Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
003 <br /> is free , and outside of state water rules , doesn ' t motivate the purchase of reclaimed water . UNC <br /> built a 11 /2 acre lake to store the water i- n before irrigating the golf course . <br /> UNC has also been receptive of the idea of using reclaimed water . Presently it is estimated that <br /> the cost to the consumer would be an additional seventy-five cents per 1000 gallons of reclaimed <br /> water . It was noted that this cost is for treating the 90 - 95 % effluent water to the State ' s reclaimed <br /> water standards of five milligrams per liter or less of suspended solids . <br /> The Commission asked questions about the available capacity of water in Morgan Creek, Kerwin <br /> replied that at this time of year 80 - 90 % of the water in Morgan Creek is the treated wastewater. <br /> Smith asked what is the normal cost of water for the consumer . Kerwin replied $ 2 . 69 for 1000 <br /> gallons . <br /> The CFE questioned the runoff possibilities from irrigating the golf course . Kerwin deferred the <br /> CFE to direct specific questions to UNC on Finley Golf Course , noting that he had heard they <br /> had a state of the art system where only minimal chemicals are used for fertilizing . <br /> Jurgelski questioned the ownership of the creek . A concern was that using the "free" water from <br /> the creek was taking away from downstream users . Okun noted there are no regulations about <br /> this type of use . An idea of requiring golf courses to use reclaimed water for irrigation thereby <br /> allowing downstream users enough water was discussed . Okun noted that we do not have a <br /> proper water law appropriate for a water short area . This area is not considered water short, such <br /> as other places like Florida where urban population growth is so great they have had to establish <br /> water districts . These districts require only 85 % to be permitted whether from a river or <br /> underground . This allows regulation as to the purpose or use of the water, if water of lower grade <br /> is available , the permit is only issued for lower grade water versus using drinking water quality <br /> for irrigation of golf courses . The management to enforce these regulations is politically <br /> controversial . At least Okun concluded, they have the capacity to regulate the use of water as a <br /> public good whereas we do not . <br /> Kerwin concluded by stating that OWASA is interested in providing reclaimed water ; and, that <br /> reclaimed water is regulated by the State in that it has to be continuously monitored under strict <br /> rules . He also noted that the seventy- five cents cost in this case is minimal , due to the location of <br /> the golf course in proximity to the wastewater treatment plant . And, if a new subdivision is <br /> located so as to get the reclaimed water to the user, it could raise the cost as much as $ 344 per <br /> thousand gallons . <br /> Okun discussed the reason for extra filtration for reclaimed water as being due to public contact <br /> and that material from the creek collects on the golf course eventually causing odor or other <br /> problems . Even golf courses that use the lower grade water might possibly begin to want to <br /> purchase the cleaner reclaimed water in the future . He also noted that the type of treatment done <br /> by OWASA is conducive to less use of solid fertilizers because the water is rich in nitrogen and <br /> also produces less environmental harmful runoff. <br /> Last updated 08/ 17/99 3 <br />