Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-31-1991Approved April I. 1991 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROPOSED LOCAL LEGISLATION PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 31, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session on January 31, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom in the new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of holding a public hearing on proposed local legislation. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chair Stephen Halkiotis, Commissioners Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioner Alice M. Gordon. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, and Planning Director Marvin Collins, NOTE: ALL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ALL ITEMS IS IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL LETTERS REFERENCED HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO THESE MINUTES. 1. INTERBASIN TRANSFERS County Engineer Paul Thames made reference to the proposed bill and the review comments from the Division of Water Resources, Division of Environmental Management and a minority report from the legislative review subcommittee. The basic thrust of this legislation is to institute a permitting process for transfers of water from one named river basin to another if that transfer was to equal or exceed 1 mgd. He is unsure what impact this legislation may have in Orange County on local water usage and interbasin transfers. This is because of the vagueness in the bill. What will be impacted will be northern Orange County's use of water from Jordan Lake, if that use would exceed 1 mgd and Hillsborough's purchase of water from the City of Durham if that use would exceed 1 mgd. The potential is such that the Town of Hillsborough would have to go through a lengthy process to buy large quantities of water from Durham. John Hartwell noted that this legislation proposes to impose criminal penalties for jurisdictions which violate it. He does not agree with this type of regulation. There are problems with the West Fork of the Eno River because the bill is predicated entirely on named river basins and the West Fork is named as a separate river basin and, consequently, governed under these statutes. The Attorney General has ruled that even the use of water in an adjoining basin with its return to the originally x supplying stream is forbidden. It is evident that the bill has been put forth by some special interest groups. There is a great deal of money behind this bill and it should not be taken lightly. He feels the Board needs to be very clear to our legislators about the lack of wisdom that underlies this bill and the serious consequences that it could have. Ed Holland spoke on behalf of the OWASA Board of Directors. He stated that OWASA is opposed to this bill or any other bill to regulate interbasin transfers unless the proposal is for a thorough examination of North Carolina's water management needs and for legislation on water -use permitting, instream flow protection and interbasin transfer. They will support a bill that will address a broader range of water withdrawals. The proposed legislation is not an environmental bill but a bill that can cause environmental and economic harm by depriving streams of much needed supplementary flows and unintentionally requiring communities to develop marginal local water supply sources of their own instead of working with neighbors for cooperative solutions that would be less costly to taxpayers and to the environment. Terry Roland, Director of Water Resources for the City of Durham, referred to a paper he wrote in November, 1990 entitled "How Will Interbasin Transfer Affect Our State ". He noted that the proposed bill, although it contains an extensive permitting process, states that the rules and rights under the riparian law still remain. Someone could go through the entire process and get a permit and it may not mean anything because of this law. Remus Smith, Hillsborough Town Commissioner, stated that the Town of Hillsborough is trying to solve their water problems. This bill is very poorly written. The only support this bill has is from the power companies. The Hillsborough Commissioners oppose this bill and have written all their local legislators and asked the County to help defeat the proposal. 2. AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PROVISIONS RELATING TO RECREATION AREAS IN ORANGE COUNTY County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill explained this proposed enabling legislation. - Larry Carroll spoke on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Chapel Hill and Durham. He stated that they agree with the area concept of planning. They would like to be part of that planning process if possible. 3. AN ACT TO AMEND THE ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS TO AUTHORIZE ORANGE COUNTY TO GRANT DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPERS OF HOUSING FOR PERSONS OF LOW OR MODERATE INCOME Planning Director Marvin Collins explained this proposed enabling legislation. He made reference to the report that was developed by the Low and Moderate Income Task Force. 3 is Larry Carroll spoke on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Chapel Hill and Durham. They support this proposed legislation. 4. AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE ORANGE COUNTY TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND OPEN AREAS FOR THE PRESERVATION, PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF FARMLAND, WATERSHED AREAS AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES, AND TO ACQUIRE THE FEE OR ANY LESSER INTEREST County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill explained this proposed legislation. Larry Carroll spoke on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Chapel Hill and Durham. They support this concept of purchasing land for public use with public funds. They also realize the county revenue sources are already strained. Whatever revenue source is identified would only be available by taking funds from other areas. They asked that the Board pay attention to the source of the revenue and the target of benefits. Water protection costs should be borne by water users. Bob Rose, Hillsborough Town Commissioner, spoke as Chairman of the Vision 2010 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the one thing most often mentioned was the need for preserving open spaces and green spaces and small parks. He supports this bill. Along with this, Hillsborough is looking at a reservoir site on the West Fork of the Eno. They are hoping that this reservoir will have as little impact as possible on the landowners in that area. They will need money to keep the impact to a minimum. He asked that the Board support this bill so that they may pool their resources and not only help the farmer but help Hillsborough citizens improve their quality of life. 5. AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE ORANGE COUNTY TO REQUIRE FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR THE REPAIR AND OPERATION OF COMMUNITY SYSTEMS OF SEWAGE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill explained that this bill will fill a gap that presently exists in state bonding requirements allowing the County to require bonding for private community systems. Larry Carroll spoke on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Chapel Hill and Durham. He stated that land costs are inflated and supply of available land is restricted. Community sewer can make more land available but if the program is made too restrictive it will not be cost effective and will lose the advantage of creating additional building lots. DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DISTRICT TO LEVY A TAX ON THE 6. A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE ORANGE COUNTY TO LEVY A TAX ON THE IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE . OF GENERATING CAPITAL FACILITIES REVENUES TO PAY PART OF THE COSTS AND TO CREATE AN ORANGE COUNTY OF SCHOOL IMPACT TAX DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DISTRICT TO LEVY A TAX ON THE i 4 IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING REVENUES TO PAY PART OF THE COSTS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIRED BY GROWTH The County Attorney gave a brief overview of this proposed local legislation. Sue Baker, member of the Chapel Hill /Carrboro School Board stated that at their January 28th meeting the Board agreed to support this proposed legislation. Their school system is projected to gain 2,000 more students by the end of this decade which will bring them up to 8,000. They do not have facilities for their present population and will need additional facilities for this new population. They feel that for the taxpayers of Orange County the bill is a fair way of spreading the burden of providing for the needs of the children. She stated that their board would be willing to lobby in any way the Board desires. Larry Carroll spoke on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill. He stated their opposition is absolutely adamant since Orange County has in place a wide range of impact fee authority. They will help the County develop a reasonable program. Purchasers of future homes should not be forced to pay through impact taxes and property taxes for catching up on deferred capital spending. 7. A BILL TO LEVY AN OCCUPANCY TAR WITH THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY FOR THE USE OF SOME OF ITS PROCEEDS FOR A COUNTY VISITOR'S BUREAU. Ted Abernathy stated that in the EDC Strategic Plan adopted in May, 1989, Challenge 9 was to start a program to attract and serve visitors, to develop and implement countywide programs that attract visitors and at the same time encourage the preservation and appreciation of historic and cultural and natural resources. One of the recommendations from this workgroup was to establish a one percent dedicated occupancy tax and to get the enabling legislation for a three percent tax countywide occupancy tax. Both Chambers, the Public Partnership Board and the EDC Board endorsed in concept those bills and resolutions. He feels these funds will help provide a tourism program countywide. Ken Jackson, resident and business owner in orange County, stated there are lots of people that like to come to Chapel Hill to shop. He is in favor and supports all efforts directed toward implementing a countywide tourist bureau. He feels that with coordinated efforts throughout the County and by using the resources of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough, and using the resources of the organization he hopes will be establish, everyone will benefit. He feels there needs to be a coordinated effort to help groups coming to the area to find a place to stay, eat, shop, etc. He feels this bureau would help to coordinate this effort. Bruce Holsten, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill /Carrboro Downtown Commission, unequivocally supports the . formation of an Orange County Visitors Service Authority. He stated the Downtown commission supports this program and