JORDAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY STORAGE
ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS
March 1997
Environmental Management Commission
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Executive Summary
The State of North Carolina has been assigned the
use of the entire water supply storage in B. Everett Jordan Lake and, under
G.S. 143-354(a)(11), can assign this storage to any local government having
a need for water supply storage. Administrative rule T15A: 02G .0500 describes
the specific procedures to be used in allocating the Jordan Lake water
supply storage. The two main criteria for Jordan Lake water supply allocations
are future water needs and availability of alternative water supplies.
Also, the administrative rule requires the Environmental Management Commission
to coordinate the review of any allocation requests with the certification
of any interbasin transfers that maybe required.
The Division of Water Resources received a request
to open the allocation process from the Towns of Apex and Cary in May 1996,
for an increase in their existing water supply storage allocation in Jordan
Lake. This is the first time since the initial allocation in 1988 that
the allocation process has been opened. When such requests are received,
it is Division policy to open the allocation process to anyone interested
in either obtaining a new allocation or an increase in an existing allocation.
When the initial allocations of water supply from
Jordan Lake were made in 1988, 42 percent of the water supply pool was
allocated; however, some original allocation holders have since released
their allocations. Currently, 33 million gallons per day (MGD) of the 100
MGD water supply pool is allocated as shown in Table I. Note that allocations
are actually a percentage of the water supply pool and not a rate of withdrawal.
However, for convenience in this report allocations will be expressed in
MGD, since 100 percent of water supply storage has an estimated safe yield
of 100 MGD.
Applicant |
Current Allocations
(MGD) |
Applicant Requests
(MGD) |
Division of
Water Resources Recommendation
(MGD) |
|||
Level I | Level II | System Request | Total1 | Recommendation | Total1 | |
Chatham County | 4.0 | 2.0 | 7.0 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 |
City of Durham | 25.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
Fayetteville | 20.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
Greensboro | 25.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
Holly Springs | 4.5 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
Apex & Cary2 | 16.0 | 29.0 | 45.0 | 5.0 | 21.0 | |
Morrisville2 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | ||
Wake County/RTP2 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | ||
OWASA | 10.0 | No application submitted this round | 10.0 | |||
Orange County | 1.0 | No application submitted this round | 1.0 | |||
Totals | 20.0 | 13.0 | 118.5 | 151.5 | 9.5 | 42.5 |
1 This column shows the total allocations if all the current requests or recommendations were approved
2 Allocation is contingent on obtaining an interbasin
transfer certification. The recommendations provided are for informational
purposes and public comment only at this time.
In the current round of allocation, the Division received
a total of 8 applications from local and county governments with a total
request of 115 MGD. A summary of the requests is provided in Table I and
detailed analyses of each application are in the Appendices.
Allocation Recommendations for Jordan Lake Water Supply
The Division's recommendations are as follows:
1. Proceed with a public hearing and allocations as recommended for the following systems:
2. Proceed with a public comment period and with the interbasin transfer certification review for a single combined certificate for the following system
All of the systems that had a zero recommendation
have either a zero or a small deficit or other available alternatives to
meet their projected 2015 water demands. For the Towns of Apex, Cary, Morrisville,
and Wake County/RTP South the Division's recommendations contingent on
obtaining interbasin transfer certifications and are only for informational
purposes and serve as a starting point for doing the necessary environmental
review needed for interbasin transfer certification.
The water supply allocation recommendations are a small
incremental amount that will allow for future rounds of allocations. With
over half the water supply pool remaining, storage is available to accommodate
future water needs in a fast growing region of the State.
Interbasin Transfer
The applicants for which an allocation is recommended
and for which interbasin transfer is an issue include Holly Springs, Morrisville,
Cary/Apex, and RTP South. The potential interbasin transfer amounts for
2000 and 2015, based on maximum day demands (MDD) from Jordan Lake, are
estimated in Table II below. Estimates for both 2000 and 2015 are given
since transfers are projected to decrease after 2000 when the West Cary
WWTP is expected to come on-line in either the Haw or Cape Fear River sub-basin.
Table II. Estimated Potential Interbasin Transfers
System | Total Recommended
Allocation (MGD)* |
Jordan Lake
Maximum Daily Withdrawal (MGD) |
Potential Interbasin
Transfer (MGD) |
||
2000 | 2015 | 2000 | 2015 | ||
Holly Springs | 0.5 | 0 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.8 |
Morrisville | 2.5 | 1.8 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 3.5 |
Cary/Apex | 21 | 20.3 | 38.4 | 17.7 | 15.3 |
RTP South | 1.5 | 0.9 | 2.6 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
*Includes existing allocation amounts
The interbasin transfer rule stipulates that responsibility
for obtaining certification for a transfer belongs to the party that owns
the pipe where it crosses the sub-basin divide. For all of the systems
listed above, that responsibility would be Cary's and Apex's, since they
own the pipes at the point where the transfer occurs. However, the rules
also allow for another party involved in the transfer to assume responsibility
for certification, if approved by the Director of the Division of Water
Resources.
Holly Springs has requested to assume responsibility
for certification of the interbasin transfer associated with their allocation
request. The Division is going to approve their request for the following
reason: Holly Springs has its own WWTP which discharges back into the Cape
Fear River basin, not the Neuse River basin and the transfer is for a small
amount between sub-basins in the Cape Fear River basin. The estimated maximum
daily transfer is only 0.8 MGD, based on the 0.5 MGD allocation recommendation.
Since the Holly Springs interbasin transfer potential is only 0.8 MGD,
well below the 2.0 MGD certification threshold, no interbasin transfer
certification is needed at this time.
Allocation Contract Revisions
The Division recommends modifying how the contracts between the State and local governments are written. The Division proposes to base the contract solely on the use of reservoir storage, rather than on a maximum rate of withdrawal. This change would make the contract more consistent with what is being purchased. Local governments are purchasing reservoir storage and not a guaranteed rate of withdrawal. This change will allow systems to be able to increase withdrawals to meet their peak demands as long as the annual average withdrawal rate does not exceed their allocation amount and their storage is not depleted. An additional change to protect the reservoir from potential overuse will be to require all systems to have a water shortage response plan completed and approved by both the US Army Corps of Engineers and the State.
Table Of Contents
Executive Summary i
Allocation Recommendations for Jordan Lake Water Supply ii
Interbasin Transfer ii
Allocation Contract Revisions iii
Table Of Contents iv
Background 1
Allocation Criteria 7
Recommendations 9
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers 13
Appendices 18
Appendix A. Chatham County A-1
Overview and System Recommendation A-1
Population and Water Use Projections A-1
Current Water Supply Sources A-3
Alternative Sources A-4
Conservation and Demand Management A-4
Plans to use Jordan Lake A-4
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers A-5
Appendix B. City of Durham B-1
Overview and System Recommendation B-1
Population and Water Use Projections B-1
Current Water Supply Sources B-2
Alternative Sources B-3
Conservation and Demand Management B-4
Plans to use Jordan Lake B-4
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers B-4
Appendix C. City of Fayetteville C-1
Overview and System Recommendation C-1
Population and Water Use Projections C-1
Current Water Supply Sources C-2
Alternative Sources C-3
Conservation and Demand Management C-3
Plans to use Jordan Lake C-3
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers C-4
Appendix D. City of Greensboro D-1
Overview and System Recommendation D-1
Population and Water Use Projections D-1
Current Water Supply Sources D-2
Alternative Sources D-2
Conservation and Demand Management D-2
Plans to use Jordan Lake D-3
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers D-3
Appendix E. Towns of Apex and Cary E-1
Overview and System Recommendation E-1
Population and Water Use Projections E-1
Current Water Supply Sources E-3
Alternative Sources E-4
Conservation and Demand Management E-4
Plans to use Jordan Lake E-4
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers E-5
Appendix F. Town of Holly Springs F-1
Overview and System Recommendation F-1
Population and Water Use Projections F-1
Current Water Supply Sources F-3
Alternative Sources F-4
Conservation and Demand Management F-4
Plans to use Jordan Lake F-4
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers F-5
Appendix G. Town of Morrisville G-1
Overview and System Recommendation G-1
Population and Water Use Projections G-1
Current Water Supply Sources G-3
Alternative Sources G-3
Conservation and Demand Management G-3
Plans to use Jordan Lake G-3
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers G-4
Appendix H. Wake County / Research Triangle Park H-1
Overview and System Recommendation H-1
Population and Water Use Projections H-1
Current Water Supply Sources H-3
Alternative Sources H-3
Conservation and Demand Management H-3
Plans to use Jordan Lake H-3
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers H-4
Appendix I. Summary of Public Comments on the Process I-1
Appendix J. Population and Water Use Projection Methodology J-1
Appendix K. North Carolina Administrative Code Section T15A:02G.0500 Allocation of Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage K-1
.0501 INTRODUCTION K-1
.0502 DEFINITIONS K-1
.0503 FORMAL APPLICATION K-1
.0504 ALLOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY STORAGE K-2
.0505 NOTIFICATION AND PAYMENT K-3
.0506 RECIPIENTS' REQUIREMENTS K-3
.0507 LOSS OF ALLOCATION K-3
Appendix L. North Carolina Statute G.S. 143-215.22G and G.S. 143-215.22I Regulation of Surface Water Transfers L-1
§ 143-215.22G. Definitions L-1
§ 143-215.22H. Registration of water withdrawals and transfers required. L-2
§ 143-215.22I. Regulation of surface water transfers. L-2
Appendix M. North Carolina Administrative Code Section T15A:02G.0400 Regulation of Surface Water Transfers M-1
Appendix N. Contacts For Additional Information
N-1
The Division of Water Resources received a request to re-open
the allocation process from the Towns of Apex and Cary in May 1996 for
an increase in their water supply storage in B. Everett Jordan Lake. This
is the first time since the initial allocation in 1988 that the allocation
process has been opened. When such requests are received, it is Division
policy to open the allocation process to anyone interested in either obtaining
a new allocation or increasing an existing allocation.
Schedule
When the request was received on May 8, 1996, the Division of Water Resources began an extensive notification effort, including:
The Division of Water Resources held a public information
meeting on June 27, 1996 to explain the allocation process in greater detail
and to receive comments about the process. Based upon the applications
received, the Division of Water Resources is making recommendations for
water supply storage allocations in this report. With the approval of the
EMC, a public hearing will be held to discuss the proposed allocations.
After this public hearing, the EMC will make a final decision for allocations
that do not involve an interbasin transfer certificate; allocation requests
involving interbasin transfers will proceed with interbasin transfer certification.
The final step for each applicant receiving an allocation will be entering
into a repayment contract with the State for the water supply costs. These
costs are described in more detail starting on page 5.
A summary of the major steps in the allocation process is
shown in Figure 1. The Division has made an adjustment to the allocation
process in response to the concern about tentative EMC approval of water
supply need becoming a conditional preapproval of interbasin transfer (IBT).
The revised schedule will allow those allocations that do not involve IBT
to proceed as was originally scheduled. For allocations that involve an
interbasin transfer, the EMC decisions on both the allocation and interbasin
transfer certification will be delayed until after the IBT review process
is completed.
Jordan Lake Operations
B. Everett Jordan Lake is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
multi-purpose lake in Chatham County. Construction on the dam started in
1967 and Jordan Lake completed filling in 1982. As seen in Figure 2, the
dam is located on the Haw River just downstream of the confluence of the
Haw and New Hope Rivers, with most of the lake's storage being in the New
Hope basin.
The lake is designed to provide for water supply, recreation,
flood control, fish and wildlife management, and flow augmentation to maintain
downstream water quality during natural low flow periods. As is typical
for multi-purpose reservoirs, the lake's storage volume is divided vertically
into several "pools" which are keyed to lake level elevations.
Specifically, there is a flood pool, which provides for flood control storage;
a conservation pool, which provides for water supply and low flow augmentation;
and a sediment pool, which provides for the accumulation of sediment.
The top of the conservation pool corresponds with the normal lake level of 216 feet mean sea level (M.S.L.). At this elevation, Jordan Lake covers 13,900 acres. As Figure 3 shows, usable water in the lake at its normal elevation amounts to a total volume of approximately 140,400 acre-feet(1) and is referred to as the conservation storage. Approximately 45,800 acre-feet in conservation storage, or about 15 billion gallons, is designated to provide water supply. This amount of storage is estimated to be able to furnish approximately 100 million gallons per day (MGD ) during most of the severest droughts.
In
addition to water supply, the lake's conservation storage provides 94,600
acre-feet for downstream flow augmentation to benefit water quality and
economic development. The low flow augmentation storage is used to maintain
a minimum flow of about 388 MGD (600 cfs) at Lillington. The minimum streamflow
recorded by the USGS at Lillington prior to Jordan Lake's impoundment was
7.1 MGD (11 cfs). Storage and releases for flow augmentation are provided
in addition to storage for the 100 MGD water supply. The water supply allocation
has no impact on the low-flow augmentation releases. Neither the low flow
augmentation pool nor the minimum releases will be diminished.
Current Allocations
The State of North Carolina has been assigned the use of
the entire water supply storage in Jordan Lake and, under G.S. 143-354(a)(11),
can assign this storage to local government having a need for water supply
storage. Administrative rule T15A: 02G .0500 (included in Appendix K) describes
the specific procedures to be used in allocating the Jordan Lake water
supply storage. These procedures are outlined below.
Allocations fall into two categories. Level I allocations
are made based on 20-year water need projections and when withdrawals
are planned to begin within five years of receiving the allocation. Level
II allocations are made based on longer term needs of up to 30 years.
Only one round of allocations have been made thus far. These
initial allocations of water supply from Jordan Lake were made in 1988.
At that time, 42 percent of the water supply pool was allocated; however,
some original allocation holders have since released their allocations.
Currently, one-third, or 33 MGD, of the 100 MGD water supply pool is allocated
as follows in Table 1. Note that allocations are actually
a percentage of the water supply pool and not a rate of withdrawal. However,
for convenience in this report allocations will be expressed in MGD, since
100 percent of water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of 100
MGD.
Table 1. Existing Jordan Water Supply Allocations
Allocation Holder | Level I | Level II |
Cary-Apex | 16 | 0 |
Chatham County | 4 | 2 |
Orange Water & Sewer Authority | 0 | 10 |
Orange County | 0 | 1 |
Total | 20 MGD | 13 MGD |
Two of the current allocation holders, Apex & Cary and
Chatham County, are requesting an increase in their existing allocations.
Orange Water & Sewer Authority and Orange County have not requested
an increase and both anticipate starting to use their allocations sometime
between 2010 and 2015.
Existing rules limit water supply allocations that will
result in diversions out of the lake's watershed to 50 percent of the 100
MGD total water supply yield. The EMC may review and revise this limit
based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes
in the lake's watershed that
will affect its yield. Currently, 19.4 MGD of the 100 MGD yield is approved
to be diverted out of the lake's watershed.
Costs and Repayment Requirements
Jordan Lake was financed and constructed by the Federal
government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Storage space for
municipal and industrial water supply was included at the request of state
and local officials with the understanding that the costs associated with
this water supply storage would be paid for by the actual users. North
Carolina statute (G.S. 143-215.38) authorized the State, acting through
the EMC, to assume repayment responsibilities for these costs. The costs
associated with providing water supply storage in Jordan Lake fall into
three basic categories: capital costs, operating costs, and administrative
costs. The total annual cost for each one MGD allocation out of Jordan
Lake varies with a number of parameters, including when the allocation
is received, when water is actually withdrawn, the length of the payback
period, and variable annual operating expenses. As an example, for each
new one MGD of water supply withdrawal beginning in 1997, the total annual
cost is estimated to be $4136.(2)
An additional administration charge of $250 will be added to each bill
regardless of the total number of MGD allocated.
The two main criteria for Jordan Lake allocations are future water needs and availability of alternative water supplies. Applications contained the following information:
Water demand is computed on an average daily basis to correspond with
the recommended contract changes and reservoir safe yield determination.
The original 30-year planning horizon (the year 2025) has been revised
to a 20-year planning horizon (the year 2015) to allow for greater flexibility
in making future allocations.
Future Water Needs
Applicants provided estimates of water use for the period 1995 through 2025. For each applicant, the Division also performed an independent analysis of future need. The analysis considered factors affecting water demand including:
population growth
service area expansion
conservation
unaccounted water use
interconnections
industrial development.
The independent analysis followed several general steps. First, the
Division estimated future service population out to the year 2025. The
starting point was the Office of State Planning (OSP) population forecast.
In most cases, OSP estimates were modified to reflect additional information
provided by the applicants.
The second step was to develop future per capita water use rates which
include the effects of water conservation, industrial growth, and changing
urban patterns. Conservation savings are expected to result from changes
in plumbing codes, improved system maintenance, customer education, and
adoption of water reuse.
In the third step, the Division estimated future water use by multiplying
estimated service population by the future per capita rate. The analysis
assumed all water use attributable to new population would be consumed
at the future per capita rate. The analysis also assumes that water use
by the current population would gradually attain the future per capita
rate due to fixture replacement and other conservation programs. The Division
assumed "replacement" would occur at an annual rate of 3 percent.
