FUTURE DRINKING WATER
State and Local Policies for Protecting Future Drinking Water Reservoir Sites and Watersheds in North Carolina
Raymond J. Burby
Center for Urban and Regional Studies
w i t h
Center
David J. Brower for Urban and Regional
and
Dale Whittington
Department of city and ~ e ~ i o n a l
Studies
Planning University of North Carolina at Chapel Eill
December 1985
"The research on which the report is based was finance6 in part
by the United States Department of the Interior, ~eological
Survey, through the North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute.
"Contents of the publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Department of the
Interior, nor does mention of trade naines or conmercial products constitute their endorsement by the United States Government."
CONTENTS
Paqe
LIST OF TABLES... viii
LIST OF F I G U R E S o m o m m m o m m o m m o o m m m m o o ~ o m o m ~ m m o m o ~ m o m o m viii EXECUTIVE S C ' M M A R Y . . . , . . . xi
...
How Serious Is the Problem?... xiiWhat Can Local Governments Do to Protect Future Drinking Water Sources?...
...
xiiiWhat Local Governments Are Doing to Protect Future Drinking Water Sources...
...
xivHow Local officials Feel About the State Role in Drinking Water Source Protection
...
xivA Suggested State Program
...
xv1.1 Dimensions of the Problem...
...
11.2 Reservoir Site Preservation and Watershed Protection.
...
2...
1.21 Threats to Reservoir Sites... 21.22 Point Source Threats to Water pcality
...
31.23 Non-Point Source Threats to Water Quality.. 3
1.24 Watershed Protection Measures... 4
1.3 Why Should the State Be Concerned?...,. 5
1.31 Water Supply and Economic Growth... 6
1.32 Water Supply and Fublic Health....
...
61.33 Limitations of Local Governmental Action... 7
1.4 Overview of the Report
...
92 THE THREAT TO FUTURE WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR SITES IN NORTH C A R O L I N A o m o m m m m m o m o o m m o m o m o m o o m o o o m m m o o o o o m o o 11 2.1 Reservoir Sites and Watersheds Studied
...
11Paqe
2.2 Status of Watershed Development
...
2.21 Alexander County Water Corporation
...
2.22 Asheville-Buncombe County Water Authority
.
2.23 Boone Water System
...
2.24 Concord Water System
...
2.25 Hillsborough/Orange County
...
2.26 *Iredell Water Corporation
...
2.27 Union County/Monrce Water Systems
...
2.28 Zebulon Water System
...
2.3 The Threats to Reservoir Sites and
...
Water Qualilty
2.31 Preemption of Reservoir Sites
...
2.32 Point Sources of Pollution
...
2.33 Non-Point Sources of Pollution
...
2.4 Summary and Conclusions
...
3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO PRESERVE RESERVOIR SITES AND PROTECT WATER QUALITY..
...
. . o m . . . . .3.1 Watershed Protection Programs
...
3.2 Land Acquisition...
3.21 Advance Site Acquisition
...
...
3.22 Acquisition of Easements
3.23 Compensatory Regulation
...
3.24 Inverse Condemnation
...
3.25 Transfer of Development Richts
...
3.3 Public Investments in Capital Improvements
...
...
3.4 Taxztion3.41 Preferential Assessment
...
3.42 Special Assessment
...
3.5 Development Regulations
...
3.51 Interim or Temporary Development...
Regulations 3 5
3.52 Zoning
...
3 53.521 Industrial. Corninercial. and High-
Density Residential Zoning
...
363.522 Minimum Lot Size Zoning
...
363.523 Cluster Zoning and Planned
3.524 Exclusive Agricultural or
...
Nonresidential Zoning
3.525 Special Exceptions . . . m e . . m . . .
3.526 Floating zone^...^^^^^^^
3.527 Performance Zoning
...
3.528 Conditional or Contract Zoning
...
3.529 Bonus or Incentive Zoning
...
3.53 Subdivision Regulations
...
3.54 Official Mapping
...
3.55 'Local Environmental Impact ordinances
...
3.56 Erosion Control Regulations
...
3.57 Regulation of Sanitary Sewerage Systems
....
3.58 Local Health Board Rules
...
3.6 Technical Assistance
...
...
3.7 Summary and Conclusions
4 LOCAL RESERVOIR SITE PRESERVATION AND WATERSHED
...
PROTECTION MEASURES USED IN NORTH CAROLINA
4.1 Measures Used to Protect Eight Potential
...
~rinking Water Supply Sources
4.11 Reservoir Site Preservation
...
4 - 1 2 Watershed Protection
...
4.121 Noteworthy Programs
...
....
4.122 Reasons for inaction...
4.2 Local Public Officials' Perceptions of Future
Drinking Water Supplies as a Public Policy
Problem
...
4.3 Local Public Officialsf Attitudes Toward New
Private-Sector and State Government Roles
...
in the Provision of Drinking Water
...
4.4 Summary and Conclusions
5 STATE G O V E W E N T AND THE PROTECTION OF FUTURE
...
DRINKING WATER SOURCES IN NORTH CAROLINA5.1 Stream Classification
...
5.2 Regulation of Point Source Discharges...
5.3 Management of Non-Point Sources of Pollution:Construction. Mining. and Solid and
Hazardous Waste Disposal
...
5.4 Management of Non-Point Sources of Pollution:...
Agriculture5.5 Technical Assistance to Local Governments and
...
Other Water SystemsPaqe
5 . 6 Health Services commission Rules and
Regulations
...
7 3...
5 . 7 Summary and Conclusions 7 6
6 ADDITIONAL STATE POLICY OPTIONS
...
6 . 1 Water Supply Planning
...
...
6 . 1 1 Centralized State Planning
6 . 1 2 Mandatory Local or ~egional Water
Supply Planning
...
6 . 1 3 State-Assisted Local Planning
...
6 . 1 4 Sumary
...
6 . 2 Mandatory Local Regulation of Potential Water
...
Supply Watersheds
6 . 3 State Stormwater Regulations/State Regulation
...
of Agricultural Soil Erosion
6 . 3 1 State Stormwater Management Regulations
....
6 . 3 2 State-Mandated Local Regulation of
Agricultural Erosion
...
6 . 4 Executive Order to Protect Reservoir Sites and
watershed^...^...
6 . 5 Enabling Legislation for Official Mapping of
...
Drinking Water Reservoirs
6 . 6 Revolving Loan Fund for Advance Acquisition
...
of Reservoir Sites
...
6.7 Additional State Staff Positions
.
6 . 8 Summary and ~onclusions
...
...
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOmENDATIONS
7 . 1 Competing Objectives in Protecting Future
...
Drinking Water Sources7 . 1 1 Low Cost Versus High Quality
...
