By Dave Forsythe

Gates County Commissioner

I believe it’s time to address one of the unintended consequences of closing Buckland School and how that decision could directly affect taxpayers and utility customers in Gates County. Specifically, I want to discuss the proposed Buckland sewer pump station and pipeline.

Gates County has been fortunate to receive grant funding for several water and wastewater infrastructure projects over the past few years. As a water and wastewater professional, I welcome state and federal grants and low-interest loans when they address a genuine need. However, every project deserves to be re-examined if the circumstances that justified it have changed.

Gates County is a wonderful place to live, but it is also a small, rural county with limited financial resources. Operating utility systems in communities like ours is significantly more expensive on a per-customer basis than in larger counties such as Wake, Mecklenburg, Forsyth, or Orange. A $2 million pipeline serving 500,000 households in Wake County amounts to roughly $4 per household. A much smaller $200,000 project spread across only 4,000 households equals about $50 per household. Grant funding can reduce construction costs, but it does not eliminate the long-term costs of operating and maintaining the system.

Many people may not realize that water and wastewater systems in North Carolina are generally operated as enterprise funds. That means the costs of operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing these systems are paid by the utility’s customers—not by the county’s general tax revenues. Electricity, labor, maintenance, and future repairs must all be recovered through utility rates.

This is where the Buckland project deserves another look.

The original need for the sewer project was driven by Buckland School. With more than 200 students and staff, the school’s on-site wastewater treatment system was reportedly operating beyond its intended capacity, creating legitimate environmental concerns. Connecting the school to a larger wastewater system made sense under those conditions.

Today, however, Buckland School is closed. The wastewater flow that justified the project no longer exists. Even if portions of the building are eventually reused as office space or for another public purpose, the number of occupants would likely be only a fraction of what the school once served. Under those circumstances, the existing treatment system—or perhaps even a conventional septic system—may be sufficient. If that is the case, the original justification for constructing a new pump station and pipeline should be carefully reconsidered.

Some argue that extending sewer service into the Buckland area could encourage future economic development. That is a reasonable goal, but only if the infrastructure actually supports planned growth. As I understand it, this proposed pipeline does not extend far enough to reach the areas identified for future commercial and industrial development along the U.S. 13 corridor in the Gates County Planning and Zoning Concept. If the infrastructure does not serve those targeted growth areas, it is fair to ask whether it represents the best use of limited public resources.

This concern reminds me of the county’s purchase of property several years ago for approximately $650,000. At the time, there was public discussion about potential commercial development, including the possibility of attracting a large retail business. Years later, the property remains undeveloped, generates no economic return, and no longer contributes property tax revenue because it is county-owned. That experience demonstrates why careful evaluation of public investments is so important.

To be clear, I am not questioning every wastewater project. The improvements planned for T.S. Cooper and to serve the Merchants Mill Pond area continue to address existing needs and appear to have a sound public purpose. My concern is specifically with the Buckland project, where the original conditions have changed substantially since the project was conceived.

Design work has already been completed, and grant funds have already been invested in planning. That should not prevent county leaders from asking a simple question: Does this project still solve the problem it was designed to address?

Government should be willing to reevaluate projects when circumstances change. Good stewardship of public resources requires more than following a process—it requires periodically asking whether the original assumptions remain valid. Continuing a project simply because it has already begun is rarely a good reason by itself.

The citizens and utility customers of Gates County will ultimately bear the long-term costs of operating and maintaining this infrastructure. Before moving forward, county leaders owe the public a clear explanation of why this project is still necessary. If that explanation cannot be made convincingly, then the responsible course of action is to reconsider the project before additional public funds are committed.

Dave Forsythe is a Gates County Commissioner.