Catawba-Wateree River Basin WSMP Report_Draft_040814

Transcription

Catawba-Wateree River Basin
Water Supply Master Plan
DRAFT Report
April 8, 2014
About the Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group
The Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group (CWWMG) is a 501C-3 non-profit organization
that heralds a mission:
“to identify, fund, and manage projects that will help preserve, extend, and
enhance the capabilities of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to provide
water resources for human needs while maintaining the ecological
integrity of the waterway.”
The CWWMG has 19 members, one member representing each of the eligible 18 public water
utilities in North and South Carolina that operate water intakes on either a reservoir or regulated
river reach of the main stem, and one member representing Duke Energy Carolinas LLC (Duke
Energy). The organization was borne out of the most recent Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project
(Project) relicensing process completed by Duke Energy. The eligible water users include public
water systems that have the installed capacity to withdraw 100,000 gallons per day or more from
the Project’s reservoirs and/or regulated river reaches.
The CWWMG members pay annual dues to fund projects and initiatives to achieve the mission
statement of the organization. The CWWMG serves 4,750 square miles that drain into the Catawba
River, providing water for neighbors from Morganton, NC to Camden, SC. Water use in this region
is critical for public water supply, power production, industrial needs, agriculture, and irrigation.
Incorporated in 2007, the CWWMG mission recognizes that without excellent stewardship and
change, the Catawba-Wateree River Basin may not meet future anticipated needs related to water
supply, as documented during the recent relicensing process.
CWWMG members meet regularly to formulate strategies and projects to help understand
and address the river basin’s water challenges. Additionally, the CWWMG seeks collaborative
partnerships with other water use stakeholders to help fund, manage, and oversee the projects
and initiatives undertaken. To date, this Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply Master Plan
represents the most comprehensive analysis and results oriented body of work completed by the
CWWMG.
More information about the CWWMG and a summary of projects and information are available at
catawbawatereewmg.org.
Prepared by:
HDR
440 S. Church St. Suite 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202
McKim & Creed
8020 Tower Point Dr, Charlotte, NC 28227
For the:
Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group
www.catawbawatereewmg.org
Jointly sponsored by:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Raleigh, NC
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Columbia, SC
Duke Energy Foundation
Charlotte, NC
TOC
Table of Contents
Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group Stakeholder Endorsement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
1.0
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-1
2.0
Master Plan Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
3.0
Project Funding Co-Sponsors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.0
Stakeholder Advisory Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
5.0
Water Withdrawal and Return Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
6.0
Water Yield Modeling - Scenario Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
7.0
Water Yield Modeling - Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
8.0
Water Supply Regionalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
9.0
Water Use Efficiency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
3-1
10.0 Regulatory Agency Coordination with CHEOPS Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
11.0 Geographical Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1
12.0 Enhancement of the Low Inflow Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
13.0 Water Quality Modeling – Future Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13-1
14.0 Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14-1
15.0 Raw Water Intake Contingency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1
16.0 Project Identification and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-1
17.0 Public Awareness and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-1
vii
TOC - Attachments
Table of Contents (con’t)
Attachments
3
Solicitation Correspondence
5-A Legend/Acronym List
5-B Withdrawal and Return Summary Sheets
5-C Public Water/Wastewater Utility Withdrawal and Return Detail Sheets
5-D Industrial Withdrawal and Return Detail Sheets
5-E
Agriculture/Industrial Water Withdrawal and Return Detail Sheets
5-F
Thermal-Electric Power Water Consumption Projection Detail Sheets
7-A Safe Yield - Reservoir Intake Level Evaluation
7-B Inflow Data Series Analysis
7-C CHEOPS Water Use Projection Inputs
7-D CHEOPS Scenario Results Summary of Reservoir - Failure Compared to Baseline
9-A Water Use Efficiency Plan
9-B Benchmarking Survey of Current Successful Water Demand Management Programs
9-C Conservation Strategy Development
9-D Conservation Strategy Revenue Loss Estimates
11
GIS Database (provided on thumb drive)
12
Low Inflow Protocol (FERC No. 2232 Appendix C)
13
CWWMG Presentation on Water Quality Modeling
18-A Non-Technical Executive Summary
18-BNewsletter
viii
CWWMG - Stakeholder Endorsement
Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group Stakeholder Endorsement
As a member of the Stakeholder Advisory Team (SAT) we have had the opportunity to review
the scope of work, engineering analysis, future modeling scenarios and results, and the
recommendations outlined in this Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply Master Plan (Master
Plan). We have met periodically with CWWMG leadership and the consulting team charged with
completing this body of work. We believe the focus of this Master Plan and its recommendations
has achieved the goal of protecting, preserving, and extending the available water supply for all
those that depend, or will depend, on this river basin for a safe, sustainable water supply. We
are confident that implementing the recommendations presented herein offer the opportunity to
extend available water yields well into the future. It has been a great opportunity to participate in
development of this Master Plan.
Stakeholder Member Organization
Representative Name
Catawba Regional COG
Mike Vead
Centralina Regional COG
Jim Prosser
Western Piedmont Regional COG
Johnny Wear
Isothermal Regional COG
Jim Edwards
High Country COG
Rick Herndon
Central Midlands COG
Gregory Sprouse
Carolina Canoe Club
Lorraine Burnham
Lake Norman Marine Commission
Ron Shoultz, Bob Elliot
Lake Wylie Marine Commission
Joe Stowe
Mt. Island Lake Marine Commission
Emily Parker
NC Division of Water Quality
Jeff Manning
NC Division of Water Resources
Don Rayno
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Chris Goudreau
Signature
SC Department of Health & Environmental
Chuck Gorman
Control
SC Department of Natural Resources
Hope Mizzell
Resolute Forest Products
Dale Herendeen
International Paper
John Baker
ix
CWWMG - Stakeholder Endorsement
Stakeholder Member Organization
Representative Name
Siemens Westinghouse
Damon Crowther
Catawba Wateree Relicensing Coalition
Vicki Taylor
The NC Conservation Fund
Bill Holman
NC League of Municipalities
Erin Wynia
Newton
Wilce Martin
Kershaw County
Vic Carpenter
x
Signature
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgments
HDR and McKim & Creed would like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation to all of the
individuals and organizations that contributed to this Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply
Master Plan. The work effort spanned several years due to the extensive scope of work, funding
availability, the desire to incorporate external stakeholder input, and CWWMG meeting frequency.
All of those listed herein have contributed greatly to the success of the project.
Special thanks go to the CWWMG Board Members Mr. Barry Gullet, Mr. Jeff Lineberger, Mr. Jimmy
Bagley, Mr. Kevin Greer, Mr. Mike Bailes, and Mr. Barry McKinnon who were given the responsibility
to provide guidance to the consulting team during bi-monthly meetings as needed.
Special thanks are also expressed to the entire Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group for
their expertise, participation, and insight.
Duke Energy Carolinas (Jeff Lineberger and Ed Bruce)
City of Belmont, NC (Barry Webb and Chuck Flowers)
City of Camden, SC (Tom Couch and Sam Davis)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department, NC (Barry Gullet and
Kim Eagle)
Union-Lancaster Catawba River Water Supply Project, NC/SC
(Mike Bailes and Ed Goscicki)
Chester Metropolitan District, SC (Mike Medlin and Fred Castles)
City of Gastonia, NC (Ed Cross and Matt Bernhardt)
Town of Granite Falls, NC (Shuford Wise and Kim Prestwood)
City of Hickory, NC (Kevin Greer and Chuck Hansen)
City of Lenoir, NC (Radford Thomas and Jeff Hayes)
Lincoln County, NC (Don Chamblee and Chris Henderson)
Town of Long View, NC (David Epley and Rani Holland)
Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority, SC (Mike Hancock and Randy Bowers)
Town of Mooresville, NC (Barry L. McKinnon and Mike Fulbright)
City of Morganton, NC (Brad Boris and PENDING)
City of Mount Holly, NC (Brian Wilson and Anna Ostendorff)
City of Rock Hill, SC (Jimmy Bagley and Bill Yetman)
City of Statesville, NC (Joe Hudson and Jerry Byerly)
Town of Valdese, NC (Jeff Morse and Jerry Conley)
Sincere thanks also to past representatives and other staff from member utilities for their time, input,
and support for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply Master Plan.
Duke Energy Carolinas (Mark Oakley)
City of Belmont, NC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
City of Camden, SC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department, NC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
Union-Lancaster Catawba River Water Supply Project, NC/SC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
Chester Metropolitan District, SC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
xi
Acknowledgements
City of Gastonia, NC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
Town of Granite Falls, NC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
City of Hickory, NC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
City of Lenoir, NC (Mark Townsend and Mack Edmisten)
Lincoln County, NC (Burns Whittaker)
Town of Long View, NC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority, SC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
Town of Mooresville, NC (John Vest, and Mark Hahn)
City of Morganton, NC (Don Danford and Ron George)
City of Mount Holly, NC (James Friday and Zack Foreman)
City of Rock Hill, SC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
City of Statesville, NC (ANY ADDITIONAL?)
Town of Valdese, NC (David Cook)
xii
Acknowledgements
Finally, we express since appreciation to our funding co-sponsors that recognize the value and
importance of this document.
North Carolina – Department of Environment and Natural Resources
South Carolina – Department of Natural Resources
xiii
Acknowledgements
xiv
Glossary of Terms
Glossary of Terms
Terms used in this Master Plan are defined as below:
Annual Average Flow
The mathematical average daily flow rate (either withdrawal or return flow) exerted by a water
user over a calendar year, usually expressed in units of mgd or cfs.
Catawba-Wateree Drought
Management Advisory Group
(CW-DMAG)
A group of committed water users and agencies who have a role or vested interest in the
implementation response to the Low Inflow Protocol
CHEOPS
A proprietary computer model that is used to simulate the operations of Duke Energy’s CatawbaWateree Hydroelectric Project, particularly accounting for water use related to the eleven
reservoirs in the Basin.
Current Flow
The annual average flow rate (in mgd or cfs) for a water user as determined by the most
recent available years (at the time of this Master Plan) for which withdrawals and returns were
recorded. The most recent year for a given water user typically ranged between 2010 - 2011.
Inter-Basin Transfer (IBT)
The transfer of surface water that is withdrawn from anywhere within the Catawba-Wateree
River Basin to a watershed outside of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
Low Inflow Period
A period of time during the 81-year hydrologic record when inflow, including stream flow,
groundwater inflow or recharge, surface runoff, and precipitation into the Project’s reservoirs,
was abnormally low (i.e., drought type conditions) (Note: Varies from AIP definition).
Low Inflow Protocol
The written protocol that provides procedures for how the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric
Project will be operated by Duke Energy and how other water users should respond during
low inflow periods. The LIP is developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water
quantity will reduce their water consumption as needed and therefore share the responsibility
of conserving the limited water supply. The LIP also identifies communication channels to help
coordinate between water users.
Net Withdrawal
The difference between withdrawal and return flows, usually expressed in units of mgd or cfs.
Period of Record
The 81-year period from 1929 – 2010 for which hydrologic data was constructed for the
Catawba River and the eleven lakes within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
Permitted Flow
The authorized flow rate (withdrawal or return flow) granted by a State or Federal regulatory
authority to a water user.
Reservoir Constraint
The lowest water elevation in any given reservoir at which that reservoir must operate without
being considered in violation, or “failing.” If the reservoir’s water surface elevation drops below
its reservoir constraint, that reservoir has surpassed its safe yield value.
Return Flow
The amount of water returned (i.e. discharged) to a surface water, usually expressed in units of
mgd or cfs.
Safe Yield
The amount of water that is theoretically available at a given location in a watershed. Safe yield
is a commonly used measure of the dependability of a water supply source. The safe yield
values in this Master Plan are given as ranges; the lower end of the range was determined by
extracting the withdrawal flow that was modeled in the time-step (10-year increment) just prior to
a reservoir violation and the upper end of the range was determined by extracting the withdrawal
flow that was modeled in the time-step (10-year increment) when a reservoir violation was
deemed to have occurred.
Watershed
An area within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin that supplies water to one Basin reservoir
through surface runoff and tributary streamflow. There are eleven watersheds within the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
Water User
An entity that either withdraws water from or returns (i.e., discharges) water to a surface water
body within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
Water Storage Inventory
The water volume in a reservoir available for use without causing a reservoir violation.
Withdrawal Flow
The amount of water withdrawn from a surface water source within the Catawba River Basin,
usually expressed in terms of mgd or cfs.
xv
Glossary of Terms
xvi
Executive Summary
1.0
Executive Summary
1.1
Introduction
The Catawba-Wateree River Basin (Basin) has long provided a source of water to sustain human
existence in the foothills and piedmont of North and South Carolina. The river derives its name from
the Catawba and Wateree Indian Tribes
that made this area their home prior to
the European settlement of the Americas.
The surface waters of the Basin have
played a critical role in the development
of key areas in North and South Carolina
(see Figure 1-1). Today, nearly two
million people depend on the river and
its tributaries for safe drinking water,
power generation, industrial processes,
crop and livestock production, recreation,
and other uses. Previous studies have
indicated that by mid-century (i.e. 2050),
the safe yield for many of the Basin’s
reservoirs will be exhausted. This water
supply limitation creates significant
challenges for those who depend on the
river, and it makes continued population
and economic growth beyond that point
unsustainable.
The Catawba-Wateree Water
Management Group (CWWMG) has
completed this Catawba-Wateree River
Basin Water Supply Master Plan (Master
Plan) recognizing that solutions to
this water supply dilemma could take
decades to implement. The purpose of
this Master Plan is to protect, preserve,
and extend the available water supply
in the Catawba-Wateree River and
its eleven reservoirs. The work effort,
results, and recommendations outlined
herein have been guided by the CWWMG
Figure 1-1 Catawba-Wateree River Basin
membership, a water supply modeling
team comprised of regulatory officials from NC and SC, and an outside Stakeholder Advisory Team
(SAT).
1.2
Project Co-Sponsors
In support of its mission, the CWWMG seeks to collaborate with co-sponsors to help fund its
initiatives and projects, and enhance communication with all stakeholders interested and involved
with the management of water resources in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. The CWWMG was
successful in securing outside funding support for the Master Plan to offset nearly two-thirds of the
project cost as presented in Table 1-1 below.
1-1
Executive Summary
Table 1-1 Funding Co-Sponsors for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply Master Plan
Organization
Funding Support ($)
$400,000
$250,000
$200,000
Total
1.3
$850,000
Stakeholder Advisory Team (SAT)
As part of this Master Plan, a SAT was assembled to allow for advisory level input by key
organizations that have an interest in the future planning efforts for the Basin (see Table 1-2).
The CWWMG’s intent for the SAT was to ensure a broader level of input from a diverse group of
interested stakeholders.
Table 1-2 Stakeholder Advisory Team Member Organizations
SAT Member Organizations
Catawba Wateree Relicensing
Coalition
High Country COG
SC Dept. of Health & Env. Control
Nicholas Institute at Duke University
Carolina Canoe Club
Newton
International Paper
Kershaw County
Furthermore, the SAT has been tasked with broadly communicating the recommendations and
conclusions of the Master Plan and working as an advocate for full implementation.
1.4
Future Water Use Projections
This Master Plan includes detailed future water use withdrawal and return projections to the year
2065 (~50 years) for public water and wastewater suppliers, Duke Energy, industrial users, and
agricultural and irrigation uses. This analysis included projections for ~225 withdrawal and return
entities/locations. These detailed water use projections were then extrapolated to the year 2115
for water modeling purposes. Accurately projecting future water use is foundational to ensuring
a sustainable water supply in the Basin. Table 1-3 summarizes the net withdrawals (withdrawals
minus returns) for each sub-basin over the planning period.
Table 1-3 Projected Annual Average Net Withdrawal Rates by Sub-Basin (in mgd)
Year
Reservoir
Current
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
2065
James
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
Rhodhiss
14
14
15
16
17
18
19
Hickory
11
12
13
20
22
24
26
Lookout Shoals
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
1
Net Withdrawals
1-2
Executive Summary
Table 1-3 (con’t)
Year
Reservoir
Current
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
2065
Norman
61
65
74
80
102
112
125
Mountain Island
109
114
132
153
171
187
205
1
Wylie
44
46
43
35
34
34
33
Fishing Creek
-62
-69
-71
-72
-78
-45
-47
Great Falls-Dearborn
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-4
Cedar Creek
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
Wateree
4
5
7
8
45
47
49
189
195
221
248
323
386
419
Total
– Current rates were based on the most recent available years for which withdrawals and returns were recorded. The most recent year for
a given water user typically ranged between 2010 and 2011.
1
As illustrated in Table 1-3, the overall net withdrawal for the entire Basin is expected to increase
from approximately 189 mgd (293 cfs) to 419 mgd (650 cfs) by the year 2065. This represents an
increase of approximately 122 percent, or an annual growth rate of 1.49%.
Figure 1-2 provides a comparison of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin net withdrawal projections
made as part of this Master Plan with those developed as part of Duke Energy’s 2006 Water
Supply Study. As illustrated, the overall net withdrawal projections for the Master Plan are lower (by
approximately 15 to 30 percent) than those previously calculated. This reduction in net withdrawal
is largely attributable to reduced plans for interbasin transfers, lower agricultural demand, and per
capita water use reductions by utilities over the past few years.
2000
500.0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
450.0
Net Withdrawal (MGD)
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
2006 Historical
2006 Projected
2012 Historical
2012 Projected
Figure 1-2 Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Master Plan Net Withdrawal Projections Comparison with 2006 Water Supply Study
(in units of mgd)
Figures 1-3 and 1-4 provide a comparison by sub-basin of 2065 net withdrawals and the net
1-3
Executive Summary
withdrawal distribution by water use category, respectively.
Industrial, 7.7, 2%
Power, 178.3, 43%
Public Water Supply, 198.5,
47%
Agriculture /
Irrigation, 34.9, 8%
Industrial
PublicbyWater
Agriculture
/
Power River Basin
Figure 1-3 Year 2065
Net Withdrawal
Water Supply
User Category
for the Catawba-Wateree
(in units of mgd and % of Irrigation
total)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0
-150.0
LAKE JAMES
LAKE
RHODHISS
LAKE
HICKORY
LOOKOUT
LAKE
SHOALS LAKE NORMAN
MOUNTAIN LAKE WYLIE
ISLAND LAKE
FISHING GREAT FALLS CEDAR CREEK
LAKE
CREEK
- DEARBORN RESERVOIR WATEREE
RESERVOIR RESERVOIR
Public Water Supply
Industrial
Agriculture / Irrigation
Power
Figure 1-4 Year 2065 Net Withdrawal for Water User Categories by Sub-Basin (in units of mgd)
As illustrated in these figures, approximately 90% of the water use in 2065 is projected to be for
1-4
Executive Summary
public water supply and power production, with a large percentage of that in the middle part of the
Basin’s reservoir system.
1.5
Future Operating Scenarios and Water Yield Modeling
This Master Plan provides a framework to promote the effective management of the Basin’s water
supply and stewardship of its water resources. In addition, the recommendations seek to extend
the available water supply within the Basin and prolong the future time frame in which water supply
may be limited. Previous hydrologic modeling using the Computerized Hydroelectric Operations and
Planning Software (CHEOPS) model indicated water use limitations by mid-century (~2050). This
previous modeling effort was based on an inflow dataset period of record from 1929 to 2003, with
the 2002-2003 period determined as the Drought of Record.
This Master Plan updates the inflow dataset through 2010 and captures the years 2007–2009 as
the new Drought of Record. The CWWMG and SAT determined that a moderate level of climate
change impact should also be integrated into the Baseline operating scenario for future water use
planning. This climate change impact includes a gradual temperature increase of 0.6° F per decade
(equals 3.2° F increase between the base year and 2065) which translates to ~ 11% increase in
lake evaporation between the base year and the year 2065. It is believed that the CWWMG is one
of the first planning organizations in the region to begin incorporating the potential impact of climate
change on future water use planning. The more intense Drought of Record and higher evaporative
losses due to climate change seek to reduce the safe yield values previously documented and
induce greater strain on the limited water supply. Other minor CHEOPS modeling updates defined
herein were also included in the Baseline operating scenario to better reflect actual operating
conditions of the system.
Twenty-six individual future operating scenarios were evaluated and fell under eight distinct
categories as follows.
Population growth sensitivity.
Climate change sensitivity.
Public water supplier water use efficiency measures.
Power industry consumptive water use changes.
Critical intake modifications.
Effluent flow recycling from point source returns.
Modified reservoir operations.
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) modifications.
Population growth and climate change sensitivities were calculated and modeled to determine their
impact on water supply.
Following the analysis of individual scenarios and water yield enhancement strategies, ten
integrated scenarios were developed for various planning cases which shape the recommendations
set forth in the Master Plan. Multiple individual scenarios and/or strategies were combined
to form an integrated scenario and subsequently modeled to determine the effect on water
yield for a combination or suite of scenarios and strategies. This approach allows Master Plan
recommendations to be evaluated for a series of yield enhancement strategies in an effort to
maximize water yield in the Basin. Three classifications of integrated scenarios were established:
Planning Case, Best Case, and Worst Case.
The Planning Case represents the Baseline case for development of this Master Plan and includes
the population growth and associated water use projections as well as the base level of climate
change described above. The Best Case category represents the impact of lower population
1-5
Executive Summary
growth (and associated water demand) and no impact of climate change. The Worst Case category
represents the impact of higher population growth (and associated water demand) and an even
greater impact of climate change. Water yield enhancement strategies were then applied to each of
these cases in an effort to enhance or extend the available water supply. Figure 1-5 summarizes the
scenarios and strategies for the Planning Case, Best Case, and Worst Case model runs.
Figure 1-5 Scenarios and Strategies Used for Integrated Planning Cases
1-6
Executive Summary
Table 1-5 summarizes the modeled impact on safe yield for the integrated scenarios presented in
Figure 1-5.
Table 1-5 Basin-wide Yield Summary for Simulated Integrated Planning Scenarios
Scenario
MP – 01
Description
PLANNING CASE A (BASELINE)
Scenario
INTEGRATED PLANNING SCENARIOS
Safe yield
(mgd)
Projection year
to reach safe
yield
660 - 719
2055 - 2065
Change in
safe yield
vs Baseline1
(mgd)
Yield
enhancement vs
Baseline (years)
0
0
MP – 01b
Planning Case B
MP – 01M
Mitigated Planning Case A
139
30
Mitigated Planning Case B (Recommended)
204
40
Mitigated Planning Case C
269
50
Best Case
~0
20
Mitigated Best Case
>74
50 +
Worst Case
-169
-40
MP – 01Mb
MP – 01Mc
MP – 02
MP – 02M
MP – 03
MP – 03Ma
Mitigated Worst Case A
26
-30
MP – 03Mb
Mitigated Worst Case B
112
0
Notes:
Change in safe yield calculated as the difference between the safe yield range midpoint (average) for a given scenario and the safe yield range
midpoint for the Baseline case (i.e. MP-01).
1
This Master Plan recommends that Mitigated Planning Case B (MP-01Mb) is adopted as the
planning scenario for implementation by the CWWMG. This scenario and its associated water yield
enhancement strategies improve the safe yield by over 200 mgd (vs. the Baseline) and extends
water yield by 40-50 years potentially to the year 2105 as illustrated by Figure 1-6.
1-7
Executive Summary
Figure 1-6 Associated Projection Decades to Reach Safe Yield
The Mitigated Planning Case B includes implementation of the following strategies as detailed in the
Master Plan.
WC-01D: High end water use efficiency and demand management by residential and
wholesale water utility customers.
CI-01, CI-03, and CI-04: Lower raw water intakes in the Upper Catawba-Wateree River
Basin (Hickory, Longview, and Valdese), Lake Norman (McGuire Nuclear Station to
745.00), and Lake Wylie (Clariant Corporation, Confidential Industry, and Belmont).
CI-05: Recognition of the new critical intake elevation on Mountain Island Lake due to
Riverbend Steam Station retirement.
RO-02B: Raise the summer target operating levels by 6 inches in Lake James, Lake
Norman, and Lake Wylie.
LP-03: Semi-monthly (or more frequent) LIP stage lookup.
This recommended planning scenario delivers on the primary objective of this Master Plan by
extending water yield to the next century and provides a sustainable water supply for future
generations.
A proposed implementation schedule is included in Table 1-6. Recommended actions could be
completed on a faster timeline, but should be completed by the dates shown. Further, it should be
noted that ongoing monitoring of hydrologic conditions, water use projections, and updates of this
Master Plan may necessitate additional actions or modified timelines.
1-8
Executive Summary
Table 1-6 Proposed Implementation Schedule for Recommended Planning Scenario (MP-01Mb)
Action
Schedule
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
High End Water Use Efficiency
(WC-01D)
Implement
Continue
Monitor
Continue
Monitor
Continue
Monitor
Reduction
Goal Year
2055
Lower Upper Catawba Intakes
(CI-01)
Feasibility/
Predesign
Financing/
Permitting
Design and
Construction
Complete by
2045
Lower Mt. Island Riverbend Critical Intake
(CI-05)
Recognition
of Change
Lower Lake Norman Critical Intake
(CI-03)
2065
Operations
Change
Lower Lake Wylie Critical Intakes
(CI-04)
Feasibility/
Predesign
Financing/
Permitting
Raise Summer Target Operating Levels
by 6” (RO-02B)
Evaluate
Impacts of
Change
Modify CRA
(if needed)
Semi-Monthly LIP Stage Lookup
(LP-03)
Operations
Change
Design and
Construction
Complete by
2045
An additional outcome of the extensive modeling and workshops completed was a decision to
protect the extensive storage in Lake James from being used to extend water yield in the Planning
Case. That is, modeling analysis indicates that water yield failure may be realized downstream
while storage is still available in Lake James. While adjustments to the LIP stage minimum lake
levels in Lake James may provide access to water volume earlier for downstream needs, it was
collectively decided to maintain the existing stage minimums, thereby preserving the storage. This
approach affords the recommended Planning Case a measure of conservatism as a protection
against future droughts that may be worse than the current Drought of Record.
1.6
Water Supply Regionalization
CWWMG members already practice regional cooperation with many of the water systems having
some form of water purchase or mutual aid agreement in place to support water supply needs.
While additional opportunities may exist, maintaining autonomy for many of the water systems
remains the largest hurdle for regionalization. The CWWMG has already generated numerous
benefits from regionalized collaboration including information and resource sharing, completing
projects that support better management of the Basin’s water resources, and enhancing water use
efficiency and public outreach. Regional cooperation in areas such as reducing per capita water
use, lowering or consolidation of intakes, and reducing sediment infill may be the best opportunities
to realize additional benefits from regionalization and cooperation in the future.
1.7
Water Use Efficiency
The CWWMG completed a Water Use Efficiency Plan in March 2014. This Master Plan expands on
that effort by documenting current water use efficiency success in the Basin and evaluating future
water use reduction strategies. Table 1-7 summarizes the results of the analysis for residential
water utility per capita use which was used to develop water use efficiency strategies WC-01C and
WC-01D for low and high-end residential and wholesale water conservation.
1-9
Executive Summary
Table 1-7 Residential Per Capita Use Rates Aggregated by Sub-Basin (Historical and Strategies WC-01C and WC-01D)
2006 WSS (2002 Data)
Average Per Capita Use
(gpd/person)
Sub-Basin
Lake James
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory
Lookout Shoals Lake
Lake Norman
Mountain Island Lake
Lake Wylie
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Lake Wateree
BASIN-WIDE AVERAGE
WC-01C Low-End
Current (2008-2011) Average Conservation: Average Per
Per Capita Use (gpd/person) Capita Use (gpd/person)
WC-01D High End
Conservation:
(gpd/person)
Residential
53
59
79
58
121
129
76
56
80
68
54
85
97
76
68
74
56
72
65
54
78
88
71
65
69
53
64
58
51
70
78
64
58
62
113
85
78
70
Table 1-6 illustrates the change in total utility per capita use from 2002 to the 2008-2011 time frame
for each sub-basin. During this time, residential per capita use fell from 113 gallons per day per
person to 85 gallons per day per person, a reduction of 25%. Under the recommended goal of WC01D (per Mitigated Planning Case B), the per capita use rate would be 70 gallons per person per
day, representing an additional 18% reduction from the 2008-2011 values.
1.8
Regulatory Agency Coordination with CHEOPS Modeling
North Carolina’s decision to fund this work was driven, in part, by the need to have an
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approved hydrologic model in the CatawbaWateree River Basin compliant with legislative statute NC SL 2010-143. This water quantity
modeling legislation requires that the models have certain inputs and provides flexibility for future
modification. The EMC also requires that the hydrologic model development be completed through
an open stakeholder process. To ensure that the updated CHEOPS model for the Basin would
meet the requirements of NC SL 2010-143, and other desired functional requirements by the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources, a modeling technical team (MTT) was assembled to provide
input and review of CHEOPS water model enhancements.
The MTT’s role was to identify and prioritize necessary enhancements to the model, review results
of the completed work, lead a stakeholder process, and ensure compliance with NC SL 2010143. Working collaboratively, the MTT led development of a more robust CHEOPS model that
has increased functionality (e.g. addition of tributary nodes for withdrawal/return points), greater
flexibility (e.g. universal on/off switch for water shortage response plans), and faster processing
times. It is anticipated that the model developed by the CWWMG for this Master Plan will be
approved by the EMC in the fall of 2014.
1.9
Geographical Information System Update
In order to document water withdrawals and returns in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, a
Geographic Information System (GIS) database was updated and expanded for this Master Plan.
This GIS database includes a flow modification points (FMPs) layer which defines point source
water withdrawals and returns and a basin layer that delineates each of the watersheds for the
eleven reservoirs. This GIS database can be utilized for future water use planning and analysis.
1.10
Enhancement of the Low Inflow Protocol
The LIP provides trigger points and procedures for how the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric
Project will be operated by Duke Energy, as well as water withdrawal reduction measures and
goals for other water users, during periods of low inflow (i.e. drought conditions). In order to ensure
continuous improvement of the LIP and its future implementation during low inflow periods, the
1-10
Executive Summary
Catawba-Wateree Drought Management Advisory Group (CW-DMAG) is tasked with periodic
review, evaluation, and recommendations for updates to the document.
The CWWMG had several reasons to review the LIP for potential revisions as part of this Master
Plan. First, many of the CW-DMAG organizations are also
members of the CWWMG. Second, given the newness of
the LIP and the extensiveness of the 2007-2008 drought,
many lessons were learned that could be quickly
incorporated into a revision. Next, the CWWMG meets
more frequently and has greater opportunity to evaluate and
propose revision recommendations to the CW-DMAG for
consideration. Finally, extensive water quantity modeling by
the CWWMG has illustrated that the LIP is currently the
most critical tool available to the region in protecting and
Master Plan recommendations will enhance
preserving water supply during drought conditions.
the LIP’s preservation of water supply during
future droughts
This Master Plan recommends eleven subject area
revisions for the LIP, several of which are already being
voluntarily implemented by the CW-DMAG. These revisions include the following.
Updating critical reservoir elevations.
Updating CW-DMAG membership.
Modifying LIP trigger metrics.
Updating water withdrawal data collection and reporting requirements.
Providing LIP stage declaration flexibility of more than once-per-month.
Revising water use reduction response times for Duke Energy and public water suppliers.
Evaluating water use reduction goals for public water suppliers.
It is proposed that each of these recommendations be submitted to the CW-DMAG for consideration
and potential approval. Given the critical importance of the LIP to protecting and preserving water
supply in the Basin, it is recommended that these revisions be vetted, as required, through the
stakeholder process and submitted to FERC for approval as soon as a new license is issued for
Duke Energy’s Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project.
1.11
Water Quality Modeling – Future Considerations
This Master Plan does not include water quality modeling. However, it does include a review of
previous water quality modeling initiatives for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, a survey and
short-list of applicable models, and a strategy for the CWWMG to move forward with water quality
modeling in the future.
1.12
Regulatory Issues
A survey and summary of historical and current federal and state (both NC and SC) regulations
impacting water supply was completed for this Master Plan. With a membership of 18 public
water supply utilities and Duke Energy, the CWWMG is positioned to be the go-to organization for
planning the future water use in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and to impact water-related
legislative initiatives in both North and South Carolina.
1-11
Executive Summary
This Master Plan makes the following specific recommendations to solidify CWWMG’s position as
the water resource planning organization for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
Create an external task force to build relationships with elected officials and regulators.
Host roundtable discussions with legislators and regulatory officials.
Continue to act as the de facto water supply planning organization for the Basin.
Seek appointment for members to regulatory advisory groups.
Collaborate with like-minded organizations in NC and SC to create a larger, stronger voice
for water supply issues.
Collaborate with other groups like American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water
Environment Federation (WEF) to respond to proposed regulation.
These actions will help the CWWMG achieve its mission through future water resource planning,
regulatory, and legislative decision-making.
1.13
Raw Water Intake Contingency Planning
This Master Plan lays the foundation for the development of sound, comprehensive raw water
intake contingency plans for CWWMG public water
suppliers. A review of each public water supply intake
condition, potential vulnerabilities, and existing contingency
plans was conducted. A priority ranking was given to the
water utilities based on the evaluation and assessment of
the criticality of each intake relative to providing adequate
water supply during periods of low flow. Each utility’s intake
was ranked as high, medium, or low priority based on an
objective scoring system. This research also identified a
number of contingency opportunities already leveraged by
CWWMG members, and other strategies to be considered
Raw water intake contingency development is
key to sound future water supply planning
by water utilities in development of formal plans. The
CWWMG is now initiating a separate project for
development, or formalization, of raw water intake contingency plans, as needed.
1.14
Project Identification and Funding
This Master Plan provides a decision framework that will assist the CWWMG with identifying and rating projects based upon its strategic objectives. This decision matrix allows for a logical and objective
process for project selection, as well as an evaluation of projects on their own merit before comparing
with other projects. A brief description of various grants and loans funding organizations that may be
considered for future projects is also outlined herein.
1.15
Public Awareness and Education
The following recommendations are given to support CWWMG’s public awareness, education, and
outreach programs.
Create and distribute a concise press release of this Master Plan.
Hire a public relations/marketing individual or firm.
Create an ad hoc external relations task force.
Raise awareness through conference presentations.
Develop partnerships with other organizations (e.g. NC-AWWA/WEA, AWWA, WEF).
Make meetings more accessible, including to elected and regulatory officials.
1-12
Executive Summary
These recommendations parallel much of what was identified in the CWWMG’s recently completed
Five-Year Self-Assessment Report.
1.16
Summary
This Master Plan is the most comprehensive water supply planning document completed to date for
the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Further, it has been completed through extensive collaboration
with CWWMG members, the SAT, and the Modeling Technical Team. The recommendations
outlined herein serve to ensure a sustainable water supply and continued growth and development
for current and future generations. It is further recommended that this Master Plan be updated
routinely to ensure it remains a ‘living’ document.
1-13
Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank
1-14
Project Overview
2.0
Master Plan Overview
2.1
Introduction
The Catawba-Wateree River is one of America’s most important and hardest working rivers. Nearly
two million people depend on the river and its tributaries for drinking water, power generation,
industrial processes, crop and livestock production, recreation, and other uses. Previous studies
have indicated that by mid-century (i.e. 2050), the water yield for many of this system’s reservoirs
may be reached. This water supply
limitation creates significant challenges
for those who depend on the river and
make continued population and economic
growth beyond that point unsustainable.
Recognizing that identifying and creating
solutions to this dilemma could take
decades to successfully implement, the
Catawba-Wateree Water Management
Group (CWWMG) was driven to complete
this comprehensive Catawba-Water
River Basin Water Supply Master Plan
(Master Plan). The purpose of this Master
Plan is to protect, preserve, and extend
the available water supply in this Basin
that extends from the foothills of North
Carolina through the piedmont area of
South Carolina.
The work effort, results, and
recommendations outlined herein
have been guided by the CWWMG
membership, a water supply modeling
team comprised of regulatory officials
from NC and SC, as well as an outside
stakeholder advisory team. This
outside stakeholder team included
representatives from interested nongovernmental organizations, regulatory
agencies, marine commissions, regional
council of governments, and others.
2.2
The focus of this Master Plan is the 4,750
square miles that comprise the Catawba
Wateree River Basin as show in Figure
2-1.
Master Plan Objectives
The objectives for completion of the Master Plan are summarized below:
Secure partners to co-fund the work thereby expediting completion of the Master Plan and
promoting regional collaboration and communication.
Assemble and lead an outside (i.e. non CWWMG) stakeholder group to allow for advisory
level input by key organizations that have an interest in the future planning efforts for the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
2-1
Project Overview
Develop future water withdrawal and return projections to the Year 2065 (~ 50 years) for
public water and wastewater suppliers, Duke Energy, industrial users, and agricultural and
irrigation uses.
Identify and evaluate future water use scenarios and system operating scenarios to
assess impacts on water supply yields.
Review and recommend revisions to the regional Low Inflow Protocol to improve regional
drought responsiveness and extend water supply during drought conditions.
Assess the impact of water conservation efforts by water users in the Basin and
recommend water use reduction goals that extend water supply yields for the region.
Identify and recommend future regionalization opportunities and partnerships between
water users that may result in enhancing or extending water supply yields for the region.
Survey various water quality modeling platforms and their applicability to the CatawbaWateree River Basin for consideration by the CWWMG for future additions to this Master
Plan.
Develop a geographical information system (GIS) database to document the results of this
Master Plan and integrate the GIS work from prior CWWMG activities and projects.
Assess CWWMG members’ raw water intake vulnerabilities to drought (i.e. low reservoir
levels) and prioritize those systems relative to their need of a raw water intake contingency
plan.
Review existing CWWMG efforts and recommend enhancements for public awareness
and education of this Master Plan, water supply issues, and future CWWMG activities.
Review current and potential future regulations impacting water supply and distribution
in the planning area and how these regulations relate to future planning initiatives by
CWWMG members.
Develop a framework for the CWWMG to identify, fund, and manage projects that align
with the group’s mission statement.
This Master Plan is organized around each of these primary objectives. The Master Plan represents
the work of many individuals from the consulting team, the CWWMG, the stakeholder advisory
team, and others. The analysis and results are comprehensively included in this document.
This recommended planning scenario delivers on the primary objective of this Master Plan in that
it extends water yield into the next century and provides a sustainable water supply for future
generations.
2-2
Project Funding Summary
3.0
Project Funding Co-Sponsors
3.1
Introduction
In support of its mission, the CWWMG seeks to collaborate with co-sponsors to help fund its
initiatives and projects, and enhance communication with all stakeholders interested and involved
with the management of water resources in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. To date, the
CWWMG has successfully secured outside funding and research support for a number of its
projects. Given the scope and magnitude of this Master Plan, the CWWMG again sought to secure
outside funding support and leadership for the project.
3.2
Co-Sponsor Outreach
As part of the Settlement Agreement dated December 3, 2010 (South Carolina v. North Carolina,
No. 138), both North Carolina and South Carolina agreed to work cooperatively with the CWWMG
to update the Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Study (completed in 2006 during Duke Energy’s
relicensing effort for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project). This update was scheduled to
occur at least every 10 years. Further, the Settlement Agreement states that “The cost of the Study
will be borne by the CWWMG, South Carolina, and North Carolina in shares to be mutually agreed
upon.” Since this Master Plan includes a complete update of the aforementioned 2006 Water
Supply Study, a letter was prepared by the chair of the CWWMG requesting financial support from
both NC and SC. This correspondence is included in Attachment 3-A. A review of other potential
supporters was also completed by the consulting team and it was determined that, given its 501C-3
status, the CWWMG had a higher probability of securing funding support from many private sector
organizations than other governmental organizations.
Funding request letters and applications were completed for the following organizations:
North Carolina
South Carolina
The Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc.
The Wells Fargo Foundation
Coca-Cola Foundation
PepsiCo Foundation
Many of these corporate foundations provide funding for projects that focus on environmental
issues, overall community health and benefits, and/or sustainability initiatives. This project fits well
into achieving many of the criteria set forth by the various foundations.
3.3
Co-Sponsor Support
The CWWMG was successful in securing outside funding support for the Master Plan. The cosponsors of this project are presented in Table 3-1 below:
Table 3-1 Funding Co-Sponsors for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply Master Plan
Organization
Funding Support ($)
$400,000
$250,000
$200,000
Total
$850,000
3-1
Project Funding Summary
This level of secured funding allowed the CWWMG to offset nearly two-thirds of the overall cost
of the project. It should be noted that North Carolina made this level of funding contingent upon
updating the Catawba-Wateree River Basin CHEOPS water model as further detailed in Section 10
of this document.
3-2
Stakeholder Advisory Team
4.0
4.1
Introduction
As part of the completion of this Master Plan document, a stakeholder advisory team (SAT) was
assembled to allow for advisory level input by key organizations that have an interest in the future
planning efforts for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. This stakeholder process was distinctly
different, and had no relation to the intensive collaborative stakeholder process previously
completed for Duke Energy’s recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing
effort for their Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project.
The CWWMG’s intent for the SAT was to further ensure a broader level of input from a diverse
group of interested stakeholders into the planning recommendations and considerations for the
Master Plan. In addition, the CWWMG’s goal was to generate consensus support for the Master
Plan recommendations from members of the SAT and gain their trust and confidence toward
implementation support and external communications.
4.2
Stakeholder Advisory Team Members
The CWWMG initially reached out to stakeholders from the following types of organizations:
Resource Agencies
Marine Commissions
Non-governmental Organizations
Business Interests
Others
To maintain a manageable group of stakeholders and facilitate quality discussions over the course
of a series of meetings over several years, it was believed that the number of members should be
held to representatives from approximately 15-20 organizations.
The organizations selected are identified in Table 4-1, including primary and alternate
representatives.
Table 4-1 Stakeholder Advisory Team Members
Organization
Contact
Mike Vead
Jim Prosser
Johnny Wear
Jim Edwards
Carolina Canoe Club
Lorraine Burnham
Ron Shoultz
Joe Stowe
Emily Parker
Jeff Manning
Don Rayno
Chris Goudreau
SC Department of Health &
Environmental Control
Chuck Gorman
Hope Mizzell
Dale Herendeen
Alternate
Karyl Fuller & Lisa Trotman
Bob Elliot
Tom Fransen
Ken Rentiers
4-1
Table 4-1 (con’t)
Organization
Contact
International Paper
John Baker
Damon Crowther
Catawba Wateree Relicensing Coalition
Vicki Taylor
High Country COG
Rick Herndon
Gregory Sprouse
Nicholas Institute at Duke University
Bill Holman
UNC School of Government
Richard Wisnant
Erin Wynia
Newton
Wilce Martin
Kershaw County
Vic Carpenter
Alternate
Byron Miller
The SAT members contributed significant amounts of time to the successful completion of this
Master Plan and should be recognized for their passion for protecting and preserving the water
resources of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
4.3
Stakeholder Advisory Team – Activities and Input
While the role of the SAT was essential to this project’s success, it was clearly communicated that
the role was advisory only; and not tied to any regulatory condition or requirement. Over the course
of this Master Plan a total of six (6) SAT meetings were held. Given the length of time between each
meeting, a general project overview was completed during each discussion. However, each meeting
focused on select key elements of the project. The meetings and topics are summarized Table 4-2
below:
Table 4-2 Stakeholder Advisory Team Meeting Summary
Meeting
No.
Date
Key Project Elements Presented/Discussed
1
08.20.12
Review of SAT membership, roles, and overview of the Master Plan scope of work
2
10.29.12
Future water demand projections
3
03.12.13
Identification of future water modeling scenarios and planning concepts
4
08.01.13
Future safe yield water modeling scenario results, and identification of additional scenarios
5
11.21.13
Future safe yield water modeling scenario results and identified planning concepts
6
TBD
Final review of master plan results, conclusions, and recommendations
As indicated, the SAT was tasked to review and provide input into the key elements of the Master
Plan, including:
Analysis of the future water demand projections
Review of CHEOPS modeling strategy and enhancements, including incorporation of
climate change impact
Identification of potential safe yield modeling scenarios
Analysis of water yield modeling results and conclusions
Water use efficiency plans and future water use efficiency goals
Identification of potential issues/concerns from other regional stakeholders
4-2
Public relations and communications related to the Master Plan and the CWWMG
The meetings were generally conducted over a 2-hour time frame that included a presentation and
overviews of the work completed since the prior SAT meeting, as well as open discussion regarding
a review and analysis of the completed activities. The SAT provided thoughtful input into numerous
areas of the Master Plan including how potential future climate change should be considered
into water yield modeling, the approach to regional water use efficiency, and potential impacts of
proposed changes to infrastructure and reservoir operational conditions.
4.4
Stakeholder Advisory Team – Next Steps
Given the extensive value provided by the SAT to this Master Plan process, it is anticipated that the
group can be further leveraged in the future. First, the organizations represented on the SAT have
a broad reach to a number of external stakeholders with an interest in the water resource issues
associated with the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. As such, the CWWMG plans to leverage the
SAT as part of their community outreach and public communications strategy regarding the Master
Plan and its results. Next, should the CWWMG move into a new phase of planning that includes
water quality analysis and modeling, the SAT could be remobilized to provide input and guidance
into that effort. Finally, access to SAT members and organizations can be leveraged to provide ongoing support and input into activities and communications associated with the CWWMG.
4-3
4-4
Water Withdrawal and Return Projections
5.0
5.1
Introduction
The Master Plan scope includes an update to the 2006 Water Supply Study for future water demand
projections. The 2006 Water Supply Study completed for relicensing of Duke Energy’s CatawbaWateree Hydroelectric Project included an evaluation of future water use projections until the Year
2058. This information has been reviewed and updated for water demand projections extending to
the year 2065 (~50 years), as part of the Master Plan. Key work items for this task include:
Individual meetings with CWWMG members to secure relevant information (electronic,
hard copy and verbal) regarding current operating conditions, future population
projections, water demand projections and other potential planning impacts.
A review of current and potential future inter-basin transfer amounts – both into and out of
the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
A review of current water use trend data for water and wastewater utilities in the Basin.
A review of current and future projected intake levels in the 11 reservoirs.
Projections of future water demand for major use categories, including:
→→
Public water suppliers (i.e. water treatment plants (WTPs)) and returns (i.e.
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs))
→→
Power use provided by Duke Energy including future water demand for current
power facilities and any projected into the future year 2065.
→→
Industrial users withdrawing directly from the Catawba River or one of the surface
waters of the Basin.
→→
Agricultural uses
→→
Irrigation uses
Individual water use projections have been “rolled up” into a reservoir based net withdrawal
approach for use in water yield modeling.
The 2006 Water Supply Study also considered the “safe yield” estimates for various operating
scenarios and constraint conditions for the Catawba system’s 11 reservoirs. New water demand
projections to the Year 2065 were compared to the previous yield estimates through use of the
CHEOPS hydrologic model, after projections had been finalized and vetted through the CWWMG.
5.2
5.2.1
Objective
The initial step in this task called for developing reliable water withdrawal and return projections
for the entire Catawba-Wateree River Basin to the year 2065. In compiling the list of current users,
these projections focus on those users that currently withdraw or return from a surface water source
an average daily rate of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd - or 0.1 mgd) or more from the Basin. While
there may be numerous users that withdraw or return water at rates less than 100,000 gpd, their
impact on net withdrawals from the watersheds of each reservoir was considered insignificant for
long-term safe-yield analyses. This determination was made since many of these small users would
likely be withdrawing and returning at similar rates and within the same watershed. Also, the net
withdrawals produced by these users would be very small relative to the overall net withdrawals
resulting from the users that are documented in this task. This methodology is consistent with the
previous projections developed for the 2006 Water Supply Study.
There are 11 dams and reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin that are operated by
5-1
Duke Energy. For the purpose of this task, the Catawba-Wateree Project was delineated into 11
incremental watersheds, one for each reservoir in the Project. These watersheds are listed below
from the most upstream reservoir to the most downstream reservoir in the Project (see Figure 5-1):
Lake James
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory
Lookout Shoals Lake
Lake Norman
Lake Wylie
Great Falls-Dearborn Reservoir
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Lake Wateree
While it was important to perform a detailed evaluation of each water withdrawal and return, the
focus was on a watershed system analysis of total net water usage. By evaluating the total water
demand using this watershed system, more accurate projections were computed as individual
system forecasts were measured against other regional projections for population growth and
economic factors. For example, if all the water users within a particular watershed were forecasted
with aggressive growth in demand, it is possible that an overestimate of actual water usage for
the projection period would have resulted from that particular area. The watershed-based system
evaluation facilitated keeping the projections within the bounds of more reasonable regional
projections.
Furthermore, the net water usage (or net withdrawal) for each watershed system was determined to
be the critical value for this task, since it impacts available water supply for the users.
5-2
5-3
5.2.2
Water Withdrawal and Return Projection Methodology
A detailed approach was used to forecast future (50+ years) water withdrawal and water return
projections within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. The following subsections outline the
considerations and approach to forecasting water withdrawal and return projections for the
projection period.
Those using the Catawba-Wateree River Basin for water supply or returns can generally be
grouped into one of the following major categories:
Agricultural and Irrigation – These users include farms, golf courses, and other facilities
that utilize water for crop and livestock production, irrigation, and other uses.
Electric Power – Duke (non-hydro) facilities within the Project that utilize water for cooling
and other energy production needs.
Public Water Suppliers and Wastewater Utilities – These systems include municipal
and other utility agencies that withdraw and treat water for public consumption; residential,
commercial, and industrial use; and systems that treat wastewater and return it to a
surface water source.
Direct Industrial – These industrial users have direct withdrawals and/or returns from
surface water sources and utilize water in their manufacturing processes.
As noted above, this effort was limited to withdrawals and returns that are greater than 100,000
gpd. This approach was selected to allow greater focus and more detailed projections for those
significant users of the Catawba-Wateree system and is consistent with the previous methodology
of the 2006 Water Supply Study.
A summary of the water use projections for the Basin is presented in Attachment 5-B. Detailed
water use projections for each water user category are also presented in Attachments 5-C, 5-D, 5-E
and 5-F.
5.2.2.1
Agricultural and Irrigation Projections
Agricultural and irrigation (A&I) users required a multi-step process to determine water use
within the Basin. Data on specific agricultural and irrigation withdrawals is limited. The minimum
registration required for agricultural withdrawals by North Carolina statute is 1 mgd; no registrations
are required in South Carolina. Therefore, the following approach was utilized to forecast A&I
usage.
Agriculture and Irrigation (A/I) projections are comprised of crop irrigation (Crop), livestock watering
(Livestock), golf course irrigation (Golf Course), and lakeside residential property irrigation
(Lakeside Irrigation) categories. Water use data for Crop and Livestock categories was obtained
from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Estimated Use of Water in the U.S. national
level database which provides historical water use records by state, county and use type. Data was
obtained from this source in five-year increments (1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005) for North Carolina
and South Carolina on a per-County basis. Additionally, the USGS National Land Cover Dataset
for GIS was used to identify county-level pasture and row crops land area (Types 81 and 82,
respectively).
Golf Course water use projections are based on historical data from various sources. Duke Energy
water use data was utilized for select golf courses that have direct surface water intakes on Duke
operated reservoirs. These facilities are required to report their monthly raw water intake for
irrigation use to Duke annually. Additional data was compiled from North and South Carolina state
databases used to track monthly water use and sources, the U.S. Census Bureau to determine the
historical number of golf courses by county (1997, 2002 and 2007), and GIS to identify golf course
locations and distribution within the Basin.
5-4
Lakeside Irrigation water use projections are based on projections developed by Duke Energy
using an average irrigation application rate (during the irrigation season of April through October)
for lakeside properties, as related to the area of lakeside properties. For these projections, Duke
developed projection scenarios for the estimated current irrigation use based upon the area of
presently developed lakeside properties in each sub-basin, as well as a future build-out scenario
assuming all available residential lakeside properties were fully developed.
It should be noted that the A&I forecasts incorporated the following key assumptions:
A&I water withdrawals are completely consumptive (i.e., no surface returns).
A&I water withdrawals for Crop and Livestock categorical use for the base year (2011) and
future years relies on the highest water use rates in historical data published by USGS.
A&I water withdrawals for Golf Course use for the base year (2011) relies on actual
reported and estimated water use based on golf courses within the Basin, as determined