7 . 1 1 1 The Experiences of New York City
and Philadelphia
...
7 . 1 1 2 Lessons for North Carolina
...
7 . 1 2 The Present Generation Versus Future
Generations
..em...e...
....
7 . 1 3 Watershed Landowners Versus Water Users
7.2 Suggested State Policies
...mm...
1127.21 Planning
...m...mme...m.
1127.22 Reservoir Site reservation... 113
...
7.23 Control of Point Sources of Pollution 113
7.24 Control of Non-Point Sources of Pollution
..
1167.3 Organizational Arrangements . . . m . e m . m . e . . m . 117
7.4 Summary
...em...m.
118...
REFERENCES 119
LIST OF TABLES
...
WATERSHED LAND USES...
URBAN GROSJTH RATES IN POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY
W A T E R S H E D S m o m m m o m m m m m m o m m o o o m m m o m m m m m o o o m o m m m m m m o m o o
STATUS OF RESERVOIR SITE PRESERVATION IN EIGHT POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS, 1984... STATUS OF WATERSHED PROTECTION IN EIGHT POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS, 1 9 8 4 . . . m m . m . m
LOCAL OFFICIALS
'
EVALUATIONS OF THE SERIOUSXESS OF WATER SUPPLY AND OTHER COMMUNITY PROBLEMS INNORTH C A R O L I N A m o m m m ~ o m m ~ m m o o m m m m m m m m m m ~ m m m m m o m m m m o o m LOCAL OFFICIALS' EVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS AND FEASIBILITY OF SELECTED WATERSHED PROTECTION
M E A S U R E S m m o m o * m o m m o m o m o m o m o m o m o o o m m m o o ~ m ~ o ~ ~ m m ~ ~ o m ~ o Paqe
20
LOCAL OFFICIALS' ATTITUDES TOWARD FRIVATE SZCTOR AND STATE INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROVISION OF
DRINKING W A T E R m o o m m m m m o m m m ~ m m o m m m o m ~ m m o m m m o m ~ m m m o m57 ~ o
...
SUMMARY OF STATE POLICY OPTIONS.m... 114
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 LOCATION OF CASE STUDY WATER SYSTEMS' FUTUR3
KATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS
...
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THREEABSTRACT
High quality drinking water is essential to maintain the health and well-being of the citizens of North Carolina and is a critical ingredient in future economic growth. ~rinking water supplies needed to meet those needs, however, can no longer be taken for granted. This report examines threats to future drinking water sources from urban expansion and agricultural practices in North Carolina. It documents current policies and programs adopted by local governments to protect potential
drinking water supplies. Finding those policies inadequate, it examines a broad range of state programs that could be used to preserve future reservoir sites and protect water quality in watersheds that might be used in the future as drinking water sources. A panel of state and local officials rated the
effectiveness and feasibility of those state policy options. Based on the panel's assessments, this report outlines a
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A study such as this can only be carried to completion with the generous aid of a number of persons. Our research has
benefitted from the interest and advice of David H. Moreau, director of the Water Resources Research Institute of The
University of North Carolina. We would also like to thank former WRRI director, David H. Howells, and John Morris and John Wray, director and deputy director, respectively, of the N.C. Division of Water Resources, for their encouragement when we discussed with them our initial ideas for this study.
The assembly of data reported here was made possible by the cooperation and assistance of a number of persons and agencies. We would particularly like to thank Allan Dietemann, N.C.
Division of Water Resources; Boyd DeVane, Bob Holman, and Bill Kreutzberger, N.C. Division of Environmental Management; Milton Heath, Institute of Government, Edward Kaiser, Department of City and Regional Planning, and Daniel Okun, Department of
Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Lyn Norton, Alexender County Water
Corporation; Harold Falls and Leonard Sossamon, City of Concord; Thomas Robinson, Cabarrus County; C. F. McCall, Iredell Kater Corporation; Lisa Beckham, Iredell County; Susan Smith, Orange County; Seth Murdoch, Rowan County; C. F. Boyd, James Hinkle and William Summerlin, Town of Monroe; John Nunn and Luther
McPherson, Union County; James Haynes, Yadkin County; Wilson Stallings, Town of Zebulon; Carl Johnson and Michael Jennings, Wake County; James Mills, Franklin County; ~ e c i l Wood, Wilkes County; George Sudderth, Town of Boone; Nichael Holconbe, City of Asheville; William Eaker, Land of Sky Regional Council; and
Edward Holland, Triangle J Council of Governments.
Katherine Bullock, Ken A. Robertson, and Kim Brewer served as graduate research assistants on this study. Editorial
assistance was provided by Scott Verner. Carolyn Jones, Lee Mullis, and Barbara Rodgers helped type the final manuscript.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An ample supply of drinking water is a critical ingredient in North Carolina's future economic growth. High-quality water is essential to maintain the health and well-being of the
citizens of this state. Available sources of high-quality water, however, are limited. Topography limits the number of places where dams and reservoirs can be constructed at an affordable price. Groundwater is in limited supply in some areas. The costs of pumping and political impediments to interbasin
transfers limit the transmission of water over long distances. Pollution spawned by sprawling urbanization and continued erosion from farmland limit the number of streams that are suitable for drinking water. Because future sources of high-quality drinking water are limited, it is time state and local governments began thinking about what they need to do to preserve those high-
quality water supply sources that can be economically tapped for future use.
Surveys of potential water supply watersheds in twelve
counties, conducted during the summer of 1984, indicate that in a number of cases the future use of those watersheds was threatened by pollution-producing land uses of various types, such as rural subdivisions, commercial and industrial development, and
agricultural practices that contribute to soil erosion. Local action to preserve reservoir sites and maintain future water
quality had been initiated in a few cases, but more often nothing was being done to protect potential drinking water sources for
future use.
What, if anything, should the State of North Carolina do to ensure that undeveloped sources of drinking water are available for public use in future years? That question is addressed in this report. Before answering it, however, we first examined in more detail the actual threat to reservoir sites and water
quality and the actions local governments could and actually were taking to preserve future drinking water sources. After
concluding that local governments need (and, in fact, want) help from the state, we systematically looked at existing state
policies and programs that could contribute to drinking water source protection.
Our review revealed a number of gaps in existing state
experience with state programs to solve other environmental
management problems, we formulated a comprehensive drinking water source protection program for North Carolina. To help us
estimate whether the program we formulated would work in practice as well as in theory, we asked a panel of fifty-six state and local officials to assess the likely effectiveness of each
component of the program. In order to gauge the likely political acceptability of the program components, we also asked panel
members to indicate whether they would favor use of each component.
