Hard to truly elaborate in a comment section my feelings about less government....but I just don't think that any private company should be given a 50 year license on a public resource. Remember, Alcoa was given that license when they were "the" major employer in the area (which has changed since their plant has closed). What is the community benefit to having Alcoa have a 50 year lease on the yadkin..is which a community trust couldn't provide the same benefit?

I am not sure why everyone is shocked. In Alcoa's application to request another 50 year license...it clearly states that the state has the right to reimburse the private company for their infrastructure if the license is not renewed. Alcoa had to list a value for that reimbursement...and so if the state (per the encouragement of local citizens) does not want to see a company have a 50 year lock on a local resource, I don't see the problem. The state will pay them for the asset. The funds to pay them would be recovered from the sell of electricity, just as Alcoa has sold electricty over the last couple of years since they no longer use the electricity for their now shut down plant.

I am all for less government but I am not sure having a company that their sole source of revenue is our water is the right answer either. Alcoa has had 50 years to recoup their expenses...as again stated in their original 50 license.