strongly encourage 5 • the Board to support the bill. Sharon Finch, Chair of the Orange County Visitors Task Force, stated that their recommendation results from a countywide effort. All of the startup kinds of ideas are concepts that are not currently provided in the County. She feels that visitor services are fragmented at the present time. with some resources, they can be coordinated with everyone working together to promote tourism. she submitted a letter from Susan B. Hansell, Co -owner of A New Attitude who endorsed the concept of the Orange County Visitor Development Authority. She feels that such an umbrella organization can more effectively serve the needs of all the area communities to attract visitors and vacationers. Another letter from Realtor Barbara Pipkin endorsed the resolution for establishment of a Visitor Development Authority for Orange County to be financed by the recommended allocations from the hotel /motel occupancy tax. Mike Fales, General Manager of the Omni- Europa Hotel in Chapel Hill and President of the newly formed Orange County Hotel /Motel Association, stated that the hotel industry in Orange County is in trouble. A lot of them are trying to survive with 55% occupancy. He showed some visitor and business guides that encourage businesses to have meetings in that particular community. On December 19, 1990, the hotels and motels of Orange County unanimously endorsed a resolution of support for the report of the Visitors Task Force. They feel a unified visitor services center would be in the best interest of their industry and in the best interest of the community. Their efforts are geared toward better serving the existing tourist and targeting those visitors who would benefit the community. Ed Rekopf, Director of Hotels and Conference Centers for the University of North Carolina and acting General Manager of the Carolina Inn, stated he feels there are three elements that a visitors center would provide. One is to extend hospitality to visitors coming into the community. The second thing they do is provide coordination and information to those visitors and the final thing they do is to manage the visitor industry. David Taylor, President of the Chapel Hill /Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of and support for a countywide visitor services program. The Chamber adopted a resolution supporting this effort. He encouraged the Board to proceed with seeking the necessary legislation and thereafter proceed with the establishment of a countywide visitors services bureau or program. They believe the program is needed to boost economic development in Orange County. He asked for the Board's support and pledged the support of the Chamber in developing this program. tax and the Tom Roberts spoke in favor of the occupancy establishment of a visitors service bureau for Orange County. He believes it is important for the economic development of the County. Kevin Goodwin, President of the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce, indicated that although the Chamber has passed a • resolution endorsing oces ethat support tonight. He feels that to authority, and to infrastructure, with reg needed. The way •� oals of the County is tax base accomplish the g services, etc., money to increase a form of human taxes is clean He sees it P ducations this wit, raising Tourism He feels accomplish development. divi deeds. economic that pays tremendous ve history, with our through meet economy and preset working economic develop fished bythis legislation• as a way to revitalize or the can be accomp approve As a much more urged the Board to proposal- and there is so lie support of this rashness neighbors. surprised by Of the county Martin, spoke in do G- County. he was attractions and D. Orange other wonderful learn to easy to see, that Will be newcomer of the history a was not One thing diversity realized it County- those that live He in this that County- there is to do about our County is everything others in Hillsborough, gained by telling themselves. the economic ere will learn more about of a bed and breakfast will help bureau and h e Webb, owner center of this b gatherin visitors service creation that a She Welcomes to enable this to happen - stated area• ancY tax climate of the an occuP is su000rtiVe °f BY ORANGE COUNTY'S ORMATION GENE�'TED SYSTEM AND TO D RECORDS THE A BILL TO pROTECT INF' RATES FOR PROCESSING 8. REHENSIVE AND SOP gEAS ON LAN COMP CDMMERCIALLY this bill has CHARGE MAINTAINS• stated that INFORMATION IT Geoffrey Gledhill statewide t° Attorney are some initiation from the County because there provide same protect to the not been drafted do is to p data related. do this . What this would for the electronic North Carolinsystem' Records La Counties GIS ssion, asked S NOT oN THE FRIN`rirD o G the Human Ron for the County to adopt ITEM Bolduc, Cha legislatx She made reference Jean uest enabling Ordinance- Pr Le ordinance. the Board to reg Of the p that Bights or Nondiscr�m�nat outline point. She stated a Human gives a broad this P law are completely to a summary which g that led t° the the process presently in extensive research She reviewed that exist P Committee did ordinances are the protections the Ordinance what types of local inadequate and to see will be available in inadegh °Ut the country of the ordinance throug The final draft available. hearing open for February- to leave the public There was a cansensu Hill • receipt of additional comm ants from Chapel by znsko, seconded next Commissioner Meeting- at ADJOURNMENT made a adjourn this Special nary �, 1991 b