The research findings and our suggestions for state policy are described very briefly in the remainder of this executive summary. To help readers who would like to delve into our findings in greater detail, after each finding or policy
suggestion we indicate in parentheses where readers should go in the text for more information. Chapters, chapter sections, and subsections have been numbered systematically to help readers locate needed material. In addition, the detailed table of contents provides a quick overview of the report.
How Serious Is the Problem?
Land use data assembled from surveys of eight potential drinking water watersheds in North Carolina indicate that the preemption of dam and reservoir sites by incompatible land uses is not yet a widespread or serious problem (see sections 2 . 2 a n d
2.31).l Subdivision development was beginning to encroach on
union County's proposed Big Richardson Creek reservoir site, but in the other seven cases studied, site preemption was not yet a serious issue.
Water quality, however, was emerging as a serious potential
problem. Although urban densities are low in the future drinkhg
water watersheds we studied, those watersheds have been
developing at the same rates (2 percent to 5 percent per year) as the counties in which they are located. Thus, there is a strong possibility for future water pollution from stormwater runoff unless steps are taken to limit densities, control site
development practices, and prohibit urban activities that involve the use of toxic substances. Agricultural activities also pose a
l ~ h o s e watersheds were being considered (or in some cases
actually being developed) for future drinking water supplies by eight water systems: the Alexander County Water Corporation; the Asheville-auncombe County Water Authority; the Boone Water
System; the Concord W+ter System; the Hillsborough/Orange County Water System; the Iredell Water Corporation; the Union
County/Monroe Water Systems; and the Zebulon Water System.
threat to water quality. Sizable proportions (30 percent or more) of five of the eight watersheds we studied were devoted to row crops and other intensive agricultural activities that have been shown to have a high potential for soil erosion. Finally, point source discharges of pollutants existed in four of the eight watersheds (see sections 2.32 and 2.33).
What Can Local Governments Do to Protect Future Drinkinq Water Sources?
For the most part, local governments in North Carolina have adequate authority to preserve reservoir sites and to protect water quality from degradation by point and non-point sources of p ~ l l u t i o n . ~ We have devised a methodology for formulating a site preservation and watershed protection program (see section 3.1), and this report includes an exhaustive inventory of measures local governments can select from in formulating a program fine- tuned to local needs (sections 3.2 through 3.6).
We asked local officials with jurisdiction over the potential water supply watersheds we studied to rate the effectiveness of various reservoir site preservation and watershed protection measures. They gave the highest
effectiveness rating to zoning regulations designed to minimize the number or type of industrial establishments in watersheds. Somewhat lower effectiveness ratings were given to measures designed to reduce the attractiveness of watersheds for urban develcpment, reduce population density, and induce farmers to ~tdopt various soil conservation practices. We also asked local officials to rate the political ?easibility of those measures. For each watershed protection measure we asked about, county officials rated political feasibility lower than potential effectiveness. Thus, there are a variety of measires that, in
2 ~ w o land use management rights and official mapp reservoir site preservat their use in North Carol legislation. Two zoning
techniques (transfer of development ing) could be useful components of a
ion and watershed protection program, but ina would require new enabling
techniques (floating zones and incentive zoning) also would be useful in some circuinstances, but there is some question whether the courts would view them as being
authorized by other potentia authorized spe
current lly use cif ical
zoxing enabling ful zoning techn ly in state enab
legislation. A number iques also are not
ling legislation
(compensable regulations, interim or temporary regulations, performance zoning, and cluster or planned unit development
zoning provisions), but their use would probably be viewed by the courts as falling within current zoning enabling legislation (see sections 3.2 and 3.5)
.
theory, local governments could use to protect potential drinking water sources; county officials think most of those measures
would be reasonably effective, but in many counties they do not believe they are politically feasible (see section 4.2).
What Local Governments Are Doinq to Protect Future Drinkins Water Sources
Local officials in counties that face drinking water
shortages recognize that problem. We asked a panel of forty-two officials serving twelve counties with jurisdiction over future water supply watersheds to rate the seriousness of a variety of problems facing the state of North Carolina. In that survey the adequacy of future drinking water supplies ranked second, just behind public education, as a statewide problem and as a problem for their communities (section 4.2). But local governments in North Carolina are doing relatively little to protect future drinking water sources.
Of the twelve counties we studied, only Orange County had adopted a comprehensive set of measures to protect future
drinking water supplies (see section 4.1). In Orange County, future drinking water watersheds are identified on the county comprehensive plan and designated as water quality critical areas. The county zoning ordinance was amended to create an overlay zone for water quality critical areas that requires minimum residential lot sizes of two acres or more; prohibits cormercial and industrial land uses; requires undeveloped buffers along perennial streams; establishes maximum allowable ratios of impervious surfaces on lots; and sets infiltration requirements
for storm water. The Orange County watershed protection program
can serve as a model for other counties in North Carolina.
Orange County, however, was an exception. In seven of the twelve counties we studied, no action had been taken to prevent the pollution of streams feeding potential drinking water
sources. Four other counties had zoning provisions in place that should have a positive effect on water quality, even though that was not the primary reason for their adoption. Two of the twelve counties were taking steps to manage stcmwater runoff, and three counties were attempting to minimize agricultural soil erosion in potential drinking water watersheds (see section 4.1).
How Local Officials Feel About the State Role in Crinkins Water Source Proection
Although local governments were taking few steps to protect future drinking water sources, local officials favored an active state role in protecting drinking water sources from pollution
(see section 4.3). When we asked them whether the state should require a higher level of wastewater treatment than is normally required of industries and municipalities if their wastewater discharges could affect public drinking water supplies, 95
percent of the local officials we interviewed agreed (63 percent %tronglyN and 32 percent %omewhat") with that policy. When asked whether the state should regulate land use and development practices near drinking water sources so that threats to public health from non-point sources of pollution are minimized, 76
percent agreed (36 percent %tronglyw and 40 percent % ~ m e w h a t ~ ~ ) with that policy as well. In sum, local officials are concerned about future drinking water supplies, and they think something should be done to protect drinking water sources. Although (or, maybe, because) they often have reservations about the political
feasibility of local action to do that, they tend to favor a strong state program to protect future drinking water sources from pollution.
A Suqqested State Proqram
The State of North Carolina does not have a formal program for identifying future drinking water sources, preserving
reservoir sites from preemption by other land uses, and
preventing the pollution of those potential reservoirs. A number of existing state laws,. policies, and programs can be used,
however, to achieve those objectives (see chapter 5). In
addition, water supply and environmental protection programs we identified in other states provide a number of models that may have application in North Carolina (see chapter 6).