Appendix J contains a detailed explanation of the Division's population
and water use methodology.
The allocation process imposes a cost on both the State and local governments.
Therefore, the Division applied an additional test to be sure applicants
will not need to apply for an increased allocation for at least the next
5 to 10 years (year 2005). The Division used a common rule of thumb for
water supply planning: when a water system's average daily demand is at
or exceeds 80 percent of the available yield, then a system needs to start
expansion of their existing supplies. The Division applied this rule of
thumb to the applicants' 2005 projected average daily water demands to
determine if there was adequate water for the next 10 years.
Alternatives
Applicants were required to provide information on alternative water
supplies that could be developed in lieu of a Jordan Lake allocation. Alternatives
may include bulk purchases from other suppliers, new reservoir and well
development, and reservoir expansion. The list of alternatives should have
included all potential sources that the system had previously evaluated.
Systems were not required to perform new feasibility studies of other potential
supplies. The Division evaluated each alternative based on financial cost
and institutional difficulty of developing the resource in comparison with
a Jordan Lake withdrawal. The Division also considered the impact of each
alternative on interbasin transfer and other environmental impacts.
In cases where a system has a viable alternative to Jordan Lake, the
Division has recommended an adjustment in the allocation request to account
for the alternative supply. Appendices A-H include a discussion of alternative
water supplies for each applicant.
Allocation Recommendations
The Division of Water Resources used a conservative allocation criterion that allocates water for short-range needs (20 years). This ensures that some water supply storage is reserved for future allocations. To accomplish this policy, the following criteria were used:
The Division's recommendations and the applicants' requests are summarized
in Table 2. The Division's allocation recommendation is no increase in
Chatham County's existing allocation and no allocation to the Cities of
Durham, Fayetteville, and Greensboro. All of these systems had a zero or
a small deficit with other available alternatives for their projected 2015
water demands.
The Division recommends proceeding with a public hearing for a 0.5 MGD
allocation for the Town of Holly Springs. Also, for the Towns of Apex,
Cary, Morrisville, and Wake County/RTP South, the Division recommends proceeding
with the interbasin transfer certification using the recommended allocation
amounts in Table 2 for doing the necessary environmental review.
Table 2. Water Supply Allocation Recommendations
Applicant |
Current Allocations (MGD) | Applicant Requests (MGD) | State Recommendation | |||
Level I | Level II | System Request | Total1 | Recommendation | Total1 | |
Chatham County | 4.0 | 2.0 | 7.0 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 |
City of Durham | 25.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
Fayetteville | 20.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
Greensboro | 25.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
Holly Springs | 4.5 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
Apex & Cary2 | 16.0 | 29.0 | 45.0 | 5.0 | 21.0 | |
Morrisville2 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | ||
Wake County/RTP2 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | ||
OWASA | 10.0 | No application submitted this round | 10.0 | |||
Orange County | 1.0 | No application submitted this round | 1.0 | |||
Totals | 20.0 | 13.0 | 118.5 | 151.5 | 9.5 | 42.5 |
1 This column shows the total allocations if all the current requests or recommendation were approved
2 Allocation is contingent on obtaining interbasin
transfer certification. The recommendations provided are for informational
purposes only at this time.
Table 3 provides a more detailed summary of each of the systems' projected
population and water use. The appendices provide details on each of the
systems.
The applicants for which an allocation is recommended and for which
interbasin transfer will be an issue include Holly Springs, Morrisville,
Cary/Apex, and RTP South. For all of these systems the responsibility would
be Cary's and Apex's for obtaining the interbasin transfer certification,
since they own the pipes at the point where the transfer occurs. However,
the rules also allow for another party involved in the transfer to assume
responsibility for certification, if approved by the Director of the Division
of Water Resources.
Holly Springs has requested to assume responsibility for certification
of the interbasin transfer associated with their allocation request. The
Division is going to approve their request for the following reasons. Holly
Springs has its own WWTP which discharges back into the Cape Fear River
basin, not the Neuse River basin. The estimated maximum daily transfer
is only 0.8 MGD, based on the 0.5 MGD allocation recommendation. Since
the Holly Springs interbasin transfer potential is only 0.8 MGD, well below
the 2.0 MGD certification threshold, no interbasin transfer certification
is needed at this time.
Table 3. Summary of Population and Water System Information1
Applicant | Year |
Water System Population |
Water Use (MGD) |
Current System Yield
(MGD) |
System Deficit (MGD) |
Total Recommendation
(MGD) |
Chatham County | 1995 | 7,200 | 0.9 | 6.6 | ||
2015 | 35,700 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 0.0 | ||
2025 | 51,800 | 7.7 | 6.0 | 1.7 | ||
City of Durham | 1995 | 141,000 | 25.8 | 37.0 | ||
2015 | 243,000 | 38.0 | 37.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | |
2025 | 267,000 | 40.3 | 37.0 | 3.3 | ||
Fayetteville | 1995 | 159,000 | 22.1 | 66.0 | ||
2015 | 295,000 | 42.2 | 66.0 | 0.0 | ||
2025 | 308,000 | 43.2 | 66.0 | |||
Greensboro | 1995 | 197,000 | 34.6 | 36.0 | ||
2015 | 218,000 | 48.0 | 64.1 | 0.0 | ||
2025 | 227,000 | 54.9 | 64.0 | |||
Holly Springs | 1995 | 3,500 | 0.3 | 1.1 | ||
2015 | 27,100 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | |
2025 | 35,800 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 1.2 | ||
Apex & Cary | 1995 | 77,800 | 10.7 | 16.0 | ||
2015 | 235,000 | 20.9 | 16.0 | 4.9 | 5.0 | |
2025 | 278,000 | 24.9 | 16.0 | 8.9 | ||
Morrisville | 1995 | 2,090 | 0.5 | 1.0 | ||
2015 | 12,200 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 2.5 | |
2025 | 16,500 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 3.5 | ||
Wake County
(RTP South) |
1995 | Not Applicable | 0.005 | 1.0 | ||
2015 | Not Applicable | 1.6 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 1.5 | |
2025 | Not Applicable | 2.1 | 0.0 | 2.1 |
1 The data presented in this table is the
Division of Water Resources independent analysis of population and water-use
projections.
Contract Changes
The Division is proposing to modify how the contracts between the State
and local governments are written. The Division's proposed change is to
modify the contracts with local governments to exclude the maximum rate
of withdrawal and base the allocation only on storage. This change will
make the contract more consistent with what the water systems are actually
purchasing. Systems are purchasing water supply storage and not a guaranteed
rate of withdrawal. Also this change will allow the systems to be able
to increase withdrawals to meet their peak demands as long as the annual
average withdrawal rate does not exceed their allocation amount and their
storage is not depleted. The contracts will, however, indicate the estimated
safe yield provided by the storage allocated to an applicant. To protect
the reservoir from potential over use, DWR will not only rely on the Division
of Environmental Health's treatment capacity and system expansion approval
process, but will also require a water shortage response plan to be completed
and approved by both the Corps and the State. An approved plan needs to
be completed before any level II allocations are approved for level I.
Existing level I allocations need an approved plan within 1 year of the
contract modification. Also, DWR will work with the Corps to make available
over the Internet the storage and withdrawal records for everyone's review.
The following is an example of how the contract would be modified:
Storage Amount. The Allocation Holder, subject to this contract
with the State, has the right to use ten (10) percent of the water supply
storage capacity of the project, estimated to be four thousand five hundred
and eighty (4,580) acre-feet. The estimated safe yield from this storage
is approximately ten (10) million gallons per day (MGD). When the Allocation
Holder's storage is depleted, the Allocation Holder will have the right
to withdraw ten (10) percent of the portion of net inflow allocated to
water supply (10 percent of 32.62 percent equals 3.262 percent). The Government
and the State will maintain records on the amount of water supply available
in the water supply pool, and will inform each Allocation Holder of the
amount of water available in its portion of that pool.
Within one (1) year of receiving a level I water supply allocation,
the allocation holder will develop a water shortage response plan that
is approved by both the Government and the State.
Watershed Diversions
The existing administrative rule limits water supply allocations that
will result in diversions out of the lake's watershed to 50 percent of
the 100 MGD total water supply yield. The EMC may review and revise this
limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes
in the lake's watershed that will affect its yield. Currently, 19.4 percent
of the 100 MGD yield is diverted out of the lake's watershed.
This administrative rule has raised a number of water quality and public
health issues during the allocation process. A computer model is going
to be developed as part of the interbasin transfer certification process.
Division staff will use the model to determine if a joint study with the
Corps, the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Environmental Health,
and DWR is needed to reconsider the 50 percent rule. For this current round
of allocations the limit does not need to be revised.
Watershed Transfers
The Jordan Lake watershed is that portion of the Haw River sub-basin
upstream of Jordan Lake Dam. To protect the yield of Jordan Lake for water
supply and water quality purposes, the current rules limit allocations
that will result in diversions out of the lake's watershed to 50 percent
of the total water supply yield, or 50 MGD. This provision is specific
to the lake's watershed because water returned below the dam does not replenish
the reservoir's water supply and water quality pools. The EMC may review
and revise this limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the
effects of changes in the lake's watershed that will affect its yield.
This 50-MGD limit refers to annual average diversions, since yields
are typically based on annual averages. Table 4 summarizes the estimated
diversions out of the lake's watershed, based on the 2015 demand projections
and the recommended allocation amounts. As shown, 26.5 MGD of the 42.5
MGD total recommended allocation would be diverted out of the lake's watershed
as of 2015, leaving 23.5 MGD of the water supply storage still available
for future allocations outside the lake's watershed under the current 50-MGD
limit.
Table 4. Estimated 2015 Jordan Lake Watershed Diversions
System | Total Recommended
Allocation (MGD)1 |
2015 Watershed
Diversion (MGD) |
Chatham County | 6.0 | 3.0 |
Durham | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Fayetteville | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Greensboro | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Holly Springs | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Morrisville | 2.5 | 2.5 |
Cary/Apex | 21.0 | 18.3 |
Wake/RTP South | 1.5 | 1.2 |
Orange County 2 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
OWASA 2 | 10.0 | 0.0 |
TOTAL | 42.5 | 26.5 |
1 Includes existing allocation amounts
2 Existing allocation holder, but did
not apply for additional allocation
Interbasin Transfers
Since the initial Jordan Lake allocations were made, a new regulatory framework has been established by the legislature for evaluating interbasin transfers. This law (G.S. 143-215.22I) is intended to regulate large surface water transfers by requiring a certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). The law applies to anyone initiating a transfer of 2 million gallons per day (MGD) or more from one river basin to another and to anyone increasing an existing transfer by 25 percent or more, if the total including the increase is 2 MGD or more. However, if a transfer facility existed or was under construction on July 1, 1993, a certificate is not required up to the full capacity of that facility to transfer water, regardless of the amount of the transfer.
If an existing transfer was approved by the EMC in a certificate issued
under G.S. 162A-7 prior to July 1, 1993, any increase above the amount
approved will require certification under G.S. 143-215.22I. Cary and Apex
have such a certificate, allowing them to transfer up to 16 MGD from the
Cape Fear River basin to the Neuse River basin. Any increase in this amount
would require certification.
The amount of a transfer is defined by the rules (T15A: 02E .0400) as
the amount of water moved from the source basin to the receiving basin,
less the amount of water returned to the source basin. Therefore, any water
consumption that occurs in the receiving basin would be considered a transfer,
even if the remaining wastewater is discharged back to the source basin.
In addition, certification is based on maximum daily transfer amounts,
not average daily amounts.
The statute defines 38 sub-basins across the state. Only transfers from
one of these defined sub-basins to another defined sub-basin is subject
to regulation. However, under the statutes, if water is discharged either
downstream or upstream from the point where it was withdrawn, it is not
considered a transfer. For example, if a system in the Neuse River basin
received an allocation from Jordan Lake (Haw River sub-basin) and then
discharged its treated wastewater directly into the Cape Fear River, this
would not be a transfer under the statutes. However, if that same system
discharged its wastewater into a tributary of the Cape Fear River instead
of directly into the Cape Fear River, that would be a transfer under the
statute. In other words, if the water would have naturally flowed past
the discharge point, as described in the rules, the transfer would not
be subject to regulation.
Recommendations Involving Interbasin Transfers
The applicants for which an allocation is recommended and for which
interbasin transfer is an issue include Holly Springs, Morrisville, Cary/Apex,
and RTP South. The estimated maximum daily demands (MDDs) and potential
maximum daily interbasin transfer amounts for 2000 and 2015 are summarized
in Table 5 below. Estimates for both 2000 and 2015 are given since transfers
are projected to decrease after 2000 when the West Cary WWTP is expected
to come on-line in either the Haw or Cape Fear River sub-basin.
Table 5. Estimated Potential Interbasin Transfers
System | Total Recommended
Allocation (MGD)1 |
Jordan Lake
MDD (MGD) |
Potential Interbasin
Transfer (MGD) |
||
2000 | 2015 | 2000 | 2015 | ||
Holly Springs | 0.5 | 0 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.8 |
Morrisville | 2.5 | 1.8 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 3.5 |
Cary/Apex | 21 | 20.3 | 38.4 | 17.7 | 15.3 |
RTP South | 1.5 | 0.9 | 2.6 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
1 Includes existing allocation amounts
The Holly Springs estimate reflects DWR's recommended 0.5 MGD allocation,
not their requested allocation of 4.5 MGD. Note also that the Cary/Apex
2015 MDD and transfer are the applicant's estimates which were based on
their projected 2015 average daily demand of 24 MGD. Since this demand
exceeds the recommended 21 MGD total allocation for Cary/Apex, the transfer
may be less, depending on the West Cary WWTP discharges.
The rule stipulates that responsibility for obtaining certification
for a transfer belongs to the owner of the pipe where it crosses the sub-basin
divide. For all of the systems listed above, that responsibility would
be Cary/Apex's, since they own the pipes at the point where the transfer
occurs. However, the rules also allow for another party involved in the
transfer to assume responsibility for certification, if approved by the
Director of the Division of Water Resources.
Holly Springs has asked to assume responsibility for certification of
the transfer associated with its allocation request. DWR intends to approve
that request for the following reasons. Cary/Apex, Morrisville, and RTP
South effectively act as a regional water system, since Morrisville and
RTP South will rely totally on Cary/Apex for water and wastewater services
for their allocated water. Holly Springs, on the other hand, has its own
WWTP which discharges back into the Cape Fear River basin, not the Neuse
River basin as the others do. The estimated maximum daily transfer for
Holly Springs is only 0.8 MGD, based on the recommended 0.5-MGD allocation.
Since the certification threshold for transfers is 2.0 MGD, EMC certification
will not be required for this transfer.
The combined estimated transfer for Cary/Apex, Morrisville, and RTP
South is 20.2 MGD for 2000 and 18.8 MGD for 2015. Cary/Apex's current transfer
certificate is for 16 MGD.
For water supply allocations requiring interbasin transfer certification,
the major milestones in the process and a general time frame are described
below:
Information item at the EMC Water Quality Committee
meeting, March 1997.
This would occur concurrent with the public hearing
process for non-interbasin transfer allocations.
The applicant is responsible for arranging the scoping
meetings, preparing the study plans, and conducting the studies with DWR
oversight. The time needed to develop the environmental documentation will
depend upon the amount of the transfer and the issues identified in the
scoping meeting(s). Depending upon the complexity of the issues, these
tasks will likely range from 12 to 24 months in length.
A Cape Fear River Basin hydrologic model is planned that will assist
decision-makers involved in the allocation and interbasin transfer processes,
as well as provide a sound basis for developing water shortage response
plans for Jordan Lake. The goal is to openly develop an analytical tool
accepted by all basin stakeholders that can be used in developing consensus
on a wide range of basin issues. The model would be developed by a qualified
consultant hired by the Division of Water Resources. Funding for the model
will come primarily from applicants and current allocation holders.
A Steering Committee will be created during the first quarter of 1997
to assist DWR in guiding the model development, including consultant selection,
formulating model objectives, and locating and providing data. The Steering
Committee will consist of :
current allocation holders and applicants
US Army Corps of Engineers
Council of Government (COG) representation from upper, middle, and lower basin
industrial representative
agricultural representative (extension service)
environmental/conservation representative
Applications of the model may include:
confirm Jordan Lake's yield/reliability
evaluate the 50-percent limit on allocations out of the watershed
evaluate flow-related impacts of interbasin transfers
evaluate the impacts of new or expanded water supply withdrawals
water shortage response planning
study recreational impacts
provide input to water quality models
Appendix A. Chatham County A-1
Appendix B. City of Durham B-1
Appendix C. City of Fayetteville C-1
Appendix D. City of Greensboro D-1
Appendix E. Towns of Apex and Cary E-1
Appendix F. Town of Holly Springs F-1
Appendix G. Town of Morrisville G-1
Appendix H. Wake County / Research Triangle Park H-1
Appendix I. Summary of Public Comments on the Process I-1
Appendix J. Population and Water Use Projection Methodology J-1
Appendix K. North Carolina Administrative Code Section
T15A:02G.0500 Allocation of Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage
K-1
Appendix L. North Carolina Statute G.S. 143-215.22G
and
G.S. 143-215.22I Regulation of Surface Water Transfers L-1
Appendix M. North Carolina Administrative Code Section T15A:02G.0400 Regulation of Surface Water Transfers M-1
Appendix N. Contacts For Additional Information
N-1
Overview and System Recommendation
Chatham County is located in the central piedmont of North Carolina.