Motion was to On February in Willhoit will be held Courthouse Commissioner Of the Board of the Old County Regular Meetingtof Courtroom 7:30 P -m- in North Carolina. Carey, Jr., Chair Hillsborough, Moses Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 571-4jWeltf f /__ J • How Will Interbasin Transfer Affect Our State? By A. T. Rolan Presented at the_70th Annual Meeting of the North Carolina Section of the American Water Works Association and the North Carolina Water Pollution Control Association November 11 -14, 1990 High Point, North Carolina It is interesting that this paper is being presented as a part of the wastewater section of our convention. However, it is appropriate when you consider that many interbasin transfers occur as the result of discharges of wastewater and not as a result of the withdrawal of drinking water. Currently there is no comprehensive law in North Carolina on water rights. The state law presently relies primary on the riparian rights theory which basically guarantees the downstream users of water that their supply should not be impacted by reductions in either quality or quantity. Historically, North Carolina has developed along transportation routes. From the Indians to modern times, these routes have typically run ridge lines because they represent-the best available route, with the least number of changes in grade and the resultant ease of travel. Because of this phenomenon many of our cities in North Carolina have grown up on these ridge lines and as a result, many of these cities are involved in interbasin transfers. In 1989, the State Legislature attempted to enact a Bill to regulate interbasin transfers. Ultimately, the Legislature passed a one year moratorium with exemptions.for almost every possible existing transfer and permitted discharge but did not allow any new transfers during the one year moratorium. Last week, the Legislative Study Commission on surface water passed a draft bill which could be considered by "the full Legislature in 1991, that is similar to but more restrictive than the Bill proposed last year. • The American Water Works Association adopted in 1975 and. revised in 1982 a policy on Water Resources. The following - statement is included as a part of that policy. "The majority of water crisis may be traced to insufficient and delayed action rather than actual shortages of usable water. I To establish a ro riate water pp p policies for regional and local areas -- including consolidation or reorganization of domestic water supply within the framework of national needs, comprehensive studies should be made to ensure planning for -the most economical use of water for domestic industrial and other purposes and to prevent waste." Those in North Carolina who would indicate that we have a serious water supply problem that needs to be addressed relative to interbasin transfer have not taken a good look at the facts regarding Water Resources in North Carolina. I would submit to you that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In North Carolina the average annual runoff reported by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1985 was 47.6 billion gallons per day. Of this runoff, approximately 20 billion gallons per day flowed into other states and 27.6 billion gallons per day flowed through North Carolina into the ocean. During 1985, there was approximately 7.9 billion gallons per day (16.6%) was withdrawn from North Carolina streams and rivers. Of this volume of water, approximately 0.4 billion gallons per day (5.690 was consumed and not returned to the steams and approximately 7.5 billion gallons per day (94.4%) was returned to the these streams. The approximately 0.4 billion gallons of water which was consumed, represents only 0.9% of the total runoff for -North Carolina. These consumptive losses • were attributed to the following: 0.33% for agriculture use, 0.07% for thermoelectric power use, 0.17% for industrial use and 0.33% for domestic and commercial uses. As you can see from the above information, North Carolina is a very water rich state. Except as outlined in the AWWA policy, there should not be any water crisis in North Carolina for a very long time and the issue of interbasin transfer cannot be demonstrated to.be of a serious enough issue to warrant immediate attention. The proposed Bill to be considered by the 1991 Legislature would regulate transfers of water from one "river" basin to another. In the Bill, a river means any body of water bearing the designation "river" on the latest edition of the appropriate U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle map. A river basin means the area drained by a river and its - ,tributaries or through a specified point on a river, as determined by the commission. A transfer means the withdrawal, diversion, or pumping of surface water from one river basin and the use or discharge of all or any part of the water in a basin different from the origin. The proposed Bill would require a permit for'any transfer of 1 MGD or more and would require that all transfers no matter what there size that are less than 1 MGD be registered with the Commission. Although not clear in the Bill, it is assumed that references to the Commission means the Environmental Management Commission. AEk K C, E Based on information developed by the Office of Water Resources, there are 193 "rivers" in North Carolina based on the U.S. Geological Survey maps. Also there are 44 existing water transfers that would require a permit for the transfer . of greater than 1 MGD. The Office of Water Resources has estimated