2019.03.11_CCO.p19_ChemoursPublicWaterFeasibilityStudy

The Chemours Company
Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306

Sheila Holman March 11, 2019
Assistant Secretary for the Environment
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
[e-mail]

Re: Consent Order Paragraph 19 - Public Water Feasibility Analysis

Dear Ms. Holman,

Paragraph 19 of the Consent Order states that “Chemours shall establish and properly maintain permanent
replacement drinking water supplies in the form of public water or a whole building filtration system for any party
(i.e., household, business, school, or public building) with a private drinking water well that has been found through
testing validated by DEQ to be contaminated by concentrations of GenX compounds in exceedance of 140 ng/L, or
any applicable health advisory, whichever is lower.” However, where connection to a public water supply would be
“cost-prohibitive (i.e. greater than $75,000) or unsafe”, DEQ may authorize provision of permanent water supply via
whole building filtration system or reverse osmosis. Paragraph 19(c). Paragraph 19 of the Consent Order also
requires that ‘Permanent replacement drinking water supplies established pursuant to this paragraph shall be
installed no later than: (i) nine (9) months from the date Chemours becomes aware that the affected party qualifies
for replacement drinking water; or (ii) if Chemours is aware that an affected party qualifies for replacement drinking
water at the time this Consent Order is entered, nine (9) months from the date of entry of this Consent Order.”

Chemours directed its consultant Parsons to investigate comprehensively the extent to which public water
connections are feasible for the impacted homes that have been found to exceed the 140 ng/L standard for GenX
compounds. As part of this investigation, Chemours has also had discussions with officials from both Bladen and
Cumberland Counties about the potential for connections to their respective public water systems. Attached please
find the Feasibility Study Report (the “FS Report”) for Public Water Services, Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina, prepared by Parsons on behalf of Chemours, June 2018, and the January 2019 updated
analysis.

As you will see in the FS Report, as a result of differences in existing municipal water infrastructure,
geography, and home density, the analysis focuses separately on each of four areas: (1) Bladen County west of the
Cape Fear River, (2) Bladen County east of the Cape Fear River, (3) Cumberland County west of the Cape Fear
River and, (4) Cumberland County east of the Cape Fear River. The report evaluates the extent to which the
provision of municipal water to homes in these areas is technically feasible and addresses the availability of existing
infrastructure and whether water of sufficient quality could be provided. It also assesses whether the installation of
public water is cost-effective, applying the Consent Order standard. Also considered are the current state of the
municipalities’ planning, and, relatedly, whether municipal water can be installed in a timely fashion in each area.
The FS Report notes that public acceptance of municipal water connections will affect both feasibility and cost. As
noted above, Chemours had a number of discussions with officials for both Bladen and Cumberland counties; the FS
Report reflects those discussions.
There are 49 eligible households in Bladen County west of the Cape Fear River that are presently eligible
for connection to public water.1 The total cost of installing public for these 49 household is approximately $3.47
million. Of the 49 eligible households, 13 homes in Bladen County west of the Cape Fear River are next to an
existing water main and the running of a lateral connection is feasible, safe, and can be completed within nine
months (assuming that all necessary permits and approvals can be obtained in a timely fashion). Chemours will
connect any of these 13 homes that select this option to public water.
The remaining 36 homes present both cost and timing challenges, as connection to public water requires the
installation of both a water main and a lateral connection. This significant work cannot be completed within the
nine months, as required by the Consent Order. We estimate based on discussions with Bladen County that the

1 Two additional homes have eligible wells but are already connected to public water and therefore are not included
in this analysis.

The Chemours Company
Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306

installations would be completed in approximately two to four years. For example, before public water can be
extended, the County must obtain rights of ways and permits, and even these initial steps will take longer than 9
months. Therefore, we request that DEQ extend the 9-month implementation requirement if a sufficient number of
these homes request a public water connection so that that connection is not “cost prohibitive.”
In the event that NCDEQ is willing to extend the installation period, Chemours proposes to connect these
36 homes to public water as long as a sufficient number of the homes agree to be connected to public water. For
public water to these Bladen County west of the Cape Fear River homes to stay below the “cost prohibitive”
threshold, at least 30 of the 36 homes would have to agree to be connected to public water. If only 29 homes, plus
the 13 homes described above, agree to be connected to public water, the cost per home would be “cost prohibitive”
at $83,000.
In short, Chemours seeks your approval to proceed as follows:
• The 13 homes requiring only a lateral connection to be connected to public water
would be offered either a public water hook up (with water bills to be paid by
Chemours for 20 years), a whole house filtration system, or reverse osmosis
systems on every kitchen and bathroom sink.
• For the remaining 36 homes, assuming that NCDEQ agrees to an implementation extension,
Chemours would ask the homeowners preference, and if at least 30 homeowners opted for public
water (with water bills to be paid by Chemours for 20 years), then that option would be available.
If fewer than 30 of the homes agree to be connected to public water, all homes would be provided
with the options of a GAC system or reverse osmosis units on every kitchen or bathroom sink.
• If no extension for implementation is granted, the 36 homes would be provided with the options of
a GAC system or reverse osmosis units on every kitchen or bathroom sink.
• If a sufficient number of homes agree to a public water connection such that the cost remains
below the “cost prohibitive” threshold, these homes would be offered a reverse osmosis system
while waiting for the installation of public water.
For the 84 homes in Cumberland County west of the river, the lack of existing infrastructure and a
definitive source of water means, as explained in the FS report, that the provision of municipal water is not currently
feasible and is cost prohibitive, with estimated per home costs of $233,800. We seek your concurrence in that
determination, so we can move forward expeditiously in offering for these homes whole house filtration or reverse
osmosis systems on every kitchen and bathroom sink.
In both Bladen and Cumberland Counties on the east side of the river, as explained in the FS report,
municipal water is not technically feasible: there is no existing source for water, the long distance between possible
sources and the low density of houses means that there would be poor water quality, and as there is little to no
infrastructure it would be many years before municipal water could be installed. These challenges also result in
costs that are prohibitive. For the five eligible homes in Bladen County, the cost would be approximately $354,000
per home. For the 44 eligible homes in Cumberland County, the cost would be approximately $272,000 per home.
We seek your concurrence in that determination, so we can move forward expeditiously in offering the option of
either whole house filtration or reverse osmosis systems on every kitchen and bathroom sink.
Please let me know if you require any further information to make your determinations, or if you would
like to discuss the matter.

Sincerely,

Brian D. Long
Plant Manager
Chemours – Fayetteville Works

The Chemours Company
Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306

Enclosure: Public Water Report

March 11, 2019 via email: [e-mail]

Mr. Kevin P. Garon
Principal Project Director
Chemours Corporate Remediation Group

Subject: Provisions for Public Water
Chemours Fayetteville Plant
Dear Mr. Garon,
On February 25, 2019, Chemours entered into a consent order with the NCDEQ dealing with several items related
to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at the Chemours Fayetteville Works site. In particular
condition 19 requires Chemours:
establish and properly maintain permanent replacement drinking water supplies in the form of public
water or a whole building filtration system for any party (i.e., household, business, school, or public
building) with a private drinking water well that has been found through testing validated by DEQ to be
contaminated by concentrations of GenX compounds in exceedance of 140 ng/L, or any applicable
health advisory, whichever is lower. Under this provision, permanent replacement water supplies shall
be established by connection to a public water supply…
The consent order allows for exceptions to providing public water where the homeowner rejects the offer, elects
to receive a whole house or under sink filtration system, or “if DEQ determines that connection to a public water
supply to an affected party would be cost-prohibitive (i.e., greater than $75,000) or unsafe…”
In June 2018, Parsons prepared a report estimating the cost to provide public water to these residents1. The
purpose of this letter is to provide updated cost and technical feasibility information for providing public water
to residents as outlined above.
BACKGROUND
Chemours has had several meetings and phone calls with representatives of Bladen and Cumberland Counties
to discuss issues and timing related to possible connections of impacted homeowners to municipal water. Most
recently, on December 10, 2018, Chemours and Parsons had phone conversations with officials from both
counties to get updated cost and schedule information.
Bladen County
Bladen County operates a public water system that draws water from groundwater and that currently serves
select areas of the county as well as providing wholesale water to Cumberland County to service a small
neighborhood in southwestern Cumberland County (SouthPoint). Bladen County has several wells located
around the county. The system is divided into geographic areas, and service is currently available in the
northwestern portion of the county and a small area in southwestern Cumberland County. Parsons has been
working with the county to obtain maps and determine requirements for expanding the existing systems. Two
proposals were provided by Bladen County to Chemours in late 2017 for providing service to the area west of

1 Feasibility Study Report for Public Water Services, Chemours Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina.
June 29, 2018 (Attached).
Kevin Garon
Chemours Corporate Remediation Group
Provisions for Public Water
March 11, 2019
Page 2 of 5

the Cape Fear River. Parsons estimated the costs to provide water to the residences on the east side of the river
based on the location of existing water mains and the distance to impacted homes.
Cumberland County
Cumberland County currently operates a small public water system serving the SouthPoint neighborhood located
off Chicken Foot Road in southwest Cumberland county. The county purchases water from Bladen County to
service this small neighborhood of less than 50 homes. The County has identified the expansion of municipal
water as a priority and is conducting an evaluation of such an expansion. Currently, the only water service in
southern Cumberland County is in the South Point neighborhood. While Cumberland County operates the system,
wholesale water is purchased from Bladen County for this small system.
Cumberland County evaluated expanding municipal water to residences as part of a proposed bond issue,
prepared a preliminary engineering report (PER) for providing public drinking water to various areas of the county
not currently served by the utility (Cumberland County Rural Water Feasibility Study Preliminary Engineering
Report, August 2009). The PER outlined the cost to expand the system to rural areas located outside the current
areas of service.
Parsons has been in discussions with representatives from Cumberland County about this study, a portion of
which is being updated. The County is updating the portion of the study related to the Grays Creek Water and
Sewer District (the southwest portion of the county). While the report has not been finalized, the County provided
updated cost estimates to Chemours for this area.
COST ESTIMATES
For this analysis the area around the Fayetteville works site has been divided into four service areas as shown
on Figure 1. The service areas are based on the most likely service provider and geography (Bladen County east
of the Cape Fear River, Bladen County west of the Cape Fear River, Cumberland County east of the Cape Fear
River, and Cumberland County west of the Cape Fear River).
Bladen County East of the Cape Fear River
As shown on Figure 1, there are only five residences whose drinking water sampling results are at or above
140 parts per trillion (ppt) within this area. To provide service to Bladen County east of the Cape Fear River
from existing sources, installation of an approximately 16,100 linear foot (LF), 6-inch water main would be
required to bring water to the area from the existing water service on River Road. An existing groundwater well
feeds this system and is assumed to be sufficient for the limited number of homes (five) at which the health
advisory level has been exceeded. As an alternative, a water line could be extended from the existing Bladen
County system west of the Cape Fear River. However, the length of the line, the need to acquire significant
right-of-way, and the cost of drilling underneath the Cape Fear River make this option infeasible. Regardless,
the long water main and limited number of customers would require that flushing hydrants be installed to
maintain the water quality. The flushing hydrants would result in wasting significant amounts of water. The
hydraulics and system capacity indicate that it would be extremely difficult to maintain appropriate water
quality over this distance given the number of homes.
The construction of a new and long water main to carry water to the five homes in Bladen County east of the
Cape Fear River, along with connecting the five homes, is estimated to cost $1,770,000 – approximately
$354,000 per house. The cost details are summarized in the June 2018 Feasibility Study. In addition, Parsons
estimates that design, permitting, and construction of this system would take two to four years to complete.
Kevin Garon
Chemours Corporate Remediation Group
Provisions for Public Water
March 11, 2019
Page 3 of 5

Based on the cost, schedule, and technical limitations, it remains impractical to provide public water to this
area.
Bladen County West of the Cape Fear River
As shown on Figure 1, there are 492 residences whose drinking water sampling results are at or above 140 ppt
within this area. It is anticipated that municipal water could be expeditiously provided to impacted homes in
this area, since existing water service lines are already present in much of the area, and only moderate water
main additions are necessary to extend the water service lines to all impacted homes. The existing Bladen
County water supply well is reportedly nearing capacity, and the expansion of municipal water service to
additional homes likely will require drilling a new well.
Based on information provided by Bladen County, Chemours estimates the cost of installing municipal water to
all 49 homes in Bladen County west of the Cape Fear River at $3,470,000 -- approximately $70,816 per home.
The new well accounts for approximately 25% of the total cost for extending service in Bladen County west of
the river. It is estimated that construction of the system would require two to four years to complete (assuming
the State will fast track the permitting process).
Of the 49 homes, there are approximately 13 homes that have an existing water main in front of the property.
Providing these homes with water can be accomplished quickly and with only minimal costs (within 9 months
and below the $75,000 per home threshold). The remaining 36 homes require significant infrastructure
installation (a new well and additional distribution mains) to connect to public water. In addition, for the cost to
stay below the “cost prohibitive” threshold, at least 30 of these homes would have to agree to be connected to
public water. Given that, we recommend:
• The 13 homes requiring only a lateral connection water would be offered either a public water hook up
(with water bills to be paid by Chemours for 20 years), a whole house filtration system, or reverse
osmosis systems on every kitchen and bathroom sink.
• For the remaining 36 homes, assuming that NCDEQ agrees to an extension to the time required for
installation, Chemours would ask the homeowners preference, and if at least 30 homeowners opted
for public water, then that option would be available. If fewer than 30 of homes agree to be
connected to public water, all homes would be provided with the options of a GAC system or reverse osmosis units on every kitchen or bathroom sink.
• If no extension for implementation is granted, the 36 homes would be provided with the options of a
GAC system or reverse osmosis units on every kitchen or bathroom sink.
• If a sufficient number of homes agree to a public water connection such that the cost remains below
the “cost prohibitive” threshold, these homes would be offered reverse osmosis systems while waiting
for the installation of public water.
Cumberland County East of the Cape Fear River
As shown on Figure 1, there are 44 residences whose drinking water sampling results are at or above 140 ppt
within this area. To provide municipal water to these homes, a water main must be extended from Fayetteville
PWC to the south. This service area would require extending a 31,500 LF, 12-inch main from the intersection
of NC 210 and Cedar Creek Road (in addition to the smaller mains to service the homes). The long water main
and limited number of customers may result in water quality issues within the service area. Parsons’s initial
analysis indicates that appropriate water quality would be difficult to maintain, given the hydraulics and
capacity of the system.

2 Two additional homes have eligible wells but are already connected to public water and therefore are not
included in this analysis.
Kevin Garon
Chemours Corporate Remediation Group
Provisions for Public Water
March 11, 2019
Page 4 of 5

The estimated cost of providing municipal water to the 44 residences in Cumberland County east of the Cape
Fear River, is $12,000,000. This is over $272,000 per house. The main cost driver is the long distance from
an existing public water source. Given the current lack of municipal water infrastructure, a new and long water
main must be constructed to reach these 44 households. Parsons estimates that such installation would take
approximately five to eight years to construct.
It is not feasible, technically or in terms of cost and timeliness, to install municipal water east of the Cape Fear
River in Cumberland County. Given the existing lack of municipal water infrastructure, distance to the nearest
water mains, and the lower density of homes, installing municipal water means that these residences will be
on bottled water for years. Further, servicing these areas from the existing PWS will require long dead-end
water mains that add significant cost to the system and may not provide a water supply of adequate quality.
Cumberland County West of the Cape Fear River
As shown on Figure 1, there are 84 residences whose drinking water sampling results are at or above 140 ppt
within this area. As previously mentioned, Parsons met by phone with Jeffrey Brown from Cumberland County
on December 10, 2018 to discuss their updated cost estimates for providing water to this area of the county
(designated the Grays Creek Water and Sewer District or the Southwest District by the County). Cumberland
county provided updated cost estimates for providing water service to the entire district as well as only the
area where wells have exceedances of the health goal. Based on these estimates, the cost to provide water to
the 84 residents in this area would be approximately $19,640,000 or $233,800 per home. Mr. Brown
estimated that construction of this system would take approximately three to four years to complete.
Based on the cost (greater than $75,000 per home) and the schedule (three to four years), it is considered
impractical to provide public water to homeowners in this area.
● ● ●
Parsons appreciates the opportunity to assist Chemours with addressing this very important project. If you have
any questions or concerns with this plan, please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-558-4255.

Sincerely,

Michael G. Robinson, P.E.
Parsons Principal Environmental Engineer

cc Tracy Ovbey – Parsons Project Manager
Allison Rumsey, Arnold and Porter
#V
#V
"T
!
One exceedance in
Robeson County not part of
this study. Water service is
available on NC Hwy 20
across the RR tracks.
Bladen County West of the Cape Fear River(51 Exceedances)Cape Fear RiverCumberlandCounty West of theCape Fear River(84 Exceedances)CumberlandCounty East of theCape Fear River(44 Exceedances)
Bladen CountyEast of the CapeFear River(5 exceedances)
NOTE:Two Bladen County West of the CapeFear River addresses are hooked up to public water (they do use their wells for other purposes).
8"
8
"
6"6"6"6"
6"
6"
6"0Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
!Robeson County Exceedance
Round 4 Sampling Boundary
Cumberland County Parcel
Bladen County Parcel
Service Area Border
Approximate Plant Border
Existing 2 inch Water Main
Existing 4 inch Water Main
Existing 6 inch Water Main
Existing 8 inch Water Main
Existing 12 inch Water Main
#V Flushing Hydrant
"T Water Meter
Proposed Water Mains:
16"
12"
8"
6"
4"
2"
Document Path: F:\GIS\Fayetteville\Gis\Project_figures\2019 Sampling\Exceedance Maps (2019)\Exceedance results 02272019 - Overall Exceedance Map with Proposed Water Main Additions.mxd
¯
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Miles
RAH 1MR2/27/2019
FIG NO.:DATE:CHKD:DWN:
450768.04020
PROJECT #:
Fayetteville Works FacilityFayetteville, North Carolina
4704 Hedgemore DriveCharlotte, North Carolina 28209
Exceedances By Area

ATTACHMENT

June 29, 2018 Feasibility Study Report for Public Water Services
Chemours Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR
PUBLIC WATER SERVICES
CHEMOURS FAYETTEVILLE WORKS
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared for: The Chemours Company FC, LLC
Corporate Remediation Group 1007 Market Street, Room 13116A Wilmington, Delaware 19899

Prepared by:
4701 Hedgemore Drive Charlotte, North Carolina 28209

June 2018 Parsons PN 449338

PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURES AND SEALS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURES AND SEALS
Professional Engineer
Name
Michael G. Robinson
Telephone number
[phone]
DOCUMENT:
NC Engineer License number
034781
FAX number
Expiration date
12/31/2018
E-mail
[e-mail]
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES
CHEMOURS FAYETTEVILLE WORKS
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Seals, as applicable:
PARSONS -'---------------~
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS

US:162910190v10
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Background and Objectives ............................................................................... 1
2.1 Regional Topography, Geology and Hydrogeology ....................................... 2
2.2 Feasibility Study Objectives............................................................................. 2
3.0 Proposed Service Areas and Water Sources .................................................... 3
3.1 Bladen County (Groundwater) ......................................................................... 3
3.2 Cumberland County (Groundwater or Surface Water) ................................... 3
3.3 Source 3: Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (Surface Water) ..... 4
4.0 Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 4
5.0 Process Overview ............................................................................................... 5
6.0 Proposed Municipal Water Expansions by Location ....................................... 6
6.1 Bladen County .................................................................................................. 6
6.1.1 Bladen County West of Cape Fear River ................................................. 6
6.1.2 Bladen County East of Cape Fear River .................................................. 7
6.2 Cumberland County .......................................................................................... 8
6.2.1 Cumberland County West of Cape Fear River ......................................... 8
6.2.2 Cumberland County East of Cape Fear River .......................................... 9
7.0 Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 10
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Proposed Service Area
Figure 3 Bladen County West of the Cape Fear River
Figure 4 Bladen County East of the Cape Fear River
Figure 5 Cumberland County West of the Cape Fear River – Option 1
Figure 6 Cumberland County West of the Cape Fear River – Option 2
Figure 7 Cumberland County East of the Cape Fear River
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS

US:162910190v10
ii

TABLES
Table 1 Estimated Costs Summary
Table 2 Estimated Schedule (Years)
APPENDICES
Appendix A Bladen County Documents
Appendix B 20019 Preliminary Engineering Report, Cumberland County
Appendix C Cost Estimates
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES ACRONYMS

US:162910190v10
iii

ACRONYMS
Acronym Definition / Description
bgs Below ground surface
Chemours The Chemours Company FC, LLC
DuPont E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
FS Feasibility study
GAC Granular activated carbon
HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
LCFWSA Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
LF Linear foot/feet
MSL Mean sea level
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
PER Preliminary engineering report
PPA Polymer Processing Area
ppt Part(s) per trillion
PVF Polyvinyl fluoride
PWC Public Works Commission
PWS Public Water System

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES INTRODUCTION

US:162910190v10
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In a letter dated May 24, 2018, The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) requested that The Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours) work with Bladen, Cumberland, and other counties to develop a plan to install public water at homes with private wells in which hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) has been detected above the State’s provisional health goal for drinking water.
Parsons has prepared this Feasibility Study (FS) Report to evaluate the potential for extending existing public water systems (PWSs) into the area around the Chemours Fayetteville Works Plant located near Duart Township in Bladen County, North Carolina
(the Site). Expanding public drinking water access to impacted areas around the Site and providing connections to homes is a possible measure to address exceedances of the provisional health goal for HFPO-DA in private wells. Chemours, in coordination with
NCDEQ, is also conducting a pilot program on the effectiveness of granular activated (GAC) filtration systems in removing HFPO-DA from water. The initial results from the pilot program demonstrate that the GAC system is highly effective at removing HFPO-DA and can be effectively utilized if either (i) the homeowner prefers the GAC system or (ii) the extension of the PWS to that homeowner is not cost effective.
Chemours has had several meetings and phone calls with representatives of Bladen and Cumberland Counties to discuss issues and timing related to possible connections of impacted homeowners to municipal water. Most recently, on June 21, 2018, Chemours met with County officials, including the County Administrators for Bladen and Cumberland Counties to share information about such potential connections. The Counties and Chemours agreed to continue to work together on the feasibility, scope
and implementation of connection to PWS.
2.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The Site is located on NC Highway 87, 15 miles southeast of the City of Fayetteville and south of the Bladen-Cumberland county line. The Site encompasses 2,177 acres of relatively flat, undeveloped open land and woodland bounded on the east by the Cape Fear River, on the west by NC Highway 87, and on the north and south by farmland (Figure 1).
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) purchased the property in parcels from several families in 1970. A former manufacturing area, which was sold in 1992, produced nylon strapping and elastomeric tape.
DuPont sold its Butacite® and SentryGlas® manufacturing units to Kuraray America Inc. in June 2014. On July 1, 2015, DuPont separated its specialty chemicals business into a new publicly-traded company named The Chemours Company FC, LLC. With this
separation, Chemours became the owner of the entire 2,177 acres of the Fayetteville Works along with the fluoromonomers, Nafion™ membranes, and Polymer Processing Area (PPA) manufacturing units. The polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) resin manufacturing unit remains with DuPont.
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

US:162910190v10
2

2.1 Regional Topography, Geology and Hydrogeology
The region surrounding the Site is generally level to gently sloping. However, surface topography steepens when approaching the Cape Fear River and its tributaries.
The Chemours Site is in the northwestern portion of Bladen County at the southern border of Cumberland County. Cumberland and Bladen Counties are situated within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, which consists of a seaward thickening wedge of sedimentary deposits ranging in age from Cretaceous to Recent. Paleozoic, metamorphic and igneous rocks underlie these deposits. In the northern portion of Bladen County these “basement” rocks are approximately 400 feet below ground surface
(bgs). Based on the Geologic Map of North Carolina1, Bladen and Cumberland counties is underlain by the Black Creek Formation. The Black Creek Formation is characterized by lignitic clay, gray to black, and contains thin beds and laminae of fine-grained
micaceous sand as well as thick lenses of cross-bedded sand. The upper portion of the formation may also contain glauconitic, fossiliferous clayey sand lenses. The Black Creek Formation and surficial deposits are the principal potable water aquifers in the
region. Shallow groundwater is generally encountered between 15 and 40 feet below grade.
The soil in Bladen and Cumberland counties falls within the Norfolk-Goldsboro-Raines general classification2. These soils are located on old, high stream terraces in the northern part of Bladen County and are generally poorly drained soils that have a sandy or loamy surface layer and loamy subsoil. Based on the lithology logged during on-site investigations, the Site is underlain by a fine- to medium-grained sand unit with thin discontinuous interbedded silt/clay lenses. The sand extends to a depth of approximately 65 feet bgs (elevation of +80 feet mean sea level [MSL]). The saturated portion of this unit has been identified as the Surficial Aquifer. Beneath this unit is a 7- to 15-foot-thick, laterally-continuous dense clay that has been identified as the Black Creek Confining
Unit.
2.2 Feasibility Study Objectives
The purpose of this FS is to:
1. Analyze the potential for expanding public drinking water access to homes with private wells having concentrations exceeding the North Carolina provisional health goal for HFPO-DA.
2. Provide a plan for providing required access where such expansion is determined to be feasible.
This report presents the potential options for providing public drinking water to impacted homes around the plant, provides the estimated cost and timeframe to construct the
systems, and evaluates the ability to implement the options presented.

1 North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985.
2 Leab, Robert J. 1990. Soil Survey of Bladen County. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES
PROPOSED SERVICE AREAS AND WATER
SOURCES

US:162910190v10
3

3.0 PROPOSED SERVICE AREAS AND WATER SOURCES
To facilitate the analysis, the area around the plant was divided into four proposed service areas (based on geography and proximity to water sources) as shown on Figure 2:
1. Bladen County West of Cape Fear River
2. Bladen County East of Cape Fear River
3. Cumberland County West of Cape Fear River
4. Cumberland County East of Cape Fear River
Each area is discussed in detail below. In addition, there are three potential water sources for serving the four areas analyzed below.
3.1 Bladen County (Groundwater)
Bladen County operates a public water system that draws water from groundwater and that currently serves select areas of the county as well as providing wholesale water to
Cumberland County to service a small neighborhood in southwestern Cumberland County (SouthPoint). Bladen County has several wells located around the county. The system is divided into geographic areas, and service is currently available in the
northwestern portion of the county and a small area in southwestern Cumberland County. Parsons has been working with the county to obtain maps and determine requirements for expanding the existing systems. Two proposals were provided by
Bladen County to Chemours in late 2017 for providing service to the area west of the Cape Fear River (Appendix A).
3.2 Cumberland County (Groundwater or Surface Water)
Cumberland County currently operates a small public water system serving the
SouthPoint neighborhood located off Chicken Foot Road in southwest Cumberland county. The county purchases water from Bladen County to service this small neighborhood of less than 50 homes. The County has identified the expansion of
municipal water as a priority and is conducting an evaluation of such an expansion. Currently, the only water service in southern Cumberland County is in the South Point neighborhood. While Cumberland County operates the system, wholesale water is
purchased from Bladen County for this small system.
Cumberland County evaluated expanding municipal water to residences as part of a proposed bond issue, prepared a preliminary engineering report (PER) for providing public drinking water to various areas of the county not currently served by the utility (Cumberland County Rural Water Feasibility Study Preliminary Engineering Report, August 2009; see Appendix B). The PER outlined the cost to expand the system to rural areas located outside the current areas of service. Three potential water sources for the proposed water system were analyzed in the PER:
 Option 1 - developing a County-owned surface water supply;
 Option 2- developing a County-owned groundwater supply; and
 Option 3 - negotiating a purchase contract with an existing provider.
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES ASSUMPTIONS

US:162910190v10
4

Two alternative water sources were evaluated as part of Option 3: (a) Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC) and (b) Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
(LCFWSA). The results of the study indicated that “existing supplies preclude the necessity for Cumberland County developing their own County water supply system (surface or groundwater).” Purchasing water from the Fayetteville PWC was determined
to be the most economical option. The Fayetteville PWC uses surface water as its source. The report divides the areas into sub-sections and included population growth estimates.
Parsons has been in discussions with representatives from Cumberland County about this study, which is being updated. The County is updating the study to reflect current population estimates and updated growth projections and to add provisions for fire protection service (instead of the rural water service previously proposed). Based on Parsons’ discussions with the county, we expect that Cumberland County may decide to purchase water from the Fayetteville PWC or from Bladen County. We understand, from discussions with the County, that it working to complete the updated study before October 15, 2018.
3.3 Source 3: Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (Surface
Water)
The LCFWSA operates a surface water treatment plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina,
approximately 5.5 miles south of the Site entrance. The treatment plant uses water from the Cape Fear River. Parsons has determined that there are no water lines extending north of the treatment plant. Therefore, the use of this plant as a source was considered impractical given that other sources are significantly closer to the Site. In addition, this system could not practically or cost-effectively serve areas east of the Cape Fear River.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS
This study relies on publicly-available data, discussions with the Counties, and system
information and piping layouts provided to Parsons by the County utilities. Parsons evaluated the available data to determine the most efficient, feasible, and implementable solutions for providing public drinking water to the area. Several assumptions were made
while performing the evaluation:
1. The hydraulics of a new delivery system were not analyzed. Parsons assumed that the systems and pipe sizes proposed by Cumberland and Bladen Counties will provide suitable flow and pressure to the homeowners.
2. Proposed costs were based on the costs provided in the PER (adjusted for inflation), cost estimates provided by Bladen County, and professional judgement. The PER can be found in Appendix B. The costs are intended to provide a rough estimate for each option so that a preliminary determination of the cost effectiveness of each alternative could be made. The actual cost may be higher or lower.
3. No cost contingency has been included.
4. Parsons assumed cooperation between the water utility suppliers. Negotiation for intercounty water licenses is not included.
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES PROCESS OVERVIEW

