HomeMy WebLinkAboutJordan Lake Water Supply Allocation - Public Hearing Presentation• Lead Hearing Officer’s Remarks
• Division of Water Resources Presentation
• Public Comments
• What are we allocating?
• Why are we recommending allocations?
• How did we develop our recommendations?
• What are the impacts?
WAKE
CHATHAM
LEE
HARNETT
ORANGE DURHAM
Raleigh
Durham
Cary
Sanford
Chapel Hill
Garner
Apex
Morrisville
Holly Springs
Siler City
Fuquay-Varina
Lillington
Pittsboro
Hillsborough
New Hope C
r
e
e
k
D e e p R i v e r
R
ocky River
Haw
R
i
v
e
r
Cape Fear River
B
l
a
c
k
R
iv
er
U p p e r Little River
L o w e r L ittl e R i ver
#
Jordan Lake
Dam
Surface Area 31,800 Acres
Surface Area 13,900 Acres
Flood
Control
Storage
Conservation
Storage
Sediment
Storage
Elev. 240
top of flood
control pool
Elev. 216
top of
conservation
pool
Elev. 202
bottom of
conservation
pool
Low flow augmentation
94,600 acre-feet
Water Supply
45,800 acre-feet
74,700 acre-feet
538,400 acre-feet
Total Inflow
Water
Supply
Pool
Low Flow
Augmentation
Pool
1/3 2/3
Releases to Meet Flow Target at Lillington
Water Supply Withdrawals
• Approximately 2/3rds of the Conservation
Storage
• Receives 2/3rds of all inflow to the lake
• Dedicated to maintaining a flow target at
Lillington
• Approximately 1/3rd of the Conservation
Storage
• Receives 1/3rd of all inflow to the lake
• Dedicated to public water supply storage
• Yields 100 mgd (1% allocation = 1 mgd)
Level I Level II Total
(mgd) (mgd)(mgd)
21.0 0.0 21.0
4.0 2.0 6.0
0.0 2.0 2.0
2.0 0.5 2.5
0.0 1.0 1.0
0.0 10.0 10.0
1.5 0.0 1.5
Total 28.5 15.5 44.0
Wake County - RTP
Orange Water & Sewer Authority
Orange County
Towns of Cary & Apex
Chatham County
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Morrisville
Unallocated
56%
OWASA
10%Wake County - RTP
1.5%
Orange County
1%
Morrisville
2.5%
Holly Springs
2%
Cary & Apex
21%
Chatham County
6%
• The state purchased 32.62 percent of the
lake’s storage to increase the availability of
municipal and industrial water supplies.
• The Environmental Management
Commission will assign the storage to local
governments having a need for water supply
capacity
• Projected water supply needs for a period
not to exceed 30 years
• Alternative water sources available
• Diversions from the lake’s watershed
limited to 50% of the water supply storage
Level I Level II Total
(mgd) (mgd)(mgd)
32.0 0.0 32.0
6.0 0.0 6.0
10.0 0.0 10.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
3.5 0.0 3.5
0.0 1.0 1.0
0.0 5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
3.5 0.0 3.5
Total 55.0 6.0 61.0
City of Sanford
Wake County - RTP
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Morrisville
Orange County
Orange Water & Sewer Authority
Chatham County
City of Durham
City of Fayetteville
Harnett County
Towns of Cary & Apex
Chatham County
6%
Cary & Apex
32%
Durham
10%Morrisville
3.5%Orange County
1%
Wake County - RTP
3.5%
OWASA
5%
Unallocated
39%
February-June 2000 DWR holds stakeholder meetings and defines process for Round Three
July 2000 EMC directs DWR to begin Round 3
August 2000 DWR sends notice to local governments
August-October 2000 DWR holds stakeholder meetings and defines applications and methods
October 2000 DWR sends application packets
December 2000 DWR receives draft applications
January-April 2001 DWR analyzes draft applications
January-December 2001 DWR develops Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan, Draft 1
April 2001 DWR sends comments to applicants
May 2001 DWR receives final applications
June-October 2001 DWR analyzes final applications and develops recommendations
October 2001 DWR publishes recommendations
December 2001 DWR publishes Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan, Draft 1
January-March 2002 DWR develops Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan, Draft 2
March 2002 DWR publishes Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan, Draft 2
March 2002 EMC holds public hearing
April 2002 DWR compiles public comments
April-? 2002 DWR works with public hearing officers to develop final recommendations
? 2002 EMC makes allocation decision
Applicant Initial
Interest
Dropped
Out
Final Application
Received
Towns of Cary & Apex 9 9
Chatham County 9 9
Town of Pittsboro 9
Town of Siler City 9
City of Durham 9 9
City of Fayetteville 9 9
Harnett County 9 9
Town of Holly Springs 9 9
Town of Morrisville 9 9
