Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-16-1999 - 9h
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1999
>
Agenda - 03-16-1999
>
Agenda - 03-16-1999 - 9h
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2009 2:56:28 PM
Creation date
7/10/2009 2:56:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/16/1999
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9h
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19990316
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1999
RES-1999-019 Resolutional of Approval of Creek Wood Preliminary Plan
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\1990-1999\1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
6-11-1995 3:d0PM FROM <br />OCT-13-1998 14=44 MATER iJTiLITIES 919 460 1788 P.04i06 1 5 <br />RB (Bob) HEATER - Consultant <br />s~n-~: <br />coun~r r -w~wws- ~ -vraae~ . - seNw• sr~.« <br />20i Twaed GiaN <br />Cary, NC 27511 . <br />P'h. 9ii1~67~9114 <br />October' 1Z, 1998 <br />Oran0e County Co~^iissioners <br />Hi 11 sborotl0h. NC <br />Re: Proposed 66 lot Subdivision Referred to as ttw `Johnston Tract' <br />Oear Cosaiasivners: <br />i have been asked by 'Soso Properties. Inc.` and Nr. !toll Sass to write <br />you in re0irds to tM posstb111ty that one or nro wells an the above- <br />reterenced property Mould not dry up the wells on adjacent property owners an <br />'Turicsy Firs Road'" and the Stonebridge or Sedgefield Subdivisions. <br />First, let Me say that no one can say with aKainty that one Mel! Hill <br />not dry up another well. Flowever. I Can paint out tO you that, if Wle we11 <br />serves 66 lots or 56 individual wells serves 66 1vts, the aaiourrt of Kater used <br />Kill be the sale and the effect on nearby wells should be essant1a11y tht <br />sous. furtiKrsore, the possibility of ContatAination of the water delivered is <br />111uCh l esS fros Orle Or two we115 on a pub! i C utility SySteal than Lhe Eft <br />individwl wells. Thus. frost a health standpoirK. the public utility systaw <br />that is tested iaonthly is Dy far safer. <br />It has be~I u- eYperienCe aperatin0 over 460 coaaunity wells Mith <br />itldlvtdual kells nearby that in only three cases have I krwwn of one at thlD <br />aflectirg other wells. in two cases tt xas one casrsmity well and two hose <br />wells. This was taken care of. with the owner's happiness. by connecting the <br />individual hOSaOMeges m the Central systes. In the third case, one central <br />Melt aftectad a prttral well on a diftw~ent utility and an agrtesent was <br />reached as to how wuclf each system was to use. <br />Thus, fror a practical sense. there should be na Concern where a <br />vo^Mmity well or wells are used to serve a nu~Der of hoses Mi11 be <br />detrisental to other wells neerDy. <br />Eras a legal point, the U.S. Suprase Court ruled that in a case Khere <br />one well wes drying w another that the first user has first C1ai^ an the <br />water and the second user lust defer to the first user. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.