US:162910190v10
5

5. The proposed system is for providing drinking water to affected residences and does not include fire suppression protection.
6. Piping will be installed with 3.5 feet of cover for freeze protection. Dewatering of excavation pits is not required.
7. Piping can be installed outside paved areas.
8. The construction schedule assumes an average production rate of 300 feet of pipe laid per day and working 5-day weeks, with 36 weeks of construction time per year.
9. Parsons assumed that the counties will use their powers of eminent domain to obtain the property necessary for implementation of municipal water and that Chemours will not be responsible for purchasing property.
10. This study assumes that water mains will be installed directly to the impacted areas (i.e., it does not include the buildout of other areas the transmission main may pass through).
11. Parsons also reviewed the public record related to the implementation of municipal water connections by Duke Energy to identify issues and evaluate the estimated timeline for implementation of the options reviewed in this study.
5.0 PROCESS OVERVIEW
This section describes the general process that would be followed to determine whether and how Chemours would provide certain homeowners with connections to PWSs. How that general process would be applied to specific geographic areas is discussed in subsequent sections.
For each owner of a home with well water concentrations above the provisional health
goal, Chemours will determine in coordination with DEQ whether a connection to public water would be feasible, assuming sufficient acceptance by homeowners. Such a connection would be considered feasible if the respective County is willing to make public water available to that homeowner, and the cost to Chemours of doing so is cost-effective. Based on our understanding of the State’s practice in other situations, to assess whether it is cost effective to provide public water to each service area, the cost
per home needs to be calculated. Extension of public water was initially deemed “cost-prohibitive” by the State for connections by Duke Energy when the cost exceeded $35,000 per home. It is our understanding that this value was increased by the State this year to $75,000 per home. For purposes of this report, it is assumed that connections costing over $75,000 per home are not cost effective. For reference, we understand that the cost to install a GAC filtration system is approximately $10,000 per home.
If providing water service to an area is determined to be potentially feasible, Chemours will contact the owner of each home with well water concentrations above the provisional health goal to request their preference for municipal water or a GAC filtration system. Based on their preference, Chemours will obtain the necessary access agreement. If the homeowner prefers municipal water, Chemours will request that they create an account
for municipal water (where existing service is available). This process is similar to the one used by Duke Energy for extending public water service to homes around their facilities. Chemours estimates, based on the Duke Energy experience, that most homes will complete these prerequisite steps within one year. Chemours also anticipates that
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL WATER EXPANSIONS BY
LOCATION

US:162910190v10
6

there will be several homes that will lag behind, but that these should not impact the general construction schedule unless they are at the outer limit of any municipal water
line.
For areas not currently serviced by an existing public water service, the PWS would only be extended if a sufficient percentage of the homes in that area select the PWS solution
and the extension of service was determined to be cost effective. Otherwise, it will not be possible to deliver water of sufficient quality for drinking. The exact number of homes needed to justify the system and provide adequate water quality will be determined based on hydraulic modeling and assistance from the Counties. In addition, some homes may require minor system expansions (e.g., extension of a 2-inch water main). These homes will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (based on factors such as the ability to obtain rights-of-way and available water supply system capacity).
6.0 PROPOSED MUNICIPAL WATER EXPANSIONS BY LOCATION
As discussed above, this report focuses on four proposed service areas. The feasibility and implementability of servicing each area based on cost, ability to provide adequate
water quality, and schedule is discussed in more detail below.
6.1 Bladen County
As previously mentioned, Parsons has been working with each county to obtain maps and determine requirements for expanding the existing systems. Bladen County
provided two proposals in late 2017 to provide service to the area west of the Cape Fear River (Appendix A). Parsons used these proposals and updated sampling results to determine the size and location of water mains necessary to service homes in this area. Bladen County is evaluating expanding both drinking water and fire suppression services to all homes in this area.
In the most recent discussions with Bladen County, Chemours and Bladen County agreed to continue to coordinate on the expansion of municipal water connections west of the Cape Fear River. The next meeting will be scheduled after Bladen County has had an opportunity to review this municipal water plan.
6.1.1 Bladen County West of Cape Fear River
As shown on Figure 3, there are 47 residences whose drinking water sampling results are at or above 140 parts per trillion (ppt) within this area. It is anticipated that municipal water could be expeditiously provided to impacted homes in this area, since existing water service lines are already present in much of the area, and only moderate water main additions are necessary to extend the water service lines to all impacted homes. The existing and proposed extension of water service lines is shown on Figure 3. Water would be provided by an existing groundwater well (Tobermory Road) along with a proposed new well (location to be determined).
The existing Bladen County water supply well is reportedly nearing capacity, and the expansion of municipal water service to additional homes likely will require drilling a new
well. According to Bladen County officials, the proposed well would have sufficient capacity to serve both this area of Bladen County and homes exceeding the HFPO-DA advisory level in the Cumberland County area to the north (also west of the Cape Fear
River).
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL WATER EXPANSIONS BY
LOCATION

US:162910190v10
7

Estimated Cost
Chemours estimates the cost of installing municipal water to all 47 homes in Bladen
County east of the Cape Fear River at $3,480,000 -- approximately $74,000 per home. The costs are summarized in Table 1, and a detailed breakdown of the estimated costs is provided in Appendix C. The new well accounts for approximately 25% of the total
cost for extending service in Bladen County west of the river.
Estimated Schedule
For homes that already have a water line to serve the house (i.e., the home just needs a service connection to the existing line), a homeowner selecting municipal water will simply be connected to the line. Accordingly, the schedule for installation in this area is shorter than in other areas, given the existence of water service to much of the area. Installation of municipal water for most homes in this area can be completed in approximately two to four years. This assumes these households provide an access agreement and complete any other activities required by the county in a timely manner. The schedule details are provided in Table 2. As Chemours continues to coordinate with the County, it plans to explore ways by which this timeline can be shortened.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, Chemours has informed Parsons that it is prepared to proceed, subject to further discussions with Bladen County, with installation of municipal
water to the 47 homes west of the Cape Fear River in Bladen County, even though the $73,400 per residence is substantially more than the cost to provide a GAC filtration system. Chemours is willing to install municipal water in this area, contingent on
approximately 90 percent of the homeowners selecting municipal water, so that the implementation costs do not become cost prohibitive.
6.1.2 Bladen County East of Cape Fear River
As shown on Figure 4, there are only four residences whose drinking water sampling results are at or above 140 ppt within this area. To provide service to Bladen County east of the Cape Fear River from existing sources, installation of an approximately 16,100 linear foot (LF), 6-inch water main would be required to bring water to the area from the existing water service on River Road (Figure 4). An existing groundwater well feeds this system and is assumed to be sufficient for the limited number of homes (four)
at which the health advisory level has been exceeded. As an alternative, a water line could be extended from the existing Bladen County system west of the Cape Fear River. However, the length of the line, the need to acquire significant right-of-way, and the cost of drilling underneath the Cape Fear River make this option infeasible. Regardless, the long water main and limited number of customers would require that flushing hydrants be installed to maintain the water quality. The flushing hydrants would result in wasting
significant amounts of water. The hydraulics and system capacity indicate that it would be extremely difficult to maintain appropriate water quality over this distance given the number of homes.
Estimated Costs
The construction of a new and long water main to carry water to the four homes in Bladen County east of the Cape Fear River, along with connecting the four homes, is estimated to cost $1,770,000 – approximately $442,500 per house. The cost details are
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL WATER EXPANSIONS BY
LOCATION

US:162910190v10
8

summarized in Table 1, and a detailed breakdown of the estimated costs is provided in Appendix C.
Estimated Schedule
Although there are only four homes in this area, the need to construct a new and long water main to reach these households would take considerable time. Therefore,
installation of municipal water to these houses would take about the same time as is required for the west side of the river. As shown on Table 2, Parsons estimates that installation would take approximately two to four years.
Conclusion
It is not feasible, technically or in terms of cost and timeliness, to install municipal water east of the Cape Fear River in Bladen County. Given the distance to the nearest water mains and the lower density of homes, servicing these areas from the existing PWS will require long dead-end water mains that add significant cost to the system and may not provide a water supply of adequate quality. The combination of a long water main and so few houses means that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the quality of the water in the municipal system. Further, it would take approximately two to four years to install municipal water, at a cost of approximately $442,500 per house, which is not cost effective. The installation and operation of GAC filter systems at these households is cost effective, and the systems can be installed much more quickly.
6.2 Cumberland County
As previously discussed, Cumberland County is currently evaluating the expansion of municipal water to residences in this portion of the county. Parsons used the current residential sampling data (samples collected through May 16, 2018) and the 2009 PER prepared by Cumberland County (Appendix B) to determine the size and location of water mains necessary to service homes in this area. As in Bladen County, Cumberland County’s feasibility study is focused on providing water and fire suppression services to
all homes in this area. Chemours has committed to continue working with Cumberland County.
6.2.1 Cumberland County West of Cape Fear River
In reviewing potential water sources for Cumberland County west of the Cape Fear River, it was determined that two water source options are available to provide municipal water to the 75 residences with water above 140 ppt threshold. This area could either be serviced by extending water from the Fayetteville PWC (Option 1), or water could be provided from the Bladen County groundwater system (Option 2). Each is described below:
 Option 1 (Figure 5): Extension of water mains from Fayetteville PWC to the south. This option includes the installation of approximately 11,000 LF of 16-inch water main along Highway 87 from the nearest existing main (located on
Highway 87 just south of U Tyson Road) to bring water to the service area.
 Option 2 (Figure 6): Water provided from Bladen County groundwater system located south of the area. For this option, approximately 6,000 LF of 12-inch
water main would be extended south into Bladen County to connect with the proposed water mains and new well proposed for providing service to the area
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL WATER EXPANSIONS BY
LOCATION

US:162910190v10
9

west of the Cape Fear River as described above. This shorter 12-inch line would be in lieu of the 11,000 LF of 16-inch water main required by Option 1.
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost of Option 1 (bringing water from Fayetteville PWC south to these 75 residences) is $15,730,000. This is approximately $209,700 per home. The estimated
cost of Option 2 (obtaining water from Bladen County for these 75 residences) is $7,230,000. This is approximately $96,400 per home. The cost details are summarized in Table 1, and a detailed breakdown of the estimated costs is provided in Appendix C.
Estimated Schedule
As shown on Table 2, the schedule for installation of municipal water under Option 1 would be approximately six to 10 years. This is due to the extensive network of water mains that must be installed and the long main running down Highway 87 to service the area. Parsons estimates that the period for installation for Option 2 would be somewhat less given the shorter distance from the water source. As shown on Table 2, this option is estimated to take approximately five to eight years.
Conclusion
It is technically feasible to extend public water service to the homes in Cumberland County west of the Cape Fear River due to the density of homes combined with the availability of a nearby water source. However, it would take a considerable period of
time (six to 10 years) to accomplish this, which raises serious concerns about the implementability of this option. Moreover, the cost per home under either option would appear to be significantly greater than $75,000. Because Cumberland County is already
evaluating bringing municipal water to this area, it may be that if the County’s plans proceed sufficiently, the costs needed to implement connections for the homeowners with impacted wells will significantly decline and that such connections could become cost effective in the future. Chemours will continue to work cooperatively with the County to evaluate the feasibility and implementability of these connections.
6.2.2 Cumberland County East of Cape Fear River
As shown on Figure 7, there are 35 residences whose drinking water sampling results are at or above 140 ppt within this area. To provide municipal water to these homes, a water main must be extended from Fayetteville PWC to the south. This service area
would require extending a 31,500 LF, 12-inch main from the intersection of NC 210 and Cedar Creek Road (in addition to the smaller mains to service the homes). The long water main and limited number of customers may result in water quality issues within the service area. Parsons’s initial analysis indicates that appropriate water quality would be difficult to maintain, given the hydraulics and capacity of the system.
As an alternative, a water line could be extended underneath the river from the proposed
system west of the Cape Fear River. However, the length of the line, the need to acquire significant right-of-way, and the cost of drilling underneath the Cape Fear River make this option infeasible.
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost of providing municipal water to the 35 residences in Cumberland County east of the Cape Fear River, is $11,960,000. This is approximately $341,700 per
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR PUBLIC WATER SERVICES NEXT STEPS

US:162910190v10
10

house. The main cost driver is the long distance from an existing public water source. The cost details are summarized in Table 1, and a detailed breakdown of the estimated
costs is provided in Appendix C.
Estimated Schedule
Given the current lack of municipal water infrastructure, a new and long water main must
be constructed to reach these 35 households. As shown on Table 2, Parsons estimates that such installation, as with the west side of the River, would take approximately five to eight years.
Conclusion
It is not feasible, technically or in terms of cost and timeliness, to install municipal water east of the Cape Fear River in Cumberland County. Given the existing lack of municipal water infrastructure, distance to the nearest water mains, and the lower density of homes, installing municipal water means that these residences will be on bottled water for years. Further, servicing these areas from the existing PWS will require long dead-end water mains that add significant cost to the system and may not provide a water supply of adequate quality. Further, it would take approximately five to eight years to install municipal water, at a cost of approximately $341,700 per home, which is not cost effective. The installation and operation of GAC filter systems at these households is cost effective, and the systems can be installed much more quickly.
7.0 NEXT STEPS
Parsons recommends that Chemours continue to coordinate with both Bladen and Cumberland Counties to act in the most timely and cost-effective way. The path forward will depend significantly on the actions that the Counties take to expand their municipal
water systems.

US:162910190v10
FIGURES
Site Location Map
Feasibility Study Report Public Water Services Chemours Fayetteville WorksFayetteville, North Carolina
Site
Bladen County
North Carolina
0 1 20.5 Miles
USGS Topo Quad provided by NC DOT
¯
Property Boundary
PE&I4701 Hedgemore Dr.Charlotte, NC 28209
D:\GIS\Fayetvle\Gis\Project_figures\2017\SiteInvestigation\Fay_Fig_1_Site_Loc.mxdDrawn:Date:
Revision:Figure Number: 1C. Oneal
1
File Project Number:449338.01050
Name: Fay_Fig_1_Site_Loc
1/29/2018
#V
#V
"T
Single exceedance in
Robeson County not part of
this study. Water service is
available on NC Hwy 20
across the RR tracks.Cape Fear RiverCumberlandCounty West of theCape Fear River
CumberlandCounty East of theCape Fear River
Bladen CountyEast of the CapeFear River
Bladen CountyWest of the CapeFear River
06"6"6"6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
8
"
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
State Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Chemours Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Round 4 Sampling Boundary
Cumberland County Parcel
Bladen County Parcel
Service Area Border
Approximate Plant Border
Existing 2 inch Water Main
Existing 4 inch Water Main
Existing 6 inch Water Main
Existing 8 inch Water Main
Existing 12 inch Water Main
#V Flushing Hydrant
"T Water Meter
Proposed Water Mains:
16"
12"
8"
6"
4"
2"
Document Path: F:\GIS\Fayetteville\Gis\Project_figures\2018 Sampling\Exceedance Maps (2018)\Overall Exceedance Map with Proposed Water Main Additions.mxd
¯
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Miles
RAH 2MR6/25/2018
FIG NO.:DATE:CHKD:DWN:
450768.04020
PROJECT #:
Fayetteville Works FacilityFayetteville, North Carolina
4704 Hedgemore DriveCharlotte, North Carolina 28209
Proposed Service Area
#V
#V
"T
Single exceedance in Robeson County not part of this study.
Water service is available on NC Hwy 20 across the RR tracks.Cape Fear River6"
6"6"6"
6"
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
State Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Chemours Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
#V Flushing Hydrant
"T Water Meter
Cumberland County Parcel
Bladen County Parcel
Service Area Border
Approximate Plant Border
Existing 2 inch Water Main
Existing 4 inch Water Main
Existing 6 inch Water Main
Existing 8 inch Water Main
Existing 12 inch Water Main
Proposed Water Mains:
16"
12"
8"
6"
4"
2"
Document Path: F:\GIS\Fayetteville\Gis\Project_figures\2018 Sampling\Exceedance Maps (2018)\Bladen West Exceedance Map.mxd
¯
0 0.5 1Miles
RAH 3MR6/25/2018
FIG NO.:DATE:CHKD:DWN:
450768.04020
PROJECT #:
Fayetteville Works FacilityFayetteville, North Carolina
4704 Hedgemore DriveCharlotte, North Carolina 28209
Bladen County West of the Cape Fear River
#V
#V
6 inch proposed water main continuedapproximately 16,100' south to existing 6 inch mainCape Fear RiverSources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
State Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Chemours Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Cumberland County Parcel
Bladen County Parcel
Service Area Border
Approximate Plant Border
Existing 2 inch Water Main
Existing 4 inch Water Main
Existing 6 inch Water Main
Existing 8 inch Water Main
Existing 12 inch Water Main
#V Flushing Hydrant
Proposed Water Mains:
16"
12"
8"
6"
4"
2"
Document Path: F:\GIS\Fayetteville\Gis\Project_figures\2018 Sampling\Exceedance Maps (2018)\Bladen East Exceedance Map.mxd
¯
0 0.5 1Miles
RAH 4MR6/20/2018
FIG NO.:DATE:CHKD:DWN:
450768.04020
PROJECT #:
Fayetteville Works FacilityFayetteville, North Carolina
4704 Hedgemore Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Bladen County East of the Cape Fear River
Nearest Cumberland County Water Main
on Hwy 87 approximately 11,000 LF
north of Alderman Road (located just
south of U Tyson Road)
and proposed 16" ties in at Schreiber Drive,
approx 8000' north of Alderman Road
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
State Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Chemours Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Cumberland County Parcel
Bladen County Parcel
Service Area Border
Approximate Plant Border
Existing 2 inch Water Main
Existing 4 inch Water Main
Existing 6 inch Water Main
Existing 8 inch Water Main
Existing 12 inch Water Main
Proposed Water Mains:
16"
12"
8"
6"
4"
2"
Document Path: F:\GIS\Fayetteville\Gis\Project_figures\2018 Sampling\Exceedance Maps (2018)\Cumberland West Exceedance Map Option 1.mxd
¯
0 0.5 1Miles
RAH 5MR6/20/2018
FIG NO.:DATE:CHKD:DWN:
450768.04020
PROJECT #:
4704 Hedgemore DriveCharlotte, North Carolina 28209
Cumberland County West of the
Cape Fear River - Option 1
Fayetteville Works FacilityFayetteville, North Carolina
"T
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
State Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Chemours Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Cumberland County Parcel
Bladen County Parcel
Service Area Border
Approximate Plant Border
Existing 2 inch Water Main
Existing 4 inch Water Main
Existing 6 inch Water Main
Existing 8 inch Water Main
Existing 12 inch Water Main
"T Water Meter
Proposed Water Mains:
16"
12"
8"
6"
4"
2"
Document Path: F:\GIS\Fayetteville\Gis\Project_figures\2018 Sampling\Exceedance Maps (2018)\Cumberland West Exceedance Map Option 2.mxd
¯
0 0.5 1Miles
RAH 6MR6/20/2018
FIG NO.:DATE:CHKD:DWN:
450768.04020
PROJECT #:
4704 Hedgemore DriveCharlotte, North Carolina 28209
Cumberland County West of the Cape Fear River - Option 2Fayetteville Works FacilityFayetteville, North Carolina
12 inch water main continues 31,500 feet to existing water main located at NC210 andCedar Creek Road
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
State Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Chemours Sampling Exceedances:
Equal to or Above 140 ng/L
Cumberland County Parcel
Bladen County Parcel
Service Area Border
Approximate Plant Border
Existing 2 inch Water Main
Existing 4 inch Water Main
Existing 6 inch Water Main
Existing 8 inch Water Main
Existing 12 inch Water Main
Proposed Water Mains:
16"
12"
8"
6"
4"
2"
Document Path: F:\GIS\Fayetteville\Gis\Project_figures\2018 Sampling\Exceedance Maps (2018)\Cumberland East Exceedance Map.mxd
¯
0 0.5 1Miles
RAH 7MR6/20/2018
FIG NO.:DATE:CHKD:DWN:
450768.04020
PROJECT #:
Fayetteville Works FacilityFayetteville, North Carolina
4704 Hedgemore Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Cumberland County East of the Cape Fear River

US:162910190v10
TABLES
Page 1 of 1 June 2018
Table 1 Estimated Costs Summary

DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST HOMES SERVED COST PER HOME
Bladen County West of the CFR (Source: Exist. / New Well) $3,480,000 47 $74,043
Bladen County East of the CFR (Source: Exist. Bladen Co. Well) $1,770,00 4 $442,500
Cumberland County West of CFR (Source: Fay PWC) $15,730,000 75 $209,733
Cumberland County West of CFR (Source: New Bladen Co, Well) $7,230,000 75 $96,400
Cumberland County East of CFR (Source: Fay PWC) $11,680,000 35 $341,714

Page 1 of 1 June 2018
Table 2 Estimated Schedule (Years)

SERVICE AREA
HOMEOWNER
NEGOTIATIONS
DESIGN AND
PERMITTING
OBTAIN RIGHTS-OF-
WAY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
Bladen West 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 2 – 4
Bladen East 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 2 – 4
Cumberland West– Option 1 1 - 2 1 – 2 2 – 3 2 – 3 6 – 10
Cumberland West – Option 2 1 – 2 1 1 – 2 2 – 3 5 – 8
Cumberland East 1 – 2 1 – 2 1 – 2 2 5 – 8

US:162910190v10
APPENDIX A
BLADEN COUNTY DOCUMENTS
C O U N T Y L IN E R D
ME
R
I
WE
A
T
H
E
R
D
R NC HWY 87 SKIRK DRDERC RDNC 87 H
W
Y W
OLD NC 20 RDTOBERMORY RDPAG ES LAKE R D BILL HALL RDDR COGDELL RDGL
ENGERRY HI
LL RDBLADEN UNION CHURCH RD
DAVIS FARM RD
NC 20 HWY WALTER DRPIN E TR E E R DBENT GRASS PLCARPET GRASS PL0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
PROPOSED WATER EXTENSIONBLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICTBLADEN COUNTY, NC
Legend
County Boundary
Existing Water Main
Streams
Proposed Water
2-inch
4-inch
6-inch
Description Diameter Length (ft)Cost
Hwy 87 to County Line 6-inch 13,800 $460,050.00
Davis Farm 4 & 2-inch 2,000 $37,775.00
Bent Grass Place 2-inch 900 $23,750.00
Carpet Grass Place 2-inch 900 $23,750.00
Glenjerry Road 4-inch 10,500 $217,950.00
New Production Well $540,000.00
Total Length: 28,100
$1,303,300.00
$325,800.00
$15,000.00
$30,000.00
$3,000.00
$1,677,100.00
Contingencies & Engineering (25%)
Railroad Encroachment
Land Acquisition and 3-Phase Power for Well Site
Permit Fees, Advertisements, Misc
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE:
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Construction Subtotal:
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 12,500 LF $18.00 $225,000.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 700 LF $35.00 $24,500.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 100 LF $45.00 $4,500.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $14.00 $0.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $30.00 $0.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $9.00 $0.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 330 LF $195.00 $64,350.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $150.00 $0.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 500 LF $120.00 $60,000.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 14 EA $950.00 $13,300.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 0 EA $875.00 $0.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 0 EA $750.00 $0.00
15. 6" DI Bends 16 EA $600.00 $9,600.00
16. 4" DI Bends 0 EA $550.00 $0.00
17. 2" DI Bends 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 0 EA $200.00 $0.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 0 EA $1,200.00 $0.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 7 EA $3,200.00 $22,400.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 0 SY $50.00 $0.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 0 TN $35.00 $0.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 13,800 LF $2.00 $27,600.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $460,050.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
6" Water Main Extension along Hwy 87 from Bladen Union Church Road to County Line Road
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 1,000 LF $14.00 $14,000.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $30.00 $0.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 1,000 LF $9.00 $9,000.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $150.00 $0.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 1 EA $875.00 $875.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 1 EA $750.00 $750.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 2 EA $550.00 $1,100.00
17. 2" DI Bends 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 1 EA $200.00 $200.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 0 SY $50.00 $0.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 10 TN $35.00 $350.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 2,000 LF $2.00 $4,000.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $37,775.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
4" & 2" Water Main Extension along Davis Farm Road
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $14.00 $0.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $30.00 $0.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 900 LF $9.00 $8,100.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 30 LF $150.00 $4,500.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 0 EA $875.00 $0.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 2 EA $750.00 $1,500.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 0 EA $550.00 $0.00
17. 2" DI Bends 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 0 EA $200.00 $0.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 0 SY $50.00 $0.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 10 TN $35.00 $350.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 900 LF $2.00 $1,800.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $23,750.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
2" Water Main Extension along Bent Grass Place
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $14.00 $0.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $30.00 $0.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 900 LF $9.00 $8,100.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 30 LF $150.00 $4,500.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 0 EA $875.00 $0.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 2 EA $750.00 $1,500.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 0 EA $550.00 $0.00
17. 2" DI Bends 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 0 EA $200.00 $0.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 0 SY $50.00 $0.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 10 TN $35.00 $350.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 900 LF $2.00 $1,800.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $23,750.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
2" Water Main Extension along Carpet Grass Place
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 10,350 LF $14.00 $144,900.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 150 LF $30.00 $4,500.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $9.00 $0.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 150 LF $150.00 $22,500.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 12 EA $875.00 $10,500.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 0 EA $750.00 $0.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 12 EA $550.00 $6,600.00
17. 2" DI Bends 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 0 EA $200.00 $0.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 15 SY $50.00 $750.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 20 TN $35.00 $700.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 10,500 LF $2.00 $21,000.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $217,950.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
4" Water Main Extension along Glenjerry Road
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. Aquifer & Pump Test 1 EA $45,000.00 $45,000.00
2. New Well Construction 1 EA $95,000.00 $95,000.00
3. Treatment Works & Well House 1 EA $150,000.00 $150,000.00
4. Site Electrical 1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000.00
5. Iron Treatment System 1 EA $225,000.00 $225,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $540,000.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
New Production Well
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
C O U N T Y L IN E R DDERC RDNC HWY 87 SKIRK DRNC 87 H
W
Y W
OLD NC 20 RD RIVER RDDR COGDELL RDBI
LL HALL RDTOBERMORY RDPAG E S LAK E R DGLENGERRY HI
LL RDBLADEN UNION CHURCH RD
DAVIS FARM RD PIN E TR EE R DWALTER DRBENT GRASS PLCARPET GRASS PL0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
PROPOSED WATER EXTENSIONBLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICTBLADEN COUNTY, NC
Legend
County Boundary
Existing Water Main
Streams
Proposed Water
2-inch
4-inch
Removed from
Estimate
Description Diameter Length (ft)Cost
Hwy 87 4 & 2-inch 5,550 $101,325.00
Davis Farm Road 4 & 2-inch 2,000 $37,775.00
Bent Grass Place 2-inch 900 $23,750.00
Carpet Grass Place 2-inch 900 $23,750.00
Glenjerry Road 4-inch 10,500 $217,950.00
New Production Well $540,000.00
Total Length: 19,850
$944,600.00
$236,200.00
$15,000.00
$30,000.00
$3,000.00
$1,228,800.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Construction Subtotal:
Contingencies & Engineering (25%)
Railroad Encroachment
Land Acquisition and 3-Phase Power for Well Site
Permit Fees, Advertisements, Misc
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE:
$726,650
$181,700
$956,350
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 4,500 LF $14.00 $63,000.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 50 LF $30.00 $1,500.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 1,000 LF $9.00 $9,000.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 50 LF $150.00 $7,500.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 5 EA $875.00 $4,375.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 1 EA $750.00 $750.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 2 EA $550.00 $1,100.00
17. 2" DI Bends 1 EA $500.00 $500.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 1 EA $400.00 $400.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 0 EA $1,800.00 $0.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 1 EA $200.00 $200.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 0 SY $50.00 $0.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 20 TN $35.00 $700.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 5,550 LF $2.00 $11,100.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 0 EA $3,500.00 $0.00
SUBTOTAL: $101,325.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
4" & 2" Water Main Extension along Hwy 87 from Bladen Union Church Road
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 1,000 LF $14.00 $14,000.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $30.00 $0.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 1,000 LF $9.00 $9,000.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $150.00 $0.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 1 EA $875.00 $875.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 1 EA $750.00 $750.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 2 EA $550.00 $1,100.00
17. 2" DI Bends 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 1 EA $200.00 $200.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 0 SY $50.00 $0.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 10 TN $35.00 $350.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 2,000 LF $2.00 $4,000.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $37,775.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
4" & 2" Water Main Extension along Davis Farm Road
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $14.00 $0.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $30.00 $0.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 900 LF $9.00 $8,100.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 30 LF $150.00 $4,500.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 0 EA $875.00 $0.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 2 EA $750.00 $1,500.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 0 EA $550.00 $0.00
17. 2" DI Bends 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 0 EA $200.00 $0.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 0 SY $50.00 $0.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 10 TN $35.00 $350.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 900 LF $2.00 $1,800.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $23,750.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
2" Water Main Extension along Bent Grass Place
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $14.00 $0.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $30.00 $0.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 900 LF $9.00 $8,100.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 30 LF $150.00 $4,500.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 0 EA $875.00 $0.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 2 EA $750.00 $1,500.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 0 EA $550.00 $0.00
17. 2" DI Bends 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 0 EA $200.00 $0.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 0 SY $50.00 $0.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 10 TN $35.00 $350.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 900 LF $2.00 $1,800.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $23,750.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
2" Water Main Extension along Carpet Grass Place
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 6" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $18.00 $0.00
2. 6" Class 350 DIP Water Main 0 LF $35.00 $0.00
3. 6" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $45.00 $0.00
4. 4" SDR21 PVC Water Main 10,350 LF $14.00 $144,900.00
5. 4" Class 350 DIP Water Main 150 LF $30.00 $4,500.00
6. 4" Class 350 RJ DIP Water Main 0 LF $40.00 $0.00
7. 2" SDR21 PVC Water Main 0 LF $9.00 $0.00
8. 12" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 0 LF $195.00 $0.00
9. 8" Steel Casing Installed by Jack and Bore 150 LF $150.00 $22,500.00
10. 8" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $120.00 $0.00
11. 6" HDPE Water Main Installed by Directional Bore 0 LF $100.00 $0.00
12. 6" Gate Valve 0 EA $950.00 $0.00
13. 4" Gate Valve 12 EA $875.00 $10,500.00
14. 2" Gate Valve 0 EA $750.00 $0.00
15. 6" DI Bends 0 EA $600.00 $0.00
16. 4" DI Bends 12 EA $550.00 $6,600.00
17. 2" DI Bends 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
18. 6" x 6" Tee 0 EA $500.00 $0.00
19. 6" x 4" Tee 0 EA $450.00 $0.00
20. 4" x 4" Tee 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
21. Tapping Sleeve & Valve 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00
22. 4" Plug Tapped for 2" NPT 0 EA $200.00 $0.00
23. Blowoff Assembly 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
24. Fire Hydrant Assembly 0 EA $3,200.00 $0.00
25. Concrete Driveway Repair 0 SY $60.00 $0.00
26. Asphalt Driveway Repair 15 SY $50.00 $750.00
27. Gravel Driveway Repair 20 TN $35.00 $700.00
28. Water Main Cleanup and Testing 10,500 LF $2.00 $21,000.00
29. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $217,950.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
4" Water Main Extension along Glenjerry Road
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. Aquifer & Pump Test 1 EA $45,000.00 $45,000.00
2. New Well Construction 1 EA $95,000.00 $95,000.00
3. Treatment Works & Well House 1 EA $150,000.00 $150,000.00
4. Site Electrical 1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000.00
5. Iron Treatment System 1 EA $225,000.00 $225,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $540,000.00
BLADEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Bladen County Water Main Extension
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
New Production Well
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost

US:162910190v10
APPENDIX B
2009 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009

CUMBERLAND COUNTY
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING REPORT

Prepared By:
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, North Carolina
Conway, South Carolina

In Partnership With:

Koonce, Noble & Associates, Inc.
Lumberton, North Carolina

Final Report - August 19, 2009
County Commissioners
J. Breeden Blackwell
Dr. Jeannette M. Council
Kenneth S. Edge
Marshall Faircloth
Jimmy Keefe
Billy R. King
Edward Melvin

County Manager’s Office
James E. Martin, County Manager
Juanita Pilgrim, Deputy County Manager
Amy H. Cannon, Assistant County Manager

Public Utilities
Thomas B. Cooney, III, Director
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A. c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

TOC-1
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Need ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Fort Bragg & Pope AFB – Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) ....................................... 3
2.0 Population and Water Demand Projections .................................................................................. 4
2.1 Historic Population Data .................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Population Projections ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Population Projections for Rural Areas ........................................................................................... 6
2.4 Water Demand Projections ................................................................................................................ 8
3.0 Existing Water Systems in the Region ......................................................................................... 10
3.1 Surface Water Systems ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Fayetteville PWC ........................................................................................................................ 10
3.1.2 Eastover Sanitary District .......................................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Town of Hope Mills ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.4 Town of Stedman ......................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.5 Town of Spring Lake .................................................................................................................. 12
3.1.6 Fort Bragg ...................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.7 Town of Falcon ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.8 Town of Godwin........................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.9 Linden Water & Sewer District ............................................................................................... 13
3.1.10 Harnett County Public Utilities ............................................................................................... 13
3.1.11 City of Dunn ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.1.12 City of Lumberton ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.13 Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority ....................................................................... 15
3.2 Groundwater Systems ........................................................................................................................ 15
3.2.1 Town of Wade............................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Hoke County .................................................................................................................................16
3.2.3 Robeson County ...........................................................................................................................16
3.2.4 Sampson County........................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.5 Bladen County ............................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.6 Private Water Systems ................................................................................................................ 18
4.0 Proposed Rural Water Districts ..................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Southwest Water District ........................................................................................................ 19
4.1.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives ...................................................................................... 19
4.2 Linden Water & Sewer District ..................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives ...................................................................................... 21

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A. c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

TOC-2
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
4.3 East Central Water District ............................................................................................................. 21
4.3.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives ...................................................................................... 22
4.4 Southeast Water District .................................................................................................................. 22
4.4.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives ...................................................................................... 23
4.5 Northeast Water District ................................................................................................................. 24
4.5.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives ...................................................................................... 24
5.0 Water Supply Resources in the Region ........................................................................................ 25
5.1 Available Surface Water Supply ..................................................................................................... 25
5.1.1 Cape Fear River ............................................................................................................................ 25
5.1.1.1 Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations ......................................................... 25
5.1.1.2 Intake Capacity Limitations Relative to 7Q10 Streamflow ..................................... 26
5.1.2 South River .................................................................................................................................... 27
5.1.3 Glenville Lake (Little Cross Creek Watershed) ................................................................. 27
5.1.4 Big Cross Creek Watershed ..................................................................................................... 27
5.2 Interbasin Transfer of Surface Water to Serve Cumberland County Districts .................. 27
5.2.1 IBT from Cape Fear River Basin to South River Basin ...................................................... 28
5.2.2 IBT from Cape Fear River Basin to Lumber River Basin ................................................... 29
5.3 Available Groundwater Supply ....................................................................................................... 30
5.3.1 Bedrock Aquifer ........................................................................................................................... 30
5.3.2 Lower Cape Fear Aquifer ........................................................................................................... 31
5.3.3 Upper Cape Fear Aquifer ........................................................................................................... 31
5.3.4 Black Creek Aquifer ..................................................................................................................... 31
5.3.5 Surficial Aquifer ........................................................................................................................... 32
6.0 Alternatives to Provide Potable Water Supply to Districts .................................................... 33
6.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 33
6.2 Alternative #1 - Develop County-Owned Surface Water Supply .......................................... 33
6.3 Alternative #2 - Develop County-Owned Groundwater Supply ........................................... 34
6.4 Alternative #3 - Water Purchase Contract from Existing Provider ...................................... 35
6.5 Cost Comparison of the Feasible Water Supply Alternatives ................................................ 35
6.6 Selection of Recommended Water Supply Alternative ............................................................ 40
6.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 41
7.0 Infrastructure Financing Alternatives ........................................................................................... 42
7.1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources ................................................................ 42
7.1.1 Division of Environmental Health .......................................................................................... 42
7.1.2 Division of Water Quality – Construction Grants & Loans ........................................... 43
7.2 North Carolina Department of Commerce Finance Center .................................................... 43
7.2.1 Division of Community Assistance (CDBG Infrastructure Program) ......................... 44
7.2.2 Commerce Finance Center (CDBG Economic Development Resources Program) . 44
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A. c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

TOC-3
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
7.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund........................................................................................ 44
7.4 North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center ............................................................. 45
7.4.1 Capacity Building Grants .......................................................................................................... 45
7.4.2 Supplemental Grants .................................................................................................................. 45
7.4.3 Unsewered Communities Grants ........................................................................................... 46
7.5 U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Development .............................................................. 46
7.6 U.S. Department of Commerce - Economic Development Administration ........................ 46
7.7 Financing Options Applicable to Cumberland County ........................................................... 47
8.0 Final Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 49
8.1 Recommended Project Financing Plan ......................................................................................... 49
8.2 Organization of Proposed Districts ............................................................................................... 50
8.3 Potable Water Supply ........................................................................................................................ 52
8.4 Project Priority ..................................................................................................................................... 53
8.5 Water System Operation & Maintenance ................................................................................... 53
8.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 55
9.0 References ............................................................................................................................................ 56

Report Tables

Table 1 – Historic Population and Future Projections for Cumberland County ............................... 4
Table 2 - Total Population Projection Methodologies for Cumberland County Population ......... 6
Table 3 - Rural Population Projections for Cumberland County .......................................................... 7
Table 4 - Water Demand Projections for Cumberland County Rural Water Service Area ........... 9
Table 5 - 20-Year Water Demand Projections for Customers in South River Basin ..................... 29
Table 6 - 20-Year Water Demand Projections for Customers in Lumber River Basin ..................30
Table 7 – Feasibility Matrix for Water Supply Resource ...................................................................... 41

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A. c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

TOC-4
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Appendices

Appendix A - Project Maps
• Map #1 - Municipal Influence Areas and Existing Water Districts in Cumberland
County
• Map #2 - Existing Water Systems in the Region
• Map #3 - Proposed Water Districts and Infrastructure
• Map #4 - Proposed Water Districts Relative to IBT Boundaries
• Map #5 - Proposed Southwest Water District
• Map #6 - Proposed Linden Water District
• Map #7 - Proposed East Central Water District
• Map #8 - Proposed Southeast Water District
• Map #9 - Proposed Northeast Water District
• Map #10 – Southwest Water District: Water Main Sizes and Potential Supply
Interconnection Points

Appendix B – Water Demand & Population Projections
• Table B.1 - Population Projection Methodologies
• Table B.2 - Water Demand Projections
• Table B.3 – Potential Water Supplier Scenarios
• Table B.4 – Proposed Water District Summary

Appendix C – Construction Cost Estimates
• County-Wide Water System Cost Summary
• Estimated Annual O&M Costs and Average Monthly Water Bill - Alternative #1-3
• Water Supply Construction Cost Estimate - Alternative #1-3
• Southwest District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate
o Southwest Phase 1 (Initial Target Area)
o Remaining Areas Inside District (Excludes Phase 1)
o Areas Inside Hope Mills MIA
• Linden Water District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate
• East Central Water District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate
• Southeast Water District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate
• Northeast Water District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate

Appendix D – Supporting Documents
• Current Bulk Water and User Rates from PWC
• Existing Bulk Water/O&M Contract Between Stedman and PWC
• Existing Bulk Water/O&M Contract Between Spring Lake and PWC
• Existing Bulk Water/O&M Contract Between Linden Water and Sewer District and
Harnett County Public Utilities

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Executive Summary 1
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 General
North Carolina counties are charged with the responsibility of providing for the health, safety
and welfare of their citizens. Hence, the counties have created health departments, inspection
departments, social programs and other agencies for the security of the public. Likewise,
provision of safe drinking water and other utilities such as wastewater fall under these county
responsibilities.

This study, prepared by Marziano & McGougan, P.A. of Asheboro, North Carolina, in
partnership with Koonce, Noble & Associates, Inc. of Lumberton, North Carolina, represents a
continuing effort by the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners to determine the most
feasible method of developing a county-wide water system to serve its citizens. The primary
focus of potential water service is the rural areas located outside of the various Municipal
Influence Areas (MIAs) and the Fort Bragg Military Base.

The following articles in this executive summary describe the report findings relative to
formation of a county-wide water system. This executive summary should be read with the
idea in mind of reading the entire report in detail to develop a thorough understanding of the
methodology used to develop recommendations.

2.0 Methodologies
The following methodology was used in developing the recommendations contained in this
report:
1. Analysis of existing population trends was performed. From that analysis standard
techniques were used to develop population projections for a 20-year planning
period.

2. The County areas lying outside of the MIAs were divided into sub-section areas
based upon existing township and census tract areas. This allowed the sub-
sections to be studied both from a social/economic and census perspective. For the
purposes of this report, these sub-sections are referred to as “Districts.”

3. The population projections were used to develop water projections on a District
basis. Water usage factors were applied to the area population along with
allowances for commercial/industrial growth and unaccounted “lost” water to
develop the final water demand projections for the planning period.

4. Existing water systems in the Cumberland County area and adjoining areas were
researched to determine potential for providing potable water supply to the
County regions. This analysis and discussion included existing municipal water
systems that have a presence and are providing potable water to their specific
customer base. The discussions further segregated the water supply availability
between surface water systems and groundwater systems. A discussion on the
available surface water and groundwater in Cumberland County follows in Section
5 of this report.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Executive Summary 2
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
5. Once the water projections were determined along with a picture of the available
water supply in Cumberland County, the Districts outlined in item 2 above were
further analyzed to determine if there was sufficient population to support a
central water system. From this analysis the areas were defined as described in
item 2 above and the data reduced to a cost basis. Priorities were determined for
each area based upon the cost per customer to develop the water system.

6. A county-wide water system is essentially made up of two major parts: a water
supply source; and a water distribution system. Determination of the water
distribution system is fairly simple in that it requires following existing rights of
way to serve known locations of customers. The major decision making for the
distribution system relates to proper sizing of water lines to transmit the required
quantity of water through the system for the planning period. Determining a water
supply source for a long-term supply is not quite as simple. This is because the
water supply source must be available for the planning period and well beyond.

7. To develop a recommendation for the potable water supply to the County water
system, alternatives were developed and analyzed. The alternatives in Section 6 of
this report include the following alternatives:

• “No Action” Alternative
• Alternative #1: Developing a County-Owned Surface Water Supply
• Alternative #2: Developing a County-Owned Groundwater Supply
• Alternative #3: Negotiate a Purchase Contract with an Existing Provider
o Alternative #3a: Public Works Commission of Fayetteville
o Alternative #3b: Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority

Each alternative was discussed based on its relative merits. A preliminary cost
analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective alternative with
regard to water supply. The water distribution cost component of the analysis was
kept the same for each alternative because it does not change appreciably for any
of the supply alternatives analyzed. Finally, a comparison matrix was developed
that compared various facets of each alternative from a social/economic, political
and environmental standpoint. Each facet was given a point rating and the
alternative with the lowest point rating (least adverse impact) was selected as the
most feasible alternative for source water supply.

8. The engineers researched current financing alternatives available for funding a
county-wide water system. Additionally, the engineer’s experience with other
county water systems was used to recommend a long-term financing plan that
should provide the best opportunity for Cumberland County to develop a county-
wide water system on a district by district basis.

9. All the data contained in the items listed above was compiled and the engineers
made recommendations based on their findings and opinions.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Executive Summary 3
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
3.0 Findings
This report found that a central water system could be developed on a district by district basis
in Cumberland County. However, development of the water system would depend upon
obtaining adequate financing once an area exhibited the proper population density in order to
keep user charges at a feasible level. Several adequate water supplies are available to
Cumberland County for providing potable water. The existing supplies preclude the necessity
for Cumberland County developing their own County water supply system (surface or
groundwater).

Initially, the area of Cumberland County with the highest population density is located within
the Southwest District. Because the Southwest District is relatively large and contains nearly
5,000 potential customers, the entire Southwest Water District cannot be served in a single
project phase. Phase 1 has been identified as the area in the Southwest District with the highest
number of customers per mile of road and the area with the greatest critical health need,
specifically Southpoint. Other areas for consideration in the Southwest District include the
high-density areas located within the Hope Mills MIA and the areas along the NC-87 corridor.

SOUTHWEST (GRAYS CREEK) RURAL WATER DISTRICT

DISTRICT-WIDE WATER SYSTEM COST SUMMARY

Preferred Alternative = Alternative #3a
Purchase Contract with PWC for 5 mgd Capacity

1. Southwest Water District $27,759,000
a. Interconnection Fees/Upgrades $3,400,000
b. Phase 1 (Southpoint area) $6,432,000
c. Remaining Areas Inside District $11,053,000
d. Areas Inside Hope Mills MIA $6,874,000

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Executive Summary 4
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
The decision to outsource the water supply will require solid thinking on the part of the
elected officials of Cumberland County. Final selection of the water supply source will depend
in part upon successful negotiation of a feasible contract arrangement with an outside entity.
Long-term financing for rural water systems is available to Cumberland County. Grants are
also available to Cumberland County for some of the proposed Districts because of their lower
income levels. Any grant funds would lessen the end user cost as presented in this report.

This report estimates that Phase 1 of the Southwest Water District could have a potential
customer base of 1,500 connections and an average daily demand of 1.0 mgd for the first phase
of water system construction. A potable water supply contract purchased from PWC
(Alternative #3a) is considered the most economical method of water supply for Phase 1 of the
Southwest District. The following assumptions are used to calculate the monthly water bill for
a Phase 1 customer in the Southwest Water District:

• Southwest District is constructed as first phase in rural water system
• Cost for first phase of water transmission/distribution/storage is $6.4 million
• Cost for initial capacity fees and interconnection requirements is $3.4 million
• Zero grant contribution for each alternative (100% loan)
• Full loan amount borrowed over 40-year term, 4.0% interest
• Average daily water demand of 1.0 mgd
• 1,500 water customers (100% connection rate)
• Per 1,000 gallon rate for water supply established by PWC ($2.00 per 1,000)
• Per 1,000 gallon rate for O&M service established by PWC ($0.50 per 1,000)

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Executive Summary 5
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
Alternative #3a - Purchase Contract with PWC for 5 mgd Capacity

1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n) $496,747
a. Initial Capital Costs
Interconnection Fees/Upgrades $3,400,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$9,832,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $730,000
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons (PWC) $2.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $182,500
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons (PWC) $0.50

Total Annual Costs $1,409,247
Estimated Water Customers 1,500

Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0
Reserve) $78.29

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Executive Summary 6
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
4.0 Recommendations
Final recommendations for developing a county-wide water system are contained in Section 8
of this report. These recommendations are based upon the engineer’s best judgment obtained
from experience with other similar systems in the region. The recommendations are only for
consideration by the elected officials of Cumberland County and may be varied to suit the
County’s social and/or political needs within reasonable guidelines. Specific recommendations
in this report are as follows:

• Develop a county-wide water system based upon the priorities shown in this report,
beginning with the Southwest portion of the County. Set up this designated area as
the Southwest Water and Sewer District.
• Utilize the USDA-RD as the primary source of financing for the county owned water
facilities. Utilize NCDENR-DWSRF and other state agencies as practical for
additional/supplemental funding.
• Utilize water supply from PWC as the primary source of supply if a mutually
beneficial agreement can be reached. Meet with additional water purveyors such as
Harnett County and the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority for additional
supply as warranted during negotiations.
• Outsource the water system operation and maintenance with the chosen water
purveyor if a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached.

5.0 Implementation
A plan of action must be developed to generate the necessary contacts, contracts and other
data required for financing, permitting, designing, operating and maintaining a county wide
water system. A generalized list of the action items for implementation follows:

1. After review and acceptance of the findings in this report, begin preparations for
developing a County owned water system in the proposed Southwest Water and
Sewer District. Prepare necessary legal documents, hold public hearings and form
the Southwest Water and Sewer District. Additionally, the other districts
contained in this report can be formed at this time or at a later date as desired.

2. Set up meetings with USDA and NCDENR for the purposes of beginning
applications for financing of the selected project. After meeting with USDA,
determine the type of bonds to be implemented for project financing.

3. Set up meetings with PWC to begin negotiations for outsourcing of water supply.
Additionally, continue discussions with Harnett County and the Lower Cape Fear
Water and Sewer Authority to ascertain the feasibility of obtaining additional
water supply.

4. Develop a detailed, Preliminary Engineering Report along with an Environmental
Assessment for the Southwest Water and Sewer District water system. Submit the
Preliminary Engineering Report along with application for federal assistance to
USDA. Prepare additional applications for SRF and other agency funding as may
be appropriate.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Executive Summary 7
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
5. Approach citizens in the Southwest Water and Sewer District area to operate as a
steering committee to assist in acquiring sign-ups for the use of the water system,
provide public information to the potential water users in the District, and assist
the County in moving forward with the development of the water system.

6. Depending upon the status of the applications for financing, begin preparations for
obtaining bonds to pay the project cost.

7. When financing plans are complete and a sufficient number of sign-ups have been
obtained to meet the financing requirements, obtain the services of a qualified
engineering firm to develop plans and specifications for the proposed water
system.

The above items generally describe the important steps in implementing a County owned
water system for the proposed Southwest Water and Sewer District. The exact order of the
steps may vary from that shown above. Several official meetings to discuss the formulation of
new policies will be necessary prior to disseminating any information to the public. The
purpose of these policy meetings will be to provide the most current, accurate information to
the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners. The timing of total project implementation
for a single District can vary from as little as six months to over two years.

6.0 Engineer’s Comments
First of all, the engineers at Marziano & McGougan, P.A. and Koonce Noble & Associates, Inc.
wish to express their appreciation to Cumberland County staff and officials for having the
opportunity to assist in the potential formation of a much needed county-wide water system.
Our firms have worked on many county-wide water and sewer systems in North Carolina over
the past 40 years and stand ready to assist officials of Cumberland County in any way possible
as they endeavor to create a successful county-wide water system.

The engineers feel that Cumberland County has substantial justification to develop a county-
wide water system. Again, we must stress that sufficient customer density in project areas
must be obtained before a system can feasibly support a water system from a financial
standpoint. At this time, only one proposed water and sewer district meets these criteria. Even
so, construction cost for the Southwest Water and Sewer District will generate significant user
charges for the water customers. The engineers maintain that acquisition of grants to lower the
user charges will be almost mandatory for feasible development of the Southwest Water and
Sewer District. Our recommendations in the report body do not account for any grants.
However, we can provide grant scenarios to Cumberland County in separate documents for
feasibility comparison. Meetings with USDA-RD will assist in determining the actual grant
eligibility for any of the Districts.

The engineers have recommended the primary source of funding as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture specifically because project financing can be spread over a 40 year period.
Additionally, USDA can provide grants to the Southwest Water and Sewer District for up to
45% of the construction cost with a maximum not to exceed $2 million on a project by project
basis. Additional grants may be available if significant potential for public health issues can be
mitigated by construction of a central water system.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Executive Summary 8
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Also, innovative financing techniques such as special assessments, low interest loans and other
means can be utilized along with the USDA financing to further reduce debt service costs.
Some of the difficult decisions to be made by the elected officials include:

• Requiring mandatory sign up for the water system; or in the lieu of that, developing a
"dry tap fee” wherein a potential customer that does not sign up for water service will
have to pay their share of the debt service cost.
• Determining whether or not the County is willing to provide budgeted financing from
county funds to reduce user charges until such time as additional customers are
created to the point where the system can pay back the funds provided by the County.
• Developing a "view to the future" attitude that will enhance County officials’ long-term
decision making.

The engineers also feel that Cumberland County has developed a sufficient track record with
PWC and other water purveyors in the area that qualifies them to make the difficult decisions
necessary to develop a county-wide water system. The problems that exist today that have led
to the necessity to prepare this study, along with other studies in the past, will not go away.
History has shown that as areas become more densely populated, central water and sewer
utilities become more mandated. The burden for provision of these facilities in the case of
Cumberland County falls upon the County’s shoulders. Development of a well designed,
feasible water system will help safeguard the public health, safety and welfare well into the
future. Other ordinances regulating locations of septic tanks and/or extension of nearby sewer
lines will also assist in protection of the public.

Finally, the engineers feel that they have provided sufficient physical data for the formation of
water and sewer districts to allow county officials to determine the feasibility and potential
performance of a water system. The data is prepared in such a manner that it may be easily
updated and/or slight changes made in the districts to allow for "what if" analysis scenarios.
We urge the County officials to read the document carefully in its entirety and ask any
questions of us that may arise. We will provide answers in a timely manner.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

1
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT

1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is to provide a water service plan
for rural areas of Cumberland County, North Carolina. The primary focus of potential water
service is the rural area located outside of the various Municipal Influence Areas (MIAs) and
the Fort Bragg Military Base. This focus isolates a crescent-shaped area that extends from the
Spring Lake MIA in the north, eastward to the Sampson County boundary, southward to the
Bladen County Boundary, and westward to the Hope Mills MIA, excluding the urban areas
surrounding Fayetteville and Fort Bragg.

Marziano & McGougan, P.A. of Asheboro, North Carolina, partnered with Koonce, Noble &
Associates, Inc. of Lumberton, North Carolina, have been contracted by Cumberland County
to develop this PER and make formal recommendations regarding the “no action” alternative,
the potential development of water supply sources available to the County, and the potential
negotiation of water purchase contracts with other entities.

Once completed, Cumberland County officials should review this PER to determine if any
additions/revisions will be necessary to augment or reorganize any of the recommendations
contained herein. This PER will address the following issues related to the development of
viable rural water service in Cumberland County:

• Discuss the existing water systems and water supply resources relevant to the
potential water service areas
• Delineate potential water service areas with accepted boundaries that can be
interpreted easily by potential funding agencies; these potential water service areas
will be referred to as Districts in this PER
• Assess the water demand needs of each District
• Evaluate the “no action” alternative
• Analyze any alternatives that will lead to a feasible plan of water service for each
District
• Recommend water supply actions on a District-specific level
• Ready the County to apply for funding from various organizations, public and
private, such as USDA Rural Development Administration

1.1 Project Need
A centralized, sealed, public water system serves two primary purposes: the provision
of safe drinking water to customers, and water quality/quantity monitoring for the
management of the resource. Koonce Noble & Associates and Marziano & McGougan
have investigated the potential solutions for providing a public water supply to
Cumberland County residents in rural areas. These rural residents utilize an at-risk
resource that may not be adequate to fulfill the long term needs of the County and its
residents.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

2
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Considering the projected population increase, BRAC actions, and the potential water
resources available to Cumberland County (purchased water, groundwater, and
surface water), it is evident that a sustainable water supply resource is both needed
and available to support the incoming population to rural areas of the County.
Although continued use of private wells is an option, it is the opinion of Koonce Noble
& Associates and Marziano & McGougan that Cumberland County needs to secure a
water supply resource immediately for its residents if the County intends to construct
a viable, rural county-wide project in the future.

At the present time, there is no centralized form of water supply for the majority of
southern and eastern Cumberland County. Only the relatively small areas within and
adjacent to the municipal limits of Godwin, Falcon, Wade, Eastover, and Stedman are
served with a public water supply. The remainder of the rural County areas,
approximately 242 square miles excluding the MIAs, are forced to obtain their water
from private wells ranging from 50-ft to 200-ft in depth. Most of the private wells
obtain water from the shallowest aquifer available, the surficial aquifer. The average
depth of the surficial water table in the area is 20-30 feet.

Many of the wells in the County lack the necessary filter capabilities to ensure
adequate water quality. Therefore, the water extracted from such wells has higher
concentrations of sulfates, organics, iron, and other impurities and are more
susceptible to pollution and contamination. With the predominant land use in rural
areas being agriculture, the consistent use of pesticides and fertilizers will only serve
to deteriorate the quality of the groundwater above a certain depth before the natural
filtration of the soil can have an effect. The soil is also naturally acidic, and the water
extracted generally has an acidic pH in the range of 6.0-6.5.

In the Southpoint community, located within the Grays Creek Township, a petroleum
contamination plume from leaking underground storage tanks has reached private
wells and raised significant concerns over the safety and quality of groundwater in this
region. Additionally, there is only a limited service area with centralized wastewater
collection for the majority of southern and eastern Cumberland County. The
exception is the Town of Stedman and the North Cumberland Regional Sewer System
(NORCRESS) which serves the municipalities of Godwin, Falcon, Wade, and
Eastover; consequently, these areas are served with a public water supply to minimize
the risk of pollution to individual wells within proximity to the public sewer system.
The vast majority of County residents treat their sewage with septic tanks and on-site
nitrification trenches. Even the newest septic tanks in good condition can be installed
within close proximity to private wells. There are also an undocumented number of
septic tank systems that are failing and rely on the natural in-situ soils for their
treatment capabilities. These failing septic systems are the prime suspect for the
higher concentrations of organics and sulfates in the extracted well water.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

3
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
1.2 Fort Bragg & Pope AFB – Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC)
The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission report was signed into law in
2005 and the commission’s recommendations were a result of strategic planning that
intends to restructure America’s military bases and personnel. The BRAC Regional
Task Force (RTF) Final Comprehensive Regional Growth Plan provides an assessment
of the impact to population and infrastructure in the counties surrounding Fort Bragg
and Pope Air Force Base due to the military’s BRAC program. This Regional Growth
Plan is the tool that assists local communities in the assessment, planning and
preparation for the impacts of BRAC actions at Fort Bragg and Pope AFB. An
estimated 8,700 military-related personnel are expected to relocate to the region by
2013; the local population is surrounding counties is expected to increase by an
estimated 40,000 by the year 2013.

The BRAC RTF Final Comprehensive Regional Growth Plan provides detailed
assessments of the following effects within Cumberland County, as well as the
surrounding region: military investments in the region, normal population growth,
expected population growth, economic impacts, housing, education, workforce
development, transportation, water/sewer utilities, information technology, public
safety, health care, etc. These issues, along with recommended actions, are detailed in
the Regional Growth Plan and clearly indicate the need for immediate infrastructure
planning and construction to support this large influx of people.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

4
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
2.0 Population and Water Demand Projections

2.1 Historic Population Data
The following table was produced from data published by the NC Office of State
Planning (NCOSPL). It is the engineer’s opinion that this data does not account for
the entirety of the scope of the BRAC commission’s recent recommendations for troop
realignments to Fort Bragg and Pope AFB. Although some of the additional growth
from the BRAC program is accounted for in the State’s published projections, the
recent developments between Fort Bragg and its regional utility partners has poised
the region centered about Fort Bragg and Cumberland County for intensive growth
that could be above current projections. A description of the BRAC commission’s
report is located in the following sections and details the nature and scope of the surge
in population expected in the vicinity of Fort Bragg. See Appendix B for more specific
estimates of the population projections for rural Cumberland County.

Table 1 – Historic Population and Future Projections for Cumberland County
(published data from NCOSPL)

Cumberland County
Year Total
Population Increase %
Growth
1970 212,042 - -
1980 247,160 35,118 16.56%
1990 274,713 27,553 11.15%
2000 303,060 28,347 10.32%
2007 313,616 10,556 3.48%
2009 315,955 2,339 0.75%
2014 324,140 8,185 2.59%
2019 332,006 7,866 2.43%
2024 339,397 7,391 2.23%
2029 345,757 6,360 1.87%
Total
Growth - 29,802 9.43%

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

5
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
2.2 Population Projections
M&M/KNA has performed a detailed examination of the historic population data for
Cumberland County. Using the population records from the 1970 U.S. Census through
the 2007 NCOSPL county estimates, future population projection models have been
developed in an effort to give Cumberland County officials multiple growth scenarios
that will suit the County’s future infrastructure planning needs. These population
projection methods are as follows: published data available from the NCOSPL, linear
regression (straight line) model using 1970 through 2007 population data, and 2nd
order polynomial (parabolic) model using 1970 through 2007 population data.

From these three projection models, the 2nd order polynomial model projects the
lowest population for Cumberland County in the year 2029 (341,586 persons),
NCOSPL published data projects the next greatest population in the year 2029
(345,757 persons), and linear regression projects the highest population in the year
2029 (379,920 persons). The following table summarizes these population projection
findings. Graphical representations of these modeling techniques, as well as a chart
comparison of the total population projection models, can be found in Appendix B.

