Who owns the riverbed?

From Dean Naujoks:

Yadkin Riverkeeper asked the agency that oversees property owned by the state of North Carolina, Does the state own the riverbed of the Yadkin River?

The Department of Administration responded, in effect, by saying, Well, we’re not going to answer that question. And added, That would take a lot of work – we might have to research deeds going back to Colonial times.

Needless to say, that is a disappointingly bureaucratic response.

There is a simple solution to this question. Alcoa claims it owns the riverbed. We’ve reviewed records – in Stanly County and the State archives – going back to the 19^th Century and can’t find where the riverbed was ever Alcoa’s. If Alcoa has a deed, they should produce it. If they have it, and the deed is valid, we will drop the issue. If they don’t produce a deed, we will pursue other legal remedies.

Read the letter here.

Alcoa blocks jobs in Stanly County by blocking Clean Tech agreement. Read the story here.

Read the Stanly County Press Release Here.

Riverbed Litigation Filed
Read the Press release here

See a brief video here then take action now.

Last December, Yadkin Riverkeeper and Stanly County prevailed in a lawsuit when it was revealed at trial Alcoa falsified dissolved oxygen data on its 401 Water Quality Certification which led NC state officials to revoke Alcoa’s Water Quality Certification needed to obtain the 50-year license. Alcoa has since appealed the decision but in an attempt to avoid going back to trial in February, Alcoa has offered to pay Stanly County $50 million dollars in cash to drop its lawsuit and pressure Governor Perdue to walk away from the State’s efforts to recapture the Yadkin River.

Alcoa and a newly formed company Clean Tech (with a very questionable track record) say they are ready to create 250 jobs in Stanly County – but the offer comes with conditions. In exchange, Stanly County Commissioners have to support Alcoa’s bid for a new 50-year license to control the Yadkin River. Plus, the Governor has to grant Alcoa a new 401 Water Quality Certificate despite documented contamination issues and the failure to comply with dissolved oxygen standards. If these demands are not met by December 15th, Alcoa and Clean Tech have threatened to move the jobs to another state. See “Alcoa and The Big Bribe.”

This is the political equivalent of blackmail. Stanly County Commissioners wisely asked Alcoa to tie the jobs to the 50-year license and commit to pay legally binding penalties ($1million per year for the duration of the license) if it failed to live up to its end of an agreement. Alcoa refused. All Alcoa has done is make promises which, as the Commissioners stated in their press release, “are not worth the paper they are written on.” Stanly County has since identified other companies wanting to relocate to the region that do not require giving up the 50 year license.

A recent statewide poll conducted by Central Park NC revealed 75% of voters in NC currently support Governor Perdue's position to not grant Alcoa the 50 year license. If Alcoa receives its federal license and then Clean Tech announces it will not be opening the Badin plant it would be a terrible deal for NC. In contrast, public ownership over the Yadkin River would create thousands of jobs over the next 50 years through low cost electricity (as an economic incentive to recruit business) and provide clean drinking water for future generations.

The Governor is being heavily pressured into taking Alcoa's offer. If there was ever a time to speak up on this issue, the time is now! We have one day left! Please take a one minute of your time to contact Governor Bev Perdue today and tell her:
1) You do NOT support her reversing her position and giving into Alcoa's demands. We want jobs that do not come at the expense of giving up the 50 year license for the Yadkin River!
2) To please give her adminstration time to determine who is the rightful owner of the Yadkin River.

Governor Perdue
1-800-662-7952 or 919-733-4240
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bev-Perdue/11552180685

Press Release: Yadkin Riverkeeper Refutes Riverbed Ownership

Supporting Documents:
Deed Plots
Motion to Intervene
Yadkin Public Hhighway Act
Letter
Statewide Poll

Additional Documents Available

The Federal courts have now ruled against Alcoa's bid to circumvent water quality certification and obtain another 50-year license to operate Dams on the Yadkin River. See our News section for several stories and read the court ruling here. Also see additional background here.

You can also read the EPA's Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act.

And senators Hartsell and Bingham have entered several bills to further restrict Alcoa's hand.

In their own internal documents, Alcoa officials have proven they are poor stewards of our waterways. Click to see a GRAPHIC IMAGE of a fish kill speaks volumes and shows they not only knew about the dissolved oxygen problem but they also lied about it.