Orange County 9
OWASA 9
City of Sanford 9 9
Wake County - RTP 9 9
City of Greensboro 99
Town of Mount Olive 99
Level I Level II Total Level I Level II Total
(mgd) (mgd)(mgd)(mgd) (mgd)(mgd)
34.0 10.0 44.0 32.0 0.0 32.0
6.0 4.5 10.5 6.0 0.0 6.0
16.0 4.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10.0 6.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.0 1.0 5.0 3.5 0.0 3.5
0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0
0.0 28.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.5 2.0 5.5 3.5 0.0 3.5
Total 83.5 79.5 163.0 55.0 6.0 61.0
City of Sanford
Wake County - RTP
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Morrisville
Orange County
Orange Water & Sewer Autho
Chatham County
City of Durham
City of Fayetteville
Harnett County
Total Requested Allocation Total Recommended Allocation
Towns of Cary & Apex
Cary Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Apex Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Industrial
Non-residential
Residential
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Current Jordan Lake Supply
• 2030 Total Demand = 31.5 mgd
• Current Supply is Jordan Lake
• Alternative Supplies include
– Kerr Lake
– New reservoir on Middle Creek
Chatham County Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
• Current residential use rate = 59 gpcd
• Projected residential use rate =
199-203 gpcd (247% increase)
• DWR adjusted residential use rate =
85 gpcd (45% increase)
Chatham County Water Use
(based on DWR adjusted JL3 application data)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Current Jordan Lake Supply
• 2030 Total Demand = 6.0 mgd
• Current Supply includes Jordan Lake
• Current Supply is adequate, even if the rate
of residential use increases by 45%
• Did not submit applications
• Included some information in the Chatham
County application
• Current or anticipated supplies adequate to
meet 2030 projected demands
Durham Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
al
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Lake Michie &
Little River Lake Supplies
• 2030 Total Demand (w/conservation) =
46.3 mgd
• Current Supplies = 37 mgd
• Alternative Supplies include
– Expand Lake Michie
– Kerr Lake
– New reservoir on Flat River
Fayetteville Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Glenville Lake &
Cape Fear River Supplies
• 2050 Total Demand = 84.2 mgd
• Current Supplies include Glenville Lake
= 5.0 mgd
• Modeled Cape Fear River Demand
= 79.2 mgd (60.7-96.2 mgd)
• Current Supply is Adequate through 2050,
at a minimum
Harnett County Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Commercial
Residential
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Cape Fear River Supply
• 2050 Total Demand = 28.9 mgd
• Modeled Cape Fear River Demand
= 28.9 mgd (22.2-39.3 mgd)
• Current Supply is Adequate through 2050,
at a minimum
Holly Springs Water Use
(based on JL3 Applicatioin)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Cape Fear River Supply
Current Jordan Lake Supply
• 2050 Total Demand = 15.3 mgd
• Modeled Cape Fear River Demand
= 15.3 mgd (8.8-21.3 mgd)
• Current Supply is Adequate through 2050,
at a minimum
Morrisville Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
5
10
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Current Jordan Lake Supply
• 2030 Total Demand = 3.2 mgd
• Current Supply is Jordan Lake
• Alternative Supplies include
– Kerr Lake
– New reservoir on Middle Creek
Orange-Alamance & Orange Co Combined Water Use
(based on Orange County JL3 Application)
0
5
10
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
(& Orange-Alamance)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Current Jordan Lake, Lake Orange,
Corporation Lake & Well Supplies
• Assumes collaboration with Orange-
Alamance system
• 2030 Total Demand = 3.3 mgd
• Current Supply includes Jordan Lake
• Did not request an increased allocation
Orange Water and Sewer Authority Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Commercial
Residential
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Current Jordan Lake &
Future University Lake/Cane Creek Supplies
• 2030 Total Demand = 14.9 mgd
• 2030 Supplies = 24.3 mgd
• Current Supply includes Jordan Lake
• Requested reduction in Jordan Lake
allocation
Sanford Water Use
(based on JL3 Allication)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Comm. / Indust.