For the purposes of this report, the linear regression model is considered the best
model to project the future populations and water demands in Cumberland County
with an overall growth rate of 17.09% over 20 years. The linear regression model
provides the highest population projection that takes into account localized growth
and economic stimulation factors driven by Fort Bragg’s expansion and other local
economic factors such as the I-295 corridor, etc.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

6
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Table 2 - Total Population Projection Methodologies for Cumberland County Population

2nd Order Polynomial Published NCOSPL Data Linear Regression
Year Total
Population
Increase
per Year % Growth Total
Population
Increase
per Year % Growth Total
Population
Increase
per Year % Growth
1970 212,042 - - 212,042 - - 212,042 - -
1980 247,160 35,118 16.56% 247,160 35,118 16.56% 247,160 35,118 16.56%
1990 274,713 27,553 11.15% 274,713 27,553 11.15% 274,713 27,553 11.15%
2000 303,060 28,347 10.32% 303,060 28,347 10.32% 303,060 28,347 10.32%
2007 313,616 10,556 3.48% 313,616 10,556 3.48% 313,616 10,556 3.48%
2009 318,160 4,544 1.45% 315,955 2,339 0.75% 324,464 10,848 3.46%
2014 325,990 7,829 2.46% 324,140 8,185 2.59% 338,328 13,864 4.27%
2019 332,504 6,514 2.00% 332,006 7,866 2.43% 352,192 13,864 4.10%
2024 337,702 5,199 1.56% 339,397 7,391 2.23% 366,056 13,864 3.94%
2029 341,586 3,883 1.15% 345,757 6,360 1.87% 379,920 13,864 3.79%
Total 20-
Year
Growth
- 23,425 7.36% - 29,802 9.43% - 55,456 17.09%

2.3 Population Projections for Rural Areas
In order to accurately project the 20-year population increase for rural areas of
Cumberland County, the rural areas must be isolated from the entire County
projections by making a simple assumption about the municipal growth in
Cumberland County. The rural population is assumed to be the difference between the
total county population and the municipal estimates as calculated by NCOSPL.
Unfortunately, no official governmental entity maintains municipal projections beyond
two years into the future due to the higher volatility of these population growth rates
(due to annexation, local employment, geography, etc.).

M&M/KNA has adopted the percent growth rate from the NCOSPL growth model for
future municipal population projections in Cumberland County. In this assumption,
municipal populations will continue to grow at the same percent growth rate over 20
years that NCOSPL published for the entire County. The overall growth rate of 9.43%
over 20 years is assigned to the municipalities within Cumberland County. This
translates to a municipal population projection of 231,793 persons in the year 2029.
Additionally, this assumption allows some degree of “correction” for the surge in
municipal population experienced when Fayetteville annexed westward to the County
boundary in 2005.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

7
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
In 2009, the estimate population living in rural (unincorporated) areas of Cumberland
County was 112,650 persons. In 2029, the difference between total County population
and municipal population is estimated to be 148,127 persons, an overall growth rate of
31.49% over 20 years and an increase of 35,477 persons moving into rural Cumberland
County. The following table summarizes these population projection findings.
Graphical representations of these modeling techniques, as well as a chart comparison
of the total population projection models, can be found in Appendix B.

Table 3 - Rural Population Projections for Cumberland County

Whole County (Linear Growth Rate) Municipal Estimates
(NCOSPL Growth Rate)
Rural Cumberland County
(Difference)
Year Total
Population
Increase
per Year % Growth Total
Population
Increase
per Year % Growth Total
Population
Increase
per Year % Growth
2000 303,060 28,347 10.32% 147,648 52,516 55.20% 155,412 -24,169 -13.46%
2007 313,616 10,556 3.48% 210,246 62,598 42.40% 103,370 -52,042 -33.49%
2009 324,464 10,848 3.46% 211,814 1,568 0.75% 112,650 9,280 8.98%
2014 338,328 13,864 4.27% 217,301 5,487 2.59% 121,027 8,377 7.44%
2019 352,192 13,864 4.10% 222,575 5,273 2.43% 129,618 8,591 7.10%
2024 366,056 13,864 3.94% 227,529 4,955 2.23% 138,527 8,909 6.87%
2029 379,920 13,864 3.79% 231,793 4,264 1.87% 148,127 9,600 6.93%
Total 20-
Year
Growth
- 55,456 17.09% - 19,979 9.43% - 35,477 31.49%

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

8
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
2.4 Water Demand Projections
In this report, the water demands for the rural Cumberland County water service area
are projected over the 20-year planning period to aid Cumberland County in the
justification of water purchase contracts and/or the development of County-owned
sources. The following assumptions are made for these water demand projections:

• Residential water demand = 175 gpd per customer
• Commercial/Industrial reserve water demand = 20% of residential demand
• Water loss in the system = 10% of total water demand
• Peak Day Water Demand Factor = 1.5 (constant for the planning period)
• Potential customers that are located within MIAs (i.e. Hope Mills, Stedman,
etc.) can be served by the new Water Districts
• Assume 85% connection rate to the water system in each District (and MIAs)
• Assume customer base will grow at a rate equal to rural Cumberland County
(31.49% over 20 years)
• Beginning in 2010, a new Water District will be constructed every three years,
constructed in the following order of priority:
o Southwest
o Linden
o East Central
o Southeast
o Northeast

Average daily water demand in 2010 (Year 1) is estimated to be 1.1 mgd (peak demand
of 1.7 mgd) after the construction of the Southwest Water District. After the
construction of all proposed Districts, Average daily water demand in 2029 (Year 20)
is estimated to be 3.2 mgd (peak demand of 4.8 mgd), a 190% increase from the initial
year’s average daily water demand. This large increase is due to the construction of five
(5) rural Water Districts within the planning period. This translates to a projected
customer base of 13,726 water customers (85% connection rate) with a service
population of 36,375 persons. The following table summarizes these water demand
projections, see Appendix B.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

9
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Table 4 - Water Demand Projections for Cumberland County Rural Water Service Area
Linear Growth Model

Year
Potential
Water
Customer
Base (Rural
Cumberland
County)
Potential
Service
Population
(Rural
Cumberland
County)
District
Water
Demand
(GPD)
20%
Commercial
& Industrial
Reserve
(GPD)
10%
Estimated
Daily
Unaccounted
Water (GPD)
Total
Average
Daily Water
Demand
Total Peak
Daily Water
Demand
(P.F. = 1.5)
2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2010 4,940 13,092 864,535 172,907 103,744 1,141,186 1,711,779
2011 5,022 13,309 878,865 175,773 105,464 1,160,102 1,740,153
2012 5,104 13,526 893,195 178,639 107,183 1,179,017 1,768,526
2013 6,258 16,583 1,095,080 219,016 131,410 1,445,506 2,168,259
2014 6,357 16,845 1,112,406 222,481 133,489 1,468,376 2,202,565
2015 6,456 17,107 1,129,733 225,947 135,568 1,491,247 2,236,871
2016 8,550 22,658 1,496,273 299,255 179,553 1,975,080 2,962,621
2017 8,680 23,002 1,519,010 303,802 182,281 2,005,093 3,007,640
2018 8,810 23,346 1,541,747 308,349 185,010 2,035,106 3,052,659
2019 11,430 30,290 2,000,269 400,054 240,032 2,640,356 3,960,533
2020 11,598 30,734 2,029,618 405,924 243,554 2,679,095 4,018,643
2021 11,766 31,179 2,058,966 411,793 247,076 2,717,835 4,076,753
2022 12,493 33,107 2,186,294 437,259 262,355 2,885,907 4,328,861
2023 12,669 33,574 2,217,125 443,425 266,055 2,926,605 4,389,907
2024 12,845 34,040 2,247,956 449,591 269,755 2,967,302 4,450,953
2025 13,022 34,507 2,278,788 455,758 273,455 3,008,000 4,511,999
2026 13,198 34,974 2,309,619 461,924 277,154 3,048,697 4,573,046
2027 13,374 35,441 2,340,450 468,090 280,854 3,089,394 4,634,092
2028 13,550 35,908 2,371,282 474,256 284,554 3,130,092 4,695,138
2029 13,726 36,375 2,402,113 480,423 288,254 3,170,789 4,756,184

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

10
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
3.0 Existing Water Systems in the Region
This section discusses the existing water systems that are considered viable water supply
sources for various portions of rural Cumberland County. The intent of this discussion is to
provide information to determine the capacity, current sales partnerships, and water supply
resources available to proposed service areas within Cumberland County.

3.1 Surface Water Systems

3.1.1 Fayetteville PWC
The Fayetteville Public Works Commission's (PWC) water system serves all
areas within the City limits of Fayetteville and other developed areas outside
the City limits. PWC provides retail service to residential, commercial,
industrial and governmental customers. In 1998, PWC merged with the Town
of Hope Mills to consolidate water services in the region. The Fayetteville
PWC water system provides service to the City of Fayetteville, Hope Mills,
Spring Lake, Fort Bragg, Eastover, Stedman, and portions of eastern Hoke
County.

In 2008, there were approximately 78,000 active water customers with a total
service population of approximately 185,000 residents. Average daily water use
is estimated to be 24.1 mgd with maximum daily water use estimated to be
42.3 mgd. The system is comprised of 1,284 miles of water mains and 13 storage
tanks with an effective storage capacity of 36.1 mgd.

Fayetteville PWC treats potable water at two separate facilities. The Glenville
Lake WTP was originally constructed in 1942 and has a current treatment
capacity of 18 mgd. Glenville Lake WTP receives raw water supplied from an
intake on Glenville Lake as well as transfer capability from the Cape Fear
River and Cross Creek. A 36” raw water transmission main from the Cape Fear
River to Glenville Lake WTP allows the transfer of additional raw water to
this facility for treatment during periods of high demand within the water
system. In 2003, this facility switched from chlorine disinfection to
chloramination disinfection in order to reduce the amount of disinfection
byproducts in the finished water. In 2008, this facility had an average daily
production of 8.4 mgd.

The P.O. Hoffer WTP was originally constructed in 1969 and has a current
treatment capacity of 39.5 mgd. Identical to the Glenville Lake WTP, in 2003
the P.O. Hoffer WTP switched from chlorine disinfection to chloramination
disinfection in order to reduce the amount of disinfection byproducts in the
finished water. P.O. Hoffer WTP receives raw water exclusively from the Cape
Fear River. In 2008, this facility had an average daily production of 16.9 mgd.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

11
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
3.1.2 Eastover Sanitary District
The Eastover Sanitary District (ESD) is a USDA Rural Development Water
District located east of the Cape Fear River and encompasses the Town of
Eastover and portions of the I-95 corridor. The Town of Eastover was
incorporated on July 26, 2007, after the formulation and implementation of
ESD Phase 1. ESD Phase 1 began operation in 2004 and is supplied by the PWC
water system. ESD Phase 1 serves approximately 3,600 persons and purchases
approximately 0.30 mgd from PWC.

ESD Phase 1 was constructed of approximately 50 miles of 2-inch through 16-
inch water mains that were funded primarily through USDA monies. This
project was a success through the high percentage of residents that initially
signed up for water service. ESD currently serves approximately 90 to 95% of
the residences located within the Phase 1 service area. The elevated tank on
Clinton Road (NC-24) and the elevated tank on Eastern Boulevard (near the
intersection of NC-87 and I-95 Business) serve ESD Phase 1. These tanks are
located within the low pressure zone of the PWC water system.

No master meters exist between ESD Phase 1 and PWC. All ESD customers are
metered individually and billed by PWC. The current agreement between
ESD and PWC requires that all water system supply, operation, maintenance,
meter reading, billing, and other accounting services will be handled through
the PWC Operations Center in Fayetteville. ESD does not have a department
of public works or any hired personnel to oversee the daily operations of the
water system. ESD owns the Phase 1 water system, the customer base which it
serves, and the bonded debt attributed to the water system. A second ESD
phase is in the final design phase and has received funding commitments from
USDA Rural Development. It is intended that ESD Phase 2 continue the water
service and O&M relationship with PWC due the financial economy that
PWC provides to district customers.

3.1.3 Town of Hope Mills
As previously discussed, the Town of Hope Mills merged all water and sewer
utility services with PWC in 1998. Hope Mills is an extension of the PWC
system and all utility assets within the Town are part of the PWC utility
system. This merger was a positive step for the residents of Hope Mills
because of the financial benefit of joining with a larger utility. In the decision
to merge with PWC, it was shown that PWC was capable of providing
identical utility services at a lower cost to the user. As of 2007, Hope Mills had
a population of approximately 12,843 residents.

3.1.4 Town of Stedman
In the past, the Town of Stedman operated several wells that served as the sole
supply to residents. In 2004, Stedman entered into an agreement with PWC to
supply and maintain the water system; Stedman owns the water utility assets
within its jurisdiction. PWC installed a 12-inch water transmission main from
the eastern perimeter of the distribution system and extended along NC-24 to
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

12
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
the Stedman water system. This transmission main now serves the 806
residents of Stedman.

3.1.5 Town of Spring Lake
The Town of Spring Lake water system serves all areas within the town limits.
The Spring Lake water system has approximately 2,800 residential,
commercial and industrial water connections that serve a total population of
approximately 9,000 residents. The Town of Spring Lake owns, maintains,
and administers its water distribution system in its entirety, approximately 96
miles of pipeline. Spring Lake is supplied exclusively through purchased water
connections with PWC and Harnett County.

3.1.6 Fort Bragg
Currently, Fort Bragg operates an 8.0 mgd water treatment facility that
obtains its raw water from the Lower Little River in northwest Cumberland
County. In 2007, American States Utility Services, Inc. of Costa Mesa,
California purchased the water and wastewater facilities of Fort Bragg and
Pope AFB. This privatization action consolidates the water and wastewater
utilities (treatment and distribution systems) at Fort Bragg and Pope AFB
under singular ownership. Under the performance agreement with the new
owners, the existing Fort Bragg WTP will continue to operate until 2009-2010
when PWC and Harnett County construct water transmission mains to the
Fort Bragg WTP site.

The purpose of these large transmission mains will be to decommission the
Fort Bragg WTP and allow the Fort Bragg water distribution network to be
supplied by two primary suppliers: PWC and Harnett County. The contract
between the Department of Defense, the new utility owner, PWC, and Harnett
County allows for equal water supplies to be purchased from each supplier on
alternating days. In the event of an emergency at either supplier, the other
supplier will be capable of transferring the maximum daily water demand to
Fort Bragg via the newly constructed transmission mains.

As a condition of the transfer of utility assets from military ownership to
privatization, American States Utility Services, Inc. must maintain the Fort
Bragg water distribution system in compliance through the following
measures: satisfactory operation and maintenance of the water distribution
system, capital water loss reduction program, water main replacements and/or
rehabilitations, routine water main inspection, as well as storage tank and
pump station maintenance and upgrades.

3.1.7 Town of Falcon
The Town of Falcon water system serves all areas within the town limits as
well as rural roads on the perimeter of town. The Falcon water system serves
approximately 319 residents, approximately 250 customers. Falcon owns,
maintains, and administers its water distribution system and is supplied
exclusively through purchased water from the City of Dunn.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

13
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
3.1.8 Town of Godwin
The Town of Godwin water system serves all areas within the town limits as
well as rural roads on the perimeter of town. The Godwin water system serves
approximately 121 residents, approximately 100 customers. Godwin owns,
maintains, and administers its water distribution system and is supplied
exclusively through purchased water from the Town of Falcon.

3.1.9 Linden Water & Sewer District
The Linden Water & Sewer District was formed in February of 2003 by the
Cumberland County Board of Commissioners. At present, this relatively new
District has limited water infrastructure located within the town limits of
Linden along with distribution mains along US-401 and NC-217. The Town of
Linden, population of 142 persons, owns and operates the existing distribution
system separate from the Linden Water & Sewer District.

All water is supplied to the District by Harnett County Public Utilities.
Water is currently supplied to this system from an elevated tank (South
Central Tank #3) located along Elliott Farm Road. Currently, there are no
existing sewer collection or treatment facilities in the District; all domestic
wastewater is treated through individual septic tanks.

Currently, Linden Water & Sewer District is in the final planning stages to
begin construction of Phase 1A: approximately 10 miles of water distribution
mains to serve approximately 200 rural customers located within the District.
This project is considered a stepping stone for the construction of rural water
service in northern Cumberland County. According to the preliminary
engineering report prepared for this project, water purchased from Harnett
County Department of Public Utilities is the most economically beneficial to
the customers located in this District due to the presence of water supply
mains from the Harnett County water system. Phase 1A of the Linden Water
& Sewer District is expected to begin construction in 2010 and be operational
in 2011.

3.1.10 Harnett County Public Utilities
The Harnett County WTP area is supplied exclusively from the run-of-river
intake located on the Cape Fear River in Lillington approximately 1,000 feet
upstream of the US-401 Bridge. Harnett County provides potable water to all
of the incorporated municipalities in Harnett County with the exception of
the City of Dunn. Outside of the municipal limits, Harnett County’s water
system extends throughout virtually all of the public roads in Harnett County
with approximately 98% of available roads served with potable water. Similar
to Fayetteville PWC, in 2003 this facility switched from chlorine disinfection
to chloramination disinfection in order to reduce the amount of disinfection
byproducts in the finished water.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

14
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Outside of Harnett County, other areas that are served with potable water
produced from the Harnett County WTP include the Towns of Fuquay-Varina
and Holly Springs in southern Wake County, portions of western Johnston
County, portions of eastern Moore County, portions of eastern Lee County,
and portions of northern Cumberland County (Northern Franchise Area)
including the Town of Linden (via the Linden Water & Sewer District). The
Northern Franchise Area is located within the Spring Lake MIA and serves
approximately 1,500 water customers in the residential developments along
the US-401 Corridor, Elliott Bridge Road and Elliott Farm Road.

In 2008, there were approximately 30,000 active water customers with a total
service population of approximately 60,000 residents. Average daily water use
is estimated to be 13 mgd with maximum daily water use estimated to be 18
mgd. The system is comprised of over 1,500 miles of water mains and 23
storage tanks. By the end of 2009, Harnett County WTP will be upgraded to a
capacity of 24 mgd and Harnett County will begin to serve the Fort Bragg
Military Base. With the ongoing construction to increase the Harnett County
WTP’s capacity to 24 mgd, critical treatment components are designed to
treat up to 36 mgd. This has been planned due to the fact that increased water
sales to Holly Springs, Johnston County, and other partners in the surrounding
region are experiencing significant growth and water demand is expected to
increase substantially. Harnett County WTP’s upgrade to 36 mgd is expected
to be operational in 2011.

3.1.11 City of Dunn
The City of Dunn owns and operates the 8.0 mgd Archie Uzzle WTP that
obtains raw water from the Cape Fear River. The Dunn water system serves
approximately 4,600 residential, commercial and industrial water connections
with a total service population of approximately 10,088 residents. Average
daily water use is estimated to be 4 mgd with maximum daily water use
estimated to be 6 mgd. The City of Dunn owns, maintains, and administers its
water distribution system in its entirety, approximately 85 miles of pipeline.
Currently, Dunn sells water to the Town of Falcon, Town of Benson, Sampson
County, and portions of the Southeast Harnett County Water District.

3.1.12 City of Lumberton
The City of Lumberton owns and operates the 16 mgd Lumberton WTP that
obtains raw water from the Lumber River. Also, the Lumberton WTP obtains
raw water from several wells located near the Lumber River with yields that
are influenced by the nearby presence of surface water. The Lumberton water
system serves approximately 10,000 residential, commercial and industrial
water connections with a total service population of approximately 22,929
residents. Average daily water use is estimated to be 5 mgd with maximum
daily water use estimated to be 8 mgd. The City of Lumberton owns,
maintains, and administers its water distribution system in its entirety,
approximately 225 miles of pipeline. Currently, Lumberton sells water to a
small portion of the Robeson County water system.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

15
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
3.1.13 Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority
In 1972, Bladen County, Brunswick County, Columbus County, New Hanover
County, Pender County, and the City of Wilmington formed the Lower Cape
Fear Water & Sewer Authority (LCFWASA) in order to assess regional water
needs within the service area of the region served by these entities. LCFWASA
is a non-profit public agency that owns and operates the raw water intake,
pumping station and transmission pipeline systems that transfer up to 45 mgd
to the Brunswick County owned Northwest WTP and the City of Wilmington
owned Sweeney WTP. The Authority also provides service to industry located
on US Highway 421 in the County of New Hanover. The LCFWASA intake is
located on the Cape Fear River behind Lock and Dam #1 in Bladen County
(King’s Bluff). This is the closest source of salt free surface water to coastal
Southeastern North Carolina.

Currently, LCFWASA is in the final planning stages to begin construction of a
new raw water intake, pumping station and treatment facilities at the Bladen
Bluffs site located near Tarheel in Bladen County. The new Bladen Bluffs
Regional WTP is a cooperative effort among LCFWASA, NC Environmental
Management Commission, NC Division of Water Resources, and the Lumber
River Council of Governments to shift current groundwater users to surface
water resources, thereby reducing the current groundwater consumption in
the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA). The ultimate goals of
this new facility are to provide sustainable surface water supply and regional
aquifer conservation among the participants in the facility. Initially, the
primary user of the Bladen Bluffs Regional WTP will be Smithfield Foods
Packaging Company. Smithfield Foods is one of the largest employers in the
region, with approximately 5,000 employees at its Tarheel facility. The Bladen
Bluffs Regional WTP will have an initial treatment capacity of 4 mgd with an
intake pumping capacity up to 30 mgd. The Bladen Bluffs Regional WTP is
expected to be operational by the end of 2012.

3.2 Groundwater Systems

3.2.1 Town of Wade
The Town of Wade is the only groundwater system in eastern Cumberland
County. It supplies its 450 residents through the use of three groundwater
wells in the Upper Cape Fear Aquifer, ranging in depth from 35’ to 50’. A
75,000 gallon elevated storage tank pressurizes the Wade water system.
Average daily demand is approximately 0.035 mgd with peak day demand
approximately 0.045 mgd. The combined safe yield of the three active wells is
estimated to be 0.194 mgd. This is considered extremely high for wells in this
region.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

16
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
3.2.2 Hoke County
The Hoke County Regional Water System consists of 16 wells, eight well
treatment facilities with a total capacity of 2.19 mgd based on 12 hours of
pumping per day, eight elevated water storage tanks, and approximately 11,000
service connections. The system also receives water from the McCain Prison
and from Fayetteville PWC through two booster pump stations. The total
capacity available from PWC is 1.83 mgd, and the available capacity from
McCain is 0.10 mgd. Therefore, the total water available is 4.12 mgd. In 2007,
the average water produced and purchased was 1.90 mgd and the maximum
daily production and purchase was 2.65 mgd.

Hoke County has begun the installation of test wells for a USDA funded Phase
V project. Phase V of the Hoke Regional Water System will install 14 wells and
five well treatment facilities with a total capacity of 1.37 mgd based on 12 hours
of pumping per day. This will bring the total system capacity to 5.49 mgd.

3.2.3 Robeson County
The Robeson County water system currently consists of approximately 1,720
miles of water mains, 23,500 metered connections, 17 elevated water storage
tanks, one ground storage tank, 14 well water treatment facilities and 31
production wells. Total storage including the ground storage is 7.85 million
gallons. There are two elevated storage tanks and three wells under
construction. Additionally, one well treatment facility is under design and
production wells have been proposed for funding.

If Robeson County were to serve the project area, the water would be
primarily produced by the Parkton, St. Pauls East, and Rocco Well Treatment
Facilities depending on varying hydraulic conditions. Additional water
storage would be provided by the Shaw Mill Elevated Water Storage Tanks
and a proposed 200,000 gallon in the Greensprings area. The Lumber Bridge
facility could also possibly provide water, however the water from this facility
is already obligated to Mountaire Farms and other existing demands.

The Parkton Facility is located on US 301 East of Parkton and consists of a
well, well pump, aeration basin, two high service pumps, chemical feed system
(fluoride, caustic, polyphosphate and chlorination), two pressure filters, and a
100,000 gallon elevated water storage tank

The St. Pauls Facility is located on NC 20 on the East side of St. Pauls and
consists of a well, well pump, aeration basin, two high service pumps,
chemical feed system (fluoride, caustic, polyphosphate and chlorination), two
pressure filters, and a 200,000 gallon elevated water storage tank.

The Rocco Facility is located on NC 20 East of the St. Pauls Facility and across
from the Prestage Turkey Plant. This facility consists of four wells, chemical
feed system (fluoride, caustic, polyphosphate and chlorination), two high
service pumps, a 2 mgd concrete treatment structure, infiltration backwash
lagoon, a 750,000 gallon ground storage tank and a 500,000 gallon elevated
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

17
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
storage tank. The concrete treatment structure consists of an aeration basin, a
gravity filter with four cells, and a clearwell. The Shaw Mill elevated storage
tank is a 500,000-gallon tank located off of Balance Farm Road approximately
2,500 feet north of Shaw Mill Road.

There are several locations Cumberland County could connect to the Robeson
distribution system. One point currently proposed as a possible connection to
serve the Southpoint Subdivision is two existing 8” diameter water mains that
connect at the intersection of Parkton Tobemory Road and Balance Farm
Road. Static pressures were recorded at this location from July 3, 2008
through July 13, 2008 and from 45 to 70 psi. Robeson County also has an 8-
inch water main that currently extends into Cumberland County on Roslin
Farm Road. On the West side of I-95, there is an existing 6-inch water main
on Leeper/Parkton Road.

3.2.4 Sampson County
The Sampson County water system consists of District 1 and District 2.
Current projects underway include District 2, Phase 3 and Phase 4. All
districts are governed by the Sampson County Board of Commissioners sitting
as the Sampson County Water District Board of Directors. Sampson County is
in the process of installing four potable water wells to supply its growing
customer base and has expressed interest in selling water to inter-local
communities.

Currently, Sampson County District 1 purchases all water from the following
source providers: Autryville, Clinton, Roseboro, and Turkey. Total water
purchase contracts are estimated to be 0.370 mgd. District 1 has approximately
1,200 water customers and an average daily demand of 0.150 mgd. Currently,
Sampson County District 2 purchases all water from the following source
providers: Clinton, Dunn, and Garland. Total water purchase contracts are
estimated to be 1.120 mgd. District 2 has approximately 1,500 water customers
and an average daily demand of 0.175 mgd.

3.2.5 Bladen County
The Bladen County water system is divided into two districts: East Bladen and
West Bladen. The East Bladen District is located to the east of the Cape Fear
River and the West Bladen District is located to the west of the Cape Fear
River. Based on the 2007 Water Supply Plan, East Bladen has approximately
60 miles of water mains consisting primarily in size of 6-inch to 12-inch
diameter. There are 796 residential connections and five commercial
connections. This district is served by two wells with a total capacity of 0.271
mgd based on 12 hours of pumping per day. Projected demand for the year
2010 is 0.193 mgd.

Based on the 2007 Water Supply Plan, West Bladen has 260 miles of water
main ranging primarily in size from 6 inch to 12 inch diameter. There are 3,959
residential connections and 5 commercial connections. The district is served
by three wells with a total capacity of 0.799 mgd based on 12 hours of pumping
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

18
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
per day. Additionally, the West District also purchased an average of 0.185
mgd from Elizabethtown in 2007. Projected demand for 2010 is 0.210 mgd.
The Lumber River Council of Government completed a Comprehensive
Groundwater Study and Assessment that estimated that the aquifers had the
following capacities in Bladen County:

• Peedee Aquifer 2.70 mgd
• Black Creek Aquifer 4.10 mgd
• Upper Cape Fear Aquifer 1.23 mgd
• Lower Cape Fear Aquifer 0.73 mgd
• Total Safe Yield from Groundwater Sources 8.76 mgd

3.2.6 Private Water Systems
Numerous private groundwater systems are located throughout rural
Cumberland County and serve a wide range of residential customers including
mobile home communities, multi-family developments, and single–family
developments. For systems serving more than 15 connections, these systems
are considered to be “community” systems. Minimum design standards of
community water systems are mandated by NCDENR-Public Water Supply.
The vast majority of private, residential water systems were designed with the
minimum capacity (i.e. pipe sizes, well diameter, pumping capability, etc.)
required to serve the anticipated number of homes within their respective
development. This was to keep the up-front costs of the development as low as
possible and resulted in small-scale water systems with virtually zero reserve
capacity for growth in adjacent areas. Therefore, private, community water
systems do not have a sphere of influence that can be extended for significant
distances outside of the residential development.

The focus of this study is to enable Cumberland County to secure a reliable,
long-term source of water supply to provide rural water service to a phased
county-wide rural water system. It would be extremely difficult and costly for
the County to attempt to secure the use of private groundwater supply
systems to supply the quantity of water needed to serve its long-term vision of
a large water system with a broad customer base. Additionally, the assets
under the control of various homeowner’s associations and private water
operators have been in service for years and are at risk to the inherent
liabilities that aging water systems develop over time. Cumberland County
could attempt to acquire private water systems in an effort to boost the
customer base of the overall rural system. However, depending upon the
operation and maintenance of the private system, Cumberland County could
assume private water systems laden with problems that range from well-
known and documented failures, to issues that have gone unreported,
unknown, and/or unaddressed for many years. This significant risk would
come with marginal benefit for potential source water supply and additional
customers to the overall system. In general, the relatively small scale and the
risk of pre-existing conditions preclude private water systems from
consideration as a long-term source of raw water supply.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

19
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
4.0 Proposed Rural Water Districts
Delineating a potential service area boundary is one of the first priorities that Cumberland
County faces in its evaluation of rural water feasibility. Due to the presence of numerous
municipalities and other entities located within Cumberland County, any proposed
boundaries must be accepted along jurisdictional, political, and environmental fronts. The
potential water service areas identified in this report will be referred to as Districts.

4.1 Southwest Water District
The proposed Southwest District is located in the extreme southwestern portion of
Cumberland County within the Grays Creek and Rockfish Townships. The eastern
boundary of the District borders the Cape Fear River, the southern boundary of the
District borders Bladen County, and the western boundary of the District borders
Robeson County. The northern boundary is generally defined as the limits of the PWC
water service area (NC-87 to Bullard Road to Braxton Road). The proposed District
boundary can be seen on the maps provided in Appendix A.

The Southwest District is considered a top priority given the higher density of
customers located within this part of the County, as well as the ongoing groundwater
pollution concerns in the Southpoint Community. The following summarizes the
critical attributes of this proposed Water District:

• Total Service Area = 46.5 square miles, 5,812 existing homes
• Total Service Area includes 10.0 square miles within the Hope Mills MIA
• Total Service Area includes 2,470 existing homes within the Hope Mills MIA
• 85% Connection Rate = 4,940 projected water customers
• 117 miles of water pipeline to serve this customer base (estimated NCDOT
roads only)
• 42 customers per mile of NCDOT roads
• Start-Up Year 2010: Projected Water Demand = 1.141 mgd, avg. day; 1.711 mgd,
peak day
• 842 existing homes (14% of total residences) are located in the Lumber River
Basin

4.1.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives
Due to the District’s proximity to multiple water systems in the region, the
most viable water supply alternatives include surface water and groundwater.
PWC, LCFWASA, and the City of Lumberton all have existing water
treatment capacity to sell potable surface water to this District. Additionally,
the location of approximately 2,470 residences within the Hope Mills MIA
creates the possibility that Hope Mills could sell water supplied from PWC to
Cumberland County if these customers were to be served by the proposed
Southwest District.