from GIS. Future water use projections rely on predicted growth of the golf industry and
corresponding addition of golf courses within the Basin over the projection period.
A&I water withdrawals for crop and livestock water use for a given county are consumed
based on the actual distribution of agricultural land use within the county and Basin, as
determined from GIS datasets.
The percentage of a county’s agricultural land area (by type) within a particular reservoir’s
watershed is commensurate with the percentage of that county’s total A&I water
withdrawal that is taken from that watershed. For example, if 25 percent of a county’s
agricultural crop area (harvested crops (GIS land Type 81) and pasture land (GIS land
Type 82)) resides within a particular watershed, it was assumed that 25 percent of that
county’s A&I water demand for the Crop category is satisfied by the reservoir associated
with that watershed.
Private irrigation by individual residential lakeside properties directly from the Project’s
reservoirs presents a measurable impact on the net water withdrawal from the Project
reservoirs, as determined in North Carolina State University’s (NCSU) March 2011,
“Catawba River Basin Residential Irrigation Water Conservation Study.” Residential
lakeside irrigation water use projections, based on NCSU’s study, are currently being
incorporated into the overall water use projections of this Master Plan, differing from the
previous omission of this water use category in the 2006 Water Supply Study. For the
purposes of the Master Plan, residential lakeside irrigation water use projections are
considered as a sub-category of the Agriculture-Irrigation projections, discussed herein.
Projections were completed on a per-watershed level. For example, A&I usage was calculated
for Lake Rhodhiss separately from Lake Norman, and so forth. GIS was utilized to determine the
percentage of each county’s total and agricultural land area that lies in each reservoir’s watershed
within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
5.2.2.1.1 Crop and Livestock Water Use Projection Methodology
Historical county crop irrigation and livestock water use was identified in the USGS water use data
from 1990-2005. The A&I water use reported in the USGS database varies considerably between
reporting years, and no definitive trend in water use (increase or decrease) exists. Therefore,
the use of an annual growth rate (AGR) for water use projections is not relevant for the Crop and
Livestock categories. Instead, to forecast water withdrawals for each county, the greatest water
withdrawal from the 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 USGS data sets was selected as the county
water use for all future A&I consumption, by category. The percentage of each county’s agricultural
land area in each sub-basin was then identified using GIS and each county’s crop and livestock
water use was calculated by sub-basin. County-level results were then compiled according to
5-5
their respective sub-basin. These values serve as the basis for Crop and Livestock A&I water use
projections for each sub-basin, and is the same value for each projection decade (i.e., no increase
or decrease in A&I water use over the projection period).
5.2.2.1.2 Golf Course Water Use Projection Methodology
The number and spatial distribution of golf courses within the Basin was identified using GIS,
and this list of golf courses was filtered for surface water users based on available data and
GIS analysis. Historical water use was extracted from the data sets and constant water use was
assumed. Golf course water use was then compiled by sub-basin. Future water use projections
were generated by determining the historical average water use for golf courses within the Basin
and through development of the historical golf course annual growth rate (AGR) by county based on
data from the US Economic Census for the number of golf courses between 2002 and 2007. Using
this AGR, projected new golf courses were calculated based on the number of existing golf courses
for each county and the calculated AGR. New golf course water use was then projected using the
average monthly historical water use for existing golf courses in the Basin multiplied by number of
projected new golf courses.
5.2.2.1.3 Lakeside Irrigation Water Use Projection Methodology
The areas of currently developed and all potentially developable residential lakeside properties
within each sub-basin were identified by Duke Energy. A set of two water use projection scenarios
were developed by Duke: 1) Current Scenario- An estimate of current lakeside residential irrigation
water use; and 2) Build-Out Scenario- A long-term estimate of the maximum amount that may
be withdrawn for lakeside lot irrigation if all available residential properties were developed. For
projections of this Master Plan, the Base Year projections for each sub-basin were set equal to zero
in each sub-basin, given the fact that the CHEOPS model indirectly accounts for current lakeside
irrigation withdrawals through the programming of historical lake elevations.
As the Build-Out Scenario represents a maximum potential irrigation water use in the future, water
use through 2065 was estimated by applying an area-weighted AGR for each sub-basin. These
area-weighted AGR’s were developed with consideration given to the percentage of each county
within a given sub-basin, as related to the projected population AGR’s for each county. This subbasin specific AGR was then applied to the Base Year lakeside irrigation water use projections for
each of the eleven (11) Duke operated reservoirs, by decade, through 2065. A maximum water use
growth limit in each sub-basin for residential lakeside property irrigation was set equal to the BuildOut Scenario projections established by Duke Energy. However, none of the AGR based projections
reached the Build-Out Scenario in any sub-basin, although projections did come close in several
sub-basins.
Future growth projections in residential lakeside irrigation withdrawals were defined as the expected
water use (by decade) from the combined existing and projected future residential lakeside property
development during the planning period minus Duke Energy’s Current Scenario projections for
lakeside irrigation in each sub-basin. This difference was used in the Master Plan projections for
the future residential lakeside irrigation categorical projections and accounts only for irrigation water
withdrawal increases over the planning period, not current usage.
5.2.2.1.4 Agriculture/Irrigation Results
Results for A/I projections notably differ from the 2006 Water Supply Study and are typically lower
than the 2006 study for the Crop, Livestock and Golf Course sub-categories, but higher overall as
a result of the inclusion of the water use sub-category for Lakeside Irrigation. These differences
are the result of refinements in the projection methodology for this Master Plan effort. The changes
include:
Evaluating the percent of each county’s agricultural land area within a sub-basin instead
5-6
of evaluating the percent of each county’s total land area in each sub-basin. Through
evaluation of the actual agricultural land area within a sub-basin for each county, a more
accurate distribution of agricultural water use within a county can be generated, as
agricultural land use within a given county is not uniformly distributed, as was previously
assumed in the 2006 Study.
Example:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
County, State
County
Area
County
Area in
Basin
County
in Basin
County
A/I
Land
County
in A/I
Land
sq. mi.
sq. mi.
%
sq. mi.
%
sq. mi.
%
%
Iredell, NC
597
135
23%
204
34%
28
14%
(9%)
Union, NC
639
162
25%
250
39%
40
16%
(9%)
2006 Study to
County
County’s
2012 Master Plan
A/I Land A/I Land in
Difference:
in Basin
Basin
(4) minus (8)
Generating Crop and Livestock categorical water use projections using the greatest water
withdrawal from the 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 USGS data sets (flat line projections)
instead of using an annual growth rate to project increases (or decreases) in Crop and
Livestock water use within the Basin. A preliminary analysis was performed on the
USGS data to determine trends in historical water use for crops and livestock within the
Basin. Results of this analysis generally showed a downward historical trend in overall
agricultural land area within the Basin (likely due to urbanization within the Basin).
However, no definitive trend in overall crop and livestock water use could be identified
from the historical data and was, in fact, observed to be highly variable from reporting
year to reporting year. It appears that crop and livestock irrigation water use within the
Basin in more closely related to annual climatic variations (temperature and rainfall) than
agricultural land area. Therefore, the use of an annual growth rates (AGR) for water use
projections (as was used in the 2006 Study) is not relevant for the Crop and Livestock
categories. Use of the greatest water withdrawal from the 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005
USGS data sets for Crop and Livestock categorical water use projections appears to be a
more realistic approach for this Basin.
Including separate entity detail sheets for each golf course in lieu of using USGS golf
course water use data parsed out based on the county area within each sub-basin.
Since the 2006 Study, Duke has been collecting raw water irrigation withdrawals from
golf courses withdrawing directly from the Basin’s reservoirs. Additionally, the use of
GIS allows for each golf course with a surface water irrigation use within the Basin to be
identified. This methodology provides a more accurate spatial distribution of golf courses
within the Basin than the 2006 Study and allows for future golf course projections to be
identified through correlation of existing golf courses to potential areas of population
increase.
Example:
Golf Irrigation Change in Fishing Creek Reservoir Sub-Basin:
2006 Study = 4.57 mgd in 2008
Study = 2.45 mgd in 2011
Including an additional sub-category for lakeside residential property irrigation that was
not previously included in the 2006 Study. As a result of North Carolina State University’s
study related to lakeside residential irrigation water use after the 2006 Study, it was
5-7
determined that water use for this purpose represents a significant amount of water
withdrawal from the Catawba-Wateree reservoirs, which must be accounted for. As
current programming for the CHEOPS model for lake levels is indirectly inclusive of
current withdrawals for lakeside residential irrigation, only the projected growth in lakeside
residential irrigation from 2011 to 2065 was considered.
Example:
Lakeside Irrigation Change in Lake Norman Sub-Basin:
2006 Study = Not included
2012 Study = 0 mgd in 2011; 5.11 mgd (growth over baseline use) in 2065
(annualized average) or 8.72 mgd (April-October irrigation season use)
A/I water use projections for this Master Plan reflect from the 2006 Study primarily as the
result in the following three changes in methodology.
→→
Crop and Livestock water use is now projected using the greatest water use of the
historical data without the use of an AGR, as described earlier.
→→
Golf Course water use is now projected using U.S. Census Golf Course AGRs in lieu
of projected population AGRs.
→→
Lakeside Irrigation water use projections have been included in this Master Plan
effort, and were not included in the 2006 Study.
Detailed A&I water withdrawal projection analyses are included in Attachment 5-E.
5.2.2.2
Electric Power Projections
Duke Energy maintains a database of energy demand, water use, and population. For the purposes
of these Master Plan projections, Duke completed an internal evaluation of future energy needs
during the expected projection period and then equated this future energy need with a water use
forecast. As it relates to the net withdrawal of water from the system, accurate accounting for
Duke’s current and future demand was critical to this Master Plan’s success.
The process used to project future water use for Duke’s facilities is outlined as follows:
Project future population growth within the current and potential future service areas to be
supplied by Duke-operated facilities that are located in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
Determine additional power production requirements to meet the needs of this population
growth and service area expansion.
Determine the need for new power facilities or existing facility modifications to meet the
projected energy needs or the population base. For purposes of these projections, all new
facilities are assumed to be combined cycle plants. Combined cycle facilities generate
power by combining gas and steam generators to produce energy more efficiently than
conventional facilities (fossil fuel, nuclear, gas or steam power generating stations).
Cooling water is required for both types of power generation, but combined cycle is more
economical in its water use.
Assign new power plant requirements to locations within the 11 reservoirs of the CatawbaWateree River Basin.
Determine when the new projects must be completed to meet the demands within the
planning period.
Equate water demand to the assignment of new power production facilities.
Assume that the existing power production facilities in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin
will remain or be replaced by combined cycle facilities.
5-8
It should be noted that the above analysis was not completed for the purpose of siting future power
facility projects, nor do the assigned locations for new facilities indicate actual plans or targeted
sites. The analysis was completed to ensure that these critical future water uses were considered
as part of these Master Plan projections.
Duke currently operates two nuclear and two coal-fired power plants on two of the reservoirs
in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and recently retired another coal-fired plant (Riverbend
Steam Station) on Mountain Island Lake. The water needs for the new power plant production
requirements determined as outlined above were, for the purposes of this Master Plan, assigned
to Lake Hickory, Lake Norman, Fishing Creek Reservoir and Lake Wateree. This assignment of
water demand was based on two primary considerations. First, this assignment conservatively
spreads future water demand throughout the system. Second, these reservoirs represent the larger
storage reservoirs within the Basin. Table 5.1 summarizes the current and future power production
assignments made by Duke for this Master Plan.
The total water use projections for these new and expanded facilities are included in Attachment
5-B summary sheets and Attachment 5-F detail sheets.
Table 5-1 Duke Energy Existing and Future Power Plant Requirements
Power Plant
Description
Reservoir
Existing (E)/ New (N)
Year(s) New Facilities Completed
Lake Hickory – New
Hickory
N
2027
Lake Norman – New
Norman
N
2057
Marshall
Norman
E
-
McGuire
Norman
E
-
Riverbend
Mt. Island
E
-
Catawba
Wylie
E
-
Allen
Wylie
E
-
Fishing Creek – New
Wylie
N
2047
Lake Wateree - New
Wateree
N
2044
1
Notes:
Riverbend Steam Station was scheduled for retirement in 2015, but was retired ahead of schedule, in 2013, during
development of Master Plan projections
1
The following key assumptions in Table 5-2 regarding the future of new and existing power facilities
were used by Duke Energy in the development of the projections.
5-9
Table 5-2 Duke Energy Future Power Plant Assumptions
Projection Decade
Assumptions
-Existing water use amounts and locations continue until 2015
2012-2015
-Riverbend units retire in 2015 (actually 2013)
-Water use associated with Riverbend Steam Station generation transferred to Allen Steam Plant
2016-2025
-No additional generation using Catawba-Wateree Basin water through 2025
-One 2 X 1 Combined Cycle Plant added at Lake Hickory
-One 2 X 1 Combined Cycle Plant added at Riverbend Steam Station site in 2032
2026-2035
-Allen units retire in 2032
-One 2 X 1 Combined Cycle Plant added at Allen Steam Plant site in 2033
-Marshall units retired in 2040
-Two 2 X 1 Combined Cycle Plant added at Marshall Steam Station site in 2041
2036-2045
-Two 2 X 1 Combined Cycle Plant added at Marshall Steam Station site in 2042
-2-Unit Nuclear Plant added at Lake Wateree in 2044
-2-Unit Nuclear Plant added at Fishing Creek Reservoir in 2047
2046-2055
-One 2 X 1 Combined Cycle Plant added at Lake Rhodhiss in 2053
2056-2065
-One 2 X 1 Combined Cycle Plant added at Lake Norman in 2057
For new combined-cycle power generating facilities, the following water consumption rates in Table
5-3 were used to develop the projections.
Table 5-3 Duke Energy Existing and Future Power Plant Requirements
Plant Size
5.2.2.3
Consumption (MGD)
2X1CC
5.50
3X1CC
8.25
2-2X1CC
10.00
Public Water Suppliers and Wastewater Utilities Projections
Forecasting water withdrawal and return projections on a regional basis for public water suppliers
required a multi-step approach. The approach used in this Master Plan is summarized as follows:
1.
2.
5-10
Collected available data to determine historical results for withdrawals and returns,
and gathered previously developed future projections. This data included:
a.
Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) (for water systems in North Carolina) –
2002 and 2007-2011; and other water use data for water suppliers for the years
2002-2011
b.
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) or wastewater discharge/return data for
wastewater facilities –2002-2011.
c.
Recent studies and reports (e.g., 201 Facility Plans, water master plans) from
specific users.
d.
Historical population figures and population projections.
e.
Significant industrial users for large public water supply systems (e.g., those
using 50,000 gpd or more).
Disaggregated industrial and other types of usage from historical water withdrawal
and return results provided by the public water systems and evaluated usage per
customer type for each system.
3.
Evaluated future increases in water demand by evaluating growth within existing
service areas, and through evaluation of service area expansion for each system or
industry.
4.
Generated revised withdrawal and return projections for each existing user. These
projections were based on annual average withdrawal and return rates for the
projection period, with a monthly variation trend developed for each watershed to be
applied to each year of the projection period.
5.
Compared any previous projections of the 2006 Water Supply Study with the revised
projections and analyzed any differences.
6.
Evaluated water supply sources and growth adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree River
Basin and estimated future increases in inter-basin transfers either into or out of the
Basin.
7.
Summed individual results into total projections for each reservoir watershed system.
The goal for this forecasting effort was to minimize assumptions required and be equitable in the
treatment of each system. The methodology used is outlined in further detail in the subsections to
follow.
5.2.2.3.1 Data Gathering Process
The Catawba-Wateree River Basin lies within both North and South Carolina. Therefore, data was
obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC-DENR)
and other North Carolina agencies in addition to the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC-DHEC) and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR).
Most data on withdrawals and returns in North Carolina is publicly available on NC-DENR’s website.
Therefore, historical water demand data was gathered from information presented in the 1997, 2002
and 2007-2011 LWSPs submitted to the NC-DENR Division of Water Resources (DWR) by each
utility. It should be noted that prior to 2007, these plans were only required to be submitted to the
DWR every five years. From 2007 to present, the plans are required to be submitted on an annual
basis.
Discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitted facilities that are registered to return more than 0.1 mgd were obtained from the
NC-DENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for years 2000-2012. Analysis of the DMRs was used to
develop a correlation between the historical water demand data and wastewater discharges.
Water supply and demand data for South Carolina is not readily available in the same format as the
LWSPs in North Carolina. Historical data for surface water withdrawals within South Carolina were
obtained directly from the entity, in the absence of publicly available information from SC-DHEC.
An updated list of NPDES permitted facilities, along with DMRs for years 2007-2011, was obtained
from SC-DHEC for water returns into the Basin.
While data available in the public domain was useful to evaluate historical results and determine
baseline projections, it was recognized that greater and more specific information could be obtained
directly from individual permitted users. As such, the consulting team submitted a data request
letter and questionnaire to the utilities and industries within the Basin. Responses to this information
request were sporadic. Thus, the consulting team continued with follow-up phone calls and emails
to many of the users. Furthermore, since a high percentage of the total water use in the Basin was
comprised of organizations with representatives on the CWWMG, individual meetings were held
with each of these members to ensure more accurate withdrawal and return projections.
Historical population data and projections were also obtained through US Census Bureau and the
5-11
state planning offices for North and South Carolina. Historical population figures and system data
were used to help determine historical per capita use rates for the different systems. Population
projections were used to generate future water demand and provide a check on regional water
demand projections.
In addition to personal communications, the following list summarizes sources of data used in the
development of withdrawal and return projections:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
US Census Bureau
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, State Demographics Branch
South Carolina Budget and Control Board
5.2.2.3.2 Disaggregation of User Types
Using the historical information available, the major residential, commercial, industrial, institutional,
wholesale and other user categories supplied by each water system were disaggregated, as
appropriate, and a per-customer usage factor was developed. Future industrial withdrawal and
return rate projections were considered as part of the external impact evaluations as outlined in
Section 5.2.4.4. Current water use factors for residential and other non-industrial demand were
calculated for major water purveyors on a gallon per customer per day (gpcd) basis. Historical
trends were considered for water use factors for each system. For instance, the change in per
customer usage over time was evaluated to determine the most appropriate forecasting unit factor.
Disaggregation of historical water use by category also allowed for the use of differing AGRs to be
applied to user categories, where local/regional factors presented a need for projected growth to be
different between categories.
5.2.2.3.3 Increased Withdrawals and Returns within the Existing Service Areas
The water use factors and other information obtained were used to project future water demand due
to residential population and other non-industrial growth. A similar approach was used to calculate
water returns. If a wastewater drainage basin is expected to see population growth, unit factors
for wastewater discharges or historical relationships established with water use were determined
and appropriate projections made. Consideration was also given to the overall population density
of service areas. For example, population growth rates throughout the projection period (to 2065)
were used to project future population for defined service areas. In the more urbanized areas,
an evaluation of population density was completed and a determination made on its impact to
continued population growth. For example, while Mecklenburg County was projected for continued
strong growth early in the projection period (AGR=1.63 through 2025), this rate was incrementally
reduced during the projection period (AGR=1.20 for 2025-2045 and AGR=0.9 for 2046-2065; for
additional details see entity-specific projections in Attachment 5-C).
5.2.2.3.4 Increased Withdrawals and Returns Resulting from Service Area Expansion
One of the most challenging tasks of the water withdrawal and return projections was assessing
the realistic potential for service area expansion of existing systems. Some of the water users had
facility plans or master plans that outlined service area expansions and provided a detailed analysis
in the projection of future water demand or wastewater generated. However, only a few of these
planning documents extended beyond a 20-year planning period.
Some considerations that were factored into projecting future service area expansion included:
A review of previous projections made by the individual systems.
5-12
An evaluation of population density growth adjacent to the existing systems.
Historical growth by the individual systems.
Economic data and forecasts.
Transportation corridors currently in the development stage and the potential impacts on
water demand.
While this approach may seem tedious, it is important to remember that the focus of this Master
Plan is on individual watersheds. The actual service area expansion forecasts are more important
on a regional basis, rather than an individual water system basis.
Withdrawal and return projections were determined for the existing systems. Service area
expansion was then assigned to one or more of the users within each reservoir’s watershed. In
making these assignments, the focus was on determining reasonable regional projections for future
water withdrawals and returns, not on which entity would, or should, be designated to meet these
future needs. The critical value in this Master Plan is the total water withdrawals and returns within
each reservoir’s watershed.
5.2.2.3.5 Relationship of Future Projections to Permitted Flow
The projections used in this Master Plan focus on annual average flows; that is, the average
withdrawal or return flow through the course of a 365-day calendar year.
Many users of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin have a permitted withdrawal or return flow for
their facilities that is granted by state or federal regulatory agencies. These permitted flows were
determined at different points in time and based on many environmental and other issues. This
Master Plan does not consider permitted flows for water users as maximum allowable, but makes
projections based on expected future demand to ensure accurate accounting for water yield
analysis.
5.2.2.4
Industrial User Projections
Industries that utilize waters of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin typically do so in one of two ways.
First, an industry may have a direct withdrawal (or return) into one of the surface water sources
(lake, river segment, tributary). Alternatively, an industry may be connected to a public water supply
system or wastewater utility. Projections for both types of uses were made as part of this Master
Plan. Industries with direct withdrawal or return flows of greater than 100,000 gpd are presented
and summarized in Attachment 5-D. For industrial users connected to public water suppliers or
wastewater utilities, details are provided in Attachment 5-C on how flow amounts were assigned to
industrial categories and how the projections were made.
As data was gathered on historical flows (see previous section) from industrial users, the continued
impact that the loss of industrial manufacturing has made on the water withdrawals and usage in
the Basin was evident. Some public water suppliers in the Basin have seen flat or negative growth
over the past decade in their overall water withdrawals, even as population in their service area
grew. The challenge for this Master Plan is to make the most accurate projections for industrial
water demand without underestimating or overestimating the impact of future industrial needs in
the Basin. To make these projections, a ‘one size fits all’ methodology cannot be used. Instead,
data was gathered from a variety of sources and projections made based on the best information
available. A few of the approaches taken to make these projections are outlined below.
For the CWWMG public water supply members (who comprise the vast majority of public water
system withdrawals and returns in the Basin), a breakdown of their large industrial users (defined
as those industries with flows greater than 50,000 gpd) was requested. A meeting was held with
each of these agencies where industrial customer use was discussed to assist in making a best
determination of how to project future flows.
5-13
Example – Chester Metro has implemented an aggressive economic development
plan to encourage new industry at a variety of designated industrial development sites.
After discussions with Chester’s staff and reviewing their large industrial customers and
potential development opportunities, industrial and commercial flow projections were
made based on an aggressive AGR of 5.0. In comparison, the residential projections for
the Chester Metro were made on an AGR of 1.0 in accordance with Chester county-level
population projections.
Attempts were also made for direct industrial users with large withdrawals to discuss their shortterm and long-term plans for future water needs, with limited response. Those industries that did
respond typically indicated that there are limited plans for expansion and little increase in water
withdrawals or returns expected. No industry was able to project needs for the 50-year projection
period, but some offered insight into shorter-range plans that promoted more accurate projections.
Example – Siemens Westinghouse (located in Charlotte, NC) has a water withdrawal that
has varied from 5.5 to 6.5 mgd between the years 2009 and 2011. Conversations with their
staff indicated the construction of a new manufacturing building and future water demands
that are expected to increase by an additional 1 mgd by 2015.
In many cases, industrial withdrawal and return flow projections were evaluated based on the
historical Gross State Product (GSP) trend for a particular industry type. These values were
typically applied to increases or decreases in industrial production throughout the Basin during the
projection period. By evaluating historical trends in water demand, and the GSP by industry type,
the projections attempted to account for shifts in the regional economy from manufacturing to a
more service-based economy. For example, a food processing company in North Carolina may
currently withdraw from and/or return flow into the Basin. According to the North Carolina GSP, food
product manufacturing statewide increased in production at an annual rate of 1.66 percent between
the years 1997-2010. Water withdrawals have therefore been projected to increase from their
current levels using an AGR correlating with each industry sectors annual production rate growth.
It should also be noted that the AGRs produced from the GSP were used only as a foundation to
arrive at realistic projections. For instance, many GSPs for industry sectors indicated an annual
decline in production for the industry category statewide in between 1997 and 2010. However,
application of a negative AGR would result in negative or zero withdrawal flows for manufacturers
in that particular industry sector. Therefore, an AGR of 0.00 percent was assigned to simulate no
change in water withdrawals. This approach was taken to ensure conservatism in the water use
projections and water yield analysis.
Example – For Huffman Finishing, furniture finishing; NC GSP of -6.55 percent from 1997
to 2010 for this industry sector, an AGR of 0.00 was assumed so as not to produce an
overall projected decrease in water use.
In reviewing this information, it should be noted that many industrial users return much of the water
back into a surface water source within the Basin. Additionally, many industries may return water
to a surface water source, while withdrawing from groundwater sources or purchasing water from
a public water supply system, thereby resulting in an overall negative net withdrawal from surface
water (return more surface water than they withdraw). As a result, the projections indicate that
direct industrial users (not including industries who purchase from public water supply systems)
currently return more water into the Basin than they withdraw (negative net withdrawal of just over
2 mgd) and indicate that by 2065, they will account for only approximately 2 percent of the total net
withdrawals in the Basin (approximately 8 mgd industrial compared to 420 mgd total).
5-14
5.2.3
Application of Future Trends on Water Withdrawal and Return Projections
To accurately project water withdrawal requirements and return projections through 2065,
consideration was given to how potential changes in the water industry will impact future water
demands and on how customer use may vary. An historical look back through the same number of
years as the master planning period shows a 1950s and 1960s landscape of public water supply
systems and municipal wastewater collection systems that looked vastly different than they do
today. Indeed, it would be another 15 years or more before the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act were enacted, changing the landscape of the water industry forever. Regulatory
changes, technological advancement, increased population and growth within the CatawbaWateree River Basin, shifts from a manufacturing to a service-based economy, and other changes
have helped redefine the economics of water supply and wastewater treatment.
Through the next 50 years, these continued changes, coupled with the impacts of aging
infrastructure, may again redefine the economics and landscape of the water industry in this region.
As a result, the way water is utilized as a resource may change. Several factors that may affect
future water use include:
Increases in water reuse initiatives.
Impacts of water use efficiency efforts.
Regulatory changes.
Industrial and economic shifts.
A brief statement on how each trend is incorporated into these projections is outlined below. It
should be noted that this discussion is focused on how these trends may specifically impact this
Master Plan and the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, not on their impacts on a national or global
scale.
5.2.3.1
Water Reuse
The future implementation of centralized and distributed reuse systems is likely to be driven by
changing economics for water purveyors and wastewater utilities, and on water supply availability.
While water reuse systems may reduce the water withdrawals from the Catawba-Wateree River
Basin, they, in turn, may reduce direct water returns as well. The impacts of reuse were evaluated
in this Master Plan as to its overall impact on the withdrawal and return projections. However, after
reviewing data from the utilities within the Basin, it was determined that projecting water reuse
impacts should not be considered at this stage. This decision was made, in part, since none of the
CWWMG members are currently implementing wide-scale water reuse within the Catawba-Wateree
River Basin. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department has completed a small-scale reuse project,
but it is located at a wastewater treatment facility that currently returns into the Yadkin River Basin.
In addition to the lack of current water reuse activities in the Basin, meetings and discussions held
with various public water supply agencies did not indicate a deliberate, rapid, or widespread move
toward reuse implementation. However, several agencies indicated that reuse would likely be
evaluated in the future. By not applying reductions to the water demand during the planning period,
the projections used for the water yield analysis were more conservative. That is, the projections
reflect future conditions without reductions that may occur as a result of more widespread
implementation of water reuse. Based on the results of the water yield analysis and other Master
Plan work elements, the application of water reuse to show potential impacts to overall demand
may subsequently be considered. The impact of water reuse will likely vary by system due to the
likelihood that the economic drivers, and the densification of reuse customers, will be different for
many of the public water and wastewater systems within the Basin.
5-15
5.2.3.2
Water Use Efficiency
The impact of water use efficiency initiatives in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin is similar to water
reuse. That is, water supply availability, economic considerations, and system capacity limitations
will help drive conservation – both on the purveyor side and the customer side. Water ‘saved’
through conservation will reduce both withdrawals and returns, but likely in different proportions.
A review of selected water conservation programs was completed as part of the 2006 Catawba
Wateree Water Supply Study and subsequent work by the CWWMG, including an analysis of their
impact on water demand. While future water conservation efforts have not been included in the
baseline water use projections, such programs and their effect on water yield have been evaluated
for this Master Plan and are further discussed in Section 8.
5.2.3.3
Regulatory and Economic Drivers
The regulatory climate is likely to continue to change significantly in the next 50 years. New
regulations and aging infrastructure may result in significant capital costs and increased operations
costs for utilities. Cost recovery for these expenditures may come primarily from user fees. These
changes may impact customer demand and may increase the viability of alternative technologies
and services. To illustrate just one potential scenario, in the future each water purveyor may have
a complete dual water treatment and supply system: one system that produces drinking water,
and another system that produces a ‘gray water’ system for other uses. The impact of regulatory
and economic drivers on water demand is difficult to predict and is not considered in the water
use projections for this Master Plan. However, additional discussion on future considerations for
regulatory issues within the Basin is provided in Section 14.
5.2.3.4
Industrial Shifts
As stated previously, the water withdrawal and return projection methodology called for the
disaggregation of major industrial users and the evaluation of those industries that use water
directly withdrawn and/or returned into the Basin. Industrial withdrawal and return projections were
evaluated based primarily on the historical Gross State Product (GSP) trends. These values were
typically applied to increases or decreases in industrial production throughout the Basin during the
planning period. By evaluating historical trends in water demand, and the GSP by industry type,
these projections account for shifts in the regional economy from a manufacturing-based economy
to a more service-based economy.
There are several cases in this Master Plan where industrial water user projections were based
on GSP data but modified to reflect local and/or unique circumstances imparted by water user
contacts. Attachment 5-D contains detailed projections that explain the assumptions behind each
water user’s projections.
5.2.4
Updated Withdrawal and Return Projections
Using the information derived from the above analyses, withdrawal and return projections for
each user were generated to update previous projections developed for the 2006 CatawbaWateree Water Supply Study. The previous Water Supply Study projected water use in the Basin
between 2008 and 2058 as part of Duke Energy’s relicensing application for the Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project. The updated projections for the Master Plan serve to address recent
economic factors and changes in water use trends since the 2006 Study and were computed for
the base year or ‘current’ year, 2011, and in ten-year increments from 2015 to 2065. The ‘current’
year rates of withdrawal and return were based on data for the most recent year available for each
water user, which generally fell between 2010 and 2011. The projections were made on an annual
average basis.
5-16
5.2.5
Comparison of Baseline Projections to Past Projections
The revised projections were compared to past projections generated for the 2006 Water Supply
Study. The purpose of this step was to provide a comparison of the Master Plan Projections and
Water Supply Study projections since six years have elapsed between the two studies. During
this time span, the Basin has experienced a Drought of Record, a major economic downturn, and
changes in water use efficiency which have greatly affected water use.
5.2.6
Future Inter-Basin Transfers of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin
In addition to those users that are within the Basin, an evaluation of current and future Inter-Basin
Transfers (IBTs) was also completed. This IBT analysis was particularly important to the Master
Plan since the Catawba-Wateree River Basin is rather narrow through much of its length, and rapid
growth around urban areas within the Basin is impacting growth just outside the Basin. Future IBTs
were identified and projected based on a review of rapid growth areas, consideration of available
water sources within those areas, and in meetings with those entities currently holding or projecting
an IBT. It should be noted that there have been some substantial modifications to these IBT
projections, as compared to the previous projections developed for the 2006 Water Supply Study.
5.2.7
Reservoir Watershed System Projections
Projections for each user group were aggregated into a total projection for each reservoir’s
watershed system. This roll-up total reports withdrawals and returns into each reservoir system,
and the net consumptive use or water transferred out of a surface water source and not returned
as surface water. A check on the projections for each watershed was made with consideration to
overall population projections for that region. Annual average withdrawal and return rate projections
were completed for the watersheds for the base or ‘current’ year, 2011, and in ten-year increments
to 2065.
5.2.8
CWWMG Consensus
Withdrawal and return projections were presented to the CWWMG for review and comment on
several occasions, including a summary during the month of August, 2012. Teleconferences and/or
in-person meetings were also conducted with many of the CWWMG members to discuss the results
of their individual projections. Revisions were then made, as appropriate, to finalize the projections,
as presented herein. The CWWMG provided consensus support for the projections included herein.
5.2.9
Water Withdrawal and Return Projections – Analysis Summary
The methods and assumptions applied to each water user analyzed during projections for this
Master Plan are recorded in Attachments 5-C, 5-D, E and F. A more concise summary of the water
users’ withdrawal and return flow projections, as well as aggregate projections by watershed, are
included in Attachment 5-B.
Table 5.4 also provides an aggregate summary by watershed of projected water withdrawals, water
returns, and net withdrawals. Net withdrawal is defined as the difference between the amount of
water withdrawn within a particular reservoir’s watershed and the amount of water returned within
a particular reservoir’s watershed. It is possible to have a negative net withdrawal (consequently,
a net return) of water within a particular watershed if the amount of water returned is greater than
that withdrawn. Typically, this result occurs due to a portion of the net withdrawal from an upstream
watershed being returned within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to a downstream watershed.
Table 5.4 provides annual average water withdrawal, water return, and net withdrawal amounts
for the ‘current’ year, base year 2011, and for each decade up to the year 2065. Annual average
withdrawal, return, and net withdrawal rates for years that fall in between the projection years
can be interpolated. The ‘current’ year is representative of the best historical available data for
the current users. Most of the data used to derive ‘current’ values is based on 2010 and/or 2011
information.
5-17
It should be noted that, for Duke Energy’s facilities, the net withdrawal or consumptive use is
reported only as a water withdrawal. This approach was used in lieu of showing both a water
withdrawal and return since these rates are higher than any of the other users in the Basin,
and because the net withdrawal is the critical element in this Master Plan since it is used in the
determination of the Basin reservoirs’ safe yield values.
As illustrated in Table 5.4, the overall net withdrawal for the entire Basin is expected to increase
from approximately 189 mgd (293 cfs) to 419 mgd (650 cfs) by the year 2065. This represents an
increase of approximately 122 percent, or an annual growth rate of 1.49%.
Figure 5-2 provides a comparison of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin net withdrawal projections
made as part of this Master Plan with those developed as part of the 2006 Water Supply Study.
As illustrated, the overall net withdrawal projections for this Master Plan are somewhat lower (by
approximately 15 to 30 percent, dependent upon decade) than those previously made for the 2006
Study.
Figures 5-3 and 5-4 depict the net withdrawal for each reservoir’s watershed for both the Base Year
and the projected 2065 values.
Figures 5-5 and 5-6 present the percentage that each user type—public water supply, industrial,
agricultural/irrigation, and power—contributes to the overall net withdrawal in the Basin in the base
year and the year 2065, respectively. As illustrated, consumptive power water use is projected
to increase slightly over the projection period to comprise a greater percentage of the total net
withdrawals, while the public water supply, industrial and agriculture/irrigation share of the total use
is expected to decrease slightly.
Figures 5-7 and 5-8 summarize the net withdrawal for water user categories in each sub-basin for
the base year and the year 2065, respectively.
Figures 5-9 through 5-19 detail the portion of net withdrawal that is contributed by each user type
for each of the 11 reservoir watersheds for both the base year and year 2065, respectively.
5-18
Table 5-4 Projected Annual Average Withdrawal, Return and Net Withdrawal Rates by Watershed (in mgd)
Year
Reservoir
Current
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
2065
James
12
12
12
12
13
13
14
Rhodhiss
26
26
28
29
31
33
35
1
Withdrawals
Hickory
16
17
19
27
29
31
34
Lookout Shoals
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
Norman
62
66
75
81
104
113
127
Mountain Island
114
120
138
160
179
196
215
Wylie
74
79
84
87
92
98
105
Fishing Creek
54
56
61
66
73
118
129
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Cedar Creek
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Wateree
4
5
7
8
45
47
49
366
386
430
478
575
660
718
James
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
Rhodhiss
12
13
13
14
15
15
16
Subtotal
Returns
Hickory
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
Lookout Shoals
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Norman
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Mountain Island
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
Wylie
30
33
41
52
58
65
72
Fishing Creek
116
125
132
138
151
163
176
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
Cedar Creek
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Wateree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
177
192
209
229
252
274
299
James
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
Rhodhiss
14
14
15
16
17
18
19
Hickory
11
12
13
20
22
24
26
Lookout Shoals
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
Subtotal
Net Withdrawals
Norman
61
65
74
80
102
112
125
Mountain Island
109
114
132
153
171
187
205
Wylie
44
46
43
35
34
34
33
Fishing Creek
-62
-69
-71
-72
-78
-45
-47
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-4
Cedar Creek
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
Wateree
Subtotal
4
5
7
8
45
47
49
189
195
221
248
323
386
419
1 – Current rates were based on the most recent available years for which withdrawals and returns were recorded. The most recent year for
a given water user typically ranged between 2010 and 2011.
5-19
2000
500.0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
2006 Historical
2006 Projected
2012 Historical
2012 Projected
Figure 5-2 Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Master Plan Net Withdrawal Projections Comparison with 2006 Water Supply Study
(in units of mgd)
2011
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
2065
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0
Lake James
Lookout Shoals Lake
Lake Wylie
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Norman
Lake Wateree
Lake Hickory
Great Falls - Dearborn Reservoir
Figure 5-3 Base Year to 2065 Net Withdrawal Projections for Catawba-Wateree Sub-Basins (in units of mgd)
5-20
Base Year (2011)
350.0
2065 Projected
300.0
250.0
204.9
200.0
150.0
125.1
108.7
100.0
60.7
50.0
0.0
13.7 19.1
5.2 7.3
11.4
25.6
44.5
48.9
32.5
3.4 8.3
4.3
-0.7 -3.9
-50.0
-61.7
-0.6 -1.6
-46.7
-100.0
LAKE JAMES
LAKE
RHODHISS
LAKE
HICKORY
LOOKOUT
SHOALS
LAKE
LAKE
MOUNTAIN LAKE WYLIE
NORMAN ISLAND LAKE
FISHING GREAT FALLS CEDAR
LAKE
CREEK - DEARBORN CREEK
WATEREE
RESERVOIR RESERVOIR RESERVOIR
Figure 5-4 Base Year vs. 2065 Net Withdrawal Comparison by Sub-Basin (in units of mgd)
Industrial, -2.4, -1%
Power, 75.6, 39%
49%
Agriculture /
Figure 5-5 Base Year (2011) Net Withdrawal for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (in units of mgd) and % of Total
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
5-21
Industrial, 7.7, 2%
Power, 178.3, 43%
47%
Agriculture /
Public
Water
Supply
Agriculture
/ (inPower
Figure 5-6 2065 Projected Industrial
Net Withdrawal
for the
Catawba-Wateree
River Basin
units of mgd) and % of Total
Irrigation
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0
-60.0
-80.0
LAKE JAMES
LAKE
RHODHISS
LAKE
HICKORY
LOOKOUT
LAKE
SHOALS LAKE NORMAN
Public Water Supply
MOUNTAIN LAKE WYLIE
ISLAND LAKE
Industrial
LAKE
CREEK
RESERVOIR RESERVOIR
Power
Figure 5-7 Base Year (2011) Net Withdrawal for Water User Categories by Sub-Basin (in units of mgd)
5-22
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0
-150.0
LAKE JAMES
LAKE
RHODHISS
LAKE
HICKORY
LOOKOUT
LAKE
SHOALS LAKE NORMAN
MOUNTAIN LAKE WYLIE
ISLAND LAKE
LAKE
CREEK
RESERVOIR RESERVOIR
Public Water Supply
Industrial
Power
Figure 5-8 2065 Projected Net Withdrawal for Water User Categories by Sub-Basin (in units of mgd)
Base Year (2011)
6.0
2065 Projected
4.9
5.0
4.3
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.6
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-1.0
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
Figure 5-9 Net Withdrawal for Lake James by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
5-23
Base Year (2011)
16.0
2065 Projected
13.8
14.0
12.0
9.6
10.0
8.0
6.0
5.3
5.5
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
-2.0
0.0
-0.2
-1.2
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
Figure 5-10 Net Withdrawal for Lake Rhodhiss by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
Base Year (2011)
18.0
2065 Projected
16.6
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.1
10.0
8.0
5.5
6.0
4.0
2.5
2.0
0.0
1.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
-2.0
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
Figure 5-11 Net Withdrawal for Lake Hickory by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
5-24
Base Year (2011)
7.0
2065 Projected
6.5
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.6
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-1.0
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
Figure 5-12 Net Withdrawal for Lookout Shoals Lake by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
Base Year (2011)
70.0
2065 Projected
59.9
60.0
57.7
50.0
40.0
36.3
30.0
23.2
20.0
10.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
1.2
1.0
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /…
Power
Figure 5-13 Net Withdrawal for Lake Norman by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
5-25
Base Year (2011)
250.0
2065 Projected
197.5
200.0
150.0
107.5
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
Industrial
0.3
Public Water Supply
1.0
5.5
0.9
Agriculture /…
Power
Figure 5-14 Net Withdrawal for Mountain Island Lake by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
Base Year (2011)
50.0
2065 Projected
38.4
40.0
37.7
30.0
20.0
10.0
4.5
0.0
-1.8
3.4
6.0
-0.7
-10.0
-10.5
-20.0
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
Figure 5-15 Net Withdrawal for Lake Wylie by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
5-26
Base Year (2011)
60.0
2065 Projected
36.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1.2
3.3
2.2
6.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0
-60.0
-66.2
-80.0
-90.8
-100.0
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
Figure 5-16 Net Withdrawal for Fishing Creek Reservoir by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
Base Year (2011)
1.0
2065 Projected
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
-1.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-4.7
-5.0
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
Figure 5-17 Net Withdrawal for Great Falls-Dearborn Reservoir by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
5-27
Base Year (2011)
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
2065 Projected
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-0.7
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.4
-2.5
-3.0
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Agriculture /
Irrigation
Power
Figure 5-18 Net Withdrawal for Cedar Creek-Rocky Creek Reservoir by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
Base Year (2011)
40.0
2065 Projected
36.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
11.0
10.0
4.2
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
Industrial
0.0
Public Water Supply
0.9
0.0
Agriculture /…
Power
Figure 5-19 Net Withdrawal for Lake Wateree by Water User Category (in units of mgd)
5-28
5.2.10
Net Withdrawal Projection – Comparisons with Population History and Forecasts
The demand for water from a water supply source is largely driven by the associated population
that depends on that water source to meet a variety of needs. After completing detailed projections
for future water withdrawals by user category, a comparison was made to historical population
trends and population forecasts in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. It should be noted that some
of these population forecasts were used to complete some of the detailed projections. Also, in most
cases, future water withdrawal and return projections were forecasted using an annual growth rate
(AGR), which has a compounding effect to the values over a period of time.
Table 5-5 summarizes this Master Plan’s projected AGRs for net withdrawal increases for the total
Basin, and by user type, between the current year and the year 2065. These AGRs can then be
compared to a variety of historical population results and projected population projections also
included in Table 5-5. The total Basin net withdrawal AGR for these projections is 1.49 percent,
which compares very closely to the population information presented for North and South Carolina,
and areas within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
Table 5-5 Net Withdrawal Annual Growth Rates (AGR) Compared with Historical Population Data and Future Projections
Water Supply Study – Projected Net Withdrawals
Water User Category
Base Year - 2011
2065
AGR
Total Basin
188.7
419.5
1.49%
Industrial
-2.4
7.7
n/a
PWS
95.0
198.5
1.37
Agricultural/Irrigation
20.6
34.9
0.98
Power
75.6
178.3
1.60
Historical Population Data/Population Projections
Category
Historical Data
Base Year - 2011
Future Year
AGR
1
US Population History – 1970-2010
203,302,031
308,745,538
1.05%
NC Historical Population – 1970-2010
5,082,059
9,535,483
1.59%
SC Historical Population – 1970-2010
2,590,516
4,625,364
1.46%
NC Catawba-Wateree Bas in – 17 Counties – 1970-2010
1,273,918
2,499,941
1.70%
SC Catawba-Wateree Basin – 5 Counties – 1970-2010
213,081
421,518
1.72%
Mecklenburg County Population Change – 1970-2010
354,656
919,628
2.41%
US Population Projections – 2010-2050 1
308,745,538
439,010,000
0.88%
NC Population Projections – 2010-2030 2
9,535,483
12,491,837
1.36%
SC Population Projections 2010-2035
4,625,364
5,722,720
0.86%
NC Catawba-Wateree Basin – 17 Counties – 2010-2030 2
2,499,941
3,187,969
1.22%
SC Catawba-Wateree Basin – 5 Counties – 2010-2035 3
421,518
534,030
0.95%
919,628
1,270,222
1.63%
Population Projections
3
Mecklenburg County Population Projection – 2010-2030
Source:
1.
2.
3.
2
US Census Bureau
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management – State Demographics
South Carolina Budget and Control Board, Office of Research and Statistics
5-29
5.2.11
Inter-Basin Transfers
It is important to be clear on the definition of Inter-Basin Transfers (IBTs) when using this term to
describe the movement of water. Different organizations, regulatory agencies, and others often
have different interpretations when the term IBT is used. For the purposes of this Master Plan, IBTs
are defined as the transfer of surface water that is withdrawn from anywhere within the CatawbaWateree River Basin and is returned to a watershed outside of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
Using this definition, current and projected water withdrawals from the Catawba-Wateree River
Basin that transfer water to another basin where it is utilized for residential irrigation or disposed of
via septic tanks would be included. Quantifying this transfer of water, however, is difficult, based on
available data.
Significant (i.e., not all) current and future IBTs projected as part of this Master Plan are outlined
in Table 5-6 below. The significant IBTs projected in 2065 are estimated at 73 mgd, with this value
representing 17.5 percent of 2065 net withdrawals
Table 5-6 Current and Future IBTs
Current IBT Est.
(mgd)
2065 IBT Est.
(mgd)
City of Statesville
3.0
7.0
Intake in Lookout Shoals, return flow to the
Yadkin River
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility
Department
13.1
24.9
Intakes in Mt. Island and Lake Norman, return
flows to the Yadkin River
Town of Mooresville
4.3
13.7
Intake in Lake Norman and return flows to the
Yadkin River
Concord/Kannapolis/Cabarrus
County
0.0
6.2
IBT from the Catawba River (e.g., Lake
Norman) to return flow to the Yadkin River
Agency
Comment
City of York
-0.8
0.0
City of York transfer water into Catawba Basin
from the Broad River Basin; projected to be
eliminated by 2015 due to water purchase
from Rock Hill
Union County/Lancaster County
7.0
20.0
Estimated IBT from CRWTP into Lancaster
and Union Counties returned to the Yadkin
River
Chester Metro
0.5
1.4
Estimated with return flow to the Broad River
Basin
Note:
It should be noted that since these projections were completed, Union County has moved toward alternatives of serving its customers in the
Yadkin River Basin service area with water from the Yadkin River.
5.2.12
Monthly Coefficients for Water Use
Monthly flow data, in the form of average monthly withdrawal and/or return flowrates, was available
during this analysis for a majority of users. This data was used to provide a monthly variation trend
in water withdrawals and/or returns to more realistically reflect seasonal trends in water use. For
each user, the average annual monthly flows were divided by the average annual flow to obtain
monthly coefficients. These coefficients were then used to estimate the monthly flow rate for any
month in future years.
Example – Flow data for the City of Cherryville water treatment plant indicated an annual
average withdrawal flow of 0.75 mgd for the years 2002 to 2011. In November of those
years, the average withdrawal for the month was 0.71 mgd. Therefore, the November
5-30
monthly coefficient for the City of Cherryville water treatment plant was calculated to be
0.95. Multiplying this coefficient by any projected future annual average withdrawal rate
will yield the average November withdrawal rate for that projection year for this user.
Those users whose monthly flow data was not available were assumed to have no monthly
variation withdrawals and/or returns (i.e., all monthly coefficients were set to equal to 1.00).
These monthly coefficients were utilized in the CHEOPS modeling effort to reflect more seasonal
water use variations and more accurate water yield analysis.
5-31
5-32
Water Yield Modeling - Scenario Development
6.0
6.1
Background
One of the key objectives of this Master Plan is to develop a set of strategies for enhancing water
yield for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin’s (Basin) eleven water supply reservoir sources. Water
yield (also referred to as “safe yield”) is a term used in the Master Plan to describe the amount
of water theoretically available for use at a given location in a watershed. It is a commonly used
measure of the dependability of a water supply source. The process of determining water yield
through hydrologic modeling is further discussed in Section 7.
Prior modeling efforts seeking to quantify the water yield of the Basin have indicated that under
baseline conditions, with no additional efforts to enhance yield, water supply would be limited
between the years of 2048 to 2058. The intent of the Master Plan is to provide a framework for
which the CWWMG can promote the effective management of the Basin’s water supply and
stewardship of its water resources, while extending the available water supply within the Basin and
prolonging the future time frame in which this supply may be limited. The development of scenarios
to model existing and future conditions within the Basin, as well as strategies to enhance water yield
under these conditions is an essential piece in the development of a successful Master Plan for this
Basin.
6.1.1
Previous Studies
Given the time, expense, and nearly infinite scenarios that could be modeled within the Basin,
it was necessary to prioritize potential strategies to ensure that those with the greatest potential
for success (i.e. increasing yield at a manageable cost and least environmental impact) were
evaluated. Previous modeling of safe yield enhancement strategies within the Basin was conducted
as part of CWWMG’s and the Water Research Foundation’s “Defining and Enhancing the Safe Yield
of a Multi-Use Multi-Reservoir Water Supply” (Safe Yield Study). This research laid the foundation
for water supply scenarios and safe yield enhancement strategies to be evaluated as part of this
Master Plan analysis.
For the Water Research Foundation report, various climate change scenarios and safe yield
enhancement strategies were prioritized high, medium and low priority for modeling. High and
medium priority strategies were then fully defined for modeling purposes while low priority strategies
were deemed not worthy of further consideration for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. A listing of
the prioritizations from the previous research work is provided in the Table 6-1.
Based on the previous results and recommendations set forth in the Safe Yield Study for the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin, the following safe yield enhancement strategies were recommended
for further consideration in the development of the CWWMG’s ongoing master planning efforts:
Lowering intakes in the upper Catawba-Wateree River Basin (or other locations).
Re-routing existing effluent flows to upstream reservoirs during drought conditions.
Reducing water demands (demand side management).
Raising target operating levels in the reservoirs.
Reducing or relocating major future water withdrawal demands on the system (e.g. future
power demands).
In addition to these enhancement strategies, the CWWMG has also focused on selecting the most
reasonable future climate change scenario and population growth scenario to incorporate into their
planning and modeling efforts in calculating future safe yield values from the Project’s reservoirs.
6-1
Table 6-1 Prioritized list of potential yield enhancement strategies from the CWWMG’s and the Water Research Foundation’s
“Defining and Enhancing the Safe Yield of a Multi-Use Multi-Reservoir Water Supply”
Strategy
Priority
Lower existing critical intake elevations that exist in the reservoirs by:

Lowering intakes.

Making hydraulic improvements that require lower water elevations for successful operation.

Constructing new (or potentially co-owned/consolidated) intakes.
High
Re-route existing effluent flows back to upstream reservoirs
High
Reduce water demands (i.e. per capita use reductions) through one or more of the following:

Water conservation (via public education and other programs).

Widespread reclaimed water programs.

Water loss reduction (via leak detection or other means).

Gray water program implementation.

Increasing water rates to deter usage.
High
Construct offstream storage/tributary storage/evaluate quarry storage opportunities.
Medium
Raise target operating elevations in the reservoirs.
Medium
Eliminate inter-basin transfers (IBTs).
Medium
Reduce sedimentation impacts on reservoir storage.
Medium
Develop demand-side interconnections to supplement at-risk water systems.
––
Ranked low since some of these opportunities have been considered previously as part of the
Catawba-Wateree’s Drought Management Advisory Group’s activities during the 2007 drought,
with less than promising results. These evaluations also typically result in concerns over cost,
managing various pressure zones between systems, differing disinfection approaches taken for
adjacent water suppliers, and often with marginal benefit for only one area of a water utility.
Low
Increase return flows (e.g. wastewater, stormwater) to the Catawba-Wateree.
––
Ranked low since practically this is difficult to create without potential for environmental impacts
(e.g. getting stormwater too quickly to reservoir storage). This strategy is also partly in conflict
with water reuse programs mentioned above.
Low
Evaluate cloud seeding (i.e. precipitation creation).
––
Ranked low because even if the science, technology, and cost issues were managed to make
this a viable strategy, the nature of the Catawba-Wateree drainage basin (narrow, relatively
small geographical area, etc.) make it difficult to pinpoint success.
Low
Reduce critical flows.
––
Ranked low because these flows were subject to intense debate/negotiations during
development of the FERC license application. As a subset to this strategy; however,
consideration could be given to reconfiguring the Low Inflow Protocol to get to reduced critical
flows more quickly (e.g. at the LIP Stage 2).
Cover lakes to reduce evaporation.
––
Ranked low since it is not practical due to costs, environmental impacts, and public acceptance.
Low
Low
Use groundwater as reserve supply during drought.
––
6-2
Ranked low since the geological structure in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin is not conducive
to large groundwater storage to help alleviate drought issues. The groundwater/reservoir water
interactions are closely tied together in this narrow basin.
Low
6.2
Methodology
6.2.1
Hydrologic Model
To evaluate the impact of potential water yield enhancement and climate change scenarios
within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, a hydrologic water modeling effort was completed. The
CHEOPS model was used for evaluating the yield enhancement strategies and climate change
scenarios for the Master Plan since this model already includes key criteria and evaluation metrics
for the Basin such as:
81-years (1929 to 2010) of hydrologic data, including 6 distinct drought periods.
FERC licensing operating criteria, including:
→→
downstream releases
→→
minimum elevations
→→
Low Inflow Protocol (regional drought management) impacts
→→
future net water withdrawals
→→
reservoir evaporation
→→
reservoir sedimentation
→→
reservoir constraints (e.g. location of highest intakes from power, public water
supplies, industry)
Another benefit of using the CHEOPS model is that all prior safe yield results in the CatawbaWateree River Basin have been based on this model, thereby providing relative baseline for
comparing Master Plan modeling results and providing consistency in ongoing water quantity
modeling activities within the Basin. Previous major modeling efforts using the CHEOPS model
include relicensing of Duke Energy’s Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project and the Water
Research Foundation’s Safe Yield Study for the Basin. Additional details on the model framework
and modeling process are discussed in Section 7 Water Yield Modeling - Results.
6.2.2
Baseline Scenario
The initial step to evaluating water yield within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin was to define the
baseline conditions for the Basin’s system of reservoirs. The intent of this Baseline is to capture the
existing operating and environmental conditions, hydrologic data period of record, and projected
water demands for the Basin. Prior to development of the Master Plan, water yield modeling within
the Basin had been based upon baseline conditions which used Duke Energy’s Comprehensive
Relicensing Agreement (CRA) operating rules and model logic for their Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project, including the water shortage response measures outlined in the CatawbaWateree Low Inflow Protocol (LIP). Additionally, the 2002 inflow dataset hydrology (Low Flow Period
between 1998 and 2003) was modeled as the historical Drought of Record for the Basin and served
as the basis for water yield calculation. No effect of climate change was built into the previous
model’s baseline logic. Modeled water use projections were based upon work performed for the
2006 Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project Water Supply Study (Water Supply Study), conducted
by HDR during Duke Energy’s relicensing efforts.
For the Master Plan, there was an evident need to update the parameters for the Baseline scenario
as part of the water yield modeling effort, as several years had passed since previous modeling had
occurred. For the updated Baseline used in this Master Plan, it became apparent to the CWWMG
that hydrology needed to be updated to reflect the most recent period of drought in the Basin,
updated water use projections needed to be included, the effects of climate change needed to be
included and modifications to the LIP model logic needed to be incorporated to represent actual
operating conditions.
6-3
The hydrologic inflow dataset was extended from 2003 through 2010, and included a new Drought
of Record during 2007 (Low Flow Period between 2006 and 2009). Details of this new Drought
of Record are further discussed in Section 7 of this Master Plan. Following the 2007 drought and
economic recession which occurred concurrently, projected increases in water use within the Basin
that were previously identified in the 2006 Water Supply Study did not materialize. As such, the
updated water supply projections made for Master Plan sought to reset these projections to current
(2011) baseline conditions and adjust future demand projections accordingly. Details of the updated
water supply projections are further discussed in Section 5.
Based on the findings of the Water Research Foundation’s Safe Yield Study, as well as ongoing
research in the scientific community, the CWWMG recognized a need to plan for the potential
effects of climate change on future water supply. As such, a low end estimate of climate change
was built into the model and is further discussed in Table 6-4 in the following sections. Finally,
some modifications were made to the LIP logic in the CHEOPS model, which included reducing the
Duke Energy flow reduction response time to one day, the use of stream gage data for LIP trigger
identification (6-month rolling average for South Fork and Rocky Creek stream gages now used as
compared to Lake Wylie inflow from the South Fork River used in previous model versions), and
new adjustment percentages to overall net withdrawal projections from reservoirs to indicate water
reductions required from public water suppliers’ customers during various LIP stages, as required
by the updated water supply projections made for this Master Plan.
A comparison of the baseline criteria used for previous modeling efforts (Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project relicensing and the Water Research Foundation Safe Yield Study) to the new
Baseline conditions used in modeling performed as part of the Master Plan is shown in Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-1 Comparison of Baseline Conditions (Previous Modeling to Master Plan)
6-4
6.2.3
Climate Change Scenarios
The previous research effort of the Safe Yield Study also acknowledged that climate change
scenarios should be considered in water modeling analysis of future scenarios within the Basin.
While climate change does not enhance water supply yields, its impact on future water yields were
determined to be critical to long-term water supply planning. Further, identification, modeling, and
evaluation of climate change scenarios help develop best practices for determining and enhancing
safe yields through mitigation of the effects of climate change. The Safe Yield Study indicates that
because of the geographical nature of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and the limited storage
available, seasonal rainfall tends to significantly impact water supply availability.
Potential impacts to water supply in the Catawba-Wateree River basin resulting from climate
change are:
Changes in precipitation (amounts, intensity)
Changes in streamflow, inflow to the reservoirs, and local temporal impacts
Increases in gross reservoir evaporation from temperature and wind
Increases in evapo-transpiration
Changes in water demand
Climate change impacts on water supplies are a function of geography as well as river basin size,
configuration, and other characteristics. Climate change scenarios for the Catawba-Wateree River
Basin are based upon those scenarios evaluated for the previous Safe Yield Study in the Basin
and include a scenario for the low impact of climate change, one for an increased impact of climate
change, and a multi-model ensemble climate change scenario. These scenarios are further detailed
in Section 6.3, but summarized below.
Low Impact of Climate Change
→→
Assumes gradual temperature increase
→→
Assumes no change in precipitation
→→
Assumes no change to the hydrologic inflow dataset
→→
Assumes no change in net water demands
→→
This scenario is built into the Baseline operating scenario for the Water Supply
Master Plan.
Increased Impact of Climate Change
→→
Assumes gradual temperature increase (twice that of Low Impact scenario)
→→
Assumes no change in precipitation
→→
Assumes gradual decrease to the inflow dataset due to higher temperature
→→
Climate Change based on Multi-Model Ensembles
→→
Assumes gradual temperature increase (comparable to Low Impact scenario)
→→
Assumes reduction in precipitation
→→
Assumes reduction in inflow resulting from increased temperatures and decreased
precipitation
→→
6-5
6.2.4
Population Growth Scenarios
During the development of scenarios to be modeled for the water yield analysis as part of this
Master Plan, the CWWMG identified a need to evaluate several scenarios for potential population
growth within the Basin. Baseline population growth projections were developed based on historical
growth patterns within the Basin, coupled with population growth projections generated by state
agencies in North and South Carolina, as based on US Census data. The projections were also
developed with input from various water suppliers throughout the Basin, based on their own
projections for future water supply needs. Details for the development of these projections are
discussed in more detail in Section 5.
Recognizing the need to identify a sensitivity range of potential population growth conditions, two
additional population growth scenarios were developed to serve as bookends (high and low) for
water demands within the Basin, based on potential population growth. A slow population growth
scenario was developed to evaluate the effect on future water demand if population in the Basin
grows more slowly than projected for the Baseline scenario. Conversely, a rapid population growth
scenario was developed to evaluate the effect on future water demand if population in the Basin
grows more quickly than projected for the Baseline case. Figure 6-2 reflects the impact to net water
withdrawal projections for both the slow and rapid population growth scenarios, as compared to the
Baseline projections.
Figure 6-2 Population Growth Scenarios for Water Yield Modeling
The slow population growth scenario evaluates the potential for slower population growth than
projected for the Baseline conditions, which may result due to changes in future economic or social
6-6
conditions. For this scenario, basin-wide average net withdrawals are approximately 16% lower
than Baseline projections by Year 2065 (gradually decreasing from 3% to 16% less between 2015
and 2065 projections), to evaluate the effect of potentially slower natural growth (births), slower
net migration to the region and slower economic recovery from the last recession than Baseline
projections indicate.
This rapid population growth scenario evaluates the potential for more rapid population growth than
projected for the baseline conditions, which may result due to changes in future economic or social
conditions. For this scenario, basin-wide average net withdrawals are approximately 23% higher
than Baseline projections, to assess the potential effect of more rapid natural growth (births), net
migration to the region and economic recovery from the last recession than Baseline projections
indicate. Table 6.2 compares the net withdrawal projections in the Basin for the Baseline condition
and rapid and slow population growth scenarios.
Table 6-2 Population Growth Scenarios – Comparison of Basin Net Withdrawals
Baseline
Year
6.2.5
(mgd)
Rapid Growth
(mgd)
Slow Growth
% Difference
(mgd)
% Difference
Base
188.7
188.7
0.0%
188.7
0.0%
2015
194.6
239.1
+22.8%
189.4
-2.7%
2025
220.7
274.3
+24.3%
205.4
-6.9%
2035
248.4
309.0
+24.4%
223.4
-10.1%
2045
322.9
393.7
+21.9%
273.8
-15.2%
2055
385.7
470.3
+21.9%
326.4
-15.4%
2065
419.5
514.5
+22.6%
353.1
-15.8%
Yield Enhancement Strategies
In addition to the Baseline, and climate change and population growth sensitivity scenarios, a
series of strategies to enhance water yield, as compared to the Baseline, were evaluated. These
yield enhancement strategies were selected based on the previous findings and recommendations
presented in the Safe Yield Study as well as others identified by CWWMG members and the SAT.
The intent of each of these yield enhancement strategies was to increase the water yield of the
basin through modeled changes to the operation of the Catawba-Wateree reservoirs, physical
infrastructure changes and changes in water use behavior. Each of the 22 yield enhancement
strategies evaluated fell into a series of three broad categories and six distinct sub-categories, as
follows.
Water Use Behavior
→→
Public Water Supplier Water Use Changes
Physical Infrastructure
→→
Critical Intake Modification
→→
Power Consumptive Water Use Changes
→→
Effluent Flow Recycling
Reservoir Operations
→→
Modified Reservoir Operations
→→
LIP Modification
These strategies were carefully selected based on their expected impact to the Baseline model
results, with the intent of either increasing the water yield in the Basin or extending the projection
6-7
decade in which the Basin’s water yield is met. Modeling of some of these strategies required
changes to the CHEOPS model logic, which included:
Critical Intake Modification
Modified Reservoir Operations
LIP Modification
Some of the strategies require modifications to the water use projections that were input into the
CHEOPS model, and included:
Public Water Supplier Water Use Changes
Power Consumptive Water Use Changes
Effluent Flow Recycling
Additional details on each of these yield enhancement strategies are further discussed in Section
6.3. Details on the development of the yield enhancement strategies for public water supplier water
use changes are also discussed in more detail in Section 9 for the Water Use Efficiency Plan.
6.2.6
Modeling of Scenarios and Yield Enhancement Strategies
Initially, the Baseline (including baseline population growth projections and the low end climate
change scenario), two alternate population growth scenarios, two alternate climate change
scenarios, and twenty-two individual yield enhancement strategies were completed. After the initial
modeling scenarios were evaluated, ten additional integrated planning scenarios, or combinations
of individual scenarios were considered. These integrated planning scenarios consisted of
a Planning Case, Best Case and Worst Case for water supply within the Basin, as well as
corresponding scenarios which use a portfolio of yield enhancement / mitigation strategies in an
effort enhance the water yield of the Planning Case, Best Case and Worst Case scenarios.
Figure 6-3, below, depicts the process by which scenarios were evaluated, which follows this
general process:
First, individual scenarios and yield enhancement strategies were modeled and compared
to the Baseline scenario.
Then, integrated planning scenarios were developed which included a combination of
scenarios and/or yield enhancement strategies and subsequently modeled and compared
to a Baseline integrated planning case.
From the results of this integrated planning scenario analysis a final integrated planning
case scenario was selected to serve as the framework for recommendations set forth in
the Master Plan, which seeks to implement water yield enhancement strategies within the
Basin to improve upon the Baseline planning case.
6-8
Figure 6-3 Master Plan Scenario/Strategy Development Process
Each of the yield enhancement strategies, population growth and climate change scenarios
modeled for the Master Plan are outlined and more fully discussed in Section 6.3.
6.3
Individual Scenario / Yield Enhancement Strategies
The individual scenarios which were evaluated fell under eight distinct categories as follows:
Population growth (PG series scenarios)
Climate change (CC series scenarios)
Public water supplier water use changes (WC series scenarios)
Power industry consumptive use water changes (PR series scenarios)
Critical intake modifications (CI series scenarios)
Effluent flow recycling (ER series scenarios)
Modified reservoir operations (RO series scenarios)
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) modification (LP series scenarios)
A summary of individual scenarios and their corresponding categories is provided in Table 6-3
on the following page. Detailed criteria and descriptions for each individual scenario and water
yield enhancement strategy, along with the anticipated impact on water yield as compared to the
Baseline scenario, are provided in Table 6-4. These scenarios and strategies represent those
modeled for consideration in the Master Plan and serve as the basis for the integrated planning
cases described in Section 6.4.
6-9
Table 6-3 Summary of Individual CHEOPS modeling scenarios/strategies to evaluate safe yield
Category
BASE
Population
Growth
Public Water
Supplier Water
Use Changes
Power
Consumptive
Water Use
Changes
Climate Change
Critical Intake
Modification
Effluent Flow
Recycling
Modified
Reservoir
Operations
LIP Modification
6-10
Scenario ID
Scenario Title
BL – 00
Baseline Operations
PG - 01
Current Population Growth Scenario (Baseline)
PG - 02
Slow Population Growth Scenario
PG - 03
Rapid Population Growth Scenario
WC - 01A
Reduce per capita water demands for public water suppliers (Low end)
WC - 01B
Reduce per capita water demands for public water suppliers (High end)
WC - 01C
Reduce per capita water demands for residential and wholesale customers only
(Low end)
WC - 01D
Reduce per capita water demands for residential and wholesale customers only
(High end)
PR - 01A
Reduce future power water use in key reservoirs by relocating demand - Scenario A
PR - 01B
Reduce future power water use in key reservoirs by relocating demand - Scenario B
PR - 01C
Reduce future power water use in key reservoirs by relocating demand - Scenario C
PR - 01D
Reduce future power water use in key reservoirs by relocating demand - Scenario B
&C
PR - 01E
Reduce future power water use in key reservoirs by relocating demand - Scenario A,
B&C
CC – 02
Increased impact of climate change
CC – 03
Climate change from multi-model ensemble
CI - 01
Lower existing critical intakes in the upper Catawba-Wateree Basin
CI - 02
Lower existing drawdown limit on Lake James
CI - 03
Lower existing critical intake on Lake Norman
CI - 04
Lower existing critical intake(s) on Lake Wylie
ER - 01
Re-route existing effluent flows during LIP Stage 3 or 4 only
RO - 01A
Raise annual target operating levels in reservoirs by 1’-0”
RO - 01B
Raise target operating levels in reservoirs by 1’-0” in larger reservoirs only (Norman,
James, Wylie)
RO - 02A
Raise summer target operating levels in reservoirs by 0’-6”
RO - 02B
Raise summer target operating levels by 0’-6” in larger reservoirs only (Norman,
James, Wylie)
LP - 01
Modify LIP Stage Minimum Elevations for Lake James
LP - 02
No Application of the LIP
LP - 03
LP - 04
Drawdown < Min. LIP Elev. for Protection of Health, Human Welfare and Public
Water Supply
Table 6-4 Description and Details of Individual CHEOPS modeling scenarios/strategies to evaluate safe yield
Scenario /
Strategy
Description
Anticipated
result
compared
to current
Baseline
Establish baseline safe yields.
Current safe yields are based on the 2006-2009 low inflow period (2007-2008 drought) since this
was determined to be more severe than the 1998-2002 drought previously used for modeling
of safe yields for the Catawba-Wateree reservoirs. The baseline is based upon the CRA Mutual
Gains Scenario as established under the most recent FERC relicensing application for the
Basin and also includes consideration of a low impact of climate change on water supply, which
includes the following provisions:
BL – 00

Assume gradual temperature increase of 0.6°F per decade (equals 3.2°F increase between
Base Year and 2065) (~2% gross reservoir evaporation increase per decade; equals ~11%
increase between Base Year and 2065).

Assume no change in precipitation (Note: The Catawba-Wateree has experienced a 10%
reduction in rainfall over the last 50-years and future predictions are mixed in climate change
models.)

Assume no change to inflow dataset.

Assume no change in net water demands.
---
Increased impact of climate change on water supply.
CC - 02

Base Year and 2065) (~4% gross reservoir evaporation increase per decade; equals (~22%

Assume no change in precipitation.

Assume inflow dataset decrease of 5.4% to 2065 (from increases in evapo-transpiration due
to higher temperatures). Inflow to reduce by 1% every 10 years.

Lower water
yield &
acceleration in
reaching water
yield
Climate change scenario derived from NCAR RCPM multi-model
ensemble.
Enhance Baseline climate change (low impact) and CC-02 (increased impact) by creating a
climate change scenario from an ensemble of global climate change models synthesized into
a probability density function of temperature and precipitation change for the southeastern US
geographic region.

Base Year and 2065) (~1.7% gross reservoir evaporation increase per decade; equals ~9%

Assume 1.8% reduction in precipitation per decade (equals ~10% precipitation reduction
between Base Year and 2065) that will result in a 4% reduction in inflow per decade (equals
~22% inflow reduction between Base Year and 2065).

Reduction in inflow adapted from the regression relationship between normal runoff and
rainfall in the Piedmont Province (Rose 2007).

CC-03
Lower water
yield &
acceleration in
reaching water
yield
6-11
Table 6-4 (con’t)
Scenario /
Strategy
Anticipated
result
compared
to current
Baseline
Description
Lower existing critical intakes in upper Catawba Basin.
CI-01

Assume lowering of the Town of Valdese intake to 975.00. This is 0.8 feet above the hydrooperations level and would provide access to about 9.5 feet more of Lake Rhodhiss storage.

Assume lowering/consolidating the City of Hickory and Town of Longview’s intakes to a
level of 910.00. This change would provide access to about 19.0 feet more of Lake Hickory
storage and is still two feet above the hydro-operations level.
Greater water
yield
Lower existing drawdown limit on Lake James.
CI-02
Assume lowering of the Lake James drawdown by 11-feet from 39-feet to 50-feet, due to the
construction of Duke Energy’s new Bridgewater Hydroelectric Station Powerhouse. Recent
completion of this new facility has subsequently resulted in a lower intake elevation, providing
access to 11-feet of additional usable water storage in Lake James.
Greater water
yield
Lower existing critical intakes on Lake Norman.
CI-03
Assume lowering of the current critical intake elevation of Lake Norman (Duke – McGuire
elevation of 750.00) to a revised intake elevation of 745.00, beginning in Year 2045. This
elevation matches the next highest intake levels of the City of Charlotte and Town of Mooresville.
The current critical elevation of 750.00 is due to a thermal interaction limitation between Duke
Energy’s McGuire Nuclear Station and Marshal Steam Station. McGuire is scheduled for
replacement or conversion to cooling tower technology in 2043-2044 at which time this thermal
limitation will no longer be applicable and the physical plant limitation of 745.00 will apply. It is
recognized that any such change in Duke’s McGuire critical intake elevation prior to 2045 has
significant financial and regulatory constraints.
Lower existing critical intakes in Lake Wylie.
CI-04
Assume lowering of Lake Wylie’s Confidential Industry, Clariant Corporation, and City of Belmont
intakes to 559.40 ft. This elevation matches the critical intake elevation for Duke’s Catawba
Nuclear Station, providing access to about 2.6 feet more of Lake Wylie.
Greater water
yield
Greater water
yield
Re-routing of existing effluent flows to upstream reservoir(s) during LIP
Stages 3 & 4.

Given the likely operating costs involved in this scenario, re-routing of effluent flow only
during the worst periods of a drought was modeled to determine the benefit, as prior
modeling has indicated no difference in safe yield between continuous re-routing of effluent
and re-routing only during enhanced drought stages.

When LIP is in Stage 3 or 4, assume re-routing effluent flow from the McAlpine Creek
WWMF (NRF-4) and Sugar Creek WWTP (NRF-3) back to Mt. Island Lake:
ER-01

6-12
––
This strategy accounts for only two facilities, but nearly 50% of the future return flow
currently going to the Fishing Creek reservoir.
––
This strategy routes flow from downstream of Wylie (the area of least vulnerability) to
Mt. Island Lake (an area of greater vulnerability).
––
This transfer occurs within one state, and generally within one utility’s service area.
Greater water
yield for areas
of greatest
vulnerability
When LIP is in Stage 3 or 4, assume re-routing effluent flow from the Crowders Creek
WWTP (NRY-17) and the Long Creek WWTP (NRY-18) back to Mt. Island Lake:
––
This strategy could return approximately 7% of Mt. Island Lake’s withdrawals by the
year 2065.
––
This transfer occurs within one state, and generally within one utility’s service area.
Table 6-4 (con’t)
Scenario /
Strategy
Description
Anticipated
result
compared
to current
Baseline
Reduce total per capita water demands for public water supplies (Low-end
Conservation).

To accomplish this task, per capita water demands for public water supplies were reduced by
approximately 4.8% (Basin average) with current future growth trends remaining unchanged.
Return flows from public water supply systems were reduced by approximately 2.4% (Basin
average), since it is expected that much of the water savings will be realized in reduced
irrigation, leak detection, or other areas that currently don’t exhibit a return flow. No change
will be made to industrial, power, or agricultural/irrigation uses. The purpose of this strategy Delay in
reaching water
is to capture the low-end potential for demand-side savings to make an impact on water
yield
yields.

The water use conservation reductions used for analysis vary by sub-basin and are based
on historical increases or reductions in individual utilities’ water use, level of existing
conservation programs, and subsequent potential for additional future water conservation.
Each utility, and subsequently each sub-basin, has a different conservation goal which
contributes to the basin averages previously mentioned.
WC-01A
Reduce total per capita water demands for public water supplies (Highend Conservation).

WC-01B

To accomplish this task, per capita water demands for public water supplies were reduced
by approximately 14% with current future growth trends remaining unchanged. Return flows
from public water supply systems were reduced by approximately 7.1%, since it is expected
that much of the water savings will be realized in reduced irrigation, leak detection, or
other areas that currently don’t exhibit a return flow. No change will be made to industrial,
power, or agricultural/irrigation uses. The purpose of this strategy is to capture the high-end
potential for demand-side savings to make an impact on water yields.
Delay in
reaching water
yield
6-13
Table 6-4 (con’t)
Scenario /
Strategy
Anticipated
result
compared
to current
Baseline
Description
Reduce residential & wholesale per capita water demands for public water
supplies (Low-end Conservation).

WC-01A was modeled as if the reductions applied to all public water supply customers,
regardless of category. Since residential (and subsequently residential wholesale) water use
is the overwhelmingly largest source of water use reductions, the original scenario was likely
over-estimating achievable reductions by including commercial, industrial and institutional
uses. This modified scenario attempts to account for this over-estimation of the low-end
potential for water conservation.

To accomplish this task, per capita water demands for the residential and wholesale
component of public water supply withdrawals were reduced by approximately 8.2% (5.2%
reduction to the total public water supply withdrawals) with current future growth trends
remaining unchanged. Return flows from the residential component of public water supply
systems were reduced by approximately 3.5% (2.1% reduction to the total public water
supply returns), since it is expected that much of the water savings will be realized in
reduced irrigation, leak detection, or other areas that currently don’t exhibit a return flow. No
changes were made to industrial, power, or agricultural/irrigation uses. The purpose of this
strategy is to capture the potential for low end- demand-side savings to make an impact on
water yields.
WC-01C

Delay in
reaching water
yield
Reduce residential & wholesale per capita water demands for public water
supplies (High-end Conservation).

WC-01B was modeled as if the reductions applied to all public water supply customers,
regardless of category. Since residential (and subsequently residential wholesale) water use
is the overwhelmingly largest source of water use reductions, the original scenario was likely
over-estimating achievable reductions by including commercial, industrial and institutional
uses. This modified scenario attempts to account for this over-estimation for the high-end
potential for water conservation.

To accomplish this task, per capita water demands for the residential and wholesale
component of public water supply withdrawals were reduced by approximately 17.8% (11.3% Delay in
of the total public water supply withdrawals) with current future growth trends remaining
reaching water
unchanged. Return flows from the residential component of public water supply systems
yield
were reduced by approximately 8.4% (5.1% of the total public water supply returns), since
it is expected that much of the water savings will be realized in reduced irrigation, leak
detection, or other areas that currently don’t exhibit a return flow. No changes were made to
industrial, power, or agricultural/irrigation uses. The purpose of this strategy is to capture the
high-end potential for demand-side savings to make an impact on water yields.

WC-01D
6-14
Table 6-4 (con’t)
Scenario /
Strategy
Description
Anticipated
result
compared
to current
Baseline
Raise target operating levels in reservoirs.
RO-01A
Target operating levels have been carefully established as part of the recent FERC relicensing
effort. This strategy would evaluate the impact of raising these operating levels 1’-0” in all of the
upper 6 reservoirs, excluding Lookout Shoals (i.e. James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Norman, Mountain
Island and Wylie).
Greater water
yield
Raise target operating levels in only the larger reservoirs.
RO-01B
This strategy is similar to RO-01A, above, but evaluates the impact of raising these operating
levels 1’-0” in only three of the larger Catawba reservoirs (James, Norman and Wylie) as such an
operating level increase in these reservoirs would represent access to a much greater volume of
additional water than in the smaller reservoirs.
Greater water
yield
Raise summer target operating levels in reservoirs.
RO-02A
Target operating levels have been carefully established as part of the recent FERC relicensing
effort. This strategy would evaluate the impact of raising the summer target operating levels 0’-6”
in all of the upper 6 reservoirs, excluding Lookout Shoals (i.e. James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Norman,
Greater water
Mountain Island and Wylie). It is recognized that a 1’-0” increase in target operating levels as
yield
evaluated in strategy RO-01A represents some increased risk of flooding on certain reservoirs.
Tempering the target operating level increase to 0’-6” inherently reduces this risk. Additionally,
only increasing the summer target operating levels provides access to additional water volume
during the historically lower period of lower inflow during the year, while minimizing the effect on
reservoir operation and impact to lakeside properties and recreation during the year.
Raise summer target operating levels in only the larger reservoirs.
RO-02B
This strategy is similar to RO-01C, above, but evaluates the impact of raising the summer target
Greater water
operating levels 0’-6” in only three of the larger Catawba reservoirs (James, Norman and Wylie)
yield
as such an operating level increase in these reservoirs would represent access to a much greater
volume of additional water than in the smaller reservoirs.
Reduce future power category water use by relocating demand – Scenario
A.

PR-01A

This strategy attempts to quantify the water yield enhancement benefit provided by the most
likely and feasible power water use reductions by relocating water demand for future power
facilities to different reservoirs than currently projected. It is recognized that any relocation of
power facility water demand has significant financial and potential regulatory constraints.
Greater water
yield
This strategy assumes the relocation of a planned 1-2x1CC (combined cycle) facility on
Lake Norman downstream to Fishing Creek Reservoir beginning in the 2065 decade. This
equates to a water demand relocation of 5.5 mgd.
B.

PR-01B

This strategy is similar in its intent to that of PR-01A, above.
Greater water
This strategy assumes the relocation of a planned 1-2x1CC (combined cycle) facility on Lake yield
Wylie downstream to Lake Wateree beginning in the 2035 decade. This equates to a water
demand relocation of 5.5 mgd.
6-15
Table 6-4 (con’t)
Scenario /
Strategy
Anticipated
result
compared
to current
Baseline
Description
C.
PR-01C
PR-01D

This strategy is similar in its intent to that of PR-01A, above.
Greater water
This strategy assumes the relocation of a planned 1-2x1CC (combined cycle) facility on Lake yield
Hickory downstream to Fishing Creek Reservoir beginning in the 2035 decade. This equates
to a water demand relocation of 5.5 mgd.
B & C.

This strategy is a combination of strategies PR-01B and PR-01C, as described above.

This combination of strategies equates to a total water demand relocation of 11 mgd.
A, B & C.
PR-01E

This strategy is a combination of strategies PR-01A, PR-01B and PR-01C, as described
above.

This combination of strategies equates to a total water demand relocation of 16.5 mgd.
Greater water
yield
Greater water
yield
Modify LIP Stage Minimum Elevations for Lake James.

This strategy modifies the Lake James LIP stage minimum drawdowns elevations from 0 ft,
2 ft, 3 ft, 10 ft, critical elevation to 0 ft, 10 ft, 20 ft, 30 ft, critical elevation for LIP Stages 0, 1,
2, 3, 4, respectively.

This strategy allows an increased volume of usable storage to be accessed from Lake
James to support downstream reservoirs during droughts.
LP-01
Greater water
yield
No Application of the LIP.
LP-02

Lower water
Effectively “turn off” the Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol logic in the CHEOPS model
yield &
and eliminate any water conservation measures and critical flow requirements tied to the LIP. Acceleration in
This scenario serves to provide a “what-if” assessment of the effect on the Basin had the LIP reaching water
yield
not been in effect during the previous drought of record.
Semi-Monthly LIP Stage Lookup.
LP-03

This strategy modifies CHEOPS model inputs to evaluate LIP stage semi-monthly on 1st and Delay in
16th of each month.
reaching water
This strategy allows a faster response to rapidly changing drought conditions, in an effort to yield
avoid reservoir “failure.”
Reservoir Drawdown Below Minimum LIP Stage Elevations for Protection
of Health, Human Welfare and Public Water Supply.
LP-04
6-16

This strategy permits upstream reservoirs to drop below LIP stage step-down minimum
Greater water
elevations and provide downstream reservoir support down to Lake James’ critical elevation. yield

This strategy is intended to protect public water supply and prolong reservoir “failure” as an
emergency measure and as allowed by the LIP.
Table 6-4 (con’t)
Scenario /
Strategy
Description
Anticipated
result
compared
to current
Baseline
Effect of slow population growth projections.

PG-02

This scenario evaluates the potential for slower population growth than projected for
the baseline conditions, which may result due to changes in future economic or social
conditions. The purpose of this scenario is to evaluate these population growth effects in a
series of “portfolios” for water management and safe yield enhancement within the Basin,
upon the completion of evaluating each of the strategies previously described.
Basin-wide average net withdrawals approximately 16% lower than Baseline projections by
Year 2065 (gradually decreasing from 3% to 16% less between 2015 and 2065 projections),
to evaluate the effect of potentially slower natural growth (births), slower net migration to
the region and slower economic recovery from the last recession than Baseline projections
indicate.
Greater water
yield / Delay in
reaching water
yield
Effect of rapid population growth projections.

This scenario evaluates the potential for more rapid population growth than projected for
the baseline conditions, which may result due to changes in future economic or social
conditions. The purpose of this scenario is to evaluate these population growth effects in a
series of “portfolios” for water management and safe yield enhancement within the Basin,
upon the completion of evaluating each of the strategies previously described.

Basin-wide average net withdrawals approximately 23% higher than Baseline projections, to
assess the potential effect of more rapid natural growth (births), net migration to the region
and economic recovery from the last recession than Baseline projections indicate.
PG-03
6.4
Lower
water yield /
Acceleration in
reaching water
yield
Integrated Scenarios for Planning Cases
Following the analysis of individual scenarios and water yield enhancement strategies, a
series of integrated scenarios were developed for various planning cases which shape the
recommendations set forth in the Master Plan. Multiple individual scenarios and/or strategies were
combined to form an integrated scenario and subsequently modeled to determine the effect on
water yield for a combination or suite of scenarios and strategies. This approach allows Master
Plan recommendations to be evaluated for a series of yield enhancement strategies in an effort
to maximize water yield within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Figure 6-4 depicts the general
approach to development of integrated scenarios with multiple scenarios and strategies being
combined into a single “bucket” to form an integrated scenario.
6-17
Figure 6-4 Development Process for Integrated Scenarios
With input from the CWWMG and its group of stakeholders, three classifications of integrated
scenarios were established as follows:
Planning Case
Best Case
Worst Case
“Planning Case” integrated scenarios represent the Baseline case for development of the Master
Plan, based on the Baseline projected population growth and low impact effect of climate change.
Yield enhancement strategies were subsequently applied to the Planning Case baseline to
determine the benefit (or detriment) to water yield in the Basin through mitigation efforts. The
integrated scenarios evaluated under the Planning Case classification serve as the basis for
recommendations set forth in the Master Plan.
The “Best Case” and “Worst Case” categories of integrated scenarios represent the bookend
estimates (as compared to the Planning Case integrated scenarios) of the best case for water
yield, if population growth and climate change impacts are less than projected and the worst case
for yield, if population growth and climate change impacts are higher than projected. Both the Best
and Worst Case categories of integrated scenarios serve as “what-if” scenarios for comparison to
the baseline Planning Case category. Similar to the Planning Case model runs, yield enhancement
strategies were also applied to the Best and Worst Case scenarios to determine the benefit (or
detriment) to water yield in the Basin through mitigation efforts of these two categories.
Figure 6-5 outlines the development and criteria used for each of the three integrated scenario
categories.
6-18
Figure 6-5 Integrated Scenarios Evaluated
A total of ten integrated scenarios were evaluated, including five scenarios for the Planning Case,
two scenarios for the Best Case and three scenarios for the Worst Case categories. For the
Planning Case, two baseline scenarios were evaluated (MP-01 and MP-01b), with MP-01 serving
as the Baseline case for purposes of the Master Plan development. Three mitigation scenarios were
also evaluated as part of the Planning Case category. For the Best Case, a single base scenario
was evaluated, along with a single mitigation scenario. For the Worst Case, a single base scenario
was evaluated, along with two different mitigations scenarios.
A summary of each of the integrated scenarios evaluated, along with the individual scenarios and
yield enhancement strategies which comprise these integrated scenarios, is provided in Figure 6-6.
Detailed criteria and descriptions for each integrated scenario, along with the anticipated impact on
water yield as compared to the Baseline integrated planning scenario, are provided in Table 6-5.
6-19
Figure 6-6 Scenarios and Strategies Used for Integrated Planning Cases
6-20
Table 6-5 Integrated CHEOPS modeling scenarios/strategies to evaluate safe yield for master planning purposes
Integrated
Scenario
Description
Anticipated result
compared to
current Baseline
planning case
Planning Case A (Baseline).
MP – 01

Includes scenario BL – 00 (Baseline) with Baseline projected population growth (PG01).

Includes scenario CI – 02 to lower the Lake James critical elevation from EL 1161’
to EL 1150’, based on the new drawdown limitations of the recently constructed
Bridgewater Powerhouse.
---
Planning Case B
MP – 01b

Includes integrated planning scenario, MP – 01, as described above.

Includes scenario CI – 05 to lower the Mountain Island Lake critical intake elevation
(currently Duke Energy’s Riverbend Steam Station intake, EL 641.8’) by 3.8 feet
to the next highest municipal water intake (City of Mount Holly, EL 638.0’), as the
Riverbend Steam Station has recently been retired and the raw water intake will soon
be decommissioned.
Greater water yield
MP-01M

Includes integrated planning scenario, MP – 01, as previously described.

Includes strategy WC – 01D for high end water conservation and demand
management by residential and wholesale water utility customers.

Includes strategies CI – 01 to lower raw water intakes in the Upper Catawba Basin,
Greater water yield
CI – 03 to lower the raw water intake on Lake Norman, and CI – 04 to lower raw water / Delay in reaching
intakes on Lake Wylie.
water yield

Includes strategy RO - 02B to raise the summer target operating levels by 6-inches in
Lake James, Lake Norman and Lake Wylie.

Includes strategy LP – 03 for semi-monthly (or more frequent) LIP stage lookup.
Mitigated Planning Case B

Includes integrated planning scenario MP - 01M, as described above.

Includes scenario CI – 05 to lower the Mountain Island Lake critical intake elevation
(currently Duke Energy’s Riverbend Steam Station intake, EL 641.8’) by 3.8 feet
to the next highest municipal water intake (City of Mount Holly, EL 638.0’), as the
Riverbend Steam Station has recently been retired and the raw water intake will soon
be decommissioned.
MP-01Mb
Greater water yield
/ Delay in reaching
water yield
MP-01Mc

Includes integrated planning scenario MP - 01Mb, as described above.

Includes strategy LP – 05 to adjust the Lake Norman LIP Stage Minimum Elevations
for Stages 1, 2 and 3 by 2 additional feet from their current minimums (i.e. now Stage
0 = Target; Stage 1 = 4 feet below target; Stage 2 = 6 feet below target; Stage 3 =
7 feet below target; Stage 4 = Scenario CI-03 Critical EL 745’). This intent of this
strategy is to allow the model to access unused storage in Lake Norman to support
Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie, downstream, and subsequently delay the
failure of these two reservoirs.
Greater water yield
/ Delay in reaching
water yield
6-21
Table 6-5 (con’t)
Integrated
Scenario
Anticipated result
compared to
current Baseline
planning case
Description
Best Case

MP-02
Includes scenario BL – 00 (Baseline) operating conditions with the following
exceptions:
––
Uses PG-02 water use projections for a slow population growth scenario.
––
Does not include any impact of climate change.

