Agenda - 02-28-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PAGE 5 Department would be looking at its own program to monitor and inspect such systems. If they found that that program was operating successfully, they would come back to the Board for their consideration on whether or not to allow alternative systems within the watershed. A similar provision is also applicable to public water service. Until April, 1991 no public water extensions would be permitted except to serve an emergency situation. During that interim period there would be a study to determine the advisability of allowing public water extensions within the watershed. With reference to public sewer there are two options. One option is an outright prohibition on sewer extensions except for emergency situations. The other option would not allow any extensions until April, 1991 at which time a study would be done to determine the advisability of allowing public sewer. He suggests wording in these provisions dealing with water and sewer to indicate a continuance of the prohibition indefinitely until the Board of Commissioners make a final decision on whether to allow any or all of the provisions. PUBLIC COMMENTS ALICE GORDON offered three principles that would guide any agreement on watershed protection that may be implemented. The first one is to implement strong measures to protect the University Lake Watershed. For public safety reasons, it is of prime importance to protect the water quality of University Lake and the CDM report is a solid basis for protection measures. The second principle is to address the legitimate concerns of the property owners in the watershed. She feels it important to recognize that these concerns are real and must be taken into account. The third principle is to find a way to purchase critical lands in the watershed. As part of the overall solution to watershed protection, the various jurisdictions and OWASA should cooperate to buy the most critical land such as a quarter mile along the perennial streams and more land around the lake itself. Purchasing the critical lands would permanently protect the lands which are the most important in preserving water quality and would allow more flexible development in lands which are less critical. Assuming the 13-point agreement is an impervious surface coverage of 7.1%, with 19,000 acres in the watershed, 1,349 acres would be covered. Assuming the County staff's proposal gives 7.4% coverage, that would leave about 1,406 acres paved. The difference equals 67 acres. To remove 67 acres of paving, 800-900 acres would need to be purchased. This compares with the 550 acres needed to protect the perennial corridors at 200 feet. She encouraged everyone to work toward finding a solution that will protect the watershed while also protecting the interest of all the landowners. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL ARRIVED. RICHARD HAMMER stated that the biggest decision has already been made. It is not necessary to protect the watershed but approaches have been presented that will protect the watershed. All across America municipalities draw their drinking water from places that are not perfectly clean. Smithfield takes its drinking water out of the Neuse River just downstream from where Raleigh dumps their wastewater. Chicago gets its drinking water out of Lake Michigan. Pittsboro gets its drinking water from the runoff of Chapel Hill. He feels OWASA can use techniques to clean the water without stopping development. He feels there are alternatives that have not been disclosed. He is concerned that the decision has been made to protect the watershed offering the public a variety of that decision. He feels it important to protect the environment but feels that everything does not need to be perfectly pure. He stated that Chapel Hill should not be entitled to pure water at someone else's expense. All other cities take their drinking water and clean it up enough to drink. THOMAS JORDAN spoke against the watershed protection measures. He feels that it is