Agenda - 02-28-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

mentioned at the hearing and I believe it deserves much more emphasis in your deliberations. Similarly, Dr. Okun made the point that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is rapidly stepping-up development of new, nationwide "maximum contaminant levels" (standards) for chemicals potentially found in drinking water supplies. These will require expensive monitoring and treatment if water supplies are not protected from degrading sources. This is a valid justification for the North Carolina legislature's action, above, and it is equally valid for the action you need to take. I was deeply moved by the pleas of landowners in the counties for consideration of the potential value of their property. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to expect OWASA customers to pay for purchasing some of the land in the watershed through increases in our water bills or a bond referendum. This strikes me as a fair compromise; those who benefit should pay at least part of the cost, up front. It also strikes me as a much more valuable way to spend a chunk of money than on a study to evaluate extending water and sewer service into the area. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, it seems prudent for the Board to educate itself about the court cases cited by Dr. Okun. He stated at the hearing that these establish legal precedent for a jurisdiction to "take" land without compensation to protect its drinking water; and they provide evidence to show that land values in the watershed do not decrease in the long run. It seems wise for the Board to "arm" itself with this information to justify a decision unpopular with the landowners, whatever else is done on their behalf. Finally, Greg Gangi of the Sierra Club suggested that some of the inequity might be handled through the tax system. I am not knowledgeable in this area, but I feel strongly that something tangible should be done to address the legitimate concerns of the landowners. We do not have to be completely unfair or arrogant to protect our water supply. It is not too late to address their concerns; however, I entreat you not to be swayed by either/or positions. There are creative compromises waiting to be explored. To recap, I strongly support a strict, non-structural approach to protecting the watershed. This is the safest and least expensive way to go, and it is consistent with upcoming federal and state regulations. If a retention system is required, it should be a regional one maintained by OWASA. I support retention of a critical area designation in the watershed (it will probably be required anyway by the state), and not extending water and sewer service. I recommend that a formal cost-benefit analysis be part of any future • studies. Finally, I believe a proactive stance now will make it easier to deal with these issues again when they come up with Cane Creek.