This scenario represents a book-end estimate of the best case for water yield in the
Basin, due to slower population growth than the Baseline projections and no impact
on water supply due to climate change.
Delay in reaching
water yield
Mitigated Best Case
Includes integrated planning scenario MP – 02, as described above.
Includes strategy WC – 01D for high end water conservation and demand management by
residential and wholesale water utility customers.
MP-02M
Includes strategies CI – 01 to lower raw water intakes in the Upper Catawba Basin, CI – 03 Greater water yield
to lower the raw water intake on Lake Norman, and CI – 04 to lower raw water intakes on & Delay in reaching
Lake Wylie.
water yield
Includes strategy RO - 02B to raise the summer target operating levels by 6-inches in Lake
James, Lake Norman and Lake Wylie.
Worst Case

MP-03
6-22
Includes scenario BL - 00 (Baseline) operating conditions with the following
exceptions:
––
Uses PG-03 water use projections for a rapid population growth scenario.
––
Includes scenario CC-03 for climate change impacts based on a multi-model
ensemble (high end effect of climate change).

This scenario represents a book-end estimate of the worst case for water yield in
the Basin, due to more rapid population growth than the Baseline projections and a
greater impact on water supply due to a higher estimate of climate change.
Lower water yield
/ Acceleration in
reaching water yield
Table 6-5 (con’t)
Integrated
Scenario
Description
Anticipated result
compared to
current Baseline
planning case
MP-03Ma

Includes integrated planning scenario MP – 03, as described above.

Includes strategy WC – 01B for high end water conservation and demand
management by all categories of water utility customers.

Includes strategies CI – 01 to lower raw water intakes in the Upper Catawba Basin,
Acceleration in
CI – 03 to lower the raw water intake on Lake Norman, and CI – 04 to lower raw water
reaching water yield
intakes on Lake Wylie.

Includes strategy RO - 02B to raise the summer target operating levels by 6-inches in
Lake James, Lake Norman and Lake Wylie.

MP-03Mb

Includes integrated planning MP - 03Ma, as described above.

Includes strategy LP – 01 to modify the Lake James LIP Stage Minimum Elevations
to allow an increased volume of usable storage to be accessed from Lake James to
support downstream reservoirs during droughts and delay pending failure of these
reservoirs.
No change in water
yield
6-23
6-24
Water Yield Modeling - Results
7.0
7.1
Introduction
7.1.1
Objective
Water yield (also referred to as “safe yield”) is a term used in the Master Plan to describe the
amount of water theoretically available for use at a given location in a watershed. It is a commonly
used measure of the dependability of a water supply source. The determination of water yield,
however, can vary based on whether the analysis is constrained or unconstrained, the level of
reliability desired, the hydrologic period of record utilized, and other factors. For the analysis
completed herein for the reservoirs of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, a constrained analysis
was employed. In this constrained analysis, water yield is limited by minimum flow requirements
and other non-water supply constraints imposed by reservoir operating rules.
The water yield of a water supply source depends on many factors, including the following.
Availability of water.
Storage, diversion, and conveyance facilities that comprise the water supply infrastructure
system.
Operations of the system.
Level of certainty of the supply required.
To estimate water yield, the basic analytical approach generally employed is the calculation
of a water budget that allocates and accounts for the water, given the constraints imposed by
the facilities and their operations, over the critical low-flow period of the hydrologic record. One
objective of this Master Plan is to determine the water yields for the Basin’s eleven reservoirs
and assess the effect of various scenarios and strategies on water yield in the Basin. Reservoirs
considered as part of this analysis include, from most upstream to downstream, Lake James, Lake
Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake, Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, Lake Wylie,
Fishing Creek Reservoir, Great Falls Reservoir, Rocky Creek / Cedar Creek Reservoir and Lake
Wateree.
7.1.2
Water Yield Analysis Scenarios
Water yield analyses were completed for the multiple operating scenarios outlined below. Detailed
background on the development of the various scenarios and yield enhancement strategies may be
found in Section 6.
Baseline Water Yield – This analysis calculates baseline safe yields for the Basin
reservoirs using the Mutual Gains operating conditions (Dated November 28, 2006)
negotiated during Duke Energy’s relicensing process for the Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project. The Mutual Gains operating conditions include many operating
parameters and constraints, including, but not limited to:
→→
Downstream flow requirements from each reservoir.
→→
Normal minimum elevations for each reservoir.
→→
Implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol.
These baseline conditions include Duke’s FERC license requirements under the Mutual Gains operating scenario, other agreements honored by Duke, and other current operating practices.
7-1
Water Yield for Individual Basin Scenarios and Yield Enhancement Strategies –
These analyses evaluate the individual effect of various changes in the Basin that may
or could occur during the planning horizon of the Master Plan. These scenarios seek to
evaluate the effect on water yield in the Basin for:
→→
Varying population growth
→→
Public water supplier water use changes (demand management / conservation)
→→
Changes in consumptive water use by power utilities
→→
Varying rates of climate change
→→
Critical intake modifications (i.e. lowering critical intakes)
→→
Effluent flow recycling
→→
Modifying reservoir operations
→→
Modifying the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP)
Water Yield of Integrated Planning Case Scenarios - These analyses evaluate the
combined effect of multiple changes in the Basin that may or could occur during the
planning horizon of the Master Plan, and are combination of the individual scenarios and
yield enhancement strategies previously evaluated as isolated scenarios. These integrated
scenarios seek to evaluate water yield for a Planning Case, Best Case and Worst Case
scenario for the Basin, and also seeks to evaluate combined strategies to mitigate and
enhance water yield for those scenarios.
7.2
Methodology
7.2.1
Introduction
While not all reservoir systems and their respective hydrologic models are the same, they all must
address several common considerations when calculating water yield. To calculate safe yield, the
basic analytical approach employed is the calculation of a water budget that allocates and accounts
for the water, given the constraints imposed by the facilities and their operations, over the critical
low-flow period of the hydrologic record, usually the “drought of record”. While this method can be
relatively simple for single reservoir, single purpose systems, the complexity of multi-use, multireservoir systems, such as in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, typically require sophisticated
computer-based simulation models. For this Master Plan, the CHEOPS hydrologic model was used.
The Computerized Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software (CHEOPS) is a Visual Basic®
based application used to evaluate the economics and performance of water resources elements.
This hydrologic model was first developed in the late 1990s, evolving from a spreadsheet to a
sophisticated stand-alone Visual Basic application. The CHEOPS model has been the platform
used for modeling hydroelectric generation, reservoir operations and available water quantity within
the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
The ultimate objective of the simulation modeling for the Master Plan is to determine reservoir
water surface elevations throughout a simulation time period. Changing water surface elevations
are compared to pre-determined critical elevations for each reservoir. If a simulation calculates a
reservoir water surface elevation to drop below a critical elevation, that reservoir is said to have
exceeded its safe yield. Ideally, a perfectly managed multi-reservoir system would exceed safe yield
in all reservoirs simultaneously. However, real-world constraints may prevent such an outcome as
it does in the Catawba-Wateree system. More likely, smaller groups of reservoirs within the system
tend to operate together.
7-2
7.2.2
Modeling Safe Yield in the Catawba-Wateree Reservoir System
In a complex system, estimating water yield can be greatly complicated by the nature of the
interactions between various components. In an ideal scenario, if the components are operated as
a unified system, the water yield of the system would be reached simultaneously at every location in
the system. If the components operate independently of one another, water yield can be defined for
each location separately, moving systematically from upstream to downstream.
The reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin are generally operated as a system, by a
single party (Duke Energy). In simple terms, increasing demands on a downstream reservoir results
in water being pulled from a number of upstream reservoirs to keep the system in a reasonably
balanced state. Given the numerous operating conditions of the Basin reservoirs, the imminent
violation of a flow or storage level constraint at any location in the system defines the water yield
for that location, but does not necessarily establish the water yields everywhere. There might be
additional divertible water still available at some locations, which means that the water yield for
that location has not yet been reached. Simulating the Catawba-Wateree River Basin with water
demands that are not uniformly adjusted across the Basin allows this increment of water yield to be
determined.
At the locations that appear to have the potential for additional water yield, the demands can be
adjusted upwards individually to higher levels. The water demands at locations that have already
reached their water yield would be kept at the levels previously determined while the other locations
are systematically adjusted. By keeping the demand levels constant at the previously established
water yield levels at these reservoirs, flows from upstream would be passed downstream to the
locations where they are needed. As before, the imminent violation of a storage level or required
flow constraint will signify that the water yield has been achieved at a location. The individual
demands are then adjusted upwards until a constraint violation is imminent at the next location.
This process continues until water yields are defined at all eleven reservoirs, unless failure is not
identified with Year 2115 water use projections or earlier.
For the water yield analysis, water withdrawal and return projections discussed in Section 5 were
used to represent water demands in the CHEOPS model. By beginning with the water demands
projected for the Base Year (2011), the model simulates the Basin operation, keeping track of each
reservoir’s water surface elevation and noting if any reservoirs violate any constraint(s), or fail,
during analysis of the hydrologic record. Reservoirs which fail have surpassed their water yield.
For those reservoirs that do not fail, their respective water demands are increased to represent
demands in a future year. The model continues to simulate the system operation, record constraint
violations, and increase water demands where appropriate until all eleven reservoirs fail (unless
failure is not observed under Year 2115 water use projections). At this point, the water yield has
been defined for each of the Basin’s reservoirs.
To facilitate safe yield evaluation, some key assumptions are made, including:
Only the low inflow period from 2006-2009 was used to perform the simulation iterations
needed to establish water yield.
The adjusted water demands were incrementally adjusted separately, but in a balanced
manner to prevent preferential development of a particular demand (i.e., they were
increased in 10-year increments as projected in this Master Plan).
No individual safe yield could be reduced as a result of the subsequent simulations.
For water demand projections beyond 2065, a straight-line linear trend (based on Base
year, 2011, to 2065 detailed projections) was assumed for both water withdrawals and
returns to the year 2115 for each respective sub-basin.
Projected sedimentation rates and volumes, as determined from previous studies for the
7-3
Basin, are included the existing CHEOPS framework used for this Master Plan
By proceeding through the analysis as described above, a reservoir’s individual water yield was
defined as the greatest amount of water demand it can satisfy without failing to maintain a water
surface elevation above a predetermined constraint level. There is some flexibility in the standards
of how the storage level constraint is defined. Typically, the storage level constraint is set at the
lowest level that water can be used, for example at dead pool level or at the elevation of an intake.
However, incorporation of a storage reserve or margin of safety could also be incorporated in the
definition of water yield. For example, rather than defining water yield at the point where a critical
elevation is violated, water yield could be defined when there is an additional 10 percent of usable
storage remaining.
7.2.3
Critical Intake Elevations
The physical locations of intakes in the eleven Basin reservoirs are important to successful
calculation of water yield. As part of this modeling effort, intake locations were carefully considered
and verified; this verification did not include a detailed topographic survey. Instead, research on
individual users was completed and critical operating elevations for the existing intakes were
determined using the best available data or information. A summary table of intakes is included
in Attachment 7-A. For several of the water withdrawals, the intake level indicated may not be
the actual physical elevation, but the critical operating level under current conditions. Table 7-1
identifies the critical intake elevations for each of the eleven reservoirs evaluated in the water yield
analysis.
Table 7-1 Critical Intake Elevation Summary
Critical Intake Elevation
Reservoir
(FT AMSL)
Lake James1
1161.00
Comments
Duke Energy hydropower operational limitation.
Lake Rhodhiss
984.50
Town of Valdese raw water intake.
Lake Hickory2
929.00
Town of Long View raw water intake.
Lookout Shoals Lake
813.00
City of Statesville raw water intake.
Lake Norman
750.00
Duke Energy McGuire Nuclear Station cooling water intake.
641.80
Duke Energy Riverbend Steam Station cooling water intake.
Lake Wylie
562.00
City of Belmont, Confidential Industry, & Clariant Corporation
raw water intakes.
412.20
Chester Metropolitan District raw water intake.
Great Falls Reservoir
343.00
Rocky Creek – Cedar Creek
Reservoir
264.70
Lake Wateree
218.00
City of Camden raw water intake.
3
Notes:
1.
Duke Energy’s Bridgewater Hydropower Station on Lake James now has a critical operating level of EL 1150.00 feet AMSL, due to construction of the new
powerhouse. This revised critical intake elevation is captured in modeling scenario CI-02 and subsequently into all integrated planning case scenarios, as
a baseline input.
The Town of Long View’s critical intake elevation listed in the table above is based on information from the 2006 Water Supply Study for Duke Energy’s
relicensing of the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project. Subsequent investigation of this limitation for the CWWMG’s Raw Water Intake Contingency
Plan occurred after modeling for the CWWMG’s Water Supply Master Plan was complete, and indicated that Long View can withdraw water to
approximately EL 925.00 feet AMSL. For purposes of the Water Supply Master Plan, EL 929.00 is used as the baseline critical intake elevation for Lake
Hickory.
Duke Energy’s Riverbend Steam Station on Mountain Island Lake has recently been retired. The water intake, however, is still intermittently used while the
plant is being decommissioned over the next few years. Once the station is decommissioned, the next highest raw water intake will be the City of Mount
Holly’s at EL 638.00 feet AMSL, which is captured in integrated planning case scenarios MP-01b, MP-01Mb and MP-01Mc.
2.
3.
7-4
7.2.4
Low Inflow Periods
For previous CHEOPS modeling efforts in the Basin, hydrologic data for 74 years (1930-2003)
throughout the system was used as the daily inflow dataset and was previously considered as the
Period of Record. These modeling efforts included Duke Energy’s 2006 Water Supply Study for the
relicensing of their Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project and the Water Research Foundation’s
2012 study, Defining and Enhancing the Safe Yield of a Multi-Use, Multi-Reservoir Water Supply.
However, the most recent major drought of 2007-2008 is now considered as the Drought of Record
for the Basin, and the hydrologic record from 1/1/2006 to 12/31/2009 has been used as the low
inflow period for analyzing water yield as part of this Master Plan.
Since safe yield is a measure of a water supply’s reliability, it is important to evaluate low flow
periods throughout the water supply’s hydrologic record. To perform this analysis for the CatawbaWateree River Basin, the CHEOPS model required historical inflows into each reservoir. This inflow
included tributary stream flow, groundwater inflow or recharge, surface runoff, and precipitation. For
previous modeling efforts within the Basin, a 74-year hydrologic record (1930 – 2003) was used
to provide the combined daily flow from all these sources, also known as the daily inflow dataset.
However, for the Master Plan, an updated daily inflow dataset was used, which extended through
2010, for an 81-year hydrologic record (1929-2010). This inflow dataset also includes a correction
factor to ensure an appropriate water balance based on historical records. In order for the CHEOPS
model to arrive at safe yield values, it was important to evaluate periods of ‘drought’. For the
purposes of this Master Plan, the term ‘drought’ is used to describe periods of time when the natural
inflow volume was relatively low. Previous analysis completed as part of Duke Energy’s 2006
Water Supply Study for their relicensing of the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project to identify
which drought(s) exhibited the most impact on the available water supply in the Basin. However,
this analysis did not include the hydrologic record from 2004 to 2009, which was subsequently
determined to include the new “Drought of Record” (2007-2008) for the Catawba-Wateree River
Basin. The methodology used to determine low inflow periods is described in more detail below.
7.2.4.1
Historical Hydrologic Record Analysis
The inflow dataset provided the daily average incremental inflow into each reservoir for every
day between January 1, 1929, and December 31, 2010. Similar to work performed for the 2006
Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Study, a three-step process was undertaken to consolidate the
data and determine which extended low-flow periods exist during the hydrologic Period of Record.
First, the daily incremental inflow values were summed to determine the total volume of water that
entered each reservoir in every calendar year in the period of record. This resulted in a total inflow
volume of water to each reservoir for the 81 years of record.
The next step involved determining the average total incremental inflow volume received by each
reservoir. This produced a benchmark to which each reservoir’s yearly inflow values could be
compared. For the purposes of this analysis, a reservoir was defined to have a “low-flow” year
(LFY) if that year’s inflow volume was less than the 81-year average. The data in Attachment 7-B
presents this comparison for each reservoir.
In the final step of this approach, the number of reservoirs in a LFY for each year were tallied and
evaluated. Since it was assumed that more severe droughts would affect more of the reservoirs,
significant low inflow periods were identified by observing when a large number of reservoirs
exhibited a LFY. Each year’s number of reservoirs experiencing a LFY was compared to one of two
average numbers. One was the average number of reservoirs in a LFY between the years 1930
through 1962, and the second was that same average between the years 1963 through 2003. The
post-1962 average took into account the addition of Lake Norman to the Project. The results of this
analysis are shown in Figure 7-1.
7-5
Figure 7-1 Drought Periods Indicated by the Hydrologic Record
As illustrated in the figure, years with data points above the respective average were determined
to be in a more significant low inflow period. There are multiple instances where a significant low
inflow period was seen for only one year. These instances were determined less critical than
when low inflow periods extended for multiple years. The shaded areas in Figure 7-1 show where
significant droughts likely occurred for a period of at least two years, resulting in six main periods of
drought.
In order to ensure that the full drought period was captured, the inflow periods chosen for previous
modeling of safe yield for the 2006 Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Study began and ended with a
“wet” year (i.e., years not considered part of the drought). With this approach, the reservoirs being
modeled would have been expected to have full storage volumes to begin a drought period. Also, by
ending with a “wet” year, it was assured the model could observe the full effects of a drought period,
including storage recovery. As a result of this analysis, the low-flow periods are presented in Table
7-2, including Low Flow Period 6, upon which safe yield modeling for the Master Plan is based.
7-6
Table 7-2 Low-Inflow Periods in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin
Low-Flow Period
Dates
1
January 1937 – December 1948
2
3
4
5
6
1
Low-flow Period 6 determined as part of the Water Supply Master Plan Evaluation to be the critical
period, or the “Drought of Record”
1
Previous safe yield modeling of the Basin found Low Flow Period 5 to be the Drought of Record for
the Basin. However, this prior modeling was completed before Low Flow Period 6, which through
the incremental inflow analysis conducted for the Master Plan, has been determined to include the
new Drought of Record for the Basin. While shorter in overall duration than Low Flow Period 5, the
onset of Low Flow Period 6 occurred more rapidly and with greater severity. As indicated in Figure
7-2, LFP-6 resulted in lower monthly average daily incremental inflows of approximately 750 cfs for
the entire Basin over a critical four month period in the fall of 2007, as compared to approximately
1,200 cfs for Basin over a critical three month period during the late summer of 2002 for LFP-5.
Figure 7-2 Catawba River Basin Incremental Monthly Average Daily Inflow Data Series for the Years 2000 – 2010
(Low Flow Period 5 & 6)
Additionally, evaluation of Low Flow Period 6 indicated that 6 of the 11 reservoirs in the Basin
experienced their lowest months of average daily incremental inflow during the Period of Record in
Low Flow Period 6. The five lowest months of Basin-wide average daily incremental inflow during
7-7
the Period of Record occurred between the months of July to November, 2007 (Low Flow Period 6).
Detailed documentation of this analysis may be found in Attachment 7-B. Based upon this analysis,
Low Flow Period 6 was determined to surpass Low Flow Period 5 as the new Drought of Record for
the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and was used as the basis for safe yield modeling in this Master
Plan.
7.2.5
Safe Yield Reservoir Constraint
For the Baseline conditions, a single safe yield reservoir constraint was modeled to establish a
benchmark for all subsequent model runs to evaluate Basin scenarios and yield enhancement
strategies. The reservoir constraint utilized was the location of the highest water intake (critical
intake elevation) in each of the eleven reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. As indicated
in Attachment 7-A, there are numerous water intakes in the Basin’s reservoirs. Each of these
intakes has a distinct reservoir elevation, below which they are inoperable.
Figure 7-3 Safe Yield Analysis – Critical Intake Elevation Constraint
For the safe yield analysis of Baseline conditions, it was determined that reservoir constraint
elevations should be set at the highest intake constraint elevation for each of the eleven reservoirs.
These critical intake elevations are as discussed in Section 7.2.3 and previously summarized in
Table 7-1. By establishing this constraint elevation, the available water storage inventory can be
utilized without sacrificing the operability of any water intake, thereby defining the safe yield value
for that reservoir. Figure 7-3 illustrates the application of this constraint scenario on the Basin’s
reservoirs.
It was initially determined that reservoir constraint levels should be set at the critical intake elevation
minus a 1-foot buffer for each of the eleven reservoirs, similar to previous water quantity modeling
exercises within the Basin. “Failure” for a reservoir during a modeling run was defined as having an
end of day reservoir elevation 1-foot or more below the critical elevation for at least one day. The
intent of this 1-foot buffer was to eliminate modeling “noise” and erroneous failure indications within
the model. Individual scenarios and yield enhancement strategies were evaluated using this 1-foot
buffer rule. However, at the request of the CWWMG, the “failure” definition was modified for all
integrated scenarios (modeling runs using combinations of scenarios) used in the master planning
effort. As such, for integrated planning scenarios, “failure” is defined as having an end of day
reservoir elevation 0.1-foot or more below the critical elevation for at least three consecutive days.
While this 0.1-foot and 3 consecutive day buffer also helps eliminate modeling “noise,” it is also a
better representation of when a water supply intake might truly experience an inability to get water.
7-8
7.2.6
Safe Yield Calculation Methodology - Summary
The general steps taken to evaluate the effectiveness of Catawba-Wateree River Basin scenarios
and yield enhancement strategies are listed as follows:
Step 1: Evaluate the Baseline case, BL-00, to represent existing basin conditions and
operating parameters.
Step 2: Evaluate individual (i.e. single variable) scenarios.
→→
Apply an individual scenario/strategy in the CHEOPS model and calculate the
system’s safe yield.
→→
Compare the safe yield achieved for an individual scenario/strategy against the
Baseline case (i.e. BL-00).
→→
Measure the difference between the water yield of the evaluated strategy and the
baseline.
Step 3: Evaluate integrated scenarios for planning purposes.
→→
Apply multiple scenarios/strategies together in the CHEOPS model for various
master planning cases and calculate the system’s safe yield.
→→
Compare the safe yield achieved for each integrated scenario/strategy against
the Baseline planning scenario case (i.e. MP-01; similar to BL-00 with slight
modifications).
→→
Measure the difference between the water yield of the evaluated strategy and the
Baseline planning case.
Step 4: Develop master plan recommendations based on the most effective planning
scenario cases.
The graphic below, summarizes the safe yield analysis process for scenarios and yield
enhancement strategies evaluated as part of the Master Plan.
Figure 7-4 CHEOPS Modeling Process for Master Plan Scenarios
The steps taken to determine safe yield for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin for each scenario /
safe yield enhancement strategy can generally be described as follows:
1.
Select a low-inflow simulation period. For purposes of the Master Plan, modeling is
based upon the Drought of Record, between the years 2006 to 2009.
2.
Modify the CHEOPS model as required to apply the scenario / safe yield
7-9
enhancement strategy. The extent of modifications varied by strategy.
3.
Run the simulation using the smallest water withdrawal and return projections,
associated with Base Year (2011) projections.
4.
If the simulation completes without a reservoir dropping below a critical elevation,
rerun the simulation with the next higher incremental water withdrawal and return
projections. Water withdrawal and return projections were made for every ten
years, starting in 2015 out to 2115 (i.e. 2015, 2025, 2035, etc.). Increases in water
withdrawals and returns were made for a simulation in accordance with these
projections (i.e. every ten years). For example, if a simulation resulted in no drops
below critical elevations for 2015 water withdrawals and returns, the simulation was
repeated with 2025 water withdrawals and returns.
Note: “Failure” for individual scenario/strategy runs is defined as having an end of
day reservoir elevation 1-foot or more below the critical elevation for at least one
day. This 1-foot buffer serves to eliminate modeling “noise.” At the request of the
CWWMG, however, this “failure” criteria was modified for integrated scenarios used
in the master planning effort. As such, for integrated planning scenarios, “failure” is
defined as having an end of day reservoir elevation 0.1-foot or more below the critical
elevation for at least three consecutive days. While this 0.1-foot and 3 consecutive
day buffer also helps eliminate modeling “noise,” it is also a better representation of
when a water supply intake might truly experience an inability to get water.
7-10
5.
If the simulation shows one or more reservoirs dropping below critical intake
elevations, these reservoirs are considered to have exceeded maximum safe yield.
At that point, the reservoir’s calculated safe yield is defined as the water withdrawal
projection from the preceding decade that showed no critical intake failures. The
actual safe yield is assumed to be somewhere between the water withdrawal
projection from the preceding decade that showed no critical intake failures and the
water withdrawals from the projection decade at which failure is observed.
6.
After the safe yields are set, run a model simulation using the next higher
incremental water withdrawals and returns for only the reservoirs that did not drop
below their respective critical elevations. Water withdrawals and returns for the
reservoirs that did drop below their respective critical elevations are locked at the
withdrawal values that caused the failure(s).
7.
Continue to rerun the simulation, increasing the water withdrawals and returns each
time, until all reservoirs have dropped below their respective critical elevations. At
this point, the safe yield for every reservoir has been calculated.
8.
Sum the average annual withdrawals for each reservoir at the earliest point of failure
for any reservoir in the system to determine the upper yield boundary at which a
failure is first experienced in the Basin. Also sum the average annual withdrawals for
each reservoir for the decade just before the first noted reservoir failure in the system
to determine the lower yield boundary at which a failure is first experienced in the
Basin. The lower and upper boundary values represent the total safe yield range for
all Basin reservoirs, combined, based upon when failure is first experienced.
9.
Subtract the safe yield for the scenario/yield enhancement strategy being evaluated
from the corresponding safe yield value for the baseline scenario to obtain the net
increase (or decrease) in safe yield attributable to the strategy. Also, since the safe
yields are based on water use projections, a corresponding year in which these flows
are expected to occur can be used to estimate the incremental amount of additional
time that the scenario/strategy has afforded the basin before demand has reached
the safe yield.
7.3
Scenario Modeling Results
Simulation of the various scenarios and yield enhancement strategies under the 2006 – 2009
low-inflow period produced mixed results. Tables 7-3 through 7-39 present a summary of modeled
scenarios and the results for each simulation. Tables 7-3 through 7-29 on the following pages
summarize the results for individual scenarios and yield enhancement strategies, while Tables 7-30
through 7-39 summarize the integrated scenarios for various master planning cases. Further, a safe
yield range has been defined for each reservoir and the overall Basin, with the upper end of the
range defined as the failure point of the reservoir/system. The total Basin yield is indicative of the
projected water withdrawal from all reservoirs at the point the first major reservoir in the system is
modeled to fail.
A detailed summary of water yield modeling results may be found in Attachment 7-C. More detailed
results output for individual scenarios/strategies modeled may be found in Attachment 7-D, and
similar results for integrated planning cases are contained in Attachment 7-E.
Table 7-3 BL-00 Baseline simulation (no strategies applied)
Scenario Description
Results Summary
Current safe yields are based on the 2006-2009 low inflow period (2007-2008
drought) since this was determined to be more severe than the 1998-2002 drought
previously used for modeling of safe yields for the Catawba-Wateree reservoirs.
The Baseline is based upon the CRA Mutual Gains Scenario as established under
the most recent FERC relicensing application for the Basin and also includes
consideration of a low impact of climate change on water supply. Results are intended
to be used for comparison purposes with individual scenarios/strategies evaluated, to
determine a net benefit or detriment to safe yield.
Critical elevation violations occurred
under 2065 net withdrawal projections,
effectively extending the Basin safe yield
by approximately one decade beyond the
baseline finding of the previous Safe Yield
Research Project. “Failure” is defined as
end of day reservoir levels 1 foot or more
below the critical elevation for at least one
day.
Reservoir
Projected Range of safe yield values
(mgd)
Associated year withdrawal is
projected to be reached
James
>15.5
>2115
Rhodhiss
>44.2
>2115
Hickory
>53.3
>2115
Lookout Shoals
>13.3
>2115
Norman
>188.4
>2115
Mountain Island
214.5 - 235
2065 – 2075
Wylie
98.2 – 104.9
2055 – 2065
Fishing Creek
>194.9
>2115
Great Falls - Dearborn
0.8 – 0.9
2065 - 2075
>1.3
>2115
Wateree
88.8 – 100.0
2095 - 2105
Total ~ 660.0–718.6 (mgd)
2055 -2065
ND - Not determined
7-11
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2065 water use projections. Water yield
is extended by 1 decade (beyond the baseline modeled as part of the Water Research Foundation
Safe Yield Research project), largely in part due to a more than 20% decrease in net water
withdrawals within the basin since the 2007-2008 drought and economic recession. Additional
factors now included in the “baseline,” such as modifications to programming logic, including
incorporation of Duke Energy’s CRA for the Catawba-Wateree Project and LIP response changes
from 5 days to 1 day, appears to benefit safe yield. Factors now included in the “baseline” such
as the low impact of climate change and the 2007-2008 drought of record, likely have a negative
impact on water yield, but appear to be offset by the reductions in water use in the basin and other
favorable changes made to the CHEOPS programming.
7-12
Table 7-4 PG-02 Slow Population Growth Scenario
Results Summary
This scenario evaluates the potential for slower population growth than projected
for the baseline conditions. Basin-wide average net withdrawals approximately 16%
lower than Baseline projections by Year 2065 (gradually decreasing from 3% to 16%
less between 2015 and 2065 projections), to evaluate the effect of potentially slower
natural growth (births), slower net migration to the region and slower economic
recovery from the last recession than Baseline projections indicate.
Critical elevation violations occur under
2095 water use projections, indicating an
extension of water yield by three decades
beyond the Baseline scenario.
Projected Range of safe yield values (mgd)
Reservoir
[Associated year withdrawal is projected to be reached]
BL-00
PG-02
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>13.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>28.9 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>47.5 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>10.9 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>145.1 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
216.3–228 (2105-2115)
40 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
86.6-88.0 (2085-2095)
30 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>151.2 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
>1.2 (>2115)
40 years +
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.1 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
79.9-89.9 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 678.3 –725
(mgd)
~ 30 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2095 water use projections. Water yield is
extended by 3 decades, as compared to the baseline scenario (BL-00). A slower population growth
rate than projected under the baseline scenario results in a significantly lower rate of water use for
this scenario, thereby, affording several more decades before failure within the Basin. The yield
extension is noted primarily in the middle part of the Basin, in Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie,
which has previously been determined a critical part of the Basin where modeled reservoir failures
are typically first observed. The general observation from this scenario is that if population growth
develops more slowly in the Basin, failure of reservoirs within the Basin is likely to be delayed,
beyond what current projections indicate. This scenario could be considered as a bookend best
case estimate for population growth in the Basin, as related to preserving water yield.
7-13
Table 7-5 PG-03 Rapid Population Growth Scenario
Results Summary
This scenario evaluates the potential for more rapid population growth than projected
for the baseline conditions. Basin-wide average net withdrawals approximately 23%
higher than Baseline projections, to assess the potential effect of more rapid natural
growth (births), net migration to the region and economic recovery from the last
recession than Baseline projections indicate.
2035 water use projections, indicating a
reduction of water yield by three decades
below the Baseline scenario.
Reservoir
BL-00
PG-03
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>18.8 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>63.7 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>69.9 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>18.8 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
192.7-209.3 (2085-2095)
-20 years +
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
231.6-253.2 (2045-2055)
-20 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
102.6-107.3 (2025-2035)
-30 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>252.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
1-1.1 (2075-2085)
10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.4 (2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
99.9-112.3 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 550.3 –612.7
(mgd)
- 30 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations first occurred in Lake Wylie under 2035 water use projections. Water
yield is reduced by 3 decades, as compared to the baseline scenario (BL-00). A more rapid
population growth rate than projected under the baseline scenario results in a significantly higher
rate of water use for this scenario, thereby, accelerating failure within the Basin. The yield reduction
is noted primarily in the middle part of the Basin, in Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake
Wylie, which has previously been determined a critical part of the Basin where modeled reservoir
failures are typically first observed. The general observation from this scenario is that if population
growth intensifies rapidly in the Basin, failure of reservoirs within the Basin is likely occur much
more rapidly than current projections indicate. This scenario could be considered as a bookend
worst case estimate for population growth in the Basin, as related to preserving water yield. 7-14
Table 7-6 WC-01A Reduce Per Capita Water Demands for Public Water Suppliers (Low end)
Results Summary
For this scenario, per capita water demands for public water supplies were reduced
by approximately 4.8% (Basin average) with current future growth trends remaining
unchanged. Return flows from public water supply systems were reduced by
approximately 2.4% (Basin average), since it is expected that much of the water
savings will be realized in reduced irrigation, leak detection, or other areas that
currently don’t exhibit a return flow. No change will be made to industrial, power, or
agricultural/irrigation uses. The purpose of this strategy is to capture the low-end
potential for demand-side savings to make an impact on water yields.
2065 water use projections, indicating no
change from the Baseline scenario.
Reservoir
BL-00
WC-01A
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>41.5 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>51.7 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>184.5 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
223.8-242 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
94.7-101 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.3 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
1-1.1 (2085-2095)
20 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
77.6-88.8 (2085-2095)
-10 years
Total ~ 641.5 –698.2
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2065 water use projections, similar to
the Baseline scenario. The low end estimate for public water supplier per capita water demand
reductions (4.8% reduction to withdrawals and subsequent 2.4% reduction to returns) does not
appear to reduce net water withdrawals within the basin to a level significant enough to extend
water yield.
7-15
Table 7-7 WC-01B Reduce Per Capita Water Demands for Public Water Suppliers (High end)
Results Summary
For this scenario, per capita water demands for public water supplies were reduced
by approximately 14% with current future growth trends remaining unchanged. Return
flows from public water supply systems were reduced by approximately 7.1%, since it
is expected that much of the water savings will be realized in reduced irrigation, leak
detection, or other areas that currently don’t exhibit a return flow. No change will be
made to industrial, power, or agricultural/irrigation uses. The purpose of this strategy
is to capture the high-end potential for demand-side savings to make an impact on
water yields.
extension of water yield by one decade
Reservoir
BL-00
WC-01B
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>38 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>48.4 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>12.8 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>175.9 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
217.8-234.3 (2085-2095)
20 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
96-98.9 (2065-2075)
10 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>189.7 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.8-0.9 (2065-2075)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
77-88.1 (2085-2095)
-10 years
Total ~ 657.6 –719.2
(mgd)
~ 10 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2075 water use projections, thereby
extending the water yield by one decade beyond the Baseline scenario. The high end estimate for
public water supplier per capita water demand reductions appears to reduce net water withdrawals
within the basin to a level significant enough to extend water yield. Such per capita water use
reductions would need to achieve an overall public water supplier reduction in withdrawals of 14%
or more, resulting in a subsequent reduction to returns of approximately 7.1% or more.
7-16
Table 7-8 WC-01C Reduce Per Capita Water Demand for Residential & Wholesale Only (Low end)
Results Summary
For this scenario, per capita water demands for the residential and wholesale
component of public water supply withdrawals were reduced by approximately 8.2%
(5.2% reduction to the total public water supply withdrawals) with current future
growth trends remaining unchanged. Return flows from the residential component of
public water supply systems were reduced by approximately 3.5% (2.1% reduction
to the total public water supply returns), since it is expected that much of the water
savings will be realized in reduced irrigation, leak detection, or other areas that
currently don’t exhibit a return flow. No changes were made to industrial, power, or
agricultural/irrigation uses. The purpose of this strategy is to capture the potential for
low end- demand-side savings to make an impact on water yields.
Reservoir
BL-00
WC-01C
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>42.3 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>52.4 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>183.6 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
220.9-238.9 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
96.3-102.8 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>191.8 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.8-0.9 (2065-2075)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
77.0-88.1 (2085-2095)
-10 years
Total ~ 639.5 –695.7
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2065 water use projections, similar
to the Baseline scenario. The low end estimate for per capita water demand reductions for the
residential and wholesale component of public water supply use (5.2% reduction to withdrawals and
subsequent 2.1% reduction to returns) does not appear to reduce net water withdrawals within the
basin to a level significant enough to extend water yield.
7-17
Table 7-9 WC-01D Reduce Per Capita Water Demand for Residential & Wholesale Only (High end)
Results Summary
For this scenario, per capita water demands for the residential and wholesale
component of public water supply withdrawals were reduced by approximately 17.8%
(11.3% of the total public water supply withdrawals) with current future growth trends
remaining unchanged. Return flows from the residential component of public water
supply systems were reduced by approximately 8.4% (5.1% of the total public water
supply returns), since it is expected that much of the water savings will be realized in
reduced irrigation, leak detection, or other areas that currently don’t exhibit a return
flow. No changes were made to industrial, power, or agricultural/irrigation uses. The
purpose of this strategy is to capture the high-end potential for demand-side savings
to make an impact on water yields.
Reservoir
BL-00
WC-01D
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>40.5 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>50.5 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.1 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>178.2 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
222.7-239.6 (2085-2095)
20 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
100.5-103.6 (2065-2075)
10 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>185.4 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.8-0.9 (2065-2075)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
87.2-98.2 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 668 – 730.4
(mgd)
~ 10 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
extending the water yield by one decade beyond the Baseline scenario. The high end estimate for
per capita water demand reductions for the residential and wholesale component of public water
supply use appears to reduce net water withdrawals within the basin to a level significant enough to
extend water yield. Such per capita water use reductions would need to achieve an overall public
water supplier reduction in withdrawals of 11.3% or more, resulting in a subsequent reduction to
returns of approximately 5.1%. Of the four water conservation scenarios for public water suppliers,
this scenario appears to be the most benefit to extending water yield, as it appears to be a feasible
target for public water suppliers, although it is recognized that implementation of such a scenario
will likely result in lower revenues for public water suppliers in the Basin.
7-18
Table 7-10 PR-01A Reduce Future Power Water Use in Key Reservoirs by Relocating Demand –
Scenario A
Results Summary
This strategy assumes the relocation of a planned 1-2x1CC (combined cycle) facility
on Lake Norman downstream to Fishing Creek Reservoir beginning in the 2065
decade. This equates to a water demand relocation of 5.5 mgd.
Reservoir
BL-00
PR-01A
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>183.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235–254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>199.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
-10 years
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
the Baseline scenario. It does not appear the relocation of a 5.5 mgd consumptive water use
demand for power facilities from Lake Norman downstream to Fishing Creek Reservoir is enough
of an upstream saving in water use to extend the water yield in Wylie, downstream. Additionally,
this demand relocation only reduced the number of failure days in Wylie by two, as compared
to the Baseline. This scenario provides a very minimal benefit to the Basin, while representing a
potentially large financial cost to implement.
7-19
Table 7-11 PR-01B Reduce Future Power Water Use in Key Reservoirs by Relocating Demand –
Scenario B
Results Summary
on Lake Wylie downstream to Lake Wateree beginning in the 2035 decade. This
equates to a water demand relocation of 5.5 mgd.
Reservoir
James
BL-00
>15.5 (>2115)
PR-01B
>15.5 (>2115)
Yield Extension
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235–254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
92.7–99.4 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
1.2–1.3 (2105-2115)
40 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
87.6–100.1 (2085-2095)
-10 years
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2065 water use projections, similar to the
Baseline scenario. It does not appear the relocation of a 5.5 mgd consumptive water use demand
for power facilities from Lake Wylie downstream to Lake Wateree is enough of an upstream saving
in water use to extend the water yield in Wylie. Additionally, this demand relocation only reduced the
number of failure days in Wylie by four, as compared to the Baseline. This scenario provides a very
minimal benefit to the Basin, while representing a potentially large financial cost to implement.
7-20
Table 7-12 PR-01C Reduce Future Power Water Use in Key Reservoirs by Relocating Demand –
Scenario C
Results Summary
on Lake Hickory downstream to Fishing Creek Reservoir beginning in the 2035
decade. This equates to a water demand relocation of 5.5 mgd.
Reservoir
BL-00
PR-01C
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>39.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
-ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235–254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>208.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
-10 years
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
for power facilities from Lake Hickory downstream to Fishing Creek Reservoir is enough of an
upstream saving in water use to extend the water yield in Wylie. Additionally, this demand relocation
only reduced the number of failure days in Wylie by five, as compared to the Baseline. This scenario
provides a very minimal benefit to the Basin, while representing a potentially large financial cost to
implement.
7-21
Table 7-13 PR-01D Reduce Future Power Water Use in Key Reservoirs by Relocating Demand – Scenarios B & C
Results Summary

This strategy is a combination of strategies PR-01B and PR-01C.

This combination of strategies equates to a total water demand relocation of 11
mgd.
Reservoir
BL-00
PR-01D
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>39.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235–254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
92.7–99.4 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>208.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.7–0.8 (2055-2065)
-10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
75–87.6 (2075-2085)
-20 years
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
for power facilities from Lake Wylie downstream to Lake Wateree and a 5.5 mgd consumptive
water use demand for power facilities from Lake Hickory downstream to Fishing Creek Reservoir
is enough of an upstream saving in water use to extend the water yield in Wylie. Additionally,
this demand relocation only reduced the number of failure days in Wylie by 8, as compared to
the Baseline. This scenario provides a very minimal benefit to the Basin, while representing a
potentially large financial cost to implement.
7-22
Table 7-14 PR-01E Reduce Future Power Water Use in Key Reservoirs by Relocating Demand – Scenarios A, B & C

Results Summary
This strategy is a combination of strategies PR-01A, PR-01B and PR-01C.
This combination of strategies equates to a total water demand relocation of 16.5 2065 water use projections, indicating no
mgd.
Reservoir
BL-00
PR-01E
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>39.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>183.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235–254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
92.7–99.4 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>213.5 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.7–0.8 (2055-2065)
-10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
75–87.6 (2075-2085)
-20 years
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
for power facilities from Lake Norman downstream to Fishing Creek Reservoir, from Lake Wylie
downstream to Lake Wateree Reservoir and from Lake Hickory downstream to Fishing Creek
Reservoir (combined total water demand relocation of 16.5 mgd) is enough of an upstream saving
in water use to extend the water yield in Wylie. This demand relocation did reduce the number of
failure days in Wylie by 13, as compared to the Baseline. This scenario provides a very minimal
benefit to the Basin, while representing a potentially large financial cost to implement.
7-23
Table 7-15 CC-02 Increased impact of climate change on water supply
Results Summary

Assume gradual temperature increase of 1.2°F per decade (equals 6.5°F
increase between Base Year and 2065) (~4% gross reservoir evaporation
increase per decade; equals (~22% increase between Base Year and 2065).

Assume no change in precipitation.
reduction of water yield by one decade

Assume inflow dataset decrease of 5.4% to 2065 (from increases in evapotranspiration due to higher temperatures). Inflow to reduce by 1% every 10 years.

Reservoir
BL-00
CC-02
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
163.3-175.8 (2095-2105)
-10 years
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
-
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
92.2–98.2 (2045-2055)
-10 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.6–0.7 (2045-2055)
-20 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
66.5–77.6 (2075-2085)
-20 years
Total ~ 575.1 – 660
(mgd)
-10 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
reducing the Basin safe yield by one decade. The result of this scenario is expected, as the
Baseline scenario includes a low impact of climate change. This increased impact of climate
scenario essentially doubles the decadal temperature and reservoir evaporation increase as
compared to the Baseline, which results in a negative effect on the Basin.
7-24
Table 7-16 CC-03 Climate change scenario based on projections from an ensemble of models
Results Summary
Enhance Baseline climate change and CC-02 by creating a climate change scenario
from an ensemble of global climate change models synthesized into a probability
density function of temperature and precipitation change for the southeastern US
geographic region.
reduction of water yield by two decades

Assume gradual temperature increase of 0.5°F per decade (equals 2.7°F
increase between Base Year and 2065) (~1.7% gross reservoir evaporation
increase per decade; equals (~9% increase between Base Year and 2065).

Assume 1.8% reduction in precipitation per decade (equals ~10% precipitation
reduction between Base Year and 2065) that will result in a 4% reduction in
inflow per decade (equals ~22% inflow reduction between Base Year and 2065).

Reservoir
BL-00
CC-03
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
14-14.4 (2075-2085)
-30 years +
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
126.8-138.2 (2065-2075)
-40 years +
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
179.3-196 (2045-2055)
-20 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
87.1–92.2 (2035-2045)
-20 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.6–0.7 (2045-2055)
-20 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
48.9–66.5 (2065-2075)
-30 years
Total ~ 478 – 575.1
(mgd)
-20 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
reducing the Basin safe yield by two decades. The result of this scenario is expected, as this
scenario includes a decadal temperature and reservoir evaporation increase, as well as a
corresponding reduction in inflow resulting from future reductions in precipitation due to climate
change. The low impact of climate change included in the Baseline scenario, as well as the
increased impact of climate change scenario does not include reductions in inflow, as many climate
change models are inconclusive as to whether such change will result in an increase, decrease,
or no effect on future precipitation. The multi-model ensemble, however, predicts a decrease in
precipitation, thereby reducing inflow and causing this scenario to impact the Basin water yield more
negatively than the other climate change scenarios evaluated. This scenario could be considered a
bookend estimate of the worst case effect of climate change on water yield in the Basin.
7-25
Table 7-17 CI-01 Lower existing critical intakes in the upper Catawba Basin
Results Summary

Assume lowering of the Town of Valdese intake to 975.00. This is 0.8 feet above
the hydro-operations level and would provide access to about 9.5 feet more of
Lake Rhodhiss storage.