that there are over 100 transfers of water in North Carolina which would be regulated by this Bill in one way or another. The proposed Bill would be expensive and�time consuming for both the State and local governments. The Bill also represents an impediment to sound water resource development particularly in light of the American Water Works policy on water resources. The proposed Bill combines the worst features of two legal approaches to water use - the delays and red tape of a permit °system and the uncertainty and Insecurity of rights under the riparian water rights system. The proposed Bill regulates only one of the types of water - use that can reduce down stream flow, interbasin transfer, and leaves unaddressed all other consumptive uses. The State has estimated that the cost for administration alone for this Bill would be $500,000 per -year or more. No estimate has been made for the cost to local government for the prepara- tion of applications, filing of permits, and development.of needed information in support of those applications. Of special concern in the Bill is the inclusion of the word "use" in the definition of "transfer." It would appear that the Bill considers the use of water in a different-river basin to be a transfer even if a discharge of that water in a different basin does not occur. Other parts of the Bill which are particularly onerous include the sections which outline the permit application process, the notification process and the permit application review process and are shown on Pages 2 through 5 of the proposed Bill. I would recommend that you contact the State Legislative Office and obtain a copy of the Bill so that you can review these sections in detail. Provisions for registration of all water transfers and civil and criminal penalties are shown on Pages 7 and 8 of the draft Bill. One major concern relative to the draft Bill is contained in Section 143- 215.22K dealing with actions for loss of water rights. Under the proposed Bill, even though a discharger had "jumped through all the necessary hoops" and obtained a permit for the water transfer, there is no guarantee that the water transfer would not be challenged through the legal system. Therefore after all the effort to obtain a permit, legally it is of little or no value to the discharger as a protection from suit by downstream riparian landowners. M There are several laws in North Carolina that already deal with the issues of interbasin transfers and ,I would recommend that you obtain copies of these laws and discuss them „with your city attorney. These include: 1. GS152A -285 which requires water and sewer authorities and cities and counties acting jointly to obtain a "certificate” from the Environmental Management Commission before diverting water from one stream or river to another. 2. GS153A -287 which. prohibits diversion from any major river basin which is not located entirely in North Carolina. 3. GS143 -212 and GS143- 215.21,which defines some of the terms related to water transfers. 4. GS162A -7 which outlines the requirements for authorities in order to exercise imminent domain authority. S. GS143- 215.44 through .49 which deals with the rights of withdrawals of impounded water. In addition to all of the above, we currently have the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, the 404 and 401 Permitting Processes under Federal Law -which gives adequate opportunity for concerns relative to interbasin transfer to be raised through these already existing regulations. However, I would warn that you can't assume that common sense about water and wastewater developments and issues has anything to do with this proposed Bill. If this proposed Bill J.s passed, environmental groups or other third parties could.use it to effectively-delay or stop development of water supplies and wastewater discharges that would otherwise be logical choices as the best and highest quality source and the most technically feasible discharge points for receiving treated wastewaters. In summary,, it is my opinion, that we do need a statewide Water Supply Plan but we had a Bill passed last year in the State Legislature which requires this to be done. We also need a "comprehensive" look at water law in North Carolina that deals with all streams and withdrawals equally in protecting the environment and the future water uses of North Carolina. This proposed Bill does neither of the above and we as the water and wastewater professionals in North Carolina should be willing to say that to our Legislators and we should take an active role in helping them address this issue in a professional and impartial way. 4 • • In dealing with the issue of interbasin transfer, I feel that it would be best if we apply the "golden rule" and "do unto others as we would have them do unto us." How many of our systems in North Carolina t; -aly return all of the water that we withdraw unaffected by quantity or quality? Consumptive losses of water should be dealt with equally for all water withdrawals regardless of whether they are within a river basin from which the water is withdrawn or result from the logical transfer of water across a river basin ridge line. No water system or community in North Carolina should impose limitations on another community relative to these issues that they would not be willing to have imposed on their community. I hope that we will eventually develop a truly comprehensive water law for North Carolina that is fair and impartial to all who withdraw and use this precious natural resource in North Carolina. 