Sometimes, the truth hurts. That "sometime" is now for Alcoa.

Despite the spin, distractions and outright misrepresentations about legislation and legislators made by Alcoa, the truth is that SB 967 and any similar legislation that may arise in the House, has nothing to do with eminent domain and does not take property from anyone. Alcoa appears to have prepared its press releases and other statements without even reading this bi-partisan bill. The federal government is the only entity that can decide to return control of the water to the State of North Carolina.

Here's the truth:
Alcoa's 50-year lease is up and Alcoa is desperate because it hasn't paid the rent in years. As Jack Betts wrote in The Charlotte Observer and The News & Observer, Alcoa "lost its best argument for renewal about 1,000 jobs ago."

Here's the truth:
In Alcoa's 1957 legal brief filed by Alcoa's legal counsel in support of the 1958 licensing, Alcoa acknowledged the federal recapture right, using the federal right or recapture of the Yadkin Project as an a reason why Alcoa should receive a license for 50 years in order to be able make the project economically viable so that the company could recoup the investment it promised to make in order to keep the Badin Works open. Here's what Alcoa's brief said, verbatim:

"Under Section 14 of the Act, any project may be "recaptured" at the expiration of the license term. In formulating its plans, therefore, the management of Carolina Aluminum could not rely upon any assured source of power supply after the expiration of its license for the Yadkin Project."

Here's the truth:
Alcoa's current application for license renewal, which acknowledges the federal government's right to recapture, sets forth the statutorily mandated transfer price to be Alcoa's net investment. We did not make this up - Alcoa wrote it in its own application!

Here's the truth:
In 1958, Alcoa made a promise to utilize the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project to maintain almost 1,000 jobs. The United States and the State of North Carolina accepted this promise in agreeing to the terms of the 1958 license. In fact, the federal commission expressly justified granting a new fifty-year license to the Project because otherwise, “continued operation of the Badin [smelting] works would be threatened, to the detriment of its 977 employees (as of 1957) and the surrounding region.” However, Alcoa broke that promise.

Here's the truth:
Alcoa has shuttered the Badin Works costing 1,000 North Carolina citizens their jobs. However, Alcoa has continued to seek tax breaks from the state and a new fifty-year license to exclusively operate the hydro project. If Alcoa receives another 50-year monopoly, this time Alcoa will not be using any of the electricity generated by the Yadkin Project to create jobs for the people of North Carolina. Instead, Alcoa will use the public waters of the Yadkin River to generate electricity at an enormous profit to be sold to the highest bidder on the interstate electricity grid. Even worse, Alcoa could sell the license and the hydro project to a foreign company that would exercise control over the waters that the law says belong to the people.

Here's the truth:
North Carolina aggressively recruits and provides incentives to businesses that create jobs. Alcoa is not one of those companies. Encouraging the federal government to give the water back to the people is not anti-business. In fact, the State Trust Concept embodied in SB 967 would create funds for economic development purposes and attract businesses that are here to stay, not companies like Alcoa that closes a plant in North Carolina while using profits derived from our waters to fund smelting plants in Iceland.

Here's the truth:
The Yadkin River trust will cost the state nothing because it is designed with the ability to issue revenue bonds for the purchase and improvements. Even if Alcoa’s conservative estimate of an annual profit of $8 million is accurate, the Yadkin River Trust will easily be able to finance the project without costing the taxpayers of North Carolina one penny.

Here's the truth:
The Trust will provide more benefits to North Carolina state residents than Alcoa, including:
An assurance that the water of the Yadkin, which the public owns, will be valued for the benefit of all North Carolinians rather than exploited for profit.
Priority consideration to local needs, with the intent of restoring and improving environmental, economic and job considerations.
Power generated from the Project will be used for the benefit of the citizens of North Carolina, not a multinational company answerable to no one in North Carolina.

Here's the truth:
SB 967 addresses three key issues that Alcoa refuses to address or even acknowledge regarding the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, which is located in Stanly, Davidson, Rowan and Montgomery counties: water control, job creation and environmental cleanup.

___________________________________________________________________________

Major Update: Alcoa Relicensing

In a major reversal, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) issued a statement Wednesday saying they have revoked Alcoa Power Generating’s 401 Water Quality Certification permit. Coleen Sullins, the director of the Division of Water Quality, said ALCOA had intentionally withheld critical information from regulators who reviewed the company’s application.