Assume lowering/consolidating the City of Hickory and Town of Longview’s
intakes to a level of 910.00. This change would provide access to about 19.0 feet
more of Lake Hickory storage and is still two feet above the hydro-operations
level.
Reservoir
BL-00
CI-01
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235–254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
the Baseline scenario. It does not appear that this scenario, alone, provides any benefit to the
collective Basin safe yield. It does however, appear that this scenario provides a benefit to water
yield in the upper Catawba reservoirs, including Lake James, Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals
Lake. It appears that water is “trapped” in upper Catawba reservoirs and is not passed downstream
quickly enough to support reservoirs pending failure. While lowering the critical intake in a reservoir
will provide a benefit to the safe yield of that individual reservoir, it will not necessarily provide a
benefit to other reservoirs, largely due to the programmed LIP target minimum elevations which are
typically above the critical elevations for all LIP stages less severe than Stage 4.
The modeled failure in Lake Wylie occurs with 2065 water use projections under 2007 hydrology
at the very end of August and September and for approximately 1/2 the month of November.
Additionally, these failures occur within the CHEOPS model during LIP stages less than Stage 4.
The apparent cause of this result is due to both the LIP stage minimum reservoir elevations (since
reservoirs are not allowed to drop below the minimum stage elevation according to the LIP logic in
the model) and the fact that the LIP is currently programmed to perform a stage lookup once per
month. Therefore, if a reservoir approaches its critical elevation just before the end of the month, it
may not be possible for the LIP actions of a more severe stage to be implemented quickly enough
to pass the volume of water to the downstream reservoir in need to prevent failure. Additionally, if
7-26
failure occurs in a stage less severe than Stage 4, upstream usable water storage between the LIP
stage minimum elevation and critical elevation of the upstream reservoir may not be accessed to
support the downstream reservoir(s), according to the LIP stage actions. Such is the case with the
modeled failure of Wylie, as the CHEOPS model shows Wylie failing the last few days of the month,
not receiving the water released from upstream as required by the worsening LIP stage declared on
the first of the next month, until the third to fifth day of the next month, and resulting of a failure of
approximately one week during each of these time periods, while usable water storage remains in
the upper Catawba reservoirs.
The result of this scenario shows that lowering of critical intake elevations may, in fact, provide a
benefit to safe yield, but only if coupled with modifications to the LIP, such as lowering LIP stage
minimum reservoir elevations or potentially increasing the frequency of the LIP stage lookup and
declaration.
7-27
Table 7-18 CI-02 Lower existing drawdown limit on Lake James
Results Summary
Assume lowering of the Lake James drawdown by 11-feet from 39-feet to 50-feet,
due to the construction of Duke Energy’s new Bridgewater Hydroelectric Station
Powerhouse. Recent completion of this new facility has subsequently resulted in a
lower intake elevation, providing access 11-feet of additional usable water storage in
Lake James.
Reservoir
BL-00
CI-02
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
-
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Baseline scenario. Conclusions regarding this scenario are similar to those for Scenario CI-01, and
reflect that lowering the critical elevation without changes to the LIP do not provide a benefit to the
collective Basin safe yield. This scenario does appear to provide a small benefit in water yield to
Lake James, only.
7-28
Table 7-19 CI-03 Lower existing critical intake on Lake Norman
Results Summary
Assume lowering of the current critical intake elevation of Lake Norman (Duke –
McGuire elevation of 750.00) to a revised intake elevation of 745.00, beginning
in Year 2045. This elevation matches the next highest intake levels of the City of
Charlotte and Town of Mooresville. The current critical elevation of 750.00 is due
to a thermal interaction limitation between Duke Energy’s McGuire Nuclear Station
and Marshal Steam Station. McGuire is scheduled for replacement or conversion
to cooling tower technology in 2043-2044 at which time this thermal limitation will
no longer be applicable and the physical plant limitation of 745.00 will apply. It is
recognized that any such change in Duke’s McGuire critical intake elevation prior to
2045 has significant financial and regulatory constraints.
Reservoir
BL-00
CI-03
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
-
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
the Baseline scenario. Conclusions regarding this scenario are similar to those for Scenario CI-01,
and reflect that lowering the critical elevation without changes to the LIP do not provide a benefit
to the collective Basin safe yield. This scenario does appear to provide a benefit in water yield to
Lake Norman and several upstream reservoirs, including Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss and Lookout
Shoals Lake.
7-29
Table 7-20 CI-04 Lower existing critical intake(s) on Lake Wylie
Results Summary
Assume lowering of Lake Wylie’s Confidential Industry, Clariant Corporation, and City
of Belmont intakes to 559.40 ft. This elevation matches the critical intake elevation
for Duke’s Catawba Nuclear Station, providing access to about 2.6 feet more of Lake
Wylie.
Reservoir
BL-00
CI-04
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235–254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
104.9-108.3 (2065-2075)
10 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 718.6 – 784.9
(mgd)
~ 10 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
extending the Basin safe yield by one decade as compared to the Baseline scenario. This scenario
provides a benefit to the collective Basin safe yield because it directly lowers the critical elevation
in the reservoir modeled to fail first (Wylie) and provides an additional volume of water storage
to be accessed in Wylie, thereby extending its safe yield. Of the four modeled critical elevation
modification scenarios, this scenario appears to the only one that could be implemented to provide
a benefit to the Basin safe yield without the need for subsequent LIP modifications, although there
is a significant financial cost to lower intake structures.
7-30
Table 7-21 ER-01 Re-routing existing effluent flows to upstream reservoir(s) during LIP Stage 3 or 4
Results Summary

When LIP is in Stage 3 or 4, assume re-routing effluent flow from the McAlpine
Creek WWMF (NRF-4) and Sugar Creek WWTP (NRF-3) back to Mt. Island
Lake.

When LIP is in Stage 3 or 4, assume re-routing effluent flow from the Crowders
Creek WWTP (NRY-17) and the Long Creek WWTP (NRY-18) back to Mt. Island
Lake.
A minimal number of critical elevation
violations occur under 2055 water use
projections, although definitive failure
occurs under 2065 water use projections,
representing no change from Baseline
scenario.
Reservoir
BL-00
ER-01
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
-
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.6–0.7 (2045-2055)
-20 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
-10 years
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in the Great Falls Reservoir under 2055 water use projections.
However, as there are no water withdrawals directly from Great Falls Reservoir and the hydropower
operational limit is considered to be the critical elevation, modeled failure in this reservoir is not
considered to be a true “failure” for the Basin. Additionally, failure of Great Falls Reservoir under
2055 projections only occurs for 2-non consecutive days under December 30th, 2007 and January
1st, 2008 hydrology. The lake levels rebound above failure each of the days following the failure,
which indicate the modeled failure may not be realistic. Subsequent reservoir failure occurs in
Lake Wylie under 2065 water use projections, which when compared to the Baseline scenario is
comparable for the baseline failure modeled in Lake Wylie. The scenario modeled includes rerouting significant water returns into Lake Wylie and Fishing Creek reservoir back upstream to
Mountain Island Lake. Since the new Baseline scenario indicated Wylie is first to fail in the Catawba
system, removing water returns from Wylie through effluent recycling intuitively will not benefit the
reservoir safe yield. Additionally, the removal of a significant return to Fishing Creek Reservoir,
just upstream of Great Falls Reservoir, appears to negatively affect the Great Falls Reservoir as it
reduces the stored water volume available to the Great Falls Reservoir. This scenario appears to
provide no benefit and perhaps a slightly negative benefit to the Basin safe yield and represents a
significant infrastructure and operating cost to implement, with no recognized positive effect.
7-31
Table 7-22 RO-01A Raise annual target operating levels in reservoirs by 1’-0”
Results Summary
Target operating levels have been carefully established as part of the recent FERC
relicensing effort. This strategy would evaluate the impact of raising these operating
levels 1’-0” in all of the upper 6 reservoirs, excluding Lookout Shoals (i.e. James,
Rhodhiss, Hickory, Norman, Mountain Island and Wylie).
extension of water yield by two decades
Reservoir
BL-00
RO-01A
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
254.2–273.3 (2085-2095)
20 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
108.3–113.3 (2075-2085)
20 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 784.9 –
854.5 (mgd)
~ 20 years
ND - Not determined
Discussion
extending the Basin safe yield by two decades, as compared to the Baseline scenario. While this
scenario reflects a favorable impact on safe yield within the basin, there are many challenges
with implementing such a change in the target operating levels. Such changes would require
modifications to the FERC license application for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, as
well as represent a much greater potential for flooding during high inflow events, particularly if target
levels in all upper Basin reservoirs are increased by 1’-0” as modeled in this scenario.
7-32
Table 7-23 RO-01B Raise annual target operating levels by 1’-0” in larger reservoir only (Norman, James, Wylie)
Results Summary
This strategy is similar to RO-01A, but evaluates the impact of raising these operating
levels 1’-0” in only three of the larger Catawba reservoirs (James, Norman and Wylie)
as such an operating level increase in these reservoirs would represent access to a
much greater volume of additional water than in the smaller reservoirs.
Reservoir
BL-00
RO-01B
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
254.2–273.3 (2085-2095)
20 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
104.9-108.3 (2065-2075)
10 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 718.6 –
784.9 (mgd)
~ 10 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
extending the Basin safe yield by one decade, as compared to the Baseline scenario. While
this scenario reflects a favorable impact on safe yield within the basin, there are challenges
well as represent a greater potential for flooding during high inflow events. This scenario, however,
does reduce the flooding potential noted for the previously described scenario by only raising the
target elevations on the largest three Project reservoirs (Norman, James and Wylie), and provides a
benefit to Wylie (shown by this scenario as the first system reservoir to fail) by increasing its usable
water storage.
7-33
Table 7-24 RO-02A Raise summer target operating levels in reservoirs by 0’-6”
Results Summary
Target operating levels have been carefully established as part of the recent FERC
relicensing effort. This strategy would evaluate the impact of raising the summer target
operating levels 0’-6” in all of the upper 6 reservoirs, excluding Lookout Shoals (i.e.
James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Norman, Mountain Island and Wylie). It is recognized that
a 1’-0” increase in target operating levels as evaluated in strategy RO-01A represents
some increased risk of flooding on certain reservoirs. Tempering the target operating
level increase to 0’-6” inherently reduces this risk. Additionally, only increasing the
summer target operating levels provides access to additional water volume during the
historically lower period of lower inflow during the year, while minimizing the effect on
reservoir operation and impact to lakeside properties and recreation during the year.
2075 water use projections indicating an
Reservoir
BL-00
RO-02A
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235-254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
104.9-108.3 (2065-2075)
10 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 718.6 –
784.9 (mgd)
~ 10 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
does reduce the flooding potential (as compared to the previous two scenarios) by only raising the
target elevations in each of the upper Project reservoirs by 6-inches as compared to 1-foot.
7-34
Table 7-25 RO-02B Raise summer target operating levels by 0’-6” in larger reservoirs only (Norman, James, Wylie)
Results Summary
This strategy is similar to RO-01C, but evaluates the impact of raising the summer
target operating levels 0’-6” in only three of the larger Catawba reservoirs (James,
Norman and Wylie) as such an operating level increase in these reservoirs would
represent access to a much greater volume of additional water than in the smaller
reservoirs.
Reservoir
BL-00
RO-02A
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
235-254.2 (2075-2085)
10 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
104.9-108.3 (2065-2075)
10 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 718.6 –
784.9 (mgd)
~ 10 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
does reduce the flooding potential (as compared to all other proposed target elevation increase
scenarios) by only raising the target elevations on the largest three Project reservoirs (Norman,
James and Wylie) by 6-inches as compared to 1-foot. Additionally, the scenario provides a direct
benefit to Wylie (shown by this scenario as the first system reservoir to fail) by increasing its
usable water storage. Of the four target elevation modification scenarios evaluated, this scenario
logistically appears to be the most feasible to implement.
7-35
Table 7-26 LP-01 Modify LIP Stage Minimum Elevations for Lake James

Results Summary
This strategy modifies the Lake James LIP stage minimum drawdowns
A minimal number of critical elevation
elevations from 0 ft, 2 ft, 3 ft, 10 ft, critical elevation to 0 ft, 10ft, 20 ft, 30 ft, critical violations occur under 2085 water use
elevation for LIP Stages 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, respectively.
projections, although definitive failure
This strategy allows an increased volume of usable storage to be accessed from occurs under 2095 water use projections,
representing a three decade extension of
Lake James to support downstream reservoirs during droughts.
water yield in the Basin.
Reservoir
BL-00
RO-02A
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
254.2–273.3 (2085-2095)
20 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
113.3–118.4 (2085-2095)
30 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
100-111.2 (2105-2115)
10 years
Total ~ 854.5 – 924
(mgd)
~ 30 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in the Great Fall Reservoir under 2085 water use projections.
As previously discussed, however, failure of this reservoir is not considered a Basin failure, as
Great Falls reservoir has no water supply intakes. Additionally, failure of Great Falls Reservoir
under 2085 projections only occurs for 3-non consecutive days under January 4th, 6th and 8th,
2008 hydrology. The lake levels rebound above failure each of the days following the failure, which
indicate the modeled failure may not be realistic. Subsequent failure occurs in Mountain Island Lake
and Lake Wylie under 2095 water use projections, which when compared to the Baseline scenario
represents an extension in water yield of three decades. In extending the water yield and reducing
the LIP stage minimum elevations in Lake James to support downstream reservoirs pending failure
in earlier decades, Lake James’ usable storage is essentially fully depleted in this scenario, leaving
no additional storage upstream. Such a scenario, while providing a significant extension of the
Basin water yield, should be considered as a “last line of defense” against reservoir failure, for
planning purposes. Additionally, there are many challenges to implementing such a drastic change
in LIP stage minimum lake elevations in Lake James. These challenges include modification to the
existing FERC license application, changes to the LIP and likely major objections from lakeside
property owners and stakeholders with recreational interests.
7-36
Table 7-27 LP-02 No Application of the LIP
Results Summary

This strategy effectively “turns off” the Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol
logic in the CHEOPS model to represent the impact to the Basin if the LIP is not
implemented.

This strategy includes the elimination of any water conservation requirements
of the LIP and eliminates the model’s use of critical flow requirements, instead
relying on minimum and recreational flow requirements of the Collective
Relicensing Agreement (CRA) even during extreme drought.
Base Year (2011) water use projections,
representing a 5+ decade acceleration of
water supply failure in the Basin.
Reservoir
BL-00
LP-02
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
81-103.8 (2035-2045)
-70 years +
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
254.2–273.3 (2085-2095)
20 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
≤74.2 (≤Base, 2011)
-55 years +
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
≤0.2 (≤Base, 2011)
-65 years +
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
66.5–77.6 (2075-2085)
-20 years
Total ~ ≤ 365.9 (mgd)
-55 years +
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under Base Year (2011) water use projections,
considerably accelerating failure of the Basin by multiple decades and impacting the Basin safe
yield negatively, as compared to the Baseline scenario. Additional failures of Lake Norman,
Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wateree were observed under water use projection decades
of 2045, 2095 and 2085, respectively. The results of this scenario distinctly indicate that the
implementation of the LIP for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin is essential to preserving water
supply and extending the water yield within the Basin, and, had the LIP not been in effect during the
last drought of record in 2007-2008, failure of reservoirs was possible.
7-37
Table 7-28 LP-03 Semi-Monthly LIP Stage Lookup
Results Summary

This strategy modifies CHEOPS model inputs to evaluate LIP stage semimonthly on 1st and 16th of each month.

This strategy allows a faster response to rapidly changing drought conditions, in
an effort to avoid reservoir “failure.”
2065 water use projections, and indicate
no change in safe yield from the Baseline
scenario.
Reservoir
BL-00
LP-03
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
>188.4 (>2115)
ND
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
-
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
10 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
-
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
The semi-monthly LIP lookup seemed to benefit Lake Wylie during its prolonged failure under
2065 projections and November 2007 hydrology. However it did not help the brief failure periods
under 2065 projections that occur for 2007 hydrology just at the end of August and September,
and appears to be because the stream flow and drought monitor triggers substantially lag the
storage index trigger during this period. This occurs because the stream flow and drought monitor
triggers utilize a multi-month rolling average, whereas the storage index is a single value at the time
of lookup. While the technique of this scenario doesn’t extend water yield, it leads to interesting
finding….as water use projections increase into the future, reservoir storage will be depleted much
more quickly, which the CHEOPS model accounts for. However, the stream flow and drought
monitor triggers are based on historical observations, meaning they are static in the model (and
in reality for that matter) and do not adjust for increased water use in the basin. So, as water use
increases in the future, it is evident that the LIP will likely have to be re-evaluated to “re-align” the
stream flow and drought monitor set-points with the storage index trigger to ensure that LIP stage
transition doesn’t get “held up” for an extended period of time due to the lag between triggers.
7-38
Table 7-29 LP-04 Reservoir drawdown less than LIP stage minimum elevation for the protection of health, human welfare and
public water supply
Results Summary

This strategy permits upstream reservoirs to drop below LIP stage step-down
minimum elevations and provide downstream reservoir support down to Lake
James’ critical elevation.

This strategy is intended to protect public water supply and prolong reservoir
“failure” as an emergency measure and as allowed by the LIP.
extension of water yield by three decades,
when compared to the Baseline scenario.
Reservoir
BL-00
LP-04
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
>188.4 (>2115)
163.3-175.8 (2095-2105)
-10 years +
Mountain Island
214.5–235 (2065-2075)
>311.5 (>2115)
40 years +
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
113.3–118.4 (2085-2095)
30 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.8–0.9 (2065-2075)
>1.3 (>2115)
40 years +
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
88.8–100 (2095-2105)
>1.3 (>2115)
10 years
Total ~ 854.5 –
924.0 (mgd)
~ 30 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
extending the Basin safe yield by three decades, as compared to the Baseline scenario. In
extending the water yield and allowing upstream reservoir elevations to drop below their LIP
stage minimum elevations to protect public health, welfare and public water supply in downstream
reservoirs by preventing their failure in LIP stages less than Stage 4, Lake James’ usable storage is
essentially fully depleted in this scenario, leaving no additional storage upstream. Such a scenario,
while providing a significant extension of the Basin water yield, should be considered as a “last
line of defense” against reservoir failure, and should not be considered as an acceptable solution
to extending water yield for master planning purposes. While the LIP, as currently published,
technically allows for the action represented by this scenario, such action would be highly sensitive
to all stakeholders and should only be invoked if all other efforts to protect the public water supply
were to fail.
7-39
Table 7-30 MP-01 Planning Case A (Baseline)
Results Summary

This integrated scenario represents the baseline planning case for the Water
Supply Master Plan and includes individual scenarios/strategies BL-00 (with
baseline projected population growth) and CI-02 to lower the Lake James critical
elevation, based on the existing drawdown capability of the new Bridgewater
Powerhouse.
2065 water use projections, with “failure”
defined as reservoir levels 0.1 feet or
more below the critical elevation for 3 or
more consecutive days.

This scenario is intended to serve as the baseline to which to compare various
integrated planning scenarios.
Reservoir
Projected Range of safe yield values
(mgd)
Associated year withdrawal is
projected to be reached
James
>15.5
>2115
Rhodhiss
>44.2
>2115
Hickory
>53.3
>2115
Lookout Shoals
>13.3
>2115
Norman
113.4
2055-2065
Mountain Island
196-214.5
2055-2065
Wylie
98.2–104.9
2055-2065
Fishing Creek
>194.9
>2115
0.9–1.0
2075-2085
>1.3
>2115
Wateree
76.6–88.8
2085-2095
Total ~ 660.0–718.6 (mgd)
2055 -2065
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie under
2065 water use projections. This integrated planning case serves as the baseline planning case
and extends water yield in the Basin by 1 decade (beyond the baseline modeled as part of the
Water Research Foundation Safe Yield Research project), largely in part due to a more than 20%
decrease in net water withdrawals within the basin since the 2007-2008 drought and economic
recession. Additional factors now included in the “baseline,” such as modifications to programming
logic, including incorporation of Duke Energy’s CRA for the Catawba-Wateree Project and LIP
response changes from 5 days to 1 day, appears to benefit safe yield. Factors now included in the
“baseline” such as the low impact of climate change and the 2007-2008 drought of record, likely
have a negative impact on water yield, but appear to be offset by the reductions in water use in the
basin and other favorable changes made to the CHEOPS programming. The addition of scenario
CI-02 to BL-00 for this integrated planning case scenario does not appear to extend water yield, but
does maintain additional reserve water storage in Lake James at the headwaters of the Basin.
7-40
Table 7-31 MP-01b Planning Case B
Results Summary

extension of water yield, when compared
to the Baseline integrated planning case
scenario.
This integrated scenario is identical to MP-01, but also includes scenario CI-05
to lower the Mountain Island Lake critical intake elevation (currently Duke
Energy’s Riverbend Steam Station intake, EL 641.8’) by 3.8 feet to the next
highest municipal water intake (City of Mount Holly, EL 638.0’), as the Riverbend
Steam Station has recently been retired and the raw water intake will soon be
decommissioned.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-01b
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>44.2 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>53.3 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.3 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
-
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
273.3–292.4 (2095-2105)
40 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>194.9 (>2115)
ND
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
-
Total ~ 660 – 718.6
(mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Norman and Lake Wylie under 2065 water use
projections, indicating no extension of water yield beyond the integrated planning baseline scenario,
MP-01. However, by modeling a lower critical intake elevation on Mountain Island, due to the
retirement of the Riverbend Steam Station, a water yield extension of four decades is noted in this
particular reservoir.
7-41
Table 7-32 MP-01M Mitigated Planning Case A
Results Summary

extension of water yield by three decades,
when compared to the Baseline integrated
planning case scenario.
This integrated scenario seeks to mitigate integrated planning baseline scenario
MP-01 using the following strategies:
––
Includes strategy WC – 01D for high end water conservation and demand
––
Includes strategies CI – 01 to lower raw water intakes in the Upper
Catawba Basin, CI – 03 to lower the raw water intake on Lake Norman,
and CI – 04 to lower raw water intakes on Lake Wylie.
––
Includes strategy RO - 02B to raise the summer target operating levels by
6-inches in Lake James, Lake Norman and Lake Wylie.
––
Includes strategy LP – 03 for semi-monthly (or more frequent) LIP stage
lookup.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-01M
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>40.5 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>50.5 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.1 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
>178.2 (>2115)
50 years +
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
222.7–239.6 (2085-2095)
30 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
112.9–117.5 (2095-2105)
40 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>185.4 (>2115)
ND
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
>1.3 (>2115)
30 years +
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
98.2–109.3 (2105-2115)
20 years +
Total ~ 795.4 –
860.4 (mgd)
~ 30 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Mountain Island Lake under 2095 water use projections,
indicating a Basin water yield extension of approximately 3 decades beyond the integrated planning
baseline scenario, MP-01. Additional extensions in individual reservoirs are also noted, including
Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, Lake Wylie, Great Falls Reservoir, and Lake Wateree.
Lowering critical intake elevations, water demand management and conservation by customers
of public water suppliers and changes to summer target operating levels in Lake James, Lake
Norman and Lake Wylie, when coupled together, are modeled to greatly enhance water yield in
the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and indicate a secure water supply for many years beyond the
current baseline conditions.
7-42
Table 7-33 MP-01Mb Mitigated Planning Case B
Results Summary

extension of water yield by four decades,
This integrated scenario is identical to integrated planning scenario MP-01M, but
also includes scenario CI – 05 to lower the Mountain Island Lake critical intake
elevation (currently Duke Energy’s Riverbend Steam Station intake, EL 641.8’)
by 3.8 feet to the next highest municipal water intake (City of Mount Holly, EL
638.0’), as the Riverbend Steam Station has recently been retired and the raw
water intake will soon be decommissioned.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-01Mb
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>40.5 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>50.5 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.1 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
>178.2 (>2115)
50 years +
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
>273.2 (>2115)
50 years+
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
112.9–117.5 (2095-2105)
40 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>185.4 (>2115)
ND
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
>1.3 (>2115)
30 years+
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
98.2–109.3 (2105-2115)
20 years
Total ~ 860.6 –
925.4 (mgd)
~ 40 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2105 water use projections, indicating a
Basin water yield extension of approximately 4 decades beyond the integrated planning baseline
scenario, MP-01. Additionally, an extension of 1 decade is observed beyond that of integrated
planning scenario MP-01M, as under that scenario, Mountain Island Lake was identified as the first
reservoir to fail. However, upon the decommissioning of the Riverbend Steam Station raw water
intake and subsequently lower next critical intake by default, additional water yield is available
in this reservoir. This mitigation scenario is most representative of actual operating conditions
and recommendations to be set forth in the Master Plan, and is, therefore, the most realistic
representation of the potential water yield enhancement within the Basin.
7-43
Table 7-34 MP-01Mc Mitigated Planning Case C
Results Summary

extension of water yield by five decades,
This integrated scenario is identical to integrated planning scenario MP-01Mb,
but also includes strategy LP – 05 to adjust the Lake Norman LIP Stage
Minimum Elevations for Stages 1, 2 and 3 by 2 additional feet from their current
minimums (i.e. now Stage 0 = Target; Stage 1 = 4 feet below target; Stage 2 = 6
feet below target; Stage 3 = 7 feet below target; Stage 4 = Scenario CI-03 Critical
EL 745’). This intent of this strategy is to allow the model to access unused
storage in Lake Norman to support Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie,
downstream, and subsequently delay the failure of these two reservoirs.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-01M
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>15.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>40.5 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>50.5 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>13.1 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
>178.2 (>2115)
50 years +
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
>273.2 (>2115)
50 years +
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
>122.2 (>2115)
50 years +
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>185.4 (>2115)
ND
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
>1.3 (>2115)
30 years +
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.3 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
98.2–109.3 (2105-2115)
20 years +
Total ~ 925.4 –
990.4 (mgd)
~ 50 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wateree under 2115 water use projections, indicating
a Basin water yield extension of approximately 5 decades beyond the integrated planning baseline
scenario, MP-01. Additionally, an extension of 2 decades is observed beyond that of integrated
planning scenario MP-01M. While Lake Wateree’s modeled failure occurs under 2115 water
use projections, no other reservoirs experienced a failure through 2115 water use projections,
representing a significant enhancement to individual reservoir water yields throughout the basin.
This strategy to modify the Lake Norman LIP stage minimum elevations is shown to effectively
allow the model to access unused storage in Lake Norman to support Mountain Island Lake and
Lake Wylie, downstream, and subsequently delay the failure of these two reservoirs. This strategy
essentially eliminates the middle portion of the Basin as the “choke point” of the system. However,
modification to LIP stage minimum elevations, particularly in Lake Norman, represents a significant
change in the Catawba-Wateree CRA, and many stakeholder implications which make this strategy
somewhat prohibitive.
7-44
Table 7-35 MP-02 Best Case
Results Summary

extension of water yield by two decades,
when compared to the Baseline planning
case scenario.
This integrated scenario represents the best case scenario for water planning
in the Basin and is based upon the baseline operating scenario BL-00, with the
following exceptions:
––
Uses PG-02 water use projections for a slow population growth scenario.
––
Does not include any impact of climate change.

Includes scenario CI–02 to lower the Lake James critical elevation from EL 1161’

This scenario represents a book-end estimate of the best case for water yield in
the Basin, due to slower population growth than the Baseline projections and no
impact on water supply due to climate change.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-02
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>13.5 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>28.9 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>47.5 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>10.9 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
119.8-128.2 (2085-2095)
30 years
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
204.6–216.3 (2095-2105)
40 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
85.2–86.6 (2075-2085)
20 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>151.2 (>2115)
ND
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
1.0–1.1 (2095-2105)
20 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.1 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
69.8–79.9 (2085-2095)
-
Total ~ 631.6 –
678.3 (mgd)
~ 20 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2085 water use projections, indicating a
Basin water yield extension of approximately 2 decades beyond the integrated planning baseline
scenario, MP-01. The results of this scenario form a bookend for planning purposes for a best
case scenario within the Basin, should population growth (and subsequent water demand) and the
effects of climate change be less than the baseline projections established for the Master Plan.
7-45
Table 7-36 MP-02M Mitigated Best Case

Results Summary
This integrated scenario seeks to mitigate integrated planning best case scenario Critical elevation violations do not occur
MP-02 using the following strategies:
under 2115 water use projections,
–– Includes strategy WC – 01D for high end water conservation and demand indicating an extension of water yield by
more than five decades, when compared
–– Includes strategies CI – 01 to lower raw water intakes in the Upper
scenario. This mitigated scenario also
improves upon the best case scenario by
more than three decades.
–– Includes strategy RO - 02B to raise the summer target operating levels by
––
lookup.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-02M
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
>13.4 (>2115)
ND
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>26.5 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>45.1 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>10.7 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
>137.2 (>2115)
50 years +
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
>200.1 (>2115)
50 years +
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
>86.2 (>2115)
50 years +
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
>143.8 (>2115)
ND
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
>1.2 (>2115)
30 years +
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.1 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
>98.3 (>2115)
20 years +
Total ~ > 763.5 (mgd)
~ 50 years +
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
No critical elevation violations were observed within the Basin under 2115 water use projections,
indicating a Basin water yield extension of more than 5 decades beyond the integrated planning
baseline scenario, MP-01. Additionally, an extension of more than 3 decades is observed beyond
that of integrated planning scenario MP-02. The results of this strategy should serve as a bookend
for mitigation strategies on a best case scenario and may not be a realistic representation of actual
future conditions within the Basin, as they likely underestimate future water use.
7-46
Table 7-37 MP-03 Worst Case
Results Summary

reduction of water yield by four decades,
This integrated scenario represents the best case scenario for water planning
in the Basin and is based upon the baseline operating scenario BL-00, with the
following exceptions:
––
Uses PG-03 water use projections for a rapid population growth scenario.
––
Includes scenario CC-03 for climate change impacts based on a multimodel ensemble (high end effect of climate change).

Includes scenario CI – 02 to lower the Lake James critical elevation from EL
1161’ to EL 1150’, based on the new drawdown limitations of the recently
constructed Bridgewater Powerhouse.

This scenario represents a book-end estimate of the worst case for water yield in
the Basin, due to more rapid population growth than the Baseline projections and
a greater impact on water supply due to a higher estimate of climate change.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-03
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
16.5-17.1 (2075-2085)
-30 years+
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>63.7 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
60.4-65.2 (2095-2105)
-10 years+
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>18.8 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
94.9-103.1 (2025-2035)
-30 years
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
178.9-206.9 (2025-2035)
-30 years
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
95.5–102.6 (2015-2025)
-40 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
235.5-252.9 (2105-2115)
-1 year+
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
0.7–0.8 (2045-2055)
-30 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.4 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
56.1–75.2 (2065-2075)
-20 years
Total ~ 490.4 – 550.3
(mgd)
-40 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations occurred in Lake Wylie under 2085 water use projections, indicating
acceleration in reaching the Basin’s water yield approximately 4 decades earlier than the integrated
planning baseline scenario, MP-01. The results of this scenario form a bookend for planning
purposes for a worst case scenario within the Basin, should population growth (and subsequent
water demand) and the effects of climate change more severe than the baseline projections
established for the Master Plan.
7-47
Table 7-38 MP-03Ma Mitigated Worst Case A
Results Summary

reduction of water yield by one decade,
planning case scenario. This mitigated
scenario does, however, improve upon the
worst case scenario by three decades.
This integrated scenario seeks to mitigate integrated planning worst case
scenario MP-03 using the following strategies:
––
Includes strategy WC – 01B for high end water conservation and demand
management by all categories of water utility customers.
––
Includes strategies CI – 01 to lower raw water intakes in the Upper
––
Includes strategy RO - 02B to raise the summer target operating levels by
––
lookup.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-03Ma
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
17-17.5 (2085-2095)
-20 years+
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>54.9 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>63.4 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>18.1 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
195.7-211.1 (2095-2105)
40 years
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
216.6–237 (2055-2065)
-
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
106–113.3 (2045-2055)
-10 years
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
189.4-208.4 (2085-2095)
-20 years+
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
1.0–1.1 (2075-2085)
-
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.4 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
74.6–86.9 (2075-2085)
-10 years
Total ~ 665.6 –
765.6 (mgd)
- 10 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations were observed in Lake Wylie under 2055 water use projections,
indicating acceleration in reaching the Basins water yield approximately 1 decade earlier than
the integrated planning baseline scenario, MP-01. However, by applying mitigating strategies, an
extension of approximately 3 decades is observed beyond that of integrated planning scenario MP03. The results of this strategy should serve as a bookend for mitigation strategies on a worst case
scenario and may not be a realistic representation of actual future conditions within the Basin, as
they likely overestimate future water use.
7-48
Table 7-39 MP-03Mb Mitigated Worst Case B
Results Summary