PWC is the closest surface water system and has a large transmission system
that can provide water to the Southwest District with relatively lower start-
up construction costs. LCFWASA and the City of Lumberton would have to
construct many miles of water transmission systems that cross County
boundaries in order to provide water to the Southwest District. It should be
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

20
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
noted that LCFWASA is planning for the Bladen Bluffs Regional WTP to be
operational in 2012. Potential IBT issues related to surface water transfers to
customers located within the Lumber River Basin are discussed in Section 5.2.

Groundwater systems that could provide water service to the Southwest
District include Robeson County, Bladen County, and Hoke County. Koonce,
Noble & Associates, Inc. is currently evaluating the costs for Robeson County
and Bladen County to provide water service to the Southpoint community.
During this analysis, it has become evident that each of these systems would
have to develop additional groundwater supply wells and treatment capacity
to provide the long-term water demand for the Southwest District. Although
Hoke County is the furthest from the District, a water main could be
constructed south of Rockfish Creek to serve the District. Similar to Robeson
and Bladen Counties, it would be necessary for Hoke County to construct
more wells and treatment capacity in order to sell the projected volume of
water to the Southwest District.

4.2 Linden Water & Sewer District
The Linden Water & Sewer District was formed in February of 2003 by the
Cumberland County Board of Commissioners. The Linden District is located in the
north central portion of Cumberland County within the Carvers Creek Township. The
northern boundary of the District borders the Lower Little River (Harnett County
boundary), and the eastern and southern boundaries of the District border the Cape
Fear River. The western boundary is generally defined as the limits of the Fayetteville
and Spring Lake MIAs.

When it was formed in 2003, the District had an area of approximately 37.6 square
miles (24,084 acres). Incidentally, there is a gap between the service areas of the
current Linden District boundary and the Fayetteville MIA that spans an area of
approximately 6.7 square miles. This gap is along Slocumb Road and McBryde Street
from the Cape Fear River to US-401. In this report, it is recommended that this gap in
potential service area be served through the expansion of the Linden District
boundaries to meet the Fayetteville MIA. The proposed Linden District boundary can
be seen on the maps provided in Appendix A.

At present, this relatively new District has limited water infrastructure located within
the town limits of Linden along with distribution mains along US-401 and NC-217.
The Town of Linden owns and operates the existing distribution system separate from
the Linden Water & Sewer District. Harnett County operates a separate water system,
the Northern Franchise Area, in northern Cumberland County. The Northern
Franchise Area is located within the Spring Lake MIA and serves approximately 1,500
water customers in the residential developments along the US-401 Corridor, Elliott
Bridge Road and Elliott Farm Road.

Currently, Linden Water & Sewer District is in the final planning stages to begin
construction of Phase 1A: approximately 10 miles of water distribution mains to serve
approximately 200 rural customers located within the District. This project is
considered a stepping stone for the construction of rural water service in northern
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

21
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Cumberland County. These current plans for construction make the Linden District a
high priority for Cumberland County to consider future water infrastructure projects
within the District. The following summarizes the critical attributes of this proposed
Water District:

• Total Service Area = 44.3 square miles, 1,204 existing homes
• Total Service Area includes 4.4 square miles within the Linden MIA
• Total Service Area includes less than 50 existing homes within the Linden
MIA
• 85% Connection Rate = 1,023 projected water customers
• 39 miles of water pipeline to serve this customer base (estimated NCDOT
roads only)
• 26 customers per mile of NCDOT roads
• Start-Up Year 2013: Projected Water Demand = 0.247 mgd, avg. day; 0.371 mgd,
peak day

4.2.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives
According to the preliminary engineering report prepared for the Phase 1A
Linden project, water purchased from Harnett County Public Utilities is the
most economically beneficial to the customers located in this District due to
the presence of water supply mains from the Harnett County water system.
Phase 1A of the Linden Water & Sewer District is expected to begin
construction in 2010 and be operational in 2011.

Due to the District’s location, the most viable water supply alternative is
limited to surface water. Harnett County, PWC, and City of Dunn all have
existing water treatment capacity to sell potable surface water to this District.
Additionally, the location of the Town of Spring Lake creates the possibility
that Spring Lake could sell water supplied from PWC and/or Harnett County
to portions of the Linden District.

4.3 East Central Water District
The proposed East Central District is located in the eastern portion of Cumberland
County in the Cedar Creek Township. The eastern boundary of the District borders
the South River (Sampson County boundary), the southern boundary of the District
borders NC-210 and Ava Road, the western boundary of the District borders John B.
Carter Road, and the northern boundary of the District borders Maxwell Road. It
should be noted that the proposed East Central District boundary is equivalent to
Cumberland County U.S. Census Tract #28 (37051002800). The proposed District
boundary can be seen on the maps provided in Appendix A.

The East Central District is considered as the third priority given the relatively high
density of customers located within this part of the County, as well as the high
number of customers located within the Bethany Community. The following
summarizes the critical attributes of this proposed Water District:

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

22
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
• Total Service Area = 41.6 square miles, 2,145 existing homes
• Total Service Area includes 13.6 square miles within the Stedman MIA
• Total Service Area includes 535 existing homes within the Stedman MIA
• 85% Connection Rate = 1,823 projected water customers
• 57 miles of water pipeline to serve this customer base (estimated NCDOT roads
only)
• 32 customers per mile of NCDOT roads
• Start-Up Year 2016: Projected Water Demand = 0.461 mgd, avg. day; 0.691 mgd,
peak day
• 1,754 existing homes (96% of total residences) are located in the South River Basin

4.3.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives
Due to the District’s proximity to multiple water systems in the region, the
most viable water supply alternatives include surface water and groundwater.
PWC, LCFWASA, and Harnett County all have existing water treatment
capacity to sell potable surface water to this District. Additionally, the
location of approximately 535 residences within the Stedman MIA creates the
possibility that Stedman could sell water supplied from PWC to Cumberland
County if these customers were to be served by the proposed East Central
District. Eastover Sanitary District is capable of selling water to the East
Central District after construction of its second phase. ESD Phase 2 is
expected to be under construction in 2009 and operational in 2010.

PWC is the closest surface water system and has a water transmission system
that currently provides water to the Town of Stedman and Eastover Sanitary
District. However, this is on the eastern perimeter of the PWC system and the
ability to transfer water to the East Central Water District may require
significant start-up construction costs. LCFWASA and Harnett County
would have to construct many miles of water transmission mains that cross
County boundaries in order to provide water to the East Central District.
Potential IBT issues related to surface water transfers to customers located
within the South River Basin (Cape Fear River Sub-Basin 2-4) are discussed in
Section 5.2.

Groundwater systems that could provide water service to the East Central
District are limited to Sampson County. Similar to Robeson and Bladen
Counties, it may be necessary for Sampson County to construct more wells
and treatment capacity in order to sell the projected volume of water to the
East Central District.

4.4 Southeast Water District
The proposed Southeast District is located in the extreme southeastern portion of
Cumberland County in the Beaverdam and Cedar Creek Townships. The eastern
boundary of the District borders the South River (Sampson County boundary), the
southern boundary of the District borders Bladen County, the western boundary of the
District borders the Cape Fear River, and the northern boundary of the District
borders NC-210 and Ava Road. It should be noted that the proposed Southeast District
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

23
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
boundary is equivalent to Cumberland County U.S. Census Tract #29 (37051002900).
The proposed District boundary can be seen on the maps provided in Appendix A.

The Southeast District is considered as the fourth priority given the relatively lower
density of customers located within this part of the County, as well as the large scale of
the District and its sparse road network. The following summarizes the critical
attributes of this proposed Water District:

• Total Service Area = 119.2 square miles, 2,566 existing homes
• Total Service Area includes 0.0 square miles within municipal MIAs
• 85% Connection Rate = 2,181 projected water customers
• 119 miles of water pipeline to serve this customer base (estimated NCDOT
roads only)
• 18 customers per mile of NCDOT roads
• Start-Up Year 2019: Projected Water Demand = 0.575 mgd, avg. day; 0.863
mgd, peak day
• 850 existing homes (33% of total residences) are located in the South River
Basin

4.4.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives
Due to the District’s proximity to multiple water systems in the region, the
most viable water supply alternatives include surface water and groundwater.
PWC, LCFWASA, and the City of Lumberton all have existing water
treatment capacity to sell potable surface water to this District. Eastover
Sanitary District is capable of selling water to the East Central District after
construction of its second phase. ESD Phase 2 is expected to be under
construction in 2009 and operational in 2010.

Similar to the East Central District, PWC is the closest surface water system
to the Southeast District and has a water transmission system that currently
provides water to the Town of Stedman and Eastover Sanitary District. PWC’s
ability to transfer water to the Southeast District may require significant start-
up construction costs. LCFWASA and Lumberton would have to construct
many miles of water transmission mains that cross County boundaries in order
to provide water to the Southeast District. Potential IBT issues related to
surface water transfers to customers located within the South River Basin
(Cape Fear River Sub-Basin 2-4) are discussed in Section 5.2.

Groundwater systems that could provide water service to the Southeast
District are limited to Sampson County and Bladen County. It will be
necessary for Sampson County and Bladen County to construct more wells
and treatment capacity in order to sell the projected volume of water to the
Southeast District.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

24
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
4.5 Northeast Water District
The proposed Northeast District is located in the extreme northeastern portion of
Cumberland County in the Black River and Eastover Townships. The northern
boundary of the District borders Harnett County, the eastern boundary of the District
borders the South River (Sampson County boundary), the western boundary of the
District borders the Cape Fear River. The southern boundary is generally defined as
the limits of the Eastover Sanitary District service area, which was recently expanded
for the ESD Phase 2 project. The Northeast is considered as a lower priority given the
relatively lower density of customers located within this part of the County, as well as
the presence of multiple water systems that are relatively isolated east of the Cape Fear
River. The following summarizes the critical attributes of this proposed Water
District:

• Total Service Area = 40.1 square miles, 554 existing homes
• Total Service Area includes 21.6 square miles within municipal MIAs of Wade,
Godwin, and Falcon
• 85% Connection Rate = 471 projected water customers
• 37 miles of water pipeline to serve this customer base (estimated NCDOT
roads only)
• 13 customers per mile of NCDOT roads
• Start-Up Year 2022: Projected Water Demand = 0.129 mgd, avg. day; 0.194
mgd, peak day
• 324 existing homes (58% of total residences) are located in the South River
Basin

4.5.1 Existing Water Supply Alternatives
Due to the District’s proximity to multiple water systems in the region, the
most viable water supply alternatives include surface water and groundwater.
PWC, Eastover Sanitary District, Harnett County, and City of Dunn each have
existing water treatment capacity to sell potable surface water to this District.
Eastover Sanitary District is capable of selling water to the East Central
District after construction of its second phase. ESD Phase 2 is expected to be
under construction in 2009 and operational in 2010. Similarly, the Towns of
Falcon and Godwin could sell water supplied from Dunn to portions of the
Northeast District.

The City of Dunn and Harnett County are the closest surface water supply
systems. Dunn owns a water transmission system that currently provides
water to the Towns of Falcon and Godwin, while Harnett County supplies the
Linden Water & Sewer District located across the Cape Fear River. Harnett
County’s ability to transfer water to the Northeast District may require
significant start-up construction costs. Potential IBT issues related to surface
water transfers to customers located within the South River Basin (Cape Fear
River Sub-Basin 2-4) are discussed in Section 5.2. Groundwater systems that
could provide water service to the Northeast District are limited to Sampson
County and the Town of Wade. It will be necessary for Sampson County and
Wade to construct more wells and treatment capacity in order to sell the
projected volume of water to the Northeast District.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

25
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
5.0 Water Supply Resources in the Region
This section discusses the existing raw water supply resources in the region. Many of these
resources are currently utilized by other water users, including private citizens, private water
corporations, and a wide array of municipal and county governments. These resources are
considered as viable water supply alternatives for potable water supply that could be
developed, sold, or allocated for Cumberland County’s needs.

5.1 Available Surface Water Supply
The discussion of available surface water supply is limited to major streams, rivers, or
existing impoundments within the region. All of these supplies are currently utilized
by other water users and the withdrawal of any surface water for public use must be
reviewed and approved by NCDENR Division of Water Resources, among other
agencies, during the environmental review process.

5.1.1 Cape Fear River
The Cape Fear River serves as the primary water supply source for the largest
water users in the region including Harnett County, City of Dunn, Fayetteville
PWC, and LCFWASA. For each of the raw water intakes located along this
segment of the Cape Fear River, the water source is classified as WS-IV. PWC
estimates the drainage area of the watershed to be approximately 4,360 square
miles at the point of withdrawal.

The US Geologic Surveys’ latest 7Q10 flow statistic for the Cape Fear River at
Fayetteville is 625 cfs (404 mgd). Twenty percent of the 7Q10 flow for the
Cape Fear River at Fayetteville is equal to 125 cfs (80.8 mgd). However, PWC’s
2002 Local Water Supply Plan indicates that the safe yield of the Cape Fear
River at the raw water intake is 85.8 mgd. Therefore, this higher safe yield will
be referenced in this report.

5.1.1.1 Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations
According to the “Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation
Round Three Hearing Officer’s Report,” published in June 2002,
numerous applicants located within the Cape Fear River and Jordan
Lake watersheds applied for water supply storage allocation in the
latest round (Round Three) of water supply allocations. According to
this report, the Round Three allocations are effective until 2030.
NCDENR Division of Water Resources has calculated that the
total water supply pool of Jordan Lake can provide a safe yield of 100
mgd. As of 2002, 63 mgd has been allocated to the participating
applicants: Cary/Apex, Chatham County, Durham, Holly Springs,
Morrisville, Orange County, OWASA, and Wake County-RTP.
Although Harnett County and PWC applied for 18 mgd and 10
mgd respectively, none of the Jordan Lake water supply storage was
allocated to either party in Round Three.

For this report, it is important to examine how the final 2002
allocations in Jordan Lake were determined by NCDENR-DWR as
they relate to two potential water suppliers to Cumberland
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

26
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
County: Fayetteville PWC and Harnett County. NCDENR-
DWR used the water demand projections provided by
applicants to determine the projected 2050 water supply needs
of each applicant. PWC projected the 2050 water supply
withdrawal from the Cape Fear River could be as much as 79 mgd
and 114 mgd, average and maximum day demands, respectively.
Similarly, Harnett County projected the 2050 water supply
withdrawal from the Cape Fear River could be as much as 36 mgd
and 54 mgd, average and maximum day demands, respectively.

According to NCDENR-DWR, under all model scenarios
through 2050, Harnett County and PWC’s water demands were
completely satisfied on a daily basis through utilization of the
existing water resources available. It is important to note that
this excludes drought management of any kind anywhere in the
Cape Fear River Basin and despite a projected increase in total
upstream (from Fayetteville) withdrawals of 161% compared with
2000. Therefore, NCDENR-DWR has determined that the Cape
Fear River is an adequate water source for Harnett County and
PWC despite the combined use of all water utilities in the Cape
Fear River Basin through 2050.

5.1.1.2 Intake Capacity Limitations Relative to 7Q10 Streamflow
The following discussion is from the “Jordan Lake Water Supply
Storage Allocation Round Three Hearing Officer’s Report,” published
in June 2002, page 24. The US Geologic Surveys’ latest 7Q10
flow statistic for the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville is 625 cfs
(404 mgd). Twenty percent of the 7Q10 flow for the Cape Fear
River at Fayetteville is equal to 125 cfs (80.8 mgd). The
administrative rules for the NC Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
require environmental documentation for expansions of water
treatment plants that increase capacity by 1.0 mgd or more or
result in a design withdrawal equal to or greater than 20% of the
7Q10 flow of the contributing stream (15A NCAC 01C.0504(3)).
This is a requirement for study and environmental
documentation, not a limit on water withdrawals.

Fayetteville PWC and/or Harnett County may be required to
provide environmental documentation before expanding their
water treatment plant or water supply intake on the Cape Fear
River for future capacity upgrades. However, according to all the
information available to the NCDENR-DWR, the amount of water
available during the 7Q10 streamflow event from the Cape Fear
River will not be the limiting factor for future water supply
withdrawals for PWC or Harnett County.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

27
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
5.1.2 South River
The eastern boundary of Cumberland County is the South River. The South
River is a relatively small, swampy, and darkly stained river. Below Big Swamp,
the South River is supplementary classified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) by NCDENR-DWQ. ORW is a supplemental classification
intended to protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality
and being of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational
significance. To qualify, waters must be rated “excellent” by DWQ and have
one of the following outstanding resource values: outstanding fish habitat or
fisheries, unusually high level of water-based recreation, some special
designation such as NC or National Wild/Scenic/Natural/Recreational River,
National Wildlife Refuge, etc., important component of state or national park
or forest, or special ecological or scientific significance (rare or endangered
species habitat, research or educational areas).

5.1.3 Glenville Lake (Little Cross Creek Watershed)
Glenville Lake is the southernmost lake within the Little Cross Creek watershed
area. The four lakes located within the Little Cross Creek watershed are in the
following downstream order: Bonnie Doone Lake, Kornbow Lake, Mintz Pond,
and Glenville Lake. Glenville Lake WTP receives raw water supplied from an
intake on Glenville Lake as well as transfer capability from the Cape Fear
River and Cross Creek. A 36” raw water transmission main from the Cape Fear
River to Glenville Lake WTP allows the transfer of additional raw water to
this facility for treatment during periods of high demand within the water
system. PWC estimates that the Little Cross Creek impoundments, including
Glenville Lake, have a watershed drainage area of approximately 15 square miles
with a combined safe yield of approximately 5 mgd.

5.1.4 Big Cross Creek Watershed
The Cross Creek watershed is a highly urbanized watershed that drains mush of
northern Fayetteville. During periods of severe drought, Cross Creek has been
utilized as a supplemental raw water source for the Glenville Lake WTP. PWC
estimates the drainage area of the watershed to be approximately 9.0 square
miles at the point of withdrawal with a maximum withdrawal capacity of 2
mgd.

5.2 Interbasin Transfer of Surface Water to Serve Cumberland County Districts
The main stem of the Cape Fear River, where PWC, Harnett County, and LCFWASA
withdraw their current water supply, is located within the Cape Fear Sub-Basin 2-3.
An Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate is required for a new transfer of 2 mgd
(maximum day demand, net) or more between major river basins and river sub-basins.
Therefore, IBT will be a major factor in determining the most advantageous water
source to serve the rural customers located in separate river basins (and sub-basins)
from the region’s largest water supply, the Cape Fear River.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

28
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
This is significant for Cumberland County to consider because it means that large
water sellers that utilize the Cape Fear River for source water, PWC for example, will
not be allowed to sell more than 2 mgd (maximum day demand, net) to all water
customers, existing and proposed, located across the South River Sub-Basin boundary
without returning a significant amount of wastewater for treatment and discharge
back into the Cape Fear River or obtaining an IBT Certificate. Net (total) IBT is
calculated as follows:

Net IBT = Withdrawal from Source Basin – (Consumptive Losses to Source Basin
+ Wastewater Discharge to Source Basin).

5.2.1 IBT from Cape Fear River Basin to South River Basin
The South River, along with large areas of rural eastern Cumberland County, is
located in a separate Sub-Basin 2-4 known as the South River Sub-Basin. The
boundary between these two sub-basins is located along the ridgeline just a
few miles east of the I-95 corridor for the northern half of the County; the
boundary continues to NC-24 before turning southeastward and running
along the ridge between Beaver Dam Church Road and Old Fayetteville Road
and leaves Cumberland County. This basin boundary can be seen on the maps
provided in Appendix A.

The water system information provided by PWC indicates that a 24” water
main runs along NC-24 between Fayetteville and Stedman. The 24” reaches
the ridgeline, reduces to a 12” diameter water main, and then enters a
pumping/metering station that fills the elevated tank in Stedman. Downstream
of this metering station, the water main continues approximately four miles to
the Town of Stedman. The capacity of this 12” pipeline is less than 2 mgd
(approximately 1.3 mgd at 2.5’ of friction headloss per 1,000’ of pipeline).
Therefore, PWC does not require an IBT Certificate to operate this water main
because the system is limited to transfer less than 2 mgd (maximum day
demand) between Sub-Basin 2-3 (main stem of the Cape Fear River) and Sub-
Basin 2-4 (South River).

Currently, PWC sells water to a single bulk customer in the South River Basin,
Stedman. PWC also receives wastewater from Stedman which balances the
Net IBT equation. In the near future, significant portions of Eastover Sanitary
District Phase 2 will purchase from PWC and these rural customers, served by
septic tanks, will result in a net loss of water from the Cape Fear River Basin
2-3. In the future, the Net IBT in the region may require a more detailed
analysis to determine the extent of PWC’s viable water service area in eastern
Cumberland County. Although PWC receives wastewater from NORCRESS,
this flow is primarily from customers located in the Cape Fear River Basin 2-3.

In 2009, there were approximately 2,928 potential County water customers
located within the South River Basin. Using the same water demand
projection methods as discussed in Section 2.4, this translates to an average
daily demand of 0.9 mgd (maximum daily demand of 1.3 mgd) inside the South
River Basin within 20 years. The following table illustrates the amount of
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

29
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
water that could potentially be sold to these customers from PWC, Harnett
County, or LCFWASA; water sales of this quantity that are not returned to
the source basin may result in an increased Net IBT that could push any one of
these water systems closer to the threshold of requiring an IBT Certificate.

Table 5 - 20-Year Water Demand Projections for Customers in South River Basin

Proposed
Water District
Potential
Customers
(2009)
Residential
Water
Demand
(2029)
20%
Commercial &
Industrial
Reserve
10% Estimated
Daily
Unaccounted
Water
Total Average
Daily Water
Demand
Total Peak Daily
Water Demand
(P.F. = 1.5)
Northeast 324 74,557 14,911 8,947 98,415 147,622
East Central 1,754 403,618 80,724 48,434 532,776 799,163
Southeast 850 195,596 39,119 23,472 258,187 387,280
Totals 2,928 673,771 134,754 80,852 889,377 1,334,065

It is important to note that the IBT legislation only covers surface water
transfers. The utilization of groundwater resources in the region could be a
way for Cumberland County to alleviate any IBT concerns that are raised
during discussions with potential surface water providers.

5.2.2 IBT from Cape Fear River Basin to Lumber River Basin
A small segment of southwestern Cumberland County is located in the
Lumber River Basin (DWR 9-1). The boundary between the Cape Fear River
basin and the Lumber River Basin is located along the ridgeline that follows
Chickenfoot Road to the I-95 corridor; the boundary reaches the Roslin
community and turns westward and runs along the ridge that makes up
McDonald Road and Upchurch Pond Road before leaving the County. This
basin boundary can be seen on the maps provided in Appendix A.

The water system information provided by PWC indicates that a few existing
residential water mains cross this boundary and serve a small number of
customers located within the Lumber River Basin (along Chickenfoot Road).
This small customer base represents a low water volume that is returned to
PWC via wastewater collection mains and is not a major IBT consideration.

In 2009, there were approximately 842 potential County water customers
located within the Lumber River Basin. Using the same water demand
projection methods as discussed in Section 2.4, this translates to an average
daily demand of 0.26 mgd (maximum daily demand of 0.38 mgd) inside the
Lumber River Basin within 20 years. The following table illustrates the
amount of water that could potentially be sold to these customers from PWC,
LCFWASA, or City of Lumberton; water sales of this quantity are not likely to
adversely affect the Net IBT of any surface water systems in the region.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

30
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Table 6 - 20-Year Water Demand Projections for Customers in Lumber River Basin

Proposed
Water District
Potential
Customers
(2009)
Residential
Water
Demand
(2029)
20%
Commercial &
Industrial
Reserve
10% Estimated
Daily
Unaccounted
Water
Total Average
Daily Water
Demand
Total Peak Daily
Water Demand
(P.F. = 1.5)
Southwest 842 193,755 38,751 23,251 255,757 383,635

5.3 Available Groundwater Supply
In 1991, the Lumber River Council of Governments (LRCOG) and the US Geological
Survey (USGS) sponsored an effort to monitor ground water levels in the LRCOG's
four-county region. The initiative to further analyze the groundwater resources in the
region resulted in the creation of the Southern Coastal Plain Ground Water Program
(SCPGWP) is a regional, multi-stakeholder effort to examine ground water in the
counties of Scotland, Hoke, Robeson, Columbus, Bladen, and Sampson Counties. In
1998, the LRCOG adopted a five-year plan that was designed to undertake research
and development in the following key areas: groundwater supply & demand, quality,
water level monitoring, hydrogeologic framework, and the development of ground
water planning resources. In 2003, the Wooten Company published the final draft of
the “Southern Coastal Plain Ground Water Resource Strategic Plan” that is considered the most
comprehensive groundwater evaluation for the Southern Coastal Plain region.

There are five major aquifers that underlie Cumberland County that can be considered
available for source development, listed from the deepest to the shallowest as follows:
Bedrock, Lower Cape Fear, Upper Cape Fear, Black Creek, and Surficial. It is the
opinion of Koonce Noble & Associates and Marziano & McGougan that the Upper
Cape Fear and the Black Creek aquifers are the most suitable potential groundwater
supply source for Cumberland County to consider viable for this type of rural county-
wide project. This is based on many years of experience with the design, construction,
and ongoing expansion of groundwater supplied well systems in Hoke and Robeson
Counties and other clients that utilize groundwater well systems. Additionally, our
numerous contacts within the well drilling industry agree with the opinion that the
Upper Cape Fear and the Black Creek aquifers are the only viable source of
groundwater development available to Cumberland County.

5.3.1 Bedrock Aquifer
The bedrock is composed of massive, impermeable rocks and depth to bedrock
generally ranges from 100 feet to 350. The potential of the Bedrock Aquifer as
a source of water supply is considered low with well yields typically around 5
to 35 gpm. Therefore, this aquifer cannot be considered a significant water
source for Cumberland County. It could be utilized to supplement wells
pulling water from other aquifers.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

31
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
5.3.2 Lower Cape Fear Aquifer
The Lower Cape Fear Aquifer occurs directly above the Bedrock Aquifer and is
overlain by the Lower Cape Fear Confining Unit. It is not present in Hoke,
Scotland, and Robeson Counties, and only occurs in Cumberland in the
Southeast corner of the county. The cities of Elizabethtown in Bladen County
and Clinton in Sampson County use water from this aquifer. Salt water
intrusion has been detected in this aquifer East of Elizabethtown. Due to the
intrusion, the Lower Cape Fear Aquifer would not be considered a good water
supply source for Cumberland County.

5.3.3 Upper Cape Fear Aquifer
The Upper Cape Fear Aquifer is located throughout Cumberland, Bladen,
Columbus, Hoke, Robeson, Sampson, and Scotland Counties. It is confined
beneath the Upper Cape Fear Confining Unit and well yields typically range
from 200 to 400 gpm. This aquifer ranges in depth from 50 feet below sea level
in central Cumberland County to 450 feet below sea level in Columbus
County. Thickness of the aquifer under Cumberland County ranges from 110
to 120 feet. Saltwater intrusion has been detected in southeastern Bladen and
eastern Columbus Counties.

The “Southern Coastal Plain Capacity Use Investigation” by the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources, June 2004 indicates that there are two
areas where large cones of depression have occurred due to ground water
withdrawals. One area is near Tar Heel in Bladen County and the other is near
Elizabethtown also in Bladen County. The cone of depression near Tar Heel
covers all of western Bladen County, part of eastern Robeson County and
extends into southwestern Cumberland County.

The Upper Cape Fear Aquifer serves as a principal source of water supply,
especially in Bladen and Sampson Counties. In contrast, the aquifer is relatively
under-developed in Hoke, Robeson, and Scotland Counties, where the Black
Creek Aquifer accounts for nearly all ground water withdrawals. There could
be future limitations on the quantity of water available, but the Upper Cape
Fear should be considered a good source of water supply for Cumberland
County since it is spread throughout the county and has good quality and
yield.

5.3.4 Black Creek Aquifer
The Black Creek Aquifer is present throughout the Southern Coastal Plain.
The Black Creek Aquifer becomes semi-confined to unconfined
in northern/northwestern portions of Robeson County, and throughout Hoke
and Scotland Counties, as the aquifer becomes shallower. The only area where
the Black Creek Aquifer is confined in Cumberland County is to the east of the
Cape Fear River. This aquifer is up to 200 feet thick, and wells produce from
200 to 600 gpm of relatively high quality water. The water from this aquifer
often has high iron content, which is treatable with filtration.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

32
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
The Black Creek Aquifer is heavily used in Robeson County. The Robeson
County County-wide Water System has approximately 32 wells in the Black
Creek Aquifer and withdraws 11 to 16 mgd. Several towns and industries in
Robeson County also have wells in the Black Creek Aquifer. The City of
Lumberton has four wells in the Black Creek Aquifer that pull 3.6 mgd, but
these wells are subject to river recharge. Water levels in the aquifer in
Robeson County are not being severely impacted due to a high recharge rate
and high transmissivity. Areas where utilization is high and water levels are
relatively unaffected include Hoke and Scotland Counties and northwestern
portions of Robeson County. The Black Creek Aquifer could serve as a water
source for Cumberland County. The water should be of good quality but
could require filtration to remove iron.

5.3.5 Surficial Aquifer
The Superficial Aquifer is an unconfined aquifer, which is present throughout
Cumberland County. This aquifer is the shallowest aquifer in the area and is
not generally used by municipalities because it susceptible to droughts and
pollution. The resource potential of the Surficial Aquifer is considered to
be too limited to serve the projected needs of Cumberland County.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

33
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
6.0 Alternatives to Provide Potable Water Supply to Districts
An alternatives analysis has been prepared to determine the best path to provide long-term
water supply to the rural residents of Cumberland County. The selected alternative is critical
in determining the most environmentally friendly and cost effective alternative for initial and
future projects to be successful. In this report, the Southwest Water District is considered the
highest priority due to its high potential customer density. See Appendix C for construction
cost estimates of each alternative to serve the Southwest Water District.