“We are very gratified with the outcome and applaud the Department of Natural Resources for revoking this permit. This is a great victory for Yadkin Riverkeeper and Stanley County, but more importantly for the River and the communities that depend on it for drinking water and recreation,” said Yadkin Riverkeeper Dean Naujoks. “There are still numerous environmental and public health issues related to ALCOA’s toxic legacy to be addressed. However, if we are ultimately successful in recapturing the Yadkin River for the citizens of North Carolina, this step today will be recognized as a major turning point in the war against a global polluter—one that has placed greater value on its profit margin than the citizens of North Carolina. The Yadkin River belongs to the people of North Carolina, not ALCOA.”

Read the Winston-Salem Journal’s article. Here's the full text of NCDENR’s statement.

Donate Now!

To learn more:
Go to: this site posted by the NC Division of Water Resources to read about the relicensing process for North Carolina dams.

Background

Alcoa is pursuing another 50-year license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in order to continue producing hydropower for sale, but its application has been delayed over environmental questions from State government agencies and officials. Alcoa is attempting to receive a required 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC Division of Water Quality, required in order to secure a new license.

Badin Lake, one of several major reservoirs located on the main stem of the Yadkin River, serves as the primary drinking water source for the City of Albemarle. Citizens throughout the entire region, as well as many others from North Carolina, utilize Badin Lake for recreation, fishing and swimming. Alcoa, one of the world’s leading producers of primary aluminum, conducted its aluminum smelting operations from approximately 1915 until mid-2007 at the Badin Works plant, located adjacent to Badin Lake.

Alcoa discharged pollutants into the air, land and waterways during the operation of the Badin Works Plant. There are at least six known contamination sites located around the Alcoa plant. Alcoa has acknowledged that the operation of the Badin Works Plant has resulted in contamination of the public water supply. The known contaminants include cyanide, fluoride, PCBs, solvents, metals, hydrocarbons, benzene, naphthalene and methane. To learn more about toxic byproducts generated from Aluminum production, read an on-line report from the USEPA Office of Solid Waste.

Essentially, Alcoa wants to control the rights to this important public resource for the next 50 years and continue to generate approximately $50 million a year from the hydropower operations, while passing on a toxic legacy to NC citizens with no obligation requiring clean up and no obligation to provide jobs for NC citizens. Written comments may be sent to Governor Bev Perdue to express your opinion and concerns on the re-licensing issue.

Yadkin Riverkeeper® and a growing coalition of concerned parties are asking the state to deny Alcoa’s 401 Water Quality Permit. Alcoa must address their contamination of Badin Lake and satisfy other water quality concerns (like low Dissolved Oxygen releases) associated with its hydropower operations. Please take action now and tell the state of NC to deny Alcoa's 401 permit request.

Alcoa’s Claims About the Free Enterprise System, its Claim that the State is Trying to Seize its Private Property Against its Will and its Claim that it is Fighting for the Ordinary Citizens of North Carolina – Alcoa’s Claims versus the Facts

Set forth below are various claims made by Alcoa, through the N.C. Property Rights Coalition, and then the actual facts.

Alcoa’s Claim: The State is attempting to seize Alcoa’s private property against its will in an unprecedented step that would set a dangerous precedent for private property owners.

Thus, Alcoa’s surrogates are saying:

“[S]ome of the politicians in Raleigh are trying to take away Alcoa’s privately owned dams and real estate along the Yadkin River.”

“The state is attempting to seize the dams, powerhouses and land Alcoa owns on the Yadkin River.”

“If they succeed, it will set a dangerous precedent for private property owners all across North Carolina.”