As a neighbor of the booming research triangle region, the County is beginning
to experience some of the same rapid development. The County's water system
is divided into three sections: the Southwest Chatham Water System, the
East Chatham Water System and the North Chatham Water System. Combined,
the systems serve about 17 percent of Chatham County, including several
small municipalities.
The system currently relies on an existing 6 MGD allocation from Jordan
Lake and purchases from the Town of Siler City, Goldston-Gulf Sanitary
District, and the City of Sanford. The County has requested an additional
Level I allocation of 3.0 MGD and Level II allocation of 4.0 MGD based
on average daily demand in the year 2025. This request would give the County
a total allocation of 13 MGD.
The Division recommends, based on average daily demand in 2015, no additional
allocation.
Population and Water Use Projections
The 1995 service population of Chatham County was 7,180. In 2015, Chatham
County projects its service population will grow to 78,545 with an average
daily demand of 11.3 MGD. In an addendum to their application, the County
offered several growth scenarios to support their projections. The County
suggested the following factors will influence its growth: 1) increased
building activity, 2) improved highway access, and 3) innovative waste
treatment solutions. The County derived growth rates from building permit
information for both the county as a whole and for a high-growth census
tract in the northeast corner of the county. The County's preferred scenario
projected population based on the higher growth rate for years 1995 to
2005, and on the county growth rate for years 2010 to 2015.
The County also expects to increase its service area, eventually supplying
water to most of the county and some of the existing municipal water systems.
The County has provided letters from water systems in Siler City, Pittsboro,
and Goldston indicating an interest in having Jordan water as a future
alternative. By 2015, the County predicts it will serve 75 percent of the
total county population.
The Division developed an independent forecast of service population
for comparison purposes. The forecast was based on county population estimates
by the Office of State Planning (OSP). The Division adjusted the OSP figures
to reflect the recent county building permit information. This adjustment
assumes the county population will grow at a rate of 3.75 percent from
1995 to 2005. The difference between the original OSP 2005 population and
the adjusted 2005 population was then added to the remaining OSP forecast
years to be consistent with the adjustment. This results in a county population
forecast which reflects both short-term building activity and long-term
OSP growth assumptions.
The Division assumed that the County's service population would increase
linearly from its current level to 75 percent of total county population
by 2025. In order to justify more rapid expansion, the Division would require
evidence of formal arrangements with those systems the County anticipates
eventually serving. In 2015, service population is estimated to reach 56
percent of county population, or 35,700. Table A-1 summarizes population
projections.
Table A-1. Population Projections
Year |
County Population | Percent Served | Service Population | |||
Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | |
1995 | 42,914 | 42,914 | 17% | 17% | 7,180 | 7,180 |
2000 | 56,492 | 50,900 | 31% | 26% | 17,682 | 13,500 |
2005 | 74,366 | 60,400 | 46% | 36% | 34,112 | 21,300 |
2010 | 88,250 | 61,500 | 60% | 46% | 53,329 | 28,200 |
2015 | 104,726 | 64,200 | 75% | 56% | 78,545 | 35,700 |
2020 | 66,500 | 65% | 43,400 | |||
2025 | 69,000 | 75% | 51,800 |
Chatham County projects a 2015 average daily demand of 11.3 MGD. Projections
were based on their forecasts of service population and per capita use.
The County assumed per capita use would increase from current levels as
additional industries are connected to the system.
The Division's water use projections are based on service population
and per capita water use. For Chatham County, the Division assumed per
capita demand would drop about 10 percent due to conservation in all categories
except industrial. Since the County currently does not supply any industrial
customers, per capita use in this category was raised to 20 GPCD to provide
for a moderate level of new industry. Unaccounted water use, which the
County reported as 0.0 MGD, was also increased to 10 percent of total water
use to allow for typical transmission losses. The net effect of these adjustments
is a higher per capita rate for new water use.
Table A-2 summarizes the average daily demands and computed deficits
for Chatham County. The Division estimates a 2015 demand of 5.3 MGD. Compared
with the 2015 safe yield of 6.0 MGD, the County should have a small surplus
in 2015. The estimated demand in 2005 (3.1 MGD), also falls well under
80 percent of the available yield -- a common threshold for water supply
planning. Based on these results, the Division recommends no additional
allocation at this time. The Division also recommends that the County proceed
with formalizing arrangements with other county systems that may require
Lake Jordan water in the future.
Table A-2. Water Use Projections
Year | Overall Per Capita (GPCD) | Average Daily Demand (MGD) | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
System Deficit (MGD) | |||
Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | ||
1995 | 127 | 127 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 6.6 | - | - |
2000 | 142 | 145 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 6.6 | - | - |
2005 | 144 | 147 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 6.6 | - | - |
2010 | 144 | 148 | 7.7 | 4.2 | 6.6 | 1.1 | - |
2015 | 144 | 148 | 11.3 | 5.3 | 6.0 | 5.3 | - |
2020 | n/a | 148 | n/a | 6.4 | 6.0 | n/a | 0.4 |
2025 | n/a | 149 | n/a | 7.7 | 6.0 | n/a | 1.7 |
Current Water Supply Sources
Chatham County's current water supplies include a 6.0 MGD allocation
from Jordan Lake, and contracted purchases from the Town of Siler City,
Goldston-Gulf Sanitary District, and the City of Sanford. The County also
maintains an emergency connection with Pittsboro. The total safe yield
of these supplies is 6.63 MGD. The County anticipates that the purchase
contracts will terminate by 2015. Table A-3 summarizes the County's water
sources.
Chatham County's water system is divided into three sections. The North
Chatham Water System serves the Bynum, Fearington Village and Governor's
Club area, and the new 3 MGD water treatment plant on Jordan Lake. The
Southwest Chatham System serves Bennett, Bear Creek and Bonlee areas, and
purchases water from Siler City and Goldston-Gulf. The East Chatham Water
System serves the Moncure, Haywood and Corinth areas, and purchases water
from Sanford. The County is pursuing interconnection of the three systems
to form a county-wide system.
Table A-3. Current Water Supply Sources
Source | River Basin | Type | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Water Quality |
Jordan Lake | Haw | Surface | 6.000 | Good |
Siler City | Rocky | Purchase | 0.166 | Good |
Goldston-Gulf | Deep | Purchase | 0.160 | Good |
Sanford | Cape Fear | Purchase | 0.300 | Good |
Pittsboro | Haw | Purchase | Not specified | Good |
TOTAL | 6.63 |
Alternative Sources
Chatham County lists a number of alternatives to a Jordan Lake allocation.
Table A-4 summarizes the alternatives for the Southwest and East Chatham
water systems. The North Chatham System currently has the capacity to treat
3.0 MGD of Jordan Lake water. The County did not provide unit costs for
withdrawing and treating an additional allocation.
Table A-4. Alternative Water Supply Sources
Alternative | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Cost to Develop ($/1000 Gal) | Water Quality | Environ-mental Impacts | Institutional Impacts |
Southwest Chatham System | |||||
Jordan Lake | 1.0 | 2.30 | Good | Major | Typical |
Continue Bulk Purchase | 0.3 | 2.67 | Good | Minor | Typical |
New Wells | Insuff. | - | - | - | - |
Deep River Treatment Plant | 1.0 | 2.64 | Good | Major | Typical |
East Chatham System | |||||
Jordan Lake | 0.5 | 2.46 | Good | Major | Typical |
Continue Bulk Purchase | 0.3 | 3.20 | Good | Minor | Typical |
New Wells | Insuff. | - | - | - | - |
Cape Fear River Treatment Plant | 0.5 | 3.27 | Good | Major | Typical |
Conservation and Demand Management
At the present time, Chatham County does not have a formal water conservation
policy. The County performs a monthly water accounting to detect potential
leaks. The County is in the process of studying water conservation options
including a revised plumbing code, a conservation ordinance, rate structure
incentives, water reuse, and water shortage response plan.
Plans to use Jordan Lake
Chatham County has applied for a Level I allocation of 3.0 MGD, and
a Level II allocation of 4.0 MGD. The County already operates a treatment
facility on Lake Jordan and has secured a share in the Apex/Cary intake
facility. The County foresees Jordan Lake becoming the primary water source
for the entire county. In order to provide Jordan Lake water on a county-wide
basis, the County will have to expand the water treatment plant and construct
transmission mains interconnecting the three water systems. The County
plans to phase in these upgrades over a twenty or thirty-year planning
period.
Chatham County has in place a water quality monitoring plan to test
both raw and finished water taken from Jordan Lake. All testing will be
in accordance with the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health, and the U.S.-EPA.
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers
Portions of Chatham County lie in three different river basins: the
Haw, Deep, and Cape Fear. Interbasin transfers would occur primarily from
consumptive use in the Deep and Cape Fear basins. The Division estimates
that about 40 percent of a future Jordan Lake allocation would be transferred
out of basin. The out-of-watershed diversion would be about 50 percent
of the allocation amount. Based on the recommendation of no additional
allocation, an interbasin transfer certificate is not required.
Overview and System Recommendation
The City of Durham is located in Durham County in the northern piedmont.
As part of the prosperous research triangle region, Durham anticipates
continued strong growth. Durham's water system serves the City and some
outlying areas including parts of Research Triangle Park. The system relies
on two water supply reservoirs, Lake Michie and Little River Lake.
The City of Durham has requested a Level II allocation of 25 MGD, based on maximum daily demand in 2025. The Division's recommends, based on average daily demand in 2015, no additional allocation.
Population and Water Use Projections
The 1995 service population of Durham was 141,000. In 2015, Durham projects
a service population of 257,000 with an average daily demand of 40.9 MGD.
Durham based its water demand projection on a historical 3 percent growth
rate.
The Division developed an independent forecast of service population
for comparison purposes. The forecast was based on the Office of State
Planning's (OSP) forecast of county population. Based on planned service
expansions, the Division accepted Durham's service population forecast
through the year 2005. After the year 2005, though, Durham's estimate exceeded
the OSP county forecast. The Division assumed Durham's service population
would not exceed total county population, so therefore used OSP county
population figures for years 2010 to 2025. Table B-1 summarizes population
projections.
Table B-1. Population Projections
Year |
OSP County Population 1 | Service Population | |
Applicant | DWR | ||
1995 | 192,096 | 141,000 | 141,000 |
2000 | 203,295 | 195,300 | 195,000 |
2005 | 215,975 | 215,500 | 216,000 |
2010 | 229,197 | 237,500 | 238,000 |
2015 | 242,727 | 257,700 | 243,000 |
2020 | 256,661 | 279,300 | 257,000 |
2025 | 267,197 | 301,000 | 267,000 |
1 OSP forecasts county population out to 2020.
An estimate of 2025 population was derived by linear regression.
The Division's water use projections are based on service population
and per capita water use. For Durham, the Division assumed per capita demand
in all categories would drop about 10 percent from 1995 levels. In the
residential category, the average of several reporting years was used in
place of the 1995 value, which was unusually high. Unaccounted water use
was assumed to be 15 percent of total water use, based on Durham's current
level of metering. The net effect of these adjustments was to reduce overall
per capita use.
Table B-2 summarizes the average daily demands and computed deficits
for Durham. The Division estimates a 2015 demand of 38.0 MGD. Compared
with the 2015 safe yield of 37.0 MGD, Durham should have a deficit of about
1.0 MGD in 2015. A comparison was also made between Durham's 2005 demand
and available yield to determine if Durham has sufficient time to plan
for new supplies. Durham's 2005 demand exceeds 80 percent of safe yield
-- a common threshold for water supply planning. This suggests that Durham
needs to begin the planning process for its next water supply in the near
future.
Based on Durham's available alternatives for future water supply, the
Division recommends no additional allocation at this time. However, the
Division recommends that Durham immediately begin exploring all alternatives
to Jordan Lake.
Table B-2. Water Use Projections
Year | Overall Per Capita Use (GPCD) | Average Daily
Demand (MGD) |
Safe Yield
(MGD) |
System Deficit (MGD) | |||
Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | ||
1995 | 182 | 183 | 25.6 | 25.8 | 37.0 | - | - |
2000 | 151 | 168 | 29.4 | 32.9 | 37.0 | - | - |
2005 | 154 | 163 | 33.2 | 35.2 | 37.0 | - | - |
2010 | 156 | 159 | 37.0 | 37.8 | 37.0 | - | 0.8 |
2015 | 159 | 156 | 40.9 | 38.0 | 37.0 | 3.9 | 1.0 |
2020 | 160 | 154 | 44.7 | 39.4 | 37.0 | 7.7 | 2.4 |
2025 | 161 | 151 | 48.5 | 40.3 | 37.0 | 11.5 | 3.3 |
Current Water Supply Sources
Durham's current water supplies include Lake Michie and Little River Lake with a total 50-year safe yield of 37 MGD. Both sources are located in the Neuse River Basin and provide high quality drinking water. Durham also maintains an emergency raw water intake on the Eno River. Table B-3 summarizes Durham's current water sources.
Table B-3. Current Water Supply Sources
Source | River Basin | Type | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Water Quality |
Lake Michie | Neuse | Surface | 19 | Excellent |
Little River Lake | Neuse | Surface | 18 | Excellent |
Eno River | Neuse | Surface | n/a | Good |
TOTAL | 37 |
Alternative Sources
In their application, Durham lists two water supply alternatives to
Jordan Lake: Lake Michie expansion and Teer Quarry. The Lake Michie expansion
proposes raising the lake level to 380 M.S.L. The expansion would provide
an additional 25 MGD safe yield. The City has already begun purchasing
property around the lake to preserve land for future water supply and enhanced
buffer areas. 1995 total development costs for this alternative are $2.12
per 1000 gallons.
Teer Quarry is an inactive quarry site that could be used for off-stream
storage of 2 to 3 billion gallons of water. An intake on the Eno River
would be used to fill the pit. This project would provide about 8 MGD of
intermittent supply to help meet summer peak demands. Availability of the
site for water supply purposes is uncertain at this time. 1995 total development
costs for this alternative are $1.56 per 1000 gallons.
Durham estimates that development of transmission facilities for a Jordan
Lake allocation would cost $1.47 per 1000 gallons. Lower costs are expected
if bulk purchases are contracted through Cary or OWASA. Jordan Lake represents
the least expensive alternative. Table B-4 lists Durham's alternatives.
Table B-4. Alternative Water Supply Sources
Alternative | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Cost to Develop ($/1000 Gal) | Water Quality | Environ-mental Impacts | Institutional Impacts |
Lake Michie Expansion | 25 | 2.12 | Excellent | Moderate | Typical |
Teer Quarry | 8 | 1.56 | Good | Minor | Typical |
Jordan Lake | n/a | 1.47 | Good | Minor | Simple |
Conservation and Demand Management
Durham's conservation policy is based on two documents. The first is
Durham's Water Conservation Ordinance which meets the requirements of a
Water Shortage Response Plan under the State's local water supply planning
process. The ordinance outlines voluntary and mandatory conservation measures
for four levels of water shortage. The other document is a report by the
Water Resources Research Institute on water conservation potential in Durham.
The report is intended to guide development of future conservation programs,
but the report has not been formally adopted as a program.
Durham currently maintains two full-time water conservation staff positions.
Durham also notes efforts to develop a reclaimed wastewater market.
Plans to use Jordan Lake
Durham has outlined two options for using a Jordan Lake allocation.
The first option is to arrange a bulk purchasing contract with Cary or
Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). Of the two, only Cary has an
operating intake facility. The second option is to construct all facilities
necessary for transmission of water from the existing intake on the east
side of Jordan Lake to Durham's own treatment facility. If water use continues
to grow at current rates, Durham would begin preparing for the project
around 2005. Durham states that excess water could possibly be made available
for sale to Hillsborough or Butner.
Durham states that they will develop a water quality monitoring plan
based on regulations of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health, and the U.S. EPA.
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers
Durham currently withdraws all of its water from Lake Michie and Little
River Lake in the Neuse Basin. About 63 percent of this withdrawal is consumed
in or discharged into the Cape Fear Basin. A Jordan Lake allocation to
Durham would represent a transfer from the Cape Fear Basin to the Neuse
Basin, therefore offsetting part of Durham's existing interbasin transfer.
Under current rules, an interbasin transfer certificate would not be required
in this case.
A Jordan Lake allocation would also not cause an out-of-watershed diversion
since Durham would consume more water in the Cape fear Basin than it would
withdraw.
Appendix C. City of Fayetteville
Overview and System Recommendation
The City of Fayetteville is located in Cumberland County in the southern
piedmont. The City's Public Works Commission (PWC) provides water to about
54 percent of Cumberland County, including the City and towns of Hope Mills
and Spring Lake.
