OCPB agenda 040214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6 amendments after the November 2013 Assembly of Governments meeting because concern was expressed about allowing uses that could consume a lot of groundwater in areas of the county that are not served by public water systems. Concern over sustainable water quantities/quality is sometimes expressed during the review process for a variety of development projects and in 2001 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed a study entitled “Investigation of Ground-Water Availability and Quality in Orange County, North Carolina.” The study found the mean groundwater recharge for the 12 basins in the county to be 4.90 inches per year (365 gallons per day per acre), although arguments have been made in the past that the years studied were particularly wet. To date, Orange County has not chosen to regulate land uses completely on the basis of groundwater recharge rates, but Planning staff is supportive of a policy/requirement to lessen any impact high water users may have on neighboring properties. Planning staff recommends requiring the groundwater study for high water users. While it is correct that ASE-related uses are being singled out at this point, this is because uses other than single family residential uses are generally not currently allowed in areas of the county that rely on individual wells for their water supply. 6. A Planning Board member stated he believed some of the proposed regulations were too limiting. Staff Response: The ASE program has been in development since 2001 and one of the reasons it has taken so long is that there have been disagreements over the years about how lenient or restrictive the regulations should be. The Agricultural Preservation Board is supportive of adopting these proposed amendments and Planning staff recommends that rather than re-opening long-standing debates about how restrictive or permissive the regulations should be, that the amendments as proposed should be adopted and if, in the future, the need is identified to further refine any particular portions, additional amendments can be undertaken at that time. 7. A Planning Board member asked whether exempt agricultural uses would be taken into account when determining if a groundwater study would be required. Staff Response: Exempt agricultural uses are not limited in the amount of water they can use. Language has been added to appropriate sections of the proposed text to clarify that bona fide farm uses are not required to be included in the calculations for a groundwater study. 8. A member of the public expressed support for the amendments and for anything that can be done to help farmers make ends meet. 9. A member of the public stated this is an important concept and water is a big issue to be considered. 10. A member of the BOCC stated that the largest farmers in the county, such as commodity farmers, are likely to just keep doing what they’re doing but that this program is most likely to benefit smaller farmers who are looking to augment their operations. 11. A member of the BOCC stated that low water users should be encouraged and the 47