Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation Rec March 1997

JORDAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY STORAGE

ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Map of Jordan Lake
jrdnlak2.gif

March 1997

Environmental Management Commission

Division of Water Resources

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
DEHNR Logo
img.gif

Executive Summary
Subdocument for March 1997 EMC Report 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.

Table I. Water Supply Allocation Recommendations

Tcf Numbers are copied from Table 1 Make changes in Table 1 not this table

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:

Chatham County                     No increase in their existing allocation

City of Durham                       No allocation

City of Fayetteville                  No allocation

City of Greensboro                 No allocation

Town of Holly Springs            0.5 MGD allocation and grant the Town's request to be responsible for their interbasin transfer certification.

2. Proceed with a public comment period and with the interbasin transfer certification review for a single combined certificate for the following system

The Towns of Apex and Cary                          Increase their existing allocation by 5 MGD (total allocation would be 21 MGD).

The Town of Morrisville                                   A new 2.5 MGD allocation.

Wake County, Research/Triangle Park South   A new 1.5 MGD allocation.

   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

Schedule 1

Jordan Lake Operations 3

Current Allocations 4

Costs and Repayment Requirements 5

Allocation Criteria 7

Future Water Needs 7

Alternatives 8

Recommendations 9

Allocation Recommendations 9

Contract Changes 11

Watershed Diversions 12

Watershed and Interbasin Transfers 13

Watershed Transfers 13

Interbasin Transfers 14

Overview 14

Recommendations Involving Interbasin Transfers 14

Schedule 16

Model 16

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

Factors Affecting Water Use J-1

Methodology J-2

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

.0401 APPLICABILITY M-1

.0402 JUDICIAL REVIEW M-1

Appendix N. Contacts For Additional Information N-1

Background

  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:

existing allocation holders and previous applicants

registered water withdrawers in the Cape Fear Basin

public water systems and waste water dischargers downstream of Jordan Lake

municipal and county officials in each county in the Cape Fear River basin or within a 50-mile radius of Jordan Lake.

  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.

Figure 1 Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation Process Milestones
img1.gif

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.

Figure 2 Jordan Lake and Surrounding Counties -- Map
img2.gif

  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.

Figure 3 Jordan Lake's Storage Volume
img3.gif

Converted 600 cfs & 11 cfs to MGD conversion factor is 1 MGD = 1.547 cfs.
  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
Existing watershed diversions: 16% Cary & Apex 2.4% Chatham County 1% Orange County 19.4% Totalthat 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.

Allocation Criteria

The two main criteria for Jordan Lake allocations are future water needs and availability of alternative water supplies. Applications contained the following information:

projected population and water use

safe yield estimates of current and alternative sources

description of conservation and demand management practices

outline of plan to use water from Jordan Lake

plan for monitoring water quality

cost of developing water supply facilities at Jordan Lake

costs of alternative sources of supply.

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.

Recommendations

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:

Allocation based on average daily demand. The applications were a mix of maximum daily demands (MDD) and average daily demands (ADD). Using ADD is consistent with how the safe yield
calculations for Jordan Lake were done.

20-year water supply projections (year 2015) used instead of 30-year. This region is experiencing such rapid, dynamic growth that it is unrealistic to assume water needs can be accurately
projected for 30 years. Using the 20-year projections leaves more water supply storage available to accommodate future demand as development patterns solidify.

Other considerations include availability and cost of alternative water supplies and the timing for when the next Jordan Lake water supply allocation would likely occur. With every
round of allocation, there is a cost to both local governments and the State. We wanted to be conservative but not cause an undue burden with this process.

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
tcf February 13, 1997 Enter only population, sy, & demand the table calculates the rest and reads the recommendations from table 1

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 and Interbasin Transfers

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.
2015 Watershed Diversions Chatham County 50% diversion (0.5 * allocation) Cary/Apex Haw River basin consumption, i.e., not part of diversion - 6% raw water losses at plant
(0.06 * allocation) - remaining 94%, 33% in-basin service area, 22% consumption ((0.94 * allocation) * 0.33 * 0.22) Wake/RTP Haw River basin consumption, i.e., not part
of diversion - 22% consumption (allocation * 0.22)

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

Overview

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.

Schedule

For water supply allocations requiring interbasin transfer certification, the major milestones in the process and a general time frame are described below:

DWR provides EMC with information about need and reasonableness.

Information item at the EMC Water Quality Committee meeting, March 1997.

Provide a 30-day written comment period.

This would occur concurrent with the public hearing process for non-interbasin transfer allocations.

Hold scoping meetings to define issues and determine the types of studies that need to be done to evaluate the proposal.

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.

Review and approval of study plans.

Conduct studies and prepare petition and EA/EIS documentation.

DWR presents initial recommendations to EMC.

Publish required public notices.

Hold public hearing and provide 30-day public comment period.

EMC makes determination on petition and allocation.

Model

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

Appendices

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

Appendix A. Chatham County

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.

Appendix B. City of Durham

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:

Local Water Shortage Ordinance which meets the requirements of a Water Shortage Response Plan under the State's local water supply planning process

Meter repair and replacement program with goal of 10 percent unaccounted water

Public education through distribution of water conservation materials

Wastewater reuse at wastewater treatment facilities

Industrial Pretreatment Program

Odd-Even Landscape Irrigation Program

Waterwise Garden Demonstration Project

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

Subdocument for March 1997 EMC Report Cary-Apex Appendix

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

Level II 5.0 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

Subdocument for March 1997 EMC Report Holly Springs Appendix

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

Level II 0.5 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

Subdocument for March 1997 EMC Report Morrisville Appendix

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

Level II 1.0 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

Subdocument for March 1997 EMC Report Wake County/RTP Appendix

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

Level II 0.5 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

Subdocument for March 1997 EMC Report Summary of Public Comments Appendix

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).

img4.gif

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

Issues Town of Jamestown Town of Cary City of Fayetteville International Paper LCFWSA Triangle J Need an EIS Jamestown
not included in Greensboro's projections Lack of firm criteria W/S diversion requirements conflicts with DWQ & DEH restrictions
Address Level I only now & level II after modeling studies completed Form a stakeholders study group
Complete W/S & W/Q models before any recommendation IFIM Study Need detailed assessment of projections
& alternatives Concerned about downstream impacts to W/Q & W/S Do allocation & IBT at the same time
Watershed W/Q management & Protection Review SY Study raising the dam Do not
allocate all the water now

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

Appendix J. Population and Water Use Projection Methodology

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

SECTION .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);

Eff. September 1, 1994.

.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: [phone]

FAX: [phone]

Agency Contacts:

Primary Contact - Tom Fransen

Phone: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

Allocation Contracts - John Sutherland

Phone: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

Interbasin Transfer - Tony Young

Phone: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

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.