Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation Rec Round Three

JORDAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY STORAGE
ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS
ROUND THREE
October 2001
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resource
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of North Carolina has purchased the use of the entire water supply storage in B.
Everett Jordan Lake. Under GS 143-354(a)(11) the State can assign this storage to any local
government demonstrating a need for water supply storage. Administrative rule T15A: 02G.0500
describes the specific procedures to be used when allocating the Jordan Lake water supply
storage. The two main criteria for Jordan Lake water supply allocations are future water needs
and availability of alternative water supplies.
On July 13, 2000, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) directed the
Division of Water Resources to open Round Three of Jordan Lake water supply storage
allocations, concurrent with the completion of Round Two. The EMC further directed the
Division to develop a Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan to determine whether there are
adequate supplies in the Basin for all communities through 2050.
Round Three of Jordan Lake water supply storage allocations has benefited from
experience with the first two rounds, and from the suggestions of water supply system managers.
Round Three has been characterized by:
· Extensive early consultation with potential applicants to establish uniform methods of
projecting future water needs;
· Use of a longer planning period (thirty years) to give applicants a more secure basis for their
water system development plans;
· Consideration of water supply needs of all communities relying upon water from above Lock
& Dam #1 through 2050 to assure that Jordan Lake allocation recommendations are
compatible with long range water needs throughout the Cape Fear River Basin; and
· Use of the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model to evaluate the effects of future water
use scenarios.
The Division of Water Resources took advantage of the extensive information available
to project water supply needs in the Cape Fear River Basin through 2050 and to develop a Cape
Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan. Information sources included Local Water Supply Plans,
water use registration data, and water use estimates from the development of the Cape Fear River
Basin Hydrologic Model. We had to make some assumptions to develop the 2050 projections.
We grouped water supply systems by existing interconnections to determine if the water sources
available for each group were adequate for that group’s future water needs. With the exception of
three small communities not affected by water use from Jordan Lake, there seems to be an
adequate supply for basin-wide water needs through 2050.
The Division of Water Resources will invite local governments and other water users to
review the data and assumptions that we used in the Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan
and to improve the plan by providing us with more specific information about their water supply
intentions. We hope that the Basin’s water users will “take ownership” of the plan, that the plan
will be periodically updated, and that the plan will provide a guide for water management in the
Basin. Note that the Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan is the Division’s attempt to
provide a plausible review of the Basin’s ability to meet future water supply needs, but that the
ii
assumptions contained in the plan are not policy statements and that the plan has no regulatory
force.
Excerpts from the Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan are contained in Appendices
B and C. The Division of Water Resources will provide more complete documentation of the
plan and hold a workshop on the plan by December, 2001, well before the public hearing on the
Round Three Jordan Lake water supply storage allocation recommendations.
The Division of Water Resources’ allocation recommendations are summarized below
and further illustrated in Table 1. The recommended allocations are based on projected needs in
2030, and are compatible with the projected needs of all water supply systems in the Cape Fear
River Basin through 2050. The following is a list of those that submitted an application for an
allocation, and the Division of Water Resources’ recommendations:
1. Chatham County – no change in existing 6.0 mgd allocation;
2. City of Durham – allocating 10.0 mgd;
3. City of Fayetteville – no allocation;
4. City of Sanford – no allocation;
5. Harnett County – no allocation;
6. Town of Holly Springs – decrease the current 2.0 mgd allocation to 0.0 mgd;
7. Orange Water and Sewer Authority – decrease current 10.0 mgd allocation to 5.0 mgd;
8. Orange County – no change in existing 1.0 mgd allocation;
9. Towns of Cary and Apex – allocating an additional 11.0 mgd for a total of 32.0 mgd;
10. Town of Morrisville – allocating an additional 1.0 mgd for a total of 3.5 mgd; and
11. Wake County/Research Triangle Park – allocating an additional 2.0 mgd for a total of 3.5
mgd.
Some of the key features of these recommended water supply storage allocations are:
· All allocation applicants will have their projected 2030 water needs met either from Jordan
Lake or from their existing water supply sources.
· These recommendations leave 39 percent of the water supply pool unallocated and available
to meet future water needs. Of the 50 percent of the Lake’s water supply storage that may be
allocated for use outside of the Lake’s watershed under current policy, at least 10 percent
remains unallocated and available for future water needs.
· Based on a projection of all Basin water supply needs to 2050, the recommended allocations
will not hinder any community’s ability to meet its 2050 water needs.
· Applicants requested allocations to meet 2050 needs, plus a 20 percent margin. The Division
of Water Resources recommended allocations to meet only 2030 needs, as specified in the
administrative rule.
· We based our recommended allocations on the water use projections developed by each
applicant with one exception. We adjusted Chatham County’s assumed per capita water use
rate to bring it more in line with the rates used by other applicants.
· No additional interbasin transfer certificates are required for the recommended allocations.
· The US Congress authorized one-third of the Jordan Lake conservation pool to be used for
water supply and two-thirds for downstream flow augmentation. Water supply storage
allocations come from the water supply pool and do not affect the project’s ability to meet
downstream flow targets.
iii
Level I allocation holders are required to pay a proportional share of the state’s water
supply storage capital and interest costs. Level I allocation holders are also required to pay
annually a proportional share of operating costs. Level II allocation are required to pay annually
a proportional share of the project’s water supply storage interest and operating costs. Holly
Springs and OWASA hold Level II allocations. The Division of Water Resources recommends
reimbursements only of payments toward capital costs when allocations are reassigned.
Therefore, we recommend no reimbursement of payments made by OWASA or Holly Springs.
Table 1. Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations for Round Three (a)
Applicant
Current
Total
Allocation
(mgd)
Requested
Total
Allocation
(mgd)
Recommended
Total
Allocation
(mgd)
Interbasin Transfer
Certification
Required
Chatham County 6.0 10.5 6.0 No
City of Durham 0 20.0 10.0 No
City of Fayetteville 0 not specified 0 No
City of Sanford 0 28.0 0 No
Harnett County 0 18.0 0 No
Town of Holly Springs 2.0 16.0 0 No
OWASA 10.0 5.0 5.0 No
Orange County 1.0 1.0 1.0 No
Towns of Cary and Apex 21.0 44.0 32.0 No
Town of Morrisville 2.5 5.0 3.5 No
Wake County/
Research Triangle Park 1.5 5.5 3.5 No
Total 44.0 153.0 61.0
(a) Allocations obtained are actually a percentage of the water supply storage in Jordan Lake.
However, since all (100 percent) of the water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of
100 mgd, allocations are conveniently expressed here in terms of mgd. For example, a 6.0
mgd allocation actually represents an allocation of 6.0 percent of Jordan Lake’s water supply
storage.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................iv
BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................1
METHOD ...........................................................................................................................................1
MODEL SCENARIO RESULTS .............................................................................................................2
ALLOCATION CRITERIA.....................................................................................................................4
ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................5
APPLICANTS USING CAPE FEAR RIVER BELOW JORDAN DAM..........................................................8
APPLICANTS USING WATER SUPPLIES ABOVE JORDAN DAM..........................................................18
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. COMPARISON OF APPLICATION DATA....................................................................A-1
APPENDIX B. MODEL SCENARIO 1 DATA......................................................................................B-1
APPENDIX C. MODEL SCENARIO 2 DATA......................................................................................C-1
1
BACKGROUND
The State of North Carolina has purchased the use of the entire water supply storage in B.
Everett Jordan Lake. Under GS 143-354(a)(11), the State can assign this storage to any local
government having a need for water supply storage. Administrative rule T15A: 02G.0500
describes the specific procedures to be used when allocating the Jordan Lake water supply
storage. The two main criteria for Jordan Lake water supply allocations are future water needs
and availability of alternative water supplies.
On July 13, 2000, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) directed the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) to open Round Three of Jordan Lake water supply storage
allocations, concurrent with the completion of Round Two. The EMC further directed the
Division to develop a Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan to assist in evaluating
applications and to provide recommended Jordan Lake allocations to the Water Allocation
Committee.