The system relies on withdrawals from the Cape Fear River and impoundments
on Little Cross Creek and Big Cross Creek. PWC has requested a Level II
allocation of 20 MGD, based on average daily demand in the year 2025. Based
on average daily demand in 2015, the Division recommends no allocation
for PWC at this time.
Population and Water Use Projections
PWC's service population in 1995 was 158,600. In 2015, PWC projects
a service population of 295,300 with average daily demand of 53.6 MGD.
PWC assumes that with service area expansions and modest growth, it will
serve about 86 percent of Cumberland County's population in 2015 (based
on previous OSP forecasts). PWC also plans to continue to supply emergency
water to Fort Bragg and recruit new industry to the area.
The Division developed an independent forecast of service population
for comparison purposes. The forecast was based on the Office of State
Planning's (OSP) forecast of county population. PWC's 2015 population forecast
was well documented and, when adjusted for the latest OSP forecast (1996
release), fairly conservative. The Division accepts PWC's 2015 service
population estimate of 295,300. Table C-1 summarizes population projections.
Table C-1. Population Projections
Year |
OSP County Population1 | Service Population | |
Applicant | DWR | ||
1995 | 294,010 | 158,600 | 159,000 |
2000 | 314,833 | 203,200 | 203,000 |
2005 | 337,365 | 272,900 | 273,000 |
2010 | 354,856 | 284,100 | 284,000 |
2015 | 376,926 | 295,300 | 295,000 |
2020 | 393,578 | 301,000 | |
2025 | 415,422 | 307,600 | 308,000 |
1 OSP forecasts county population out to 2020.
An estimate of 2025 population was derived by linear regression.
The Division's water use projections are based on service population
and per capita water use. For PWC, the Division assumed per capita demand
would drop about 10 percent due to conservation in all categories except
industrial. Industrial per capita use was kept at current rates to accommodate
planned industrial expansions. The Division also assumed that PWC would
continue to maintain a 3.0 MGD emergency supply contract with Fort Bragg.
Unaccounted water use was reduced from 13 percent to 10 percent of total
water use based on PWC's stated conservation goal. The net effect of these
adjustments was to reduce overall per capita demand slightly from current
levels.
Table C-2 summarizes the average daily demands and computed deficits
for PWC. The Division estimates a 2015 demand of 43.5 MGD. Compared with
the 2015 safe yield of 66 MGD, PWC should have a surplus of about 22 MGD
in 2015. The estimated demand in 2005 (39.8 MGD), also falls well under
80 percent of the available yield -- a common threshold for water supply
planning. Based on these results, the Division recommends no additional
allocation for PWC at this time.
Table C-2. Water Use Projections
Year | Overall Per Capita Use (GPCD) | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Average Daily
Demand (MGD) |
System Deficit (MGD) | |||
Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | ||
1995 | 140 | 155 | 66.0 | 22.1 | 22.1 | - | - |
2000 | 195 | 153 | 66.0 | 39.7 | 31.2 | - | - |
2005 | 183 | 146 | 66.0 | 49.9 | 39.8 | - | - |
2010 | 182 | 144 | 66.0 | 51.8 | 41.0 | - | - |
2015 | 182 | 143 | 66.0 | 53.6 | 42.2 | - | - |
2020 | 142 | 66.0 | 42.7 | - | - | ||
2025 | 191 | 140 | 66.0 | 58.8 | 43.2 | - | - |
Current Water Supply Sources
PWC's current water supplies include the Cape Fear River, a series of
four impoundments on Little Cross Creek, and a supplemental water supply
on Big Cross Creek. The total safe yield of these supplies is 66 MGD. To
aid the allocation process, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) provided
a new safe yield estimate for the Cape Fear River at PWC's intake. DWQ
determined a safe yield of 60 MGD based on flow and water quality constraints.
Table C-3 summarizes Fayetteville's water sources.
Table C-3. Current Water Supply Sources
Source | River Basin | Type | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Water Quality |
Cape Fear River | Cape Fear | Surface | 60 | Good |
Little Cross Creek | Cape Fear | Surface | 5 | Good |
Big Cross Creek | Cape Fear | Surface | 1 | Good |
TOTAL | 66 |
Alternative Sources
PWC considers the Cape Fear River to be the only water source capable
of meeting additional future demands. PWC notes that they have investigated
ground water as an option, but regional aquifers are unable to provide
suitable yield. In their application, PWC provided no economic, environmental,
or institutional evaluation of any alternative.
Conservation and Demand Management
PWC has adopted a variety of programs to encourage water conservation, including:
Plans to use Jordan Lake
PWC has applied for a Level II allocation of 20 MGD. This allocation
would be made available to PWC downstream by additional spillway releases.
The existing intakes at the Hoffer Treatment Facility would be upgraded
by adding additional pumping capacity. PWC notes a number of other system
upgrades to accommodate additional water demands. Treated wastewater would
be discharged into the Cape Fear in the vicinity of Fayetteville.
PWC states that they would monitor water quality in accordance with
U.S.-EPA state regulations. PWC operates a state certified lab capable
of performing most of the required monitoring on an in-house basis.
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers
A Jordan Lake allocation to Fayetteville would not result in any interbasin
transfer. Fayetteville currently discharges all treated wastewater back
into the Cape Fear River. Any allocation, however, would be transferred
out of the watershed. Fayetteville's downstream location makes it difficult
to return wastewater to Jordan Lake.
Appendix D. City of Greensboro
Overview and System Recommendation
The City of Greensboro is located in Guilford County in the upper piedmont.
Greensboro's water system serves about 53 percent of Guilford County, including
the City and specific unincorporated areas of the County. The system currently
relies on water impounded in Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, and Lake Townsend.
As a member of the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority, Greensboro
is pursuing the development of Randleman Lake to meet its water needs for
the next 50 years. The City's share of Randleman Lake's safe yield is 28.5
MGD. Pending the outcome of the NEPA process, Greensboro has sought a Jordan
Lake Level II allocation of 25 MGD, based on forecast demand in 2025. The
Division considers Randleman Lake to be a viable alternative to meet the
City's long-term water needs. Therefore, the Division recommends no allocation
at this time. However, it is possible for the City to maintain its request
for an allocation throughout the process until such time that a final decision
on construction of Randleman Lake is made. If it is ultimately decided
that Randleman Lake will not be built, the Division will reconsider the
City's allocation request.
Population and Water Use Projections
Greensboro's 1995 service population was 197,000. In 2015, Greensboro
projects a service population of 217,825 with an average daily demand of
48.0 MGD. Pending the outcome of the NEPA review of the Randleman Lake
project, the Division accepts the City's projections for the year 2015.
Including Greensboro's share of Randleman Lake, the City should have
a substantial water surplus in 2015. Therefore, the Division's recommendation
is no allocation at this time. If Randleman Lake is not approved for construction,
the Division will re-evaluate the City's population and water use projections.
Table D-1 summarizes population and water use projections.
Table D-1. Population and Water Use Projections
Year | Service Population | Safe Yield1 (MGD) | Water Use
(MGD) |
System Deficit
(MGD) |
1995 | 197,000 | 36.0 | 34.6 | - |
2000 | 204,102 | 64.4 | 37.6 | - |
2005 | 208,933 | 64.3 | 40.9 | - |
2010 | 213,764 | 64.2 | 44.2 | - |
2015 | 217,825 | 64.1 | 48.0 | - |
2020 | 64.1 | 51.9 | - | |
2025 | 227,051 | 64.0 | 54.9 | - |
1 Safe yield for years 2000 - 2025 includes Randleman Lake
allocation.
Current Water Supply Sources
Lake Brandt and Lake Townsend are the City of Greensboro's two permanent
water sources with a combined safe yield of 36 MGD. Lake Higgins is a third
reservoir managed as an emergency supply source. Table D-2 summarizes Greensboro's
water sources.
Table D-2. Current Water Supply Sources
Source | River Basin | Type | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Water Quality |
Lake Higgins | Haw | Surface | n/a | Excellent |
Lake Brandt | Haw | Surface | n/a | Excellent |
Lake Townsend | Haw | Surface | n/a | Excellent |
TOTAL | 36 |
Alternative Sources
In their application, Greensboro lists three alternatives to a Jordan
Lake allocation. The Division has also considered Randleman Lake as a fourth
alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers anticipates releasing the final
EIS for Randleman Lake in March or April of 1997. If approved, Randleman
Lake would satisfy the City's water demands for the next 50 years. Table
D-3 summarizes Greensboro's alternatives to a Jordan Lake allocation.
Table D-3. Alternative Water Supply Sources
Alternative Name | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Cost to Develop ($/1000 Gal) | Water Quality | Environ-mental Impacts | Institutional Impacts |
Randleman L. | 28.5 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Benaja/Polecat | 40.0 | 1.41 | Good | Moderate | Typical |
Altamahaw | 48.0 | 1.45 | Good | Moderate | Typical |
Dan River | 30.0 | 1.08 | Good | Moderate | Difficult |
Jordan Lake | 25.0 | 1.46 | Good | Minor | Simple |
Conservation and Demand Management
Greensboro has instituted an aggressive program to conserve water. A summary of their program is listed below:
Local Water Shortage Ordinance which meets the requirements of a Water Shortage Response Plan under the State's local water supply planning process.
Enforcement of latest State Plumbing Code
Leak Detection Program staffed by full time crew
100 percent metered system
Monthly water accountability program that identifies water loss
Public education program aimed at reducing waste at apartment complexes
Plans to use Jordan Lake
Greensboro has applied for a Level II allocation of 25 MGD. The City
plans to initially use 10 MGD from the reservoir and increase that amount
as system demands increase. The proposed intake would be located at the
site of the proposed Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) intake. Greensboro
anticipates sharing a common intake with other systems.
Treatment would take place at the proposed Piedmont Triad Regional Authority
site in Guilford County. Greensboro would construct a wastewater treatment
facility to treat the additional waste water. The plant would be located
in the Haw River Basin downstream of the confluence of Reedy Fork Creek
and Buffalo Creek.
Greensboro has developed a water quality monitoring plan based on regulations
of the North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies and the U.S.
EPA.
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers
A Jordan Lake allocation to Greensboro would not result in an interbasin
transfer or out-of-watershed diversion. The City's proposed wastewater
facility would discharge into the Haw River Basin. Consumptive losses would
also occur in the Haw River Basin.
Appendix E. Towns of Apex and Cary
Overview and System Recommendation
The Towns of Cary and Apex currently have a joint 16-MGD Level I allocation
from Jordan Lake. Cary and Apex requested an additional 10-MGD Level I
allocation and a 19-MGD Level II allocation, which was based on their projected
30-year (2025) maximum daily demand. The recommended additional allocation
for Cary and Apex, based instead on 20-year (2015) average daily demand,
is:
Level I 0.0 MGD
Population and Water Use Projections
Cary and Apex have experienced dramatic population growth since their
initial allocations were received in 1988. From 1990 to 1995, their combined
populations increased 60 percent, from 48,434 to 77,761. Cary and Apex
expect their rapid population growth to continue, as shown in their projections
in Table E-1 below:
Table E-1. Population Projections by Applicant
Year | Cary | Apex | Cary/Apex |
1995 | 69,711 | 8,050 | 77,761 |
2000 | 106,000 | 11,751 | 117,751 |
2005 | 142,500 | 17,726 | 159,767 |
2010 | 209,308 | 25,371 | 234,679 |
2015 | 234,784 | 37,279 | 272,063 |
2020 | 239,529 | 54,775 | 294,304 |
2025 | 239,977 | 80,483 | 320,460 |
The Division performed an independent evaluation of service population and water use projections for the Cary/Apex water system. Population forecasts were based on recent municipal population projections compiled by the Wake County Planning Department using Office of State Planning county projections. For each of the forecast years, the applicant's population projections significantly exceeded the Wake County/OSP forecast, as shown in Tables E-2 (Cary) and E-3 (Apex). The Division accepted Cary and Apex's service population forecast through the year 2005. Beyond 2005, the Division adjusted the Wake County/OSP projections upward to reflect Cary and Apex's documented growth/development plans. The Division's final projections are also shown in Tables E-2 and E-3.
Table E-2. Population Projection Comparisons for Cary
Year | Applicant | Wake County/
OSP |
DWR |
1995 | 69,711 | 73,823 | 69,711 |
2000 | 106,000 | 93,096 | 106,000 |
2005 | 142,500 | 107,609 | 142,500 |
2010 | 209,308 | 122,001 | 183,000 |
2015 | 234,784 | 136,709 | 203,000 |
2020 | 239,529 | 151,190 | 213,000 |
2025 | 239,977 | 167,278 | 221,000 |
Table E-3. Population Projection Comparisons for Apex
Year | Applicant | Wake County/
OSP |
DWR |
1995 | 8,050 | 8,376 | 8,050 |
2000 | 11,751 | 10,188 | 11,800 |
2005 | 17,267 | 14,535 | 17,300 |
2010 | 25,371 | 18,846 | 23,500 |
2015 | 37,279 | 23,722 | 31,900 |
2020 | 54,775 | 28,522 | 43,000 |
2025 | 80,483 | 30,903 | 57,100 |
Water demand projections were based on population projections and per
capita water use. Cary and Apex used 1991 through 1996 records to calculate
their per capita use for all combined uses. The resulting per capita use
for Cary was 106 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) and for Apex, 113 GPCD,
which are reasonable. Through conservation/demand management, Cary anticipates
a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use through 2014, and Apex,
a 15 percent reduction for the same period. These are significant reductions,
and the Division commends them for this commitment to water conservation.
Table E-4 summarizes the average daily demands (ADDs) for Cary and Apex
based on their own population projections and DWR's population projections.
Cary's ADD also includes RDU's ADD, which is projected to increase from
the current 400,000 gallons per day (contracted) to 575,000 gallons per
day in 2015. Since the Division accepted the applicant's population estimates
through 2005, the water use projections for that period are also the same.
Table E-4. Average Daily Demand (ADD) Projections
Year | Cary | Apex | Cary/Apex | |||||
GPCD | Applicant | DWR | GPCD | Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | |
1995 | 106 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 113 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 10.7 | 10.7 |
2000 | 104 | 11.4 | 11.4 | 111 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 12.7 | 12.7 |
2005 | 95 | 14.0 | 14.0 | 104 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 15.8 | 15.8 |
2010 | 91 | 19.5 | 17.2 | 101 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 22.1 | 19.6 |
2015 | 85 | 20.5 | 17.8 | 96 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 24.1 | 20.9 |
2020 | 85 | 20.9 | 18.7 | 96 | 5.3 | 4.1 | 26.2 | 22.8 |
2025 | 85 | 20.9 | 19.4 | 96 | 7.7 | 5.5 | 28.6 | 24.9 |
Table E-5 is a comparison of Cary/Apex's ADD versus their current 16-MGD
Jordan allocation. Through 2005, no demand deficit is projected for Cary/Apex.
For 2015, the applicant showed a demand deficit of 8.1 MGD; DWR projected
a demand deficit of 4.9 MGD. Based on these results, the recommended additional
allocation amount for Cary/Apex is 5.0 MGD.
Table E-5. Projected Demand Deficit
Year |
Average Daily Demand
(MGD) |
System
Yield (MGD) |
System Deficit
(MGD) |
||
Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | ||
1995 | 10.7 | 10.7 | 16 | - | - |
2000 | 12.7 | 12.7 | 16 | - | - |
2005 | 15.8 | 15.8 | 16 | - | - |
2010 | 22.1 | 19.6 | 16 | 6.1 | 3.6 |
2015 | 24.1 | 20.9 | 16 | 8.1 | 4.9 |
2020 | 26.2 | 22.8 | 16 | 10.2 | 6.8 |
2025 | 28.6 | 24.9 | 16 | 12.6 | 8.9 |
Current Water Supply Sources
Cary and Apex currently share a 16-MGD water allocation from Jordan Lake. The towns
jointly operate a water treatment plant (WTP) with a 16-MGD capacity and an intake structure that has a design capacity of up to 50 MGD. The 16-MGD plant capacity is divided between Cary and Apex, 77 percent (12.32 MGD) and 23 percent (3.68 MGD), respectively.
Currently, the Cary/Apex WTP also serves Morrisville, Holly Springs,
RDU International Airport, and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle
Park (RTP South) with water from Cary/Apex's 16-MGD allocation. Of these,
all but RDU are requesting their own allocation from Jordan Lake, making
more of the existing 16-MGD allocation available for Cary/Apex's own use.
Cary also has emergency purchase agreements with the Cities of Raleigh
and Durham. From Raleigh, Cary can purchase up to 3.5 MGD for approximately
160 days annually through FY 1999. The contract with Durham is for emergency
use only, with no amount specified. Apex can obtain water from Cary on
an emergency basis, if necessary.
Alternative Sources
Cary and Apex's alternative to additional allocations from Jordan Lake
is to purchase finished water from Raleigh and/or Durham. While this may
be a possible short term option, neither Raleigh nor Durham can be a realistic
long term water provider to Cary and Apex, except in emergency situations.