The Facts: Although Alcoa and its corporate and regulatory lawyers are well acquainted with this inconvenient fact, they have never disclosed to the members of the General Assembly that Alcoa itself agreed in writing with the Federal Power Commission in 1958 that, when Alcoa’s 50-year federal license to operate the Yadkin River dams and their hydropower generating facilities expired, the United States Government had the absolute and unconditional right to “recapture” the operating license, as well as the dams, the hydropower facilities and any other property necessary to operate the hydropower facilities. This recapture provision is a fundamental and well-recognized part of the Federal Power Act – and it has been in the Federal Power Act from the beginning. Every entity that receives a license to operate a hydropower facility under the Federal Power Act is subject to the condition that, following the expiration of the license term, the U.S. Government may elect to recapture the license and the hydropower generating facilities for a price that is agreed upon in advance by the U.S. Government and the licensee – in this case, Alcoa. Alcoa has been well aware of this fact since at least 1958, when Alcoa and the Federal Power Commission agreed on the formula for setting the price that Alcoa would have to be paid by the U.S. Government in the event that the U.S. Government elected to recapture the license and the hydro power facilities at the end of the 50-year license term. Alcoa agreed to this recapture price formula then and reaffirmed its agreed upon recapture price – its so-called “net investment” amount – in a filing that it made with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in April 2006. This price, according to Alcoa itself, is approximately $24.2 million, not the $500 million-plus figure that Alcoa has used in its disingenuous assertions to the General Assembly. This price is set by a formula established under the Federal Power Act and takes into account, among many other things, the depreciation and other allowances permitted by law which are reflected on Alcoa’s own books of account. Thus, recapture is not a seizure of private property from an unwilling property owner. It is a statutorily-prescribed condition to receiving a 50-year monopoly license to use a public river to generate and sell electricity for private profit. It is totally consensual and recapture is what Alcoa agreed to from the start. That’s the deal that Alcoa made for itself so that it could use North Carolina’s river to make hundreds of millions of dollars in private profit. Now that Alcoa has enjoyed making these hundreds of millions of dollars for over 50 years using North Carolina’s Yadkin River, it wants to renege on its deal and claim that its private property is being “seized” by the State. Alcoa’s claim is simply false.

Alcoa’s Claim: Alcoa is just a private business engaged in the free enterprise system and is under attack by the State government.

Thus, Alcoa says:

“Alcoa is a private business that paid for and developed the land it owns[.]”

“The state is attempting to seize the dams, powerhouses and land Alcoa owns on the Yadkin River.”

The Facts: The reality could not be more different. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., the Alcoa subsidiary that actually operates the hydropower facilities over the Yadkin River, is a U.S. Government-sponsored and U.S. Government-licensed MONOPOLIST. In its operation of the Yadkin River hydro facilities, Alcoa competes with no one and is not even regulated by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. It simply generates electricity using our river and sells it on open market to the highest bidder for its own private profit, irrespective of the interests of North Carolina’s citizens. And it does this without giving the people of North Carolina any significant corresponding benefit.

Alcoa’s Claim: Alcoa is fighting for small North Carolina businesses, homeowners and ordinary citizens.

Thus, Alcoa claims that:

“[N]o one – whether a company like Alcoa or a small business owner or homeowner – can afford to take private property rights for granted. If the state can seize property from a company like Alcoa, how much more vulnerable are citizens like you and me?”

The Facts: When Alcoa received the license to operate the hydro facilities over the Yadkin River in 1958, the Federal Power Commission made Alcoa the steward not only of North Carolina’s river and the local environment, but also of the health and safety of the people who live in the Yadkin River Basin. How did Alcoa respond to its responsibility to care for and protect our natural resources and our people, including the ordinary people it now says it is fighting for? It placed large quantities of chemical poisons, including cancer-causing PCBs, in the Yadkin River and Badin Lake. Only recently, studies showed that the tissues of a host of fishes in Badin Lake contain high concentrations of these and other chemical poisons, such that it is unsafe for certain individuals who live near the Lake to eat these fishes. A study that was completed just a week ago demonstrates that the PCBs in these fish tissues are the very same PCBs that Alcoa placed in Badin Lake years ago.

Alcoa’s Claim: Alcoa is fighting this fight against the special interests and in order to preserve the free enterprise system.

Thus, Alcoa claims that:

“The special interests pushing for this takeover are hard at work behind the scenes to make it happen.”

