Back to Archive Index

Chatham County Water: Its Trials and Tribulations
With Recommendations
 

CONTENTS
(Click on Heading or scroll down)

The Problem: Chatham County has developed a love-hate relationship with public water operations. The latest chapter in this unhappy saga ended in the resignation of Will Baker as the County’s Utility Department Head. Inexplicably, Chatham County has had three Water Utility heads in the short space of three years. No one director lasted more than a year, shattering the hope of managerial consistency and, unfortunately, adding to an already tarnished reputation for Chatham’s misuse of professional managers. Yet the County is up to its earlobes in water problems and desperately needs all the things it seems to shun. Why is this happening? What is being done to move ahead? What more should be done?

Planning or Some Planning or No Planning: Some years ago Chatham County abdicated control of its main water source – Jordan Lake – by letting the City of Cary take over the major water outlet. The county became a dependent customer relying on Cary’s contractual whims. It further complicated the future with an under-designed, poorly constructed pumping station which Chatham is now forced, with expensive remodeling, to use as a patched-up treatment plant. With current growth in water customers, the County’s must once again pay through the nose to revise the intake system and rebuild the treatment plant. Current plans call for an upgrade of the water treatment plant capacity to 8 million gallons at an estimated cost of $9 million dollars! How is that for long range planning?

This deliberate disdain for foresight was more clearly displayed when the County’s constant consultant, Hobbs, UpChurch and Associates, was authorized in 1998 to develop a comprehensive water planning document. The County spent $ 80,000 on a detailed study of future needs and recommended capital investment – and then promptly discarded the draft. The only complete, original printing of the Report lies unknown – and unused - on the reference shelf in the Pittsboro Public Library!
(Return to Top)

Organization Without Professional Management: With the upsurge in housing development approvals, the water crunch has been exacerbated. The County, however, has not focused on strengthening its managerial, professional and technical operation in this area but has relied largely on the not-inexpensive expertise of its main consultant – Hobbs, UpChurch and Associates. While their work has been critical in keeping the water operation afloat, most water management experts agree that you “can’t run a growing water department through consultants.” Commissioner Barnes, for example, proposed that a position of County Engineer be created in the FY 2006 Budget in order to give the County a more professional cast over a whole range of complicated technical issues, including water. This proposal was treated with the same disdain that is current applied to professionalism in water management, a consistency in attitude that is both harmful and inexcusable.

The County also created a ten person Water Advisory Committee to give advice on utility problems - water, waste water and what is described as “raw water stream quality” which, if translations are in order, might mean “storm water. The By Laws also refer to the development of a “water and waste water utility plan”. However when action under this phrase was proposed not long ago to the Board of Commissions, the latter’s operating majority turned it down. The Committee has, in fact, focused exclusively on water problems.. However, the Committee is too large and cumbersome to carry out its objectives – confusing as they may be. And the current By Laws contribute to this difficulty by being vague, contradictory and often inexplicable!

The Committee’s main contribution comes from a very active Chairman who has a set view on how the water operation should be managed and has – unlike the previous full time water directors – a direct line to both the County administration and the Board of Commissioners. The Chairman is dedicated to improving Chatham’s water operations and has devoted most of his waking life in the last few years to this objective. He has a very detailed knowledge of the water system and has strong ideas on its operation. While he has made a commendable contribution toward this end, he has also become the titular head of the water department, a situation that poses a singular obstacle to the department’s improvement and expansion. The unusual turnover of three professionally qualified water directors in three years is related, in part, to this conflict between formal and informal operational control. While the County’s administration does not acknowledge this problem, it has recently admitted that its “personnel selection process” is obviously not working and should be revised. This, at least, represents some progress in facing the fact that a problem even exists.
(Return to Top)

Unplanned Needs, Rising Costs: In preparation for the FY2007 Budget, the proposals for the water department should come under careful scrutiny. Initial plans, recently presented to the Water Advisory Board, indicate an increase in water rates and assorted fees in order that rising operational costs can be balanced by the recommended increases. While these increases may well be justified, there is little or no assurance that the proposed increases will also contribute to better management, more professional focus and provision of sufficient staff to handle growing operational needs.

