Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
MINUTES <br /> ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH <br /> October 29, 2025 <br /> said that this is a question for the county attorney or the UNC School of Government. He <br /> added that questions about what specific evidence would be needed to support the more <br /> stringent rules are also best directed to the county attorney or UNC School of <br /> Government. Dr. Royce said that an expectation of randomized controlled trials for <br /> evidence seems like an unreasonable bar to clear, and several board members noted <br /> that, again, this is a good question for the county attorney. Mr. Whitaker commented that <br /> documented cases of well contamination could likely be used as evidence. <br /> • Mr. Whitaker commented that he feels that the amount of speculation and admissions <br /> made by Board members that they did not know something during the hearing harmed <br /> the case. He said that in the event of a future appeal he believes that if the Board took a <br /> strong stance and didn't waver from it then, even in the absence of clear scientific <br /> support for the rules, the case would be stronger. <br /> • Victoria Hudson, Environmental Health Director, commented that Environmental Health <br /> Services rarely receives appeals about any rules other than setbacks. Regarding Dr. <br /> Royce's question about casing requirements, Ms. Hudson explained that when the rules <br /> were originally drafted back in the 1980s, the staff who wrote the rules used basic <br /> epidemiology to determine that wells with less than 40 feet of casing which did not go <br /> into consolidated rock were more likely to be contaminated; because the pipes come in <br /> 21 foot lengths, they set the casing requirement at 63 feet, or three lengths of pipe, for <br /> wells that do not go into consolidated rock. Mr. Privott clarified that the state rule <br /> requires wells to have 42 feet of casing (two lengths of pipe) or to be set into <br /> consolidated rock, whichever is deeper. <br /> • In response to Dr. Crandell's question about the possibility of state legislature striking all <br /> local rules, Mr. Privott commented that this possibility has been an ongoing conversation <br /> since before 2019. Ms. Hudson noted that this is the first year that it has made it into <br /> writing in a legislative session, though the bill did not pass. Mr. Privott added that inertia <br /> does seem to be moving towards eliminating local rules. <br /> • Dr. Stuebe noted that she would like to keep some of the rules that feel like common <br /> sense, such as the potable water requirement and the shared well easement <br /> requirements, so she was inclined to support a partial revision option. <br /> • Recalling the adjudication hearing, Dr. Royce asked what giving meaning to the phrase <br /> "subject to termite treatment" might look like, to which Mr. Whitaker commented that <br /> from a public health perspective, this really looks more like whether a building is likely to <br /> be treated for termites rather than what the building code says, as the concern is about <br /> termiticide getting into the groundwater through the well. Dr. Baldwin noted that termite- <br /> treated wood is only guaranteed for thirty years and that landscaping decisions, such as <br /> heavily mulching a garden, could lead to termite treatment down the line regardless of <br /> the materials used to construct the building. Mr. Privott noted that it would be important <br /> to define what is considered to be not subject to termite treatment and said that <br /> questions about the science required should be directed to the county attorney. <br /> • Dr. Crandell commented that in the committee's previous review of other state's well <br /> rules, he had seen states that had both rules and recommendations and that he thought <br /> this may be an option for items without adequate science to support them. <br /> • Regarding how to proceed, Dr. Baldwin noted that Environmental Health Staff are <br /> subject matter experts and that he would like to hear recommendations from them. Dr. <br /> Rodgers added that it seems legal representation needs to be involved, and Dr. Royce <br /> said she'd like to see some pros and cons. Mr. Whitaker observed that it is important for <br /> the Board to direct staff in terms of how to involve them in any decision making. Dr. <br /> Stuebe suggested reconvening the Ad Hoc Committee on Well Rules to review the <br /> options and collaborate with staff and the county attorney to determine how to proceed. <br /> S:\Managers Working Files\BOH\Agendas &Abstracts\2025 Agenda and Abstracts\ <br /> October Page 7 <br />