Election season open thread

Suzanne--you asked a great question. Anyone who drove over University Lake today or looks at the water watch stats (54.7% of capacity) can tell that climate change is going to have a significant impact on any energy and water estimations over the next several years. I agree with Mark M that after 2030, the community may well have excess storage capacity. But as the OWASA chair told both town councils and the BOCC back in the spring, there is a 5-year window before 2030, in which capacity may not be adequate.

With this new drought--the most serious on record coming just 5 years after the last most serious on record drought--I think the planning assumptions and predictive models being used by OWASA need to be re-examined. At last weeks climate change conversation the meteorologist who spoke told us that predictions of ice cap melting by the year 2050 were exceeded last year. Predicting the weather is not a certain science, especially 5-10 years into the future.

The precautionary principle says that despite the lack of cause and effect evidence, we should still proactively engage in measures to protect the environment and social structures of the community. "According to the precautionary principle, precautionary action should be undertaken when there are credible threats of harm, despite residual scientific uncertainty about cause and effect relationships." I think this new drought is a credible threat.

Use of reclaimed water at Carolina North can be a very useful component of OWASA's involvement there, if this step is taken as comprehensively as possible. (I'll not get into the technology here, except to say that we are talking about using highly treated wastewater for non-potable purposes.) Comprehensive use of reclaimed water includes using it for public toilets, in addition to cooling and for irrigation, among other uses. It can even be used for washing laundry.

While not allowed in NC in residences, reclaimed water can be used in commercial buildings, such as the one the university wants to start on right away at Carolina North. One crux of the approach is to have an extra water supply system in the buildings, and so doing is really only feasible for new buildings. (Supplying reliable, safe, reclaimed water is a straightforward engineering exercise.) This dual-plumbing approach is second nature in many places, including California, and Japan. Taking this step at Carolina North would be a commendable one, demonstrating how it can be done, and serving as a show-case from which others can learn. Given the serious drought situation the state is in, it is difficult to see how comprehensive use of reclaimed water at Carolina North can be omitted.

Cam wrote above that "Requiring reclaimed water use is an element of the HWCC report and as such is adopted town policy."

It was my understanding that the council adopted the committee's report "for use as a guide in future discussions" with UNC and its development of the property. Did thay actually say the report was "policy?"

Fred,
Yes, the Horace Williams Citizens' Committee (HWCC) report was adopted as Town policy. During the Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC) meetings, Council Members Hill and Strom had to remind Committee members on several occasions that they could not endorse parts of the LAC report that were inconsistent with the HWCC report since doing so would put them in a position of going against official Town policy.

That is why in several places of the LAC report, such as the preservation in perpetuity of the remaining 75 percent (or so) of the land as green space, the LAC report describes the lack of consensus and presents the principles proposed by the the various parties to the LAC process.

Thanks for the info George.

Requiring reclaimed water use is an element of the HWCC report and as such is adopted town policy.

But the town would have never made reclaimed water a requirement if the OWASA board, with Penny as one of its officers, and staff had not pushed the concept into a concrete proposal and negotiated with the university to fund it.

I certainly would not be assuming that current plans for the Innovation Center include full and comprehensive use of reclaimed water. Such comprehensive use implies doing far more than laying pipe for using reclaimed water at some future date, or planning its use for irrigation purposes. It implies having dual plumbing in the non-residential buildings, at least for the bathrooms, as well as using reclaimed water for an evaporative cooling system.

Can anyone say for absolute certain that a commitment to such approaches is really the case in current planning for this building? Clearly, a building with dual plumbing is going to be somewhat more expensive than one without, but this approach is a fantastic opportunity for the university, making the Innovation Center innovative in a way that serves the state in a fundamental and important way. From a funding point of view, such full and comprehensive use of reclaimed water ought to be a strong selling point in seeking funds for this and other buildings for Carolina North. Fifty state counties are in serious trouble due to the drought, and the other fifty are in trouble.

That five-year window of possible supply shortfall that Terri mentioned is to be met by conservation measures. The OWASA Board passed a resolution to that effect a few years ago.

There is a residence in Raleigh built by Cherokee Investment Partners as a model green sub-division home that uses filtered rainwater to irrigate, flush, and for cold washing machine water.

www.MainstreamGreenHome.com

Re: "Yes, the Horace Williams Citizens' Committee (HWCC) report was adopted as Town policy." and water reclamation.

I've not checked it, but I doubt if the HWCC gets into such detail as having dual plumbing in non-residential buildings. It is likely to require a bit of politicking to work with the university to get them to take advantage of this great opportunity.

For those who might have missed it, the Daily Tar Heel is doing a series profiling each of the candidates in our local elections. They are profiling one Carrboro and one Chapel Hill candidate per day:

Sharon Cook
Will Raymond
Dan Coleman

More candidate profiles from the DTH

Sally Greene
Joal Hall Broun
Cam Hill

Terri, the devil will be in the details of course. Nothing really can be mandated that is not provided in ordinances (now there's an idea!); but hopefully common sense will prevail on issues such as water reclamation and reuse, lighting, transportation, etc; as well as providing sufficient housing of various types so that traffic mightn't really increase in the Carolina North build-out. I can't help but think that the University will do all that it can to make Carolina North a true academic showcase of a kind that will attract the best minds in the country and the world, while simultaneously serving the local community and the state in numerous ways.

On this thread on the 8th of October, Cam said that the Horace Williams Citizens' Committee report was Town policy. The next day I asked if that was really the case and George C indicated that it was.

As one who shares a property line with the Horace Williams tract, I have followed this closely and with great interest since Chancellor Hooker started talking about building something in the mid-1990s, I had nothing in my files that showed the report was policy. What I had was this from a March 22, 2004 Resolution:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts the report, "Principles, Goals and Strategies for the Horace Williams Property," for use as a guide in future discussions with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Mayor to transmit the report to the Chancellor and to each member of the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Accepts the report” and “the report is policy” means different things to me, so I dug further. I asked Mayor Foy about it and he said:

I haven't looked for another resolution, but if there is not one that goes beyond what this one says, then I think we assumed that the language was sufficient to make the HWCC report the town's policy. I know that I have always considered it to be our policy, since the time we accepted it and went through it basically line by line. I'll see if I find something other than this resolution, though, that clarifies that.

I also asked Mayor Pro Tem Strom the same question and he stated:

I believe we "adopted" the report. Not just received the report. I also know that the marching orders the town delegates to the LAC got from the council was that we were to stick to the Horace Williams Citizen Committee report's recommendations, and not "negotiate" on the points. In effect - clarify the town's interests at every step based on the council's acceptance of the HWCC document.

A conversation with Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver resulted in her not finding any additional resolutions related to this aspect of the HWCC report. Therefore, if we are going to call the report “policy,” then I think a new resolution is needed to do so.