Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br /> Lake water, and could be purveyors to the Orange County service area. <br /> This would require substantial future conversation and interlocal <br /> agreements. <br /> 2. As noted above, use of Jordan Lake water outside of the Cape Fear basin <br /> (that is then treated and released in another basin) will likely be an inter- <br /> basin transfer (IBT) and will require additional approvals from the EMC. <br /> Other potential parties to the MOU may also have this issue, which <br /> requires additional approvals and documentation. Does the County wish to <br /> limit its future service area to land within the Cape Fear to avoid IBT, or is <br /> this impractical? This may also be a question for future policy discussion <br /> and deliberation, should the County choose to join the Partnership. <br /> 3. Many of the discussions about the Partnership have focused on the <br /> importance of recognizing and linking the future use of Jordan Lake <br /> water to sustainable growth management and aggressive water <br /> conservation practices. This principle has been reinforced many times <br /> by elected officials and staff from Orange County jurisdictions—that any <br /> plans and/or use for Jordan Lake water should be tied to these principles. <br /> The final version of the MOU incorporates this concept into the "whereas" <br /> statements, but there is no explicit mention of the linkage to growth <br /> management in the operational provisions of the MOU, except in vague <br /> ways. This raises a question for the County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro (and <br /> thence OWASA) —should the County sign the MOU as currently written <br /> without these linkages? Since it is still an espoused principle of the <br /> Partnership, should there be formal correspondence asking that the MOU <br /> include this language? <br /> 4. Related to 3 above, the Regional Water Supply Planning Project—the one <br /> component where these growth issues might be addressed — is relegated <br /> to "Additional Project" status. It is thus optional for the parties to participate <br /> in. This is not in keeping with the spirit of the previous discussions, and <br /> may allow a party to the agreement to "skip" the planning project and <br /> participate in the allocation increase.' <br /> 5. Finally, if these growth management and water conservation principles are <br /> not addressed in the final version of the MOU, how should the County <br /> approach to the Partnership (slated to be signed by several jurisdictions in <br /> February)? Is it best to push for new provisions, sign into the Partnership <br /> and then work for inclusion of these principles from within the <br /> Partnership (and then potentially withdraw if not satisfied), or opt not to <br /> sign the MOU as not in keeping with growth management and sustainable <br /> water resource use, and request their inclusion? <br /> 6. The Town of Hillsborough staff has indicated that their current plans are to <br /> support the allocation requests of other partners (such as Durham and <br /> OWASA), which are linked to Hillsborough, and not ask for an allocation of <br /> ' It should be noted that the allocation increase requests are anticipated to be joint in nature, and <br /> be based on the water supply plan. This may prove to be substantial incentive to participate in the <br /> Water Supply Plan, but it does appear that it could be possible to bypass the planning effort and <br /> still make an allocation request. <br />