METHOD
In the fall of 2000, the Division of Water Resources staff held a series of meetings with
potential applicants and other interested parties to discuss the application process and the data
required to evaluate allocation requests and long-term water supply needs. During December
2000 and January 2001, We received draft applications from all applicants, except the Chatham
County and Harnett County water systems. We carefully reviewed the draft applications and
offered comments and suggestions to improve final applications. In May 2001, we received
eleven. Most of our comments on the draft applications were addressed in the final applications,
simplifying the review of final applications.
Round Three applications included projections of water demands to 2050. We also
developed estimates of 2050 demands for the local government water systems in the basin that
did not apply for an allocation. For non-applicants, we relied on the Local Water Supply Plan
(LWSP) database and linear projections of population through 2050. We estimated future
demand for those systems by applying water use rates from LWSPs to our population
projections. We analyzed all the systems, determining the interconnections among systems and
the amounts of water being transferred. We then grouped systems based upon their
interconnections. We determined that the total projected demands for each group of systems
could be met by the total available supply reported for each group. In short, there seems to be an
adequate water supply within the basin to meet projected 2050 water demands, ensuring that any
allocation of Jordan Lake water supply storage will not undermine the ability of any water
supply system in the Cape Fear River Basin to meet its projected water demands.
We used the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model to evaluate requests for
allocations from Jordan Lake and to evaluate long-term water supply needs in the basin. To do
so, we developed two modeling scenarios. Scenario 1 evaluates the long-term water supply needs
in the basin projected for 2050. Scenario 2 evaluates the basin water supply needs and
recommended Jordan Lake water supply storage allocations for 2030. Lacking definitive
information, we assumed that wastewater discharge permits would be adjusted to accommodate
2
the amount of wastewater generated by the projected water demands for all water supply
systems. We did not incorporate any drought management measures for Jordan Lake
withdrawals or releases or for any water supply withdrawals for these scenarios. We assumed
that self-supplied industrial withdrawals and agricultural withdrawals would remain constant.
To evaluate the long-term water supply needs in the Cape Fear River Basin and the
cumulative effects of these demands throughout the basin above Lock & Dam #1 for Scenario 1,
we incorporated the maximum demands for the Basin’s water supply systems in 2050. Therefore,
we used the projections as provided in the Jordan Lake applications without making any
adjustments based on our application evaluations. In designing Scenario 1, we incorporated
future Jordan Lake water supply storage allocations based on 2050 projected needs. These
hypothetical 2050 allocations are necessary for modeling and for long-range planning, but do not
reflect any intention by DWR or the EMC. No one should assume that the Division of Water
Resources would recommend or that the EMC would make any such allocations.
To evaluate the Basin water supply needs and recommended Jordan Lake water supply
storage allocations for 2030, and the cumulative effects of these demands throughout the basin
above Lock & Dam #1 for Scenario 2, we incorporated the same projections used for Scenario 1
adjusted for 2030 with the following exception. For Scenario 2, we adjusted the projected water
demands for Chatham County, Siler City and Pittsboro based upon our evaluations of all Jordan
Lake water supply storage applications. Our application evaluations are described in later
sections.
MODEL SCENARIO RESULTS
Model scenario results indicate that, with a couple of exceptions, there is enough water to
meet the projected needs in 2050 without significant effects on the reliability of the Jordan Lake
low-flow augmentation pool, the ability to meet the flow target at the Lillington stream gage, or
downstream flows of the Cape Fear River. The aforementioned exceptions concern the towns of
Robbins, Carthage and Vass. The present water supply sources of these towns may not reliably
meet their projected demands in 2030. Note that Jordan Lake water supply storage allocations do
not impact the water supplies available to these communities in any way.
About two-thirds of the usable storage in Jordan Lake is used for low-flow augmentation
to improve water quality downstream. Water is released from the low-flow augmentation pool
with the goal of maintaining a target flow of 600 cubic feet per second (cfs), plus or minus 50
cfs, at the stream gage at Lillington. This resource provides a minimum flow downstream of the
dam significantly higher than pre-dam flows. Prior to the initiation of water releases from Jordan
Lake the 7Q10 flow (lowest seven-day average flow with an expected recurrence interval of ten
years) at Lillington was 75 cfs. For the period since the filling of Jordan Lake the US Geologic
Survey (USGS) currently calculates the 7Q10 flow at 530 cfs.
Model scenario results indicate that the reliability of the low-flow augmentation pool will
decrease by only 0.3 percent by 2030 and by 0.9 percent by 2050, compared with 1998. This
decrease in reliability is a result of the large increases in projected demands for the water supply
systems withdrawing water from the Deep River Basin and from between Jordan Dam and
3
Lillington. The total projected increase in these withdrawals is 65.8 mgd by 2030 (an increase of
201 percent compared with 1998 withdrawals) and 108.9 mgd by 2050 (an increase of 333
percent compared with 1998 withdrawals). This means that multiplying the total withdrawals of
all water supply systems affecting the flows at Lillington by four-and-one-third results in less
than a 1 percent decrease in the reliability of the low-flow augmentation pool. Note that these
modeled impacts on reliability do not incorporate any drought management measures. Drought
management will improve the reliability of the low-flow augmentation pool.
Model scenario results also indicate that the slight decrease in reliability will not
significantly affect the ability to meet the flow target at the Lillington stream gage. The flow
profile at Lillington remains almost unchanged among the model scenarios. See Figure 1, below.
Figure 1. Modeled Cape Fear River Flows at Lillington
Four of the Round Three applications are from water systems located downstream of
Jordan Dam. Based on the information provided in their applications, we expect these systems to
rely upon withdrawals from the Cape Fear River to meet their future water demands. Model
Scenario 1 incorporates their 2050 projected water demands as given in their applications. The
results of Scenario 1 indicate there will be adequate water available at their current or planned
intake locations. Therefore, these systems (Sanford, Holly Springs, Harnett County, and
Fayetteville) do not need an allocation from Jordan Lake to meet their projected water demands.
Summary information and water use graphs for these systems are included in this report.
Some of the applications for the four downstream applicants included population
increases greater than those made by DWR staff based on Department of Administration data
and large assumed increases in industrial and other non-residential water uses. For this reason,
the projections made by these communities can be assumed to be at the very high end of the
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
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
4
range of projected water use. However, because our review showed that these four water systems
could meet their 2050 needs from the Cape Fear River without a Jordan Lake allocation, we did
not subject data in these applications to the same level of scrutiny as we did the data provided by
other applicants. We reviewed the remaining applications in detail. We checked the assumptions,
use rates and calculations the applicants had used to develop demand projections for
reasonableness and consistency with DWR’s application guidelines. Final applications for those
systems that submitted a draft application incorporated responses to DWR’s comments on the
draft application, simplifying our review. Each application will be discussed separately,
including charts showing projected population, demand growth and any adjustments we made to
the applicants’ water demand projections.
ALLOCATION CRITERIA
The two main criteria for Jordan Lake water supply storage allocations are future water
needs and availability of alternative water supplies. Applications submitted in May 2001
contained the following information:
§ projected population and water use
§ safe yield estimates of current and alternative sources
§ description of conservation and demand management practices
§ outline of plan to use water from Jordan Lake
§ plan for monitoring water quality
§ cost of developing water supply facilities at Jordan Lake
§ costs of alternative sources of supply
§ a commitment to assume costs of allocation
Water demand is computed on an average day basis to correspond with the Jordan Lake
safe yield estimate, as well as the safe yield estimates of other water supplies. Applicants were
asked to provide estimates of water supply needs through 2050. However, the rules governing
allocation limit allocations to the expected amount of water needed within 30 years. Allocations
in Round Three are based on projected average daily water demands in 2030.
Future Water Needs
Applicants provided estimates of water use for the period 2000 through 2050. The
Division performed an independent analysis of future needs for all applicants. Our analysis
considered factors affecting water demand, including:
§ population growth
§ service area expansion
§ conservation
§ unaccounted-for water use
§ interconnections
§ industrial development
In addition to analyzing applicants’ projections, we estimated future service area
population for other systems using water from the Haw, Deep and Cape Fear rivers through the
year 2050. We based population projections on service area population projections from the
5
Local Water Supply Plan database and Office of State Planning projections of county population
through 2020. We compared applicants’ population projections with projected total county
populations for each county in which an applicant is located.