The Facts: This statement by Alcoa and its surrogates must have been the result of a typographical error, since the only special interest voice in this debate belongs to Alcoa itself and expresses Alcoa’s self-seeking desire to obtain yet another 50-year private monopoly license to use the flows in North Carolina’s Yadkin River to make hundreds of millions of dollars of additional private profits – and without offering North Carolina and its citizens any corresponding benefit at all. The voices supporting the Yadkin River Trust legislation are fighting to give North Carolina a chance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take control, economic and otherwise, of its own river and to use the flows in the Yadkin River for the benefit of the public, not an out-of-state monopoly interest which proposes to use our river for private profit without offering North Carolina and its citizens ANYTHING substantial in return, not even the approximately 1,000 jobs at the former Alcoa Badin Aluminum smelting plant which formed the explicitly agreed upon quid pro quo for North Carolina’s support of Alcoa’s original 1958 license application to the Federal Power Commission.

Conclusion

If Alcoa gets the new license it now seeks from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it will be another 50 years before North Carolina can even attempt to regain economic control over the Yadkin River for the benefit of its citizens. To put this in practical terms, those of North Carolina’s teenagers who will be entering college this fall will, on average, be 68 years old by the time North Carolina can even make the next attempt to regain control over its own river so as to benefit its own citizens. Prompt passage of the Yadkin River Trust legislation is vital to give North Carolina that chance now, so that we don’t have to wait for our children to become elderly before the State can act to promote the interests of its own people where it comes to the Yadkin River.

STANLY COUNTY’S RESPONSES TO ALCOA’S “FACTS”
Dated: April 3, 2008

Alcoa “Fact” No. 1: The bottom line: Alcoa will keep the substantial portion of the benefits generated by a public resource for itself and its shareholders.

APGI and Alcoa employ 31 people in Stanly County. There is no dispute about that figure. The issue is different: Alcoa obtained a valuable asset--the exclusive federal right to use the Yadkin River for hydro purposes—and supported its claim to this right with evidence that granting the exclusive right would support about 1,000 jobs in Stanly County. This fact was singled out by the Administrative Law Judge recommending issuing a new license to Alcoa in 1958. It is the 969 people and job difference that Stanly County refers to, when it says that the jobs Alcoa promised have “essentially disappeared.”
Alcoa admonishes Stanly County to “recognize” the tremendous economic value of the reservoirs created by the Yadkin Project” and notes its recreational value as well as its contribution to local taxes and businesses. Stanly County fully recognizes these values and it wants to ensure that these recreational, aesthetic and economic values are retained for the benefit of its citizens for the next 50 years.
The 1,000 acres donation for expansion of Morrow Mountain State Park became a “donation” only after Stanly County raised objections as to the “lean” nature of what the State and local residents received. The fact is: the original “donation” was an option in the State to buy at market value, the lands to be contributed. Left unaddressed in the original Alcoa offer were: (a) responsibility for the contaminated property (now removed from the donation) and (b) responsibility for local taxes lost by the donation (like how to support the local fire department in Badin, when the lands become publicly-owned), which remains unresolved.
Whatever the side “benefits” created by Alcoa’s investment, the federal law says that a new look should be taken when the license expires.

Alcoa “Fact” No. 2: Talking with Alcoa Is Not Equivalent to Getting Hard Facts or Resolutions.

Alcoa talks a lot and at times, on a regular basis. The problem is that all that talking does not result in adequate disclosure by Alcoa of information requested by the County, like the true cost of cleaning up the mess at Badin Plant, or a willingness by Alcoa to fund studies that were consistent with the best scientific approach on contamination, like the condition of Badin Lake. Talk is cheap compared to the cost of cleaning up.

Alcoa “Fact” No. 3: Alcoa’s references against State Ownership of the Yadkin Project Are Not Dispositive

Alcoa refers to a FERC Staff document that correctly states the law and facts at the time, September, 2007. It has been Stanly County’s position that the State should get involved on behalf of its citizens and seek the ownership of the Yadkin Project to maximize the benefits to its citizens, before the relicensing proceeding is over. This results because the same federal relicensing law that provides for relicensing also provides for transfer of ownership of the Project at a cost-based price, which reflects what Alcoa actually paid for the Project, and not an inflated market value. Of course, a transfer to a State is unusual but there is a process set out in the law, and part of that process includes final approval by Congress, which is not unreasonable if the State were to participate before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and seek full control and ownership as an alternative to continued ownership and control by Alcoa and APGI under a brand-new, 50 year license.