Residential
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Cape Fear River Supply
• 2050 Total Demand = 36.7 mgd
• Modeled Cape Fear River Demand
= 36.7 mgd (31.1-42.8 mgd)
• Current Supply is Adequate through 2050,
at a minimum
Wake County - RTP South Water Use
(based on JL3 Application)
0
5
10
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Non-biotechnical
Biotechnical
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Projected Demand
Current Jordan Lake Supply
• 2030 Total Demand = 3.4 mgd
• Current Supply is Jordan Lake
• Alternative Supplies include
– Kerr Lake
– New reservoir on Middle Creek
Total Watershed Diversion
(mgd) (mgd)
32.0 31.3
6.0 1.3
10.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
3.5 2.9
1.0 1.0
5.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
3.5 3.5
Total 61.0 40.0
City of Sanford
Wake County - RTP
Orange County
Orange Water & Sewer Authority
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Morrisville
City of Fayetteville
Harnett County
Chatham County
City of Durham
Towns of Cary & Apex
• Demand projections through 2050
• 94 local water supply systems
• All water supply systems withdrawing more
than 100,000 gpd from the Basin
• All water systems discharging more than
100,000 gpd to the Basin
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Daily Flow (cfs)
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1998 Scenario 2030 Scenario 2 2050 Scenario 1
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Daily Flow (cfs)
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1998 Scenario 2030 Scenario 2 2050 Scenario 1
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Daily Flow (cfs)
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1998 Scenario 2030 Scenario 2 2050 Scenario 1
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Daily Flow (cfs)
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1998 Scenario 2030 Scenario 2 2050 Scenario 1
Entire Year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
21
6
.
0
21
5
.
5
21
5
.
0
21
4
.
5
21
4
.
0
21
3
.
5
21
3
.
0
21
2
.
5
21
2
.
0
21
1
.
5
21
1
.
0
21
0
.
5
21
0
.
0
20
9
.
5
20
9
.
0
20
8
.
5
20
8
.
0
20
7
.
5
20
7
.
0
20
6
.
5
20
6
.
0
20
5
.
5
20
5
.
0
20
4
.
5
20
4
.
0
20
3
.
5
20
3
.
0
20
2
.
5
20
2
.
0
Daily Lake Level (feet msl)
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
%
)
1998 Scenario 2030 Scenario 2
May 1 to Sep 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
21
6
.
0
21
5
.
5
21
5
.
0
21
4
.
5
21
4
.
0
21
3
.
5
21
3
.
0
21
2
.
5
21
2
.
0
21
1
.
5
21
1
.
0
21
0
.
5
21
0
.
0
20
9
.
5
20
9
.
0
20
8
.
5
20
8
.
0
20
7
.
5
20
7
.
0
20
6
.
5
20
6
.
0
20
5
.
5
20
5
.
0
20
4
.
5
20
4
.
0
20
3
.
5
20
3
.
0
20
2
.
5
20
2
.
0
Daily Lake Level (feet msl)
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
%
)
1998 Scenario 2030 Scenario 2
Apr 1 to Jun 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
8.78.64.63.82.01.30.70.20.10.0-0.1-0.8-0.9-1.0-1.1-1.2-1.3
Daily Change in Lake Level (feet msl)
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
%
)
1998 Scenario 2030 Scenario 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Fayetteville
Durham
Cary/Apex
Sanford
Harnett Co
OWASA
Holly Springs
Chatham Co Wake Co-RTP
Morrisville
• All water supply needs are met through 2030
• All water supply needs downstream are met
through 2050
• No significant impacts to lake levels or
downstream flows
Level I Level II Total
(mgd) (mgd)(mgd)
32.0 0.0 32.0
6.0 0.0 6.0
10.0 0.0 10.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
3.5 0.0 3.5
0.0 1.0 1.0
0.0 5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
3.5 0.0 3.5
Total 55.0 6.0 61.0
City of Sanford
Wake County - RTP
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Morrisville
Orange County
Orange Water & Sewer Authority
Chatham County
City of Durham
City of Fayetteville
Harnett County
Towns of Cary & Apex
If an extreme drought or a water supply emergency caused by
water contamination or infrastructure damage threatens the
ability of a public water supply system to meet the public
health and safety needs of its customers, the Secretary of
DENR can make emergency allocations or reallocations of
the water supply storage at Jordan Lake to respond to these
emergencies. These emergency allocations or reallocations
are limited to 30 days and may be renewed for one additional
30 day period. Before taking such an action, the Secretary
shall consult with affected parties and shall specify conditions
to protect all affected water users.