6.1 No Action Alternative
The first alternative to be analyzed in this report is the decision to take no action. A no
action alternative by Cumberland County would be contrary to the purpose of this
study. A no action alternative would ignore the growth in future years due to the
projected growth rate from normal growth patterns as well as the accelerated growth
from BRAC. Cumberland County would defer any responsibility to serve residents
within the rural areas of Cumberland County to other entities.

In the past, Cumberland County officials have been reactive to public needs relative to
water distribution and supply. The purpose of this study is to develop a proactive
scheme whereby, the County can participate in providing water supply and
distribution to its rural citizens. Prior to this study, Cumberland County officials has
engaged and financed other studies to be performed by other engineering firms dating
back many years. To date, no significant implementation of any recommendations from
these previous studies has been performed by Cumberland County. As a result, the
demand for water service has continued to rise over time without a regional water
system put into service. An example of this is the formation of the Linden Water &
Sewer District in northern Cumberland County. During its initial formation in 2003,
there was enough public pressure to cause the district to be formed. However, there
was not enough public support for the passage of a bond referendum in order to
finance the first phase of a water distribution project.

Additionally, septic tank failures in Cumberland County continue to occur at a regular
rate. These failures coupled with shallow wells in relatively sandy soils and also during
drought periods generate a great deal of insecurity among the County’s citizens.
Failing septic tanks can cause groundwater contamination and require construction of
new wells in addition to septic tank replacement. This is a significant financial burden
on the citizens and places further demands on the existing groundwater supplies. For
these reasons, the engineers do not believe that a “No Action Alternative” would serve
the long-term interest of Cumberland County and its citizens.

6.2 Alternative #1 - Develop County-Owned Surface Water Supply
A feasible alternative for Cumberland County to provide water supply to its citizens
would be to construct a new surface water treatment facility that would be owned and
operated by Cumberland County. This alternative would require Cumberland County
to perform the following:

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

34
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
• Form a fully staffed and equipped water utility department. A variation of this
would be to keep the existing public utility department for administrative
purposes only and outsource the operation and maintenance of the surface
water utility.
• Construct a new 5.0 mgd water treatment facility located on the Cape Fear
River (or South River) with a properly sized raw water intake, finished water
storage facilities, and high service pumping facilities.

A benefit of this alternative would be that Cumberland County would be fully self
sustaining with regard to the projected water supply and treatment needs for the 20-
year planning period. Therefore, Cumberland County would be in complete control of
its water expansion needs for the foreseeable future and no major inter-local
agreements or water purchase agreements would be necessary to develop or acquire
source water supply. Also, this would eliminate the need to renew or renegotiate these
water purchase contracts as conditions potentially change over time with regard to
water requirements.

A disadvantage of this alternative would be that Cumberland County would need to
construct a surface water treatment plant with a much larger capacity than is needed
in the initial years of implementation. To construct a new surface water treatment
facility at an economically sustainable price, the facility must be constructed to supply
a 20-year demand cycle and be capable of supplying the projected maximum daily flow
during that period of time. Therefore, the initial phase of the Cumberland County
water system would require the construction of a 5.0 mgd facility to supply the first
phase of the Southwest Water District. The cost of this extra capacity must be borne
by the initial users and would require significantly higher end user charges via their
monthly water bills and/or capacity fees.

6.3 Alternative #2 - Develop County-Owned Groundwater Supply
Another feasible alternative for Cumberland County to provide water supply to its
citizens would be to construct a new water treatment facility that would receive its
supply from existing groundwater sources. As discussed in Section 5.3, Cumberland
County has five levels of aquifers within the county. Two of these aquifers (Cape Fear
and Black River) appear to have sufficient supplies to provide the projected 5.0 mgd of
water supply during the planning period.

The development of this alternative would rely heavily on approximations of the
capacity of groundwater wells before they are constructed. For this report, we will
assume that a minimum 200 gpm well can be achieved as justified in technical
documents and surrounding water systems that utilize these aquifers. A 5.0 mgd
water demand translates to a total of 35 wells that would need to be constructed in
various areas of the county as new districts are developed and water distribution lines
are constructed in new phases. Assuming these wells would be constructed in 1.0 mgd
production increments, there would need to be an estimated five well fields in various
parts of Cumberland County (approximately seven wells per field). It is assumed that
each separate well field would be spaced sufficiently far apart to justify its own
specialized treatment system to remove iron, sulfides, organics, hardness, and other
pollutants.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

35
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
The benefit of this alternative is similar to that of Alternative #2 with regard to being
fully self sustaining. A disadvantage of this alternative is the use of groundwater wells
for a significant supply to a growing customer base. Groundwater resources in the
Cape Fear and Black River aquifers are being used significantly by joining counties
which will probably have negative effects on the groundwater supply in the long term.
Additionally, the presence of the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA)
in nearby counties is an indication of the extreme sensitivity of groundwater aquifers
in this region. The CCPCUA may also be a potential indication of future groundwater
use reductions that could advance inland due to over development of these resources.

6.4 Alternative #3 - Water Purchase Contract from Existing Provider
This alternative would require Cumberland County to enter into a contract with an
existing water system for the purposes of purchasing potable water to supply the
County's potential customer base. Cumberland County is fortunate that there are
several large purveyors of water nearby to the proposed District service areas. The
major providers of potable water available to Cumberland County include: Public
Works Commission of Fayetteville, Harnett County Department of Public Utilities,
and the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority. Of these three major water
purveyors, only PWC is strategically located to serve all the proposed water districts
in Cumberland County. This is due to PWC’s central location in the County and the
proposed District locations along the outer perimeter of the County from the north to
the southwest in a crescent shaped area. Currently, preliminary water cost data is
available from PWC to make a financial feasibility analysis of the cost-effectiveness for
this alternative. For this reason, this report will evaluate PWC as Alternative #3a using
the per 1,000 gallon rate charged by PWC for water supply and O&M costs. For
comparative reasons, Alternative #3b will evaluate Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer
Authority using identical per 1,000 gallon rates for water supply and O&M costs but
with an additional capital cost for the 56,000 linear feet of transmission main that
must be installed to connect with this potential supplier. Further discussions with
Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority (or other provider such as Harnett
County) may lead to a more economical solution in specific districts if the proposed
per 1,000 gallon rate charged for water supply and O&M costs is more affordable than
the preliminary rates offered by PWC.

6.5 Cost Comparison of the Feasible Water Supply Alternatives
Each of the three feasible supply alternatives is compared on the basis of an end-user
(residential) monthly water bill. The capital cost for the three feasible supply
alternatives is developed by determining the amount of monies required to implement
the following water system components: raw water supply, treatment system, capacity
fees, existing system upgrades/interconnections, and the transmission, distribution,
and storage system to carry the water to the end users. Once the capital cost is
developed for the alternatives, the annual debt service for each alternative is calculated
for a 100% loan on equal financing terms. Finally, the annual cost for water supply and
operation and maintenance of the system is calculated for each alternative, and the
total annual budget is to be repaid by the initial customer base with a zero fund
balance. The following cost summaries illustrate the projected user rates for
Alternative #1, #2, and #3 to serve the Southwest Water District. See Appendix C for
construction cost estimates of each alternative to serve the Southwest Water District.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

36
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
Alternative #1 - New 5 mgd Surface WTP

1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n) $1,156,786
a. Initial Capital Costs
Surface WTP Construction $16,464,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$22,896,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $0
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons $0.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $456,250
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons $1.25

Total Annual Costs $1,613,036
Estimated Water Customers 1,500

Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0
Reserve) $89.61

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

37
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
Alternative #2 - New Groundwater Wells with 5 mgd Capacity

1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n) $1,052,505
a. Initial Capital Costs

Groundwater Wells/Treatment
System $14,400,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$20,832,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $0
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons $0.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $584,000
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons $1.60

Total Annual Costs $1,636,505
Estimated Water Customers 1,500

Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0
Reserve) $90.92

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

38
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
Alternative #3a - Purchase Contract with PWC for 5 mgd Capacity

1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n) $496,747
a. Initial Capital Costs
Interconnection Fees/Upgrades $3,400,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$9,832,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $730,000
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons (PWC) $2.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $182,500
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons (PWC) $0.50

Total Annual Costs $1,409,247
Estimated Water Customers 1,500

Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0
Reserve) $78.29

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

39
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
Alternative #3b - Purchase Contract with LCFWASA for 5 mgd Capacity

1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n) $666,506
a. Initial Capital Costs
Interconnection Fees/Upgrades $6,760,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$13,192,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $730,000
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons (LCFWASA) $2.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $182,500
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons (LCFWASA) $0.50

Total Annual Costs $1,579,006
Estimated Water Customers 1,500

Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0
Reserve) $87.72

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

40
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Initially, the Cumberland County water system with the highest feasibility is the
Southwest District. Because the Southwest District is relatively large and contains
nearly 5,000 potential customers, the entire Southwest Water District cannot be
served in a single project phase. This report uses an estimated Phase 1 water customer
base of 1,500 connections and an average daily demand of 1.0 mgd for the first phase of
water system construction. The following assumptions are used to calculate the
monthly water bill for a Phase 1 customer in the Southwest Water District
(Alternative #1, #2, and #3):

• Southwest District is constructed as first phase in rural water system
• Cost for first phase of water transmission/distribution/storage is $6.4 million
• Cost for initial capacity fees and interconnection requirements is $3.4 million
• Zero grant contribution for each alternative (100% loan)
• Full loan amount borrowed over 40-year term, 4.0% interest
• Average daily water demand of 1.0 mgd
• 1,500 water customers (100% connection rate)
• Per 1,000 gallon rate for water supply established by PWC ($2.00 per 1,000)
• Per 1,000 gallon rate for O&M service established by PWC ($0.50 per 1,000)

In Alternative #1 and #2, the cost per 1,000 gallons for the bulk water charge and the
cost per 1,000 gallons for the O&M charge is based upon comparable charges from
similar water systems in the region. As discussed in Section 6.4, Alternative #3 charges
for bulk water and O&M utilize the prevailing PWC rates. Capital cost for water
supply and treatment facilities are based upon current market trends for raw materials,
manufactured hardware/supplies, and labor in the construction industry.

Alternative #1 and #2 have a higher capital cost when compared to Alternative #3.
Alternative #1 assumes that the capital cost allows for the construction of a 5.0 mgd
supply system. This is because a new county-owned surface water treatment facility
would require construction of a plant with the capacity to meet the projected water
needs for the 20-year planning period (5.0 mgd). In the case of Alternative #2 and #3, it
would be possible to phase the capital cost of the supply system since it would not be
necessary to construct all of the required well fields and/or purchase capacity from
outside sources until such capacity was needed. Therefore, when inspecting the
following tables for each of the three alternatives described above, it can be seen that
Alternative #3 yields both the lowest capital cost and the lowest estimated monthly
water bill to the customer.

6.6 Selection of Recommended Water Supply Alternative
One of the most important recommendations to be developed in this rural water is the
selection of a long-term water supply method to be implemented by Cumberland
County. A matrix chart is presented below that lists important considerations in
selecting the most advantageous water supply method. A point system is used in the
matrix that indicates the alternative that would create the least impact on
Cumberland County resources, political, social, and economic. A score of 1 is
considered the least adverse impact among the alternatives and a score of 3 is
considered the greatest adverse impact among the alternatives.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

41
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009

Table 7 – Feasibility Matrix for Water Supply Resource

Consideration Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3
Capital Cost 3 2 1
O&M Cost 2 3 1
User Charge (Rate) 3 2 1
Environmental 3 2 1
Political/Social 1 2 3
Economy of Scale 3 2 1
TOTAL 15 13 8

Based on the feasibility matrix above, Alternative #3 is the recommended alternative
for the water supply to Cumberland County (all proposed districts). This is because
Alternative #3 presents the least amount of adverse impacts to the points of
consideration that are fundamental to the implementation of a new water system of
this scale. If the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners elects to adopt
Alternative #3, negotiations should begin immediately with PWC to determine their
level of interest in providing all of the water supply for the proposed water and sewer
districts. There are other feasible variations to this alternative available to Cumberland
County as follows:

• Negotiate with the Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority for provision
of potable water to portions of the proposed Cumberland County water
system.
• Negotiate with Harnett County for provision of potable water to portions of
the proposed Cumberland County water system.
• Negotiate with all three entities to determine if there would be a combination
that would yield more economical results to the Cumberland County's water
supply needs. IBT may be a key component in the consideration to diversify
water providers to different Districts.

6.7 Summary
Cumberland County officials and citizens are fortunate to have available several
sources of water supply that can be used in developing a county-wide water
distribution. The capital cost analysis, monthly water rates, and water supply
feasibility matrix set forth selection criteria that the engineers deem appropriate in
selecting the best water supply alternative. Cumberland County staff and officials
must use their best judgment when selecting the most feasible long-term water supply
alternative. Additional criteria can be added to the feasibility matrix to tailor it in such
a way that it meets the county's needs for further consideration of each alternative.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

42
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
7.0 Infrastructure Financing Alternatives
Major contributions to this section were excerpted from the previous study entitled, “Cumberland
County: Rural Water Feasibility Study, April 2002,” as performed by Camp, Dresser and McKee consulting
engineers. Additional information is excerpted from the NC Rural Center Funding Source
Guide, USDA Funding Guidance, and U.S. Department of Commerce data.

Several funding options are available to Cumberland County for obtaining financing for water
infrastructure projects. This section provides a generalized account of local, federal and state funding
programs available to qualified applicants in North Carolina. Section 8.1 provides a final
recommendation for financing any projects that may develop as a result of this study

Federal funding agencies that provide funds for water projects include the United States
Department of Agriculture - Office of Rural Development (formerly the Farmers Home
Administration) and the United States Department of Commerce - Office of Economic Development
Administration. State funding agencies that provide funds for water projects include the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality and the
Division of Environmental Health, the North Carolina Department of Commerce - Division of
Community Assistance and the Commerce Finance Center, and the North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund. The Rural Economic Development Center is a State funded non-profit
organization that also provides planning and construction grants to local governments for
infrastructure projects.

The Clean Water Bond Act of 1998 was a referendum that provided a total of $465 million in
grants and another $335 million in loans for water and sewer projects that are managed by the
following four state agencies: NCDENR, NC Department of Commerce, NC Clean Water
Management Trust Fund, and the NC Rural Economic Development Center.

7.1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources manages the majority of the
funds ($330 million in grants and $335 million in loans), equally divided between the
Division of Environmental Health - Public Water Supply Section and the Division of
Water Quality - Construction Grants and Loan Section.

7.1.1 Division of Environmental Health
Within the Division of Environmental Health, the Public Water Supply
Section manages three separate financing programs: N. C. Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Loans; State Bond Loan; and High Unit Cost
grants.

The purpose of these funds is to finance projects for planning, designing, and
construction of water systems. Eligible applicants include local government
units such as counties, cities, towns, incorporated villages, sanitary districts,
metropolitan water districts, county water and sewer districts, and water and
sewer authorities. Applicants are judged on a priority point’s basis. There is a
$3.0 million per fiscal year loan limit and a $3.0 million limit every third fiscal
year for grants.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

43
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
The average annual residential water and sewer charge must exceed 1.5% of
the applicant’s most recent Median Household Income (MHI) to qualify for a
grant. The user charge must exceed 0.75% if only one utility (water or sewer)
will be present at project completion. Repayment terms of loan funds are
determined by the Local Government Commission, but cannot exceed 20
years. The interest rate for the SRF loans is one-half of the Bond Buyers Index
adjusted semi-annually with the maximum rate being 4.0%. The interest rate
for the State Bond loan funds is the State's current interest rate plus
administrative expenses.

7.1.2 Division of Water Quality – Construction Grants & Loans
Within the Construction Grants and Loan Section, there are three separate
financing programs: High Unit Cost Grants, State Bond Loan Fund, and the
State Revolving Fund (SRF). The loans and grants from the CG&L Section are
for wastewater infrastructure and are not pertinent to this water study.

7.2 North Carolina Department of Commerce Finance Center
Each year, the North Carolina Department of Commerce designates all 100 counties in
North Carolina as a Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 County. These rankings are based on an
assessment of each county's unemployment rate, median household income,
population growth, and assessed property value per capita. The recently amended tier
designation laws require that the 40 most distressed counties are considered Tier 1
counties, the middle 40 counties are considered Tier 2 and the 20 most prosperous
counties are considered Tier 3 counties.

In 2009, Cumberland County was designated a Tier 1 County, among the 40 most
financially distressed Counties in the State. County tier designations determine the
available amount of tax credits for job creation and business property investment in a
list of eligible industries. They include manufacturing, motorsports, aircraft
maintenance and repair, air courier services, warehousing, customer service call
centers, research and development, electronic shopping and mail order houses,
wholesale trade and information technology. Eligible businesses that locate in lower-
tiered counties are eligible for larger tax credits than those that locate in higher-ranked
areas. As part of the application process, eligible companies are required to offer
employees subsidized health insurance, have clean tax records and environmental
compliance. In Tier 2 and Tier 3 counties, companies must pay adequate wages.

The Clean Water Bond Act of 1998 provided $20 million to be used for economic
development. The Department of Commerce through the Commerce Finance Center
administers these funds. The Act provides that the funds will be awarded in the same
manner as the State's Industrial Development Fund (IDF) program. The funds are to be
used to make grants to local governments (municipal and county) to pay the cost of
clean water projects for the location or expansion of industries in the State. The funds
are for grants, as opposed to loans. Grants will be awarded for projects that will have a
favorable impact on North Carolina's clean water objectives. Projects may address new
or existing water or sewer lines or equipment, construction of or improvements that
will expand the capacity of existing wastewater treatment or water supply systems.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

44
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Economic Development Bond funds may be used only in economically distressed
counties or in counties with a population of less than 50,000.

7.2.1 Division of Community Assistance (CDBG Infrastructure Program)
North Carolina Department of Commerce - Division of Community Assistance
administers another grant program called the Small Cities Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Infrastructure Program. The purpose of
this program is to provide infrastructure funds for water and wastewater
disposal systems for low and moderate income people, thereby creating viable
communities with suitable living conditions to residents.

With the exception of 22 entitlement cities and two urban counties that
receive funds directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), all municipalities and counties are eligible to receive
Small Cities CDBG funds. The maximum infrastructure grant available per
community per project per year is $850,000. Multiple jurisdictions can apply
jointly for funds.

The City of Fayetteville is one of the entitlement cities and Cumberland
County is one of the urban counties that receive funds directly from HUD,
with the one exception that the Town of Linden may apply directly for CDBG
funding. Applications are accepted only upon official announcement of
program specifications and details by the Division of Community Assistance.

7.2.2 Commerce Finance Center (CDBG Economic Development Resources
Program)
Similar to the CDBG infrastructure program is the CDBG Economic
Development Resources Program administered through the Commerce
Finance Center. Economic Development applicants may apply for CDBG
assistance for public water and sewer facilities to serve a specific business,
direct loans for the purchase of private business equipment, or for new
expansion construction. Public facility projects may involve grants for up to
75% of the proposed facility cost, with 25% to be paid by the local government
applicant.

Except for 22 entitlement cities and two urban counties that receive funds
directly from HUD, all municipalities and counties are eligible to receive small
cities CDBG funds. Multiple jurisdictions can apply jointly for funds. CDBG
assisted activities must demonstrate benefit to Low and Moderate Income
(LMI) persons. The same conditions apply to the City of Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, and the Town of Linden as cited above.

7.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund
The purpose of the Clean Water Management Trust Fund is to provide financing for
projects that specifically address water pollution problems. Eligible entities include
Local Government Units and other political subdivisions of the State and non-profit
corporations that have as their primary purpose the conservation, preservation, and
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

45
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
restoration of the State's environmental and natural resources. Grant funds are used to
enhance and preserve surface water quality.

Projects must enhance or restore degraded waters, protect unpolluted waters and/or
contribute towards a network of riparian buffers and greenways for environmental,
educational, and recreational benefits. Trustees favor projects which have the highest
benefit to cost ratio and are supported by and integrated with local community
programs, are timely, supplement other water quality initiatives, and which do not
have sources of sufficient funding.

7.4 North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center
Through the 1998 Clean Water Bond Act, the Rural Center administers three separate
programs: the Capacity Building Grants Program, the Supplemental Grants Program,
and the Unsewered Communities Grants Program. All three are grant programs
targeted to assist rural, distressed local governments with critical environmental or
economic development priorities. Currently, Cumberland County is not eligible to
apply for these funds because it is considered one of the fifteen “urban” counties as
defined by the NC Legislature. This is due to the population and urban environment
present in the City of Fayetteville.

7.4.1 Capacity Building Grants
The purpose of this program is to provide matching funds for units of local
government to plan for needed infrastructure projects through development of
Capital Improvements Plans, Preliminary Engineering Reports, Rate Studies,
etc. Capacity Building Grants are limited only to municipal and county units
of government in economically distressed areas of North Carolina. Applicants
must address local economic development or capacity concerns. Priority is
given to projects that address water and sewer infrastructure planning needs.
The maximum grant amount is $40,000. The limited amount of money
remaining from the 1998 bond referendum is distributed as capacity building
grants for study purposes only.

7.4.2 Supplemental Grants
The purpose of the Supplemental Grant Program is to provide funds to match
federal, state, and other loan or grant program funds for projects that improve
physical infrastructure and strengthen prospects for economic development in
distressed areas of North Carolina. Eligibility for Supplemental Grants is
limited to units of local government and qualified non-profit organizations for
projects in economically distressed areas of North Carolina. For example,
projects in Tier 1 counties as designated by the North Carolina Department of
Commerce receive priority points over those located in Tier 2 or Tier 3
counties. Special emphasis is given to projects that upgrade or expand existing
water and sewer faculties or develop new facilities where permanent jobs are
created or retained. Grants normally will not exceed $400,000 and will not
represent more than 50 % of the total project cost.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

46
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
7.4.3 Unsewered Communities Grants
The purpose of the Unsewered Communities Grants Program is to provide
funds for development of wastewater collection and treatment utilities in
unsewered communities. In order to be eligible for this funding, the applicant
must be a unit of local government with population less than 5,000 persons.
The applicant must have a MHI less than 90% of the national MHI, as
provided by the most recent U.S. Census data. Priority will be given to
applications demonstrating most cost-effective alternatives given the severity
of need. The maximum grant amount available is $3 million per project not to
exceed 90% of the total project cost.

7.5 U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Development
It is the engineer’s opinion that USDA has been the most consistent source of
infrastructure funding for the past 40 years. The USDA water and wastewater
programs are administered in North Carolina by the Office of Rural Development
(RD). The purpose of the Water and Wastewater Loan and Grant Program is to
construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve water or waste disposal facilities
providing essential services primarily to rural residents and rural businesses. Eligibility
is limited to rural areas and towns up to 10,000 in population. Eligible entities include
public bodies such as towns, counties, districts, authorities and other political
subdivisions of the state, non-profit organizations and Indian tribes. Applicants must
provide evidence that they cannot finance desired facilities from their own resources or
through other sources at reasonable terms.

The loan repayment period must not exceed the useful life of the facility being financed
or 40 years, whichever is less. There are three different interest rates based upon the
median household income of the area served by the facility to be financed. Median
household income is derived from the most recent U.S. Census data. Loans to public
bodies are secured by General Obligation Bonds, which require a vote by the public. If
the County is approved for issuance of Revenue Bonds then a bond referendum is not
required.

Loans to "not for profit" organizations are secured by Deeds of Trust on fixed assets
constructed or improved with loan funds and pledges of system revenues. Grants of up
to 45% of the total eligible project cost (depending upon the MHI) are available in
conjunction with loans for the purpose of reducing average user charges to a
reasonable level based on comparable systems. In recent funding cycles, the maximum
grant per project is around 40-45%, up to a $2 million cap in order to spread the
available funds to the most qualified applicants. Grants are not available to applicants
where the median household income of the service area exceeds North Carolina's MHI.
7.6 U.S. Department of Commerce - Economic Development Administration
The purpose of the Public Works and Development Facilities Grant Program within
EDA is to assist communities with the funding of public works and development
facilities that contribute to the creation or retention of private sector jobs and
alleviation of unemployment and under employment. Eligible entities include public
bodies such as towns, counties, districts, authorities and other political subdivisions of
the state, non-profit organizations and Indian tribes. Projects must be consistent with
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

47
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
the EDA approved overall Economic Development Program for the area in which it will
be located.

Projects must be in areas suffering from economic distress, i.e., unemployment rates
exceeding the national average and PCI of 80% or less of U.S. average. Generally grants
cannot exceed 50% of the eligible project cost; however, in some cases grants may be
made not to exceed 80% of the project cost.

7.7 Financing Options Applicable to Cumberland County
Of the multiple financing options discussed above, there are several sources of both
grant and loan financing that are applicable to Cumberland County’s rural water
needs. USDA has both grant and loan funds available for the type of rural water
project proposed in this study. Grant funding is dependent upon the median
household income for Cumberland County or a smaller, defined subdivisions of the
county (townships, US Census tracts, US Census blocks, etc.). Specific areas of
Cumberland County are below the threshold for grant funding consideration and are
therefore eligible to apply for USDA grant monies. The remaining areas of Cumberland
County are not grant eligible, but are qualified to apply for USDA loan monies.

In order to secure a USDA grant, the County must also apply for a loan to cover the
non-grant eligible portion of cost. USDA-RUS rates are competitive and attractive due
to the ability to finance the project loan costs over a 40-year period. Application for
project financing is made through the USDA regional office, located in Lumberton and
managed by Steve Smith. Funding is on a first come, first serve basis. The USDA
funding program is a worthwhile application process with a favorable outlook for
obtaining both grant and loan proceeds to apply toward the initial project
recommended in this study, as well as potential future phases.

In an effort to increase economic activity during the current recession, the federal
government has channeled federal stimulus monies through established state and
federal agencies that traditionally fund infrastructure projects. These funds are part of
the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (commonly referred to as the
federal stimulus package). Loans made in the first round of project funding are set to
repay principal only (0% interest); the first round is currently underway, and shovel-
ready projects are the complete focus of this first round in order to create jobs in the
immediate future. Cumberland County may be able to apply for these types of zero-
interest funds in the future if the funds are still available, study recommendations are
well-received, water supply is secured, and all of the required action items
recommended in this study are completed in an expeditious time frame.

Other “conventional” federal funds for Safe Drinking Water Act projects are directed
to NCDENR-Division of Environmental Health: Public Water Supply Branch. The
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program is an immediate source of
loan financing because of the low interest rates being offered to applicants, typically
2.0%. The yearly allocation per project is $3.0 million for water projects. The potential
to receive monies from the DWSRF program and USDA could provide sufficient
funding for the initial projects recommended in this study.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

48
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
The Federal Economic Development Administration is another agency that routinely
makes Federal grants to projects provided the project is coupled with job creation or
job retention, which can be accomplished in special situations. Grants for a single
project are generally less than $1.5 million. However, Cumberland County could
request a greater sum, particularly if there are sufficient jobs involved or if the project
cost is large enough to need a higher level of grant financing. Each project is considered
on a case-by-case basis.

Other potential grant funding sources include the State's Commerce Finance Center
and the CDBG Economic Development Program, both of which are based on the
creation of jobs. That is to say, there must be an industry locating within the County or
expanding its existing operation that will provide or create new jobs. While neither of
these agencies are primary targets at this time, the County should remain aware of
such programs and look for opportunities to capitalize on the availability of these
funds.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

49
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
8.0 Final Recommendations

8.1 Recommended Project Financing Plan
It is the engineer’s opinion that the best financing program available to Cumberland
County is administered by the USDA-RD. Federal funding in rural areas has been
consistent over the past four decades and the likelihood of future funding is high due
to the continuing need throughout rural North Carolina and the United States for a
safe, reliable, public water supply. North Carolina officials have been aggressive in
promoting rural water projects and the federal allocation to the State has been above
the national average. Funding is made on a first come first served basis; the likelihood
of receiving a loan and/or a grant is very high provided there is a proven critical health
need and a sufficient customer base to make the proposed project economically viable.

Koonce Noble & Associates and Marziano & McGougan recommend that
Cumberland County's primary funding strategy be geared toward the scope and cost
that USDA-RD is accustomed to reviewing and financing. The following summarizes a
typical USDA project that would most likely receive USDA-RD funding:

• Critical health needs in rural areas that are evident and supported
• Optimum project size is approximately $5 million
• Customer density of approximately 15-20 houses per mile
• Total customer base of approximately 1,000 customers
• Recently, the maximum grant per project is around 45%, up to a $2 million cap

It is also recommended that Cumberland County consider pursuing additional funding
sources to supplement the funds available from USDA-RD. The most suitable source of
these additional funds can be leveraged from the following funding programs:

• Drinking Water SRF Low Interest Loans
o Competition is high for these loans
o Critical health need must be present
o Interest rates are typically one half the current market rate (2.0 %)
o Maximum yearly allocation per project is $3.0 million for water
projects.

• Economic Development Administration Grants
o Competition is high for these grants
o Primary focus of this program is the creation/retention of private
sector jobs
o Residents within the project’s feasible service area can benefit
indirectly from these types of projects
o Typical grant awards cannot exceed 50% of the eligible project cost
o Maximum yearly allocation per project is $3.0 million for water
projects

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

50
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
• Community Development Block Grants
o Competition is high for these grants
o Cumberland County receives grant funds directly from HUD
o Cumberland County can channel part of annual allocation to a rural
water project
o Critical health need must be present
o Project area must meet economic hardship criteria

8.2 Organization of Proposed Districts
This report has demonstrated that rural residents in Cumberland County can benefit
from a public water system. Because of the large expanse of the rural sections of
Cumberland County, the physical barrier of the Cape Fear River, natural topography,
and the location of multiple water systems and MIAs, the potential rural water service
area must be subdivided into small sub-sections. Cumberland County must delineate
potential water service areas with accepted boundaries (i.e. townships, census tracts)
that can be interpreted easily by potential funding agencies.

