The local battle to protect Blounts Creek will get another day in court the week of Sept. 14 — this time in Beaufort County Superior Court — and those committed to “Save Blounts Creek” were out in force Saturday to show their support for the cause.

Last year’s “Save Blounts Creek” fundraiser drew 350 people. By 1 p.m. Saturday, all 500 barbecue plates had been sold on the grounds of Cotton Patch Landing and Marine and volunteers were selling off extra desserts and gallons of sweet tea to the latecomers.

That so many turned out to both the dinner event and the 5K run held earlier in the day came as no surprise to Harrison Marks, executive director of the environmental advocacy organization Sound Rivers (formerly the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation).

“I think it shows the level of appreciation, that people from all over the area — from north of the river and other places, not just Blounts Creek — understand how special (the creek) is. I think they’re all incredulous that it would be OK to destroy it, to turn it into something different. … It’s brought the community here together even more.”

In September of 2013, Sound Rivers, North Carolina Coastal Federation and Southern Environmental Law Center filed suit questioning the state’s issuance of a permit that would allow a future limestone mine in southern Beaufort County to dump up to 12 million gallons of fresh water per day into the headwaters of Blounts Creek. According to Marks, there’s no argument between the sides as to whether the upper creek’s pH will be changed by the influx of fresh water, potentially harming the creek’s state-assigned status as a nursery for saltwater species, but counsel for the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the mining company, Martin Marietta Materials Inc., which has intervened in the case, have said that any change in pH wouldn’t be noticeable where the creek meets the Pamlico River. While the pH change in the upper creek and tributaries might harm some species, it would promote others in their place, DENR and MMM counsel have argued.

The case has crawled through the court system for the past two years. In January, it was heard by Administrative Judge Phil Berger Jr., who returned an unfavorable ruling to Sound Rivers and the two other organizations involved, saying they had no standing to challenge the permit, as none had experienced economic harm by the mine’s actions and could not claim to be “persons aggrieved.”

According to Heather Jacobs Deck, Pamlico-Tar riverkeeper, it was an unprecedented ruling for which Berger cited no case law to back his decision.

“Basically, there’s really no precedent for that decision and it’s not consistent with the requirements of state law, and the Clean Water Act and how it’s meant to be implemented,” Deck said.

The decision was appealed and the case will be heard again by Superior Court Judge Douglas Parsons during the week of Sept. 14. Parsons will review Berger’s decision, as well as the merits of the case — meaning, whether Sound Rivers legally does have a right to challenge the DENR permit.

Should Parsons rule in favor of Sound Rivers, there are several different outcomes, Deck said: the case could be remanded to the Office of Administrative Hearings; it could be sent back to the Division of Water Resources for review of the permit.

“Or they could vacate the permit which is, of course, what we would like to see,” Deck said. “We’re very confident in this appeal, especially when it comes to persons aggrieved. … We’re expecting a really good turnout from the community.”

The community consists of members like Bob Daw, a Blounts Creek resident and one of the members of the “Save Blounts Creek” committee. Daw and his wife, Phyllis, regularly take tours of the creek on their boat, photographing the wildlife and fishermen with his or her daily catch, which they share with Daw’s email list that numbers in the hundreds.

“We just can’t allow it to happen. We cannot let big money and political power make a quick decision and we lose one of the last pristine creek waters in eastern North Carolina,” Daw said.

He pointed out that the issue is not just about the damage that could be done to the creek, but also to the many well owners in the area that could find themselves with little or no water pressure once the mining company starts pumping 12 million gallons of water per day from the Castle Hayne Aquifer. In 2010, consultants Groundwater Management Services, Inc. determined that 195 properties, from N.C. Highway 33 to the northeast and N.C. Highway 17 to the west of the pit mine, could be affected. While the Division of Water Resources required the mining company to submit a plan that would address potential impact to well owners on the vicinity, many residents spoke out against the state issuing a Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Water Withdrawal Permit at a public hearing in July 2013. The permit was issued in November the same year.

“We’ve just got to do all we can do. At the end of the day, I couldn’t live with myself if we don’t do everything we can do and exhaust every option,” Daw said. “Something’s blatantly wrong.”