Applicants’ future water use rates included the effects of water conservation, industrial
growth, and changing urban patterns. Expected changes in the proportions of residential and non-
residential water use can affect water use rates. Conservation savings are expected to result from
changes in plumbing codes, improved system maintenance, customer education, and adoption of
water reuse.
We estimated future water use by multiplying estimated service population by the future
per capita rates for non-applicants to look at expected demands of neighboring and inter-related
systems.
Alternatives
Applicants were required to provide information on alternative water supplies that could
be developed in lieu of a Jordan Lake allocation. Alternatives may include bulk purchases from
other suppliers, new reservoir and well development, and reservoir expansion. The list of
alternatives should have included all potential sources that the system had previously evaluated,
or potential sources that might be easily evaluated. Systems were not required to perform
extensive feasibility studies of new, potential supplies. The Division evaluated each alternative
based on financial cost and the difficulty of developing the resource in comparison with a Jordan
Lake withdrawal. The Division also considered the impact of each alternative on interbasin
transfer and other environmental impacts.
ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Division of Water Resources’ allocation recommendations are summarized below
and further illustrated in Table 1. The recommended allocations are based on projected needs in
2030, and are compatible with the projected needs of all water supply systems in the Cape Fear
River Basin through 2050. The following is a list of those systems that submitted an application
for an allocation, and the Division of Water Resources’ recommendations:
1. Chatham County – no change in existing 6.0 mgd allocation;
2. City of Durham – allocating 10.0 mgd;
3. City of Fayetteville – no allocation;
4. City of Sanford – no allocation;
5. Harnett County – no allocation;
6. Town of Holly Springs – decrease the current 2.0 mgd allocation to 0.0 mgd;
7. Orange Water and Sewer Authority – decrease current 10.0 mgd allocation to 5.0 mgd;
8. Orange County – no change in existing 1.0 mgd allocation;
9. Towns of Cary and Apex – allocating an additional 11.0 mgd for a total of 32.0 mgd;
10. Town of Morrisville – allocating an additional 1.0 mgd for a total of 3.5 mgd; and
11. Wake County/Research Triangle Park – allocating an additional 2.0 mgd for a total of 3.5
mgd.
6
The Division of Water Resources recommends that the State reimburse allocation holders
for the amounts of principle they have paid on the original capital investment costs for any
allocation amounts reassigned.
Table 1. Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations for Round Three (a)
Applicant
Current
Allocation
(mgd)
Requested
Total
Allocation
(mgd)
Recommended
Total
Allocation
(mgd)
Interbasin Transfer
Certification
Required
Chatham County 6.0 10.5 6.0 No
City of Durham 0 20.0 10.0 No
City of Fayetteville 0 not specified 0 No
City of Sanford 0 28.0 0 No
Harnett County 0 18.0 0 No
Town of Holly Springs 2.0 16.0 0 No
OWASA 10.0 5.0 5.0 No
Orange County 1.0 1.0 1.0 No
Towns of Cary and Apex 21.0 44.0 32.0 No
Town of Morrisville 2.5 5.0 3.5 No
Wake County/
Research Triangle Park 1.5 5.5 3.5 No
Total 44.0 153.0 61.0
(a)Allocations obtained are actually a percentage of the water supply storage in Jordan Lake.
However, since all (100 percent) of the water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of
100 mgd, allocations are conveniently expressed here in terms of mgd. For example, a 6.0
mgd allocation actually represents an allocation of 6.0 percent of Jordan Lake’s water supply
storage.
Watershed Diversions
The Jordan Lake watershed is that portion of the Haw River Basin upstream of Jordan
Lake Dam. To protect the yield of Jordan Lake’s water supply storage, the current administrative
rule on Jordan Lake water allocation limits allocations that will result in diversions out of the
Lake’s watershed to 50 percent of the total water supply yield, or 50 mgd. This provision is
specific to the Lake’s watershed, because water returned below the dam does not replenish the
reservoir. The EMC may review and revise this limit based on experience in managing the Lake
and on the effects of changes in the Lake’s watershed that will affect its yield.
This 50 mgd limit refers to annual average diversions, since yields are typically based on
annual averages. Table 2 summarizes the estimated diversions out of the Lake’s watershed,
7
based on the 2030 demand projections and the recommended allocation amounts. As shown, an
estimated 40 mgd of the 61 mgd total recommended allocation would be diverted out of the
Lake’s watershed by 2030, leaving at least 10 mgd of the water supply storage still available for
future allocations outside the lake’s watershed under the current 50 mgd limit. This limit does
not need to be revised for Round Three.
Table 2. Estimated 2015 Jordan Lake Watershed Diversions
Applicant
Total Recommended
Allocation
(mgd) 1
2030 Watershed
Diversion
(mgd) 2
Chatham County 6.0 1.3
City of Durham 10.0 0
OWASA 5.0 0
Orange County 1.0 1.0
Towns of Cary and Apex 32.0 31.3
Town of Morrisville 3.5 2.9
Wake County/ Research Triangle Park 3.5 3.5
TOTAL 61.0 40.0
1 Includes existing allocation amounts
2 Watershed Diversion is an estimate of the quantity of water withdrawn from Jordan Lake, but not returned to the
Jordan Lake watershed. This quantity is on an Average Daily Demand basis.
Orange County does not currently have a water supply system, but anticipates supplying
water to county residents through the Orange-Alamance water system. There is likely to be some
amount of water withdrawn from the Jordan Lake watershed, but it is impossible to estimate the
quantity. We have therefore set the quantity diverted from the watershed at the maximum
possible. Wake County did not provide the information necessary to calculate the amount of
water diverted from the Jordan Lake watershed. We have therefore set the quantity at the
maximum possible. Our estimated 2030 watershed diversion of 40 mgd is likely to be greater
than the actual amount.
Interbasin Transfer
Any amount of water over 2 mgd (calculated on a maximum day demand basis)
withdrawn from one river basin and discharged to another river basin may constitute an
interbasin transfer under the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act (GS 143-215.22I). For
the purposes of our Jordan Lake water supply storage allocation recommendations, we are only
concerned with those water withdrawals from a recommended Jordan Lake allocation that might
constitute an interbasin transfer. The only water supply systems for which we have
recommended Jordan Lake allocations that fall into this category are Chatham, Orange and Wake
Counties, and the Towns of Cary, Apex and Morrisville. None of these systems will require a
new interbasin transfer certificate.
Chatham County will have a projected interbasin transfer amount of 1.9 mgd if they
supply the western portion of their county with water withdrawn from Jordan Lake. Jordan Lake
lies within the Haw River Basin and the western portion of Chatham County lies within the Deep
River Basin. This estimate is based on information provided within their application and on
8
information provided in the Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update (Hobbs, Upchurch
and Associates 2000). This projected amount is below the 2 mgd threshold. Therefore no
interbasin transfer certificate will be required as a result of our recommended allocation for
Chatham County.
Orange County will likely have some amount of interbasin transfer. The southern part of
the county lies within the Haw River Basin and the northern part of the county lies within the
Neuse River Basin. However, we have recommended maintaining their current allocation of 1.0
mgd. This allocation amount is unlikely to allow any withdrawal from Jordan Lake sufficient to
constitute an interbasin transfer above the 2 mgd threshold. Therefore, no interbasin transfer
certificate will be required as a result of our recommended allocation for Orange County.
Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Wake County were granted an interbasin transfer certificate
in 2001 that allows them to transfer up to 24 mgd from the Haw River Basin to the Neuse River
Basin, subject to several conditions. Therefore, no interbasin transfer certificate will be required
as a result of our recommended allocations to Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Wake County.
APPLICANTS USING CAPE FEAR RIVER BELOW JORDAN DAM
If available supplies are adequate, then additional supplies, such as an allocation from
Jordan Lake, will not be needed to meet projected water demands. The US Geological Survey
recently completed a study of low-flow conditions in the Cape Fear River Basin, improving our
estimates of the amounts of water available to systems on the Cape Fear River. USGS published
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4094: Low-Flow Characteristics and Discharge
Profiles for Selected Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, through 1998 in
2001. This document provides the low-flow figures that we used to estimate the available water
supplies in this analysis.
