Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br /> Memorandum <br /> Water and Sewer Boundaries <br /> November 3, 1995 <br /> Page 3 <br /> and that there was little likelihood of reaching local agreement in time for the 1996 legislative <br /> session. <br /> OWASA's General Counsel agrees that clarifying legislation is not needed, but recommends <br /> binding legislation to assure that any unilateral breach of a multi-party service area agreement <br /> could be decisively blocked or overturned through legal injunction. By contrast, the breach of <br /> (conventional)contractual boundary agreements,such as the ones already in place between <br /> OWASA and Durham and Hillsborough and Durham, might not be remedied through injunction, <br /> but simply through assessment of a fine that could leave in place the offending action, such as the <br /> extension of a utility line into an area otherwise prohibited by the agreement. Given the <br /> importance of maintaining the integrity of the Rural Buffer and other areas affected by the <br /> proposed boundary agreement, the need for legislation to legally bind all parties to the terms of <br /> an agreement remains important. The likelihood of achieving consensus in time for the 1996 <br /> General Assembly may indeed be low, but the willingness of local participants to attempt <br /> consensus would represent a greater commitment to the joint process than simply agreeing to <br /> lines on a map. <br /> Local Commitment to Cla-rify, Define, and Seek Agreement on "Correlative Objectives" of the <br /> Task Force Report <br /> During the Task Force deliberations, OWASA representatives emphasized the importance of a <br /> range of other issues related to service area boundaries. Most of these were incorporated into the <br /> "correlative objectives" listed as Attachment B of the Task Force Report(see pages 4 and 5, <br /> attached). An ongoing OWASA concern has been the need to link the Authority's endorsement <br /> of the straw line boundaries to a process for achieving these objectives. OWASA has been <br /> reluctant, if not unwilling, to endorse the boundaries without establishing a concurrent process <br /> for clarifying these other issues, especially the responsibility for failing private water and sewer <br /> systems that lie outside of existing service areas but within proposed "areas of interest." This <br /> was the basis for the second condition of the Board's May 25 endorsement of the straw line <br /> boundaries(see page 8, paragraph B,attached): "That those same local bodies agree to commit <br /> the necessary resources to clarify,define,and seek agreement on the issues implicit and <br /> unresolved in Attachment B of the December 14, 1994 Task Force Report ..." <br /> Neither the resolutions of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill, nor the Orange County staff <br /> recommendation are especially responsive to the Authority's condition of linkage between the <br /> proposed boundaries and those other issues. <br /> Hillsborough appears to reject such a linkage in Section 5 of its May 15 resolution(see pages 14 <br /> and 15, attached), recognizing its responsibility "to provide public water and sewer service <br /> within the prescribed area where economically feasible"(emphasis added). Hillsborough's <br /> resolution goes on to state that responsibility for failing on-site systems should remain with the <br /> County Health Department or with-the State, as appropriate. By contrast, OWASA has <br />