We believe a state program for future drinking water
supplies should encompass four functions: water supply planning; reservoir site preservation; control of point sources of
pollution; and control of non-point sources of pollution. A
comprehensive state program encompassing those functions could be established as follows ( s e e chapter 7):
Formulate a state water supply naster plan and ccntinuous planning process to estimate demand for drinking water and identify, but not finally
select, alternative ways of meeting that demand (e.g., new surface and groundwater sources, interconnections, conservation).
watershed protection measures, and indicate other needed local water supply improvements, such as expansion of treatment plants, installation of new mains, and reconstruction of existing facilities. Establish and fund grants-in-aid to local
governments for the preparation of state-mandated water supply plans.
Classify (or reclassify) streams and lakes to indicate their intended future use as drinking water sources.
Issue a gubernatorial executive order that directs state agencies to avoid actions that could lead to the degradation of water quality in stream
designated as future sources of drinking water, or enact new water supply legislation that includes similar directives.
Preservation of Reservoir Sites
6. Enact legislation that enables local governments to
adopt ordinances officially designating future drinking water reservoir sites and that prohibits people from improving property located within those designated sites unless water systems or local
governments fail to purchase it within a specified period of tine.
7. Establish a revolving loan fund for advance
acquisition of drinking water reservoir sites by local governments.
Control of Point Scurces of Pollution
8. Prohibit new point source discharges of pollutants
in upland watersheds Zesignated as potential future drinking water supplies.
Monitor point source dischzrges and water quality in streams des potential future drinking water
of pollutants to ignated as
sources in order make adjustments in state and local water supply plans as potential sources beccne unsuitable for drinking water use.
Control of Non-Point Sources of Pollution
10. Target administration of state sedimentation
pollution control regulations to ensure that proper
The state and this research
erosion control measures are used in connection with new construction in designated future water supply watersheds.
Enact legislation that requires local governments to formulate and administer stormwater management programs in designated future water supply
watersheds.
Adopt stringent rules for the installation and operation of subsurface sewage disposal systems located in designated future water supply
watersheds and for the disposal of animal wastes in those watersheds.'
Enact legislation that requires local governments to formulate and administer comprehensive watershed protection programs in designated future water
supply watersheds.
Promote the adoption of best management practices to minimize agricultural erosion in designated future water supply watersheds by funding and extending existing state cost-sharing programs to those watersheds and by targeting federal, state, and local technical assistance programs to them as well.
Increase technical assistance to local governments to help then prepare and administer watershed
protection programs for designated future drinking water sources.
local officials we consulted during the course of rated each of the program components listed above as potentially effective in helping to protect future drinking weter sources. In addition, a majority of those officials
favored state adoption of each component.
1 INTRODUCTION
An ample supply of high-quality drinking water is a critical ingredient in North Carolina's future economic growth. The
demand for drinking water has been increasing steadily; in fact, consumption is expected to double between 1970 and 2000.
Drinking water supplies needed to meet that demand, however, can no longer be taken for granted (Moreau 1985). We believe
concerted action by state and local government is necessary to prevent shortfalls and to minimize public health risks from various contaminants that can pollute drinking watei- supplies. This report provides guidance for dealing with one part of that problem: preservation of future sites for drinkingPwater
reservoirs and maintenance of water quality in the watersheds associated with those sites.
1.1 Dimensions of the Problem
The emerging drinking water problem in North Carolina has a number of dimensions. Two of those dimensions--economic and public health--are particularly important now. The economics of developing future drinking water supplies are straightforward: drinking water supplies will be more expensive to develop than they have been in the past. Many of the most efficient reservoir sites in the state already have been developed. Remaining sites will cost more to acquire, impoundments will cost more to
construct, and water will cost more to transport from
impoundments to treatment plants and ultimate users (Moreau 1985). That set of problems is compounded by institutional rigidities, which prevent the development of efficient regional water systems (Edgmon 1981), and by the elimination of federal
funding sources, which has increased the financial burden on state and local government (Snyder, Fhittington, and Hillstrom 1984). Escalating costs of new water supply sources suggest that it is prudent to begin preserving the least expensive remaining potential reservoir sites so that they will be available for future use.
The second key dimension of the water supply prcblem is public health. At least two million people in North Carolina - - regularly consume drinking water from sources that may be contaminated with synthetic organic chemicals and other
Unfortunately, adequate, reliable, and economically feasible technology for routine monitoring and removal of the vast array of chemicals that could potentially be present in water is not yet available.... Although activated carbon and other treatment technologies can effectively remove many organic chemicals, others are less efficiently removed. (1985)
Until more is known about the risks associated with drinking water contaminated by synthetic organic chemicals and other
pollutants, the most prudent course of action will be to minimize potential sources of pollution to drinking water sources.
1.2 Reservoir Site Preservation and Watershed Protection
The protection of drinking water reservoir sites has two main components: preventing urban development of impoundment sites and preventing degradation of watersheds associated with those sites by pollution-producing urban and rural land uses end by development that reduces the infiltration of stormwater and, consequently, the yields of the watersheds.
1.21 Threats to Reservoir Sites
The threat to potential water supply impoundment sites may be serious. According to the North Carolina Water Resources Framework study,
Widespread spot development near metropolitan +reas sometimes occurs at critical reservoir sites. This results in very high reservoir cost or makes it necessary for the reservoir to be located at much
greater distance from the urban area. In any case, the costs are much higher than if the site would have
remained undeveloped. A s competition for the use of water, urbanization, and highway development increases, more needed reservoir sites will be lost. Without
swift action to preserve key reservoir sites the future cost of water will increase dramatically and
unnecessarily. (N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 1977, 3-C-24)
Although actual cases of preemption have not been documented in North Carolina, Olson (1964) cites numerous cases in other
otherwise preserve them from development to assure their availability in the future.
1.22 Point Source Threats to Water Oualitv
Water quality may be degraded by point and non-point sources of pollution. In 1985 there were more than 2,700 point source discharges into the surface waters of North Carolina. Of the 158 primary drinking water systems in North Carolina that draw raw water directly from surface sources, 100 use sources that are downstream from point source discharges (figures provided by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management). More than two-thirds of those water systems take water from major rivers or large
multipurpose reservoirs. Point source discharges of pollutants are less of a threat to water quality in streams and lakes that drain smaller watersheds. Nevertheless, of 79 smaller watersheds that are used to supply drinking water in North Carolina, 33
(42 percent) have point source discharges of pollutants located upstream from a drinking water intake. Whether point sources of pollutants threaten potential future drinking water sources to the same degree as they effect existing sources is not known.