City of Sanford
The City of Sanford withdraws water from the Cape Fear River approximately 10 miles
downstream from Jordan Dam in the impoundment created by Buckhorn Dam. Sanford’s 1998
withdrawal was 6.2 mgd and their projected 2050 withdrawal is 36.7 mgd. The Cape Fear
hydrologic model scenario results indicate that there will be no difficulty in meeting Sanford’s
2050 projected needs. The total projected increase in withdrawals upstream of Sanford is 75.6
mgd by 2030 (an increase of 72 percent compared with 1998 withdrawals) and 124.4 mgd by
2050 (an increase of 118 percent compared with 1998 withdrawals). Despite these large
projected increases in upstream withdrawals, the model scenarios indicate that a 13.0 mgd
increase in Sanford’s withdrawal by 2030 (an increase of 210 percent compared with 1998) and
30.5 mgd increase by 2050 (an increase of 494 percent compared with 1998) result in only a 0.3
percent decrease in the reliability of their water supply by 2030 and a 0.7 percent decrease by
2050, compared with 1998. This minute decrease in reliability is a result of the large increases in
projected demands for the water supply systems withdrawing water from the Deep and Haw
River Basins, as well as the large projected increase in Sanford’s withdrawal. Note that these
modeled impacts on reliability do not incorporate any drought management for Jordan Lake or
any water supply systems in the Basin. Drought management measures will improve the
9
reliability of water supplies. The table and graph below summarize the demand projections from
Sanford’s application.
It is important to note that the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model treats the stretch
of river between Jordan Lake and Lillington as a free-flowing river, ignoring the water
impounded by Buckhorn Dam. Therefore, the model does not accurately account for the return
flows from the CP&L-Cape Fear power plant at the Sanford intake. The CP&L-Cape Fear plant
withdraws water above Sanford and returns water above Buckhorn Dam, but below Sanford’s
intake. The return flows contribute to the amount of water available at Sanford’s intake and
would improve the reliability of Sanford’s supply at the current location. The insignificant
decrease in reliability indicated by the model scenarios is an artifact of modeling the waters
impounded by Buckhorn Dam as a free-flowing stream segment. DWR determined that Sanford
does not need an allocation from Jordan Lake to meet their anticipated water demands.
If Sanford does not receive an allocation, they will have no interbasin transfer associated
with using water from Jordan Lake. However, they may need an interbasin transfer certificate as
water demand grows. Their current water supply system withdraws water from the Cape Fear
River and distributes finished water to customers in the Cape Fear and Deep River Basins,
discharging wastewater to the Deep River where it flows past the point of withdrawal on the
Cape Fear River. However, water used in the Deep River Basin and not collected and treated for
discharge back to the Deep River constitutes consumptive use in the Deep River Basin. Under
the current rules governing interbasin transfers, a transfer certificate will be needed before
consumptive use exceeds 2 mgd. According to Sanford’s application, consumptive use in the
Deep River Basin in 2000 was 1.55 mgd. The application did not provide enough information to
assess when the 2 mgd threshold is likely to be exceeded.
City of Sanford Application Data
City of Sanford Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 27,000 34,800 40,900 48,000 56,600 66,600 76,000 83,700 92,100 101,400 111,600
Percent of Estimated County Population 55%66%72%80%88%98%106%111%116%122%129%
Residential Use (mgd)1.8 2.4 2.8 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.3 5.8 6.4 7.0 7.7
Residential Use (gpcd)65 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Commercial Use (mgd)2.5 3.1 3.7 4.6 5.6 6.8 8.2 10.0 12.2 14.9 18.2
Commercial Use (gpcd)93 88 90 95 98 101 108 120 133 147 163
Industrial Use (mgd) (included in Commercial)
Industrial Use (gpcd)
Institutional Use (mgd)0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.5
Institutional Use (gpcd)19 17 17 17 17 17 17 19 20 21 23
System Processes (mgd)0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.4
System Processes (gpcd)34 34 35 36 36 37 37 39 42 45 48
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.8
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)23 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 23 24 25
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)6.3 7.9 9.4 11.3 13.6 16.2 19.1 22.4 26.4 31.1 36.6
Total Demand (gpcd)233 228 231 236 240 244 252 268 287 306 328
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
10
Cape Fear River Flows at Buckhorn
(from Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
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
Sanford 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
Comm. / Indust.
Residential
11
Town of Holly Springs
The Town of Holly Springs currently purchases water from the City of Raleigh and from
Harnett County to meet their water needs. Raleigh will not be able to supply Holly Springs with
enough water to accommodate their projected needs. Holly Springs holds a 2 mgd allocation
from Jordan Lake. To use their allocation, they intend to build a water treatment plant
somewhere on the Cape Fear River below Jordan Lake or to purchase capacity in Harnett
County’s facility on the River in Lillington. Either of these options would put their intake in the
reach of river with flows augmented by releases from Jordan Lake.
DWR modeled Holly Springs’ future water supply withdrawals by assigning their intake
to the Cape Fear River at the same location as the Harnett County intake. Lacking an in-stream
flow study for that location, we estimated the available supply by using the general planning
guideline of 20% of the 7Q10 flow of 530 cfs, as reported by USGS. Based on this figure, the
amount of water that would likely be available at that location for water supply is 68.5 mgd. We
divided the 68.5 mgd between Holly Springs and Harnett County for the model scenarios with
34.25 mgd assigned to each. With both intakes in close proximity, we modeled the withdrawals
so that the cumulative withdrawal for both systems does not exceed the available supply. We
chose to split the amount evenly for modeling purposes.
DWR determined that Holly Springs does not need an allocation from Jordan Lake and
recommends that the 2 mgd allocation they currently hold be reassigned to the unallocated water
supply pool. Based on Holly Springs’ projected water demand, we estimated their 2050 water
withdrawal from the Cape Fear River at 15.3 mgd. Model scenario results indicate that Holly
Springs will be able to withdrawal this amount with no change in reliability by 2030 or 2050,
compared with 1998. The total projected increase in withdrawals upstream of Holly Springs is
88.6 mgd by 2030 (an increase of 79 percent compared with 1998 withdrawals) and 154.9 mgd
by 2050 (an increase of 139 percent compared with 1998 withdrawals). Despite these large
projected increases in upstream withdrawals, the model scenarios indicate that a 12.2 mgd
withdrawal by 2030 and a 15.3 mgd withdrawal by 2050 result in no decrease in the reliability of
their water supply by 2030 or by 2050, compared with 1998.
Holly Springs does not have an interbasin transfer related to using water from Jordan
Lake with their current 2 mgd allocation or recommended allocation. However, as water
demands grow consumptive use in the Neuse Basin will increase. If development progresses as
described in their application, interbasin transfer will become an issue between 2025 and 2030
whether the water comes from Jordan Lake or the Cape Fear River. Population and water use
projections for Holly Springs are summarized in the table and graph below.
12
Town of Holly Springs Application Data
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
Town of Holly Springs Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 9,192 21,506 37,275 54,235 71,403 87,211 103,890 114,816 122,221 125,002 125,002
Percent of Estimated County Population 1.5%2.9%4.4%5.7%6.7%7.4%8.0%8.2%8.1%7.7%7.2%
Residential Use (mgd)0.7 1.6 2.8 4.1 5.4 6.5 7.8 8.6 9.2 9.4 9.4
Residential Use (gpcd)75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Commercial Use (mgd)0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3
Commercial Use (gpcd)10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Industrial Use (mgd)0.1 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.1
Industrial Use (gpcd)7 18 20 20 19 20 20 21 22 24 24
Institutional Use (mgd)0.01 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Institutional Use (gpcd)1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2
System Processes (mgd)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8
System Processes (gpcd)5 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)1.0 2.6 4.6 6.7 8.8 10.8 12.8 14.3 15.4 16.1 16.1
Total Demand (gpcd)108 122 123 123 123 123 123 125 126 129 129
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
13
Harnett County
The Harnett County water system withdraws water from the Cape Fear River in
Lillington. The intake is located just upstream of the stream gage used as a guide for releases
from the low-flow augmentation pool of Jordan Lake. In addition to county residents, Harnett
County’s application included demand projections for the Towns of Coats, Lillington, Angier
and Linden as part of their service area demand. Harnett County also provides water to Holly
Springs and Fuquay-Varina in Wake County, and to the community of Woodlake in Moore
County.