extension of water yield, when compared
scenario. This mitigated scenario does,
however, improve upon the worst case
scenario by four decades.
This integrated scenario is identical to integrated planning scenario MP-03Ma,
but also includes strategy LP – 01 to modify the Lake James LIP Stage Minimum
Elevations to allow an increased volume of usable storage to be accessed
from Lake James to support downstream reservoirs during droughts and delay
pending failure of these reservoirs.
Reservoir
MP-01
MP-03Mb
Yield Extension
James
>15.5 (>2115)
15.9-16.4 (2065-2075)
-40 years+
Rhodhiss
>44.2 (>2115)
>54.9 (>2115)
ND
Hickory
>53.3 (>2115)
>63.4 (>2115)
ND
Lookout Shoals
>13.3 (>2115)
>18.1 (>2115)
ND
Norman
113.4-126.8 (2055-2065)
195.7-211.1 (2095-2105)
40 years
Mountain Island
196–214.5 (2055-2065)
216.6–237 (2055-2065)
-
Wylie
98.2–104.9 (2055-2065)
113.3-121.6 (2055-2065)
-
Fishing Creek
>194.9 (>2115)
208.4-227.3 (2095-2105)
-10 years+
0.9–1.0 (2075-2085)
0.8–0.9 (2055-2065)
-20 years
>1.3 (>2115)
>1.4 (>2115)
ND
Wateree
77.6–88.8 (2085-2095)
74.6–86.9 (2075-2085)
-10 years
Total ~ 765.6 –
836.3 (mgd)
~ 0 years
ND - Not determined
Results Discussion
Critical elevation violations were observed in Mountain Island Lake, Lake Wylie and Great Falls
Reservoir under 2065 water use projections, indicating no extension of water beyond the integrated
planning baseline scenario, MP-01. However, by applying mitigating strategies, an extension of
approximately 4 decades is observed beyond that of integrated planning scenario MP-03, but only 1
additional decade beyond the mitigated worst case scenario MP-03Ma. The results of this strategy
indicate that even accessing a reserve contingency storage volume of water in Lake James by
lowering the LIP stage minimum elevations at the headwaters of the Basin does little to prolong
failure under this mitigated worst case strategy. Additionally, the time frame in which the water yield
of Lake James is reached is accelerated by 4 decades or more, under this scenario, in order to
prevent downstream reservoirs in the middle portion of the Basin from failing.
7-49
7.4
Observations and Conclusions
As presented in the previous section, ten integrated scenarios were evaluated. Through workshop
discussions with the CWWMG, the Mitigated Planning Case B (MP-01Mb) was identified as the
future scenario to be recommended in this Master Plan. This scenario produces a favorable result
for water yield (likely extending the Basin’s water yield into the next century) and includes strategies
that the CWWMG believes can be fully implemented.
Tables 7-40 and 7-41 summarize the impact on safe yield for modeled scenarios and yield
enhancement strategies.
Table 7-40 Basin-wide Yield Summary for Simulated Individual Scenarios
Scenario
BL – 00
Description
BASELINE OPERATIONS
INDIVIDUAL SCENARIOS / STRATEGIES
Safe yield
(mgd)
Projection year
660 - 719
2055 - 2065
Change in
safe yield
vs Baseline1
(mgd)
Yield
enhancement vs
Baseline (years)
PG – 02
Slow population growth scenario
12
30
PG – 03
Rapid population growth scenario
-108
-30
WC – 01A
Reduce per capita water demands for public water suppliers (low
end)
~0
0
WC – 01B
Reduce per capita water demands for public water suppliers (high
end)
~0
10
WC – 01C
Reduce per capita water demands for residential and wholesale
customers only (low end)
~0
0
WC – 01D
Reduce per capita water demands for residential and wholesale
customers only (high end)
10
10
PR – 01A
Reduce future power water use in key reservoirs by relocating
demand – Scenario A
0
0
PR – 01B
demand – Scenario B
0
0
PR – 01C
demand – Scenario C
0
0
PR – 01D
demand – Scenarios B & C
0
0
PR – 01E
demand – Scenarios A, B & C
0
0
CC – 02
Increased impact of climate change on water supply.
-72
-10
CC – 03
Climate change scenario from multi-model ensemble.
-163
-20
CI– 01
Lower existing critical intakes in the upper Catawba-Wateree Basin.
0
0
7-50
Table 7-40 (con’t)
INDIVIDUAL SCENARIOS / STRATEGIES (con’t)
Change in
safe yield
vs Baseline1
(mgd)
Yield
enhancement vs
Baseline (years)
CI – 02
Lower existing drawdown limit on Lake James.
0
0
CI – 03
Lower existing critical intake on Lake Norman.
0
0
CI - 04
Lower existing critical intake(s) on Lake Wylie.
62
10
ER – 01
Re-route existing effluent flows to upstream reservoirs during LIP
Stage 3 or 4.
0
0
RO – 01A
Raise annual target operating levels in reservoirs by 1-foot
130
20
RO – 01B
Raise annual target operating levels by 1-foot in larger reservoir only
(Norman, James, Wylie)
62
10
RO – 02A
Raise summer target operating levels in reservoirs by 6-inches
62
10
RO – 02B
Raise summer target operating levels by 6-inches in larger reservoirs
only (Norman, James, Wylie)
62
10
LP – 01
Modify LIP Stage Minimum Elevations for Lake James
200
30
LP – 02
No Application of the LIP
≤ -323
-55 +
LP– 03
0
0
LP – 04
Reservoir drawdown less than LIP stage minimum elevation for the
protection of health, human welfare and public water supply
200
30
Notes:
1 Change in safe yield calculated as the difference between the safe yield range midpoint (average) for a given scenario and the safe yield range
midpoint for the Baseline case (BL-00 for individual scenarios and MP-01 for integrated planning scenarios).
7-51
Table 7-41 Basin-wide Yield Summary for Simulated Integrated Planning Scenarios
Scenario
MP – 01
Description
PLANNING CASE A (BASELINE)
INTEGRATED PLANNING SCENARIOS
Safe yield
(mgd)
Projection year
660 - 719
2055 - 2065
Change in
safe yield
vs Baseline1
(mgd)
Yield
enhancement vs
Baseline (years)
0
0
MP – 01b
Planning Case B
MP – 01M
139
30
Mitigated Planning Case B (Recommended)
204
40
269
50
Best Case
~0
20
Mitigated Best Case
>74
50 +
Worst Case
-169
-40
MP – 01Mb
MP – 01Mc
MP – 02
MP – 02M
MP – 03
MP – 03Ma
26
-30
MP – 03Mb
112
0
Notes:
1 Change in safe yield calculated as the difference between the safe yield range midpoint (average) for a given scenario and the safe yield range
midpoint for the Baseline case (BL-00 for individual scenarios and MP-01 for integrated planning scenarios).
While some of the results in Tables 7-40 and 7-41 were anticipated, some appear a bit counterintuitive. The modeling analysis made it clear that the water supply safe yield for the CatawbaWateree reservoirs was very closely tied to the model logic, reservoir operations, and the Low
Inflow Protocol. Since the safe yield determination occurs during drought periods, the LIP was
always in effect (with the exception of scenario LP-02). Since the LIP is designed to preserve and
protect water supply during drought, it actually seeks to minimize the value of some of the safe
yield enhancement strategies. For instance, while lowering critical intakes in the reservoirs may
appear to free up additional available storage, the LIP calculation allows this additional storage to
be passed downstream for ecological flows for longer periods of time during drought. As a result,
this additional volume may not be used for additional water supply until Stage 4 of the LIP. Some
general observations made from these analyses include the following.
It is critical to understand the operational logic of this multi-use, multi-reservoir system, its
water use hierarchy, and the impact of any drought management protocol.
Yield enhancement strategies can work to either increase the safe yield of a water supply,
or extend the availability of the water supply (or both, in some cases). These strategies
may vary depending on the water supply system.
7-52
Future climate change has the potential for impacts, but some of these impacts may be
mitigated with an effective drought management plan and Master Plan.
Regional collaboration is especially important in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to
implement safe yield enhancement strategies and ensure a long-term sustainable water
supply.
The results for the integrated planning case scenarios indicate there is potential to increase and/
or extend safe yield in the Basin by a considerable amount, in some instances. Modeling results
suggest that yield in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin reservoirs could be extended 30 to 50
years, as compared to the baseline conditions. At the same time, it is recognized that this yield
could be extended even further should population growth occur more slowly and the impact of
climate change not materialize. Conversely, should population growth occur more rapidly and the
impact of climate change be more severe than projected under the baseline condition, the basin
could exhaust its water yield much more rapidly than expected, and mitigating strategies to enhance
safe yield would have only a minimal benefit. Figures 7-5 and 7-6 reflect the safe yield ranges and
projection decades associated with the yield for the planning, best and worst case scenarios.
Figure 7-5 Yield Summary for Integrated Planning Cases
7-53
Figure 7-6 Associated Projection Decades for Water Yield
As illustrated in Tables 7-40 & 7-41, and Figures 7-5 and 7-6, the recommended scenario MP-01Mb
has the potential to increase the Basin’s water yield by over 200 mgd (to ~920 mgd) and 40 - 50
years to the year 2105.
A proposed implementation schedule is included in Table 7-42. Recommended actions could be
completed on a faster timeline, but should be completed by the dates shown. Further, it should be
noted that ongoing monitoring of hydrologic conditions, water use projections, and updates of this
Master Plan may necessitate additional actions or modified timelines.
Table 7-42 Proposed Implementation Schedule for Recommended Planning Scenario (MP-01Mb)
Action
Schedule
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Reduction
Goal Year
2055
High End Water Use Efficiency
(WC-01D)
Implement
Continue
Monitor
Continue
Monitor
Continue
Monitor
Lower Upper Catawba Intakes
(CI-01)
Feasibility/
Predesign
Financing/
Permitting
Design and
Construction
Complete by
2045
Lower Mt. Island Riverbend Critical Intake
(CI-05)
Recognition
of Change
Lower Lake Norman Critical Intake
(CI-03)
Lower Lake Wylie Critical Intakes
(CI-04)
7-54
2065
Operations
Change
Feasibility/
Predesign
Financing/
Permitting
Design and
Construction
Complete by
2045
Action
Schedule
2015
2025
Raise Summer Target Operating Levels
by 6” (RO-02B)
Evaluate
Impacts of
Change
Modify CRA
(if needed)
(LP-03)
Operations
Change
2035
2045
2055
2065
An additional outcome of the extensive modeling and workshops completed was a decision to
protect the extensive storage in Lake James from being used to extend water yield in the Planning
Case. That is, modeling analysis indicates that water yield failure may be realized downstream
while storage is still available in Lake James. While adjustments to the LIP stage minimum lake
levels in Lake James may provide access to water volume earlier for downstream needs, it was
collectively decided to maintain the existing stage minimums, thereby preserving the storage. This
approach affords the recommended Planning Case a measure of conservatism as a protection
against future droughts that may be worse than the current Drought of Record.
7-55
7-56
8.0
8.1
Introduction
The purpose of this Section is to evaluate opportunities for regionalization within the CatawbaWateree River Basin based upon the potential that the regionalization efforts could close the gap
between water demand and supply through 2065, or extend water supply availability into future
years. The primary method for identification of these opportunities was through the facilitation of
four workshops with CWWMG members. The goal of these workshops was to generate in-depth
discussion on regionalization within the Basin and gain insight as to the perceived benefits, barriers,
and potential recommendations. The workshops were conducted by the consulting team and were
held in regional locations to facilitate smaller group discussions. Information received from the
workshops was used to develop potential regionalization options for the Basin.
8.2
Regionalization Discussion
Regionalization of water supply systems can be defined as the planning, construction, and/or
consolidation of systems that serve populations that traditionally would have been served by
individual systems created by a city, county, or other organizations, and that are geographically
located in such a way that some form of regional cooperation is practical. Although this is a very
broad definition, regionalization may occur in many different forms and on many different levels.
This holds true for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, in which many degrees of regionalization can
be found, ranging from large consolidations to mutual
aid and information sharing. Additionally, specific
common elements are found to be drivers of
regionalization in the Basin and typically come in the
form of financial need, regulatory issues, lack of
supply, or a combination of all these factors. Benefits,
drawbacks, and barriers each need to be considered
when identifying regionalization opportunities within
the Basin.
Through the workshop discussions, it was found
that regionalization is generally viewed on two broad
levels within the basin: physical interconnections or
integration and non-physical arrangements. Physical
Figure 8-1 Water Interconnect - TBD
interconnections or integration include pipeline
interconnections between utilities and the sharing of
treatment facilities, while non-physical arrangements
involve mutual aid, information sharing, and maintenance agreements. A 2008 report by the Water
Research Foundation (WRF) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on regionalization
categorized regional collaboration into six generic forms, which are discussed below1. This
categorization provides a context in which to organize the discussion of regionalization, as most of
these forms are represented in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. The levels contain benefits as
well as drawbacks, and are briefly discussed herein.
8.2.1
Mutual Aid Arrangements
Mutual aid arrangements are agreements between water systems to provide assistance during
emergency events. They can include aid in the form of treatment and supply where treated water
is provided through emergency interconnects during periods of plant failures or emergency events.
They can also take the form of maintenance and operational aid by lending repair crews and
inventory such as valves or special equipment. The sharing of knowledge and expertise also takes
1
AWWA Research Foundation, Regional Solutions to Water Supply Provision. 2nd Edition, 2008.
8-1
place at this level. Mutual aid may come in the form of a formal agreement, but can also take the
form of professional cooperation.
The benefits of mutual aid arrangements are enhanced reliability and an increased ability to
withstand adverse events. In addition, such arrangements can promote relations with a neighboring
utility and can be a first step toward promoting broader regionalization efforts. The potential
drawbacks of mutual aid are limited, as there is broad public acceptance to helping neighbors
in emergency events. A potential issue noted by the WRF is the liability to exposure from “Good
Samaritan” activities during an emergency event.
Mutual aid arrangements are well noted within the Catawba-Wateree River Water Basin. Many of
the members agreed that cooperation of the technical staff among systems is well received.
8.2.2
Sharing Arrangements
Sharing arrangements among water systems normally occur when one system has additional
capacity of a specialized resource that another system can utilize, thereby creating a win-win
situation. This approach may be utilized with specialized equipment or staff, such as management
or administration or a highly skilled operations staff. In addition, a sharing arrangement could occur
from purchasing materials together to take advantage of economies-of-scale.
The benefits of sharing arrangements include reduced prices on key resources such as treatment
chemicals and enabling a smaller water system to afford highly specialized staff and resources
that would otherwise be under-utilized by a larger water system. Potential issues with sharing
arrangements include conflicts over allegiance to specific vendors, local control with involvement of
staff from another entity, and public vs. private differences such as public bidding requirements.
Based on the workshop discussions with CWWMG members, it does not appear that any sharing
arrangements exist within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. As with mutual aid arrangements,
sharing arrangements are a good foundation to begin regional collaboration and could result in
efficiencies for both systems of such agreements.
8.2.3
Water Purchase Arrangements
Water purchase arrangements are a common form of agreement where one system purchases
water from another system. It can be a simple one-on-one arrangement or a larger regional
collaboration. Traditionally, these arrangements are long-term agreements in order to allow the
seller to build larger capacity and finance the capital requirements. The purchaser is then relieved
of the need to develop and protect water resources as well as construct, operate, and maintain
treatment facilities.
The primary benefit of a water purchase arrangement is the ability for the seller to undertake source
development and treatment facility construction at a larger, more economic scale. The purchaser
is then provided with a reliable source of water that the purchaser would otherwise not be able to
achieve. Potential issues could include the limitations of distance and topography and the issue of
pricing and length of contracts.
Water purchase arrangements in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin are common. The CWWMG
members represent the majority of water sellers in the Basin, as they are the largest withdrawers.
Water purchase arrangements were cataloged during prior work of the CWWMG and were
discussed within the context of the regionalization workshops. The primary sources used to identify
these arrangements were the North Carolina Local Water Supply Plans as well as information
received from the members themselves. Table 8-1 outlines the water purchase agreements within
the Basin. The information is not meant to be a complete picture of the contractual arrangements
within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, but rather reflect the high degree of water purchase
arrangements that are found within the Basin.
8-2
Table 8-1 Water Sales & Purchase Arrangements by Water System
Water System
Sales
Purchases
York County
Lancaster
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department
Concord
Harrisburg
Union County
Ranlo
Cramerton
Gastonia
McAdenville
Lowell
Dallas
Clover
Alexander County
Granite Falls
Icard
Conover
Hickory
Maiden
Catawba County
SE Catawba
Longview
Caldwell County
Union County
Wingate
Anson County
Monroe
Drexel
Caldwell County
Burke County
Morganton
Brentwood WA
Aqua
Glen Alpine
Oak Hill
Baton WC
Sawmills
Lenoir
Caldwell County
Joyceton WC
Hudson
Gamewell
Rutherford College WC
Valdese
Icard
Burke County
Newton
Energy United
Lincolnton
Lincoln County
Conover
Claremont
Hickory
SE Catawba
8-3
Table 8-1 (con’t)
Water System
Sales
Statesville
Iredell Water
Lincoln County
High Shoals
Maiden
Iredell Water Corp.
Purchases
Lincolnton
Hickory
Aqua
Statesville
Energy United
Mount Holly
Stanley
Marion
McDowell County
Bessemer City
Kings Mountain
Rhodhiss
Granite Falls
Caldwell County
Hickory
Cherryville
Icard
Lincolnton
Burke County
Hickory
Rhodhiss
Hickory
Alexander County
Longview
Hickory
Burke County
Cramerton
Hickory
Gastonia
Caldwell County W
Sawmills
Lenoir
Baton WC
Sawmills
Lenoir
Stanley
Mount Holly
Brentwood – Jamestown Road
Morganton
Brentwood WA
Morganton
Taylorsville
Energy United
Rhodhiss
Burke County
Valdese
Morganton
Longview
Caldwell
Lenoir
Sawmills
Baton
Caldwell
Lowell
Gastonia
Claremont
Conover
Lamplighter South/Danby
Lancaster County
Ranlo
Gastonia
Wingate
Union County
McAdenville
Gastonia
Drexel
Morganton
8-4
Table 8-1 (con’t)
Water System
Sales
Purchases
SE Catawba
Hickory
Catawba
Hickory
Granite Falls
Rhodhiss
Icard
Burke County
High Shoals
Lincoln County
Caldwell County North
Lenoir
McDowell County
Marion
8.2.4
Collaborative Water Resource Development
Collaborative water resource development involves the creation of an entity to coordinate the
planning and development of water resources at a regional level. This may or may not involve
the development and operation of supply and/or treatment facilities. Planning organizations are
also created at the river basin and major aquifer levels to coordinate planning within these natural
systems’ boundaries.
A collaborative regional effort can benefit from economies-of-scale by pooling resources from
across a larger area. In addition, economies-of-scope can be created from regional cooperation by
enhancing supply reliability during periods of drought and moderating drawdown levels on individual
sources. Potential issues with collaborative water resource development can include issues with
loss of control, disputes with concern to water rights, and methods of funding.
The CWWMG is a prime example of a collaborative water resource development from the planning
standpoint by pooling monetary resources in order to identify and execute projects that will enhance
and extend the capability of the Basin. Other arrangements in the Basin exist as a collaborative
effort with water treatment, such as the Catawba River Water Treatment Plant that is a joint venture
between Lancaster County, SC and Union County, NC.
8.2.5
Contract Service Arrangements
Contract service arrangements are a means of outsourcing operation and maintenance functions
of water systems, including treatment and distribution. This can be accomplished through private
vendors or contracting with other public water systems. The benefits of contracting maintenance
and service operations include access to qualified staff, especially where smaller systems may find
it difficult to recruit, train, and retain specialized labor. It may also provide a means of controlling
the cost of operating distribution systems. Potential drawbacks of contract service agreements can
be escalating concerns among the existing staff who feel their positions are threatened, eroding
incentives and savings over time, and loss of control over the water system.
Contract service agreements were noted within the Catawba River Water Basin. These agreements
were typically from the larger systems contracting services to the smaller systems that lacked
sufficient staff or specialized equipment. One example of such arrangement is Hickory’s
maintenance contracts with Hildebran and Claremont.
8.2.6
Consolidation
Consolidation is the process of merging systems into a single entity, which may include the
consolidation of two or more smaller systems into one, or the merger of a smaller system into a
larger one. Consolidation is considered to be the highest level of regionalization and includes many
benefits as well as potential issues. The benefits include achieving economies-of-scale; achieving
economies-of-scope with increased supply reliability and quality; an increased ability to recruit, train,
8-5
and retain skilled staff; and access to capital for financing capital improvements and rehabilitation
efforts. Potential issues with consolidation are loss of control and identity, determining the value of
assets, negative reaction to organizational change, and funding responsibility.
There have been several examples of consolidation in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Charlotte
-Mecklenburg Utility Department is the largest example, serving a population of approximately
800,000. Most recently, the City of Gastonia and the Town of Cramerton consolidated to form Two
Rivers Utilities in July of 2011. The partnership is an excellent example of a win-win situation in
which the Town of Cramerton saw immediate rate relief with an average rate decrease of 20%2.
8.3
Benefits
The benefits of regionalization have been well documented over the past few decades and include
such advantages as lower cost, improved reliability, and greater source certainty. The CWWMG
workshops highlighted several areas where benefits could be realized from regionalization within
the Basin. These benefits include achieving economies-of-scale, greater access to financial capital,
extending resources, reducing risk and increasing reliability, improvements to the workforce through
experience and knowledge sharing, and increasing the effectiveness of communication and public
education.
Typically, economies-of-scale are achieved by distributing fixed costs through a larger stream of
revenue. For a larger water utility, this can be attained through practices such as better utilization
of equipment and specialized staff, increasing the efficiency of business operations (e.g., billing,
purchasing, and information technology), and reducing material costs through bulk purchasing and
long-term contracts. In many cases, due to the inability to attain economies-of-scale, smaller utilities
may not be able to achieve the financial, technical, and managerial capacity required to meet
modern standards of water treatment. Small water systems serving 25 to 500 persons are found to
have the most violations per 1,000 people served amongst all categories of water supply systems3.
In a report by the National Regulatory Research Institute, it was found that small water systems
in the 500 – 3,300 persons served size category require about four times as much as capital per
gallon of water served as systems serving more than 50,000 people. Very small water systems
serving fewer than 500 people require approximately eight to 10 times as much capital per gallon of
water served4. Economies-of-scale are also closely tied to greater access to capital, as larger water
systems are able to receive better bond ratings and finance large capital improvement projects.
Regionalization can help extend the longevity of resources through better coordination across
a region. Economies-of-scope are created by managing a water source closer to its natural
boundaries. According to the WRF, economies-of-scope can include enhancing supply reliability
during periods of drought by promoting improved system performance under adverse conditions
(e.g., Low Inflow Protocol), enhancing reliability and quality by drawing upon multiple sources during
periods of contamination and source treatability (e.g., high turbidity), and enhancing sustainability
by moderating the drawdown of any one source and protecting the ecological and environmental
needs of the river basin.
It was commonly noted in the CWWMG workshop groups that the technical staff of the water utilities
worked well together, and in a manner that promoted the sharing of knowledge and experience
across the water systems within their region. From a regionalization standpoint, the benefit of
knowledge sharing increases the qualifications of the workforce. Additionally, the pooling of
experience in the region can reduce the risk of adverse events such as early warning of upstream
water conditions following an event which impairs water quality.
2
Two Rivers Utilities - http://www.tworiversutilities.com/aboutus
3
Shih, et al. Economies of Scale and Technical Efficiency in Community Water Systems. Resources for the Future. Washington DC. Discussion
Paper 04-15, February 2004
4
Beecher, et al. Meeting Water Utility Revenue Requirements: Financing and Ratemaking Alternatives. The National Regulatory Research Institute,
Columbus, Ohio. 1993
8-6
Public relations and education are key components of promoting water efficiency and quality within
the Basin. Regionalization enhances this benefit by providing additional resources and channels
of communication. This is imperative during periods of drought, when the message of water
conservation is vital to preserving the water supply. Larger water systems or one or more systems
in a sharing arrangement, may have more resources available to commit to public education and
outreach.
8.4
Considerations
There are numerous considerations when evaluating the potential for a regional arrangement
between two or more water systems. These can include the loss of autonomy, geographical and
hydraulic constraints, water quality concerns, and the differences in management and operation.
These factors have the possibility of limiting potential regionalization opportunities in the CatawbaWateree River Basin.
The workshop meetings all concluded that the greatest concern to water systems when evaluating
potential regional opportunities is the loss of local
autonomy, through the loss of either identity or control.
Many communities view the water system as part of
the local network they have developed (roads,
schools, law enforcement, etc.) and are reluctant to
give it up. Additionally, communities may perceive
regionalization as the loss of control of a core local
service. Water and wastewater operations can be
viewed as an important source of revenue and may
provide the community with special equipment it would
otherwise be able to use for emergency situations
(WRF, 2008).
The geography of the region determines the hydraulic
constraints of moving large quantities of water and
often limits the feasibility of regionalization, particularly
in terms of cost. Elevation differences can enhance pumping costs, and natural boundaries,
such as the river and the reservoirs, and can limit the interconnection of systems. Within the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin, there was a view that in some areas, regionalization efforts have
been completed to the point where it is no longer cost efficient to continue those efforts due to
geographical constraints.
Figure 8-2 Water Storage Tank Union County - TBD
Water quality must also be considered when evaluating regionalization in relation to chemistry and
water age. In an arrangement such as a water purchase agreement or emergency interconnects,
the blending of water can be problematic if the disinfection of the water is not compatible (e.g.,
chlorine vs chloramines). Additionally, factors such as differing pH and additives (e.g., corrosion
inhibitors) could disrupt operations at local industries that are expecting consistent water chemistry
from their supplier(s). Water age may be an issue if water is moved over a considerable distance,
raising the levels of disinfection by-products within the water system. One concern that was
expressed during the workshops was the centralization of systems due to regionalization. There is
inherent risk in centralizing the majority of water production to one facility from the chance of service
disruption due to either natural or man-made causes.
The management and operation of water systems must also be considered when evaluating
regionalization opportunities. Reductions in work force, differing style, vision, culture, and assigning
management authority can all be challenges when consolidating systems. Additionally, fiscal
matters such as bonding capacity, taxing authority, and responsibility for past debts must be
considered.
8-7
8.5
Drivers
Despite the benefits afforded to water system consolidation, to date it has not been widely adopted
in the US. According to the WRF, the number of small water systems (fewer than 10,000 people
served) has been increasing since the 1960s. This has been due in part to better recordkeeping and
the independent development pattern of the water industry in the US, but also due to the negative
perception of consolidation, as many water systems are averse to the loss of control and identity.
As such, it typically requires a powerful driver to begin the process. These drivers normally come
in the form of access to capital, insufficient capacity, lack of expertise, or regulatory noncompliance
because of water quality violations.
The economy will continue to be a driver for regionalization for a number of systems. This can be
a result of either shrinking revenues due to the exodus of wet industries and a customer shift to
decreasing consumptions with little or no growth, or to the opposite extreme of population booms in
rural areas outside of large cities that have inadequate capacity to serve the growing demand. As
some water utilities in the future struggle to ensure sufficient supply, meet stricter quality standards,
replace aging infrastructure, retain qualified staff, and protect the water supply, consolidation or
other forms of regionalization may be an emerging alternative to meet these challenges.
8.6
Workshop Recommendations
The regionalization workshops included identification of regionalization efforts that would serve to
extend available water yields in the Basin. These scenarios could then be modeled in CHEOPS to
determine the effectiveness of each. The strategies identified from the workshops are listed below.
8.6.1
Reducing Per Capita Water Use
One option for serving a growing population with a finite water supply is to reduce per capita water
use either through the implementation of water conservation activities or by creating a change in
customers’ usage patterns. Water use rates have been declining over the past decade due to public
education and the development of technology that has improved water use efficiency. Although
regionalization has not been seen to reduce per capita water use rates directly, other benefits such
as the ability to allocate greater resources to public outreach and education could indirectly help
reduce demand. In addition to residential use, a regional effort to reduce agricultural, commercial,
and industrial demands through the implementation of best management practices could be an
option for this Basin.
Water use efficiency is discuss further in Sections 6, 7, and 9 of this Master Plan.
8.6.2
Recycling Wastewater Effluent
An increase in the available water supply could be achieved by recycling wastewater effluent
to an upstream reservoir or similarly recycling water from the base of the dams to the upstream
reservoirs. This alternative scenario would require a high degree of regionalization and cooperation
amongst neighboring water systems. Additionally, the required cost of energy, infrastructure
improvements, and permitting would be considerable. There are many interconnects between
neighboring systems within the Basin; however, many of the pipe sizes connecting the systems are
between six inches and 12 inches in diameter, which would limit any water transfer of a significant
volume.
The concept of recycling effluent is discussed further in Sections 6 and 7 of this Master Plan.
8.6.3
Lowering or Consolidating Critical Intakes
Raw water intakes that are located at higher elevations in the reservoirs have an increased risk
with regard to adequate water supply during periods of drought than intakes positioned at lower
elevations within the Basin. Lowering or consolidating critical intakes may reduce the risk of low
reservoir levels and extend the water supply during periods of drought or other adverse conditions.
8-8
The level of regionalization within the Basin would also determine the degree of effectiveness of
this option. Consolidation or interconnections for emergency backup would increase the impact of
lowering specific critical intakes that could serve neighboring systems.
The concept of lowering or consolidating critical intakes is discussed further in Sections 6 and 7 of
this Master Plan.
8.6.4
Controlling or Reducing Sediment
Controlling or reducing sediment accumulation, due to erosion and run-off, in the reservoirs could
help to preserve the storage capacity of the reservoirs. The reduction of sediment would require a
regionalized effort undertaken by the entire Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
The CWWMG has an ongoing program to monitor sediment infill in the Catawba-Wateree
reservoirs. In addition, during completion of an earlier project, Defining and Enhancing the Safe
Yield of a Multi-Use, Multi-Reservoir Water Supply with the Water Research Foundation, concluded
that controlling sediment had a negligible impact on water yields
within the Basin. Therefore these scenarios were not modeled during
this Master Plan.
8.7
Recommendations and Conclusions
Recommendations and conclusions regarding regionalization in the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin are outlined as follows:
Regionalization is practiced and well documented in the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin with many of the water
systems having some form of water purchase or mutual aid
agreement.
Given the number of small water systems and the proximity
of water systems to one another there continues to exist
regionalization opportunities within the Basin. However,
there appears to be no ‘silver bullet’ regional approach
to drastically enhance available water yields. The issue
of maintaining autonomy for many of the water systems
remains the largest hurdle for regionalization. This issue
should continue to be addressed in future Master Plan
evaluations and updates.
Tailored Collaboration
Defining and Enhancing the Safe
Yield of a Multi-Use, Multi-Reservoir
Water Supply
Web Report #4304
Subject Area: Water Resources and Environmental Sustainability
Figure 8-3 Defining and Enhancing
the Safe Yield of a Multi-Use, MultiReservoir Water Supply
Water Research Foundation, 2013
The CWWMG has already generated numerous
regionalization benefits including information and resource sharing, completing projects
that support better management of the Basin’s water resources, and enhancing water use
efficiency and public outreach.
Regional cooperation in areas such as reducing per capita water use, recycling effluent,
lower or consolidating intakes, and reducing sediment infill may be the best opportunities
to realize benefits from regionalization.
8-9
8-10
Water Use Efficiency Plan
9.0
9.1
Introduction
The Water Use Efficiency Plan (Attachment 9-A) was completed in October 2012 by the CWWMG
with guidance from the 2010 Benchmarking Survey of Successful Conservation Plans (Attachment
9-B). The purpose of the Water Use Efficiency Plan was “to set appropriate, measurable goals
to drive water use efficiency improvements and develop a prioritized action plan to meet the
established goals as outlined in the CWWMG 2012 Five-Year Projects Strategic Plan.”
This section outlines the findings of the Water Use Efficiency Plan and assesses the ability of water
conservation efforts to “close the gap,” if one exists, between water demand and water supply, and/
or extend water supply availability into the future.
9.2
The Water Use Efficiency Plan outlines four initial water efficiency measures to be implemented:
a public information campaign, education and outreach, landscape water management and
demonstration gardens, and commercial and institutional large water/energy user surveys. The
goal of these measures is to “address residential, commercial, and institutional customers through
education, outreach, and incentives.”
9.2.1
Public Information Campaign
The public information campaign measure raises awareness of the value of water and the need for
conservation measures by “providing information about measures to reduce water consumption
through conservation techniques, incentive programs, and possibly regulations or ordinances.”
Specific measures will include, but not be limited to, developing website content and incorporating
a water conservation site on the existing CWWMG website; establishing conservation messaging
with water bills; integrating social media, radio, and television outreach channels; exploring the
possibility of partnering with the American Water Works Association; and considering the option of
allowing customer access to historical water bill information.
9.2.2
Education and Outreach
The education and outreach measure builds off the public information campaign by not only raising
awareness of water conversation measures, but also educating customers on the full process of
water and wastewater treatment. The measure will leverage current resources and introduce adult
education opportunities such as workshops and social media. Other outreach opportunities include
programs at science fairs; partnerships with rural water associations, state agricultural extension
agencies, state soil and water conversation districts, and universities; and presentations to HOAs,
lake associations, and business organizations.
9.2.3
Landscape Water Management and Demonstration Gardens
The landscape water management and demonstration gardens measure seeks to promote
conservation measures by providing landscape water management training and installing
educational demonstration gardens. The training may consist of an annual series of free
landscaping seminars taught by local professionals and would cover topics such as xeriscaping and
advanced landscape renovation. The purpose of the demonstration gardens is to convey ideas for
landscape maintenance and design, to showcase plants, and to provide a scenic setting for visitors.
Ideally, the gardens will be located in areas of high visibility.
9.2.4
Commercial and Institutional Large Water/Energy User Surveys
The commercial and institutional large water/energy user surveys measure will identify, assess,
and educate large water and power customers. This may be accomplished by accessing available
databases and conducting surveys in order to build relationships and involve customers in
9-1
developing ways to reduce power and water use. The surveys would employ an approach similar to
the one used for typical residential surveys, but would also include leak detection and an inventory
of appliances and fixtures. The surveys could help identify potential savings through opportunities
such as retrofits, operational changes, credits, incentives, or subsidized replacements.
9.2.5
Succeeding Water Efficiency Measures
In addition to the initial water efficiency measures, two succeeding measures are found in the
benchmarking survey: —an incentive program and a water audit program. These measures be
evaluated for implementation after the initial measures have been established. A brief summary of
these succeeding measures follows.
9.2.5.1
Incentive Program
The purpose of the incentive program is to provide incentives for water and power customers to
install water- or energy-efficient fixtures. Examples include incentives for items such as residential
toilets, commercial toilets/urinals, residential clothes washers, and commercial clothes washers.
9.2.5.2
Water Audit Program
The water audit program encourages public water systems within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin
to perform water audits in accordance with the AWWA Manual M36, Water Audits and Loss Control.
Ultimately, the CWWMG may develop a Water Loss Control Manual in conjunction with NC DENR
and SC DHEC and identify the best audit practices for water systems within the Basin.
9.2.6
Water Use Efficiency Plan Implementation
The goal as stated in the Water Use Efficiency Plan is to realize a 0.5% annual gross demand
reduction Basin-wide for average residential, commercial, and industrial accounts. The 0.5%
reduction is calculated using a comparison baseline of the three previous calendar years (threeyear rolling average). The schedule for implementation is detailed in the plan and includes a roll-out
of the four initial water efficiency measures with a five-year plan for successful implementation. It
is recommended that CWWMG establish a database in order to monitor progress and program
participation. It is anticipated that the plan will be up for review in five years, at which time it will be
evaluated to see if the 0.5% per year average reduction is being realized.
9.3
Modeling the Effects of Water Demand and Conservation
9.3.1
Background
In order to effectively determine the ultimate impact to water supply within the Catawba-Wateree
River Basin through the implementation of water demand management and conservation strategies,
several scenarios of what this strategy could look like were evaluated as part of the water yield
analysis previously discussed in sections 6 and 7. A total of four strategies were evaluated, which
included the following:
WC-01A Low-end estimate of water conservation for all use categories of public water/
wastewater utilities
WC-01B High-end estimate of water conservation for all use categories of public water/
wastewater utilities
WC-01C Low-end estimate of water conservation for only residential and wholesale
categories of public water/wastewater utilities
WC-01D High-end estimate of water conservation for only residential and wholesale
categories of public water/wastewater utilities
9.3.2
Evaluation of Conservation Potential
The initial step in crafting the water demand management and conservation enhancement
9-2
strategies for water yield modeling (and ultimately determine a Basin-wide water use reduction
target) was to evaluate the conservation potential of each of the major water suppliers within the
Basin, including CWWMG members as well as other regional water suppliers with intakes on
tributaries to the main stem of the Catawba River. One factor considered in this evaluation included
the percent change in per capita water use for each utility from 2002 (as based on the 2006
Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Study) to the average per capita use between 2008 and 2011. For
instance, those utilities which had already experienced significant reductions in their per capita use
during this time period were ranked as having a lower potential for additional water conservation
as such additional conservation would be difficult based on their recent reductions. However, those
utilities which experienced negligible change or increases in per capita use during the time period
evaluated were considered to have a higher potential for water conservation. The per capita use
evaluation is further discussed in section 9.5.3.
Additionally, the conservation potential for each utility was evaluated based on the level of the
utility’s existing conservation program. The level of existing conservation programs was determined
from information presented in the 2009-2010 “Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group
Benchmarking Survey of Current Successful Water Demand Management Programs” conducted
by Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc. in association with Maddaus Water Management. Based on this
information, the following classifications were used to evaluate the level of existing conservation
programs for each utility:
“None” = No conservation programs in place
“Low” = 1 Conservation program in place
“Medium” = 2-3 Conservation programs in place
“High” = More than 3 conservation programs in place.
Based on the combined results of this evaluation for change in per capita water use and existing
conservation programs, a conservation potential was assigned to each utility as either, “High,”
“Medium,” or “Low.” Of the utilities considered, four were considered to have a “High” potential
for future water conservation. Ten utilities were considered to have a “Medium” potential for
conservation, and ten were considered to have a “Low” potential for additional water conservation
measures. The CWWMG, collectively, was determined to have a “Medium” potential for additional
conservation, beyond that already recognized over the last decade, while other regional water
suppliers were determined to have a relatively “Low” potential for future water conservation.
The CWWMG’s greatest potential for additional water conservation lies primarily with those
utilities which experienced increases in per capita use over the last decade and those members
that do not currently have or have only minimally intensive conservation programs. Additionally,
members serving larger metropolitan areas have a broader customer base and greater resources
to implement new or expand existing conservation programs for their existing and future customers,
which can result in more widespread water conservation than is possible for smaller utilities. Table
9-1 provides a summary of the evaluation for each utility’s potential for future water conservation
and demand management.
9-3
Table 9-1 Public Water Supplier Estimated Water Use Conservation Potential
% Change in Per
Level of Existing
Capita Use
Conservation
Conservation
(2002 to 2008Potential
Program1
2011)
Entity
Sub-Basin
CMUD
Lake Norman &
-27.4%
Medium
High
City of Belmont
Lake Wylie
31.3%
High
None
City of Camden
Lake Wateree
-
Medium
Low
Two Rivers Utilities
-1.5%
Medium
Unknown
City of Hickory
Lake Hickory
-1 .8%
Medium
Medium
City of Lenoir
Lake Rhodhiss
33.2%
High
None
Town of Mooresville
Lake Norman
-49.3%
Low
Unknown
City of Morganton
Lake Rhodhiss
47.1%
High
None
City of Mount Holly
3.8%
Medium
Unknown
City of Rock Hill
Lake Wylie
-
Medium
Medium
City of Statesville
Lookout Shoals Lake
-7.0%
Low
Low
Lincoln County
Lake Norman
1.0%
Medium
Unknown
Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority
Lake Wateree
-
Medium
None
Town of Granite Falls
Lake Rhodhiss
-12.6%
Low
None
Town of Long View
Lake Hickory
-14.5%
Low
Unknown
Town of Valdese
Lake Rhodhiss
34.2%
High
Medium
CRWTP (Union-Lancaster)
-
Medium
Medium
Chester Metro
-
Low
Unknown
-25.4%
Medium
Medium
CWWMG AVERAGE
City of Marion
Lake James
5.6%
Medium
Unknown
Town of Dallas
Lake Wylie
-18.4%
Low
Unknown
City of Lincolnton
Lake Wylie
-35.8%
Low
Unknown
City of Newton
Lake Wylie
-28.3%
Low
Unknown
Bessemer City
Lake Wylie
-14.6%
Low
Unknown
Lake Wylie
-7.4%
Low
Unknown
-22.2%
Low
Unknown
City of Cherryville
OTHERS AVERAGE Notes:
1
Level of existing conservation programs determined from 2009-2010 “Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group Benchmarking Survey of Current
Successful Water Demand Management Programs” conducted by Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc. in association with Maddaus Water Management.
9.3.3
Per Capita Water Use Evaluation and Reduction Targets
In order to complete the comparison of 2002 and 2008-2011 per capita water use rates, as well as
determine per capita use reduction targets for the four water conservation strategies used in water
yield modeling, an extensive evaluation of per capita water use rates in the Basin was completed.
Based on historical categorical water use and account data obtained from each of the CWWMG
members and other significant public water suppliers in the Basin, it was possible to determine
9-4
historical per capita water use rates from 2002 (as based on data from the 2006 Catawba-Wateree
Water Supply Study), and “current” rates, as based on the average per capita use between 2008
and 2011. For the purposes of this evaluation and development of water conservation scenarios,
per capita use was determined under two scenarios:
Residential per capita use = Residential Categorical Water Use / Number of Residential
Customers
Total utility per capita use = Total PW/WW use / Number of Residential Customers
The number of residential customers was determined using the number of residential accounts
reported by each utility and the average persons per household data for the specific county served
by the utility, as obtained from the US Census. Calculation of the number of residential customers is
as follows:
Residential customers = # Residential Accounts * Average Persons/Household
Each of the four water conservation yield enhancement strategies were developed by assigning
specific water use reduction percentages to each utility for a given scenario, based on the
evaluation for water conservation potential, previously discussed. From this, per capita water use
was then calculated for each strategy and aggregated on a sub-basin level to reflect a sub-basin
per capita water use goal for each strategy. Attachment 9-C contains additional detailed information
reflecting the results of this analysis.
Table 9-2 and Figure 9-1 reflect the results of the analysis for the total utility per capita use, which
was used to develop water conservation strategies WC-01A and WC-01B for low and high-end total
utility conservation, respectively. Table 9-2 also reflects the change in total utility per capita use
from 2002 to the 2008-2011 time frame for each sub-basin. Figure 9-1 illustrates the intent of water
conservation strategies WC-01A and WC-01B to not only reduce per capita water use in the Basin,
but also to more closely align these rates within each sub-basin, as historical rates are shown to
vary widely by sub-basin.
While 2002 total utility per capita use rates within the Basin were calculated as 173 gallons per day
per person, this rate fell to 132 gallons per day person during 2008-2011 (reduction of 24%). Under
the low-end conservation strategy WC-01A for total utility water use, per capita use rates would
be 126 gallons per person per day, representing an additional 5% reduction from the 2008-2011
average use. Under the high-end conservation strategy WC-01B for total utility water use, per capita
use rates would be 113 gallons per person per day, representing an additional 14% reduction from
the 2008-2011 average use.
Table 9-2 Total Utility Per Capita Use Rates Aggregated by Sub-Basin (Historical and Strategies WC-01A and WC-01B)
2006 Water Supply Study
(2002 Data) Average Per
Capita Use (gpd/person)
Sub-Basin
Lake James
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory
Lookout Shoals Lake
Lake Norman
Lake Wylie
Lake Wateree
BASIN-WIDE AVERAGE
WC-01A Low-End
WC-01B High End
Conservation:
(gpd/person)
TOTAL
130
134
122
136
190
196
144
122
144
135
108
137
143
138
84
112
122
133
129
108
131
136
128
84
112
116
119
116
103
119
122
114
79
107
173
132
126
113
9-5
Figure 9-1 Total Utility Per Capita Use Rates Aggregated by Sub-Basin (Historical and Strategies WC-01A and WC-01B)
Table 9-3 and Figure 9-2 reflect the results of the analysis for the residential utility per capita use,
which was used to develop water conservation strategies WC-01C and WC-01D for low and highend residential and wholesale categorical conservation, respectively. Table 9-3 also reflects the
change in total utility per capita use from 2002 to the 2008-2011 time frame for each sub-basin.
Figure 9-2 illustrates the intent of water conservation strategies WC-01C and WC-01D to not only
reduce per capita water use in the Basin, but also more closely align these rates within each subbasin, as historical rates are shown to vary widely by sub-basin.
While 2002 residential per capita use rates within the Basin were calculated as 113 gallons per day
per person, this rate fell to 85 gallons per day person during 2008-2011 (reduction of 25%). Under
the low-end conservation strategy WC-01C for residential and wholesale water use, per capita
use rates would be 78 gallons per person per day, representing an additional 8% reduction from
the 2008-2011 average use. Under the high-end conservation strategy WC-01C for residential and
wholesale water use, per capita use rates would be 70 gallons per person per day, representing an
additional 18% reduction from the 2008-2011.
9-6
Table 9-3 Residential Per Capita Use Rates Aggregated by Sub-Basin (Historical and Strategies WC-01C and WC-01D)
2006 WSS (2002 Data)
(gpd/person)
Sub-Basin
Lake James
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory
Lookout Shoals Lake
Lake Norman
Lake Wylie
Lake Wateree
BASIN-WIDE AVERAGE
WC-01C Low-End
WC-01D High End
Conservation:
(gpd/person)
Residential
53
59
79
58
121
129
76
56
80
68
54
85
97
76
68
74
56
72
65
54
78
88
71
65
69
53
64
58
51
70
78
64
58
62
113
85
78
70
Figure 9-2 Residential Per Capita Use Rates Aggregated by Sub-Basin (Historical and Strategies WC-01C and WC-01D)
9.3.4
Water Use Reductions for Water Demand Management and Conservation Strategies
To effectively model the four water conservation strategies’ effect on the Basin’s water yield,
adjustments to the Basin-wide water use projections had to be made. Not only were these
projection adjustments needed for water withdrawals but also water returns, recognizing that while
water conservation measures for consumptive use (i.e. reductions to landscape irrigation, car
washing, etc.) reduce only the withdrawals for a particular utility, many conservation measures (i.e.
low flow fixtures) also impact non-consumptive uses (i.e. toilet flushing, hand washing, bathing),
which ultimately reduce both water withdrawals and wastewater returns.
9-7
To accurately capture this in the revised water use projections for water conservation strategies
WC-01A, WC-01B, WC-01C and WC-01D, it was necessary to “track” the water withdrawal for a
particular utility to its point of return at a wastewater treatment plant to determine the corresponding
reduction to water returns for a particular water withdrawal reduction due to conservation. For
utilities with a single withdrawal and single return, this effort was relatively simple. However, it was
more difficult for utilities with more than one wastewater returns, or where these returns were to a
different sub-basin. Attachment 9-C contains a summary table of how these water withdrawals were
tracked to their return point and the corresponding assumptions made for developing projections.
For purposes of this effort, a 50% consumptive water use was assumed, meaning that 50% of
water withdrawals were consumed, while 50% resulted in wastewater returns. As such, if a water
conservation scenario resulted in a reduction to water withdrawals by 1 MGD, returns would
decrease by 0.5 MGD.
Table 9-4 reflects the percent reductions to water withdrawals and returns needed for the Baseline
water use projections used in water yield modeling for water conservation strategies WC-01A and
WC-01B for low and high-end conservation for total public water suppliers (i.e. all categories of
water use). Under strategy WC-01A, basin-wide water utility withdrawals decrease by 4.8% and
returns decrease by 2.4%. Under strategy WC-01B, basin-wide water utility withdrawals decrease
by 14% and returns decrease by 7.1%.
9-8
Table 9-4 Reductions to Baseline Projections for Total Utility Water Use
Withdrawals
% Reduction to TOTAL Water Use Category
Sub-Basin
WC-01C Low-End Conservation
WC-01D High-End
Conservation
Lake James
0.0%
-5.0%
Lake Rhodhiss
-7.5%
-17.2%
Lake Hickory
-4.7%
-14.5%
Lookout Shoals Lake
0.0%
-5.0%
Lake Norman
-4.1%
-13.2%
-5.0%
-15.0%
Lake Wylie
-7.3%
-16.9%
-0.7%
-6.4%
-
-
-
-
Lake Wateree
0.0%
-5.0%
Basin-Wide Average
-4.8%
-14.0%
Returns
% Reduction to TOTAL Water Use Category
Sub-Basin
WC-01D High-End
Conservation
Lake James
0.0%
-2.5%
Lake Rhodhiss
-3.1%
-7.6%
Lake Hickory
-3.1%
-7.9%
Lookout Shoals Lake
-3.7%
-8.4%
Lake Norman
-2.3%
-7.2%
-2.1%
-6.6%
Lake Wylie
-5.5%
-15.3%
-2.0%
-6.3%
-2.0%
-5.8%
-0.3%
-3.2%
-
-
-2.4%
-7.1%
Lake Wateree
Basin-Wide Average
Table 9-5 reflects the percent reductions to water withdrawals and returns needed for the Baseline
water use projections used in water yield modeling for water conservation strategies WC-01C
and WC-01D for low and high-end conservation for only residential and wholesale water use.
For purposes of modeling, these categorical reductions were then weighted to the overall public
water utility water use. Under strategy WC-01C, basin-wide water utility withdrawals decrease by
5.2% and returns decrease by 2.1%. Under strategy WC-01D, basin-wide water utility withdrawals
decrease by 11.3% and returns decrease by 5.1%.
9-9
Table 9-5 Reductions to Baseline Projections for Residential and Wholesale Water Use
Withdrawals
WC-01D High-End Conservation
% Reduction to
Residential &
Wholesale
Weighted
Reduction to
Total Water
Utility Use
% Reduction to
Residential &
Wholesale
Weighted
Reduction to
Total Water
Utility Use
Lake James
0.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
-2.3%
Lake Rhodhiss
-9.4%
-5.1%
-19.1%
-10.3%
Lake Hickory
-4.5%
-2.6%
-14.0%
-8.1%
Lookout Shoals Lake
0.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
-2.5%
Lake Norman
-8.1%
-5.0%
-17.5%
-10.8%
-9.5%
-6.3%
-19.5%
-13.0%
Lake Wylie
-7.3%
-3.9%
-15.7%
-8.4%
-4.7%
-3.8%
-14.4%
-11.6%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lake Wateree
-7.4%
-4.9%
-17.4%
-11.5%
Basin-Wide Average
-8.2%
-5.2%
-17.8%
-11.3%
Sub-Basin
Returns
WC-01D High-End Conservation
% Reduction to
Residential &
Wholesale
Weighted
Reduction to
Total Water
Utility Use
% Reduction to
Residential &
Wholesale
Weighted
Reduction to
Total Water
Utility Use
Lake James
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-1.1%
Lake Rhodhiss
-3.9%
-2.1%
-8.4%
-4.5%
Lake Hickory
-3.5%
-1.9%
-8.3%
-4.6%
Lookout Shoals Lake
-3.6%
-2.0%
-7.8%
-4.2%
Lake Norman
-2.5%
-1.5%
-7.3%
-4.3%
-4.1%
-2.5%
-8.8%
-5.4%
Lake Wylie
-8.0%
-5.0%
-17.4%
-10.8%
-3.7%
-2.5%
-8.5%
-5.8%
-3.0%
-1.9%
-7.5%
-5.0%
-2.3%
-1.9%
-7.2%
-5.8%
-
-
-
-
-3.5%
-2.1%
-8.4%
-5.1%
Sub-Basin
Lake Wateree
Basin-Wide Average
Based on the reductions determined for each water conservation strategy, the Baseline water use
projections were reduced by their corresponding reduction percentages in each sub-basin. Figures
9-3, 9-4, 9-5, and 9-6 reflect the comparison of the Baseline net water withdrawal (withdrawals
minus returns) projections from 2011 to 2065 to the projections under water conservation strategies
WC-01A, WC-01B, WC-01C and WC-01D, respectively.
From these figures, it is evident that both the low end water conservation strategies (WC-01A and
WC-01C) provide little reduction (3-4%, on average) to the overall net withdrawals for all water use
9-10
within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. However, the high end conservation strategies (WC-01B
and WC-01D) do indicate a noticeable reduction (8-12%, on average) in overall net withdrawals
within the Basin.
Figure 9-3 Net Withdrawal Projections for Strategy WC-01A
Figure 9-4 Net Withdrawal Projections for Strategy WC-01B
9-11
Figure 9-5 Net Withdrawal Projections for Strategy WC-01C
Figure 9-6 Net Withdrawal Projections for Strategy WC-01D
9.3.5
Estimated Cost of Water Conservation Strategies
While the principle of water demand management and conservation is beneficial to water supply
within the Basin, such strategies for enhancing water yield inevitably have costs associated with
them. Such costs may range from conservation program initiation, to operation costs incurred by
individual utilities, to customer costs for household water conservation measures, such as low flow
fixtures. However, one “cost” that is especially relevant for public water suppliers in the Basin is
the potential loss of revenue resulting from lower customer water demands resulting from water
conservation initiatives. As water demand decreases and subsequently, wastewater flows diminish
due to water demand management, utilities will inevitably recognize a reduction to their operating
9-12
revenue, if water and sewer rate structures remain unchanged.
To evaluate the potential loss of revenue resulting from water conservation strategies WC-01A,
WC-01B, WC-01C and WC-01D, current water and sewer rates for each of the CWWMG member
utilities and other regional public water suppliers in the Basin were studied. These rates were
provided either directly by individual utilities or obtained from published rates on utilities’ websites.
An extensive evaluation was completed to use the current water and sewer fees for each utility
based on per capita water use rates to determine the estimated annual revenue reduction for each
conservation strategy, as compared to the Baseline projections.
Table 9-6 represents the projected loss of revenue by public water and wastewater utilities within
each sub-basin in 2015 and 2065. These values are determined by comparing the revenue
projected under the Baseline water use projections with the reduction in projections for each decade
afforded by the conservation strategies. Under low-end conservation strategies (WC-01A and WC01C) potential revenue reductions across the Basin range from $23-$31 million in 2015 to $50-$67
million by 2065. Under high-end conservation strategies (WC-01B and WC-01D) potential basinwide revenue reductions range from $63-$78 million in 2015 to $116-$157 million by 2065. From
this data, it is evident that water conservation within the Basin will require a significant “investment”
by public water suppliers, in the way of committing to water demand management and conservation
strategies despite the potential large decreases in revenue.
Table 9-6 Projected PW/WW Utility Revenue Loss (Million $ / Year) Due to Water Conservation
Total PW/WW Utility
Low End
(WC-01A)
Residential and Wholesale
High End
(WC-01B)
Low End
(WC-01C)
High End
(WC-01D)
Projection Year
Sub-Basin
2015
2065
2015
2065
2015
2065
2015
2065
Lake James
$0.00
$0.00
$0.12
$0.18
$0.00
$0.00
$0.06
$0.06
Lake Rhodhiss
$1.01
$1.67
$3.09
$5.11
$0.45
$0.64
$1.39
$1.96
Lake Hickory
$2.04
$2.92
$4.51
$6.41
$1.48
$1.80
$2.92
$3.57
Lookout Shoals Lake
$0.00
$0.00
$0.54
$1.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.27
$0.56
Lake Norman
$3.18
$6.85
$10.57
$22.70
$4.15
$8.49
$8.23
$15.20
$13.55
$32.31
$47.80
$97.73
$21.54
$48.55
$40.68
$72.50
Lake Wylie
$2.79
$5.21
$8.63
$15.95
$1.40
$2.75
$4.32
$8.16
$0.32
$0.82
$2.46
$6.76
$1.36
$3.88
$4.16
$11.75
Lake Wateree
$0.00
$0.00
$0.41
$0.93
$0.39
$0.84
$1.10
$2.40
Basin Total
$22.89
$49.78
$78.12
$156.90
$30.77
$66.94
$63.12
$116.17
Figures 9-8 and 9-9 on the following page represent the estimated revenue loss for the Basin’s
public water and wastewater utilities for each projection decade under water conservation strategies
WC-01A and WC-01B (Figure 9-8) and WC-01C and WC-01D (Figure 9-9). Figures 9-9 through
9-12 on the proceeding pages reflect the estimated revenue loss by sub-basin for projection
decades 2015 and 2065 under water conservation strategies WC-01A (Figure 9-9), WC-01B (Figure
9-10), WC-01C (Figure 9-11) and WC-01D (Figure 9-12). Additional details of this revenue loss
analysis and utility specific projections may be found in Attachment 9-D.
9-13
Figure 9-7 Basin-Wide Total Projected Revenue Loss (Conservation Strategies WC-01A & WC-01B)
Figure 9-8 Basin-Wide Total Projected Revenue Loss (Conservation Strategies WC-01C & WC-01D)
9-14
Figure 9-9 Sub-Basin Projected Revenue Loss (Conservation Strategy WC-01A)
Figure 9-10 Sub-Basin Projected Revenue Loss (Conservation Strategy WC-01B)
9-15
Figure 9-11 Sub-Basin Projected Revenue Loss (Conservation Strategy WC-01C)
Figure 9-12 Sub-Basin Projected Revenue Loss (Conservation Strategy WC-01D)
9.3.6
Recommended Water Demand Management and Conservation Strategy
Based on the results of water yield modeling, as previously discussed in Section 7, the highend water conservation strategy for residential and categorical water use (WC-01D) is being
recommended as the strategy to be used for planning purposes for the CWWMG. This strategy
calls for water use reductions by public water supplier’s residential and wholesale customers to
achieve a 17.8% reduction in water use, subsequently decreasing the total utility water demand
by 11.3%. While such a target is aggressive, it is reasonable, based on observations from recent
historical data.
9-16
Modeling results indicate that low-end strategies for water conservation did not have a recognizable
impact on the Basin’s water yield. However, high-end strategies were modeled to extend water
yield by approximately one decade. As there was not a distinguishable difference between high-end
scenarios WC-01B and WC-01D, strategy WC-01D for high-end conservation targets for residential
and wholesale categories seem to have the best cost-benefit. This strategy is likely to be more
easily implemented by public utilities as it targets residential customers which can more easily make
changes to water use consumption behavior than commercial and industrial users. Additionally, the
residential and wholesale categories represent the majority of water demand, by volume, for most
utilities. Finally, based on the estimated revenue losses projected for each conservation scenario,
the losses associated with strategy WC-01D are smaller than those estimated for strategy WC-01B,
while providing approximately the same extension of water yield within the Basin.
9.3.6.1
Water Use Reduction Goals
Table 9-7 outlines the previous changes in per capita water use within each sub-basin from 2002
(based on Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Study data) and more recent 2008-2011 data. While as
a whole, the Basin experienced an almost 25 percent decrease in per capita water use during this
time, likely due the effects of a significant drought, economic recession and ongoing conservation
efforts, water demand management and conservation strategy WC-01D indicates that a 17.8%
reduction to the residential and wholesale water use categories for public water suppliers within the
Basin is needed by the year 2055, further prorated to an 11.3% reduction to overall public water
utility water use (for all categories). This is equivalent to a 0.5% annual water use reduction for the
Basin, as recommended in the 2012 Water Demand Management Report by Jacob’s.
Table 9-7 Water Conservation Reduction Goals for the Catawba-Wateree Sub-Basins
Sub-Basin
Lake James
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory
Lookout Shoals Lake
Lake Norman
Lake Wylie
Lake Wateree
Basin-Wide Average
% Change in Per
Capita Use
(2002 to 20082011)
5.6%
34.8%
-13.7%
-7.0%
-29.8%
-24.9%
0.1%
-24.6%
2055 Residential
and Wholesale
Reduction Goal1
2055 Total Water
Utility Reduction
Goal2
Annual
Reduction
3
Required
5.0%
19.1%
14.0%
5.0%
17.5%
19.5%
15.7%
14.4%
17.4%
17.8%
2.3%
10.3%
8.1%
2.5%
10.8%
13.0%
8.4%
11.6%
11.5%
11.3%
0.10%
0.48%
0.31%
0.06%
0.56%
0.52%
0.38%
0.53%
0.55%
0.50%
Notes:
1
Reduction goal for public water utilities to their residential and wholesale use categories to be achieved by the year 2055, as compared to the Baseline
residential and wholesale categorical water use projections (assuming no conservation/demand management) for the year 2055.
2
Converted reduction goal for public water utilities to their total utility water use (using residential and wholesale category reductions) to be achieved by the
year 2055, as compared to the Baseline total utility water use projections (assuming no conservation/demand management) for the year 2055.
3
Annual reduction target is the reduction percentage needed for a given year as compared to the average of the previous 3-years (rolling average) of total
utility water use, to meet the total target water use reduction goal by the year 2055. Calculation methodology as recommended by the year 2012 water
demand management report prepared by Jacob’s.
9.3.6.2
Water Use Reduction Timeline
It is recognized that utilities cannot simply “flip the switch” and immediately influence their customer
base to manage water demand to achieve the conservation percentages recommended in strategy
WC-01D. Rather, such a reduction will take time through the utilities’ implementation of successful
9-17
water demand management and conservation initiatives as well as their customer’s ultimate
response to these initiatives through recognized water use reduction. As such, it is important that
any water use reduction goal be fully reached prior to the modeled decade in which the Basin’s
water yield is reached under that particular strategy. For strategy, WC-01D, the Basin water yield
was modeled to be reached between 2065 and 2075. Therefore, it is prudent that the targeted water
use reduction be fully achieved prior to 2065.
Using the annual basin-wide target water use reduction goal of 0.5%, the ultimate water use
reduction (as compared to Baseline water use projections) of 17.8% for residential and wholesale
categorical water use (11.3% reduction for total PW/WW) under strategy WC-01D for high-end
water demand management and conservation, is projected to occur between years 2055 and 2060.
This timeline is derived based on 0.5% basin-wide annual reduction from the previous three years’
running average water use, as recommended in the 2012 Jacob’s water demand management
report. Ultimate water use reductions for low-end conservation strategies WC-01A and WC-01C are
projected to be achievable between years 2025 and 2030, but as discussed in Section 7, provide no
measured benefit to water yield in the Basin. Conversely, the full benefit of high-end conservation
strategy WC-01B does not appear attainable until years 2065-2075, which would occur after the
first limitations to water yield in the middle part of the Basin have been modeled (Year 2065).
Conveniently, the full water conservation benefit strategy WC-01D occurs between 2055 and
2060, just prior to modeled failure of reservoirs in the middle part of the Basin. As such, it appears
feasible, using the 0.5% annual water use reduction goal to achieve the full 17.8% reduction to
residential and wholesale categorical water use in advance of experiencing limitations in water
yield, thereby enabling the Basin to recognize the full benefit to this strategy to enhancing water
yield in the Basin.
Table 9-8 represents the 2055 water use reduction goals (as compared to Baseline projections)
and annual water use reductions needed by each CWWMG member and several other major water
suppliers in the Basin, to achieve the reduction measures outlined by strategy WC-01D. While there
are multiple methods in which individual water suppliers can meet these targets, this table provides
one potential framework by which these targets can be met.
9-18
Table 9-8 Suggested Framework for Water Conservation Reduction Goals for the Public Water Suppliers
Public Water Supplier
Sub-Basin
2055 Residential
and Wholesale
Reduction Goal1
2055 Total Water
Annual
Utility Reduction Reduction
Goal2
Required3
CMUD
Lake Norman
20.0%
13.3%
0.54%
City of Belmont
Lake Wylie
20.0%
10.2%
0.45%
City of Camden
Lake Wateree
20.0%
12.3%
0.52%
Two Rivers Utilities
15.0%
9.5%
0.45%
City of Hickory
Lake Hickory
15.0%
8.8%
0.34%
City of Lenoir
Lake Rhodhiss
20.0%
14.8%
0.66%
Town of Mooresville
Lake Norman
5.0%
2.1%
0.18%
City of Morganton
Lake Rhodhiss
20.0%
8.3%
0.42%
City of Mount Holly
15.0%
13.2%
0.62%
City of Rock Hill
Lake Wylie
15.0%
9.0%
0.43%
City of Statesville
Lookout Shoals Lake
5.0%
2.5%
0.06%
Lincoln County
Lake Norman
15.0%
9.7%
0.36%
Lake Wateree
15.0%
10.7%
0.59%
Lake Rhodhiss
5.0%
3.3%
0.20%
Town of Long View
Lake Hickory
5.0%
2.1%
0.20%
Town of Valdese
Lake Rhodhiss
20.0%
9.9%
0.43%
CRWTP (Union-Lancaster)
15.0%
13.4%
0.59%
Chester Metro
CWWMG Average
5.0%
1.5%
0.17%
17.9%
11.6%
0.49%
City of Marion
Lake James
5.0%
2.3%
0.10%
Town of Dallas
Lake Wylie
5.0%
2.9%
0.22%
City of Lincolnton
Lake Wylie
5.0%
1.2%
0.09%
City of Newton
Lake Wylie
5.0%
3.7%
0.13%
Bessemer City
Lake Wylie
5.0%
1.7%
0.00%
City of Cherryville
Lake Wylie
5.0%
2.9%
0.11%
14.1%
6.6%
0.11%
Average for Other Withdrawers Notes:
Reduction goal for public water utilities to their residential and wholesale use categories to be achieved by the year 2055, as compared to the Baseline
residential and wholesale categorical water use projections (assuming no conservation/demand management) for the year 2055.
1
2
Converted reduction goal for public water utilities to their total utility water use (using residential and wholesale category reductions) to be achieved by the
year 2055, as compared to the Baseline total utility water use projections (assuming no conservation/demand management) for the year 2055.
3
Annual reduction target is the reduction percentage needed for a given year as compared to the average of the previous 3-years (rolling average) of total
utility water use, to meet the total target water use reduction goal by the year 2055. Calculation methodology as recommended by the year 2012 water demand
management report prepared by Jacob’s.
9-19
9.4
Summary
The goal of a 0.5% annual average reduction in water demand for the Catawba-Wateree River
Basin is described by the report as “robust, but achievable.” This average annual reduction is
anticipated to extend the water supply within the Basin and corresponds to the water conservation
goals set by the river basin modeling performed for this Master Plan. The recommended goals
established in the Master Plan call for a 17.8% reduction in the residential and wholesale subcategories of the public water utility users by the year 2055, which will lower water demand in the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin by approximately 30 mgd by 2055. This goal is based upon the 0.5%
annual average reduction recommended by the Water Use Efficiency Plan and is achievable using
the three-year rolling average reduction of 0.5% through the year 2055.
Although the recommended demand reduction goals established by the WSMP’s river basin
modeling are based upon the recommendations for annual average reduction set by the Water Use
Efficiency Plan, the two plans contain potential conflicts that should be further evaluated by the
CWWMG. The average annual reduction set out in the Water Use Efficiency Plan is based upon
average residential, commercial, and industrial demand. Additionally, the water efficiency measures
that are recommended by the Water Use Efficiency Plan target commercial and institutional users
as well as residential users. These categories may or may not be captured by the residential and
wholesale sub-categories targeted by the river basin model in the Master Plan.
The CWWMG has set a timeline for the review/update of the WSMP in five-year increments in order
to evaluate the efficacy of the plan and adapt the plan to changing conditions. As stated previously,
the Water Use Efficiency Plan will also be evaluated at the end of the five-year period. The potential
for conflict exists between how the demand reduction goals are measured during the five-year
updates, even though the recommended goals by both plans share the same end result. For
example, a large reduction in commercial water demand could offset residential reductions and still
meet the 0.5% average annual reduction sought by the Water Use Efficiency Plan; however, if the
commercial reductions are not captured under reductions in wholesale use, the demand reductions
goals set by the WSMP will not be met. Additionally, the water efficiency measures developed by
the Water Use Efficiency Plan may not be effective in achieving the Master Plan’s water demand
reduction goals, which targets commercial and institutional users who are not provided service on a
wholesale account.
Although the water efficiency measures recommended by the Water Use Efficiency Plan were
developed for use over a five-year schedule, it is not clear whether these measures should continue
in perpetuity or if other measures (including those listed in the 2010 Benchmarking Survey) should
be evaluated and adopted at the end of that five-year period. Therefore, it will be important to
evaluate improved technologies and best management practices in water demand efficiency in
order to achieve a 0.5% annual average reduction by the year 2055 and realize a 17.8% basinwide
reduction in residential/wholesale water demand.
The public information campaign measure and the education and outreach measure of the Water
Use Efficiency Plan may provide overlap with the public outreach task of the Master Plan. These
measures should be coordinated in order to efficiently allocate resources.
9-20
Regulatory Agency Coordination with Catawba-Wateree River Basin Modeling
10.0
Regulatory Agency Coordination with CHEOPS Modeling
10.1
Introduction
As presented in Section 3, the state of North Carolina acting through its Division of Water
Resources (NC-DWR) participated in the funding of this Master Plan. North Carolina’s decision
to fund this work was driven from two priorities. First, as part of the Settlement Agreement dated
December 3, 2010 (South Carolina v. North Carolina, No. 138), both North Carolina and South
Carolina agreed to work cooperatively with the CWWMG to routinely update the Catawba-Wateree
Water Supply Study (completed in 2006 during the recent relicensing effort). This update was
scheduled to occur at least every 10 years. Second, through legislative action (NC SL 2010-143)
intended to improve water resources management. In the state, North Carolina is now requiring
that all major river basins in the state have a hydrologic model completed and approved by the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC). This water quantity modeling legislation requires
that the models have certain required inputs and provides flexibility for future modification. The
EMC also has required that the hydrologic model development be completed through an open
stakeholder process. Seeing the opportunity to expedite and streamline this model effort for the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin, NC-DWR partnered with the CWWMG to update the working
CHEOPS model for the Basin.
10.2
Modeling – Technical Team
To ensure that the updated CHEOPS model for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin would meet
the requirements of NC SL 2010-143, and other desired functional requirements by the NC-DWR,
a modeling technical team (MTT) was assembled to provide input and review of CHEOPS water
model enhancements. The MTT’s role was to identify and prioritize necessary enhancements
to the model, review results of the completed work, lead the stakeholder process, and ensure
compliance with NC SL 2010-143. The modeling technical team consisted of individuals from HDR
(representing the CWWMG), the NC-DWR, and South Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources
(SC-DNR).
10.3
CHEOPS Water Model Enhancements
The modeling technical team worked over many months to identify and implement CHEOPS model
enhancements to comply with NC SL 2010-143, and other desired functional requirements by NCDWR. Table 10-1 provides a concise summary of the CHEOPS modeling enhancements completed
during this Master Plan effort.
10-1
Table 10-1 CHEOPS Model Enhancements Completed By Modeling Technical Team
Item # Functionality
Update base model to '.net'
format
1
Additional nodes for each
withdrawal and return of 100,000
gpd or more, located in major
tributaries to the Catawba
in North Carolina and South
Carolina
2
3
Additional tools to allow user
defined nodes and allocation
of inflow
4
Additional tools to allow server
support access for individual
users
5
Miscellaneous Items
10-2
Key Actions & Understandings
Comments
Time series data stored in HEC-DSS format for OASIS/CHEOPS
compatibility
This function will provide improved model operator efficiency and reduced processing time
100,000 gpd limit to be based on current and 50-year planning
horizon
-
Withdrawals and returns to be modeled as a system (i.e. as
withdrawals increase, the returns increase accordingly) based on
a monthly factor
Functionality provided through pre-processor spreadsheet input
Water shortage responses plans (WSRP) or drought protocols
for each water system to be included in the model, with ability to
adjust parameters
HDR evaluated WSRP's and compare with LIP that is currently programmed into CHEOPS. A summary spreadsheet
has been developed to show that of 50 entities, 13 have WSRP's different than the CW LIP and that only 9 are distinctly
different. Of these 9, only 5 have direct water withdrawals from the C-W Basin. MTT agreed that WSRPs are sufficiently
addressed by implementation of the CW-LIP within the model.
Completed chronologically with 100,000 gpd node functionality
-
Includes tools needed to update inflow records for all nodes
-
CHEOPS software will be supplied to North and South Carolina
-
Software will be able to run on a Citrix Server with multiple user
access
NCDWR agreed to allow South Carolina to temporarily use NC's Citrix Server until SC establishes its own hosting system
All data used is publicly available for review
This additional functionality in model is visible to the user as it has been historically
A universal demand multiplier (spreadsheet) provided only for
public water supply withdrawals and returns
Functionality provided through pre-processor spreadsheet input
A universal on/off switch is needed for water shortage response
plans
For the Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol (LIP), this is a user input that is already part of the model. For WSRPs on
new tributary nodes, the MTT agreed this functionality is effectively addressed by the CHEOPS LIP logic.
Agricultural demands will be aggregated sub-basin demands
based on rainfall and crop E-T curves, or other approved
approach that varies water consumption for agricultural use
based on climatic conditions during the growing season over the
model record
Current methodology used is the best to date for Catawba-Wateree projection development; HDR provided explanation of
current methodology used and will develop a seasonal adjustment factor methodology for application to agricultural irrigation
projection
Model documentation to include "User's Manual"
User's Manual is currently provided for CHEOPS model
Detailed documentation for DWR staff to be able to update
inflows, add nodes, modify water shortage response plans, etc.
Functionality provided through a separate "preprocessor" spreadsheet that is subsequently loaded into the CHEOPS model
Training session open to anyone who wants to learn how to use
the model. Copies of training materials need to be supplied to
NC-DWR staff so that NC-DWR can do future training sessions.
"One training session provided"
A major component of the SL 2010-143 is to identify locations
where the yield may be inadequate to meet all needs or all
essential needs. This functionality needs to be built into the
model for both reservoir and tributary safe yield determination.
Model is capable of evaluating yield for various conditions, based on user defined scenarios and preferences and is now
capable of evaluating yield in both tributaries and reservoirs within the Basin
Item #
Functionality
Key Actions & Understandings
6
7
10.4
Water Shortage Response
Plans (http://www.ncwater.org/
Water Supply Planning/Water
Shortage Response Plans/
plan) and the CW LIP
Comments
Modify the approach of using constant monthly demand for
A/I water use
Water use projections are adjusted seasonally through the use of a seasonal coefficient to account for varying use
throughout the year as the result of growing seasons, historical rainfall averages, etc.
More definition is needed for the irrigation categorical
projections. This category is currently 1% of the overall basin
demand.
NC DWR suggested linking evaporation to irrigation, which would need to be performed in the demand spreadsheet
(pre-processor). To address this concern, HDR will apply a seasonal adjustment factor to irrigation to account for
variability of water use for this category during the year, per the action item above.
Is modeling the LIP adequate to cover WSRPs?
For many of the WSRPs in the CW Basin, the triggers are based on the LIP. Several systems have additional
triggers to provide flexibility, but are not something that can be modeled. WSRP's were checked to confirm this, and
as such MTT agreed that the CW-LIP sufficiently addresses WSRPs within the basin.
Tributary systems' WSRPs must be included in the model.
If tributary systems on the South Fork have WSRP's linked to South Fork streamflow, then to some extent this is
linked to the Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) as the LIP uses South Fork Streamflow as a trigger. Local
WSRPs for these entities were individually evaluated and determined, in general, to specifically reference the LIP or
utilize similar triggers and/or water conservation target levels as the LIP. As such, the MTT agreed that CHEOPS' LIP
logic sufficiently addresses WSRPs within the basin.
Stakeholder Process
As previously stated, the EMC has required hydrological model development to include an open, public stakeholder process. This
process includes making the model available for public use, providing user training, ensuring ease of functionality and user interface of
the model, and producing sound water use projections.
Stakeholders in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin were identified by NC-DWR staff and included public water and wastewater suppliers,
industrial users, local government officials, community groups (e.g. marine commissions and homeowner organizations), and others.
Three meetings were completed with these stakeholders as outlined in Table 10-2 below.
Table 10-2 Hydrologic Model Development Stakeholder Meetings and Topics
Meeting #
10.5
Date
Topics Covered
1
August 1, 2013
Introduce model development process and review the model schematic
2
October , 2013
Update of model development, review of water withdrawal/return projections and the
inflow dataset
3
March 17, 2014
Explain final model development and provide user training
Next Steps
Following completion of the stakeholder meetings, a trial version of the updated CHEOPS model will be made available to the general
public through North Carolina’s Citrix web-based server. Once the model is publicly available, a 60-day public review and comment
period is planned between April and June of 2014. Any subsequent revisions or modifications to the model which result from this public
10-3
review period will be made and the model will be presented for approval by NC-DWR to the
Environmental Management Commission’s Water Allocation Committee, and then to the EMC.
These presentations are currently scheduled for September of 2014.
10-4
Geographical Information System
11.0
11.1
Introduction
In order to document water withdrawals and returns in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, a
Geographic Information System (GIS) database was created for the Water Supply Study performed
by Duke Energy during the FERC re-licensing process. A task for this Master Plan was to update
this database to reflect the current information available.
The purpose of the database is to create a tool for the CWWMG members and support long-term
water and wastewater planning for the region. Additionally, the database is a useful tool in reporting
and documenting the findings of the Master Plan. The GIS database is provided to CWWMG
members in a shapefile format on an attached flash drive.
11.2
Methodology
The GIS database consists of a series of layers that show the geographic location of features
relevant to water supply planning in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Each layer in the database
includes an attribute table that stores information about the features shown on the map. Using
GIS software, these layers are displayed on a computer screen and can be printed in hard copy.
Inter-relationships among features can be examined and analyzed. The following layers have been
updated for the Master Plan:
Flow Modification Points (FMPs) Layer – Each defined feature in this layer is a single
point that represents a location where water is either withdrawn from or returned to a
reservoir or free-flowing water body. Points are defined in the database for those locations
where average daily withdrawals or returns are greater than 100,000 gallons per day
(gpd), for withdrawals where an assigned value has been made (e.g., an agricultural
demand per reservoir), or as a placeholder for known, potential, future withdrawals.
Basin Layer – The watershed for each of the 11 project reservoirs is delineated to help
users identify FMP locations and their relationship to the project reservoirs.
Additional layers are included in the GIS database to provide background feature information.
These layers were not modified as part of the Master Plan, but they are included to provide a visual
reference and background data useful for analyzing project information and creating maps. The
layers originally included in the Duke Energy study were updated with recent information, and new
layers, obtained during previous CWWMG activities, were added to the database. The background
layers include:
County and municipal boundary lines;
Elevation contours;
Streams and rivers;
Regulatory information;
Water and sewer service areas; and
Major roads.
These background layers were obtained from GIS data clearinghouses and public domain datasets.
11.3
Coordinate System
FMPs developed for the Master Plan were located in GIS shapefiles provided by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC-DENR) and the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources (SC-DNR). The projection of the data provided by NC-DENR
was in the North Carolina State Plane coordinate system. The projection of the data provided by
SC-DNR was in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system, Zone 17, with units
11-1
of meters. The North Carolina State Plane coordinate system is valid in portions of South Carolina,
which includes the Catawba-Wateree system. Therefore, the datasets obtained from North and
South Carolina were re-projected to the North Carolina State Plane coordinate system with units
of feet. All new data for the Master Plan was created in the North Carolina State Plane coordinate
system with units of feet.
11.4
GIS Attribute Information
The attribute information for the features identified in the FMPs and basin layers was updated
from the previous Duke Energy study to reflect the work performed for the Master Plan. For each
feature, the attributes listed in Table 11-1 are stored in the database. The basin layer in the GIS
database shows the watershed for the 11 reservoirs within the Basin. The attributes in Table 11-2
are assigned to the watersheds.
11.5
Database Utilization Tool
The GIS database is built using ArcGIS software, manufactured by ESRI, Inc. The shapefiles
located within the database can be viewed by anyone using ESRI ArcGIS software. For those
without access to GIS software, a published map file (.pmf) document is provided. This .pmf
document is easily read using the free ArcReader software available on ESRI’s website. ArcReader
allows the user to view the GIS data layers in the .pmf document and query the data to show
features that meet certain criteria. The user can zoom in or out, pan, and measure distances
between features. The program also allows the user to turn different layers on or off, as well as to
color-code data features based on values in the database. The user can also print a hard copy map.
ArcReader may be downloaded at,
http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/download.
11-2
Table 11-1 Data Fields for Flow Modification Points for GIS Database
Field Name
Data Type
Description
Project ID
Text
A series of letters and numbers to easily identify the FMPs within the Basin.
County
Text
The county where the point is located.
State
Text
The state where the point is located (North Carolina or South Carolina).
Watershed
Text
The reservoir watershed where the point is located.
Type
Text
Describes the transaction to the system, either withdrawal or return.
Category
Text
The type of water use.
State_ID
Text
The state identification number assigned to the withdrawal or return (i.e., NPDES)
Loc Source
Entity
Facility
Text
Text
Text
The source of the geographic coordinates for the FMPs.
The government agency or corporation responsible for the withdrawal or return.
The name of the facility associated with the withdrawal or return.
The specific stream or reservoir where the point is located; for a return, the receiving stream
or reservoir.
Water
Text
N2002
Number
The 2002 average daily flow in mgd, as determined in the WSMP.
N2003
Number
N2004
Number
N2005
Number
N2006
Number
N2007
Number
N2008
Number
N2009
Number
N2010
Number
N2011
Number
NBASE
Number
The current baseline average daily flow in mgd, as determined in the WSMP.
N2015
Number
The projected 2015 average daily flow in mgd, as projected in the WSMP.
N2025
Number
N2035
Number
N2045
Number
N2055
Number
N2065
Number
11-3
Table 11-2 Data Fields for Reservoir System for GIS Database
Field Name
Data Type
Watershed
Text
Nsum_W_2008
Number
The sum of the average daily flow of all withdrawals from the reservoir drainage basin in
2008, as determined by the WSMP.
Nsum_W_2011
Number
2011, as determined by the WSMP.
Nsum_W_BASE
Number
the current baseline year, as determined by the WSMP.
Nsum_W_2015
Number
2015, as projected by the WSMP.
Nsum_W_2025
Number
Nsum_W_2035
Number
Nsum_W_2045
Number
Nsum_W_2055
Number
Nsum_W_2065
Number
Nsum_D_2008
Number
The sum of the average daily flow of all returns from the reservoir drainage basin in 2008,
as determined by the WSMP.
Nsum_D_2011
Number
as determined by the WSMP.
Nsum_D_BASE
Number
The sum of the average daily flow of all returns from the reservoir drainage basin in the
current baseline year, as determined by the WSMP.
Nsum_D_2015
Number
as projected by the WSMP.
Nsum_D_2025
Number
Nsum_D_2035
Number
Nsum_D_2045
Number
Nsum_D_2055
Number
Nsum_D_2065
Number
11-4
Description
This value will be the name designation as defined by the WSMP of one of the 11
reservoirs of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin
12.0
12.1
Introduction
During the recent relicensing effort, Duke Energy, working collaboratively with stakeholders,
including many CWWMG members, developed a Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) for the CatawbaWateree River Basin. The LIP establishes procedures for reductions in water use during periods
of low inflow (i.e. drought conditions) into the Catawba-Wateree River and it’s reservoirs and
tributaries. The LIP was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water quantity would
share the responsibility to establish priorities and to conserve the limited water supply. The LIP is
included as Attachment 12-A.
The LIP also defined membership in the Catawba-Wateree Drought Management Advisory Group
(CW-DMAG), the organization tasked with monitoring drought conditions, implementing the LIP,
and making updates to the document. The CW-DMAG is a group of committed water users and
agencies who have a role or vested interest in the implementation response of the LIP. Since
2006, the CW-DMAG members have voluntarily monitored and implemented the LIP requirements
including a regional response to the record drought of 2007-2008.
12.2
Low Inflow Protocol Summary
The LIP provides trigger points and procedures for how the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric
Project will be operated by Duke Energy, as well as water withdrawal reduction measures and
goals for other water users during periods of low inflow (i.e. periods where there is not enough
water flowing into the reservoirs to meet the normal water demands while maintaining reservoir
levels within normal ranges). During periods of normal inflow, reservoir levels will be maintained
within prescribed normal operating ranges. During times that inflow is not adequate to meet all
of the normal demands for water and maintain reservoir levels as normally targeted, Duke will
progressively reduce hydro generation. If hydrologic conditions worsen until certain trigger point
levels are reached, Duke will declare a Stage 0 – Low Inflow Watch and begin meeting with
applicable agencies and water users to discuss and review the LIP. If hydrologic conditions continue
to worsen and additional trigger point levels are realized, Duke will declare various stages of a Low
Inflow Condition (e.g. Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, and Stage 4). Each progressive stage of the Low
Inflow Condition will call for greater reductions in hydro station releases and water withdrawals, and
allow additional use of the available water storage inventory.
The goal of the staged LIP is to take the actions needed in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to
delay the point at which the available water storage inventory is fully depleted. While there are no
human actions that can guarantee that the Catawba-Wateree River Basin will never experience
operability limitations at water intake structures due to low reservoir levels or low streamflows,
the LIP is intended to provide additional time to allow precipitation to restore streamflow, reservoir
levels, and groundwater levels to normal ranges. The amount of additional time that is gained
during the LIP depends primarily on the diagnostic accuracy of the trigger pints, the amount of
regulatory flexibility that Duke has to operate the Project, and the effectiveness of Duke Energy
and the water users in working together to implement their required actions and achieve significant
water use reductions.
12.3
Recommendations for Revision to the LIP
In order to ensure continuous improvement of the LIP and its future implementation during low
inflow periods, the CW-DMAG is tasked with periodic review, evaluation, and recommendations for
updates to the document. In development of this Master Plan, the CWWMG had several reasons to
include review of this document for potential revisions as part of the scope. First, many of the CWDMAG organizations are also members of the CWWMG. Second, given the newness of the LIP and
the extensiveness of the 2007-2008 drought many lessons were learned during its first application
12-1
that could be quickly incorporated into a revision. Next, the CWWMG meets more frequently and
has the opportunity to push change recommendations to the CW-DMAG for consideration. Finally,
through extensive water quantity modeling on this and other projects (e.g. the Safe Yield Research
Project), it has been illustrated that the LIP is the most critical tool available to the region in
protecting and preserving water supply during drought conditions.
It should be noted that prior to the development of this Master Plan, the CW-DMAG and CWWMG
have led several efforts to review the LIP and evaluate its effectiveness during the 2007-2008
drought. The result of these evaluations are included in the subject documents listed below:
CW-DMAG LIP – Evaluation Committee Report (dated June 24, 2010)
TBD
TBD
From these efforts and others associated with this Master Plan project, Table 12-1 on the following
page presents the subject areas where revisions to the LIP should be considered.
While these revisions may seem extensive, modifications to the LIP were always anticipated and
even programmed into the document. The LIP requires that the CW-DMAG evaluate and consider
modifications at least every five (5) years during the license term. Modifications to the LIP must be
approved by a consensus of CW-DMAG members before Duke Energy will file the revised LIP with
FERC.
The recommendations outlined herein comply with the purpose and intent of the LIP. Since Duke
Energy is currently still awaiting FERC approval of their proposed relicensing agreement, some of
these proposed changes can be voluntarily implemented by the CW-DMAG while others are further
discussed and evaluated. Given the critical importance of the LIP to protecting and preserving
water supply in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, it is recommended that these revisions be
vetted through the stakeholder process and submitted to FERC for approval as soon as a license is
issued.
12-2
Table 12-1 Analysis of LIP and Recommendations for Revision
LIP Section
Subject Area for Revision
Reason for Revision
Recommended Next
Step
Key Facts and Definitions (#11)
Update critical reservoir elevations
To reflect accurate changes in critical reservoir elevations (e.g. Mt.
Island Lake for Riverbend plant retirement).
Confirm with CW-DMAG
Key Facts and Definitions (#17)*
To allow more fluid movement into and out of LIP stages. The
current numeric average is based on the highest Drought Monitor
Revise U.S. Drought Monitor Three-Month
designation that exists for any part of the Basin. The proposed
Numeric Average to be calculated on a Threechange calculates a spatial composite U.S. Drought Monitor
Month Spatial Composite Average
designation, which is based on the worst-case drought designation
that exists for at least 25% of the area of each county in the Basin.
To allow more fluid movement into and out of LIP stages. This
Revise U.S. Drought Monitor Three- Month
increases the flexibility of those using this trigger to evaluate the
Numeric Average reading from the last day of
most appropriate scenario, and allows for more frequent movement Confirm with CW-DMAG
the previous month to any day of the previous
from one LIP stage to another. For example, it allows for evaluation
month
and movement of LIP stage on a bi-weekly basis.
Key Facts and Definitions (#21)
Review and update CW-DMAG membership
To reflect changes that have occurred to currently listed
organizations (e.g. NCDENR-DWQ), and to consider others who
have petitioned for membership.
and evaluate new
organizations
Update water withdrawal data collection and
reporting
To eliminate the need for professional engineer certification
and require more detailed information that is already currently
requested (e.g. breakdown of water use categories – residential,
commercial, industrial/institutional, etc.).
Procedure – LIP Trigger Points*
Review LIP trigger points for Storage Index
(SI) and Target Storage Index (TSI)
To adequately address any changes in critical intake levels (e.g.
Mt. Island Lake for Riverbend plant retirement) that have occurred
or are proposed as part of this Master Plan.
Calculate changes and
confirm with CW-DMAG
Procedure – Monitored USGS
Streamflow Gages Rolling
Average*
Revise USGS stream flow gages trigger from
a six-month rolling average to a four-month
rolling average
To allow more fluid movement into and out of LIP stages.
Procedure – LIP Stage
Evaluation and Declaration*
Revise from a monthly evaluation and
determination to a time period no less than
once per month
To allow the CW-DMAG an opportunity for a quicker response to
worsening low inflow (drought) conditions and water reductions by
users.
12-3
Table 12.1 (con’t)
LIP Section
Procedure – Duke Energy
Response Time*
Procedure – Public Water
Suppliers Response Time
Subject Area for Revision
Revise Duke Energy response time for
reducing Project Flow Requirements in
Stages 1-4 from five days to one day
Revise Public Water Supplier response time
for implementing water use restrictions in
Stages 1-4 from 14 days to 7 days
Reason for Revision
Recommended Next
Step
To establish for Duke Energy a quicker response to worsening
low inflow (drought) conditions and valuable preservation of water
storage in the reservoirs.
To establish for Public Water Suppliers a quicker response
to worsening low inflow (drought) conditions and valuable
preservation of water storage in the reservoirs.
Review with public water
suppliers and consider
feasibility of implementing
water use restrictions on
this timetable, then confirm
with CW-DMAG
To establish a more appropriate metric for evaluating water use
reductions for public water suppliers given many changes in water
use behavior over the LIP (and FERC license) term, including:
Continued evaluation of
more appropriate metric
for evaluating water use
Implementation of continued water conservation measures as
reductions, potential
outlined herein and adopted by individual water systems.
discussions with external
Defining the amount of water that ‘would otherwise be
stakeholders, and
expected’ during periods of future drought.
confirmation with CWIt should be noted that this issue has been studied by the CWWMG DMAG members.
during development of the documents presented above, with no
conclusion on what metric should be utilized, but with concurrence
that this section of the LIP should likely be changed.