1.23 Non-Point Source Threats to Water Quality
Pollutants from non-point dispersed sources, both rural and urban, also may pose a threat t o drinking water and public health
in North Carolina. Rural non-point sources of pollution include runoff from cropland and areas used for intensive animal
operations, runoff from logging sites and mining operations, and accidental spills of hazardous materials. Urban non-point
sources of pollution include stormwater r ~ n o f f , drainage from septic tanks, runoff from landfills, and accidental spills of hazardous materials.
More than 80 million tons of soil are eroded annually in North Carolina. Two-thirds of that sediment originates from cropland (Commission on the Future of North Carolina 1984). Runoff from logging operations and surface mining also carries significant sediment loads, but those land uses are not as
widespread as cropland, so their threat to water quality is less serious. Water systems in the state have complained of turbidity and the loss of reservoir storage from excessive sediment eroding from those watersheds (Miller, Kaiser, Burby and Brower 1980)
.
Okun (1964) has shown that typical small reservoirs in North Carolina can lose half of their storage capacity in fifty years as a result of soil erosion.estimate that 26 million pounds of toxic chemicals (active
ingredients) are used in agriculture each year in North Carolina. Although state monitoring programs have not yet detected
excessive concentrations of those chemicals in drinking water sources, the ubiquity of toxic chemical use in agriculture suggests to us that the future threat to water quality from pesticides cannot be dismissed easily. Hazardous materials spills also are a significant threat. Such spills are not limited to urban areas; in fact, of 709 spills reported to the N.C. Divisionsof Environmental Management between April 1982 and March 1984, 59 percent occurred outside cities in rural areas
(Andrews, Burby, and Turner 1985). The pollution of
Kernersvillefs water supply by 30,000 gallons of hazardous
chemicals stemming from vandalism at a chemical storage site in June 1977 indicates that the threat from hazardous materials spills is real.
Urban storm water is a significant pollution source. It carries sediment from construction sites and bears a variety of toxicants that have been deposited on streets, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces. Studies in North Carolina have found heavy metals concentrations that exceed existing water quality standards, excessive fecal coliform counts, high BOD
concentrations, and high nutrient levels in urban s t o m water
(N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
1979). Actual degradation of drinking water supplies in North
Carolina from urban storm water, however, has been rare. The
City of Concord abandoned its primary water supply, Lake Concord, partly because of water quality problems that became worse as the Kannapolis urban area engulfed the watershed (Miller, Kaiser, Burby, and Brower 1980). The city of High Point (1982) has been concerned about the potential pollution of its secondary water supply source, Oak Hollow Lake, from stormwater runoff from the lake's increasingly urbmized watershed.
1.24 Watershed Protection Measures
Two types of measures may be used to minimize the
degrac'ation of water quality in existing and potential water supply watersheds: locational measures and site development and operation measures (Burby, Kaiser, Miller, and Moreau 1983). Locational measures try to reduce the adverse effects of pollution by helping to determine where pollution-generating activities take place. New point source discharges and
establishments that generate, handle, or store toxic materials, for example, may be prohibited in water supply watersheds.
Trucks carrying toxic materials may be directed to routes that bypass water supply watersheds in order to eliminate the threat of accidental spills. All types of urban and agricultural
minimize population density may reduce stormwater runoff and the load of pollutants carried in runoff.
Locational measures can be used to prevent new activities involving toxic materials from locating near drinking water intakes, but it may not be feasible to keep them out of the watershed entirely. Site development and operation measures try to reduce the adverse effects of pollution by helping determine how, rather than where, activities are conducted. Such measures can supplement locational approaches where industrial or other development involving the use of toxic materials already exists in water supply watersheds (such as in the case of the large multipurpose reservoirs in North Carolina) and where it is not
feasible to exclude those uses from such watersheds. Other activities, such as agricultural and forestry operations and rural residences, cannot be prohibited from taking place in a water supply watershed, regardless of its size, except through public acquisition of property at a scale that is no longer economically feasible. In those cases, site development and
operation measures are the only means available to preserve water quality.
Compared with locational approaches, site developnent and operation measures are less likely to intrude on private market decisions regarding activities in water supply watersheds.
Instead, these approaches assume that various land uses may be acceptable if their potential adverse effects are kept within prescribed bounds. Site development and operation measures include various agricultural best management practices,
requirements for environmental impact statements, special use permit provisions of local land development codes, and the inclusion of environmental and public health standards in
building, zoning, subdivision, sediment, stormwater, and other state and local land use regulations.
1.3 Why S h o u l d the State Be C o n c e r n e d ?
The provision of drinking water has long been recognized as a local government responsibility in North Carolina, as it is in most other states. Why, then, should the State of North Carolina be concerned about the loss of sites for future drinking water reservoirs and the pollution of streams that would feed them? There are two overriding reasons. First, the provision of high- quality water is a key ingredient in the continued economic well-
being and health of the citizens of the state. Second, acting
1.33 Limitations of Local Governmental Action
Local governments, acting by themselves, have only a limited ability
use and of pollu provide expertis coordina
to develop to protect tion. Cons
future supp e, lack of tion, and 1
new supplies of safe drinking water for futu those potential supplies from various source traints on local governments' ability to lies of safe drinking water include lack of resources, lack of intergovernmental
ack of appropriate institutions. Each of those problems is described briefly here.
Because of the new public health concerns that have emerged in the past decade, the location and development of new sources of drinking water is far more complex technically than it was in the past. As one research team noted, 'L. risk analysis of drinking water contamination is a risky business, one requiring substantial expertise to arrive at risk estimates that have any credibilityu (~olomon et al. 1982). Local officials need
scientific and economic analyses to make fully informed choices among alternative drinking water sources that vary in purity and in the costs of developing and protecting them from
contamination. Few local governments, however, employ people who are capable of performing such analyses. Protection of drinking water sources is itself a complex business. Each watershed is unique and requires unique technical analyses before an optimal water quality plan can be devised for it. Some local governments have the urban planning, hydrological, civil engineering, soil science, and other experts required for the job, but many lack one or more of those needed skills.
Because North Carolina water systems usually do not
include long-run capital costs in setting rates for water service (Moreau and Whittington 1984), few water systems have adequate resources with which to plan for future sources of drinking water
(and, in fact, often have barely sufficient resources to monitor existing water supplies for compliance with state and federal standards). Water supply development is becoming increasingly more expensive for local governments as a result of cutbacks in federal assistance and continuing high interest rates (Morgan
Furthermore, it is becoming apparent that water systems will need to pay far greater attention to protection of drinking water sources in the future than they have in the past. Public finance theory calls for sharing costs in proportion to the
benefits received (the benefits principle). Since rural
landowners where future drinking water sources are located usually do not share in the benefits of an adequate and safe urban water supply, they should not be expected to shoulder much of the cost of source protection. Instead, water system
and compensating developing their pol lut ion-prcduc
landowners property in ing) uses in
for g high the
iving up er-intens future.
the poten ity (and h
tial igher
for
Because authority is fragmented at the local level, it is difficult for local governments to undertake the coordinated action required to develop and protect new sources of drinking
water. Economies of scale make joint development of water
supplies desirable, and that has been recommended for some time (e.g., see Okun 1964). Few examples of joint development can be found today, however, even though opportunities for local
governments to independently develop large surface sources of
supply have decreased sharply (Moreau 1984). Thus, the
Commission on the Future of North Carolina (1984, 164) observed, communities must take timely action to meet future needs, but local governments, given their limited geographical jurisdictions, cannot effectively plan water use for the appropriate regions where all
relevant water supply and demand factors can be taken into account.