Conservation and Demand Management
Cary is implementing an aggressive water conservation program, with
a targeted 20-percent reduction in per capita water use by 2014. Apex is
planning a 15-percent per capita water use reduction over the same period.
A component of their water conservation effort is water reuse. Cary
is considering a town-wide nonpotable water system which would deliver
treated effluent for irrigation, fire, cooling, and industrial process
uses within the Neuse River basin portion of Cary. Cary estimates that
about 2 to 4 MGD of the finished water supply is currently used for irrigation
during the growing season. Preliminary system planning has been based on
an average delivery rate of about 1 MGD. Apex will be promoting reuse through
golf course irrigation where possible.
A water shortage response plan will be required as a condition of an
allocation.
Plans to use Jordan Lake
Cary and Apex plan to expand their existing facilities for use of their
additional Jordan Lake allocation. The expanded intake and WTP facilities
will also serve Morrisville, RTP South, and Holly Springs. The anticipated
schedule for water system improvements is:
Activity Expected Date
Construct Phase I of Cary Reuse System 2nd quarter 1997
Initiate Expansion of Apex WWTP 1997
Expansion of Cary/Apex WTP 2nd quarter 1999
Construct New West Cary WWTP 4th quarter 1999
Construct New Apex WWTP about 2005
An acceptable water quality monitoring plan was also provided.
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers
Cary operates two wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that are located
in the Neuse River basin; Apex's WWTP is also located in the Neuse River
Basin. Cary and Apex currently have an interbasin transfer certificate
allowing them to transfer a maximum daily amount of 16 MGD from the Cape
Fear River basin to the Neuse River basin. The maximum amount transferred
by Cary/Apex during 1995, which included transfers by Morrisville, RTP
South, and Holly Springs, was estimated to be 14.8 MGD.
Cary is planning to build a West Cary WWTP that will discharge into
either the Haw River sub-basin or the Cape Fear River sub-basin, depending
on the approval of the Division of Water Quality. (Even though a discharge
directly into the Cape Fear River would transfer water from the Haw River
sub-basin to the Cape Fear River sub-basin, the certification requirements
do not apply when the discharge point is downstream of the withdrawal point,
even if a basin boundary has been crossed.) Its initial permitted discharge
is expected to be 9 MGD, with an ultimate capacity of 23 MGD. Construction
is planned to begin in late 1999. Apex is also planning to build an additional
WWTP in the Haw or Cape Fear River sub-basin, but not until around 2005.
Applicants were asked to estimate potential maximum daily interbasin
transfer amounts through 2025. Table E-6 below is a summary of information
provided in Cary/Apex's application. Their estimates assumed that the West
Cary WWTP will come on-line between 2000 and 2005, and that its discharge
will be in the Haw or Cape Fear River sub-basin. Consumptive losses in
the Neuse River basin are included in their transfer estimates. The transfer
amounts were based on their projected maximum daily demands (MDDs) which
Cary/Apex calculated as 1.6 times their projected ADD amounts.
Table E-6. Potential Interbasin Transfers 1
Year | Jordan Lake
Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) |
Potential
Interbasin Transfer (MGD) |
1995 | 16.3 | 15.8 |
2000 | 20.3 | 17.7 |
2005 | 25.3 | 13.1 |
2010 | 35.3 | 16.1 |
2015 | 38.4 | 15.3 |
2020 | 41.9 | 11.2 |
2025 | 45.8 | 10.6 |
1 Does not include Morrisville, RTP
South, or Holly Springs' potential transfers
Potential transfers begin to decline after 2000 when the planned West
Cary WWTP comes on-line. Transfers by Morrisville, RTP South, and Holly
Springs are not included in these amounts.
The Cary/Apex allocation is also a diversion out of the lake's watershed, which is limited to 50 percent of the water supply yield under the present rules. About 2.7 MGD of the recommended 21-MGD total allocation would be consumed in the lake's watershed, reducing the amount of the allocation diverted out of the watershed to about 18.3 MGD.
Appendix F. Town of Holly Springs
Overview and System Recommendation
Holly Springs is a relatively small community situated in southwestern
Wake County. Along with its neighbors, Cary and Apex, Holly Springs has
experienced tremendous residential growth during the past several years,
and this growth is projected to continue for the foreseeable future.
Holly Springs currently has several water supply sources, including
a purchase agreement with Apex for a portion of its Jordan allocation.
Holly Springs is requesting a water supply allocation from Jordan Lake
that would supplant the purchased water from Apex as well as meet its additional
forecasted needs. Holly Springs has requested a 4.5-MGD Level II allocation,
which was based on their projected 30-year (2025) maximum daily demand.
The recommended allocation for Holly Springs, based instead on 20-year
(2015) average daily demand, is:
Level I 0.0 MGD
Population and Water Use Projections
The 1995 population of Holly Springs was about 3,500, which is double
their 1993 population. Holly Springs has approved development plans for
nearly 5,000 additional housing units, with population expected to reach
10,500 by 2000 and 18,000 by 2005. These growth rates over the next 10
years or so are not unrealistic, considering the developments already approved
and recent growth experienced here and in neighboring towns. Holly Springs
projects a 2025 population of 48,000, which is based on Cary's growth within
30 years after a beginning population of 3,500.
The Division performed an independent evaluation of service population and water use projections for the Holly Springs water system. Population forecasts were based on recent municipal population projections compiled by the Wake County Planning Department using Office of State Planning county projections. For each of the forecast years, the applicant's population projections significantly exceeded the Wake County/OSP forecast, as shown in Table F-1. The Division accepted Holly Springs' service population forecast through the year 2005. Beyond 2005, the Division adjusted the Wake County/OSP projections upward to reflect Holly Springs documented development plans. The Division's final projections for Holly Springs are also shown in Table F-1 below:
Table F-1. Population Projections
Year | Applicant | Wake County/
OSP |
DWR |
1995 | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,500 |
2000 | 10,500 | 4,379 | 10,500 |
2005 | 18,000 | 5,695 | 18,000 |
2010 | 25,500 | 7,000 | 22,400 |
2015 | 33,000 | 8,854 | 27,100 |
2020 | 40,500 | 10,679 | 31,700 |
2025 | 48,000 | 11,277 | 35,800 |
Water demand projections were based on population projections and per
capita water use. In 1995, Holly Springs' water use averaged just over
70 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) for combined usage. Holly Springs
pointed out that future developments will include homes that will have
much higher water use, especially for irrigation, than existing homes in
Holly Springs typically use. Therefore, Holly Springs chose to use the
combined per capita water use rate which Cary established for its projections,
106 GPCD. This is a reasonable approach for Holly Springs to take, since
its future developments should fairly resemble those of Cary. Holly Springs
included a 5-percent reduction in per capita demand through 2025, increasing
linearly from zero in 2000, due to conservation/demand management efforts.
Table F-2 summarizes the average daily demands (ADDs) for Holly Springs based on its own population projections and DWR's final population projections. Along with the ADDs, Table F-2 presents the demand deficit for each projection year. Holly Springs' system yield currently includes a 0.75-MGD purchase agreement with Apex. Holly Springs' allocation would replace this contracted amount with Apex, so it was not included in the system yield after 1995. (Holly Springs' water supply sources are discussed in greater detail in the next section.) For 2015, the applicant showed a demand deficit of 1.03 MGD; DWR projected a demand deficit of 0.43 MGD. Based on these results, the recommended additional allocation amount for Holly Springs is 0.5 MGD.
Table F-2. Projected Average Daily Demands (ADDs) & Demand
Deficits
Year |
Average Daily Demand
(MGD) |
System
Yield (MGD) |
System Deficit
(MGD) |
||
Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | ||
1995 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 1.12 | - | - |
2000 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 2.87 | - | - |
2005 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.87 | - | - |
2010 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 2.87 | - | - |
2015 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.37 | 1.03 | 0.43 |
2020 | 4.1 | 3.2 | 2.37 | 1.73 | 0.83 |
2025 | 4.8 | 3.6 | 2.37 | 2.43 | 1.23 |
Current Water Supply Sources
Holly Spring's current and future water supply is comprised of a combination
of sources, which are summarized in Table F-3. Under normal conditions,
Holly Springs' water supply is a combination of water pumped from three
local wells and water purchased from the Town of Apex. The wells have a
combined yield of 0.37 MGD.
Since September 1993, Holly Springs has had a purchase agreement with
the Town of Apex. This water contract provides for the delivery of up to
0.75 MGD of Apex's current raw water allocation from Jordan Lake to Holly
Springs. The water is treated at the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
and is delivered to Holly Springs through the Towns of Cary and Apex. Holly
Springs's requested allocation would replace this contracted amount.
Holly Springs also has a contract for 1.0 MGD from Harnett County, with
an additional 1.0-MGD amendment being developed. A contract with the City
of Raleigh is also under development, which would provide an additional
0.5 MGD through 2011. Water from Harnett County would be from the Cape
Fear River basin; water from Raleigh would be from the Neuse River basin.
The Town of Fuquay-Varina can supply an unspecified amount of additional
water during emergency conditions.Table F-3. Current Water Supply Sources
Source | River Basin | Type | Safe Yield
(MGD) |
Water Quality |
Wells (3) | Neuse/Cape Fear | Ground | 0.37 | Good |
Apex | Haw | Purchase | 0.71 | Good |
Harnett County | Cape Fear | Purchase | 2.02 | Good |
Raleigh | Neuse | Purchase | 0.53 | Good |
Fuquay-Varina | Neuse/Cape Fear | Purchase | unspecified4 | Good |
1 Contracted amount
2 1.0 MGD contracted, 1.0 MGD being added by amendment
3 Contract under development
4 Contract for emergency use, unspecified amount
Alternative Sources
Holly Springs' alternatives to obtaining an allocation from Jordan Lake
is to purchase additional finished water from Raleigh and/or Harnett County.
Raleigh does not appear to be a realistic long-term water provider to Holly
Springs or anyone else. While connections and agreements may also exist
with Harnett County, that does appear to be a somewhat more expensive water
source than a Jordan allocation.
Conservation and Demand Management
Holly Springs indicated that it is in the process of adopting a long-range
conservation/demand management plan with the following voluntary conservation
goals:
explore opportunities for residential reuse
incorporate reuse facilities into a proposed 1-MGD expansion of town's WWTP
distribute educational material to customers and classrooms
prepare long-range water supply and water distribution system modeling study
The water use projections developed by Holly Springs assumed a 5-percent
demand reduction by 2025. Holly Springs should adopt its water conservation
program and consider expanding it to include such elements as water loss/leak
detection, fixture change-out, and water rate incentives. A water shortage
response plan will be required as a condition of an allocation.
Plans to use Jordan Lake
Jordan water allocated to Holly Springs would be withdrawn at the existing
eastern intake structure and transmitted to the Cary/Apex WTP via the existing
transmission line. Plans for expanding the WTP capacity are currently underway
by Cary. Holly Springs existing agreement with Apex for treatment and delivery
may need to be expanded to include the Town of Cary.
Holly Springs has an existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) on Utley
Creek with a permitted discharge capacity of 0.5 MGD. (Utley Creek flows
to the Cape Fear River downstream of Jordan Lake.) The town is currently
designing a 1.0-MGD WWTP expansion of the Utley Creek plant, for a total
plant capacity of 1.5 MGD. Holly Springs is also exploring other options
for additional wastewater treatment, including participating in the expansion
of the South Cary WWTP with the Town of Cary or constructing a new WWTP
on Middle Creek.
The following schedule is anticipated for Jordan Lake water use and
related activities:
Activity Expected Date
Completion of Raleigh Connection 1st quarter 1997
Completion of Harnett County Connection 1st quarter 1998
Expansion of Cary/Apex WTP 2nd quarter 1999
An acceptable water quality monitoring plan was also submitted.
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers
Holly Springs discharges its wastewater into a tributary of the Cape
Fear River. Water purchased from Apex comes from Jordan Lake in the Haw
River sub-basin, which results in an interbasin transfer to the Cape Fear
River sub-basin. The current potential for interbasin transfer would be
equal to this contracted supply from Apex, or 0.75 MGD.
Holly Springs has asked to assume responsibility for certification of
the transfer associated with its allocation request. DWR intends to approve
that request for the following reasons. Cary/Apex, Morrisville, and RTP
South effectively act as a regional water system, since Morrisville and
RTP South will rely totally on Cary/Apex for water and wastewater services
for its allocated water. Holly Springs, on the other hand, has its own
WWTP which discharges back into the Cape Fear River basin, not the Neuse
River basin as the others do. The estimated maximum daily transfer for
Holly Springs is only 0.8 MGD, based on the recommended 0.5-MGD allocation.
Since the certification threshold for transfers is 2.0 MGD, EMC certification
will not be required for this transfer.
Applicants were asked to estimate potential maximum daily interbasin
transfer amounts through 2025. Table F-4 below is a summary of information
provided in Holly Springs' application. The transfer amounts were based
on their projected maximum daily demands (MDDs) which were calculated as
1.6 times their projected ADD amounts.Table F-4. Potential Interbasin
Transfers
Year | Jordan Lake
Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) |
Potential
Interbasin Transfer (MGD) |
2000 | 0 | 0 |
2005 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
2010 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
2015 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
2020 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
2025 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
These estimates were based on the applicant's projected demands and
requested allocation. The recommended allocation amount for Holly Springs
is only 0.5 MGD, based on DWR's projection of their 2015 ADD. Since interbasin
transfer certification requirements are based on maximum daily transfer
limits, an MDD estimate based on the recommended allocation amount is needed.
Assuming the same 1.6 factor used by the applicant, the estimated maximum
daily transfer amount would be 0.8 MGD. Since this amount is less than
2 MGD, no transfer certificate will be necessary for the recommended allocation
amount.
The Holly Springs allocation is also a diversion out of the lake's watershed, which is limited to 50 percent of the water supply yield under the present rules.
Appendix G. Town of Morrisville
Overview and System Recommendation
Morrisville is situated next to Research Triangle Park and RDU International
Airport. As the RTP region continues to prosper, Morrisville has become
heavily developed by support industries wishing to be close to RTP and
the airport. This trend is expected to continue.
Morrisville currently buys treated water from Cary, which gets its water
from Jordan Lake. Morrisville has applied for its own water allocation
from Jordan Lake, however, Cary would still continue to treat and transmit
water for Morrisville. Morrisville requested a 4.5 MGD allocation (2.5-MGD
Level I, 2.0-MGD Level II), which was based on their projected maximum
daily demand through 2022. The recommended additional allocation for Morrisville,
based instead on 20-year (2015) average daily demand, is:
Level I 1.5 MGD
Population and Water Use Projections
Morrisville is expecting a rapid increase in population growth between
now and 2000. Rapid growth in the 1980s (19 percent) slowed in the 1990s
because of inadequate water and sewer availability. A 1995 agreement with
Cary provided additional treatment capacity, and with the backlog of known
planned projects, the town is expecting this rapid growth to resume. The
population projections provided by Morrisville are shown in Table G-1 below:
Table G-1. Population Projections by Applicant
Year | Population |
1995 | 2,088 |
2000 | 5,786 |
2005 | 7,936 |
2010 | 10,086 |
2015 | 12,236 |
2020 | 14,386 |
2025 | 16,536 |
The Division performed an independent evaluation of service population
and water use projections for the Morrisville water system. Population
forecasts were based on recent municipal population projections compiled
by the Wake County Planning Department using Office of State Planning county
projections. The Wake County/OSP population projections were nearly identical
to the applicant's projections, so the applicants projections were used
for the Division's water use projections.
The applicant's build-out projections, based on 30-percent residential
development of its service area, indicated a residential build-out population
of about 17,000. Residential build-out is expected to be reached in about
2027.
Morrisville expects its total water use pattern to stay the same --
70-percent business and 30-percent residential. Morrisville determined
its future residential water use from historical residential per capita
water use (56.75 GPCD) and population. Total use was then determined as
3.33 times the residential use, based on the 70/30 business/residential
split. For conservation, Morrisville phased in a 5-percent reduction in
its average daily demand (ADD) from 2000 through 2025 in its projections.
DWR's independent water use projections indicated slightly higher ADDs.
For new residential construction, a higher, more typical per capita use
rate of 70 GPCD was used. For new business construction, a per capita rate
of 110 GPCD was used, which reflects a 10-percent conservation reduction
from 1995 per capita business use. A 15-percent unaccounted-for water rate
was also included in our projections. DWR's independent water use projections
are shown with the applicant's projections in Table G-2 below.
Along with Morrisville's ADDs, Table G-2 presents the demand deficit
for each projection year. Currently, Morrisville's system yield is a one-MGD
supply from Cary, but this will not be available after Morrisville obtains
its own Jordan allocation. For 2015, the applicant showed a demand deficit
of 2.2 MGD; DWR projected a demand deficit of 2.6 MGD. Based on these results,
the recommended additional allocation amount for Morrisville is 2.5 MGD.
