Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
amendments after the November 2013 Assembly of Governments meeting because <br />concern was expressed about allowing uses that could consume a lot of groundwater <br />in areas of the county that are not served by public water systems. Concern over <br />sustainable water quantities /quality is sometimes expressed during the review <br />process for a variety of development projects and in 2001 the U.S. Geological Survey <br />(USGS) completed a study entitled "Investigation of Ground -Water Availability and <br />Quality in Orange County, North Carolina." The study found the mean groundwater <br />recharge for the 12 basins in the county to be 4.90 inches per year (365 gallons per <br />day per acre), although arguments have been made in the past that the years studied <br />were particularly wet. <br />To date, Orange County has not chosen to regulate land uses completely on the <br />basis of groundwater recharge rates, but Planning staff is supportive of a <br />policy /requirement to lessen any impact high water users may have on neighboring <br />properties. Planning staff recommends requiring the groundwater study for high <br />water users. While it is correct that ASE - related uses are being singled out at this <br />point, this is because uses other than single family residential uses are generally not <br />currently allowed in areas of the county that rely on individual wells for their water <br />supply. <br />6. A Planning Board member stated he believed some of the proposed regulations were <br />too limiting. <br />Staff Response: The ASE program has been in development since 2001 and one of <br />the reasons it has taken so long is that there have been disagreements over the <br />years about how lenient or restrictive the regulations should be. The Agricultural <br />Preservation Board is supportive of adopting these proposed amendments and <br />Planning staff recommends that rather than re- opening long- standing debates about <br />how restrictive or permissive the regulations should be, that the amendments as <br />proposed should be adopted and if, in the future, the need is identified to further <br />refine any particular portions, additional amendments can be undertaken at that time. <br />7. A Planning Board member asked whether exempt agricultural uses would be taken <br />into account when determining if a groundwater study would be required. <br />Staff Response: Exempt agricultural uses are not limited in the amount of water they <br />can use. Language has been added to appropriate sections of the proposed text to <br />clarify that bona fide farm uses are not required to be included in the calculations for <br />a groundwater study. <br />8. A member of the public expressed support for the amendments and for anything that <br />can be done to help farmers make ends meet. <br />9. A member of the public stated this is an important concept and water is a big issue to <br />be considered. <br />10. A member of the BOCC stated that the largest farmers in the county, such as <br />commodity farmers, are likely to just keep doing what they're doing but that this <br />program is most likely to benefit smaller farmers who are looking to augment their <br />operations. <br />11. A member of the BOCC stated that low water users should be encouraged and the <br />0 <br />