The Harnett County water system’s service area demands, as presented in their
application, are summarized in the table and graph shown below. DWR modeled Harnett
County’s future water demands and evaluated the ability of the system to meet their withdrawal
needs. Lacking an in-stream flow study for that location, we estimated the available supply by
using the general planning guideline of 20% of the 7Q10 flow of 530 cfs, reported by USGS.
Based on this figure, the amount of water that would likely be available at that location for water
supply is 68.5 mgd. We divided the 68.5 mgd between Harnett County and Holly Springs for the
model scenarios with 34.25 mgd assigned to each. With both intakes in close proximity, we
modeled the withdrawals so that the cumulative withdrawal for both systems does not exceed the
available supply. We chose to split the amount evenly for modeling purposes.
DWR determined that Harnett County does not need an allocation from Jordan Lake to
meet anticipated water demands, and the projected withdrawals will not significantly affect flows
Cape Fear River Flows at Lillington
(from Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
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
14
downstream. Based on Harnett County’s projected water demands, we estimated their 2050
water withdrawal from the Cape Fear River at 28.9 mgd. Model scenario results indicate that
Harnett County will be able to withdrawal this amount with no change in reliability by 2030 or
2050, compared with the reliability of their water source in1998. The total projected increase in
withdrawals upstream of Harnett County is 88.6 mgd by 2030 (an increase of 79 percent
compared with 1998 withdrawals) and 154.9 mgd by 2050 (an increase of 139 percent compared
with 1998 withdrawals). Despite these large projected increases in upstream withdrawals, the
model scenarios indicate that an 11.7 mgd increase in withdrawal by 2030 (an increase of 198
percent compared with their 1998 withdrawal) and a 23.0 mgd increase in withdrawal by 2050
(an increase of 391 percent compared with their 1998 withdrawal) result in no decrease in the
reliability of their water supply by 2030 or by 2050, compared with 1998. Interbasin transfer is
not an issue for this system based on the available information.
Harnett County Application Data
Harnett County Public Utilities Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 66,097 75,112 85,356 96,997 110,226 125,259 142,342 161,755 183,816 208,885 237,374
Percent of Estimated County Population 73%73%74%76%78%82%86%91%96%103%110%
Residential Use (mgd)4.1 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.8 7.8 8.8 10.0 11.4 13.0 14.7
Residential Use (gpcd)62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62
Commercial Use (mgd)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6
Commercial Use (gpcd)3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Industrial Use (mgd) (included in Commercial)
Industrial Use (gpcd)
Institutional Use (mgd)0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3
Institutional Use (gpcd)4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
System Processes (mgd)0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
System Processes (gpcd)13 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)6.4 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.9 11.2 12.8 14.5 16.4 18.7 21.3
Total Demand (gpcd)98 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 89 90 90
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
15
Cape Fear River Flows at Lillington
(from Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
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
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
Mil
l
i
o
n

G
a
l
l
o
n
s

p
e
r

D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Commercial
Residential
16
City of Fayetteville
The Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville provides water to customers in
Fayetteville and surrounding areas of Cumberland County, including the towns of Spring Lake
and Hope Mills. PWC also supplies water to the Hoke County Regional Water System for
customers in eastern Hoke County. According to their application, PWC expects to serve 90% of
the county population by 2030. In 2000, PWC supplied 58% of the county population with an
average daily water use of 26.6 mgd. PWC’s major raw water supply is the Cape Fear River with
an additional 5 mgd available from a series of impoundments on Little Cross Creek and Big
Cross Creek.
Based on the recent USGS report, DWR staff used 625 cfs as the 7Q10 flow at
Fayetteville. Lacking an in-stream flow study for that location, we estimated the available supply
by using the general planning guideline of 20% of the 7Q10 flow of 625 cfs. Based on this
figure, the amount of water that would likely be available at PWC’s intake for water supply is
80.8 mgd. Combined with the 5 mgd supply from their other sources, PWC has an estimated
available supply of 85.8 mgd. PWC projects needing 76.6 mgd to meet projected water demands
in 2050. As noted above, the model scenarios indicate no significant reduction in the reliability
of flows at Lillington and downstream. The projections provided in PWC’s application are
summarized in the table and graph below.
DWR determined that Fayetteville PWC does not need an allocation from Jordan Lake to
meet anticipated water demands. Based on PWC’s projected water demands, assuming that the 5
mgd available from the Glenville Lake system is used, their 2050 water withdrawal from the
Cape Fear River would be 71 mgd. Model scenario results indicate that Fayetteville will be able
to withdrawal this amount with no significant change in reliability in 2030 or 2050, compared
with the reliability of the source to meet their demand in 1998. The total projected increase in
withdrawals upstream of Fayetteville is 114.5 mgd by 2030 (an increase of 93 percent compared
with 1998 withdrawals) and 197.0 mgd by 2050 (an increase of 161 percent compared with 1998
withdrawals). Despite these large projected increases in upstream withdrawals, the model
scenarios indicate that a 38.6 mgd increase in withdrawal by 2030 (an increase of 213 percent
compared with their 1998 withdrawal) and a 57.1 mgd increase in their withdrawal by 2050 (an
increase of 314 percent compared with their 1998 withdrawal) result in no decrease in the
reliability of their water supply by 2030 and only a 0.2 percent decrease in reliability by 2050,
compared with 1998. This minute decrease in reliability is a result of the large increases in
projected demands for the water supply systems withdrawing water upstream of Fayetteville, as
well as the large projected increase in PWC’s withdrawal. Note that these modeled impacts on
reliability do not incorporate any drought management for Jordan Lake or any water supply
systems in the Basin. Drought management measures will improve the reliability of water
supplies.
Interbasin transfer is not currently an issue for this system. However, their application
indicates an intention to serve 90% of Cumberland County residents in the future. Since the
eastern portions of the county are in the South River Basin, an interbasin transfer certificate will
be needed before consumptive use of water in the South River Basin is allowed to exceed 2 mgd.
17
City of Fayetteville Application Data
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
City of Fayetteville Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 178,200 210,370 243,160 278,310 315,840 355,740 402,480 423,810 445,140 466,470 487,800
Percent of Estimated County Population 59%66%73%79%86%93%101%103%104%105%106%
Residential Use (mgd)14.0 15.9 17.8 19.8 22.0 24.3 27.0 27.9 28.8 29.7 30.6
Residential Use (gpcd)79 76 73 71 70 68 67 66 65 64 63
Commercial Use (mgd)4.7 5.4 6.0 6.7 7.3 8.0 8.8 9.2 9.7 10.2 10.6
Commercial Use (gpcd)26 26 25 24 23 22 22 22 22 22 22
Industrial Use (mgd)3.9 5.5 7.7 9.9 11.9 13.8 15.8 17.6 19.5 22.1 24.6
Industrial Use (gpcd)22 26 32 36 38 39 39 42 44 47 50
Institutional Use (mgd)
Institutional Use (gpcd)
System Processes (mgd)1.9 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.9 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.5 5.8
System Processes (gpcd)11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.1 4.4
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)25.9 30.7 36.1 41.7 47.3 53.0 59.3 63.0 66.9 71.6 76.0
Total Demand (gpcd)145 146 148 150 150 149 147 149 150 153 156
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
18
APPLICANTS USING WATER SUPPLIES ABOVE JORDAN DAM
Orange County
Orange County currently holds a 1 mgd allocation from Jordan Lake and submitted an
application to retain it. Orange County does not currently operate a water distribution system.
The County’s role is as a provider of raw water for water systems to distribute to residents of the
county. In 1972, the County constructed Lake Orange as a water supply source. Orange County
manages the lake to maintain minimum flows in the Eno River and to provide water for
Hillsborough. The Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. and Piedmont Minerals are other
significant water supply users on the Eno River. Hillsborough has recently developed an
additional water supply source on the West Fork of the Eno River.
The I-85/I-40 corridor west of Hillsborough has been designated by a county-wide utility
agreement as an Orange County “interest” area. Much of this area is currently served by the
Orange-Alamance Water System, a private non-profit community water system. This system
would be the logical provider of water for the rest of this area. However, the Orange-Alamance
system lacks a dependable long-term supply of water. In 2000, Orange-Alamance provided an
average of 1.1 mgd of water to 11,500 people. The 20-year safe yield of their surface water
Cape Fear River Flows at Fayetteville
(from Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
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
19
supply is listed in their Local Water Supply Plan as 0.37 mgd, which they supplement with
ground water from two wells having a combined 12-hour yield of 0.1 million gallons. The
system relies on short-term “emergency” purchases from the Hillsborough and Graham-Mebane
water systems to meet existing customer demand.