1190153 E C, J 5 0 0 s ��•�r•Yr e-�T — / - 3 �-- q / Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968 -4421 Comments to the Orange County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on Legislative Proposals Superior Court Room, Hillsborough January 31, 1991 PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER OF WATER Good evening. My name is Edward Holland. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. The North Carolina Legislative Research Commission has endorsed a bill to require permits for certain interbasin transfers of water. OWASA is opposed to this or any other bill to regulate interbasin transfers unless the proposal is for a through examination of North Carolina's water management needs and for legislation on water use permitting, instream flow protection, and interbasin transfer. We will support a bill that addresses the broader range of water withdrawals. Regulating interbasin transfers separately from other types of water uses will not resolve conflicts, and will not prevent depletion or misuse of the state's waters. According to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources, the consumptive use of water by municipalities, industries, irrigators, and electric power plants has a greater effect on downstream water availability than does interbasin transfer. The logical approach to managing interbasin transfer is to include it as one of several elements in a comprehensive permitting program. Many states are now taking this approach, rather than setting up separate regulatory programs for interbasin transfers or other individual elements of water law. The legislative study committee that proposed this bill received no evidence whatsoever that any existing or proposed interbasin • transfers in North Carolina are causing, or would cause, economic or environmental hardship to any streams or downstream users. An Equal Opportunity Employer i • rN Conversely, a number of speakers, including several from the Triangle Area, noted specific examples of the environmental and economic benefits of interbasin transfers. We need look no further than Hillsborough, which purchased millions of gallons of OWASA water in order to maintain adequate streamflow in the Eno River this past summer. And, it's unlikely that the southern Orange water supply could have survived the drought of 1987 - without the transfer of Lake Butner water to OWASA through the City of Durham. The proposed legislation is not an environmental bill, as some of its supporters claim. It is a bill that could cause environmental and economic harm by depriving streams, such as the Eno, of much - needed supplementary flows, and unintentionally requiring individual communities to develop marginal local supply sources of their own, instead of collaborating with neighbors on cooperative solutions that would be less costly to taxpayers, rate payers, and the environment. The proposed bill will provoke needless controversy and competition among local entities, and inhibit good cooperative water management in genuine areas of need. No legislation on interbasin transfers should be introduced or enacted until the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources completes the State Water Supply Plan mandated by HB 157 that was enacted in 1989. This effort will systematically identify any existing or potential water use conflicts throughout the state. If, however, the General Assembly feels that it must enact interbasin transfer legislation this session, then we suggest two adjustments to clarify some of the inconsistencies within existing statutes: 1. G.S. 153A -285 requires that a water and sewer authority, or any partnership of more than one local government, obtain approval from the Environmental Management Commission before diverting water from one stream or river to another. The specific criteria for approval are listed in G.S. 162A -7. • E • 3 However, such approval is not necessary for individual units of government or private entities acting alone. OWASA suggests that the statutes be amended to require the same scrutiny of all water diversions, regardless of whether an entity is acting alone or in partnership with others. 2. G.S. 153A -287 categorically prohibits water diversions from all river basins except the Cape Fear, Neuse, Tar - Pamlico, lower Roanoke, and the small coastal basins. If the waters of North Carolina are to be managed under a uniform and logical statewide policy - and since the EMC already possesses the statutory and regulatory tools to evaluate potential transfers (G.S. 162A -7) - then it seems logical to repeal G.S. 153A -287, and manage all waters of the state according to the same principles. • 3. The statutes should address the withdrawals, diversions, and consumptive uses of agricultural and industrial users where water is not returned to the stream because of irrigation, process, or evaporative losses. OWASA appreciates this opportunity to share our concerns and recommendations. We need help from the elected representatives of our customers and your citizens in opposing this undesirable legislation and supporting a sensible and comprehensive state water use policy that will, in fact, enhance good management of the state's water resources. 