Procedure – Public Water
Suppliers Water Use Reduction
Goal
Consider changing water use reduction goals
for Public Water Suppliers for Stages 1-4.
Changes in per capita use that have already occurred since
development of the original LIP.
* These proposed revisions are already being voluntarily implemented by the CW-DMAG.
12-4
13.0
13.1
Introduction
Water quality modeling was excluded from this Master Plan because of: limited funding; uncertainty
in the modeling tools that have the longest long-term benefit; and uncertainty of detailed models
that could be applied and their long-term applicability to other legislative and regulatory issues.
Although water quality modeling of the Catawba-Wateree River was not included, a survey of
available water quality models was completed so that the CWWMG could gain an understanding
of the various models available that are applicable to the Catawba-Wateree River and can make
an informed decision regarding future water quality model development. The model survey and
evaluation included the costs/benefits of each applicable model and the amount of data that is
needed for each model as presented at the December 10, 2013 CWWMG meeting.
Attachment 13-A contains the Powerpoint presentation given at the December 10, 2013 CWWMG
meeting. This meeting presented estimated model development costs for watershed, river and lake
models assuming that the development is starting from the beginning. Since this meeting identified
additional information related to existing models developed in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin
were identified. This additional knowledge is reflected herein.
13.2
Catawba-Wateree River Background
The Catawba-Wateree River Basin is comprised of 11 interconnected reservoirs (lake-lake and
run-of-river), 13 hydropower stations and numerous public water utilities. River reaches connect
the reservoirs and various tributaries to the mainstem Catawba-Wateree River deliver watershed
runoff and loadings to the river and reservoirs. The river is about 220 miles long with an associated
watershed area of 4,750 mi2. Figure 13-1 presents an overview map of the entire Catawba-Wateree
watershed. Land use in the watershed was based on a summary of 2006 data from the National
Land Cover Database (NLCD) and consists of approximately 56.4% forest, 18.7% developed,
15.6% pasture, 5.7% grassland/shrub, 2.6% water, 0.7% wetland, 0.3% barren, and 0.2%
cultivated1. Figure 13-2 presents a land use map of the Catawba-Wateree watershed.
There is an existing CHEOPS hydropower operations model in use that models flow through
the system and is used to examine basin and hydroelectric planning (e.g., low and high inflow
protocols, LIP/HIP). The CHEOPS model was initially developed for Duke Energy in the 1990s to
assess modernization of hydroelectric facilities along the river. As part of recent FERC relicensing
efforts, the model was updated for evaluating operational alternatives and to include additional
functionality. CHEOPS is a hydrologic model that provides a long-term analysis for evaluating the
economics and performance of water resources elements (i.e., hydroelectric generation, reservoir
operations and available water quantity) due to physical changes (e.g., turbine upgrades) and
operational constraints (e.g., minimum flows). The results from this modeling effort could be used to
define water flows throughout the Catawba-Wateree River Basin that are needed to setup the water
quality model.
1
Systech Water Resources, Inc., 2013. Technical Memorandum: Catawba River WARMF Model Update. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Water. Section 319 Grant Project #9. June 26, 2013.
13-1
Figure 13-1. Catawba-Wateree River Basin
13-2
Figure 13-2. Catawba-Wateree Watershed Land Use (NLCD, 2006)
(Reproduced from Systech, 2013)
13-3
A Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) model was developed for the
Catawba-Wateree River watershed under various contracts and grants with Duke Energy, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the University of South Carolina and South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control. The model is available for use in developing
TMDLs in the states of North and South Carolina2. The WARMF model is a decision support system
for completing watershed/TMDL analyses and is a public domain model distributed by the EPA. It
integrates simulation of land catchment, river, and lake processes into one modeling framework so
that watershed runoff/loadings and river/lake hydraulic transport and water quality interactions can
be modeled. The results from this modeling effort provide a significant feature in the development of
a water quality model (i.e., rainfall driven watershed runoff and loads based on land uses).
In addition, there are CE-QUAL-W2 hydrodynamic and water quality models available for a number
of reservoirs in the Basin that were developed for Duke Energy. These models were developed
for Lake James, Lake Hickory, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie and Lake Wateree. The CE-QUAL-W2
model calculates water transport through the reservoir in two-dimensions (longitudinal and
vertical segmentation) in a time-varying mode along with the calculation of various water quality
parameters. The water quality model includes calculations for nitrogen, phosphorus, biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), phytoplankton, total suspended solids (TSS), and dissolved oxygen (DO).
These CE-QUAL-W2 models can also provide a significant jump-start in the water quality modeling
efforts in these reservoirs but the efforts will need to be reviewed prior to using to determine what
additional effort may be necessary.
13.3
Water Quality Modeling Approach
Before identifying the available and applicable water quality models that could be used to model
water quality in the Catawba-Wateree River, an overview of the water quality modeling approach
needed is provided. The model approach consists of three general model types along with an
upfront data assimilation/analysis phase with an ultimate goal of providing technically sound
modeling tools to support the decision making process. Figure 13-3 presents a general schematic of
the water quality modeling approach.
Significant understanding of water quality dynamics in the Catawba-Wateree River can be obtained
from the upfront data assimilation/analysis phase. This process also helps identify data gaps and
from a modeling perspective, helps identify missing data that are needed to develop technically
defensible water quality models for the Catawba-Wateree River. This relates to the difference in
data collection efforts that are designed for monitoring assessments and those designed to support
model development. A sound modeling approach will involve a comprehensive data assimilation/
analysis task.
The three model types that may be required for water quality modeling of the Catawba-Wateree
River are a:
Watershed model that represents the time-varying rainfall driven runoff and pollutant
loadings from the various land uses in the watershed;
Hydrodynamic model that represents the time-varying water transport (movement) through
the rivers and reservoirs as function of flow inputs, meteorology and vertical density
(temperature) dynamics in the reservoirs; and,
Water quality model that represents time-varying nutrient related algal growth and death,
DO sources/sinks and other important variables.
2
Systech Engineering, Inc., 2007. WARMF Technical Support Report for Catawba Basin Phosphorus TMDLs. Prepared for the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control. October 30, 2007.
13-4
Figure 13-3. Water Quality Modeling Approach
13-5
The hydrodynamic and water quality models should have the capability of being applied in 1-, 2or 3-dimensions depending on the water body. For instance, the reservoirs will require at least a
2-dimensional model (longitudinal and vertical segmentation) but in certain cases a 3-dimensional
model may be required. A 1-dimensional model in the rivers will probably be suitable but should be
based on analysis of vertical and lateral gradients in the available data.
Ideally, all three models can be used to model the water quality dynamics in the Catawba-Wateree
River, but this may not be necessary based on results from the upfront data assimilation/analysis
task. For example, a watershed model may not be needed if sufficient monitoring data is available
to define tributary inputs to the rivers or reservoirs and a link between watershed loads and land use
changes is not needed. Also, a hydrodynamic model may not be needed if water transport through
the rivers and reservoirs can be assigned based on available monitoring and understanding of
water movement in these water bodies.
At a minimum, the water quality model should be able to represent: particulate and dissolved
nitrogen and phosphorus reactions (e.g., hydrolysis of organic to inorganic forms, nitrification and
de-nitrification); nutrient and light mediated algal growth and death (photosynthesis and respiration);
algal nutrient cycling; BOD oxidation; DO; atmospheric reaeration; and settling of particulate organic
matter. In addition, to properly represent nutrient and DO levels in the reservoirs, a sediment flux
sub-model may be required so that internal nutrient cycling and sediment oxygen demand (SOD)
can be calculated as a function of particulate organic matter deposition to the sediments of the
reservoirs. This sediment flux sub-model is extremely important for projecting future changes in
nutrient and DO levels in the reservoirs as a function of loading reductions. Figure 13-4 presents a
schematic of the processes that should be included the water quality model.
Ultimately, the development of one or all of these models for assessing water quality dynamics
in the Catawba-Wateree River is an important component in an effective decision management
framework. While a water quality model should not be is the sole tool in the decision making
process, it does represent an important tool for quantifying impacts and projecting future changes.
13.4
Available Water Quality Models
A recent Water Environment Research Federation (WERF) project identified and assessed relevant
models that are appropriate for assessing site-specific nutrient impacts (LINK1T11)3, which include
setting numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) and developing allowable nutrient loadings. This model
review project for WERF was reviewed and determined to be a good starting point for identifying
water quality models applicable to the Catawba-Wateree River because nutrients are one of the
pollutants of concern in the watershed. The WERF project only reviewed publicly available models
(i.e., within the public domain and without user fees). A subset of the resulting model classification
matrix from the report is presented in Table 13-1.
3
WERF, 2013. Modeling Guidance for Developing Site-Specific Nutrient Goals. WERF Project LINK1T11.
13-6
Figure 13-4. Water Quality Modeling Frameworks
13-7
Table 13-1. Water Quality Models Identified in 2013 WERF Report for Rivers and Lakes
Water Quality Parameter
Water Body Type
Clarity
AQUATOX
CE-QUAL-ICM
CE-QUAL-RIV1
CE-QUAL-W2
ECOMSED/RCA
EFDC/HEM-3D
Rivers
EFDC-A2EM
EPD-RIV1
HEC-RAS
HSPF
QUAL2E/2K/2KW
SWAT2012
WARMF
WASP-EUTRO 5/7
Lakes
DO
Phytoplankton
(Groups)
Phytoplankton
(Total)
AQUATOX
AQUATOX
CE-QUAL-ICM
CE-QUAL-ICM
CE-QUAL-RIV1
CE-QUAL-RIV1
CE-QUAL-W2
CE-QUAL-W2
pH
CE-QUAL-W2
ECOMSED/RCA
AQUATOX
EFDC/HEM-3D
CE-QUAL-ICM
EFDC/HEM-3D
EFDC-A2EM
CE-QUAL-W2
EFDC-A2EM
EPD-RIV1
ECOMSED/RCA
EPD-RIV1
LSPC
HEC-RAS
EFDC/HEM-3D
HEC-RAS
QUAL2K
HSPF
QUAL2KW
LSPC
WARMF
HSPF
LSPC
QUAL2E/2K/2KW
EFDC-A2EM
WARMF
WASP7-EUTRO
ECOMSED/RCA
QUAL2E/2K/2KW
SWAT2012
SWAT2012
WARMF
WARMF
WASP-EUTRO 5/7
WASP-EUTRO 5/7
AQUATOX
AQUATOX
BATHTUB
BATHTUB
CE-QUAL-ICM
CE-QUAL-ICM
CE-QUAL-W2
CE-QUAL-W2
ECOMSED/RCA
ECOMSED/RCA
EFDC/HEM-3D
EFDC/HEM-3D
EFDC-A2EM
EFDC-A2EM
HSPF
HSPF
LAKE2K
LAKE2K
EFDC-A2EM
QUAL2E
LSPC
WARMF
QUAL2K
PHOSMOD
WASP7-EUTRO
QUAL2KW
QUAL2E/2K/2KW
WARMF
WARMF
WASP-EUTRO 5/7
WASP-EUTRO 5/7
ECOMSED/RCA
HSPF
WASP7-EUTRO
AQUATOX
BATHTUB
AQUATOX
CE-QUAL-ICM
CE-QUAL-W2
ECOMSED/RCA
EFDC/HEM-3D
CE-QUAL-ICM
CE-QUAL-W2
CE-QUAL-W2
ECOMSED/RCA
ECOMSED/RCA
HSPF
EFDC/HEM-3D
LAKE2K
EFDC-A2EM
LSPC
HSPF
QUAL2K
LAKE2K
QUAL2KW
LSPC
WARMF
QUAL2E/2K/2KW
WASP7-EUTRO
WARMF
WASP-EUTRO 5/7
Note: Water quality parameters of fish, macro-invertebrate and submerged aquatic vegetation were not included. Also, water body types of wadeable streams and
estuaries were not included.
13-8
From this list of models, the Catawba-Wateree River Basin focus should be on ones that are
capable of representing water clarity, DO, suspended phytoplankton (i.e., not attached algae
or periphyton) and pH. Water clarity was included because it is critical to properly represent
light transmittance in the water column of rivers and lakes as part of modeling phytoplankton.
The phytoplankton water quality parameter noted in Table 13-1 includes the associated nutrient
dynamics associated with modeling phytoplankton and for DO the interactions between BOD or
carbon. From this initial list, a subset of applicable models for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin
were selected based on routine use in regulatory applications and widespread use throughout the
water resources industry.
The most applicable watershed models are highlighted in green and steady-state or seasonal/
annual models highlighted in red because they do not have the full dynamic (time-varying) capability
needed for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin application. In addition, the HEC-RAS river model
was highlighted in red because the water quality component has not been widely used, although
the hydraulic component is widely used and tested. Similarly, the AQUATOX model was highlighted
in red because it does not include a time-varying hydrodynamic model and only provides water
transport through the routing of flow in the reservoirs along with the assignment of stratification
timing and thermocline depth.
Although the watershed models noted can represent river and lake segments, the spatial resolution
allowed depends on the delineation of sub-watersheds and typically results in lakes being
represented with one model segment and rivers as relatively long reaches. This segmentation
limitation, particularly for lakes, is considered problematic and, therefore, the watershed models will
be viewed as purely rainfall driven watershed runoff and loading models that can represent river
reaches depending on the spatial resolution needed.
13.5
Recommended Water Quality Models for the CWWMG
The development of water quality models for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin should include
two basic model frameworks: a watershed model; and river/lake hydrodynamic and water quality
models. Given the potential complexity of water transport/circulation in the lakes along the
Catawba-Wateree River and the time-varying water quality response in these lakes, a coupled
time-varying hydrodynamic and water quality modeling framework is recommended (e.g., EPD-RIV1
for rivers only, CE-QUAL-W2, ECOMSED/RCA, EFDC/WASP). It is recommended to model each
of the lakes separately as opposed to developing one river reach/lake connected model for the
entire river. This is due to the potential for long model run times and the fact that each lake system
can be very complicated such that independent analysis is recommended. One potential option is
to develop separate lake models that include portions of the upstream river reaches that may be
affected by backwater in the lakes.
Based on the sub-selection of the water quality models presented in Table 13-1 and experience
applying models in regulatory settings, the following models are recommended. In addition, the
recommendations are based on further understanding of models that have been or are in the
process of being developed in the Catawba-Wateree River watershed to capitalize on the benefit of
the existing model development efforts.
Watershed Model: The WARMF model developed for the Catawba-Wateree River
watershed under various contracts and grants with Duke Energy, EPRI, University of
South Carolina and SCDHEC is recommended for analysis of rainfall driven runoff
and loadings. Although HSPF and LSPC are also suitable, the WARMF model has
undergone significant development for the entire watershed and would allow additional
model refinements to begin immediately without the start-up time and cost associated
with development of a different watershed model from scratch. In addition, the WARMF
model is being used to develop phosphorus TMDLs in the lower Catawba River (SC) and,
13-9
therefore, already has some regulatory acceptance for its use.
River/Lake Model: There are a number of CE-QUAL-W2 models already developed
for five lakes/reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (i.e., Lake James, Lake
Hickory, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie and Lake Wateree). Further review of these models
is recommended to determine if the 2-dimensional representation of the reservoirs is
appropriate. If 2-dimensions are not appropriate (i.e., lateral variability in water quality
exists), then a 3-dimensional model is required such as ECOMSED/RCA or EFDC/WASP.
All three of these river/lake modeling frameworks are capable of representing the timevarying water transport and water quality with the main difference being that CE-QUAL-W2
is 2-dimensional and ECOMSED/RCA or EFDC/WASP can be 2- or 3-dimensional.
Another important difference between these models that may be important is the
sediment flux sub-model used. The CE-QUAL-W2 model uses a simplified sediment flux
sub-model while ECOMSED/RCA and EFDC/WASP models use more robust sediment
flux sub-models. The importance of having a sediment flux sub-model available for the
lake modeling is to allow internal sediment cycling and sediment oxygen demand to be
calculated as a function of watershed particulate organic matter inputs. This approach
becomes very important when assessing the water quality impacts in the lakes associated
with load reductions.
13.6
Recommended Water Quality Modeling Approach for the CWWMG
Just as important to selecting appropriate water quality modeling frameworks is the development of
an approach for model development. This involves everything from data assimilation and analysis;
model input setup and assumptions; model calibration to observed data; and the potential uses for
estimating future changes.
An initial water quality characterization phase is recommended to gather and analyze data from
all of the river/lake systems in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to provide the CWWMG with an
assessment of where future modeling efforts should be directed. The effort involved in this initial
phase would be to present the available water quality data graphically and in tabular format so
that a complete understanding of water quality issues and critical water bodies can be determined
(e.g., Lake Wylie, Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman). This would also include a review of the
most current NC 303(d) List of impaired waters to identify water bodies in the Catawba-Wateree
River Basin that are classified as impaired. Once this initial water quality characterization phase
is complete and presented in a report, a discussion can be held with the CWWMG to select water
bodies of concern or interest for developing water quality models. This task may also identify certain
rivers/lakes that could be analyzed with a simpler modeling framework than outlined below.
After completing the initial water quality characterization phase and identifying critical river/lake
systems for more detailed modeling, the following modeling approach is recommended. These
tasks represent detailed water quality modeling for one river/lake system.
Data Assimilation/Analysis – Much of the understanding of water quality dynamics in the
rivers and lakes will come from the analysis of existing data. Therefore, an upfront data
analysis task is warranted to gain this understanding, identify data gaps and recommend
any supplemental monitoring efforts that would benefit model development. The
deliverable from this task would include a data report that presents the available data and
discusses data gaps and needs.
Watershed Modeling – As noted above, the WARMF watershed model is available for the
entire Catawba-Wateree River Basin. The latest and most up-to-date version of this model
can be used to calculate watershed runoff and loadings to the river/lake system under
study. An initial review of the WARMF model calibration to observed data is warranted to
make sure the model properly represents the runoff and loadings to the river/lake system
13-10
being studied and adjustments made to improve the model calibration if needed.
River/Lake Hydrodynamic Model – Using the WARMF model calculated runoff and
temperatures from the watershed surrounding the river/lake system being studied, a
hydrodynamic model needs to be developed that properly represents the water transport
through the river/lake system. This would involve creating a model grid for the river/lake
system (2- or 3-dimensional) that both the hydrodynamic and water quality calculations
will use. Figure 13-5 presents an example model grid for a river/lake system that highlights
lateral segmentation across the width of the lake, extension of the model grid into an arm
of the lake and the inclusion of upstream river segments. Calibration of the hydrodynamic
model to observed data would be completed for water elevation, temperature and specific
conductivity. If river/lake flows or velocities at locations within the model grid are available,
these parameters would also be used for model calibration.
River/Lake Water Quality Model – Using the WARMF model calculated loadings from the
watershed surrounding the river/lake system being studied and the hydrodynamic model
calculated water transport, a water quality model needs to be developed that properly
represents the water quality dynamics in the river/lake system. These water quality
dynamics would most likely include all the parameters associated with a eutrophication
model (i.e., nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, DO, phytoplankton (chlorophyll-a) and water
clarity). Calibration of the water quality model to observed data would be completed for
parameters that are measured (e.g., total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite-nitrate, total
phosphorus, orthophosphate, DO, organic carbon, BOD and chlorophyll-a). If sediment
nutrient fluxes and SOD data are available, these parameters would also be used for
calibration of the sediment flux sub-model.
Model Report and Meetings – After calibrating the hydrodynamic and water quality models,
draft and final reports of all the modeling activities would be produced as a final deliverable
on the model development effort. This task would also include various meetings to discuss
interim results and progress.
The models would be developed for a multi-year period, either 3-years consecutively or 3
independent years that represent a range in hydrologic conditions.
13-11
Figure 13-5 Example River/Lake Model Grid
13-12
14.0
14.1
Regulatory Issues
Introduction
Federal and State regulations have an impact on the development and management of water
supply resources within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin whether they are currently enacted
or anticipated in the future. The purpose of this section is to provide a review of current and
potential future regulations impacting water supply, distribution and use within the planning area.
The regulatory survey includes a review of major federal water regulations, as well as key state
legislation within North Carolina and South Carolina. Current legislation such as the North Carolina
Water Resources Policy Act and the South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use,
and Reporting Act is addressed to determine the future impact on water users within the CatawbaWateree River Basin, and to discuss opportunities for CWWMG to partner with regulatory bodies for
the implementation of water supply rules and regulations.
14.2
Federal Water Supply Regulations
14.2.1
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) became law in 1972 and has been amended a number of times.
The vision declared by Congress stated, “The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” In the brief discussion presented
below, many details and minor provisions of the CWA are omitted. Please consult the statute,
federal regulations and guidance documents for additional information.
The CWA has been in place for more than 40 years and much progress has been made in cleaning
up our waters. In general, the provisions of the CWA have been very beneficial in improving the
quality of water supplies. However, some of the provisions of the law and regulations have made it
more difficult to develop new water supplies and to expand existing ones.
The various states have adopted legislation similar to the CWA and have assumed primacy for
enforcing various portions of the CWA through delegation agreements with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Both North Carolina and South Carolina have numerous delegation
agreements with EPA, including agreements to issue and enforce wastewater discharge permits.
The most challenging portion of the CWA for water suppliers has been Section 404 and the related
Section 401. These sections relate to dredge and fill activities in waters of the United States and
state certifications that these activities are justified. The lead federal agency for Section 404 is the
Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE is required to consult with various federal agencies before
issuing permits for projects regulated under Section 404. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
often objected to projects based on actual or potential violations of the Endangered Species Act,
which is discussed later in this section.
The EPA is given the right under Section 404 to veto 404 permit applications either before or after
approval by the COE, effectively killing any water supply projects. They may be vetoed for having
unacceptable adverse effects on municipal water supplies, fish and wildlife, or recreational areas.
To date, the EPA has vetoed 13 permit applications due to unacceptable adverse impacts1.
1
Environmental Protection Agency, Chronology of 404c Actions, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/404c.cfm
Regulatory Issues
14-1
Regulatory Issues
Table 14-1 Summary of Major Federal Clean Water Act Legislation
Legislation
Clean Water Act
(PL 92-500, 1972)
Description of Legislation
The goal of this law was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by
1985. It prohibited the discharge of toxic pollutants in amounts that might adversely affect
the environment; set interim goals to protect fish and wildlife and to allow recreation by July
1, 1983; provided federal financial assistance to construct publicly owned waste treatment
facilities; and proposed that programs for the control of non-point sources of pollution be
developed and implemented.
Key amendments were:
CWA Amendments
(PL 95-217, 1977)
CWA Amendments
(PL 100-4, 1987)
14.2.2

Recognized the authority of each state to allocate quantities of water within its
jurisdiction should not be impaired by this Act.