Since the benefits and costs of source protection, as noted above, are not distributed evenly, the dependence of public health on pollution-free sources of drinking water adds to the need for, but difficulties of achieving, coordination among local governments.
Finally,.because of various political factors, local
governmental institutions have difficulty resolving the unique problems associated with drinking water source protection.
Because water is underpriced, for example, raising the price to realistic levels (that is, its replacement cost) is fraught with political difficulties. But those difficulties pale by
comparison to the political problems associated with increasing water rates to pay the substantial costs of preventing the
pollution of drinking water sources from contaminants that pose
poorly understood long-term risks. Time horizons tend to be
short for local governments, and they are likely to see little political payoff from involvement in activities that have short-
term costs and long-term, hard-to-quantify benefits. Those
difficulties have been summarized as follows by Solomon ( 1 9 8 2 ,
31) :
Chronic risks of low magnitude do not stimulate
immediate demands for service delivery and protection; risks common to many localities and concentrated in none are rarely viewed as principally local problems; hazards eluding easy detection usually elude the
Because the political returns locally from steps to assure an adequate and safe drinking water supply are limited, local governments may raise few objections to the State of North
Carolina playing a larger role in the provision of drinking water supplies than it has in the past.
1.4 overview of the Report
The research summarized in this report was designed to
accomplish three objectives: (1) assess the threat to future surface supplies of drinking water stemming from preemption of reservoir sites and degradation of water quality; (2) describe options available to local gover~ments to protect future sources of drinking water and determine whether local governnents in North Carolina actually are exercising those options; and (3)
identify state policy options for achieving the same ends of
drinking water source protection. The study results are reported in five chapters. A concluding chapter summarizes our policy suggestions.
Chapter 2 describes the potential for reservoir site
preemption and water quality degradation based on the results of case studies of eight proposed water supply reservoir sites and watersheds. Each case study measured existing land uses in the water supply watersheds, traced changes in developnent over the past decade, and estimated future development pressures. Chapter 3 provides brief descriptions of measures local governments can adopt to minimize the threat of reservoir site preemption by incompatible land uses and to protect water quality. Chapter 4 indicates the extent to which local governments actually are using those measures. Chapter 5 describes existing state
programs that could be used to preserve future reservoir sites and protect water quality. The effectiveness and acceptability of each state policy cption are assessed, based cn the results of interviews with state and local officials. Chapter 6 presents new policy options that the state could consider. Finally,
2 THE THREAT TO FUTURE WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR SITES IN NORTH CAROLINA
There is consensus that the number of sites suitable for -
water supply impoundments in North Carolina is limited and that those sites may be threatened by urbanization. Prior to the
research reported in this chapter, however, the magnitude of that threat was unknown. Does it characterize a few, most, or nearly all of the sites likely to be developed for raw water storage during the next twenty years? What is the source of the threat? Rural residential development? Industrial and commerical
development? Agricultural practices? How imminent is the
threat? Immediate? Probable in a decade or so? Likely at some future time? Those questions are answered here.
The answers are important b e c a s e they provide a factual se upon which state and local policies for reservoir site eservation and watershed protection can be built. We need to ow, for example, whether the degradation of reservoir sites and tersheds is a widespread or isolated problem before we can
assess the need for state intervention. iJe need to know the source of the threat before we can adequately assess alternative land use regulations and other methods of mitigating the problem. We need to know the immediacy of the threat and its size before we can evaluate whether something more than persuasion or local land use regulation (e.g., advance land acquisition) will be needed to preserve reservoir sites.
2.1 Reservoir Sites and Watersheds Studied
Our evaluation is based on land use data gathered from on- site surveys, conducted during June and July 1984, of a sample of eight potential drinking water watersheds in North Carolina and on information provided by the N.C. Division of ~nvironmental Management about point-source discharges of pollutants in those watersheds. The reservoir sites and watersheds studied include most of the potential surface sources of drinking water in North Carolina that have been actively considered by water systems in recent years and that involve constructicn of new impoundments. In addition, we included the French Broad River watershed
upstream from Asheville to provide comparative data from a
potential future drinking water source involving a water intake on a major river rather than an impoundnent. The watersheds
studied are shown in Figure 1. They were selected for study in
FIGURE 1
LOCATION
OF
CASE STUDY
WATER SYSTEMS
Because North ~arolina has not yet undertaken statewide water supply planning, comprehensive lists of sites suitable for drinking water reservoirs do not exist. The N.C. ~ivision of Water Resources, however, was able to identify twenty-two water systems that are nearing the capacities of their current sources of supply and may be developing new surface drinking water
supplies during the next twenty years. Interviews with water system managers revealed that fourteen of the water systems either were not proceeding to identify alternative sources of supply or had identified a source that did not require the water system to construct a new reservoir (see Bullock, Robertson, and Burby 1984). Seven water systems had identified surface sources of supply that would require them to construct new drinking water
impoundments;and those impoundment sites and their associated
watersheds were selected for study. One water system had
rejected construction of a new impoundment, but was moving ahead to develop a drinking water intake on a major river; the
watershed associated with that intake was selected for comparative purposes.
2.2 Status of Watershed Development -
In order to meesure existing development patterns and recent land use trends, we conducted a land use survey for each
watershed (for the French Broed watershed, we used secondary information because of the extraordinary size--more than 450,000 acres--of that watershed). Present land uses were recorded on
U S G S 7.5-minute quadrangle maps and compared with land use
information for the base year of each map. That provided a basis for calculating changes in the number of structures built over ten- to fifteen-year intervals. We obtained information on agricultural land uses from county ASCS offices and local soil conservation districts. The N.C. Division cf Environnental Managment provided information on point source discharges. Finally, we interviewed city and county nanagers, local and
regional planners, and the staffs of soil conservation districts to determine the future potential for urban and agricultural
development of each watershed. The data collected are summarized below for each water system studied. More detailed information on each case is provided in an earlier report from this research
(see Bullock, Robertson, and Burby 1984).
