Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
AMBERLY HEARING PAGE 2 <br /> ( The Carrboro ordinance requires preliminary approval of <br /> the waste disposal system before granting a CUP. The State <br /> has said that it cannot give such review--not even a <br /> "rudimentary" one . A general statement by the state that <br /> the technology CAN work is no subsitute for assurance that <br /> it WILL work , or that it will work AT Amberly. It should <br /> not be sufficient to satisfy the ordinance reqirement for <br /> preliminary state approval . Without preliminary approval <br /> of the sewage or water system, the application is incomplete <br /> and should not even be considered. <br /> OWASA staff has submitted a review of the preliminary <br /> plans submitted by the developer . It is not encouraging. <br /> OWASA Staff found that the proposed system would be on soils <br /> only "provisionally accepotable" ; discharge at the "maximum <br /> permissible hydraulic loading rate" ; discharge the <br /> equivalent of 117 inches of waste per year over the <br /> absorption area ( in addition to normal rainfall ) ; and have <br /> inadequate provisions for a backup field. All this is in <br /> addition to questions about who would operate the system. <br /> The Amberly waste disposal system is not conservatively <br /> designed; it is not appropriate for a drinking water <br /> watershed. It should not be accepted. <br /> State permits for such systems are renewable for <br /> C periods of 3-5 years. That procedure is a recipe for the <br /> future assumption of responsibility by taxpayers at the <br /> point when needed modifications exceed the residents ability <br /> to pay. <br /> --Abandonment of the Watershed. <br /> A very disturbing aspect of the Amberly debate has been <br /> a barely hidden agenda--abandonment of University Lake as a <br /> drinking water source and conversion of its land to <br /> intensive development . I have heard this argument at town <br /> hall and from the developer . If it is to happen , it should <br /> only be after an open debate by all of the people affected. <br /> Abandonment should not be forced by the gradual erosion of <br /> water quality. It would take very few "Amberly's" before <br /> there would be little choice . <br /> Abandonment should have been laid to rest on July 22nd <br /> when OWASA's Board of Directors reafirmed long-term plans <br /> that , "University Lake will continue . . . as a major[ , ] <br /> permanent . . . water supply" . OWASA has plans for University <br /> Lake that stretch out to 2097--a view that should please <br /> people who think of grandchildren . Pressure to over <br /> -develop the watershed will , however , no doubt continue . <br />