This is particularly true in relation to the operation of the water treatment plant, field inspection, repairs and up dated service needs. For example, the water utility’s calculated water-loss is significant. Though the efforts of current staff, particularly through Will Baker (ex-director) and Roy Lowden (acting director) , the loss has been reduced over prior years , much more needs to be done. The 2005 figures stands at 31%! Some of this is due to erratic water breaks and the unrecorded water use by the County’s fire control units. But the losses are large enough to require a thorough water loss identification study so that leaks, water-theft and other unauthorized usages can be identified and halted. At the same time more effort will need to be put on inspection of water lines as they are installed and before they are covered. This latter need can be effectively covered by direct charges to developers which are escrowed so that County contract inspectors can be paid, not out of the budget, but by the deposited escrow funds. At the same time, the Water Department works in cramped, deteriorating offices using an unadaptable residential cottage at 70 South Street, a situation that very much hampers its internal operations and needs to be corrected as soon as possible.

But unless a professional water director reporting directly, and exclusively, to the County Manager can be put in place, most of the proposed funding increase will not achieve its goals of service improvement.
(Return to Top)

Capital Budgeting For The Future: The proposed Capital Budget is another story. There are two parts. The first focuses on a summary analysis of the County’s water supply needs projected over twenty years, presented to the Board of Commissioners by Hobbs, Upchurch Associates on January 4, 2006. Proposed new water sources are Harnett County and/or Sanford. Both of these options would require capital investments of from 22 to 29 million dollars and would eventually result in production of 3 million gallons per day. In one scenario this would parallel the improvement of the Jordan Lake Treatment Plant while in a second scenario the Jordan Lake Treatment Plant improvement would be put on hold. This is a significant step toward long range planning and should be carefully considered by the Board and County citizens. From the public’s viewpoint, however, the justification of this proposal must be made clear and presented in a complete, detailed package so that county citizen’s can fully understand both the need and the importance of this proposal.

An additional undated document covers ten water capital improvements to be included in the FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program which are either underway or are to be added. Eight of the projects have already been approved while two more are under consideration. The overall total is $54 million, of which $20 million has already been approved. This program will require increases in various supporting fees, including the water availability fee which is projected to rise from $ 1,750 to $2,500 as the major support for capital debt reduction.

While water’s capital budget shows significant elements of long range planning for a heretofore neglected water operation, one very basic and important element needs to be considered, namely, what are the needs to be met by this program? What is the detailed estimate of residential, commercial and industrial growth that justifies these substantial capital outlays? The only growth figures presented in justification are three lines on an undated paper that estimates increases of .81 million gallons per day (mgd) in 2007, 4.5 mgd increase by 2012, based on an increase of 5000 residences and 7.22 mgd increase by 2017 based on an increase of 10,000 residences. While this may be a good beginning, these statements by themselves cannot be accepted as justification for the proposed capital expenditures. A much more detailed and carefully analyzed estimate must be completed in order to justify the proposed capital program. For example, the Hobbs, Upchurch 1998 has a very detailed, year by year estimate that could be updated in cooperation with the Planning Board so that the estimates have a better base than the existing “one line” estimates.
(Return to Top)

Waste Water & Storm Water – Shadows of the Future: It should also be stressed that increased levels of water production and usage will have a profound and direct affect on waste water production, treatment and disposal involving serious policy considerations that will affect our future. Moreover, substantial increases in residential growth raise a parallel, and equally serious concerns regarding the management of storm water and non-point source runoff. For example, the City of Cary, along with Wake County are already planning a very a significant waste water treatment facility southeast of Chatham County. They intend to run a sewer mainline through Chatham County to their proposed site. The County should be actively participating in this development and should require that the approved project contain a built-in operating tie-in to serve Chatham County’s future waste water treatment needs. Too long have the Chatham County Board of Commissioners allowed Wake County communities to determine Chatham’s future. Yet the inevitability of many of these issues has been carefully avoided by the Chatham’s Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Board and the Water Advisory Committee.
(Return to Top)

Recommendations:

1. Recruitment and Appointment of a professional Utility Director: This is imperative and should be undertaken under a new process. Since the current County administration admits that its recruitment process has failed as evidenced in losing three directors leave in three years, the County should appoint a five person technical committee to oversee preparation of the recruitment notice, the screening of applications, their interviews and the final recommendation made to the County Manager for appointment. The five person committee would consist of one member from the County Administration, one member from an operating water utility, e.g. OWASA, one person from a nearby city with managerial experience, e.g. Chapel Hill, one person representing the DENR Division of Water Quality and two representatives from Chatham County who have direct experience in personnel administration but who are not involved in current County administration.