Alcoa “Fact” No. 4: Alcoa’s Claims that a Difference in Ownership Would Not Make a Difference Assume Too Much

Alcoa claims that ownership of the Yadkin Project makes no difference because “the same set of federal and state laws” would apply. Stanly County does not quarrel with the statement that the same set of laws would apply. Rather, it challenges the common sense observation that ownership of property can make a difference in how it is operated and maintained: ask any homeowner.

Alcoa “Fact” No. 5: Alcoa Never States How Much it Expects to Make from the Yadkin Project in the Future

Alcoa claims that it will net only $8.4 million per year in profits. So be it. What Alcoa fails to note is that its profit numbers were based on prices received from existing power contracts with local utilities that have since expired. Currently and over the next 50 years, Alcoa expects to sell the power at the market rate or better, as would any privately-held, profit-oriented company. That means it has no obligation to hold prices to actual costs, or to sell to consumers within North Carolina. As for the $200-plus million that APGI plans to spend to refurbish the dams, the question is why APGI did not spend the money earlier, when the modern standards were actually instituted. Would a mindful steward of the resource have made these financial commitments earlier?

Alcoa “Fact” No. 6: Alcoa’s Response Does Not Rebut Stanly County’s Reasonable Conclusion that More Money Would Expedite the Cleanup of the Alcoa Waste Sites in Stanly County.

Alcoa’s only response is that it is doing “required remediation.” The real facts are that the process has been ongoing for a dozen or more years. Alcoa is liable but the rate at which it must clean up the waste sites so they can be returned to productive alternative uses is what is important to Stanly County and to the health of its citizens. That is not answered by Alcoa in its response or ever, in discussions with the County.

Alcoa “Fact” No. 7: Alcoa’s response again is that ownership of the Yadkin Project is neutral to the well-being of the citizens of the State of North Carolina. It argues that it doesn’t matter who owns the Project because the State of North Carolina and FERC exercise regulatory authority over the Project.

Stanly County does not dispute the law; what it asks is another question, namely—would a difference in ownership make a difference in how the welfare of the citizens is considered? Alcoa is a privately-owned corporation run by individuals who are obligated to maximize returns to their shareholders, consistent with applicable laws. If closing a plant in North Carolina improves the Company’s overall profits, that will be done. If selling the electricity from the Yadkin Project to New York City makes economic sense, that will be done. If lowering the elevation of the reservoir within a rule curve means more profits, it will be done. If charging for water from the reservoir for consumption makes more money, it will and has been done.

Conclusion

There are two ways of looking at the Yadkin River. One assumes that there is private ownership and control of the Yadkin River. The other assumes that the Yadkin River is a public resource. About a 100 years ago, Congress decided the Yadkin River was a public resource. As such, it provided for private development and public development. Both kinds of development were to exist, but every 50 years or so, the public could look at the record and decide whether the use of the river was so important that the public might be better served by a change in ownership. Asking questions and getting answers to questions like this are the responsibility of public officials.

The officials of Stanly County are not ignorant of the value of the Yadkin River to its citizens. More than most, they appreciate its value. More than most, they know what Alcoa’s ownership has meant in the past. There was both good and bad. What most concerns Stanly County today is the future. 31 jobs and a property ownership legacy from the past should not be enough to claim the right to determine how best the Yadkin Project and the Yadkin River will be operated for the next 50 years. In our view, the best way to provide for the future is for the State and the public to be the undisputed owner of the Project. If the State fails, it is accountable. If Alcoa fails, it will be very, very difficult for the public to require Alcoa and APGI to change their ways because the license at stake is a contract between APGI and the federal government. What Alcoa gives, it can also take away. Will Albemarle receive low-cost water for the next 50 years? Or will it be subject to higher and higher prices as consumptive water gets more valuable? Who has protected Albemarle’s water users for the next 50 years? Those questions all remain unanswered in the Alcoa “FACT” sheet. The answers, however, could well mean the difference between economic prosperity and backwater helplessness for the County.

View details about the trial

Click for Dr. John H. Rodgers Jr.'s Review of PCBs in Badin Lake (PDF download)

View Internal Alcoa Documents Revealing Contamination

Learn about Alcoa's Worldwide Pollution

Follow this link and scroll down to "III: Information Items" to view a Powerpoint presentation

that shows the current contamination danger at High Rock Lake.