0 • • 0 In Women's Clothing Statement from Susan B. Hansell Co- owner, A New Attitude Carr Mill, Carrboro We carefully planned our store opening in July, 1987 to coincide with the start of the U.S. Olympic Festival. Our grand opening was a huge success because local people stayed in town that July to enjoy the Festtval and so many communities within the County. Out of towr�hoppers are an important part of my business. As more people know about all that this area has to offer, we can attract more visitors. As more dollars are spent here in shops, restaurants, and hotels, we all benefit. I endorse the concept of the Orange County Visitor Development Authority. Such an umbrella organization can more effectively serve the needs of all the area communities to attract visitors and vacationers. One such authority on the County level can do all this without fragmenting the effort and making the most effective use of available funding sources. X. 4V4 121 Carr Mill Mall Carrboro. North Carolina 27510 out -of- towners vacationed here. Orange County became the "place to be" to the benefit of local businesses and the communities within the County. Out of towr�hoppers are an important part of my business. As more people know about all that this area has to offer, we can attract more visitors. As more dollars are spent here in shops, restaurants, and hotels, we all benefit. I endorse the concept of the Orange County Visitor Development Authority. Such an umbrella organization can more effectively serve the needs of all the area communities to attract visitors and vacationers. One such authority on the County level can do all this without fragmenting the effort and making the most effective use of available funding sources. X. 4V4 121 Carr Mill Mall Carrboro. North Carolina 27510 0 E Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Hillsborough, North Carolina Dear -Mr. Carey: As an active member of the.local real estate common ty, a past President of the Chapel Hill Board of REALTORS and as a Chamber °of -Commerce caamnittte member for -the creation of visitor brochures with.limi.ted budgets since 1984,,I fully.endorse the Resolution for the establishment of a Visitor Development Authority for Orange County to be financed by:the recommended allocations from the Hotel /Motel occupancy tax. With,Orange County's strategic location, its abundance of.historical land - marks from Hillsborough to the oldest state University in the nation in the southern county, the attraction of top quality athletic events and cul- tural programs and the natural beauty of the rolling terrain with its lush vegetation, the county is truly a mecca for visitors, Allow us.to promote this clean industry as it contributes to the county's ecomony with proper facilities and materials. Sin rely, rbara D. Pipkin January 31, 1991 NOTICE -F; PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROPOSED LOCAL LEGISLATION THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 1991 The Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina hereby gives NOTICE that a public hearing shall be held on the 31 st day of January, 1 991 at 7:30 p.m., in Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse, 106 Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Car- olina to hear any person desiring to-speak on issues that require local legislation. The items under consideration for local legislation include but is not limited to the following: 1. An act to clarify the enabling legislation for subdivision ordinance provisions relating to recreation areas in Orange County. 2. An. act. to amend the enabling legislation for zoning ordinance regulations to authorize Orange County to grant density bonuses and owner incentives for developers of housing for persons of low or moderate income. 3. An act to authorize Orange County to acquire real property in order to preserve open space and open areas for the preservation, iprotection and conservation of farmland; watershed areas and (drinking water supplies, and to acquire the fee or any lesser interest. 4. An act to authorize Orange County to require financial security for :.the repair and operation of community systems of sewage collection, treatment and disposal. 5.,A bill to: be entitled An Act to Authorize Orange County t9 Levy a Tax on the Impact of Land Development for the Purpose of Generating Revenues to Pay Part of the Costs of School Capital Facilities and to Create an Orange County Impact Tax District and to ,Authorize the District to Levy a Tax on the Impact of Land Development for the Purpose of Generating Revenues to Pay Part of the Costs of Capital Facilities Required by Growth. 6. A bill to levy an occupancy tax with the express authority for the use of some of its proceeds for a County Visitor's Bureau. 7. A bill to protect information generated by Orange County's comprehensive and sophisticated land records system and to charge commercially reasonable rates for processing the information it maintains. All citizens who would like to comment on those items listed above or any`other item that would require local legislation are encouraged to attend this meeting. All comments will be taken into consideration by the County Commissioners before a decision is made to seek local legislation during the 1991 Session of the General Assembly. If you cannot attend the Public Hearing you may submit a written statement. Please send it prior to the Public Hearing to the Orange County Board. of Commissioners' Office, P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278. COPIES of any of the proposed legislation may be obtained by calling the Clerk to the Board, Beverly Blythe at 732 -8181, 968 -4501, 688 -7331 or 227 -2031, extension 2130. Please take this opportunity to let YOUR County Commissioners know your views on the above proposed local .legislation. Your comments on any of the above items or on any other item you want to be considered for local legislation are welcomed.