2.21 Alexander County Water corporation
The Alexander County Water Corporaticn is a non-profit water system serving 13,200 people. Its current source of supply on the South Yadkin River has produced problems with the water intake and distribution system as a result of high turbidity
during storms. A coordinated effort to develop a new source of
Administration, the county soil conservation district, and the water system began working together to identify and analyze alternative drinking water sources and funding mechanisms.
Further research led to the identification of a small reservoir site where two tributaries meet south of the South Yadkin River; but development of that site has stalled because of various
political and financial factors.
In 1984 the watershed draining to that site contained 72 dwelling units, four industrial establishments and three
commercial establishments. No point source discharges were
located in the watershed. Development density was one structure per 12 acres. Although density was low, the number of structures in the watershed had increased by 71 percent- since 1970.
Furthermore, a state highway and rail line ran along the ridge line of the watershed. The land adjacent to those transportation routes was expected to be converted to industrial uses in the future, and the local chamber of commerce was lobbying actively to expand the state highway to four lanes. Little agricultural activity was taking place in the watershed; undeveloped land was predcminantly (two-thirds) woodland, and the remaining third was used for grazing.
2.22 Asheville-Buncombe County Water Authority
The Asheville-Buncombe County Water Authority serves 35,000
customer accounts in Asheville and unincorporated portions of Buncombe County; it also sells treated water to the Town of Biltmore Forest and to the Woodfin Water and Sewer Sanitary District. Raw water is drawn from Burnett Lake and on an emergency basis from Bee Tree Reservoir. The Burnett Lake
watershed, encompassing 20,000 acres of protected forests, is the fourth largest municipally owned watershed in the United States. After a study conducted in 1978 projected a 39 percent increase
in demand by the year 2000, Asheville began to consider new sources of supply. One possible source, the Pink Beds of the Mills River, was rejected on the basis of economic and
environmental considerations. Instead, a raw water intake was proposed to be located where Interstate 26 crosses the French Broad ~ i v e r . It is expected to be placed in service before 1990.
The French Broad River watershed above the prcposed intake encompasses 457,120 acres in Transylvania, Henderson, and
Buncombe counties. In 1975, the Land of Sky Regional Council estimated that the area was inhabited by 84,633 people.
Population growth was projected to be 2 percent per year. Six percent of the watershed was in urban use; the reaaining
94 percent was predominantly forest. Fifty-nine point source discharges exist upstream from the proposed raw water intake; but a ten-mile reach immediately upstream, which has only two point source discharges, has been reclassified by the N.C.
C to A-11), and stricter standards on some toxic substances will
be applied to'those waters. Three highway corridors cited as
potential growth areas are located in the watershed in Buncombe and Henderson counties; growth is expected east and west of Asheville along Interstate 40, and south along the I-26/U.S. 25 corridor. Asheville and Buncombe County are actively recruiting new industry for sites within two of those corridors.
2.23 Boone Water Svstem
The Town of Boonefs water system serves 12,000 people and includes an interconnection with the Appalachian State University water system for emergency service. It obtains raw water from Winklerfs Creek and the South Fork of the New River. Seasonal shortages have caused problems in the past, and rapid growth in the demand for drinking water is expected. The town has been evaluating a number of alternatives that might provide a new
source of supply, but the most likely choice will be expansion of an existing dam and reservoir on Winklerls Creek upstream from the current raw water intake. The drainage area above the
potential new dam and reservoir totals 1,225 acres. The Town of Boone owns 200 acres of the watershed, end the remainder is
located within the Pisgah National Forest. That property is undeveloped. Town and federal ownership ensure that it will be protected in the future from development that might threaten water quality.
2.24 Concord Water System
The Concord Water System provides drinking water to about 26,000 people. The population served is expected to increase to 30,900 by 1990 and to 35,300 by the year 2000. Lake Fisher, located on Coldwater Creek four miles northeast of Concord, provides the system's primary source of raw water. Emergency supplies may be obtained from Coddle Creek and also from the town's former primary source, Lake Concord, which was abanaoned because of deteriorating water quality. The loss of Lake
Concord, deteriorating water quality in Lake Fisher as its
watershed is converted to urban uses, and projected increzses in demand have led the Concord Water System to seek a new source of raw water.
An impoundment site on Coddle Creek between N.C. 73 and the Mooresville Highway was identified in 1968, and plans to develop that site are now well under way. The Coddle Creek ~eservoir watershed will encompass 47 square miles northeast of Concord between 1-85 and 1-77 in Rowan County (40 percent of the
100 percent in Cabarrus County, and 60 percent in Iredell County. The watershed is highly susceptible to further development, since it is located within twenty miles of Charlotte and near two major interstate highways. Twenty-two commercial establishments were located in the watershed in 1984, but no permits had been issued for point source discharges. Soils within the watershed are not well suited for on-site sewage disposal systems, but they are relatively good for agriculture. About half the undeveloped acreage of the watershed is farmed, and soil erosion has been severe enough to warrant a special study of the watershed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
2.25 Hillsboroush/~ranse County
Hillsboroughls water system serves 6,000 people and is interconnected with the Orange-Alamance Water System and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority. Raw water is drawn from Lake Ben Johnson and, in emergencies, from Lake Orange, both of which are located on the Eno River. Rapid growth is expected in Orange County
in
the vicinity of Hillsborough, and the county has beenexamining potential future sources of drinking water. An
engineering report prepared for the county in 1984 recommended Seven Mile Creek as the best future source of s u p p l y . Based on that study, the county reaffirmed a commitment made more than ten years earlier to develop an impoundment there to meet the
drinking water needs of the Hillsborouqh area.
The Seven Mile Creek watershed encompasses 8,300 acres wholly within Orange County. In 1984, 342 dwelling units were located within the watershed, a 50 percent increase since 1968.
The average dwelling unit density within the watershed was low, 24.3 acres per dwelling, but some distance from the proposed reservoir site a small area (12 percent of the watershed) around
the community of Efland had developed to urban densities, and the county planned to extend wzter and sewer lines there in the
future. Seventeen commercial establishaents, three industrial establishments, and two point source discharges were located in the Efland area of the watershed. A small portion (16 percent) of the Seven Mile Creek watershed was used for cropland and dairy farms. The remainder of the undeveloped acreage, about
68 percent of the watershed, was woodland.
2.26 Iredell Water Corporation
The Iredell Water Corporation is a small non-profit water system serving about 2,600 people in the northern portion of Iredell County. Although the water system currently relies on groundwater for its raw water, it expects to tap surface sources
detailed engineering studies heve been conducted, and the water system has not made any final decisions regarding future water supplies.
