Henderson County weighs replacement and regionalization options for Etowah wastewater plant

County engineers and consultants presented competing paths on May 4 for the future of the Etowah wastewater treatment plant, an aging facility the county acquired in 2024 that serves roughly 450 customers.

WithersRavenel senior project managers summarized an alternatives analysis that laid out six options: do nothing; a full replacement and expansion at the existing Etowah site; a full replacement at a new site; and three regionalization alternatives that would convey flow to regional systems (two Metropolitan Sewage District options and one option to convey to the City of Hendersonville). The alternatives carried estimated capital costs ranging from about $23.4 million to $58.1 million and differing long‑term operations and maintenance projections.

Why it matters: the plant has exceeded its useful life, county staff said, and continued delays raise the risk of major failure or environmental releases. The board must choose a path that balances upfront capital, ongoing O&M, grant eligibility and community disruption.

The engineer recommended Alternative 2 — a full replacement and expansion at the existing site — citing localized land disturbance and lower capital cost compared with most regional options. The presentation showed Alternative 2 with a capital cost of about $25.1 million, annual O&M of roughly $2.3 million and a total present worth near $30.6 million. Alternative 3 (new site) carried a slightly lower capital cost ($23.4 million) but similar annual O&M; regionalization options reduced projected O&M costs but raised capital costs in some configurations (the Metropolitan Sewage District Option 1 was estimated at $58.1 million capital and $1.1 million annual O&M).

"The plant had exceeded its useful life prior to Hurricane Helene," County Engineer Marcus Jones told the board, and continued deferral increases the risk of major system failure. Jones also noted the county already has about $13.2 million in grant allocations toward the project and will need to identify remaining funding.

After the consultant presentation and staff feedback, the Etowah advisory committee voted unanimously to recommend Option 6 — a regional pump station that would convey flows to the City of Hendersonville. Several residents at the advisory meeting expressed support for that approach, the committee chair reported to the board.

Board members pressed staff for follow‑up information. Commissioners asked whether grants and state funding rules require projects to be sized for future growth or if a smaller, current‑capacity design could be funded and expanded later. Staff replied that funding agencies often prefer projects that include future expansion capacity; they did not have a separate estimate for constructing only current capacity, and Commissioner Rebecca McCall requested that staff provide that narrower estimate at a future meeting.

The board directed staff to: provide the WithersRavenel report to the City of Hendersonville and request a written commitment (and any conditions) for regionalization under Option 6; obtain a cost estimate for Alternative 2 designed only to meet current capacity needs; and negotiate a design scope and fee with WithersRavenel for the selected alternative. The board also instructed staff to continue pursuing grant funding and to begin negotiating connection agreements with potential regional partners if regionalization remains an option.

Next steps: staff will seek city commitments and additional funding, negotiate design agreements with WithersRavenel, and return to the board with refined cost estimates. The board did not adopt a final alternative at the May 4 meeting.