Table G-2. Projected Average Day Demands (ADDs) & Demand
Deficits
Year |
Average Daily Demand
(MGD) |
System
Yield (MGD) |
System Deficit
(MGD) |
||
Applicant | DWR | Applicant | DWR | ||
1995 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 1 | - | - |
2000 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
2005 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0 | 1.5 | 1.7 |
2010 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 0 | 1.9 | 2.1 |
2015 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 0 | 2.2 | 2.6 |
2020 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 0 | 2.6 | 3.0 |
2025 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 0 | 3.0 | 3.5 |
Current Water Supply Sources
Morrisville currently buys its water from the Town of Cary. Their agreement
provides for delivery of up to 1.0 MGD of Cary's raw-water allocation from
Jordan Lake to Morrisville. The water is treated at the Cary/Apex Water
Treatment Plant (WTP) and is delivered to Morrisville through Cary's transmission
system. Under their agreement, Morrisville is required to obtain its own
Jordan allocation, after which time Morrisville would no longer purchase
water from Cary.
Alternative Sources
Morrisville's alternative to obtaining an allocation from Jordan Lake
is to purchase finished water from Raleigh and/or Durham. While this may
be a possible short term option, neither Raleigh nor Durham can realistically
be a long term water provider to Morrisville or anyone else.
Conservation and Demand Management
Morrisville indicated that it does not have an official water conservation
plan, but has taken the following steps toward managing water use:
sends out monthly newsletter to all users, including articles on conservation
requires in-ground irrigation meters, instead of portable ones, to discourage
vandalism
The water use projections developed by Morrisville assumed a 5-percent
demand reduction by 2025. Morrisville should establish a formal water conservation
program to the extent possible, which could include such elements as water
loss/leak detection, fixture change-out, water rate incentives, and nonpotable
re-use for irrigation and industrial processing. A water shortage response
plan will be required as a condition of an allocation.
Plans to use Jordan Lake
Morrisville has agreements with Cary to provide both water and wastewater
treatment services for the water it is allocated. The water would be withdrawn
at the existing eastern intake structure and transmitted to the Cary/Apex
WTP via the existing transmission line. Plans for expanding the WTP capacity
are currently underway by Cary. Morrisville has an existing agreement with
Cary for 1.0 MGD of the current WTP's capacity and an additional 2.0-MGD
capacity once the plant is upgraded.
The NPDES permit for the North Cary WWTP (NC WWTP) expansion requires
that Morrisville take both of its 200,000-GPD WWTPs off-line and transmit
all of its wastewater flows to the Town of Cary. (The existing Morrisville
WWTPs and the North Cary WWTP all discharge into the Neuse River basin.)
The following schedule is anticipated for Jordan Lake water use and related activities: Activity Expected Date
Expand NC WWTP (10 MGD) 2nd quarter 1997
Construct transmission line from
Morrisville to the Cary wastewater
collection system 2nd quarter 1997
Take existing Morrisville WWTPs off-line 1st quarter 1998
Expansion of Cary/Apex WTP 2nd quarter 1999
Construct New West Cary WWTP about 2005
An acceptable water quality monitoring plan was also submitted.
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers
As previously stated, Morrisville plans to send current and future wastewater
flows to the Town of Cary and shut down its own wastewater facilities.
Because Cary will provide wastewater services to Morrisville and the Cary/Apex
WTP provides water, the opportunities for Morrisville to return wastewater
to the Jordan Lake watershed or to limit interbasin transfers depend on
Cary's actions.
Cary operates two wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that are located
in the Neuse River basin. Cary/Apex currently has an interbasin transfer
certificate allowing them to transfer a maximum daily amount of 16 MGD
from the Haw River basin to the Neuse River basin. The maximum amount transferred
by Cary/Apex during 1995, which includes transfers by Morrisville, RTP
South, and Holly Springs, is estimated to be 14.8 MGD.
Cary is planning to build a West Cary WWTP that will discharge into
either the Haw River sub-basin or the Cape Fear River sub-basin, depending
on the approval of the Division of Water Quality. Its initial permitted
discharge is expected to be 9 MGD, with an ultimate capacity of 23 MGD.
Construction on the first phase should be completed by 2000. While some
wastewater that currently goes to the NC WWTP is planned for diversion
to the WC WWTP, it is unlikely that it will be cost effective for Morrisville's
wastewater to be diverted, according to the applicant.
Applicants were asked to estimate potential maximum daily interbasin transfer amounts through 2025. Table G-3 is a summary of information provided in Morrisville's application. Their estimates assumed that all of Morrisville's wastewater discharge continues to go to the NC WWTP. The transfer amounts were based on their projected maximum daily demands (MDDs) which Morrisville calculated as 1.6 times their projected ADD amounts.
Table G-3. Potential Interbasin Transfers
Year | Jordan Lake
Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) |
Potential
Interbasin Transfer (MGD) |
1995 | 1.25 | 1.25 |
2000 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
2005 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
2010 | 3.0 | 2.9 |
2015 | 3.6 | 3.5 |
2020 | 4.2 | 4.1 |
2025 | 4.5 | 4.4 |
The slight difference in Jordan Lake MDD estimate and
potential interbasin transfer is due to water consumption in the small
portion of Morrisville's service area that is located in the Haw River
sub-basin. This consumption is not part of the interbasin transfer.
The Morrisville allocation is also a diversion out of the lake's watershed, which is limited to 50 percent of the water supply yield under the present rules.
Appendix H. Wake County / Research
Triangle Park
Overview and System Recommendation
Wake County is applying for a water supply allocation from Jordan Lake on behalf of the portion of Research Triangle Park within Wake County (RTP South). RTP South does not have any water supply facilities of its own and contracts with the Town of Cary for its water and wastewater services.
RTP South requested a 3.5-MGD allocation (1.5-MGD Level
I, 2.0-MGD Level II), which was based on their projected 30-year (2025)
maximum daily demand. The recommended allocation for RTP South, based instead
on 20-year (2015) average daily demand, is:
Level I 1.0 MGD
Population and Water Use Projections
Development in RTP South is exclusively office and industrial,
therefore no population projections were necessary. Instead, development
rates for the available acreage in RTP South were projected by analyzing
historical records of acreage sold, square footage, and employment for
all of RTP since 1965. The applicant assumed that the Durham and Wake County
portions of RTP will grow at the same rate until Durham County is built
out (2012), after which time RTP South will continue developing at the
same total rate. Using these assumptions, RTP South estimated it will reach
build out in 2019.
From acreage projections, square footage was estimated
by extrapolating historical square footage versus acreage for all of RTP.
The square footage-to-acreage ratios for each projection year were then
applied to the RTP South acreage projections to get square footage projections.
Table H-1 lists the projected development acreage and square footage for
all of RTP and for RTP South, as reported by the applicant.
Table H-1. Growth Projections for RTP and RTP
South
Year |
RTP | RTP South | ||
Acres | Square Feet | Acres | Square Feet | |
1995 | 3,832 | 14,223,400 | 174 | 643,626 |
2000 | 4,199 | 16,305,626 | 358 | 1,389,019 |
2005 | 4,566 | 18,451,345 | 541 | 2,187,101 |
2010 | 4,933 | 20,597,065 | 725 | 3,026,114 |
2015 | 5,299 | 22,733,507 | 1,017 | 4,362,455 |
2020 | 5,590 | 24,437,715 | 1,308 | 5,719,037 |
2025 | 5,590 | 24,437,715 | 1,308 | 5,719,037 |
The Town of Cary began supplying water to RTP South in April 1995. Because such a small portion of RTP South has been developed and water use patterns were not established, water use data in the Durham County portion of RTP were used by the applicant for its projections. The applicant compiled acreage, square footage of building space, number of employees, and water use data (Aug 1994-July 1995) for 26 different companies in the Durham County portion of RTP.
The companies included a mix of office and industry with highly variable
water use, ranging from 22 to 1,305 gallon per day per thousand square
feet of building space (GPD/1000 sf). The average water use was 148 GPD/1000
sf. Based on companies that have moved in since July 1995, RTP growth is
expected to contain a greater portion of industry than is reflected in
the average use rate, which typically have higher water use than office
buildings. To reflect this trend, the applicant determined a weighted water
use rate of 398 GPD/1000 sf based on the percentage of overall water use
for each company.
The applicant assumed a conservation savings of 5 percent, which reduced
the weighted water use rate from 398 to 375 GPD/1000 sf of building space.
The water use data compiled did not reflect requirements for low-flow fixtures
or the recent trend for landscaping which requires less irrigation. In
addition, since the weighted water use rate reflects higher water use industries,
they should have greater potential for increased water use savings through
recycling process water and overall improved efficiencies. Therefore, DWR
believed that a 10-percent rate reduction was realistic, resulting in a
water use rate of 360 GPD/1000 sf for new development in RTP South.
Table H-2 presents the applicant's projected average daily demands (ADDs).
Table H-2 also presents the projected demand deficits, based on the system's
yield. RTP South currently has a 1.0-MGD contract with the Town of Cary,
however this allocation request will replace that contract amount. For
2015, the showed a demand deficit of 1.6 MGD. However, because of the significant
difference between the average and the weighted water use rate that was
used (a factor of 2.7) and the potential for greater industrial water use
savings (through recycling, e.g.), the recommended allocation for RTP South
is 1.5 MGD.
Table H-2. Projected Average Daily Demands (ADDs) & Demand
Deficits
Year | Average Daily
Demand (MGD) |
System
Yield (MGD) |
System Deficit
(MGD) |
1995 | 0.005 | 1 | - |
2000 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 |
2005 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.8 |
2010 | 1.1 | 0 | 1.1 |
2015 | 1.6 | 0 | 1.6 |
2020 | 2.1 | 0 | 2.1 |
2025 | 2.1 | 0 | 2.1 |
Current Water Supply Sources
The Town of Cary currently provides water and wastewater services to
RTP South under an agreement made in 1989 with Cary, Wake County, and the
Research Triangle Foundation. The water contract provides for delivery
of up to 1.0 MGD, with water being treated at the Cary/Apex Water Treatment
Plant and delivered to RTP South through the Town of Cary's transmission
system.
Cary advised RTP South, as well as Morrisville and Holly Springs, that they needed to obtain their own allocation from Jordan Lake. Wake County, on behalf of RTP, applied for an allocation. Cary would continue to treat and transmit the water allocated to Wake County/RTP.
Alternative Sources
RTP South's alternative to obtaining an allocation from Jordan Lake
is to purchase finished water from Raleigh and/or Durham. While this may
be a possible short term option, neither Raleigh nor Durham can realistically
be a long term water provider to RTP South or anyone else.
Conservation and Demand Management
Depending on the type of company, water usage requirements and conservation
potential can vary considerably. The following voluntary conservation measures
are currently in place, according to the applicant:
more than 1/3 of RTP is preserved as natural areas, not needing irrigation
roadside landscaping is irrigated using on-site lake
low-flow plumbing fixtures will be used in future development
companies are landscaping with hardy, drought resistant species to reduce irrigation
companies have expressed interest in using recycled water for irrigation if available
Biogen has a 50,000-gallon storage tank on-site to reduce potable demand
during peak- use periods during droughts
A conservation/demand management reduction of 5 percent was applied
to future water use rates by the applicant. As indicated, DWR feels that
there is potential for additional savings, due to industrial recycling
and overall improved processing efficiencies.
A water shortage response plan will be required as a condition of an
allocation.
Plans to use Jordan Lake
RTP South would rely on Cary to continue providing both water and wastewater
treatment services for the water it is allocated. The water would be withdrawn
at the existing eastern intake structure and transmitted to the Cary/Apex
WTP via the existing transmission line. Plans for expanding the WTP capacity
are currently underway by Cary.
The following schedule is anticipated for Jordan Lake water use and
related activities:
Activity Expected Date
Expansion of Cary/Apex WTP 2nd quarter 1997
Construct New West Cary WWTP 4th quarter 1999
An acceptable water quality monitoring plan was also submitted.
Watershed and Interbasin Transfers
RTP South is located almost entirely in the Haw River sub-basin, which
drains to Jordan Lake, so basically all consumptive uses occur within the
Haw River sub-basin and the lake's watershed. However, the remaining wastewater
gets returned to the South Cary Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which
discharges into the Neuse River sub-basin. Therefore, the future opportunities
for RTP South to return wastewater to the Jordan Lake watershed or to limit
interbasin transfers depend on Cary's plans for wastewater discharge.
Cary operates two wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that are located
in the Neuse River basin. Cary/Apex currently has an interbasin transfer
certificate allowing them to transfer a maximum daily amount of 16 MGD
from the Haw River basin to the Neuse River basin. The maximum amount transferred
by Cary/Apex during 1995, which includes transfers by Morrisville, RTP
South, and Holly Springs, is estimated to be 14.8 MGD.
Cary is planning to build a West Cary WWTP that will discharge into
either the Haw River sub-basin or the Cape Fear River sub-basin, depending
on the approval of the Division of Water Quality. Its initial permitted
discharge is expected to be 9 MGD, with an ultimate capacity of 23 MGD.
Construction on the first phase should be completed by 2000. RTP South's
discharge would then be diverted to the West Cary WWTP, eliminating its
interbasin transfer.
Applicants were asked to estimate potential maximum daily interbasin
transfer amounts through 2025. Table H-3 below is a summary of information
provided in RTP South's application. The estimates assumed that all of
RTP South's wastewater gets diverted to the West Cary WWTP after about
2000. The transfer amounts were based on their projected maximum daily
demands (MDDs) which RTP South calculated as 1.6 times their projected
ADD amounts.
Table H-3. Potential Interbasin Transfers
Year | Jordan Lake
Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) |
Potential
Interbasin Transfer (MGD) |
2000 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
2005 | 1.4 | 0.0 |
2010 | 1.8 | 0.0 |
2015 | 2.6 | 0.0 |
2020 | 3.4 | 0.0 |
2025 | 3.4 | 0.0 |
The RTP South allocation results in a diversion out of the lake's watershed, which is limited to 50 percent of the water supply yield under the present rules. About 0.3 MGD of the recommended 1.5-MGD allocation would be consumed in the lake's watershed, reducing the amount of the allocation diverted out of the watershed to about 1.2 MGD.
Appendix I. Summary of Public Comments
on the Process
From the very beginning of the allocation process the Division of Water Resources has made a strong effort to involve as many stakeholders and interested parties as possible. For the initial information meeting on June 27, 1996 over 550 letters were sent notifying officials in the Cape Fear Basin and counties near Jordan Lake about the allocation (see Figure I-1).
The Division of Water Resources has also met with a number of groups
around Jordan Lake and in the Cape Fear River Basin. These groups include
the Triangle J Council of Governments Water Resources Committee, Cape Fear
River Assembly, and the Cape Fear River Program.
During the 30-day written comment period, October 14, 1996 through November
15, 1996, the Division of Water Resources received comments from 6 stakeholders.
Comments were received from the Town of Jamesville, Town of Cary, City
of Fayetteville, International Paper, Lower Cape Fear Sewer and Water Authority,
and Triangle J Council of Governments. Table I-1 is a summary of the comments.
Table I-1. Jordan Lake Water-Supply Allocation Written Comments
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
IBT - Interbasin Transfer
IFIM - Instreamflow Incremental Methodology study
SY - Safe Yield
W/S - Water Supply
W/Q - Water Quality
LCFWSA - Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority
Applicants for Jordan Lake allocations are required to provide estimates of future population and water use to support their allocation requests. To evaluate these estimates, the Division developed an independent method of projecting future water needs. The Division's analysis considered factors that affect water demand including:
population growth
service area expansion
conservation programs
unaccounted water use
interconnections
industrial development
A brief discussion of these factors follows.
Factors Affecting Water Use
Population Growth - Population growth is the main driving force
behind increasing water demand. All of the systems seeking allocations
are experiencing moderate to rapid growth in their service populations.
The Division expects this trend to continue due to strong local economies
and in-migration from other parts of the country. The Division based its
analysis on projections developed by the Office of State Planning (OSP).
In most cases, the Division modified the OSP forecast to reflect additional
information provided by the applicant, such as building permit information.
Service Area Expansions - Applicants were required to provide
maps of present and future service boundaries. The Division cross-checked
the maps to identify service area conflicts with other jurisdictions and
to verify available land for new development. Service area expansions due
to new development or annexation can greatly increase system water demand.
Water Conservation - Applicants provided information on existing
and planned conservation programs. The Division evaluated each system's
potential for additional conservation savings. Major reductions in water
use are expected to come from the installation of low-flow bathroom fixtures
that are now required by the State's building code. Further reductions
may come from reuse of treated wastewater, leak detection, and modified
rate structures. Industrial water use also has great potential for reductions
through recycling and more efficient processing. The analysis assumes that
savings will result from both new construction and replacement of old fixtures.
Unaccounted Water Use - All water systems typically have some
quantity of water that is not accounted in system records. Common sources
are leaks, unmetered connections, meter inaccuracies, line flushing, and
fire fighting. The quantity of unaccounted water will depend on the age
of the distribution system, and on resources dedicated to system maintenance
and accurate accounting. The Division's evaluation of water needs includes
an adjustment for these inherent system losses.
Interconnections - The Division also considered impacts of future
interconnections, sales and purchases on water demand. The Division encourages
the development of regional water supplies. In some cases, a system's interconnection
with other water providers would greatly increase the potential demand
for Jordan Lake water.