Orange County’s goal in maintaining their allocation is to provide a reliable long-term
source of water to county residents by making water available to existing water systems, most
likely to Orange-Alamance. Use of water from Jordan Lake will require inter-local agreements
for transfer and distribution of water. Orange County’s application is based on demand
projections developed by County staff for the Orange-Alamance Water System and surrounding
county lands. The table and graph below summarize these projections. Orange County requested
that they be allowed to keep their current 1 mgd allocation from Jordan Lake. DWR recommends
that Orange County’s 1.0 mgd allocation be continued. DWR’s analysis suggests that if they can
reach agreement with the Orange-Alamance Water System and develop the necessary inter-local
agreements to move water from the lake, they will likely need more water from Jordan Lake in
the future. Combining Orange-Alamance’s existing available supply with the 1 mgd allocation
will meet their needs until about 2010.
Orange-Alamance Water System Data prepared and submitted by Orange County
Orange-Alamance Water System prepared and submitted by Orange County
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 13800 15550 17300 19050 20800 22550 24300 26050 27800 29550 31300
Percent of Estimated County Population 12%12%12%12%12%13%13%13%13%13%13%
Residential Use (mgd)0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4
Residential Use (gpcd)46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
Commercial Use (mgd)0.05 0.08 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Commercial Use (gpcd)4 5 6 8 10 10 10 10 11 11 11
Industrial Use (mgd) (included in Commercial)0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8
Industrial Use (gpcd)15 19 23 30 37 42 46 50 53 56 59
Institutional Use (mgd)0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06
Institutional Use (gpcd)2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
System Processes (mgd)0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
System Processes (gpcd)2.2 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)15 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.0
Total Demand (gpcd)85 88 92 100 107 112 116 120 123 126 128
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
20
Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)
OWASA provides water to residents of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and their defined Urban
Services Area in southeastern Orange County. In 2000, the system supplied on average 9.3 mgd
of water to 71,900 people. The size of their planned service area is not expected to increase
within the 50 year planning horizon covered by Round Three allocation applications. With
limited land available, OWASA expects to reach buildout by the end of the planning horizon.
For this application, they based their demand forecasts on linear projections of the “moderate
growth rates experienced during the past 20 to 25 years.” OWASA’s existing University Lake
and Cane Creek Reservoir system can provide the system with 14.3 mgd of water. They have
plans to develop an offstream storage facility at the site of an existing stone quarry which will be
online by 2035 and provide an estimated 5.1 mgd of additional supply.
OWASA currently holds a 10 mgd allocation from Jordan Lake and owns a site in
Chatham County on the western shore of the lake that has been identified as a potential location
for an intake facility. According to their application, OWASA staff have joined staff members of
Durham and Chatham County in discussions about “potential joint ventures in withdrawal,
transmission, and treatment facilities including the possible creation of a Jordan Lake water
development authority.” Discussions have been preliminary and “it is premature to speculate on
their eventual outcomes.”
OWASA would like to keep 5 mgd of their current allocation, releasing the other 5 mgd
to be reassigned to the unallocated water supply pool. Because of arrangements with current
quarry operators, the storage capacity of the quarry will not be available until 2030 and will
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
21
require several years for development of the water supply project. OWASA developed demand
projections prior to Round Three of the Jordan Lake allocation process for their Master Plan and
used these projections in their Round Three application. The application data show that OWASA
is likely to begin to use their Jordan Lake allocation around 2025, possibly sooner. OWASA
provided detailed demand projections for their relevant use sectors, as requested. The table and
graph below summarize their population and demand projections. DWR recommends that
OWASA be allowed to retain 5 mgd of their current allocation, and that the remaining 5 mgd be
reassigned to the unallocated water supply pool. OWASA’s use of Jordan Lake water does not
constitute a withdrawal of water from the watershed of the Lake or an interbasin transfer.
OWASA’s entire service area and their wastewater discharges are located in the Haw River
Basin, upstream of Jordan Lake.
Orange Water and Sewer Authority Application Data
Orange Water and Sewer Authority Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 71600 78100 84400 90800 97200 103600 110000 116500 122900 129300 135700
Percent of Estimated County Population 61%60%59%58%58%58%57%57%57%57%56%
Residential Use (mgd)4.4 4.9 5.3 5.8 6.2 6.6 7.1 7.6 8 8.4 8.7
Residential Use (gpcd)61 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 64
Commercial Use (mgd)1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7
Commercial Use (gpcd)17 17 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20
Industrial Use (mgd) (included in Commercial)
Industrial Use (gpcd)
Institutional Use (mgd) (UNC/UNC hospitals)2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3
Institutional Use (gpcd)32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
System Processes (mgd)0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1
System Processes (gpcd)8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)11 12 12 11 11 12 12 11 11 12 12
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)9.3 10.2 11.2 12.1 13.0 13.9 14.9 15.8 16.7 17.6 18.4
Total Demand (gpcd)130 131 133 133 134 134 135 136 136 136 136
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
22
Chatham County
Chatham County’s application for water represents the demand projections for a
countywide water system that will evolve from the interconnection of the three existing, county-
operated water systems and expansion into currently unserved areas of the county. In 2000, the
three systems served 11,351 people using on average 1.25 mgd of water from all sources. The
county currently holds a 6 mgd allocation from Jordan Lake from which it supplies water
through a Chatham County Water Treatment Plant to the North Chatham water system, serving
customers in the area northeast of Pittsboro. The North Chatham system also receives water from
Pittsboro and has connections with OWASA and Durham. The East Chatham water system
supplies water purchased from Sanford to customers in the southeastern townships below Jordan
Lake. The Southwest Chatham water system provides water purchased from Siler City and the
Goldston-Gulf Sanitary District to residents in the southwestern quadrant of the county. The
county has developed a long-range plan that maps out a countywide water system.
Chatham County requested a 4.5 mgd increase in their Jordan Lake allocation for a total
allocation of 10.5 mgd. Chatham County based their demand projections on estimates of
population growth in the county, increases in the percent of that population to be served, and
population growth for Siler City and Pittsboro. The county anticipates supplying water to
Pittsboro and Siler City in the future, but assumes that both communities will be able to proceed
with planned expansion of their current sources. With this assumption, Pittsboro and Siler City
will not need water from the county until beyond 2030, the end date for which we are making
allocations during Round Three. Chatham County presented their population and demand
projections for the county as a whole. Therefore, DWR’s analysis focused on evaluating the
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
23
cumulative demands and supplies available to the county as a whole. The tables and graphs that
follow this discussion summarize the county population and demand projections.
The population projections in the application were not inconsistent with DWR’s
independent estimates of county population through 2050. Chatham County developed demand
projections for relevant use sectors as requested in the application material. However, they
projected residential water demand using a rapidly increasing water use rate well beyond the
normal use rate for other water systems in the region. Among the other applicants, residential
water use rates ranged from 46 to 79 gallons per person per day (gpcd), compared with the 200
gpcd residential use rate Chatham County used for 2030. DWR adjusted Chatham County’s
projected residential water use rate to 85 gpcd and recalculated total projected demands using
population, commercial and industrial projections from the application, and the same percentages
of “system process water” and “unaccounted-for water” as used for each time period in the
application. Note that a residential water use rate of 85 gpcd represents a significant increase
over Chatham County’s 2000 residential water use rate of 59 gpcd. Based on the experience of
other water systems in the region, the expected increase in suburban development will likely
raise the residential use rate. Both sets of projections, those from the application and those
developed by DWR, are presented in the tables and graphs that follow.
Based on the adjusted projections, DWR recommends no increase in Chatham County’s
allocation in Round Three. From a countywide perspective, their existing supplies should be
adequate to meet county demands through 2030. With Jordan Lake water currently only going to
the North Chatham system, use of Lake water does not constitute a withdrawal from the
watershed or an interbasin transfer. However, Chatham County lies within three river basins, the
Haw, Deep and Cape Fear. If a countywide system develops using water from Jordan Lake, an
interbasin transfer certificate will be needed before consumptive use in the Deep and Cape Fear
River Basins is allowed to exceed 2 mgd.