The North Little Hunting Creek watershed above the potential dam site encompasses 49.7 square miles of sloping farmland and woodlands located in three counties: Iredell County (4 percent of the watershed); Yadkin County (69 percent of the watershed); and ~ i l k e s County (27 percent of the watershed). We estimated the 1984 population of the watershed to be 2,800, an increase of
about 600 since 1970. The 1984 land use survey identified 937 dwelling units, 23 commercial establishments, four industrial establishments, and two intensive animal care facilities (a poultry operation and horse breeding ranch) in the watershed. A permit had been issued for one point source discharge. Although it was not threatened by urban development pressures, a large portion of the watershed was devoted to intensive agricultural uses and was subject to erosion.
2.27 Union Countv/Monroe Water Systems
The Union County Water System was established in 1975. It serves 10,000~people in unincorporated portions of the county and sells bulk water to the Waxhaw Water System and to the towns of Indian Trail and Stallings. Raw water is obtained from the City of-Monroe, but within ten years demand from the county is
expected to exceed the capacity of Monroe's raw water sources. To meet short-term water supply needs, the county expects to develop a new impoundment for Monroe on Big Richardson Creek, which it expects to complete by 1986.
The Big ~ichardson Creek watershed encompasses 19,200 acres located wholly within Union County (1,000 acres are also within Monroe). In 1984, the watershed contained 1,260 dwelling units and thirteen commercial and institutional establishments. No industrial establishments were located in the watershed. One permit for a point source pollution discharge in the watershed had been issued. At one dwelling per 15 acres, residential
density in the watershed was lcw, but at 3 percent per year, the rate of growth was fairly rapid. In addition, subdivision
2.28 Zebulon Water System
Zebulonfs municipal water system serves 2,500 people and is interconnected with the City of Raleigh and Town of Wendell
systems in Wake County. The Old Mill dam on the Little River provides the town's primary source of raw water. A water shortage in 1977 resulted from overuse for irrigation, and periodic water quality problems have occurred. Zebulon is now considering development of a water supply reservoir on the Little River at a site identified in the 1971 Wake County Water Supply Plan, but detailed engineering and financial feasibility studies have not yet been conducted.
The Little River watershed encompasses about 29,970 acres in Wake and Franklin counties. In 1984, the watershed contained
1,818 dwellings, a 112 percent increase since 1968, and 23 commercial and institutional establishments. There were no industrial establishments and no point source pollution
discharges in the watershed. Development was increasing at 5 percent per year, but the werage residential density in the watershed was still low (one dwelling per 16 acres). About 40 percent of the undeveloped land in the watershed was farmed
(primarily corn and tobacco); 60 percent was woodland.
2.3 The Threats to Reservoir Sites and Water Quality
The eight case studies summarized above provide data with which we can identify specific threats to potential drinking water reservoir sites and to assess their magnitude.
2.31 Preemption of Reservoir Sites
The preemption of dam and reservoir sites by incompatible land uses does not appear to be a serious or widespread problem. Subdivision development was beginning to encroach on Union
County's proposed Big Richardson Creek reservoir site, but in the other seven cases studied, site preemption was not an issue.
Nevertheless, as we will show in Chapter 4, water systems were taking steps to protect reservoir sites throuch acquistion of strategic parcels. At this time, ad hoc measures adopted in response to localized problem situations eppear to be the most appropriate response to the threat of reservoir site preemption.
2.32 Point Sources of Pollution
In four of the eight potential reservoir watersheds studied, no permits had been issued for point source discharges of
pollution. In two watersheds, one point socrce discharge existed in 1984, and in one watershed there were two point source
threat to drinking Asheville-Buncombe
water quality is Asheville where the
County Water Authority's proposed water intake cn the French Broad River is downstream from 59 point source
discharges, including the Hendersonville and Brevard wastewater treatment plants and various industrial discharges.
The data indicate that drinking water reservoir watersheds that are relatively free of point source discharges are still available in North Carolina. Mechanisms to ensure their
continued availability, however, are deficient. As noted
earlier, the State of North Carolina has not prepared a statewide water supply master plan and thus has not identified potential sites for drinking water reservoirs. Some localities have identified such sites, but their plans are not always formally adopted or publicly announced. Even when localities have
formally adopted water supply plans that identify future drinking water sources, the state is hesitant to reclassify streams for drinking water use if the timing of that projected use is
uncertain. Thus it is entirely possible for the state to issue permits for point source discharges of pollutants that will
degrade the quality of streams whose highest and best future use is for drinking water.
2.33 Non-~oint Sources of Pollution
At this time, water pollution from agricultural non-point sources appears to be a greater threat to water quality than does pollution originating from urban land uses (see Table 2.1).
Urban development was sparse in each of the eight watersheds studied. Boone's Winkler's Creek Watershed was completely protected by town and National Forest land holdings. The proportion of urban development in the other seven watersheds studied ranged from a low of 3 percent of the North Little
Hunting Creek Watershed (Iredell Water Corporation) to a high of 9 percent of the reservoir watershed under consideration by the
Alexander County Water Corporation. By contrast, sizable
proportions of five of the eight watersheds studied were in
active agricultural use (see Table 2.1). Those data suggest that if steps are taken to protect the water quality of potential water supply reservoirs in North Carolina, pollution-producing agricultural practices rather than urban development should be the focus of initial site-level measures. Locational measures are also needed, however, since urban development, while
currently low, is increasing at a rapid rate in most of the potential drinking water reserovir watersheds studied (Table 2.2).
2.4 Sumnary and Conclusions
WATERSHED
TABLE 2.1
LAND USES (estimated acres)
Water System Alexander County
Water Corporation
Asheville-Buncombe County Water Authority
Boone Water System Concord Water System Hillsborough/Orange
County Water System Iredell Water Corporation Union County/Monroe
Water System
Zebulon Water System
Watershed Acreage (percent)
Urban Asriculture Forest/Other
purchase water from other water systems or to draw water from emergency, and often lower-quality, sources of supply. Those shortages and projected population growth for the water systems' service areas led each of the eight water systems studied to begin developing another source of supply. We measured land use patterns and land development trends that were affecting each water system's potential future source of drinking water. Those measurements indicated that, for the most part, preemption of reservoir sites by incompatible land uses was not a serious
problem. Urban development was sparse in each of the watersheds we studied, but each watershed was growing at a rapid rate, and pollution from stormwater runoff should become more serious. In addition, agricultural activity was widespread in a majority of the watersheds. That indicates that pollution from soil erosion and possibly pesticides could also threaten water quality.
Although we found few point sources of pollutants, some of the watersheds had not been classified for drinking water use. As a result, point sources of pollution could be permitted in the future.