Industrial Development - Many local governments have active industrial
recruitment programs. A single new industry can significantly affect system
demand. Fortunately, many industries have begun conserving water through
recycling and other measures. However, the wide variability in industrial
water use makes it very difficult for systems to anticipate future industrial
demand.
Methodology
The Division based its estimate of future water use by applying Equation
(1).
Water Use = Service Population * Per Capita Water Use (1)
Adjustments to this basic formula are made for bulk purchases and sales,
and unaccounted water use. The four main steps used to project future water
needs are described below. For each step an example calculation is shown.
Step 1. Estimating Service Population - The Division based its
estimate of service population on the Office of State Planning's (OSP)
latest county population forecast. OSP forecasts out to the year 2020.
When needed, an estimate of 2025 county population was derived by linear
regression of preceding years.
For systems with expanding service areas such as Chatham County, Durham,
and Fayetteville, service population was calculated as a variable percentage
of county population, as given by Equation (2).
Service Population = OSP County Population * Percent Served (2)
The percentage rate increases linearly from the current service percentage
to the anticipated service percentage at the end of the planning horizon.
The service percentage is estimated by examining service area maps and
system expansion plans. For some systems, service population was adjusted
further to reflect current building permit information. An example calculation
is shown in Table J-1.
Table J-1. Service Population - Expanding Service Area
Year | OSP County Population
(A) |
Percent Served (B) |
Service Population
(C)=(A)*(B) |
1995 | 100,000 | 50% | 50,000 |
2000 | 120,000 | 55% | 66,000 |
2005 | 130,000 | 60% | 78,000 |
2010 | 140,000 | 65% | 91,000 |
2015 | 150,000 | 70% | 105,000 |
2020 | 160,000 | 75% | 120,000 |
2025 | 170,000 | 80% | 136,000 |
For systems serving all of their jurisdiction such as Cary, Apex, Holly
Springs, and Morrisville, service population becomes roughly equal to municipal
population. OSP does not produce direct forecasts of municipal population;
however, Wake County Planning Department has disaggregated OSP's estimate
of Wake County population into municipal estimates. The Division used these
municipal estimates as a starting point. For some systems, the municipal
forecast was adjusted to reflect current building permit information.
Step 2. Estimating Per Capita Use - Applicants were requested to reported water use in each of the following categories:
1) residential
2) commercial
3) industrial
4) institutional
5) bulk sales
6) unaccounted water
The analysis first calculates current (1995) per capita use for categories
1 through 4, by applying Equation (3).
Current Per Capita Use = Current Water Demand (3)
Current Service Population
The last two categories, bulk sales and unaccounted water, are treated
independently of service population. They are considered in step 3.
Per capita use for new population is determined by adjusting current
rates for conservation and other expected changes in water use, as shown
in Equation (4).. In general, the analysis reduced per capita use in each
category by 10 percent. In some cases, per capita use was increased to
reflect changing urban structure or industrial development.
Future Per Capita Use = Current Per Capita Use (4)
- Conservation Savings + Other Adjustments
The analysis also calculates changes in water use by the current population
that will occur gradually from fixture replacement, industrial plant upgrades,
and conservation programs. Eventually, all water use would be consumed
at the future per capita rate. The Division assumed that "replacement"
would occur at an annual rate of 3 percent. The per capita replacement
is simply the existing per capita use minus the future per capita use,
as shown in Equation (5). Per capita replacement can be negative in cases
where the overall per capita rate has increased. Table J-2 shows an example
of per capita use calculations.
Per Capita Replacement = Current Per Capita Use - Future Per Capita Use (5)
Table J-2. Per Capita Use
Water Use Category | 1995
Per Capita Use (GPCD) (A) |
Conservation Reduction
(B) |
Future
Per Capita Use (GPCD) (C)=(A)*(1-(B)) |
Per Capita Replacement
(GPCD) (D)=(A)-(C) |
Residential | 85 | 10.0% | 76.5 | 8.5 |
Commercial | 20 | 10.0% | 18.0 | 2.0 |
Industrial | 25 | 10.0% | 22.5 | 2.5 |
Institutional | 15 | 10.0% | 13.5 | 1.5 |
TOTAL |
145 | 130.5 | 14.5 |
Step 3. Future Water Use
Future water use is determined by combining the components of current
water use, new water use, replacement savings, bulk sales and unaccounted
water (UAW), as shown by Equations (6), (7), and (8). Tables J-3, J-4,
and J-5 show example calculations.
Future Water Use = Current Water Use + New Water Use (6)
- Replacement Savings + Bulk Sales
+Unaccounted Water Use
where: New water use = New Service Population * Future Per Capita
Use (7)
Replacement Savings = 0.03 * No. Years * Existing Population (8)
* Per Capita Replacement
Table J-3. New Water Use
Service Population (A) |
New Service
Population (B)=(A)-50,000 |
New Per Capita
Use
(GPCD) (C) |
New Water
Use
(MGD) (D)=(B)*(C) |
50,000 | 0 | - | 0.0 |
66,000 | 16,000 | 130.5 | 2.1 |
78,000 | 28,000 | 130.5 | 3.7 |
91,000 | 41,000 | 130.5 | 5.4 |
105,000 | 55,000 | 130.5 | 7.2 |
120,000 | 70,000 | 130.5 | 9.1 |
136,000 | 86,000 | 130.5 | 11.2 |
Table J-4. Replacement Savings
Year | Existing Service
Population
(A) |
Annual Replacement
Rate
(B) |
No. Years (C) |
Per Capita
Replacement (GPCD)
(D) |
Water Use
(MGD) (E)=(A)*(B)*(C)*(D) |
1995 | 50,000 | 3.0% | 0 | 14.5 | 0.00 |
2000 | 50,000 | 3.0% | 5 | 14.5 | 0.11 |
2005 | 50,000 | 3.0% | 10 | 14.5 | 0.22 |
2010 | 50,000 | 3.0% | 15 | 14.5 | 0.33 |
2015 | 50,000 | 3.0% | 20 | 14.5 | 0.44 |
2020 | 50,000 | 3.0% | 25 | 14.5 | 0.54 |
2025 | 50,000 | 3.0% | 30 | 14.5 | 0.65 |
Table J-5. Water Use Summary
Year | 1995
Water Use (MGD) (A) |
New Water Use
(MGD) (B) |
Replacement Savings (MGD)
(C) |
Bulk Sales (MGD) (D) |
10 %
UAW1 (MGD) (E) |
Total Water Use (MGD)
(F)=(A)+(B)-(C)+(D)+(E) |
1995 | 7.3 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 10.3 |
2000 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 0.11 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 12.5 |
2005 | 7.3 | 3.7 | 0.22 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 14.2 |
2010 | 7.3 | 5.4 | 0.33 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 16.0 |
2015 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 0.44 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 17.8 |
2020 | 7.3 | 9.1 | 0.54 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 19.8 |
2025 | 7.3 | 11.2 | 0.65 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 22.1 |
1 Unaccounted water use.
Step 4. Future Need - A system's future need is simply the total
future water use minus the existing safe yield.
Future Need = Total Future Water Use - Safe Yield
In our example, safe yield is 16 MGD leaving the system with a deficit
of 1.8 MGD in 2015. Table J-6 shows an example calculation.
Table J-6. Future Need
Year | Total Water Use (MGD)
(A) |
Safe Yield
(MGD) (B) |
Future Need
(MGD) (C)=(A)-(B) |
1995 | 10.3 | 16 | - |
2000 | 12.5 | 16 | - |
2005 | 14.2 | 16 | - |
2010 | 16.0 | 16 | - |
2015 | 17.8 | 16 | 1.8 |
2020 | 19.8 | 16 | 3.8 |
2025 | 22.1 | 16 | 6.1 |
Appendix K. North Carolina Administrative Code Section
T15A:02G.0500 Allocation of Jordan Lake Water
Supply Storage
TITLE 15A. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 2. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SUBCHAPTER 2G. WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS
SECTION .0500. ALLOCATION OF JORDAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY STORAGE
.0501 INTRODUCTION
To increase the availability of municipal and industrial water supplies, the State of North Carolina requested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to designate 32.62 percent of the Jordan Lake conservation storage, between the elevations 202 mean sea level (msl) and 216 msl, as water supply storage.
The State, acting through the Environmental Management Commission, will assign to local governments having a need for water supply capacity any interest held by the State in such storage, with proportional payment by the user to the State for the state's associated capital, interest, administrative and operating costs.
Upon signing the water supply storage contract with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the Commission will apply the following procedures in allocating
Jordan Lake water supply storage.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.38 through 143-215.43; 143-354(a)(11); 143B-282; Eff. March 1, 1988.
Editor's Note: Title 15, Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, has been recodified as Title 15A, Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources effective November 1, 1989.
The recodification was pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.1.
.0502 DEFINITIONS
As used throughout this Subchapter:
(1) "Capital costs" means initial costs of the project;
(2) "Commission" means Environmental Management Commission;
(3) "Department" means the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development;
(4) "Division" means the Division of Water Resources;
(5) "Effective date of allocation" means the date the Commission approves the allocation;
(6) "Interest costs" means interest accrued on the unpaid balance;
(7) "Local government" means any city, county, authority, sanitary district, metropolitan water district, or other local unit;
(8) "Operating costs" means Jordan Lake's state and federal operating, maintenance, replacement, and administrative costs associated with water supply storage;
(9) "State" means the state of North Carolina; and
(10) "Water supply storage" means storage of water for municipal
or industrial use.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-354(a)(11); Eff. March 1, 1988.
Editor's Note: Title 15, Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, has been recodified as Title 15A, Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources effective November 1, 1989.
The recodification was pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.1.
.0503 FORMAL APPLICATION
(a) The Commission may receive initial allocation requests from local governments beginning on this Section's effective date. In order to be reviewed, applications must contain the following information:
(1) Projected population and water use, including a detailed map of the existing and projected water service areas;
(2) A listing of water sources presently available, including estimated yields of these sources;
(3) An analysis of the yield, quality, and cost of alternative sources of water supply other than Jordan Lake that could meet or partially meet projected needs, including regionalization of systems;
(4) A description of conservation and demand-management practices to be used;
(5) An outline of plans to use water from Jordan Lake, including proposed location of intake and water treatment plant(s), location of wastewater treatment plant(s), any proposed sharing of facilities or other cooperative arrangements with other local governments, and a proposed schedule of development;
(6) A plan for monitoring the quality of the raw and finished water in accordance with the requirements of North Carolina's Department of Human Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
(7) The estimated cost of developing water supply facilities at Jordan Lake, also costs of alternative sources of supply; and
(8) A letter of intent to enter into a financial commitment for Jordan Lake water storage.
(b) The Commission or the department may request such additional information as may be reasonably necessary for a complete understanding of the allocation request.
(c) Local governments may apply for two levels of allocation: Level I allocations are for applicants which have demonstrated an immediate need and will commence withdrawals within five years of the effective date of allocation; Level II allocations are for applicants with documented longer range needs for water.
(d) The applicant should include in the application the assumptions and the methodology used to develop projections. The Commission will assist applicants by providing a copy of departmental procedures for projecting water supply demands and determining yields.
(e) Using departmental procedures for projecting water supply demands
and determining yields, the department will provide the Commission an independent
assessment of the applicant's water supply needs.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-354(a)(11); 143B-282; Eff. March 1, 1988.
Editor's Note: Title 15, Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, has been recodified as Title 15A, Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources effective November 1, 1989.
The recodification was pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.1.
.0504 ALLOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY STORAGE
(a) The segment of Jordan Lake proposed for a water supply withdrawal must be classified by the Commission as a drinking water source prior to any allocation of Jordan Lake water supply storage. Prior to the first allocation of water supply storage at Jordan Lake, the Commission shall hold one or more public meetings on the amount(s) requested by each applicant, the suitability of Jordan Lake water for public water supply use, the availability of alternative water sources, and the best utilization of the water resources of the region. For future allocation decisions, additional public meetings may be held as determined by the Commission.
(b) The Commission will assign Level I allocations of Jordan Lake water supply storage based on an intent to begin withdrawing water within five years of the effective date of allocation, on consideration of projected water supply needs for a period not to exceed 20 years, and on the design capacity of the associated withdrawal and treatment facilities.
(c) The Commission will make Level II allocations of Jordan Lake water supply to applicants based on projected water supply needs for a period not to exceed 30 years.
(d) The Commission will initially keep 50 percent of the water supply storage unallocated to meet future water supply needs as they develop.
(e) If additional storage is requested by holders of Level II allocations, these parties must submit an application addendum to the Commission for review.
(f) When holders of Level II allocations have documented an immediate need and wish to commence withdrawals within five years, their Level II allocations will be changed to Level I upon review and approval by the Commission.
(g) The department will issue a notice that it has received applications for Level I and Level II allocations and requests for increases in allocations, with a 30-day period for comment. If there is significant public interest, the department may hold a public meeting to obtain comments and information, with appropriate notice.
(h) To protect the yield of Jordan Lake for water supply and water quality purposes, the Commission will limit water supply allocations that will result in diversions out of the lake's watershed to 50 percent of the total water supply yield. The Commission may review and revise this limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed that will affect its yield. For applicants whose discharge or intake represents a diversion pursuant to G.S. 153A-285 or 162A-7, the Commission will coordinate the review of the diversion with the review of the allocation request.
(i) Where applications for allocations exceed storage capacity, the
Commission will assign, reassign, or transfer allocations based on the
applicants' or holders' need(s) and alternative water sources available
(as defined in the application requirements), the existing or proposed
average degree of utilization of the resource (relative to the total allocation
application), the level of financial commitment (relative to the applicant's
or holder's total costs in developing Jordan Lake as a water supply source),
the effects on the lake's yield, and the level of sharing facilities or
other cooperative arrangements with other local governments.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-54(a)(11); 143-215.3(a)(1); 143B-282; 153A-285; 162A-7; Eff. March 1, 1988.
Editor's Note: Title 15, Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, has been recodified as Title 15A, Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources effective November 1, 1989.
The recodification was pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.1.
.0505 NOTIFICATION AND PAYMENT
(a) The Commission will notify applicants of the decisions made regarding their allocation requests.
(b) Recipients of Level I allocations are required to pay a proportional share of the state's total water supply storage capital and interest costs over a term suitable to the recipient and the Commission, but by 2012. Interest rates will vary with the payback term, and will be based on the state recovering the total federal capital and interest costs associated with water supply storage by 2012. After 2012, the Commission may review and adjust repayment requirements to assure equitable and efficient allocation of the resource. Level I recipients are also required to pay annually a proportional share of operating costs.
(c) Holders of Level II allocations are required to pay a proportional
share of the project's water supply storage interest and operating costs.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-354(a)(11); 143B-282; Eff. March 1, 1988.
Editor's Note: Title 15, Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, has been recodified as Title 15A, Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources effective November 1, 1989.
The recodification was pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.1.
.0506 RECIPIENTS' REQUIREMENTS
(a) Holders of Level I allocations must provide documentation meeting the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, G.S. 113A-1 thru 113A-10, at the time the holders propose to build facilities to use water from Jordan Lake. Such documentation shall include the environmental impacts of the proposed withdrawal, treatment, distribution, and disposal of the holders' allocated water.
(b) Local governments must install and maintain suitable meters for the measurement of water withdrawn, report these withdrawals to the department on a monthly basis, and obtain the department's approval for the design, location, and installation of associated withdrawal facilities.
(c) Holders of Level I and Level II allocations must pay the required
capital, interest, and operating costs when due.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-1 through
113A-10; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-354(a)(11); 143B-282; Eff. March 1, 1988.
Editor's Note: Title 15, Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, has been recodified as Title 15A, Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources effective November 1, 1989.
The recodification was pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.1.
.0507 LOSS OF ALLOCATION
(a) The Commission will review the Level I and Level II allocations at five year intervals, beginning on the effective date of the first allocation.
(b) Level I allocations will be reviewed for possible reassignment if the recipient does not begin to withdraw water within five years of the effective date of allocation or is not using and withdrawing the water as proposed in the application.
(c) Level I and Level II allocations will be rescinded upon failure by the local government to meet the regulation requirements in .0506 (a), (b), and (c).
(d) The Commission may adjust, reassign, or transfer interests in water supply storage held by local governments, if indicated by an investigation of needs or changes in the project's water supply storage capacity. Capital, interest, and operating costs will be equitably adjusted to reflect the allocation recipients' proportion of total capacity.
Holders of Level I and Level II allocations will receive appropriate refunds for any payments made if their allocations are adjusted, reassigned, or otherwise amended with the approval of the Commission. Rescinded allocations will not be refunded.
(e) The Commission shall hold a public meeting to obtain comments and
information regarding the proposed loss of allocation.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-354(a)(11); 143B-282; Eff. March 1, 1988.
Editor's Note: Title 15, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, has been recodified as Title 15A, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources effective November 1, 1989. The recodification was pursuant to G.S. 143B-279.1.
