if they had that water rather than depending on Raleigh. So they want the water. Meanwhile, they haven't been given it yet. I expect it'll eventually be given because regulatory agencies go by strict rules, and their rules say that if it meets these standards, we've got to give them the water. It's that simple. They don't have to. They could be more far-sighted, but I don't expect that much from a state agency. So far they've shown more courage than I expected.
There is a new classification system being promulgated. It hasn't passed
yet. It hasn't been adopted yet. It's a system which will characterize
water sources differently, according to their quality. I have to leave
in a few minutes. Right now University Lake, and Cane Creek, and Jordan
Reservoir would all be classified exactly the same, as A-2 waters. Any
water
There's another whole area I'm curious about, but before that, did you
read the Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Assessment?
There's also those couple of consultants reports, not only the Hazen and
Sawyer. And also, I
It's a long time since I've looked them over. Those assessments, in general—you can go into a lot of great detail, and I think the main thrust of the arguments are the ones I've given. I brought Mr. Hazen into this town. I invited him to be a visiting professor, and he happened to be a visiting professor here during the 1968 drought. He's a very good friend of mine. So when the time came, he happened to be here. He's now retired. His firm is a very reputable firm. So his firm was employed. It had nothing to do with that, but I just put him on the scene. They now have an office in Raleigh. They more or less have the same views I have. There can be all kinds of Environmental Impact Statements. Environmental Assessments are not really worth all that much. They force you to look at something, and they may reveal something. I just don't remember what it said. But by and large, as far as I'm concerned, there's no question but that Cane Creek is a higher quality source than Jordan Reservoir can ever be, and will continue to be into the future.
Could you tell me something about your feelings about the whole Cane Creek controversy?
Well, I think the environmental movement caught up a lot of people who
call themselves environmentalists, and I'm sorry to say often don't
really understand the issues. And certainly dams—and the Corps
of Engineers have given dams a bad name, so they lump all dams together.
You want to build a dam, obviously, you're against the ecology; you're
against the
There was a groundswell, when this thing began, of environmentalism.
That's what got this whole thing mixed up. And what happened as a result
of that, and it was really led by a very few people. As far as they were
concerned, they didn't lose anything. They got a lot more money for
their land as time went on, land value increased. OWASA wanted to get
the land, and they paid high prices for it. So they did good for
themselves. But what they hurt were all the people who live in this
community
When was that?
Well, the report came out in '69. If they would have started right away,
but they dilly-dallied. And then they began to see that they were going
to sell the water services, so that held it up again. If the University
had moved when they should have moved, there would have been no problem.
So if you had to point to one guilty party, it was the University. It
was the nature of the University owning the water supply. The University
ought not to have been in the water supply business, but there was no
one else to be in the water supply business so ( ).
END OF TAPE 1, SIDE B
START OF TAPE 2, SIDE A
[Drey goes over questions not asked]
I think I've addressed all of those issues.
Yes.
I don't think there's anything now.
I guess another one was, what is the likelihood of the Cane Creek project being completed?
Well, it's going to be completed. I don't see any reason it shouldn't.
We're already getting water out of it now. I don't think there's
anything to get in the way now. They've got the pipeline in. We're
drinking water out of it now. Building the bigger dam is going to take a
little more time. They have to buy some land still. They have the power
of condemnation, so they can condemn it if they want to. I don't see why
they don't. See, that was another thing that hurt them. Had Chapel Hill
been the water purveyor, they wouldn't have had a lot of the problems.
But when OWASA was created—it was the only agency of the kind
of the state—it was not given much, it did not want to
establish a precedent. They were not given the power of eminent domain.
Well, if Duke Power had owned that and were going to provide the water
supply. . . . In other words, if the University had sold it to Duke
Power, they had power of eminent domain. They could have taken that land
over without. . . . The only thing the farmers could have complained
about was the price. The only reason is that every agency that could
have provided water supply, except OWASA, had the right of eminent
domain, had the right to take that land. The only agency that could not
was
Could you give me some names of people that would be good to talk to?
END OF TAPE 2, SIDE A
END OF INTERVIEW