• Six municipal dischargers (Durham-Northside, 

 Raleigh, Wilson, Goldsboro, Kinston-Peachtree and New 

 Bern) account for 95 percent of the estimated municipal 

 phosphorus inputs and 81 percent of the municipal nitrogen 

 inputs. 



Photo by Kathy Hart 



Treated effluent flows from a waste treatment plant 



The 1983 General Assembly established a 10-member 

 legislative committee that will continue to study the 

 Neuse's problems. The legislative commission, with the 

 technical assistance of state Department of Natural 

 Resources and Community Development (NRCD) person- 

 nel, will prepare a Neuse River Action Plan by June 1, 1984, 

 and a report for legislative action by February 1, 1985. 

 Finally, it will produce a Neuse River Basin Water Quality 

 Management Plan by May 1, 1986. 



But some steps are already being taken to lower nutrient 

 inputs into the river. The EMC will decide at its October 13 

 meeting whether to designate the upper Neuse, the portion 

 of the river above the Falls Lake Reservoir, as nutrient- 

 sensitive. Indications are that the commission will vote to 

 apply the designation. 



David H. Howells, a member of the EMC, says the com- 

 mission chose to begin with the upper Neuse because 

 proposed development around the Falls of the Neuse Lake 

 was likely to increase nutrient input from urban run-off. 

 The intended use of the lake for recreation and as Raleigh's 

 water supply could be questionable if the lake became 

 eutrophic. 



Residents in the lower Neuse, who must live with the 

 blooms, have long claimed that much of the problem 

 originates upstream. Municipal waste treatment plants in 

 the upper Neuse supply eight percent of the phosphorus 

 released into the river, while the middle Neuse (from the 

 Falls Reservoir to New Bern) releases 30.7 percent of the 

 phosphorus. 



DEM Director Robert H. Helms voiced the need at the 

 EMC's August meeting for the entire Neuse basin to be 

 classified as nutrient-sensitive. The commission endorsed 

 the concept, but took no action to impose restrictions. 



If municipalities are required to limit the nutrient input 

 from their waste treatment plants, the costs will likely be 

 passed on to the citizens, state officials say. "Right now 

 there are no funds available at the federal or state level to 

 aid the cities and counties with nutrient removal," says Lee 

 Flemming, director of DEM's water quality section. 



Nutrient removal at point source locations will be aimed 



at removing phosphorus, which is easier and less costly to 

 remove than nitrogen. And the majority of the phosphorus 

 (as shown earlier) is discharged by known point sources 

 which must abide by EMC decisions. Nitrogen, on the other 

 hand, comes largely from non-point sources — agriculture, 

 forestry, wetlands — areas beyond the control of the EMC. 



One alternative to point source removal considered by 

 state officials would be a ban on phosphate detergents and 

 soaps (see inset, page 5). The EMC has recommended that 

 the legislature enact a phosphate ban for 66 North Carolina 

 counties. Six other states have enacted phosphate bans (one 

 rescinded its ban). 



While state officials are focusing on the point source 

 removal of phosphorus inputs, they are also looking to 

 agriculture and forestry for help in removing nitrogen. Since 

 the EMC has no control over agricultural practices, 

 nutrient limitations by farmers would be voluntary. 



Maurice Cook, director of the state Division of Soil and 

 Water Conservation, says implementation of "best manage- 

 ment practices" (BMP) could go a long way toward reduc- 

 ing nitrogen input from farming (nitrogen comes largely 

 from fertilizer). Best management practices include the im- 

 plementation of conservation tillage, contour farming, filter 

 strips, grass waterways, terraces, reduced fertilizer applica- 

 tion rates and proper timing of fertilizer application. 



"The main thrust of BMPs is to keep soil in the field," 

 Cook says. "But reducing erosion also keeps the nutrients in 

 the field and out of the rivers." Cook says his division, along 



Farm runoff carries heavy doses of nitrogen 



with the N.C. Agriculture Extension Service, is trying to 

 educate the farmer in better use of BMPs. 



According to Cook, the state is trying to initiate a cost- 

 sharing program that would provide an economic incentive 

 for farmers to implement BMPs. But Richard Barber, a 

 member of the EMC, says the rising cost of fertilizer may be 

 an incentive for using best management practices and less 

 fertilizer. 



The state would like for municipalities and county 

 governments to take the lead in nutrient clean-up, Flem- 

 ming says. But city and county officials from counties sur- 

 rounding the upper Neuse told NRCD Secretary Joseph W. 

 Grimsley in an August meeting that the state must be the 

 enforcer in this problem. Only the state could ensure ade- 

 quate, uniform controls, they told Grimsley. 



—Kathy Hart 