Another advantage of using defined, accepted boundaries for these sub-sections is that
these boundaries will remain relatively unchanged over time and they can be updated
with future population and income data when it becomes available. As described
earlier in this report, these sub-sections of potential water service areas are referred to
as “Districts” in this PER. The purpose of dividing the County into "Districts" is to
facilitate the following:

• Create a project scale that is not too large in scope for practical funding
consideration and engineering feasibility
• Determine the number of potential customers by District
• Use the Median Household Income published for each District
• Median Household Income is a primary factor in determining whether or not
an area is eligible for grants and/or loans from state and federal agencies
• Determining priorities for service which include overall feasibility relative to
capital cost
• Project future water demands and service populations
• Increase the variety of potential water suppliers to strengthen Cumberland
County’s position as a potential bulk water customer

North Carolina is fortunate to have a wide range of organizational structures available
that allow the provision of water and sewer services to the public. In the case of
Cumberland County, the engineers feel that the form of organization to be used for
providing water service to the County residents should be one that does not
necessarily create another level of government between the County residents and the
government of Cumberland County. Also, the organizational structure must enable the
County to obtain public/private financing including grants based upon the revenues
that will be generated from utilization of the water system.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

51
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
With the above in mind, previous studies prepared for Cumberland County have
itemized the various organizational structures that are available for the provision of
water and/or sewer. One of the more common organizational structures and one that is
currently in use in Cumberland County is known as a Water and Sewer District. A
Water and Sewer District is a County service district that is established by the County
Board of Commissioners, described by a meets and bounds document, and is
considered a separate unit of government. However, the Water and Sewer District, as
established by the County Board of Commissioners, is administered by County Board
of Commissioners as the governing body. This eliminates the need for an additional
layer of government at the county level.

Having a master plan that indicates the County's intention to form districts and
analyze feasibility on the basis of districts provides an additional level of comfort to
lending agencies when applications are made for funding. It also allows the County to
assign priorities for service based on changes in growth patterns or environmental
conditions. Water and Sewer Districts can apply for and obtain grants from state and
federal agencies. Water and Sewer Districts can hold bond referendums and/or borrow
money per General Statutes of the State of North Carolina. Additionally, County
commissioners can levy a tax if necessary to support the water system, although this is
a very rare requirement to support a financially insolvent water project.

Cumberland County has already undergone the experience of creating a formal District
during the 2003 establishment of the existing Linden Water and Sewer District
(previously discussed in Section 3.1.9 of this report). This project was considered a
stepping stone for the construction of rural water service in northern Cumberland
County and could be viewed as a successful precedent in the establishment of a new
water oriented unit of government in Cumberland County. Additionally, the engineers
understand that the County is contemplating forming another such district in the Over
Hills subdivision area near Spring Lake for the purpose of providing wastewater
service to those residents.

To facilitate the continuing involvement of the County Commissioners, Water and
Sewer District steering committees can be formed in each district. The steering
committees would be made up of citizens from that district that would be interested
in actively pursuing installation of water facilities. Each steering committee would be
managed by the Director of Public Utilities and periodic reports could be made to the
County Commissioners that update the findings in this report or other changes that
relate to the feasibility for construction of water facilities. At such time as it becomes
apparent that installation of water service to a particular district becomes feasible, the
Department of Public Utilities can update the County Commissioners and receive
their approval to begin application for funding and subsequent environmental
permitting and facility design.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

52
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
8.3 Potable Water Supply
Cumberland County is somewhat unique in North Carolina because Fort Bragg and
the City of Fayetteville are urbanized areas in the County while the remainder of the
County (approximately 242 square miles or 37% of the entire County) has maintained
a very rural and agricultural nature. Also, PWC is a major purveyor of water in the
County and has the available supply to provide potable water to all rural residents in
Cumberland County through the 20-year planning period. Section 6 of this report
discussed the various water supply alternatives available to Cumberland County. The
conclusion of this report, with regard to water supply, is that the primary focus for
Cumberland County should be to pursue negotiations with PWC to supply the
potable water for any public system that may be constructed on a district by district
basis in Cumberland County. PWC has been the long term purveyor of water in
Cumberland County and has worked closely with the County on previous projects in
the past. Currently, Cumberland County does not have a water purchase agreement
with PWC. Such an agreement will need to be negotiated prior to final
implementation of this recommendation.

Also, as mentioned in section 6, there are other variations for water supply available to
Cumberland County. Harnett County has a fairly strong presence in northern
Cumberland County by virtue of having been granted a franchise area by Cumberland
County in the 1980s. Currently, there are in excess of 1,500 customers served by the
Harnett County water system in northern Cumberland County. Additionally,
Cumberland County serves the Town of Linden with potable water. The Town of
Linden owns the water system and contracts all operation and maintenance to Harnett
County. A copy of the operation and maintenance agreement between Harnett County
and the Town of Linden is contained in the Appendix D of this report. Therefore, it
would be prudent to contact representatives of Harnett County to determine if there is
interest in providing water supply to the northern portion of Cumberland County.

Also being planned is a new water treatment plant in Bladen County known as the
Bladen Bluffs WTP. This new facility is being constructed by the Lower Cape Fear
Water and Sewer Authority and is expected to be operational before the end of 2011.
The new water treatment plant would be capable of supplying the southern portion of
Cumberland County as indicated in Section 4 of this report. The engineers have met
with officials of the LCFWASA and their engineers have requested additional
information. It is expected that potential bulk water rates will be forthcoming before
May 30, 2009. Additional meetings with representatives of LCFWASA will be
necessary if the proposed water rates could provide a potential savings to the County.

Other scenarios in which water providers could potentially sell water to specific
districts within the County are provided in Table B.3 in Appendix B, “Potential Water
Supplier Scenarios.” This table summarizes the water providers considered as viable
sources for the varying district locations proposed in the County. The intent of this
summary information is to increase the variety of available potential water suppliers in
order to strengthen Cumberland County’s position as a potential bulk water customer.
Using the district-specific information provided, Cumberland County has the tools to
gage water demand needs, negotiate potential water sales partnerships, and water
supply resources available to proposed districts within the County.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

53
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
8.4 Project Priority
Priorities for construction of water distribution systems on a district by district basis
have been given in Section 4 this report. The basis for selection of project priority is
dependent upon the cost per customer and the number of customers per mile of
roadway. By prioritizing the districts in this manner, the most cost-effective project
will allow for the most users at the least capital cost. This means that user rates and
initial capital cost will be kept to a minimum while serving the greatest number of
customers in initial phases. With the above in mind, the priority list for construction
of water system to serve each district is as follows:

• Priority 1 - Southwest District
• Priority 2 - Linden District
• Priority 3 - East Central District
• Priority 4 - Southeast District
• Priority 5 - Northeast District

Tables B.2, B.3, and B.4 presented in Appendix B provide physical data for each of the
proposed districts itemized above. The timeline to construct the water system in each
district will be based upon several factors. They include district growth, availability of
funds, construction market, user charges, and last but not least environmental factors
related to the health and safety of the public. If the only funding made available to a
particular district were in the form of loan monies, the district that appears to be the
most financially feasible at this time is the Southwest District. However, discussions
should be entered into with the USDA-RD to determine if sufficient grants would be
available to lower the user charges to an acceptable level.

8.5 Water System Operation & Maintenance
When the County constructs a central water system in a water and sewer district, that
district must be operated and maintained in State/Federal compliance for the entire
service life of the system. The operation and maintenance of the water system includes
many components, such as:

• Operational personnel for testing, flushing, inspection and repair of system
facilities
• Administrative personnel for billing, training, management and overall
responsibility
• Construction equipment such as backhoes, trenching and boring machines for
day-to-day construction operations of the system
• Integration into the County's administrative system for providing employee
benefits, training and other items associated with employment/labor laws
• Physical plant facilities for housing of equipment and storage of materials and
office facilities for operational personnel to include computer facilities and
software necessary for billing and day-to-day contact with the systems
customers

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

54
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
Selection of the most desirable operational and management scheme for Cumberland
County may require the most diligent thinking of the County staff and elected officials.
In the following discussion, the engineers will draw upon their experience with other
systems in an effort to provide adequate information to Cumberland County in
selecting a desirable operational scheme.

Many County systems that have started essentially from scratch have developed their
own operational and management system and assets. However, Cumberland County is
somewhat unique because of the significant diversity between rural and metropolitan
type areas within the County. In other words, Cumberland County has within its
boundaries a significant supply of potable water and existing operational facilities that
are operated by others such as PWC and Harnett County (and LCFWASA).

Emerging trends within existing water systems in North Carolina include outsourcing
all the various water system operations such as, billing, water treatment plant
operation and, on a smaller scale, maintenance of water distribution systems (i.e.
Eastover Sanitary District). Therefore, the engineers feel that Cumberland County
officials should include negotiations with the major water purveyors in the area for
system operation and maintenance when negotiating for water supply. There would be
two agreements necessary for negotiation:

• Water purchase agreement for the purpose of setting charges, and other
contracts or arrangements for supplying potable water to the county's water
infrastructure
• System operational agreement for the purpose of operating and maintaining
the system

If USDA-RD funds be utilized for construction of the system, the term of the
agreement will need to be 40 years. In making the assessment of these two potential
contracts, the engineers are working from the philosophy that "joining" with an
existing entity such as PWC carries with it a fairly large scale of economy. That means
that Cumberland County’s water districts would be part of a larger entity and
fluctuations in commodities such as electricity, chemicals, unfunded regulations and
other unforeseen items pertinent to the system could be absorbed with less financial
impacts to the County’s customers. The engineers stand ready to further discuss these
items with the County staff and officials at their convenience and provide any
additional information to assist in their decision.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

55
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
8.6 Summary
The following summarizes the engineer’s recommendations relative to proceeding with
implementation of developing a county-wide water system:

• The primary source of funding is recommended to be the USDA-RD. General
Obligation (GO) bonds have historically been the recommended source of
financing from the USDA. However, revenue bonds are also acceptable and
have recently gained much more acceptance in the USDA-RD North Carolina
regional offices.
• The engineers recommend that the County continue to form water and sewer
districts, as previously done in the Linden Water & Sewer District, along the
lines shown on the various maps in this report. These districts can be managed
by the existing board of County commissioners. Close contact between the
Commissioners and the operation of the districts can be maintained by
utilizing the County’s Department of Public Utilities and setting up district
steering committees of interested citizens.
• The engineers recommend that the County actively seek a potable water
supply, primarily from PWC. Additional negotiations should be held with
officials of Harnett County and the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer
Authority to determine the feasibility of supplying all or part of the County's
water needs. The variation would be to analyze the feasibility of using a
combination of these available water supplies.
• Project priority is listed in the above section on a district by district basis.
Priority is based upon obtaining the largest number of users for the least
amount of capital cost. Under the current physical data available for the
proposed districts, it appears that the Southwest District provides the best
opportunity for establishing a county owned water distribution system.
• The engineers recommend that the County negotiate with the existing
suppliers of potable water to determine the feasibility of obtaining the
operation and maintenance of the County’s future water distribution facilities
from other existing operations.

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

56
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009
9.0 References

“Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface Water System: Annual Newsletter, Year in Review”; Lower
Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority, 2008.
http://www.lcfwasa.org/newsletter/default.asp

“BRAC Actions.” BRAC Regional Task Force Website: Welcome to North Carolina.
http://www.bracrtf.com/actions.html

“Cape Fear River Basin Basinwide Assessment Report; North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) – Division of Water Quality
(DWQ); Environmental Sciences Section; August 2004.

“Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan 2005”; North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) – Division of Water Quality
(DWQ); October 2005.

“Cumberland County Municipal Influence Areas”; Cumberland County GIS Department; 2009.

“Cumberland County, North Carolina”; U.S. Census Bureau; American Factfinder;
http://factfinder.census.gov/.

“Cumberland County: Rural Water Feasibility Study: Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)”;
Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM); April 2002.

“Eastover Sanitary District Phase 2 District Expansion & Water Extensions: Preliminary
Engineering Report (PER)”; Hobbs, Upchurch, & Associates, P.A.; 2005.

“Fayetteville Public Works Commission: About Our Water Facilities”; 2009.
http://www.faypwc.com/about_fac_water.htm

“Hoke County Regional Water System Phase V: Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)”;
Koonce, Noble & Associates, P.A.; December 2006.

“Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation: Round Three Hearing Officer’s Report”;
NCDENR Division of Water Resources; Environmental Management Commission;
June 2002.

“North Carolina Aquifer Characteristics”; North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources (DWR);
http://www.ncwater.org/Education_and_Technical_Assistance/Ground_Water/Aquife
rCharacteristics/.

“Projected Annual Population Totals – By County;” North Carolina State Demographics Office;
from http://demog.state.nc.us/.

“The Southern Coastal Plain Comprehensive Ground Water Study & Assessment Technical
Report”; Lumber River Council of Governments; December 2003.
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Appendix A
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009

Appendix A

Project Maps

• Map #1 - Municipal Influence Areas and Existing Water Districts in Cumberland
County
• Map #2 - Existing Water Systems in the Region
• Map #3 - Proposed Water Districts and Infrastructure
• Map #4 - Proposed Water Districts Relative to IBT Boundaries
• Map #5 - Proposed Southwest Water District
• Map #6 - Proposed Linden Water District
• Map #7 - Proposed East Central Water District
• Map #8 - Proposed Southeast Water District
• Map #9 - Proposed Northeast Water District
• Map #10 – Southwest Water District: Water Main Sizes and Potential Supply
Interconnection Points

!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Parkton
Hope Mills
Fayetteville
Saint Pauls I-95 SI-95 NNC HW
Y

8
7

S
CE
D
AR
CR
EE
K
RD
CAMDEN
R
D
I-95 BUS SI-95 BUS NCHICKEN
FOOT
RDTABOR CHURCH RDMATT HAIR RDGAINEY RD
N
C

H
W
Y

2
1
0

S
DUDLE
Y
R
D
ROCKFISH RD
SAND HILL RDPARKTON RDJOHNSON

R
D
TOM STARLING RD
YARBOROUG
H

R
D
S
M
A
I
N

S
T
BUTL
E
R

N
U
R
S
E
R
Y

R
D
SCHOO
L
R
DMUSCAT RDCOUNT
Y

L
I
N
E

R
D
D
O
C

B
E
N
N
E
T
T

R
D
MARSH RDLEGION RDEL
K

R
D
JOHN MCMILLAN
R
D
KING RD
ODO
M

R
D
H BULLARD

R
D
TU
R
N
B
U
L
L

R
D
FIRE
DEPT
RD
BRAXTON RD JOHN HALL RDCULBRE
TH
RDSIM CANADY RDN M
A
I
N

S
T
U TYSON R
D
BLOSSOM RD
CANADY POND
R
D
SMITH RD
LAK
E

U
P
C
H
U
R
C
H

D
R
RO
S
L
IN

F
ARM

RD
CAMERON RD
CORPORATION DRWILM
INGTON
HWYMCFAYDEN RDCLAUDE LEE RDJOE HALL RD CYPRESS LAKES
RDGOLFVIEW RDUS HWY 301 SBOGIE ISLA
N
D
R
DOLD PLANK RDFIELDS RD
MARRACCO DRSTEDMAN-CEDAR CREEK RD
BLACK BRIDGE RDMCKINNON RDTRANQUILITY RD
LEGARE LN
HAIR RDMCDONALD RD
ALDER
M
A
N
R
D
PORTER RD
FENNELL RDS
N
O
W

H
I
L
L

R
D
THROWE
R
R
DDUNDLE RDNASH RD
PA
N

D
R
HEATHER ST
SA
N
D
E
R
S

S
T
CHURCH ST
A B SMITH RD
COUNCIL RDHORSE TAIL RDTRACY HALL RDHIDDEN OAK
S

D
R
BAY SHORE

D
R RESEARCH DRSOUTH STAFF RD
TWO RUT
RDTOM BURNS RDCHERAW STBRUSHY HILL RDMYRTLE LNGRA
S
S
Y

C
R
E
E
K

D
RMETRIC DRHAM RDPRIDE LNMADISON DRD
A
V
I
D
SO
N
DRREDSPIRE LNK
A
L
M
I
A

L
N
PINECRE
S
T
D
R
KANSAS CTPERICAT DRSUNNY DALE
D
RMISSION HILL RDCAYMAN DRDICKENS
AVEDOME RDFAME LNHARRIS
BURG
DR
NORA D
RTIPPIT TRLPIONEER DR
CRICKET
R
D
SEAWELL STDORIAN RDRIVER
L
A
N
D

D
R
LADY WAY
IMMANUEL DR
LOBLOLLY DR
RIDGECREST D
R
OLA BURNS DR OWLS HEAD
RD
CAPSTAN DR
KIRK DRHUB JOHNSON
RDTIMKIN DRELITE C
T DUNROBIN DRLUMMIE
R
D
LAMBOLL DR
ANGE
L

D
R
MAYBANK DRZABELL DR
FINISH LINE DR
SALLIE
LN
PINEVIE
W
D
R
BALAAM R
D KENNY DREBERHARDT RDMILL CREEK RDNC HWY 87 SUS HWY 301 SU TYSON RD
US HWY 301 S0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
Cumberland County Rural Water FeasibilityMap #5 - Proposed Southwest Water District
!Houses in District Service Areas
Existing Water Systems with PWC Service
ESD Phase 2 Water Lines
Existing Municipal Water Systems
Municipal Influence Areas
PWC Service Area
Fort Bragg
Linden Water & Sewer District
Eastover Sanitary District
Proposed Cumberland County Water District
East Central
Northeast
Southeast
Southwest
2" Water Main
4" Water Main
6" Water Main
8" Water Main
12" Water Main
16" Water Main
µ
!!!!!!!
!!!!
!
!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
Wade
Fayetteville
Falcon
Linden
Godwin
Eastover I-95 SI-95 NRAMSEY STDUNN RDI-295 S
I-295 N
RIVER RD
MCBRY
D
E
S
T
SLOCOMB RD
SMITHFIELD RDJULIAN RDGILES RD
MAIN STBURNETT RDSTEW
A
RT
R
DLOOP RDGOLDS
B
O
R
O
R
D
RIC
H

W
A
L
K
E
R

R
D
LINDEN RD
CA
R
L
O
S

R
D
SISK CULBRETH RDLAN
E

R
D DURANT NIXON RDBLUMAN RDSWAMP RDCOATS RDPALESTINE RD
CALLIE R
D
BAREFOOT RDCOLLIERS CHAPEL CHURCH RDELLI
O
T

B
R
I
D
G
E

R
D E REEVES
BR
IDGE
RDWA
D
E
-
S
T
E
D
M
A
N

R
DDAUGHTRY RDSHERRILL BAGGETT RDH
AW
K
I
N
S

RD
LEITHA LN
GORDON WILLIAMS RDJACKIE LEE RDMELST
O
N
E

D
R
RHODE
S

P
O
N
D

R
D
M
C
C
L
O
S
K
E
Y

R
D
EASON RDCOLEMAN RDRODEO
D
R
ANDREWS RD LUCINDA LNBE
T
H
U
N
E

D
R
VAUL
T

F
I
E
L
D

R
D
BEND OF RIVER
R
DMILL RDN W
E
S
T

S
T
LOFT
O
N

D
R S WEST
ST
LA
U
R
A

R
A
Y

R
D
DUSTY LN
POWELL STWILKINS DR
MC
L
E
L
L
A
N

R
D
JOHNSON STFOXLAIR DR
GRIMBLE DR
EL
V
A

W
A
L
L
A
C
E

R
D
LOVICK RD
GA
M
E

R
D
TRACTOR RD W R
E
E
V
E
S

B
R
I
D
G
E

R
D
ALLIE COOPER RD
KINLA
W

R
D
SPURGE DR
FOXCROFT DR
W THORNT
O
N

R
D
ELLIOT FARM RD
COVINGTON
LN
MCARTA
N
S

F
O
R
D
HOUS
E
S
T
RACHEL RD
BIENVILLE DR
SCOTTIE G
O
D
W
I
N

R
DRUSTY RD
PINE ST
NORRIS RDCARVERS FALL
S

R
D
CANAL STFOXTRAIL DRTWO RANCH LNHONEYBEE DRPLOTTS DRTUDOR PLST TH
O
M
A
S

R
D
WILD HORSE RD
CARO
WI
N
D
D
R
HERB F
A
R
M
R
DTHIRD STBE
N
D

R
D
CURRIN ST
BOXPINE RDFREDONIA DR CHICKAPEE
DRBIG BAY RDCLERVIE

D
R
GALWOOD DRHOLDER LNLO
U

D
R
WOL
F
P
O
I
N
T

E
X
T
FLYERS DR
MORAY STKESH

C
T
D
Y
N
A
S
T
Y

L
N
CAN
N
E
R
Y

D
R
RABBIT
D
R
DEERFO
O
T
D
R
NANTAHALA DR
RIVER RIDGE RDALLIEMAR LN
TALLSTONE D
R
MAI
N

S
T
0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
Cumberland County Rural Water FeasibilityMap #6 - Existing Linden Water & Sewer District
!Houses in District Service Areas
Existing Water Systems with PWC Service
ESD Phase 2 Water Lines
Existing Municipal Water Systems
Municipal Influence Areas
PWC Service Area
Fort Bragg
Linden Water & Sewer District
Eastover Sanitary District
Proposed Cumberland County Water District
East Central
Northeast
Southeast
Southwest
2"
4"
6"
8"
12"
16"
µ
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!! !! !! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
!!Eastover
Stedman
Fayetteville
AutryvilleI-95 SI-95 NCLINTON

R
D
N
C

H
W
Y

2
1
0

S MAXWELL RDNC HWY
2
4
AVA R
D
MU
R
P
H
Y

R
D
CEDAR

C
R
E
E
K

R
DDUNN RDI-95 BUS N
BAYWOOD RDWADE-STEDMAN RDGAINEY RD ROCK HILL RDPAGE RDBAINBRIDGE RDB
E
A
V
E
R

D
AM
R
DMIDDLE RDI-95 S B
U
S
SIDS MIL
L
R
D
SANDEROSA R
D
STEDMA
N-
C
E
D
A
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
DOLD VANDER
RDI-95 BUS SHUMMINGBIRD
P
L
DOWNING RD
JOHN HALL RDCULBRETH RDCARL FREEMAN RDBLAKE RDJOHN NUNNERY RDMAGNOL
IA
CHURCH
RD
A B

C
A
R
T
E
R

R
D
JAKE RD
SUNNYSI
D
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
D
FR
E
D

H
A
L
L

R
D
HOLLOW BRIDGE RDMCFAYDEN RDEVANS DAIRY RDHUCKLEBERRY RDCAROL STB
O
G
I
E

I
S
L
A
N
D

R
D
SANDY CREEK RD
MACEDONI
A

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
ROB R
D MARY MCCALL RDJUDSON CHURCH RDNC HWY 24 ACCESS
FIELDS RD
BENT G
R
A
S
S

D
RBUCKLAND DRMCCALL DRPOLLY IS
LAND
RDFARRIER LNTHOR LNOBERSHEA LNMCN
E
I
L

R
DJIMREE AVEFOUR WOOD DRSEABROOK SCHOOL
RDL A DUNHAM RDRAYS L
A
N
DI
N
G
R
DAL RAY RDH CLARK RDBLADEN C
IR
MYRTLE LNAUTRY RDDOE
H
I
L
L

R
D CLETA DRO
R
V
I
L
L
E

S
T BUN BRADY
RDBLAWELL STSHELTON BEARD
RDWHITEHEAD
RDCLARK-WEST RDSARA LNWILLIE LNRINGWOOD RDARMELIA DRRAFE AVEFORTE RDJAYCEE ST
AZELIA DR
OWLS HEAD
RDKAREN STTENNIS DR
CASHWELL RDJERRY DRDECENT RDGRANT AVEBRENNAN CIRSTANWORTH DRLUMMIE RDBOBBY JONES DRWILBUR
STTRIPP RDMINNIE VADA LNM
O
B
I
U
S

R
D
TURNKEY DRKINGSLAND
DRAURORA STBATCAVE D
R
NUFFIELD RDCOOPER

S
T
SIMMONS C
A
R
T
E
R

R
D
0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
Cumberland County Rural Water FeasibilityMap #7 - Proposed East Central Water District
!Houses in District Service Areas
Existing Water Systems with PWC Service
ESD Phase 2 Water Lines
Existing Municipal Water Systems
Municipal Influence Areas
PWC Service Area
Fort Bragg
Linden Water & Sewer District
Eastover Sanitary District
Proposed Cumberland County Water District
East Central
Northeast
Southeast
Southwest
2"
4"
6"
8"
12"
16"
µ
!
!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stedman
Roseboro
Salemburg
Autryville
Fayetteville
N
C

H
W
Y

2
1
0

S
C
ED
AR
CR
E
E
K

RD
TU
R
N
B
U
L
L

R
D
CLI
N
T
O
N

R
DI-95 NI-95 SGIP RDAVA RD
TABOR CHURCH RDMATT HAIR RDDUDLE
Y
R
D
NC HWY 242JOHNSON

R
D
GAINEY RD
POL
LY

I
S
LAND
RD
B
E
A
V
ER
D
AM
RDSIDS MILL RDSTEDM
A
N-
C
E
D
A
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
NO
R
R
I
S

R
DOL
D

V
A
N
D
E
R

R
D
BUTLER NURSERY RDJ
O
H
N

H
A
L
L

R
DCULBRETH RD
CARL F
R
E
E
M
A
N
R
D
BROADWATER

B
R
I
D
G
E

R
D
A
V
E
R
Y

R
DJOHN NUNNERY RDBLAKE RD
BE
A
V
E
R

D
A
M

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
M
E
I
N
L
O
C
K

L
N
A B
C
A
R
T
E
R

R
D
MELVIN RDHOLLOW BRIDGE RDEVANS DAIRY RDTROY FISHER RD INGRAM
R
D
LUDH
O
R
N
E

R
D
MCKINNON RD
SPENCER RDMACEDON
I
A

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
ROB
RD MARY MCCALL RDHAIR RDNASH RDFAYLAND DRRUTH VIN
S
O
N
R
D
SHA
R
O
N

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
C S FAIRCLOTH RDH CLARK RDTOM BURNS RDAUTRY RDDOE
H
I
L
L

R
D
C
L
E
T
A
D
R
KANSAS CT BLAWELL STSUNNY DALE
D
RCECIL
STCLARK-WEST RDAZELIA DR
RIVER
L
A
N
D

D
R
NORTH ST
OWLS HEAD
RD
W
H
I
T
E

P
O
N
D

D
R KETTERING STSTANWORTH DR
0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
Cumberland County Rural Water FeasibilityMap #8 - Proposed Southeast Water District
!Houses in District Service Areas
Existing Water Systems with PWC Service
ESD Phase 2 Water Lines
Existing Municipal Water Systems
Municipal Influence Areas
PWC Service Area
Fort Bragg
Linden Water & Sewer District
Eastover Sanitary District
Proposed Cumberland County Water District
East Central
Northeast
Southeast
Southwest
2"
4"
6"
8"
12"
16"
µ
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
Wade
Falcon
Eastover
Linden
Godwin
I-95 SI-95 NDUNN RDI-29
5

S
I-29
5

N
GOLDSB
O
R
O RD
MCBR
Y
D
E
S
T
RIVER RD
SMITHFIELD RDJULIAN RDGILES RD
MAIN STBURNETT RDEASON RDSTEW
A
R
T
R
DLOOP RD
KENNEL RD
LINDEN RD
CA
R
L
O
S

R
D
RIC
H

W
A
L
K
E
R

R
D
COLEMAN RDSISK CULBRETH RDLAN
E

R
D
WA
D
E
-
S
T
E
D
M
A
N

R
DDURANT NIXON RDBLUMAN RDSWAMP RD
SLOCOMB RD
BAREFOOT RD
RAMSEY ST
COLLIERS CHAPEL CHURCH RDDAUGHTRY RDSHERRILL BAGGETT RDH
AW
K
I
N
S

R
D
LEITHA LN
GORDON WILLIAMS RDJACKIE LEE RDB
U
D

G
E
D
D
I
E

R
D
RHODE
S

P
O
N
D

R
D
CALLIE RDLUCINDA LNVAU
L
T

F
I
E
L
D

R
D
J T MATTHEWS RD
BEND OF RIVER
R
D
N W
E
S
T

S
T
S WEST
ST
LA
U
R
A

R
A
Y

R
D
POWELL STM
C
L
E
L
L
A
N

R
D
EL
V
A

W
A
L
L
A
C
E

R
D
LOVICK RD
ALLIE COOPER RD
W THORNT
O
N

R
D
COVINGTON
LN
COLLI
E
R

R
D
HOUS
E
S
T
SCOTTIE
G
O
D
W
I
N

R
DRUSTY RD
PINE ST
NORRIS RDCANAL ST
TWO RANCH LNHONEYBEE DRCARO
WIN
D D
R
HERB F
A
R
M
R
DTHIRD STBE
N
D

R
D BOXPINE RDCLERVIE
D
R
GREEN ST
FLYERS DRMORAY STKE
S
H
C
T
DY
N
A
S
T
Y

L
N
CANN
E
R
Y

D
R
ALLIEMAR LN
MAI
N

S
T
DUNN RD0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
Cumberland County Rural Water FeasibilityMap #9 - Proposed Northeast Water District
!Houses in District Service Areas
Existing Water Systems with PWC Service
ESD Phase 2 Water Lines
Existing Municipal Water Systems
Municipal Influence Areas
PWC Service Area
Fort Bragg
Linden Water & Sewer District
Eastover Sanitary District
Proposed Cumberland County Water District
East Central
Northeast
Southeast
Southwest
2"
4"
6"
8"
12"
16"
µ
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Appendix B
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009

Appendix B

Water Demand & Population Projections

• Table B.1 - Population Projection Methodologies
• Table B.2 - Water Demand Projections
• Table B.3 – Potential Water Supplier Scenarios
• Table B.4 – Proposed Water District Summary