24
Chatham County Application Data
Chatham County Data Adjusted by the Division of Water Resources
Chatham County Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 11351 15824 20542 23412 26796 30805 35579 41288 48146 56420 66441
Percent of Estimated County Population 23%29%34%36%39%41%45%49%54%60%67%
Residential Use (mgd)0.7 1.6 4.1 4.7 5.3 6.1 7.1 8.3 9.7 11.4 13.5
Residential Use (gpcd)59 104 199 199 199 199 200 201 201 202 203
Commercial Use (mgd)0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Commercial Use (gpcd)13 22 35 35 35 34 34 33 33 32 31
Industrial Use (mgd)0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1
Industrial Use (gpcd)14 18 17 19 21 22 24 26 28 30 31
Institutional Use (mgd)
Institutional Use (gpcd)
System Processes (mgd)0.01 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.8
System Processes (gpcd)1 26 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)25 12 10 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 4
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)1.3 2.9 6.2 7.1 8.1 9.4 10.9 12.7 14.9 17.5 20.7
Total Demand (gpcd)111 181 301 302 303 304 306 308 309 311 312
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
Chatham County JL3 Application Data (Adjusted by DWR)
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 11351 15824 20542 23412 26796 30805 35579 41288 48146 56420 66441
Percent of Estimated County Population 23%29%34%36%39%41%45%49%54%60%67%
Residential Use (mgd)0.7 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.8 5.6
Residential Use (gpcd)59 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Commercial Use (mgd)0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Commercial Use (gpcd)13 22 35 35 35 34 34 33 33 32 31
Industrial Use (mgd)0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1
Industrial Use (gpcd)14 18 17 19 21 22 24 26 28 30 31
Institutional Use (mgd)
Institutional Use (gpcd)
System Processes (mgd)0.01 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6
System Processes (gpcd)1 23 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)25 10 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)1.3 2.5 3.4 3.9 4.5 5.2 6.0 7.1 8.3 9.7 11.5
Total Demand (gpcd)111 158 165 166 167 168 170 171 172 172 173
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
25
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
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
26
City of Durham
The City of Durham provides water to residents of the city and to portions of the county
surrounding the city, with the limits of an Urban Growth Area designated by agreement between
the City Council and the County Commissioners. Durham developed growth projections and
water demand projections independent of the Jordan Lake Allocation process as part of the City
of Durham Water and Sewer Strategic Plan. Durham’s current policy limits water and sewer
expansions to the boundaries of the Urban Growth Area, except for schools, industries, and to
remedy public health concerns related to failing wells or septic systems. In 2000, the system’s
service area demand was 31 mgd on average and provided water to an estimated 203,341 people.
Durham pumps raw water from the Flat River and Little River, both in the Neuse River
Basin. The current available supply is 37 mgd. Wastewater is treated by three plants, with about
40 percent returned to the Neuse River Basin and the remainder discharged to the Haw River
Basin above Jordan Lake. In 2000, Durham discharged, on average, 13.4 mgd of water to New
Hope River and Jordan Lake.
Durham’s application assumes a 6 percent reduction in overall per capita water demand
by 2005 based on implementing a water reuse program. In addition, Durham’s demand
projections incorporate significant reductions in the percentage amounts of system process water
and unaccounted-for water. Durham’s projected average water demand will exceed their
available supply by 2010. By 2030, the planning period used for Round Three Jordan Lake
allocations, Durham’s projected service area demand will reach 46.3 mgd, 9.3 mgd over their
available supply. Durham’s population and demand projections are summarized in the table and
graph that follow this discussion.
Durham’s primary alternative to the use of Jordan Lake to expand their available water
supply is to raise the dam at Lake Michie on the Flat River by 24 feet, flooding an additional 440
acres. This project would take at least until 2015 to be operational. To provide additional supply
prior to completion of this project the city would consider using a former quarry to increase off-
stream storage by diverting additional water from the Flat River, Little River and Eno River.
This alternative would have significantly greater environmental impacts than a Jordan Lake
allocation.
Durham representatives have been meeting with representatives of OWASA and
Chatham County, both of which currently hold allocations, for preliminary discussions of a joint
effort to develop a western water intake and pumping station on Jordan Lake. The Cary-Apex
intake on the eastern shore currently provides water for the Cary-Apex system, Morrisville, RTP
South and Chatham County. Growth in these systems will use all the potential capacity of this
intake. To fully utilize the water supply storage of Jordan Lake, another intake will be needed.
The request is based on 2050 needs plus a 20% margin of safety. DWR reduced its
recommendation for all applicants to 2030 needs, without a margin of safety. We assume that
additional allocations will be considered as needed before 2030. DWR recommends a Round
Three allocation of 10 mgd to the City of Durham. Durham’s application indicates that
wastewater generated by use of water from Jordan Lake can be returned to the Lake through
existing treatment facilities. The rules for allocating water from Jordan Lake limit allocations to
the amount of water that will be needed within 30 years.
27
City of Durham Application Data
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
a
l
l
o
n
s

p
e
r

D
a
y
Unaccounted-for
System Processes
Institutional
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
City of Durham Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 203341 221030 240530 257166 276403 291397 298974 306550 314127 321703 329280
Percent of Estimated County Population 91%90%90%89%89%87%84%81%78%76%74%
Residential Use (mgd)13.7 17.5 19.1 20.4 22.0 23.2 23.7 24.4 25.0 25.6 26.2
Residential Use (gpcd)67 79 79 79 80 80 79 80 80 80 80
Commercial Use (mgd)5.7 6.7 7.3 7.8 8.3 8.8 9.0 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9
Commercial Use (gpcd)28 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Industrial Use (mgd) (included in Commercial)1.4 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2
Industrial Use (gpcd)7 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Institutional Use (mgd) (inc. Duke Univ & Med Center)2.8 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.7
Institutional Use (gpcd)14 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
System Processes (mgd)2.8 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
System Processes (gpcd)14 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)4.5 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)22 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)31.0 34.2 37.2 39.8 42.8 45.1 46.3 47.5 48.6 49.8 51.0
Total Demand (gpcd)152 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
28
Towns of Cary and Apex
The Towns of Cary and Apex together operate the Cary-Apex water treatment plant on
the eastern shore of Jordan Lake. They have constructed the only raw water intake on the lake,
which also provides access for Chatham County to pump raw water to Chatham County’s
treatment plant. The Cary-Apex system also treats water for the Town of Morrisville and the
Wake County portion of Research Triangle Park (RTP). Cary and Apex jointly hold a 21 mgd
allocation from Jordan Lake. Wake County holds a 1.5 mgd allocation for RTP and Morrisville
holds a 2.5 mgd allocation. Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Wake County were granted an interbasin
transfer certificate in 2001 that allows them to transfer up to 24 mgd from the Haw River Basin
to the Neuse River Basin, subject to several conditions.
In 2000, the Cary-Apex system used 12.7 mgd of water to meet the needs of 118,670
people. By 2030, they anticipate having a combined service area population of 316,079,
requiring 31.5 mgd to meet their finished water demands. Their projected service area demands
will exceed their current allocation by 2015. Cary current receives water from Raleigh and
Durham. The 3.5 mgd contract with Raleigh expires in 2003 and the 3.5 mgd contract with
Durham expires in 2008. Neither Raleigh nor Durham has the capacity to provide Cary with
enough water to meet Cary’s long-term needs. Apex has no other source of water than Jordan
Lake.
Demand projections for Cary and Apex assume a declining per capita residential water
use. Cary projects their residential water use to decline from 74 to 58 gallons per capita day
(gpcd) over the next 30 years. Apex projects their residential water use to decline from 71 to 61
gpcd over the same period. Cary predicts an increase in per capita water use for non-residential
uses from 21 to 35 gpcd while Apex predicts a decline in non-residential use from 13 to 11 gpcd.