Appendix L. North Carolina Statute G.S. 143-215.22G
and G.S. 143-215.22I Regulation of Surface Water Transfers
PART 2. REGULATION OF USE OF WATER RESOURCES.
PART 2A. REGISTRATION OF WATER WITHDRAWALS AND TRANSFERS; REGULATION OF SURFACE WATER TRANSFERS.
§ 143-215.22G. Definitions.In addition to the definitions set forth in G.S. 143-212 and G.S. 143-213, the following definitions apply to this Part.
(1) "River basin" means any of the following river basins designated on the map entitled "Major River Basins and Sub-basins in North Carolina" and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on 16 April 1991:
a. 1-1 Broad River.
b. 2-1 Haw River.
c. 2-2 Deep River.
d. 2-3 Cape Fear River.
e. 2-4 South River.
f. 2-5 Northeast Cape Fear River.
g. 2-6 New River.
h. 3-1 Catawba River.
i. 3-2 South Fork Catawba River.
j. 4-1 Chowan River.
k. 4-2 Meherrin River.
l. 5-1 Nolichucky River.
m. 5-2 French Broad River.
n. 5-3 Pigeon River.
o. 6-1 Hiwassee River.
p. 7-1 Little Tennessee River.
q. 7-2 Tuskasegee (Tuckasegee) River.
r. 8-1 Savannah River.
s. 9-1 Lumber River.
t. 9-2 Big Shoe Heel Creek.
u. 9-3 Waccamaw River.
v. 9-4 Shallotte River.
w. 10-1 Neuse River.
x. 10-2 Contentnea Creek.
y. 10-3 Trent River.
z. 11-1 New River.
aa. 12-1 Albemarle Sound.
bb. 13-1 Ocoee River.
cc. 14-1 Roanoke River.
dd. 15-1 Tar River.
ee. 15-2 Fishing Creek.
ff. 15-3 Pamlico River and Sound.
gg. 16-1 Watauga River.
hh. 17-1 White Oak River.
ii. 18-1 Yadkin (Yadkin-Pee Dee) River.
jj. 18-2 South Yadkin River.
kk. 18-3 Uwharrie River.
ll. 18-4 Rocky River.
(2) "Surface water" means any of the waters of the State located on the land surface that are not derived by pumping from groundwater.
(3) "Transfer" means the withdrawal, diversion, or pumping of surface water from one river basin and discharge of all or any part of the water in a river basin different from the origin. However, notwithstanding the basin definitions in G.S. 143-215.22G(1), the following are not transfers under this Part:
a. The discharge of water upstream from the point where it is withdrawn.
b. The discharge of water downstream from the point where it is withdrawn.
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1991, c. 712, s. 7 made this section effective upon ratification. The act was ratified July 16, 1991.
This Part was enacted by Session Laws 1991, c. 712, s. 1, which enacted sections numbered 143-215.22A and 143-215.22B. These sections were renumbered as §§ 143-215.22G and 143-215.22H, and this section was placed in this Part, by the Revisor of Statutes.
Effect of Amendments. - The 1993 amendment, effective January 1, 1994, in the Part title, added at the end "Regulation of Surface Water Transfers"; and in subdivision (3) added the last sentence and added subdivisions (3)a and (3)b.
§ 143-215.22H. Registration of water withdrawals and transfers required.(a) Any person who withdraws 1,000,000 gallons per day or more of water from the surface or groundwaters of the State or who transfers 1,000,000 gallons per day or more of water from one river basin to another shall register the withdrawal or transfer with the Commission. A person registering a water withdrawal or transfer shall provide the Commission with the following information:
(1) The maximum daily amount of the water withdrawal or transfer expressed in millions of gallons per day.
(1a) The monthly average withdrawal or transfer expressed in millions of gallons per day.
(2) The location of the points of withdrawal and discharge and the capacity of each facility used to make the withdrawal or transfer. (3) The monthly average discharge expressed in millions of gallons per day.
(b) Any person initiating a new water withdrawal or transfer of 1,000,000 gallons per day or more shall register the withdrawal or transfer with the Commission not later than six months after the initiation of the withdrawal or transfer. The information required under subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted with respect to the new withdrawal or transfer.
(c) A unit of local government that has completed a local water supply plan that meets the requirements of G.S. 143-355(l) and that has periodically revised and updated its plan as required by the Department has satisfied the requirements of this section and is not required to separately register a water withdrawal or transfer or to update a registration under this section.
(d) Any person who is required to register a water withdrawal or transfer under this section shall update the registration by providing the Commission with a current version of the information required by subsection (a) of this section at five-year intervals following the initial registration. A person who submits information to update a registration of a water withdrawal or transfer is not required to pay an additional registration fee under G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1a) and G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1b), but is subject to the late registration fee established under this section in the event that updated information is not submitted as required by this subsection.
(e) Any person who is required to register a water transfer or withdrawal under this section and fails to do so shall pay, in addition to the registration fee required under G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1a) and G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1b), a late registration fee of five dollars ($5.00) per day for each day the registration is late up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00). A person who is required to update a registration under this section and fails to do so shall pay a fee of five dollars ($5.00) per day for each day the updated information is late up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00). A late registration fee shall not be charged to a farmer who submits a registration that pertains to farming operations. (1991, c. 712, s. 1; 1993, c. 344, s. 1; c. 553, s. 81.)
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1991, c. 712, s. 7 made this section effective upon ratification. The act was ratified July 16, 1991.
Session Laws 1993, c. 344, which amended this section,
in s. 3 provides: "Any person who withdraws or transfers 1,000,000
gallons of water per day or more on or after 1 October 1993 shall register
the withdrawal or transfer as required by G.S. 143-215.22H by 1 January
1994. This act shall not be construed to require a person who has complied
with G.S. 143-215.22H at the time this act becomes effective to file an
additional water withdrawal or transfer registration with the Environmental
Management Commission."
§ 143-215.22I. Regulation of surface water transfers.
(a) No person, without first securing a certificate from the Commission, may:
(1) Initiate a transfer of 2,000,000 gallons of water or more per day from one river basin to another. (2) Increase the amount of an existing transfer of water from one river basin to another by twenty-five percent (25%) or more above the average daily amount transferred during the year ending July 1, 1993, if the total transfer including the increase is 2,000,000 gallons or more per day. (3) Increase an existing transfer of water from one river basin to another above the amount approved by the Commission in a certificate issued under G.S. 162A-7 prior to July 1, 1993.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a certificate shall not be required to transfer water from one river basin to another up to the full capacity of a facility to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility was existing or under construction on July 1, 1993.
(c) An applicant for a certificate shall petition the Commission for the certificate. The petition shall be in writing and shall include the following:
(1) A description of the facilities to be used to transfer the water, including the location and capacity of water intakes, pumps, pipelines, and other facilities.
(2) A description of the proposed uses of the water to be transferred.
(3) The water conservation measures to be used by the applicant to assure efficient use of the water and avoidance of waste.
(4) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission for review of the proposed water transfer.
(d) Upon receipt of the petition, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed transfer after giving at least 30 days' written notice of the hearing as follows: (1) By publishing notice in the North Carolina Register.
(2) By publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the river basin downstream from the point of withdrawal. (3) By giving notice by first-class mail to each of the following:
a. A person who has registered under this Part a water withdrawal or transfer from the same river basin where the water for the proposed transfer would be withdrawn.
b. A person who secured a certificate under this Part for a water transfer from the same river basin where the water for the proposed transfer would be withdrawn.
c. A person holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit exceeding 100,000 gallons per day for a discharge located downstream from the proposed withdrawal point of the proposed transfer.
d. The board of county commissioners of each county that is located entirely or partially within the river basin that is the source of the proposed transfer.
e. The governing body of any public water supply system that withdraws water downstream from the withdrawal point of the proposed transfer.
(e) The notice of the public hearing shall include a nontechnical description of the applicant's request and a conspicuous statement in bold type as to the effects of the water transfer on the source and receiving river basins. The notice shall further indicate the procedure to be followed by anyone wishing to submit comments on the proposed water transfer.
(f) In determining whether a certificate may be issued for the transfer, the Commission shall specifically consider each of the following items and state in writing its findings of fact with regard to each item:
(1) The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of the amount of surface water proposed to be transferred and its proposed uses.
(2) The present and reasonably foreseeable future detrimental effects on the source river basin, including present and future effects on public, industrial, and agricultural water supply needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, hydroelectric power generation, navigation, and recreation.
(3) The detrimental effects on the receiving river basin, including effects on water quality, wastewater assimilation, fish and wildlife habitat, navigation, recreation, and flooding.
(4) Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer, including their probable costs, and environmental impacts.
(5) If applicable to the proposed project, the applicant's present and proposed use of impoundment storage capacity to store water during high-flow periods for use during low-flow periods and the applicant's right of withdrawal under G.S. 143-215.44 through G.S. 143-215.50.
(6) If the water to be withdrawn or transferred is stored in a multipurpose reservoir constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the purposes and water storage allocations established for the reservoir at the time the reservoir was authorized by the Congress of the United States.
(7) Any other facts and circumstances that are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Part.
(g) A certificate shall be granted for a water transfer unless the Commission concludes by a preponderance of the evidence based upon the findings of fact made under subsection (f) of this section that the potential detriments of the proposed transfer outweigh the benefits of the transfer.
(h) The Commission may grant the certificate in whole or in part, or deny the certificate. The Commission may also grant a certificate with any conditions attached that the Commission believes are necessary to achieve the purposes of this Part. The conditions may include mitigation measures proposed to minimize any detrimental effects of the proposed transfer and measures to protect the availability of water in the source river basin during a drought or other emergency. The certificate shall indicate the maximum amount of water that may be transferred. No person shall transfer an amount of water that exceeds the amount in the certificate.
(i) In cases where an applicant requests approval to increase a transfer that existed on July 1, 1993, the Commission shall have authority to approve or disapprove only the amount of the increase. If the Commission approves the increase, however, the certificate shall be issued for the amount of the existing transfer plus the requested increase. Certificates for transfers approved by the Commission under G.S. 162A-7 shall remain in effect as approved by the Commission and shall have the same effect as a certificate issued under this Part.
(j) In the case of water supply problems caused by drought, a pollution
incident, temporary failure of a water plant, or any other temporary condition
in which the public health requires a transfer of water, the Secretary
of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources may grant
approval for a temporary transfer. Prior to approving a temporary transfer,
the Secretary of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
shall consult with those parties listed in G.S. 143-215.22I(d)(3) that
are likely to be affected by the proposed transfer. However, the Secretary
of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources shall not
be required to satisfy the public notice requirements of this section or
make written findings of fact and conclusions in approving a temporary
transfer under this subsection. If the Secretary of the Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources approves a temporary transfer under this
subsection, the Secretary shall specify conditions to protect other water
users. A temporary transfer shall not exceed six months in duration, but
the approval may be renewed for a period of six months by the Secretary
of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources based on
demonstrated need as set forth in this subsection. (1993, c. 348, s. 1.)
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1993, c. 348, s. 7 makes this section effective January 1, 1994.
Session Laws 1993, c. 348, which enacted this section, in s. 7 provides: "However, a certificate shall not be required under the provisions of this act for any project that the Department of Administration has determined to have completed the review process under the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes, prior to January 1, 1994."
Section 162A-7, referred to in subdivision (a)(3),
was repealed by Session Laws 1993, c. 348, s. 6, effective January 1, 1994.
CASE NOTESEditor's Note. - The cases cited below were decided under former § 162A-7, dealing with prerequisites to acquisition of water, etc., by eminent domain.
Procedures for eminent domain governing cities and counties apply to water and sewer authorities. Orange Water and Sewer Auth. v. Estate of Armstrong, 34 N.C. App. 162, 237 S.E.2d 486, cert. denied, 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265 (1977).
With additional requirement that a certificate of authorization be obtained before an action in eminent domain is commenced. Orange Water and Sewer Auth. v. Estate of Armstrong, 34 N.C. App. 162, 237 S.E.2d 486, cert. denied, 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265 (1977).
But water and sewer authority's right of eminent domain is not dormant before certification. Orange Water and Sewer Auth. v. Estate of Armstrong, 34 N.C. App. 162, 237 S.E.2d 486, cert. denied, 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265 (1977).
And Authority May Enter and Survey Prior to Instituting Proceedings. - A water and sewer authority, having the power of eminent domain possessed by cities, may enter lands for the purpose of making surveys prior to the institution of eminent domain proceedings. Orange Water and Sewer Auth. v. Estate of Armstrong, 34 N.C. App. 162, 237 S.E.2d 486, cert. denied, 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265 (1977).
Factors to Be Considered. - The legislature, in granting the Environmental Management Commission authority to issue certificates authorizing land and water rights acquisition, intended that the Commission consider carefully not only the development of water resources, but also the effect of that development on present beneficial users within the watershed. In re Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 53 N.C. App. 135, 280 S.E.2d 520 (1981), aff'd, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588 (1986).
Former § 162A-7(c) required only that the Environmental Management Commission "specifically consider" the listed factors. It did not require the Environmental Management Commission to make findings regarding each factor. In re Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986), endorsing the making of findings as a means of insuring that each factor is specifically considered.
The seventh listed factor in former § 162A-7 was a "catch all" provision that allowed the Environmental Management Commission to consider all other factors as would, in the board's opinion, produce the maximum beneficial use of water for affected areas of the estate. In re Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986).
Not Limited to Listed Factors. - While directing that the Environmental Management Commission shall specifically consider the listed factors, former § 162A-7 contained no language limiting the Environmental Management Commission's consideration to those factors. Clearly, the Environmental Management Commission has some latitude and discretion as to the factors to consider in each situation and the weight to be given them in reaching a decision. The only limitation is that the Environmental Management Commission's consideration of any factor relate to the maximum beneficial use of the State's water resources. In re Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986).
Water quality is not only a permissible consideration for the Environmental Management Commission, but also one that is important if not essential to the responsible exercise of the police power. In re Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986). Local or Regional Factors. - The Environmental Management Commission is required to give paramount consideration to the statewide effect of the proposed project. However, this does not preclude consideration by the Environmental Management Commission of local or regional factors. On the contrary, the language of the statute assumes that some consideration will be given to local and regional concerns, but requires that the larger interest of the State be of "paramount" concern. In re Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986). Alternatives to Proposed Projects. - Former § 162A-7 contemplated the consideration of one or more alternatives to the project for which the certificate of authority was sought. In re Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986). Proceedings Governed by Administrative Procedure Act. - The Environmental Management Commission's proceedings under former § 162A-7 were governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, § 150B-1 et seq. The evidentiary standards set forth therein apply equally to any findings made by the agency. In re Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986).
Appendix M. North Carolina Administrative Code Section
T15A:02G.0400 Regulation of Surface Water Transfers
.0401 APPLICABILITY
(a) Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22G(3), the amount of a transfer shall be determined by the amount of water moved from the source basin to the receiving basin, less the amount of the water returned to the source basin.
(b) Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22G(3)(a) and 143-215.22G(3)(b), and notwithstanding the definition of basin in G.S. 143-215.22G(1), the following are not transfers:
(1) The discharge point is situated upstream of the withdrawal point such that the water discharged will naturally flow past the withdrawal point.
(2) The discharge point is situated downstream of the withdrawal point such that water flowing past the withdrawal point will naturally flow past the discharge point.
(c) The withdrawal of surface water from one river basin by one person and the purchase of all or any part of this water by another party, resulting in a discharge to another river basin, shall be considered a transfer. The person owning the pipe or other conveyance that carries the water across the basin boundary shall be responsible for obtaining a certificate from the Commission. Another person involved in the transfer may assume responsibility for obtaining the certificate, subject to approval by the Division of Water Resources.
(d) Under G.S. 143-215.22I(b), a certificate is not required to transfer
water from one river basin to another up to the full capacity of a facility
to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility was existing
or under construction on July 1, 1993. The full capacity of a facility
to transfer water shall be determined as the capacity of the combined system
of withdrawal, treatment, transmission, and discharge of water, limited
by the element of this system with the least capacity as existing or under
construction on July 1, 1993.
History Note:Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.22G; 143-215.22I; 143B-282(a)(2);
.0402 JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial Review of the Commission's decision shall be as provided in
G.S. 143-215.5.
History Note:Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.5; 143B-282(a)(2);
Eff. September 1, 1994.
Appendix N. Contacts For Additional
Information
Lead Agency: NC Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Phone: (919) 733-4064
FAX: (919) 733-3555
Agency Contacts:
Primary Contact - Tom Fransen
Phone: (919) 715-0381
E-mail: [email protected]
Allocation Contracts - John Sutherland
Phone: (919) 715-5446
E-mail: [email protected]
Interbasin Transfer - Tony Young
Phone: (919) 715-5454
E-mail: [email protected]
Jordan Lake Allocation Home Page
http://www.dwr.ehnr.state.nc.us/jordan/index.htm
1. 1 acre-foot equals 325,900 gallons
2. Under the assumptions of a 20-year payback period for capital costs, accrued interest, and accrued operating costs; an annual nominal interest rate of 3.225 percent; operation and maintenance and rehabilitation costs based on 1995 figures; and an average yearly estimate for replacement costs.