Brunswick County reviews stormwater, floodplain and reclaimed-water changes; staff warns state law limits some options

Brunswick County officials on July 21 opened a multi-pronged review of stormwater, floodplain and reclaimed-water policy, with staff proposing ordinance amendments, a feasibility study for a countywide stormwater utility and a two-phase reclaimed-water ordinance/master plan process.

Neil Brooks, Brunswick County deputy manager, told the Board of Commissioners the county’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance dates to 1986 and is tied to federal programs that allow residents to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. “Having that Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance allows our citizens to participate in the national flood insurance program,” Brooks said during the presentation.

Brooks and county engineers outlined three near-term tracks: draft amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, draft amendments to the county Stormwater Ordinance and a feasibility study for a countywide stormwater utility. Staff said possible ordinance changes would include larger riparian buffers, moving stormwater ponds out of buffers, and designing stormwater systems to a higher “design storm” (staff described moving some standards toward a 100‑year, 24‑hour storm instead of the current 1/10/25‑year criteria used for some designs).

Bridget Flora, county stormwater staff, described the current riparian-buffer requirement and suggested possible changes: “Developments currently permitted to the state already require 50 foot vegetative setback,” she said, and staff could consider increasing the county’s 30‑foot buffer to 50 feet or splitting buffers into an undisturbed zone plus a managed zone. Flora also said staff has encouraged many developers through the planned‑development process to size stormwater features to the 100‑year event even when not required.

Legal and practical limits were a recurring theme. Brooks and legal staff warned that Senate Bill 382 (referred to in discussion as “3 82”) may bar down‑zoning-type changes that would create nonconformities for thousands of existing structures. Brooks said staff had been advised to “tread lightly” and that amending the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance could risk creating widespread nonconformities unless the state law is changed.

Staff presented countywide counts to show the potential scale of changes: roughly 28,457 structures are in mapped flood zones countywide, and about 25,000 structures larger than 600 square feet fall within flood zones based on 2020 tax data. Brooks noted those figures likely undercount current totals because tax records lag development.

Because many flooding problems occur in older, pre‑existing neighborhoods rather than in newly engineered subdivisions, Brooks told commissioners that ordinance changes alone might not alleviate historic drainage problems. That point pushed discussion toward a more expensive option — a stormwater utility — which would provide dedicated funding to design and build system‑level projects in older neighborhoods. “It is going to be extremely expensive to fund a stormwater utility,” Brooks said, but he recommended a feasibility study so the county could quantify costs and possible fee structures.

On reclaimed water, Utilities Director Lakhami presented a separate but related proposal: hire a consultant to rewrite the county’s reclaimed‑water ordinance and produce a reclaimed‑water master plan. The contract recommended to the board was a two‑phase $695,000 agreement with Arcadis of North Carolina: roughly $395,000 for ordinance and study work and an additional $300,000 for a full master plan. Lakhami said the project aims to reduce potable‑water demand used for lawn irrigation and to identify less land‑intensive disposal options for treated effluent.

Several commissioners and members of the public questioned the cost, timeline and whether the county or developers would pay infrastructure costs. Commissioner Williams asked whether the county attorney and staff had vetted legal and funding options, and Commissioner Thompson asked staff to clarify whether the consultant work would be recoverable through new development. Staff said the consultant would return with funding scenarios — including potential credits to potable‑water capital recovery fees — and agreed to bring additional detail back to the board.

Outcome and next steps: The board directed staff to continue drafting possible stormwater and floodplain amendments and to return with more concrete language and feasibility details; commissioners asked for additional legal analysis about options while Senate Bill 382 remains in effect. The Arcadis professional‑services agreement for reclaimed water was placed on hold for further review at the next meeting.

Why it matters: Brunswick County leaders face accelerating development, recurring high‑intensity storms and a largely pre‑existing settlement pattern that concentrates flood risk in older neighborhoods. Staff said a combination of ordinance changes, targeted capital projects and a dedicated funding mechanism may be needed, but legal limits at the state level and the scale of affected properties complicate immediate action.

What to watch next: Staff said it will return with draft ordinance language and cost/feasibility estimates for a stormwater utility and will present a revised schedule and legal analysis on the reclaimed‑water contract and master plan.