As a first step in the recruitment the Recruitment Committee shall draw up an agreement of operational and managerial responsibility of the Utility Director so that the Committee will be clear on the responsibilities and authority of the Utility Director in terms of recruitment. This document shall also contain a clearly defined organization chart for the Utility Department. When the Committee has made its recommendation and the County Manager has made the appointment, both the appointee, the County Manager and the Chairman of the Recruitment Committee will sign the agreement to assure that both the new utility director and the County Manager will have a guidance document spelling out the cooperative duties and responsibilities of all concerned.
(Return to Top)

2. Revision of the ByLaws of the Water Advisory Committee: The current Committee should be replaced by a seven person Utility Advisory Board, appointed by the Board of Commissioners and, in organizational relationships, modeled after the current Planning Board. The Utility Advisory Board would work directly with the Utilities Director who in turn will be directly responsible for submitting their recommendations to the County Manager and the Board of Commissioners; it would be concerned with water, waste water and storm water problems of the County and would also establish cooperating liaison with water operations in Chatham County’s three cities: Pittsboro, Siler City and Goldston . The new Board will have seven members, two of whom will be women, Four of the members will represent the County’s current water districts, two will be chosen for their specific background in environmental sciences relating to water, waste water and point and non-point source pollution. Another member would represent rural residents who rely on well water. Members would have three year terms and at the beginning of the calendar year one member will be chosen to serve as Chair. No Chair will serve more than two years until all other members have served as Chair.
(Return to Top)

3. Appointment of a County Engineer; The proposed FY 2007 should include a county engineer with staff to serve as the Chief technical officer of the County, serving as a technical resource for public works, roads, water, sewer, etc. This was proposed by Commissioner Barnes for the FY 2006 Budget and was accompanied by a detailed justification and schedule of duties and responsibilities which can be adapted to FY2007 needs. As the County Engineer and his staff build up their expertise and understanding of the County’s physical problems, there will be an offsetting reduction in the use of outside consultants.
(Return to Top)

4. Reorganization of the Utility/Water Department: The department is understaffed and needs a program for the inclusion of critical staff hirings over the coming year; it also needs better working conditions and a better communications system both within the city and especially in emergencies. The department should also be staffed to handle waste water, storm water and erosion elements which are interrelated. And the department needs to have a water loss study by a qualified consultant to determine the details of the loss and to propose remedial actions.
(Return to Top)

5. Review, Edit, Compile and Publish Chatham County Water Policy Statements and Regulations: These statements and regulations have been reviewed in piecemeal fashion over the last few years by the Water Advisory Committee. A lot of time and effort has been put into this. However, the written work is uneven, scattered and inconsistent within the text, making it difficult to find applicable technical details together with fees and fines, Many statements should be eliminated or re-written while others are so confused as to be illegal. Yet this is a very necessary document which when done properly will give citizens, technicians, developers and service entities a consistent document from which to operate. A small, select committee should be working on this supplemented by a rulemaking consultant with legal and water experience in order to bring this together into one document that can then be adopted by the Board of Commissioners via an ordinance and amended as necessary.
(Return to Top)

6. Need Careful Analysis of Water Usage Growth Over Next 5-10-20 Years: The County is about to embark on a substantial capital program covering both expanded lines, water production and alternate water sources. However, there has been very little detailed analysis of water needs based on variable growth scenarios. A more thorough examination of growth needs to be done since most of the expectation is of unlimited, uncontrolled growth and there are, as everyone knows, variations of this open growth pattern that need to be considered.
(Return to Top)

7. Unify Capital Program and Encourage Public Input Before Adoption. There needs to be more public discussion of the capital program under consideration as well as a consolidation of the program itself. For example, the two documents discussed above are also related to a county wide water line sizing map plan that was adopted by the Board of Commissioners. Yet the map is unaccompanied by policy statements and public-private costing of certain of the improvement features. Moreover, it is not directly related to the capital program under consideration. These should all be integrated and brought under one uniform, justifiable and acceptable capital program.
 

William Sommers,
March 18, 2006

bsommersATearthlink.net 919-545-2397

(Return to Top)