YearTotal PopulationIncrease per Year% GrowthTotal PopulationIncrease per Year% GrowthTotal PopulationIncrease per Year% Growth1970 212,042 - -62,825 - -149,217 - -1980 247,160 35,118 16.56%75,30612,481 19.87% 171,854 22,637 15.17%1990274 71327 55311 15%95 13219 82626 33%179 5817 7274 50%CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - RURAL WATER SYSTEM FEASIBILITYTABLE 1 - POPULATION PROJECTION METHODSWhole County (Linear Growth Rate)Municipal Estimates (NCOSPL Growth Rate)Rural Cumberland County (Difference)1990 274,713 27,553 11.15%95,13219,826 26.33% 179,581 7,727 4.50%2000 303,060 28,347 10.32%147,64852,516 55.20% 155,412 -24,169 -13.46%2007 313,616 10,556 3.48%210,24662,598 42.40% 103,370-52,042 -33.49%2009 324,464 10,848 3.46%211,8141,568 0.75% 112,650 9,280 8.98%2014 338,328 13,864 4.27%217,3015,487 2.59% 121,027 8,377 7.44%2019 352,192 13,864 4.10%222,5755,273 2.43% 129,618 8,591 7.10%2024 366,056 13,864 3.94%227,5294,955 2.23% 138,527 8,909 6.87%2029 379,920 13,864 3.79%231,7934,264 1.87% 148,127 9,600 6.93%Total 20-Year Growth-55,456 17.09%-19,979 9.43%-35,477 31.49%050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,0001970 1980 1990 2000 2007 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029Rural County149,217 171,854 179,581 155,412 103,370 112,650 121,027 129,618 138,527 148,127Municipal62,825 75,306 95,132 147,648 210,246 211,814 217,301 222,575 227,529 231,793Whole County212,042 247,160 274,713 303,060 313,616 324,464 338,328 352,192 366,056 379,920050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,0001970 1980 1990 2000 2007 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029Rural County149,217 171,854 179,581 155,412 103,370 112,650 121,027 129,618 138,527 148,127Municipal62,825 75,306 95,132 147,648 210,246 211,814 217,301 222,575 227,529 231,793Whole County212,042 247,160 274,713 303,060 313,616 324,464 338,328 352,192 366,056 379,920050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,0001970 1980 1990 2000 2007 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029Rural County149,217 171,854 179,581 155,412 103,370 112,650 121,027 129,618 138,527 148,127Municipal62,825 75,306 95,132 147,648 210,246 211,814 217,301 222,575 227,529 231,793Whole County212,042 247,160 274,713 303,060 313,616 324,464 338,328 352,192 366,056 379,920Cumberland County Population ProjectionsPage 1 of 4
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5Potential Water Potential ServiceSouth WestLinden (North)East CentralSouth EastNorth East20% CommercialEstimated DailyTotal AverageTotal Peak DailyCUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - RURAL WATER SYSTEM FEASIBILITYTABLE 2 - ESTIMATED WATER DEMANDS IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICTSBASED ON EXISTING HOUSE COUNT ESTIMATESYearGPD per CustomerCustomer Base (Rural Cumberland County)Potential Service Population (Rural Cumberland County)South West District Water Demand (GPD)Linden (North) District Water Demand (GPD)East Central District Water Demand (GPD)South East District Water Demand (GPD)North East District Water Demand (GPD)20% Commercial & Industrial Reserve (GPD)Estimated Daily Unaccounted Water (GPD)Total Average Daily Water DemandTotal Peak Daily Water Demand (P.F. = 1.5)0200917500000000000120101754,94013,092864,5350000172,907 103,744 1,141,186 1,711,779220111755,02213,309878,8650000175,773 105,464 1,160,102 1,740,153320121755,10413,526893,1950000178,639 107,183 1,179,017 1,768,526420131756,25816,583907,525 187,555000219,016 131,410 1,445,506 2,168,259520141756,35716,845921,855 190,552000222,481 133,489 1,468,376 2,202,565620151756,45617,107936,185 193,548000225,947 135,568 1,491,247 2,236,871720161758,55022,658950,514 196,545 349,21400299,255 179,553 1,975,080 2,962,621820171758,68023,002964,844 199,541 354,62500303,802 182,281 2,005,093 3,007,640920181758,81023,346979,174 202,537 360,03500308,349 185,010 2,035,106 3,052,65910201917511,43030,290993,504 205,534 365,446 435,7850400,054 240,032 2,640,356 3,960,53311202017511,59830,7341,007,834 208,530 370,857 442,3970405,924 243,554 2,679,095 4,018,64312202117511,76631,1791,022,164 211,526 376,268 449,0080411,793 247,076 2,717,835 4,076,75313202217512,49333,1071,036,494 214,523 381,678 455,620 97,979 437,259 262,355 2,885,907 4,328,86114202317512,66933,5741,050,824217,519387,089462,23199,462443,425266,0552,926,6054,389,90714202317512,66933,5741,050,824217,519387,089462,23199,462443,425266,0552,926,6054,389,90715202417512,84534,0401,065,154 220,516 392,500 468,842 100,945 449,591 269,755 2,967,302 4,450,95316202517513,02234,5071,079,484 223,512 397,910 475,454 102,428 455,758 273,455 3,008,000 4,511,99917202617513,19834,9741,093,814 226,508 403,321 482,065 103,911 461,924 277,154 3,048,697 4,573,04618202717513,37435,4411,108,143 229,505 408,732 488,676 105,394 468,090 280,854 3,089,394 4,634,09219202817513,55035,9081,122,473 232,501 414,142 495,288 106,877 474,256 284,554 3,130,092 4,695,13820202917513,72636,3751,136,803 235,497 419,553 501,899 108,360 480,423 288,254 3,170,789 4,756,184Cumberland County Water Demand ProjectionsPage 2 of 4
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5Potential Water Customer Base (Rural CumberlandPotential Service Population (Rural South West District Water Linden (North) District Water East Central District Water South East District Water North East District Water 20% Commercial & Industrial Estimated Daily Unaccounted Total Average Daily Water Total Peak Daily Water Demand CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - RURAL WATER SYSTEM FEASIBILITYTABLE 3 - POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLIER SCENARIOSPotential Water Supplier (Rural Cumberland County)Cumberland County) Demand (GPD) Demand (GPD) Demand (GPD) Demand (GPD) Demand (GPD) Reserve (GPD) Water (GPD) Demand (P.F. = 1.5)10,439 27,663 1,136,803 235,497 419,553 501,899 108,360 480,423 288,254 3,170,789 4,756,1848,945 23,703 1,136,803 - 419,553 501,899 - 411,651 246,991 2,716,897 4,075,3468,378 22,202 1,136,803 - - 501,899 - 327,740 196,644 2,163,087 3,244,6314,940 13,092 1,136,803 - - - - 227,361 136,416 1,500,580 2,250,8704,475 11,859 - - 419,553 501,899 108,360 205,962 123,577 1,359,352 2,039,0283,318 8,792 - 235,497 419,553 - 108,360 152,682 91,609 1,007,702 1,511,5531,823 4,832 - - 419,553 - - 83,911 50,346 553,810 830,7151,494 3,960 - 235,497 - - 108,360 68,772 41,263 453,892 680,8381,023 2,712 - 235,497 - - - 47,099 28,260 310,857 466,285471 1,248----108,360 21,67213,003 143,035 214,553City of DunnLower Cape Fear WASATown of FalconTown of StedmanTown of Spring LakeTown of Hope MillsHarnett CountyPWCEastover Sanitary DistrictCity of LumbertonSURFACE WATER4711,248108,36021,67213,003143,035214,5534711,248----108,360 21,67213,003 143,035 214,5537,12118,8711,136,803--501,899-327,740 196,644 2,163,087 3,244,6317,12118,8711,136,803--501,899-327,740 196,644 2,163,087 3,244,6314,94013,0921,136,803----227,361 136,416 1,500,580 2,250,8704,00410,612--419,553 501,899-184,290 110,574 1,216,317 1,824,4754711,248----108,360 21,67213,003 143,035 214,553Gross Area 911 Town of GodwinTow o a coTown of WadeSampson CountyTABLE 4 - PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT SUMMARYGROUND WATERRobeson CountyBladen CountyHoke CountyDistrict NameGross Area Including MIA Areas (sq mi)Net Area Excluding MIA Areas (sq mi)Gross Area 911 House Count (Excluding Municipal Limits & Existing Water)85% Hookup RateMiles of Proposed Water PipelineCost per Mile (turn-key installation)Total District CostCost per CustomerCustomer per Mile of NCDOT RoadPriority RankSouth West 46.536.55,8124,940184150,864$ 27,759,000$ 5,619$ 271Linden (North) 44.339.91,2041,02363111,159$ 7,003,000$ 6,843$ 162East Central 41.628.02,1451,82380121,663$ 9,733,000$ 5,338$ 233South East 119.2119.22,5662,181153131,059$ 20,052,000$ 9,194$ 144North East 40.118.555447141126,390$ 5,182,000$ 11,004$ 115TOTAL/AVG. 29224212,28110,439521128,227$ 69,729,000$ 7,600$ 18-PWC, ESD, Lumb., LCFWASAHarnett, Dunn, PWC, ESDRecommended Surface Water SupplierPWC, Lumberton, LCFWASAHarnett, Dunn, PWCPWC, ESD, Lumb., LCFWASA-Cumberland County Water Demand ProjectionsPage 3 of 4
4,500,0005,000,000Cumberland County Projected Average Daily Water Demand& Peak Daily Water Demand0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,0005,000,000Gallons Per DayCumberland County Projected Average Daily Water Demand& Peak Daily Water Demand0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,0005,000,0002009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029Gallons Per DayCumberland County Projected Average Daily Water Demand& Peak Daily Water DemandTotal Average Daily Water DemandTotal Peak Daily Water Demand    (P.F. = 1.5)Cumberland County Water Demand ProjectionsPage 4 of 4
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A. c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Appendix C
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009

Appendix C

Construction Cost Estimates

• County-Wide Water System Cost Summary
• Monthly Water Bill Summary
• Estimated Annual O&M Costs and Average Monthly Water Bill - Alternative #1-3
• Water Supply Construction Cost Estimate - Alternative #1-3
• Southwest District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate
o Southwest Phase 1 (Initial Target Area)
o Remaining Areas Inside District (Excludes Phase 1)
o Areas Inside Hope Mills MIA
• Linden Water District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate
• East Central Water District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate
• Southeast Water District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate
• Northeast Water District – Water Distribution Construction Cost Estimate

1. Southwest Water District $27,759,000
a. Interconnection Fees/Upgrades $3,400,000
b. Phase 1 (Southpoint area) $6,432,000
c. Remaining Areas Inside District $11,053,000
d. Areas Inside Hope Mills MIA $6,874,000
2. Linden Water & Sewer District $7,003,000
3. East Central Water District $9,733,000
4. Southeast Water District $20,052,000
5. Northeast Water District $5,182,000
Total Project Costs for County-Wide Water Service $69,729,000
1. Alternative #1 - New 5 mgd Surface WTP $89.61
2. Alternative #2 - New Groundwater Wells with 5 mgd Capacity $90.92
3. Alternative #3a - Purchase Contract with PWC for 5 mgd Capacity $78.29
4. Alternative #3b - Purchase Contract with LCFWASA for 5 mgd Capacity $87.72
Minimum Monthly Rate = Preferred Alternative #3a $78.29
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
COUNTY-WIDE WATER SYSTEM COST SUMMARY
Preferred Alternative Based on Average Monthly Residential Water Bill = Alternative #3a
Purchase Contract with PWC for 5 mgd Capacity
MONTHLY WATER BILL SUMMARY
Page 1 of 16
1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n)$1,156,786
a. Initial Capital Costs
Surface WTP Construction $16,464,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$22,896,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $0
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons $0.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $456,250
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons $1.25
Total Annual Costs $1,613,036
Estimated Water Customers 1,500
Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0 Reserve)$89.61
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative #1 - New 5 mgd Surface WTP
Page 2 of 16
1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n)$1,052,505
a. Initial Capital Costs
Groundwater Wells/Treatment System $14,400,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$20,832,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $0
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons $0.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $584,000
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons $1.60
Total Annual Costs $1,636,505
Estimated Water Customers 1,500
Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0 Reserve)$90.92
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
Alternative #2 - New Groundwater Wells with 5 mgd Capacity
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Page 3 of 16
1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n)$496,747
a. Initial Capital Costs
Interconnection Fees/Upgrades $3,400,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$9,832,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $730,000
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons (PWC) $2.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $182,500
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons (PWC) $0.50
Total Annual Costs $1,409,247
Estimated Water Customers 1,500
Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0 Reserve)$78.29
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
Alternative #3a - Purchase Contract with PWC for 5 mgd Capacity
Page 4 of 16
1. Annual Debt Service Payment (A/P,i,n)$666,506
a. Initial Capital Costs
Interconnection Fees/Upgrades $6,760,000
SW Phase 1 Distribution System $6,432,000
$13,192,000
b. Annual Interest Rate 4.0%
c. Number of Years 40
d. Calculated A/P Factor 0.05052
2. Annual Bulk Water Charges $730,000
a. Average Daily Water Use 1.0 mgd
b. Total Annual Water Use 365.0 mgd
c. Cost per 1,000 gallons (LCFWASA) $2.00
3. Annual O&M Charges $182,500
a. Cost per 1,000 gallons (LCFWASA) $0.50
Total Annual Costs $1,579,006
Estimated Water Customers 1,500
Estimated Monthly Water Bill to Cover Expenses ($0 Reserve)$87.72
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS AND MONTHLY WATER BILLS
Alternative #3b - Purchase Contract with LCFWASA for 5 mgd Capacity
Page 5 of 16
A Project Description Quantity Unit Extended Cost
1. Bonds, Insurance, Mobilization, and Overhead 1 LS $900,000
2. Site Work 1 LS $100,000
3. Site Piping 1 LS $400,000
4. New 5 MGD Flash Mix 1 LS $150,000
5. New 5 MGD Flocculator 1 LS $300,000
6. New 5 MGD Lamella Plate Sedimentation Basin 1 LS $750,000
7. New 5 MGD Conventional Filters 1 LS $1,800,000
8. New 5 MGD GAC Contactor 1 LS $750,000
9. 2 MG Clearwell 1 LS $1,250,000
10. Finished Water Pump Station 1 LS $1,300,000
11. Sludge Handling 1 LS $800,000
12. Bulk Chemical Storage 1 LS $300,000
13. Chemical Feed Systems 1 LS $400,000
14. Instrumentation and SCADA 1 LS $500,000
15. Electrical 1 LS $800,000
$10,500,000
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Alternative #1 - New 5 mgd Surface Water Capacity and Treatment
(Conventional Filtration)
Part A - WTP Construction Costs
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS (A)
Page 6 of 16
B Project Description Quantity Unit Extended Cost
1. Bonds, Insurance, Mobilization and Overhead 1 LS $150,000
2. Site Work 1 LS $70,000
3. Site Piping 1 LS $100,000
4. Intake Structure and Screens 1 LS $300,000
5. Cast-in-Place Wet Well 1 LS $900,000
6. Pumps and Equipment 1 LS $600,000
7. Electrical, Instrumentation 1 LS $300,000
$2,420,000
C New Raw Water Impoundment 1 LS $800,000
SUB-TOTAL OF ENGINEERING COSTS (C) $800,000
D Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency $2,744,000
$2,744,000
$16,464,000
Part D - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
SUB-TOTAL OF OTHER COSTS (D)
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B+C+D)
Part B - Raw Water Intake & Pump Station Construction Costs
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS (B)
Part C - New Raw Water Impoundment
Page 7 of 16
Project Description Quantity Unit Extended Cost
1. Bonds, Insurance, Mobilization, and Overhead 1 LS $100,000
2. Seven Groundwater Wells per Field 1 LS $1,000,000
3. Well House 1 LS $150,000
4. Treatment System 1 LS $1,000,000
5. Instrumentation, SCADA, and Electrical 1 LS $150,000
$2,400,000
A $12,000,000
B Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency $2,400,000
$14,400,000TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B)
Five (5) Well Fields (with treatment) to Reach 5.0 mgd Capacity
Part B - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Alternative #2 - New 5 mgd Groundwater Well Capacity and Treatment
Part A - 1.0 mgd Well Field Construction Costs
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS (1.0 mgd)
Page 8 of 16
1. Estimated Capacity Fee 1 LS 1 $1,000,000
2.
Estimated Water System Upgrades @
Interconnection Point (Master Meter, SCADA,
Elevated Storage Tank, Pump Station)
1 LS 1 $2,000,000
3.Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $400,000
$3,400,000
1. Estimated Capacity Fee 1 LS 1 $1,000,000
2.
Estimated Water System Upgrades @ WTP Site
and Interconnection Point (Master Meter, SCADA,
Elevated Storage Tank, Pump Station)
1 LS 1 $2,000,000
1. 16" Ductile Iron Water Main 56,000 LF $50 $2,800,000
3.Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $960,000
$6,760,000
Alternative #3b - Purchase Contract for 5 mgd Water Supply from LCFWASA
Part A - PWC Fees/Upgrades, Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
TOTAL PROJECT COST =
TOTAL PROJECT COST =
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Alternative #3a - Purchase Contract for 5 mgd Water Supply from PWC
Part A - PWC Fees/Upgrades, Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
Page 9 of 16
A Project Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 16" Ductile Iron Water Main 11,000 LF $50 $550,000
2. 12" PVC Water Main 42,000 LF $35 $1,470,000
3. 8" PVC Water Main 38,000 LF $25 $950,000
4. 6" PVC Water Main 77,000 LF $20 $1,540,000
5. 4" PVC Water Main 50,000 LF $12 $600,000
6. 2" PVC Water Main 25,000 LF $10 $250,000
$5,360,000
B Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $1,072,000
$6,432,000
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Part B - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Southwest Water District - Phase 1
Part A - Water Transmission, Distribution & Storage Facilities
Page 10 of 16
A Project Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 16" Ductile Iron Water Main 20,500 LF $50 $1,025,000
2. 12" PVC Water Main 29,000 LF $35 $1,015,000
3. 8" PVC Water Main 85,000 LF $25 $2,125,000
4. 6" PVC Water Main 190,000 LF $20 $3,800,000
5. 4" PVC Water Main 83,000 LF $12 $996,000
6. 2" PVC Water Main 25,000 LF $10 $250,000
$9,211,000
B Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $1,842,000
$11,053,000TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B)
Southwest Water District - Remaining Areas Inside District (Excludes Phase 1)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Part A - Water Transmission, Distribution & Storage Facilities
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Part B - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
Page 11 of 16
A Project Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 16" Ductile Iron Water Main 0 LF $50 $0
2. 12" PVC Water Main 30,000 LF $35 $1,050,000
3. 8" PVC Water Main 34,000 LF $25 $850,000
4. 6" PVC Water Main 135,000 LF $20 $2,700,000
5. 4" PVC Water Main 69,000 LF $12 $828,000
6. 2" PVC Water Main 30,000 LF $10 $300,000
$5,728,000
B Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $1,146,000
$6,874,000
$24,359,000
Part A - Water Transmission, Distribution & Storage Facilities
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B)
TOTAL SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PROJECT COSTS =
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Southwest Water District - Areas Inside Hope Mills MIA
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Part B - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
Page 12 of 16
A Project Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 16" Ductile Iron Water Main 0 LF $50 $0
2. 12" PVC Water Main 0 LF $35 $0
3. 8" PVC Water Main 30,000 LF $25 $750,000
4. 6" PVC Water Main 192,000 LF $20 $3,840,000
5. 4" PVC Water Main 83,000 LF $12 $996,000
6. 2" PVC Water Main 25,000 LF $10 $250,000
$5,836,000
B Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $1,167,000
$7,003,000TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B)
Linden Water & Sewer District
Part A - Water Transmission, Distribution & Storage Facilities
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Part B - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Page 13 of 16
A Project Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 16" Ductile Iron Water Main 0 LF $50 $0
2. 12" PVC Water Main 23,000 LF $35 $805,000
3. 8" PVC Water Main 80,000 LF $25 $2,000,000
4. 6" PVC Water Main 198,000 LF $20 $3,960,000
5. 4" PVC Water Main 78,000 LF $12 $936,000
6. 2" PVC Water Main 41,000 LF $10 $410,000
$8,111,000
B Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $1,622,000
$9,733,000
Part A - Water Transmission, Distribution & Storage Facilities
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Part B - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
East Central Water District
Page 14 of 16
A Project Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 16" Ductile Iron Water Main 0 LF $50 $0
2. 12" PVC Water Main 30,000 LF $35 $1,050,000
3. 8" PVC Water Main 200,000 LF $25 $5,000,000
4. 6" PVC Water Main 475,000 LF $20 $9,500,000
5. 4" PVC Water Main 75,000 LF $12 $900,000
6. 2" PVC Water Main 26,000 LF $10 $260,000
$16,710,000
B Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $3,342,000
$20,052,000
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Southeast Water District
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Part B - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B)
Part A - Water Transmission, Distribution & Storage Facilities
Page 15 of 16
A Project Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 16" Ductile Iron Water Main 0 LF $50 $0
2. 12" PVC Water Main 0 LF $35 $0
3. 8" PVC Water Main 48,000 LF $25 $1,200,000
4. 6" PVC Water Main 142,000 LF $20 $2,840,000
5. 4" PVC Water Main 19,000 LF $12 $228,000
6. 2" PVC Water Main 5,000 LF $10 $50,000
$4,318,000
B Design, Construction Admin./Observation,
Contingency 1 LS 1 $864,000
$5,182,000
Part B - Engineering Design, Inspection & Other Costs
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = (A+B)
Northeast Water District
Part A - Water Transmission, Distribution & Storage Facilities
SUB-TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Page 16 of 16
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
c o n s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s
`

Appendix D
CUMBERLAND COUNTY RURAL WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
AUGUST 2009

Appendix D

Supporting Documents

• Current Bulk Water and User Rates from PWC
• Existing Bulk Water/O&M Contract Between Stedman and PWC
• Existing Bulk Water/O&M Contract Between Spring Lake and PWC
• Existing Bulk Water/O&M Contract Between Linden Water and Sewer District and
Harnett County Public Utilities

US:162910190v10
APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATES
Bladen County - West of the Cape Fear River
Source: Bladen County Groundwater System
Item Unit Number Rate Cost
Aquifer and Pump Test LS $45,000
New Well Construction LS $95,000
Treatment Works and Well House LS $150,000
Site Electrical LS $25,000
Iron Treatment System LS $225,000
Land Acquisiation and 3-phase Power LS $30,000
Permit Fee, misc LS $3,000
$573,000
General Conditions (25%)%$573,000 25%$143,250
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$573,000 25%$143,250
Contingency %$573,000 0%$0
$859,500
Permitting %$859,500 2%$17,190
Project Management %$859,500 6%$51,570
Design %$859,500 10%$85,950
Construction Oversight and QA %$859,500 8%$68,760
$1,082,970
16" Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $90.00 $0
12" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 4,500 $42.00 $189,000
8" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $30.00 $0
6" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 32,500 $24.00 $780,000
4" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 6,200 $15.00 $93,000
2" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 5,000 $12.00 $60,000
1" PVC Water Main (Installed) - House Connections** LF 7,050 $10.00 $70,500
Tapping Fees EA 47 $400.00 $18,800
12-inch Steel Casing (Jack and Bore) for RR Crossing LF 330 $195.00 $64,350
6-inch DIP Water Main for Water Main (Installed)LF 330 $45.00 $14,850
House Connections - Meters and Installation EA 330 $500.00 $165,000
$1,455,500
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$1,455,500 25%$363,875
Contingency %$1,455,500 0%$0
$1,819,375
Permitting %$1,819,375 2%$36,388
Project Management %$1,819,375 6%$109,163
Design %$1,819,375 10%$181,938
Surveying %$1,819,375 2%$36,388
Erosion and Sedimentation Control %$1,819,375 4%$72,775
Contractor Management %$1,819,375 8%$145,550
$2,401,575
$3,480,000
* Master meter, SCADA, Elevated Storage Tank, and Pump Station
** Assumes 150 LF per house avg.
Subtotal
Distribution System Total
Total System Capital Cost
New Well
Subtotal
Subtotal
New Bladen County Well
Distribution System
Subtotal
Bladen County East of the Cape Fear River
Source: Bladen County Groundwater System
Item Unit Number Rate Cost
16" Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $90.00 $0
12" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $42.00 $0
8" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $30.00 $0
6" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 44,000 $24.00 $1,056,000
4" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $15.00 $0
2" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $12.00 $0
Flushing Hydrant EA 2 $5,000.00 $10,000
1" PVC Water Main (Installed) - House Connections*LF 600 $10.00 $6,000
Tapping Fees EA 4 $400.00 $1,600
House Connections - Meters and Installation EA 4 $500.00 $2,000
$1,075,600
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$1,075,600 25%$268,900
Contingency %$1,075,600 0%$0
$1,344,500
Permitting %$1,344,500 2%$26,890
Project Management %$1,344,500 6%$80,670
Design %$1,344,500 10%$134,450
Surveying %$1,344,500 2%$26,890
Erosion and Sedimentation Control %$1,344,500 4%$53,780
Contractor Management %$1,344,500 8%$107,560
$1,770,000
* Assumes 150 LF per house avg.
Subtotal
Distribution System Total
Distribution System
Subtotal
Cumberland County West of the Cape Fear River
Option 1 - Fayetteville PWC
Item Unit Number Rate Cost
Estimated Capacity Fee LS $1,200,000
Estimated Water System Upgrades at PWC connection)*LS $2,400,000
$3,600,000
General Conditions (25%)%$3,600,000 25%$900,000
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$3,600,000 25%$900,000
Contingency %$3,600,000 0%$0
$5,400,000
Permitting %$5,400,000 2%$108,000
Project Management %$5,400,000 6%$324,000
Design %$5,400,000 10%$540,000
Construction Oversight and QA %$5,400,000 8%$432,000
$6,804,000
16" Ductile Iron Water Main (Installed)LF 31,000 $90.00 $2,790,000
12" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 15,000 $42.00 $630,000
8" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 19,000 $30.00 $570,000
6" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 30,000 $24.00 $720,000
4" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 12,500 $15.00 $187,500
2" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 11,000 $12.00 $132,000
1" PVC Water Main (Installed) - House Connections** LF 11,250 $10.00 $112,500
Tapping Fees EA 75 $400.00 $30,000
House Connections - Meters and Installation EA 75 $500.00 $37,500
Right of Way Acquisition LS $200,000
$5,409,500
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$5,409,500 25%$1,352,375
Contingency %$5,409,500 0%$0
$6,761,875
Permitting %$6,761,875 2%$135,238
Project Management %$6,761,875 6%$405,713
Design %$6,761,875 10%$676,188
Surveying %$6,761,875 2%$135,238
Erosion and Sedimentation Control %$6,761,875 4%$270,475
Contractor Management %$6,761,875 8%$540,950
$8,925,675
$15,730,000
* Master meter, SCADA, Elevated Storage Tank, and Pump Station
** Assumes 150 LF per house avg.
Subtotal
Subtotal
Distribution System Total
Total System Capital Cost
Interconnection to PWC
Subtotal
Subtotal
Interconnection to PWC Total
Distribution System
Cumberland County West of the Cape Fear River
Option 2 - Water Provided by Bladen County
Assumes New Well Installed to serve Area C has capacity for Area A
Item Unit Number Rate Cost
Estimated Water System Upgrades at County Line)*LS $100,000
$100,000
General Conditions (25%)%$100,000 25%$25,000
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$100,000 25%$25,000
Contingency %$100,000 0%$0
$150,000
Permitting %$150,000 2%$3,000
Project Management %$150,000 6%$9,000
Design %$150,000 10%$15,000
Construction Oversight and QA %$150,000 8%$12,000
$189,000
16" Ductile Iron Water Main (Installed)LF 16,000 $90.00 $1,440,000
12" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 20,000 $42.00 $840,000
8" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 19,000 $30.00 $570,000
6" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 30,000 $24.00 $720,000
4" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 12,500 $15.00 $187,500
2" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 11,000 $12.00 $132,000
1" PVC Water Main (Installed) - House Connections** LF 11,250 $10.00 $112,500
Tapping Fees EA 75 $400.00 $30,000
House Connections - Meters and Installation EA 75 $500.00 $37,500
Right of Way Acquisition (Marshwood Lake)LS $200,000
$4,269,500
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$4,269,500 25%$1,067,375
Contingency %$4,269,500 0%$0
$5,336,875
Permitting %$5,336,875 2%$106,738
Project Management %$5,336,875 6%$320,213
Design %$5,336,875 10%$533,688
Surveying %$5,336,875 2%$106,738
Erosion and Sedimentation Control %$5,336,875 4%$213,475
Contractor Management %$5,336,875 8%$426,950
$7,044,675
$7,230,000
* Master meter, SCADA
** Assumes 150 LF per house avg.
Subtotal
Distribution System Total
Total System Capital Cost
Interconnection Bladen/Cumberland Counties
Subtotal
Subtotal
Interconnection to PWC Total
Distribution System
Subtotal
Cumberland County East of the Cape Fear River
Fayetteville PWC Source
Item Unit Number Rate Cost
Estimated Capacity Fee LS $1,200,000
Estimated Water System Upgrades at PWC connection)*LS $2,400,000
$3,600,000
General Conditions (25%)%$3,600,000 25%$900,000
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$3,600,000 25%$900,000
Contingency %$3,600,000 0%$0
$5,400,000
Permitting %$5,400,000 2%$108,000
Project Management %$5,400,000 6%$324,000
Design %$5,400,000 10%$540,000
Construction Oversight and QA %$5,400,000 8%$432,000
$6,804,000
16" Ductile Iron Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $90.00 $0
12" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 22,000 $42.00 $924,000
8" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 29,000 $30.00 $870,000
6" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 50,000 $24.00 $1,200,000
4" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 0 $15.00 $0
2" PVC Water Main (Installed)LF 4,000 $12.00 $48,000
1" PVC Water Main (Installed) - House Connections** LF 5,250 $10.00 $52,500
Tapping Fees EA 35 $400.00 $14,000
House Connections - Meters and Installation EA 35 $500.00 $17,500
$3,126,000
Contractor Overhead (15%) and Profit (10%)%$3,126,000 25%$781,500
Contingency %$3,126,000 0%$0
$3,907,500
Permitting %$3,907,500 2%$78,150
Project Management %$3,907,500 6%$234,450
Design %$3,907,500 10%$390,750
Surveying %$3,907,500 2%$78,150
Erosion and Sedimentation Control %$3,907,500 4%$156,300
Contractor Management %$3,907,500 8%$312,600
$5,157,900
$11,960,000
* Master meter, SCADA, Elevated Storage Tank, and Pump Station
** Assumes 150 LF per house avg.
Subtotal
Distribution System Total
Total System Capital Cost
Interconnection to PWC
Subtotal
Subtotal
Interconnection to PWC Total
Distribution System
Subtotal