Cary and Apex presented information on several alternatives to Jordan Lake to meet
future water demands. One option is to use water from Harris Lake. This lake, located in
southwestern Wake County and northeastern Chatham County, was constructed to provide
cooling water for CP&L’s Harris nuclear power station. The practicality of this option is in doubt
since, to date, CP&L has not supported using the lake as a public water supply. They also
presented the option of constructing a new reservoir on Middle Creek in partnership with local
governments in Wake County and Johnston County. Besides construction of a dam, an intake
and transmission lines, the project would require relocation of existing roads and bridges. This
project would take at least 20 years to complete and include environmental impacts much greater
than that of a Jordan Lake allocation. Cary and Apex, along with Morrisville and Wake County,
also proposed using water from Kerr Lake to meet long-term water demands. This project would
take at least 20 years to develop, would require study and approval by the US Army Corps of
Engineers who operate Kerr Lake, and would involve new interbasin transfer issues.
Cary and Apex have requested a 23 mgd increase in their allocation for a total allocation
of 44 mgd. The request is based on 2050 needs plus a 20% margin of safety. DWR reduced its
recommendation for all applicants to 2030 needs, without a margin of safety. We assume that
additional allocations will be considered as needed before 2030. DWR recommends an
additional allocation of 11 mgd during Round Three for a total allocation of 32 mgd.
29
Town of Cary Application Data
Town of Apex Application Data
Town of Cary Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 96217 115781 134222 152601 172653 192971 215679 236000 236000 236000 236000
Percent of Estimated County Population 15%16%16%16%16%16%16%17%15%14%13%
Residential Use (mgd)7.1 8.2 9.1 10.2 11.3 12.4 12.2 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7
Residential Use (gpcd)74 71 68 67 65 64 57 58 58 58 58
Commercial Use (mgd)1.8 2.3 3.0 3.9 5.0 6.0 6.9 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4
Commercial Use (gpcd)19 20 22 26 29 31 32 31 31 31 31
Industrial Use (mgd)0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Industrial Use (gpcd)1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Institutional Use (mgd)0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Institutional Use (gpcd)1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
System Processes (mgd)0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
System Processes (gpcd)9 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)10.5 12.6 14.5 16.8 19.6 22.0 23.0 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4
Total Demand (gpcd)109 109 108 110 114 114 107 108 108 108 108
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
Town of Apex Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 22453 35627 48800 61700 74600 87500 100400 102172 102172 102172 102172
Percent of Estimated County Population 4%5%6%6%7%7%8%7%7%6%6%
Residential Use (mgd)1.6 2.3 3.2 3.8 4.6 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Residential Use (gpcd)71 65 66 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 61
Non-Residential Use (mgd)0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Non-Residential Use (gpcd)13 8 8 10 9 10 11 11 11 11 11
Industrial Use (mgd)
Industrial Use (gpcd)
Institutional Use (mgd)
Institutional Use (gpcd)
System Processes (mgd)0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
System Processes (gpcd)9 8 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)4 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)2.2 3.1 4.2 5.2 6.3 7.3 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6
Total Demand (gpcd)98 87 86 84 84 83 85 84 84 84 84
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
30
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
Non-residential
Residential
31
Town of Morrisville
Morrisville currently holds a 2.5 mgd allocation from Jordan Lake and depends on the
Cary-Apex system for finished water. The town has no connections with other water systems.
Morrisville’s wastewater is treated by Cary. While Morrisville’s application presented the same
alternatives to the use of Jordan Lake as Cary and Apex, in reality they are unlikely to be able to
undertake any of these options on their own. For planning purposes and for this analysis it is
most useful to consider Morrisville, as well as RTP-South, as components of a regional system
supplied by the Cary-Apex water treatment plant.
Morrisville has a defined Urban Services Area (USA) and used this USA as the
maximum limit of water and sewer service for their application. Morrisville’s water demand
projections indicate that they will reach maximum demand within their USA by 2025. This
represents an increase of 285% in service population (from 7,000 to 27,000) over the next 25
years. Morrisville’s projections include a reduction in residential water use rates from 77 to 58
gallons per capita day (gpcd), and in non-residential use from 52 to 41 gpcd, over the same
period. Morrisville requested a 2.5 mgd increase in their allocation. The request is based on 2050
needs plus a 20% margin of safety. DWR reduced its recommendation for all applicants to 2030
needs, without a margin of safety. We assume that additional allocations will be considered as
needed before 2030. DWR recommends an additional allocation of 1 mgd during Round Three
for a total allocation of 3.5 mgd. Based on their projections, this amount should meet their
demand in 2030, and beyond. Morrisville’s use of water from Jordan Lake and any associated
interbasin transfer is limited by their interbasin transfer certificate and its conditions, approved
by the EMC in July 2001. The table and graph below summarize Morrisville’s demand
projections.
Town of Morrisville Application Data
Town of Morrisveille Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year-round Service Population 6500 14700 17750 20800 23900 27000 27000 27000 27000 27000 27000
Percent of Estimated County Population 1%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%
Residential Use (mgd)0.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Residential Use (gpcd)77 67 63 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
Commercial Use (mgd)0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Commercial Use (gpcd)35 31 30 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 25
Industrial Use (mgd)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Industrial Use (gpcd)17 10 11 12 14 16 16 16 16 16 16
Institutional Use (mgd)
Institutional Use (gpcd)
System Processes (mgd)0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
System Processes (gpcd)12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Unacct.-for Water (gpcd)8 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)1.0 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Total Demand (gpcd)149 127 123 115 117 119 119 119 119 119 119
mgd - million gallons per day
gpcd - gallons per capita day (gallons per person per day) based on service population and demand shown above
32
Wake County for Research Triangle Park
The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is a major driver of the regional economy and its
prosperity affects the neighboring communities seeking allocations from Jordan Lake during
Round Three. The portion of RTP within Durham County receives water from the Durham water
system and is included in Durham’s industrial water demand projection. The portion of RTP
located in Wake County (RTP-South), approximately 20% of RTP’s buildable area, receives
water from Jordan Lake through the Cary-Apex water system. Wake County currently holds a
1.5 mgd allocation for use by RTP. Like Morrisville, RTP-South’s future water supply is
dependent on the Cary-Apex system. Wake County developed their water demand projections
based on water use per square foot of facilities and on their historic patterns of development.
Wake County divided RTP-South’s potential facilities into biotechnical and non-biotechnical
sectors, because of their significantly different water use requirements and developed separate
water demand projections for each category. Based on the projections in the application, water
demands will exceed RTP-South’s available supply by 2010. The table and graph below
summarize the water demand projections in their application.
Wake County requested an increase of 4 mgd in their allocation for RTP for a total
allocation of 5.5 mgd. The request is based on 2050 needs plus a 20% margin of safety. DWR
reduced its recommendation for all applicants to 2030 needs, without a margin of safety. We
assume that additional allocations will be considered as needed before 2030. DWR recommends
an additional allocation of 2 mgd during Round Three for a total allocation of 3.5 mgd. RTP-
South’s use of water from Jordan Lake and any associated interbasin transfer is limited by their
interbasin transfer certificate and its conditions, approved by the EMC in July 2001.
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
33
Wake County-Research Triangle Park South Application Data
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
Wake County - Research Triangle Park Round 3 Jordan Lake Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Square feet of biotechnical facilities 209,800 415,840 621,880 827,920 1,033,960 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000
Square feet of non-biotechnical facilities 1,605,425 2,210,560 2,822,746 3,439,883 4,060,631 4,684,093 5,515,687 6,348,928 7,183,487 8,019,119
Total facility square footage 1,815,225 2,626,400 3,444,626 4,267,803 5,094,591 5,924,093 6,755,687 7,588,928 8,423,487 9,259,119
estimated number of employees 4619 6627 8635 10642 12650 14658 16666 18674 20682 22690
Biotechnical Facilities (mgd)0.1 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Biotechnical facilities (gpsf)0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Non-biotechnical Facilities (mgd)0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.3
Non-biotechnical facilities (gpsf)0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
System Processes (mgd)0.02 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
System Processes (gpsf)0.01 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03
Unaccounted-for Water (mgd)0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Unacct.-for Water (gpsf)0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02
Total Service Area Demand (mgd)0.3 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.1
Total Demand per square foot (gpsf)0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
Demand per employee (gped)74 196 197 207 206 211 204 193 189 181
mgd - million gallons per day
gpsf - gallons per square foot
gped - gallons per employee day