Official Position Paper Regarding the Interbasin Transfer Request

Published on February 04, 2026

At the February 2 Sampson County Board of Commissioners' meeting, the Special Projects Manager Brandon Wiggins presented the County’s official position paper on the Town of Fuquay-Varina’s Interbasin Transfer (IBT) request, and the Board adopted the resolution opposing the proposed interbasin transfer by the Town of Fuquay-Varina.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: VETTED ALTERNATIVES & RISK ANALYSIS

Overview

The Board of Commissioners of Sampson County has completed a thorough evaluation of the Petitioner's proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) of 6.17 MGD from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Neuse River Basin. Per the mandate of N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L, the Board has vetted the following alternatives to ensure the "Reasonableness" of its final position.

Comparative Analysis of Vetted Alternatives

Key Findings of the Vetting Process

The "Mitigation Baseline" vs. "Externalized Debt"

• The Board rejects the Petitioner’s characterization of Alternative 2 (Return Flow) as "prohibitively expensive." Our vetting confirms that the $242M cost for return flow is not an "excessive burden," but rather the actual cost of doing business when crossing basin lines. The Petitioner’s "Preferred Alternative" achieves savings only by externalizing its infrastructure costs onto the downstream environment. In the framework of N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L, a cost is not "unreasonable" simply because it is high; it is a necessary investment to ensure Basin Neutrality. Avoiding this cost constitutes an "environmental subsidy" that Sampson County cannot be expected to fund. Furthermore, the Board asserts that any return flow solution must include binding, verifiable safeguards to ensure the promised volume is actually returned.

Environmental Justice (EJ) and the "Cost-Shifting" Model

• Vetting the social impact reveals a clear Equity Gap. By choosing the "Preferred Alternative," the Petitioner—a community with double the median income of Sampson County—is effectively asking a more diverse, lower-income rural neighbor to "finance" their 2030 water security. Under Title VI and DEQ Policy 1.7, the Board finds it inherently unreasonable for a wealthier municipality to avoid capital debt by depleting the natural capital (water) of a disadvantaged region. A "Basin Neutral" approach is the only path that respects the civil rights of the source basin by ensuring the resource is replenished.

Cumulative Risk at 7Q10 (The Regulatory Floor)

• The Board’s technical vetting reveals that the Petitioner’s 'Safe Yield' analysis is scientifically optimistic, as it appears to rely on average annual flow models rather than minimum 7Q10 drought flows. By obfuscating the difference between a 'median day' and a 'drought day,' the Petitioner’s model hides the fact that their 6.17 MGD withdrawal creates a disproportionate impact when the river is at its most vulnerable. During periods of drought, this 6.17 MGD withdrawal without return flow creates a compounding risk to:

Sampson County refuses to be the "State’s Easy Button" for regional growth. This Interbasin Transfer (IBT) creates a disparate impact by exporting a Public Trust resource from a highly diverse, rural community to an affluent municipality. With a median household income nearly double that of Sampson County, Fuquay-Varina’s proposal represents an extractive model that undermines NC DEQ Policy 1.7 and the spirit of Title VI.

While Sampson County is nearly evenly split demographically, its high concentration of minority residents compared to the recipient community creates a significant Equity Gap. Under Title VI, this proposal represents an environmental subsidy where a wealthier population externalizes its growth costs onto a more diverse, lower-income neighbor.

Under N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L, the Commission cannot find a transfer "reasonable" if it relies on a Disparate Impact to achieve fiscal viability.

The Petitioner’s claim that 6.17 MGD is "hydrologically invisible" is a scientific misnomer derived from a scientifically optimistic modeling approach. By basing their "Safe Yield" analysis on average annual flows rather than the 7Q10 minimum flow standards mandated by N.C.G.S. § 143-215.22L, the Petitioner has ignored the critical "regulatory floor" of the Cape Fear Basin.

Our internal vetting reveals that Sampson County’s livestock industry requires approximately 11.06 million gallons per day (MGD) to maintain animal health and sanitation standards during peak summer conditions. This biological requirement is non-negotiable; unlike a municipal system, an agricultural system cannot "fallow" its livestock inventory during a drought without catastrophic economic loss and animal welfare crises.

By approving a 6.17 MGD withdrawal with 100% consumptive loss, the State is effectively prioritizing 'lawns and swimming pools' in Fuquay-Varina over the biological survival of nearly 2 million head of livestock that fuel a $2.19 billion economy. During a 7Q10 event—where flow is already at its most precarious—this withdrawal represents a projected 56% extraction of the margin of safety required to sustain our agricultural sector. To approve a proposal based on "average day" optimism while ignoring "7Q10" reality is to sanction a man-made drought that is hydrologically, ethically, and economically untenable.

• Degradation of Assimilative Capacity: The Toxicity Concentration Risk

Beyond volume, the Petitioner ignores water quality. Under N.C.G.S. § 143-215.1, the state must manage water quality standards. Removing 6.17 MGD of high-quality water reduces the river's Assimilative Capacity—its ability to dilute treated wastewater and industrial byproducts.

• Conclusion: A Move for Basin Neutrality

The Town of Fuquay-Varina has not exhausted its viable options; it has simply rejected Alternative 2 (Return Flow) because it is more expensive for their ratepayers. However, the "Preferred Alternative" is significantly more costly for the source basin.

Consistent with the findings of our Executive Summary, the Sampson County Board of Commissioners finds the Petitioner’s evaluation insufficient under the Public Trust Doctrine. We formally move that the EMC deny the Preferred Alternative. Sampson County asserts that the Board cannot withdraw its opposition unless the Petitioner adopts a "Basin Neutral" approach (such as Alternative 2) that includes enforceable safeguards. This ensures that North Carolina values agricultural stability as much as residential growth and that any approved IBT is rooted in Basin Neutrality, not Basin Exploitation.

PROTECTING SAMPSON COUNTY’S WATER: THE FACTS

Understanding the Proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) & Our Stand for Fairness

THE ISSUE AT A GLANCE

The Town of Fuquay-Varina wants to pump 6.17 million gallons of water per day (MGD) out of our river basin (the Cape Fear) to support their rapid growth. However, under their "Preferred Plan," they do not intend to treat and return that water to our river. Instead, they plan to discharge it elsewhere, permanently removing it from our supply.

The Sampson County Board of Commissioners believes this is unfair. We are demanding "Basin Neutrality" (Return Flow). This means we oppose any plan that takes water without treating it and putting it back.

Separating the spin from the reality.

"7Q10" is a regulatory standard that calculates the lowest river flow expected during a severe drought (the lowest 7-day average flow that occurs once every 10 years).Plain English: It's the "Regulatory Floor." If we allow Fuquay-Varina to take water based on "average" numbers, we are ignoring the reality of drought years. We must protect the river's minimum safety levels, not just its average levels.