Specified that discharges from agricultural return flows should not be considered point
sources of pollution for the purposes of the CWA.

Declared that federal facilities shall be subject to state and local water pollution control
requirements to the same extent as any other person.

Authorized the Secretary of the Army to issue permits on a State, regional or
nationwide basis for activities involving discharges of dredged or fill material if certain
environmental determinations were made.
Significant amendments were:
Converted the municipal grant program to a revolving loan fund.
Directed states to develop and implement non-point source management programs.
Safe Water Drinking Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted in 1974, and has had numerous amendments
since that time. The most substantial amendments were enacted in 1996 and significantly modified
several sections of the law. A brief summary of the SDWA and SDWA amendments is shown in
Table 14-2. There are several provisions of the SDWA that may have future impacts on existing
water supplies in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
14-2
Regulatory Issues
Table 14-2 Summary of Major Drinking Water Legislation
Legislation
Description of Legislation
SDWA
(Public Law 93-523, 1974)
This law required EPA to issue drinking water regulations in two phases. (Phase 1)
Establish National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWRs) within 90 days
of enactment of the law which specify maximum levels of drinking water contaminants and
monitoring requirements applicable to public water systems. (Phase 2) Review and revise
the NIPDWRs and establish National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs).
SDWA Amendments
(Public Law 99-339, 1986)
These amendments required EPA to set standards for 83 compounds within three years
and to establish 25 new standards every three years, to establish criteria for filtration of all
surface water supplies, and to establish requirements for all public water supplies to provide
disinfection. They also required that the maximum containment level goal (MCLG) and the
maximum containment level (MCL) be proposed and finalized on the same schedule, and
banned the use of lead pipes and solder.
Lead Contamination Control
Act
(Public Law 100-572, 1988)
SDWA Amendments
(Public Law 104-182, 1996)
Established a program to eliminate lead-containing water coolers in schools.
Required EPA to publish and seek public comment on health risk reduction and cost analysis
when proposing a NPDWR that includes an MCL or a treatment technique, and consider
the effects of contaminants on sensitive subpopulations. Within five years, EPA was to
evaluate five contaminants from a drinking water contaminant candidate list. Established
specific deadlines for a revised arsenic standard, a new standard for radon, a source water
assessment and protection program and a requirement for public water systems to distribute
consumer confidence reports (CCRs) to their customers. The amendments also established
a State Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and a program to develop operator certification
requirements.
For EPA to regulate a contaminant it must consider three criteria listed in SDWA Section 1412 (b)
(1) (a):
1.
The contaminant may have an adverse health effect;
2.
The contaminant is known to occur, or likely to occur, in public water systems with a
frequency and at levels of public health concern; and
3.
In the sole judgment of the administrator, regulation of the contaminant presents a
meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
Given the constantly improving analytical capabilities, more chemical compounds will be found in
both raw and finished water. Regulation of some of these materials will almost certainly occur.
One key provision of the SDWA is a requirement that all regulations issued under the authority of
the SDWA must be reviewed every six years. This means that all the existing regulations will be
scrutinized at defined intervals and are subject to future changes.
14.2.3
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed into law in 1973 at a time of strong environmental
activism. Since that time, this law has had a major impact on all aspects of water rights and
management. It has been said that the ESA is one of the strongest weapons in the federal
government’s arsenal of environmental laws. The ability of the ESA to halt major water projects
was brought to the public’s attention in 1978 when the Supreme Court had to decide whether
the survival of the snail darter should stop the construction of the Tellico Dam. At the time, the
Tennessee Valley Authority had already expended more than $100 million on the project. The court
determined that the ESA is a science-based law with a clear mandate from Congress, and the
project was halted until Congress passed an amendment to the ESA.
14-3
Regulatory Issues
The Act protects “endangered species,” which are defined as “any species which is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened species,” which
includes “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future.” The term “species” encompasses any “subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.” Freshwater fish make up the largest number of listed endangered or threatened species.
To be considered for listing, the species must meet one of five criteria (section 4(a)(1)):
1.
There is the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
2.
The species is being over utilized for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
3.
The species is declining due to disease or predation.
4.
There is an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
5.
There are other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Whenever a species is listed as endangered or threatened, the listing agency must then designate
any habitat that is considered to be critical to the survival of the species. Any project that is
considered to be destructive of such designated critical habitat would be in violation of the ESA.
These critical habitat designations have the most impact on water rights. Obviously, the quantity of
water in streams is an essential factor in fish survival. However, it is difficult to designate specific
instream flow quantities as critical habitat. The approach that has been taken is to identify riparian
areas as critical habitat. The condition of riparian areas is an important factor in maintaining
optimum water quality.
Federal permitting for water projects is carried out under Section 404 of the CWA and the
authorizing agency for issuing these permits is the COE. Section 7 of the ESA requires that the
COE consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) to determine if the project jeopardizes
the survival of a threatened or endangered species. This process begins as informal consultation. If
the federal agency, after discussions with the FWS, determines that the proposed action is not likely
to affect any listed species, the informal consultation is complete and the proposed project moves
ahead. If it appears that the agency’s action may affect a listed species, that agency may then
prepare a biological assessment to assist in its determination of the project’s effect on a species.
When the COE determines, through a biological assessment or other review, that its action is
likely to adversely affect a listed species, the COE then submits request for formal consultation.
During formal consultation, the FWS and the COE share information about the proposed project
and the species likely to be affected. Formal consultation may last up to 90 days, after which the
FWS prepares a biological opinion on whether the proposed activity will jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species.
Section 9 of the ESA makes it unlawful to “take” individuals of a threatened or endangered species.
“Take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt
to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification
or degradation which “actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering.”
Under this “Harm Rule,” significant habitat modification that results in the impairment of a species’
essential behavioral patterns may constitute a violation of the Section 9 take prohibition.
If the biological assessment performed under Section 7 determines that a project will cause
harm to the listed species but will not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, an
incidental take permit will be issued. The incidental take permit will include conditions that must be
14-4
Regulatory Issues
implemented to minimize the impact of such incidental take. A project becomes exempt from the
Section 9 take prohibitions so long as the action is implemented in accordance with the incidental
take permit.
A habitat conservation plan, or HCP, must accompany an application for an incidental take permit.
The HCP associated with the permit ensures that the effects of the authorized incidental take are
adequately minimized and mitigated. HCPs are planning documents that describe the anticipated
effects of the proposed taking; how those impacts will be minimized, or mitigated; and how the HCP
is to be funded.
14.2.4
Lacey Act
The Lacey Act is a federal law not widely known for affecting the development of water supplies.
The Lacey Act was passed in 1900 originally to outlaw the interstate trafficking of birds and other
animals illegally killed in their state of origin. The Act was later amended to include the transfer of
invasive species such as the zebra mussel and the Asian carp across state borders in an effort to
control the rapid introduction of these species to the United States. Section 42 of the act regulates
the transfer of injurious species into the US and/or between states and territories of the US.
The Lacey Act currently does not affect water users in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. However,
if an injurious species such as the zebra mussel were to be found in North Carolina or South
Carolina, the transfer of raw water between the two states would be in violation of Section 42 and
would be subject to civil and criminal charges.
14.2.5
Wild & Scenic Rivers Act
Congress passed the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) in 1968 for the purpose of declaring that
selected rivers are preserved in a free-flowing condition and their immediate environments are
protected. A river may be included in the National Wild and Scenic River System either by an act of
Congress or through designation by the secretary of the interior following an application by a state’s
governor.
The WSRA is mechanism of the federal government to preserve federal water rights. The
classification within the national system typically eliminates that water body for use a potential
water supply source. The designation requires the federal government to protect the instream flow2.
Upstream water supply sources can be affected by a wild and scenic designation by allowing the
federal government to demand that upstream users provide sufficient water to meet the federal
water rights under the WSRA.
14.2.6
Federal Power Act
Enacted in 1920, the Federal Power Act provides a comprehensive federal scheme for the
development of hydroelectric power. Finding its power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, the Act preempts any state law or regulation that conflicts with its provisions. The Act
is administered by a five-member quasi-judicial body, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), whose members are appointed by the president with advice and consent from the Senate.
FERC is authorized to issue licenses for the operation of hydropower dams that 1) are located on
a navigable waterway of the United States; 2) occupy federal lands; 3) use surplus water or water
power from a federally operated dam; or 4) are located on a water body over which Congress
properly exercises Commerce Clause Jurisdiction and the project affects interstate or foreign
commerce. Holding a FERC license is not a property right in the river on which the dam is located,
because rivers are held in public trust; rather, the issuance of a license is considered a privilege.
A FERC license can extend for a maximum term of 50 years. Throughout the life of the license,
the licensee must comply with its license terms, FERC regulations governing operations, and any
2
Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, Water Quantity and Water Quality as Related to the Management of Wild and Scenic
Rivers (2003).
14-5
Regulatory Issues
applicable FERC orders. In deciding whether to issue a hydropower license, FERC is mandated
by the Federal Power Act to “equal consideration” of both economic and environmental values,
including the necessity for hydropower generation, fish and wildlife habitat, visual resources, cultural
resources, recreational opportunities, irrigation, water supply and flood control. FERC must also
make sure that the project under consideration: 1) is amenable to state comprehensive water plans;
2) includes the means to protect or mitigate damage to fish and wildlife; and 3) includes fishways
as may be prescribed by the U.S. FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Additionally, FERC requires an applicant to receive a water-quality certification under section 401 of
the CWA.
Any minimum stream flow conditions a state may place upon its 401 certification must be included
in the FERC license. If an existing license has expired during its relicensing process, FERC is
authorized to grant an annual license on the same terms as the original license. An annual license
is automatically renewable each year unless FERC takes action to do otherwise. The Federal
Power Act explicitly states that “nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as affecting
or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the
control, appropriation, use or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal or other uses, or
any vested right acquired therein.”
The term “municipal” includes a state and its political subdivisions. The term “other uses” is
construed narrowly to mean rights of the same nature as those relating to irrigation and municipal
purposes. State regulation of all other uses not specified above is preempted by the Federal Power
Act. State common law or statutory law pertaining to private proprietary rights to use, divert or
distribute water are left intact. FERC licensees are liable to riparian water users for any interference
with their water rights under state law. FERC issued a new rule that revises its regulations
concerning the licensing process. The revisions create a new licensing procedure called the
Integrated Licensing Process that collapses two formerly sequential steps, the applicant’s prefiling
consultation and FERC’s environmental review, into a combined step. The new process was
optional for applicants until July 2005, after which it became the required process unless specific
approval is granted by FERC to use a former procedure. The rulemaking took effect on October 23,
2002.
Duke Energy is currently involved in the relicensing process for 13 hydroelectric stations in North
Carolina and South Carolina, considered the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project. Duke Energy
Carolinas proposed an extensive plan that would result in established dam and reservoir levels and
thus establish flows in the Catawba-Wateree River for the length of the license (~50 years). Under
this plan, some environmental groups argue that flows downstream of dams could be insufficient to
maintain water quality and habitat for fish and other species, including the endangered shortnose
sturgeon.
The new license is six years overdue, and the project is currently operating under annual license
extensions. As of May 2013, three issues were outstanding, although there has been some
progress. The three issues were:
1.
The issuance of a Final Biological Opinion by NMFS , which was provided in April
2013.
2.
A resolution of the South Carolina Water Quality Certification (WQC), referred to
above; and
3.
The final new license processing, review, approval and issuance by the FERC.
14.3
North Carolina Water Supply Regulations
14.3.1
Overview
North Carolina, as with all states on the eastern side of the country, has water rights and water
14-6
Regulatory Issues
access laws that adhere to the riparian rights rule which has been established by common law. A
riparian proprietor (or one whose land is in contact with the water) is entitled to the natural flow of
a stream running through or along his land in its accustomed channel, undiminished in quantity
and unimpaired in quality, except as may be occasioned by the reasonable use of the water by
other like proprietors. “Use” of water generally refers to the diversion of water flow from a stream
when that water is not returned to the natural flow for the use of downstream riparian landowners,
and is acceptable for domestic, manufacturing, and other lawful purposes. This usage is subject to
the same right of reasonable use that is vested in all other riparian landowners. A riparian owner
may make any “beneficial use” of water, but not without accountability to downstream users. A key
component of the reasonable use rule is a balancing of (material and substantial) harms among
users. Local governments cannot count operation of a water supply system for its inhabitants as a
riparian right.
Specific legislation in North Carolina General Statues applicable to water rights include the
following:
1.
G.S. 143-215.44 through .50 gives a person who lawfully impounds water for
purposes of withdrawal the right of withdrawal of the excess volume that is due to the
impoundment.
2.
G.S. 162A-7 (a) through (f); G.S. 153A-285 specifies prerequisites to acquisition
of water by eminent domain, which include the issuance of certificates to an
authority to allow it to acquire water rights through eminent domain, and holding of
a public hearing to consider whether the project provides maximum beneficial use
of the water resources of the State. Considerations include the project’s necessity,
promotion or increase of conservation or storage, extent of probable detriment and
feasibility of alternative sources. “Authority” includes counties and cities acting jointly
or through joint agencies to provide water services, sewer services or both.
The Environmental Management Commission was authorized by the N.C. General Assembly under
General Statute 143B-283. Upon its creation, the enabling legislation stated that the commission
should have 19 members, including 13 appointed by the governor, three by the Senate pro tempore,
and three by the speaker of the house. Changes were made in the legislature in 2013, and the
Environmental Management Commission is now a 15-member commission appointed by the
governor, the Senate pro tempore and the Speaker of the House. The Commission is responsible
for adopting rules for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the state’s air and water
resources. Commission members are chosen to represent various interests, including the medical
profession, agriculture, engineering, fish and wildlife, groundwater, air and water pollution control,
municipal or county government and the public at large. The Commission oversees and adopts
rules for several divisions of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR),
including the Divisions of Air Quality, Land Resources, Water Quality and Water Resources.
The General Assembly passed the North Carolina Drinking Water Act (NCDWA) in 1979. The
purpose as stated by the Article is “to regulate water systems within the State which supply drinking
water that may affect the public health3.” The NCDWA protects public health by regulating public
water systems in North Carolina, as required by the national SDWA. The NCDWA requires water
systems to monitor for contaminants based on several factors, including the water system type,
source water type, and population served. Federal law requires states to review water quality
standards every three years; North Carolina last did this in 2006. Now years behind, North Carolina
is accepting comments on these standards, although there are no plans to change any standards
until the end of 2015, at the earliest.
14.3.2
3
Water Withdrawal and Transfers Registration Law
G.S. 130-A 312
14-7
Regulatory Issues
G.S. 143-215.22G and 22H requires registration of water withdrawals and transfers. Originally
passed in 1991, this statute requires surface water and ground water withdrawers who meet
conditions established by the General Assembly to register their water withdrawals and surface
water transfers with the State and update those registrations at least every five years. Agricultural
water users that withdraw a million gallons of water a day or more and non-agricultural water users
that withdraw 100,000 gallons of water a day are required to register. Administrative rules that
became effective in March 2007 (15A NCAC 02E.0600) stipulate that registrants must also report
their water usage annually to the NCDENR. In its 2008 session, the General Assembly established
civil penalties for failure to comply with these requirements.
14.3.3
Interbasin Transfer Law
The Interbasin Transfer Law, GS 143-215.22I, was amended in 2013. The threshold for which
interbasin transfers require state approval changed from 2 million gallons on any day, to a monthly
average of 2 million gallons per day with a maximum of 3 million gallons on any one day. The bill
establishes the following process:
1.
applicant files a notice of intent that includes a nontechnical description of the
request and identification of the proposed water source;
2.
environmental impact statements are not required unless otherwise required by the
State Environmental Policy Act;
3.
DENR must publish notice of the request and hold a public hearing; and
4.
DENR must accept public comments for a minimum of 30 days following the public
hearing.
A modification will not be granted if it would be inconsistent with the December 3, 2010 settlement
agreement between North Carolina, South Carolina, Duke Energy Carolinas and the Catawba River
Water Supply Project.
Due to the current lack of completed river basin hydrologic models, interim allocations have been
established. All interim allocations are valid for a maximum of five years or until the hydrologic
model for that basin is approved.
14.3.4
Drought
The North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council originated in 1992, and was given
official statutory status and assigned the responsibility for issuing drought advisories in 2003. The
drought advisories provide accurate and consistent information to assist local governments and
other water users in taking appropriate drought response actions in specific areas of the state that
are exhibiting impending or existing drought conditions.
All public and privately owned water systems subject to G.S. 143-355 (l) are required to prepare
and submit a Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) as part of their Local Water Supply Plan.
This includes all units of local government that provide or plan to provide public water service, and
all community water systems having 1,000 or more connections or serving more than 3,000 people
in North Carolina. Plans are required every five years.
Session Law 2008-143 is an act to improve drought preparedness and response in North Carolina,
as recommended by the Environmental Review Commission.
14.3.5
Water Supply Planning Law
G.S. 143-355(l), (m) requires each unit of local government that provides public water service
or that plans to provide public water service and each large community water system to either
individually or, together with other units of local government and large community water systems,
prepare a local water supply plan and submit it to NCDENR for approval. At a minimum, each unit
14-8
Regulatory Issues
of local government and large community water system shall include in local water supply plans
all information that is readily available to it. Plans shall include present and projected population,
industrial development, and water use within the service area; present and future water supplies;
an estimate of the technical assistance that may be needed at the local level to address projected
water needs; current and future water conservation and water reuse programs, including a plan
for the reduction of long-term per capita demand for potable water; a description of how the local
government or large community water system will respond to drought and other water shortage
emergencies and continue to meet essential public water supply needs during the emergency; and
any other related information as NCDENR may require in the preparation of a State water supply
plan.
14.4
South Carolina Water Supply Regulations
14.4.1
Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use and Reporting Act
The South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting Act was originally enacted in 1982
and was revised in 2000. The 2000 amendments relaxed the Act’s reporting requirements.
Prior to this, South Carolina courts applied the reasonable use rule to disputes involving
withdrawals of water from watercourses, in addition to the Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting
Act, which required certain persons to register and report information regarding water withdrawals.
Act 247 of 2010 substantially amended Section 49-4-10 et seq. of the 1976 S.C. Code of Laws,
renaming these sections as the South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use and
Reporting Act.
Beginning January 1, 2011, anyone withdrawing more than 3 million gallons in any one month from
surface waters of South Carolina must obtain a surface water withdrawal permit or, for agricultural
withdrawals, register their withdrawal with the Department of Health and Environmental Control
unless exempt under the Act. Regulation R.61-119, Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting and
Reporting, outlines the process for obtaining a permit or for registering an agricultural use.
Surface water withdrawal permits are required for all surface water withdrawals, which under the
Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use and Reporting Act includes withdrawals previously
permitted as Interbasin Transfers (IBTs) simply as a water withdrawal. Permittees with existing
IBT permits (prior to January 1, 2011) were able to retain their current permit until they were due
for re-permitting. Alternatively, those with existing IBTs were offered the option of applying for
grandfathered withdrawal permit.
Those grandfathered were issued a withdrawal permit with the same limits as their IBT permit.
These withdrawal permits are good for a minimum of 30 years and maximum of 50. (Most have
been issued for 30 years, thus far with few exceptions, and none have been issued for 50 years, as
the justification for longer is quite stringent and is based mostly on indebtedness factors, and bond
repayment.)
Most with existing IBTs preferred to take the grandfathered path, as it gave them longer assured
withdrawals, with only a few, who did not anticipate a future need for maintaining their initial IBT
permit. The transfer of grandfathered IBT permits to withdrawal permit users is ongoing.
These existing permits will then be incorporated into the statewide model. The model will determine
the capacity available for future withdrawals by modeling existing withdrawals and determining the
available safe yield.
The requirements for new withdrawals will be quite a bit more cumbersome. Between 60%
and 80% of the water body’s safe yield may be permitted, depending on time of year; however,
upstream and downstream conditions and the ability for all downstream intakes to meet minimum
flow requirements will be considered as well. This promises to be quite a limiting factor for new
14-9
Regulatory Issues
withdrawals. All new users will need to have contingency plans for drought or emergency, including
shut down, installation of groundwater systems, water purchasing options, or utilizing reservoirs.
Withdrawers are subject to reporting requirements and are allowed to draw up to their registered
amount. Violations of permitted limits are subject to suspension or revocation of withdrawal
authority.
DHEC will issue permits for non-consumptive uses, which are surface water withdrawals made and
returned within the boundaries of contiguous property that is owned by the withdrawer and returned
with minimal or no changes in water quantity.
Permittees are required to prepare and maintain operational and contingency plans to promote
an adequate water supply from the surface water during times when the actual flow of the surface
water is less than the minimum in-stream flow for that particular surface water segment.
14.4.2
South Carolina Pollution Control Act
The South Carolina Pollution Control Act is South Carolina’s basic law with regard to control of air
and water resources. It declares the public policy of the State to maintain reasonable standards
of air and water purity, balancing the needs of public health and welfare with employment and
industrial development. The Act directs the SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
(DHEC) to adopt standards indicating polluted conditions in water and air.
Broad powers have been granted to DHEC in order to carry out the fundamental purposes of the
Act, including: 1) holding of public hearings; 2) assessment of penalties; 3) making, revoking,
or modifying orders to discontinue the discharge of various wastes into State water bodies; 4)
institution of court proceedings to require compliance with the Act; 5) issuance, denial, ratification,
and suspension of permits to discharge various wastes; and 6) implementation of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act in South Carolina. DHEC is authorized to prescribe standards for water quality
considering the extent of floating and suspended solids, bacteriological organisms, oxygen levels,
and other physical, chemical, or biological properties that are present and permitted in water. The
Act provides factors for DHEC to consider in developing classifications and standards for water.
14.4.3
State Safe Drinking Water Act
The State SDWA seeks to protect the quality of the State’s drinking water supplies. The Act confers
authority to DHEC to set standards for the design and construction of public water systems and
the proper functioning of those systems. Construction, expansion, or modification of public water
facilities must be accomplished pursuant to a permit granted by DHEC.
Additionally, DHEC is authorized to investigate the system, collect water samples, and monitor
operations. DHEC can enter the premises of a water system to carry out the provisions of the Act. If
DHEC believes an imminent hazard exists that poses a serious, immediate threat to public health in
a public water system, it can issue an emergency order without notice or hearing. The Act makes it
unlawful for a person to violate the Act, the conditions of a permit, or any order of DHEC. Violators
are subject to criminal penalties and injunction.
14.4.4
South Carolina Drought Response Act
The South Carolina Drought Response Act was originally enacted in 1985 and, in 2000, it was
substantially revised by the legislature. The purpose of the Act is to provide the State with a
mechanism to effectively react to drought conditions.
The Act applies to all water resources above and below ground with some exceptions. It does
not authorize any restriction in the use of water that is injected into aquifer storage and recovery
facilities, or water stored in managed watershed impoundments, or water from a private pond that is
fed only by surface water.
Under the Act, the SC Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for formulating
14-10
Regulatory Issues
and executing a Drought Mitigation Plan, monitoring drought conditions, making investigations to
determine whether action is necessary, determining levels of drought after consultation with the
Drought Response Committee, and establishing drought management areas.
The DNR is responsible for coordinating the appropriate response to drought upon consultation
with the Drought Response Committee. The committee is a two-tiered organization made up of
a statewide committee composed of State agencies and local committees within each Drought
Management Area. The governor is responsible for appointing the chairperson of the Drought
Response Committee. On the basis of data collected by the DNR, the committee determines
whether an area of the state has reached any of four designated levels of drought: 1) incipient
drought; 2) moderate drought; 3) severe drought; and 4) extreme drought. DNR is empowered to
promulgate regulations to specify categories of nonessential water use.
Water used strictly for firefighting, health and medical purposes, minimum stream flow, minimum
water levels in drinking-water supplies, and any water used to satisfy federal, state, or local public
health and safety requirements is considered essential water use. DNR may also promulgate
regulations to provide for mandatory curtailment of nonessential water uses during periods of
severe and extreme drought in affected drought-management areas. Mandatory curtailment of
nonessential water use becomes effective only after the Drought Response Committee determines
the action to be reasonably necessary to ensure supplies of water in drought management areas.
On the local level, each water supplier is to enact an ordinance or plan to implement a drought
response.
Once a determination for curtailment has been issued, “any person adversely affected by mitigation
or mandatory curtailment may within ten days submit information to the Department and obtain
relief as appropriate.” Further, a party affected by a declaration of the Drought Response Committee
has the right to appeal that action to the Administrative Law Judge Division. The appeal must be
filed within five days of the declaration and operates as an immediate stay of the declaration of
the Drought Response Committee. The appeals process, in essence, eviscerates the authority of
the Committee to trigger mandatory water mitigation or curtailment. There are provisions for the
governor to issue an emergency declaration to curtail water withdrawal or equitably allocate water
if the committee determines that the severity of conditions threatens public health and safety. The
governor’s emergency declaration is not affected by any appeal.
14.5
Current Legislation
14.5.1
Water Resources Policy Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 907, House Bill 1101)
In 2008 the Environmental Review Commission completed a Water Allocation Study, co-authored
by Bill Holman (Duke Nicholas Institute) and Richard Whisnant (UNC-Chapel Hill). The study
recommended the adoption of a permit system for large water withdrawals and the implementation
of comprehensive river basin planning that will provide for the protection of ecological integrity. In
response to the study, the NC General Assembly introduced the Water Resources Policy Act of
2009.
The Water Resources Policy Act bill, Senate Bill 907 and House Bill 1101, proposes to change
the State from a riparian rights system to a regulated riparian rights system. The bill is similar in
intent to South Carolina legislation Bill 452, also known as the Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use,
and Reporting Act (refer to Section 14.4.1), which was signed into law on June 11, 2010. The
Water Resources Policy Act of 2009 amends Article 38 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes by
addressing water withdrawal regulation and generally requiring that the use of water is reasonable,
the use of water does not affect the available quality or quantity of the source water significantly,
and that the applicant has taken appropriate conservation measures. The legislation also addresses
IBTs, and requires NCDENR to develop and implement basin-wide hydrologic models for river
basins. In consultation with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the U.S. FWS and the NMFS,
14-11
Regulatory Issues
NCDENR is required to determine ecological criteria for each river basin and sub-basin.
An important aspect of the Water Resources Policy Act to the CWWMG is the creation of River
Basin Planning Organizations (RBPOs) as written under the bill (143-355.12) and summarized
below:
The General Assembly may establish a river basin planning organization to plan for
and manage water resource supply and demand in the river basin or a portion of
the river basin in order to prevent or eliminate over allocation. A river basin planning
organization may include representatives of water systems, permitted or allocated
water withdrawers, environmental advocacy groups, state agencies, local governments,
and other entities with significant operations, activities, or interests related to the
water resources of the river basin. Funds for the staffing and operation of a river basin
planning organization shall be provided by an annual payment from each member
that withdraws water. The amount of payment by a member shall be based on the
amount of water withdrawn by that member. Members of a river basin planning
organization that do not withdraw water shall not be assessed a payment to participate
in the organization. Votes shall be apportioned equally among the members of the
organization.
The CMWWG previously reviewed the potential and the process for the CWWMG to be designated
as a river basin planning organization of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin by North Carolina and
South Carolina. A meeting was held with Mr. Bill Holman in order to ascertain the necessary steps
required in order to achieve this recognition. Mr. Holman indicated that the intent of the river basin
planning organization as described in the legislation was to promote regional collaboration efforts
and that the best way for CWWMG to position itself as a river basin planning organization was to
continue to act in that capacity.
According to the North Carolina General Assembly online bill lookup, Senate Bill 907 and House
Bill 1101 were referred to their respective committees in 2009. As part of this Master Plan, Senator
Clodfelter’s office was contacted in order to ascertain the status of the bill. Senator Clodfelter was
the original sponsor of Senate Bill 907 and he indicated that the current legislative majority was not
interested in pursuing the concepts embodied in the bill. If majority control of the General Assembly
shifts, it is possible the bill could be re-introduced in future sessions.
14.5.2
Session Law 2010-143
In 2010 the General Assembly passed Session Law 2010-143 which directed the NCDENR to
develop basin-wide hydrologic models. In addition, the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board
(EFSAB) was created to assist NCDENR with developing a scientifically defensible approach to
establishing flows that protect the ecological integrity of streams and rivers in North Carolina as
required under Session Law 2010-143. The EFSAB was tasked with reviewing published and
unpublished studies that characterize the ecology of North Carolina rivers, relating ecological
conditions to flow alteration, and identifying a scientifically defensible approach to establishing flow
requirements for the maintenance of ecological integrity. Per Session Law 2010-143, the EFSAB
included representatives from the state (the N.C. Division of Water Resources, the N.C. Division
of Water Quality, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries,
and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program), the USFWS, the NMFS, and individuals with expertise in
aquatic ecology and habitats from organizations representing agriculture, forestry, manufacturing,
electric public utilities, non-governmental organizations, local governments, and other individuals
and organizations. It should be noted that these recommendations are a planning tool, not policy,
and that the resulting policy will be what determines the actual responses to these effects.
The EFSAB has recommended in its November 2013 “Recommendations for Estimating Flows to
Maintain Ecological Integrity in Streams and Rivers in North Carolina” that NCDENR use a two-part
14-12
Regulatory Issues
strategy to establish ecological flows, determine their viability with regard to future conditions, and
evaluate the need for additional study:
1.
Percentage-of-flow strategy: In which 80-90% of ambient modeled flow remains
in the stream, unless critical low-flow conditions dictate that additional actions are
needed to protect ecological integrity. If too little water is available to meet essential
water uses and ecological flows, further review by NCDENR is recommended.
2.
Biological-response strategy: Evaluate and predict the effects of ecological flows on
fish and invertebrate populations.
The EFSAB report recognizes that this will be an evolving process and models will be dynamic
and based on changing conditions and the increasing robustness of data sets. Early assumptions
from the report are that withdrawals associated with projects with an established flow standard will
be least affected by required ecological flows for threatened and endangered species. This may
include FERC licenses, flow requirements for dams and reservoirs, and projects associated with
instream flow studies. Another assumption is that groundwater withdrawals, and those from isolated
and unconnected ponds and lakes should not be affected by ecological flow requirements. Large
“run of the river” withdrawals stand to be affected, mostly dependent on size and location. These
locations are also most susceptible to drought.
It should be noted that ecological flow values are needed at every location of interest in river basin
hydrologic models to assess water availability for both instream and offstream needs, now and
in the future. The current challenge is to develop an approach that can determine ecological flow
values for a multitude of locations in a relatively short time. Such an approach also needs to reflect
the flow regime characteristics needed to maintain ecological integrity, and recognize the diversity
of stream types and ecosystems in North Carolina. A one-size-fits-all minimum flow standard for the
entire state would not accomplish this objective. Any new approach cannot be intended to replace
in-depth, site-specific studies for particular water project proposals, especially those larger projects
with more complex environmental concerns.
14.6
DISCUSSION
With a membership of 18 public water supply utilities plus Duke Energy, the CWWMG has the
potential to become the ‘go-to’ organization for determining the future water use of the CatawbaWateree River Basin, and to impact water-related legislative initiatives throughout both North and
South Carolina.
The CWWMG was given a mandate to share water use information through a settlement agreement
dated December 3, 2010 between South Carolina, North Carolina, Duke Energy and the Catawba
River Water Supply Project. In this agreement, the states agree to work cooperatively with the
CWWMG to update the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply Study at least every 10 years.
The study will assess and reassess consumptive water uses within the river basin and for other
planning purposes. Under this agreement, the first update of the study is due no later than by the
end of 2018. The completion of the Master Plan will meet the update requirement.
This mandate to produce and communicate information related to water use within the CatawbaWateree River Basin carries with it an “implied authority” for the CWWMG to shape the future of the
Basin. This implied authority provides an opportunity for the CWWMG to collaborate with regulatory
bodies regarding the implementation of rules/regulations. Recommended actions for the CWWMG
include:
A recent study was completed by the Lee Institute for the CWWMG outlining
recommendations for an organizational five-year self-assessment. The Lee Institute
suggested that the CWWMG create an external relations task force and build relationships
with elected officials and regulators. Given the legislative climate for regulation of riparian
14-13
Regulatory Issues
rights and legislation that has been introduced or passed into law, a working relationship
with elected officials and regulators will be very important for the CWWMG in order to help
shape the future of water rights and access within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
The CWWMG should host regularly scheduled roundtable discussions with legislators and
regulatory officials. These forums would provide an opportunity to exchange ideas, convey
information regarding local water issues to legislators and regulators, and allow those
officials to impart information about future legislation and developments that may impact
the area. In addition, regulators and legislators should be included on the mailing list of the
newsletter described in section 17 and other CWWMG correspondence.
It is not certain whether river basin planning organizations (RBPO) will play a future role
in water supply planning in North Carolina with the Water Resource Act on an indefinite
hold. However, with the adoption of the Master Plan and relationships built with regulators
through the external relations task force, the CWWMG has the opportunity to act as the de
facto RBPO for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and help further define the vision of the
RBPO as first described by the Environmental Review Commission.
Members of the CWWMG should seek appointment to regulatory advisory groups. This
would enable members to gain a broader perspective of statewide regulatory issues
that may impact the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, as well as spread information and
awareness about the CWWMG and its mission.
The CWWMG is not the only water basin organization in North or South Carolina.
CWWMG should interact with these other like-minded organizations to leverage common
interests, impart a larger statewide impact, and create a larger, stronger voice within the
water and environmental communities.
The CWWMG should collaborate with other groups with similar water interests such as the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Environment Federation (WEF) to
respond to proposed regulation.
These actions would help CWWMG drive its mission through future water resource planning,
regulatory, and legislative decision-making.
14-14
15.0
15.1
Introduction
15.1.1
The Need for Raw Water Intake Contingency Planning
Over the last 15 years, drought has been a significant issue within the Catawba-Wateree River
Basin (Basin), as well as much of the southeastern United States. The Basin has experienced two
sequential Droughts of Record since the year 2000. Each drought was different in both length and
intensity. Between 1998 and 2002, the Basin experienced a prolonged drought that, at the time,
had been identified as the Drought of Record. During this period, seasonal mean base flows were
persistently below average. More significantly, base flows were below the 10th percentile during
much of 2001 and 2002, before quickly rebounding to reach near record levels by spring 20031.
Figure 15-1 reflects the historical US Drought Monitor for the Southeast United States on August 13,
2002 at the height of this drought, and indicates an “exceptional” drought condition for the CatawbaWateree River Basin2.
Figure 15-1 U.S. Drought Monitor – Southeast United States, August 13, 2002
During 2007-2009, the Basin again experienced a significant drought and new Drought of Record,
and although this drought was less prolonged, it intensified much more rapidly than the previous
1998-2002 drought. According to Duke Energy records from the Catawba-Wateree Drought
1 Band, L.E., et al. 2004. Final report - Research collaboration between the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke Energy Foundation: Drought
vulnerability in the Catawba River Basin. p. 15. December 27, 2004
2 National Drought Mitigation Center. 2013. United States Drought Monitor website. [Online] URL: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu.
15-1
Management Advisory Group3, drought conditions most rapidly intensified between the late summer
and late fall of 2007, during only a roughly three-month span4. From the end of August, 2007 to the
end of November, 2007, the six-month average streamflow had decreased from 64% to only 34%
of the historical average, reaching a low of 31% during the early months of 2008. During these few
months, there was minimal precipitation in the Basin, and despite very rigorous water conservation
policies that were mandated throughout the Basin, water storage in the Basin reservoirs continued
to decline until January of 2008, when inflow increased. Figure 15-2 reflects the historical US
Drought Monitor for the Southeast United States on December 11, 2007 at the height of this
drought, and indicates an “exceptional” drought condition for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and
much of the entire Southeast5.
Figure 15-2 U.S. Drought Monitor – Southeast United States, December 11, 2007
During each of the last two major droughts in the Basin, raw water supply reliability became
questionable for several CWWMG-member water suppliers. In certain instances, supplier’s raw
water intakes within the Basin were in jeopardy of being exposed by rapidly declining lake levels
or low river flow. In response, many water suppliers within the Basin had to resort to alternate
water supply sources or initiate emergency response actions to help prolong their water supply.
Such actions included installing temporary pumps and extending raw water intake lines deeper
into reservoirs and river channels, purchasing water from other suppliers and installing temporary
3 CWWMG. 2013 Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group website. [Online] URL: http://www.catawbawatereewmg.org/about.html
4 Duke Energy. 2013. Previous LIP updates – Catawba-Wateree Drought Management Advisory Group website. [Online] URL: http://www.duke-energy.com/
lakes/previous-lip-updates.asp.
5 National Drought Mitigation Center. 2013. United States Drought Monitor website. [Online] URL: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu.
15-2
water storage systems. As a result of the risk and vulnerability of raw water intakes identified during
these droughts, the CWWMG Supply Side Committee identified a need for the evaluation of raw
water intakes owned and operated by CWWMG public water suppliers and the development of a
contingency plan for these intakes in the event any become unusable during a future drought or
other water shortage emergency.
15.1.2
The Purpose of Raw Water Intake Contingency Planning
The specific objective for raw water intake contingency planning efforts in the Basin is to evaluate
and report on contingency opportunities for the eighteen CWWMG members that own and
operate large public water supply intakes in cases where one or more intakes become inoperable
due to reduced water storage during a severe drought, when usable reservoir storage is or is
almost depleted or in the event of other water shortage emergencies. The CWWMG has finalized
the first of a two phase Catawba-Wateree Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan project for its
public water supply members. Phase 1 of this ongoing project involved an evaluation of existing
conditions related to raw water intakes within the Basin and prioritization of opportunities and
recommendations for the project’s future Phase 2 development of raw water intake contingency
plans for CWWMG members.
The Phase 1 evaluation of existing conditions encompassed three specific areas related to water
supply and the ability of each intake owner to respond to a water shortage in the event their raw
water intake(s) were unusable. These areas included:
1.
An evaluation and confirmation of the capabilities of each raw water intake belonging
to a CWWMG public water supply member within the eleven lakes of the CatawbaWateree River Basin or main stem of the Catawba River,
2.
A preliminary evaluation of the existing water supply (raw or finished)
interconnections of each CWWMG public water supply member, and
3.
An evaluation of existing contingency/emergency plans for each member, if
available.
Following the evaluations conducted in these three areas, each raw water intake was scored using
a rubric-based scoring system to assess each CWWMG member’s ability to effectively respond
to a water shortage emergency in the event their intake was to become unusable. Scoring was
based upon the condition, capabilities and vulnerabilities of each raw water intake, the extent and
capabilities of water supply interconnections available as an alternate supply of water during water
shortages and the extent to which existing contingency plans can effectively address water needs
for each public water supplier during an intake failure. Based on the results of these scores, each
intake was prioritized to determine the relative importance of developing formal intake contingency
plans for Phase 2 of this effort. The results of Phase 1 are summarized herein.
15.2
Raw Water Intake Capability Evaluation
15.2.1
General
The initial task for this evaluation involved determining the existing conditions and operating
capabilities of each CWWMG member’s raw water intake used for public water supply. In May
and June of 2013, meetings were conducted with each of the CWWMG members to review and
discuss specific details and capabilities of their raw water supply intake(s), including physical and
operational limitations, standard operating procedures and any planned improvements for the intake
structures. Subsequent information was collected from each of the utilities including, but not limited
to, intake structure as-built drawings, pump rating curves, and consultant confirmation of operational
limits. Using the information collected both during and following these meetings, an evaluation of
each of these raw water intakes was completed to identify details that should be included in the
CWWMG Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan and identify potential aspects of these intakes that
15-3
warrant additional evaluation or exhibit a need for enhancement during the Phase 2 development of
the CWWMG Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan.
Additionally, HDR and Duke Energy had previously developed a Microsoft Excel database outlining
the raw water intake limiting operational levels on each reservoir. The database was originally
developed from 2004-2006 as part of the 2006 Water Supply Study for Duke Energy’s relicensing
efforts for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project. The database was subsequently updated by
HDR and Duke Energy in 2007 during the last significant drought in the Basin. Based on the results
of the raw water intake capability evaluation for this project, this database has again been updated
for CWWMG public water supply utilities, to account for new or modified intakes within the Basin
and as the result of additional research and verification of existing intake conditions.
15.2.2
Intake Summary
CWWMG member’s municipal water supply intakes within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin vary
greatly in type/configuration, capacity, age and depth within their respective reservoir. Many of
these are related to the era in which they were installed and the size of the utility’s service area.
Configurations of intake structures throughout the Basin include submerged river bottom intakes
with Johnson-type screens, sump intakes, bottom channel intakes, overflow weir intakes, and silo
structures with integral inlet weirs. Construction years for these intakes ranged from 1918 to 2011,
with the oldest structures having been upgraded numerous times. The majority of intakes within
the Basin were constructed between the 1960’s and 1990’s, although several municipalities have
replaced their older intakes within the last decade.
Older intake structures tend to have been installed at higher elevations within the reservoirs, as
compared to the newer structures. Newer structures have typically been installed with minimum
operating levels closer to Duke Energy’s hydropower limiting elevations in each reservoir. Per
the new Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement (CRA) for Duke Energy’s Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project, new intakes are to be installed with minimum operating elevations at or below
the hydropower operational elevation limit in each reservoir. As such, it was generally observed
that older intakes tended to be the most vulnerable to failure during a severe water shortage in the
Basin, due to not only their age but also their installed depth in the reservoir.
Figures 15-3, 15-4, and 15-5 depict the approximate locations of each CWWMG member operated
water supply intake within the Upper, Middle and Lower Catawba-Wateree River Basin. For the
purposes of this section, the Upper Catawba-Wateree River Basin has been defined as Lake James
to Lookout Shoals Lake; the Middle Catawba-Wateree River Basin has been defined as Lake
Norman to Lake Wylie; and the Lower Catawba-Wateree River Basin has been defined as Fishing
Creek Reservoir to Lake Wateree.
15-4
Figure 15-3 Upper Catawba-Wateree River Basin CWWMG Public Water Supply Intakes
15-5
Figure 15-4 Middle Catawba-Wateree River Basin CWWMG Public Water Supply Intakes
15-6
Figure 15-5 Lower Catawba-Wateree River Basin CWWMG Public Water Supply Intakes
15-7
For Phase 1 of this effort, bathymetric maps were developed for each CWWMG member water
supply intake to depict the detailed location of each intake structure and the approximate
surrounding lake bottom elevations near these structures. These bathymetric maps served to
identify opportunities for lowering intake structures if surrounding lake levels are significantly lower
than the installed elevation of the intake. Additionally, specific details for the description, location,
age and operational capabilities for each intake are were consolidated into individual entity detail
sheets for each intake. A detailed update of the large raw water intakes’ operating elevation limits
within the Catawba lake chain and main stem of the Catawba River was prepared. This data
collection and analysis effort was an update to previously collected data by HDR and Duke Energy
during the 2007-2009 drought and includes revisions to operating elevation limits based on new
intake construction, intake modifications and updated confirmations by intake owners completed
during the raw water intake evaluations conducted for this effort. Table 15-1 provides a summary of
operating elevation limits for each CWWMG member’s public water supply intakes.
Operating elevation limits are shown for two conditions:
1.
Minimum lake elevation needed for intake functionality to supply the utility’s current
demand (based on 2011-2012 demands)
2.
Minimum lake elevation needed for intake functionality to supply the as-built capacity
of the intake.
For utilities with the highest intake in a given lake (i.e. critical intake), the critical intake elevation
considered in Section 7 of this Master Plan is typically based upon the as-built operating capacity of
the intake.
15-8
Table 15-1 CWWMG Public Water Supply Intake Operating Elevation Limit
CWWMG Public Water Supply Intakes – Limiting Elevations (feet AMSL)
Reservoir
Current (2011-12)
Demand Limiting EL
Intake Owner
As-Built Pumping
Capacity Limiting EL
Full Pond Elevation = 1200.0’
Lake James
No Existing Intakes
Hydropower Operational Limit = 1105.0’
Catawba River
(Lake James to Rhodhiss)
City of Morganton
1004.0’
1004.0’
Lake Rhodhiss
Town of Valdese
984.5’ #
984.5’ *
976.0’
977.8’
City of Lenoir
969.4’
970.2’
Lake Hickory
Town of Long View
925.0’ #
925.0’
City of Hickory
924.0’
926.0’ *
Lookout Shoals Lake
City of Statesville
803.0’
813.0’ *
Non-Municipal Critical Intake Elevation = 750.0’ * (Duke Energy McGuire Nuclear)
Lake Norman
Lincoln County
737.0’
743.0’
Town of Mooresville
735.0’
745.0’
Department
735.0’
745.0’
Non-Municipal Critical Intake Elevation = 641.8’ * (Duke Energy Riverbend Steam)
City of Mount Holly
638.0’ #
638.0’ *
Two Rivers Utilities (Gastonia)
635.5’
637.5’
Department
625.5’
635.5’
Full Pond Elevation =569.4’
Non-Municipal Critical Intake Elevation = 562.0’ * (Clariant Corporation)
Lake Wylie
City of Belmont
City of Rock Hill
561.4’ #
561.4’ *
543.5’
555.5’
Catawba River
City of Rock Hill (emergency)
489.0’
490.0’
(Lake Wylie to Fishing Creek
Reservoir)
Catawba River WTP (UnionLancaster)
447.0’
447.0’
15-9
CWWMG Public Water Supply Intakes – Limiting Elevations (feet AMSL)
Reservoir
Current (2011-12)
Demand Limiting EL
Intake Owner
As-Built Pumping
Capacity Limiting EL
Chester Metropolitan District
410.2’ #
412.2’ *
Great Falls Reservoir
No Existing Intakes
No Existing Intakes
Lake Wateree
City of Camden
216.3’ #
218.0’ *
212.0’
213.0’
Notes:
1.
Values with an asterisk (*) indicate intake is a critical intake (highest operational elevation limit for as-built pumping capacity) in the reservoir.
2.
Values with a pound sign (#) indicate intake has the highest operational elevation for current water supply demand in the reservoir,
3.
Where critical intake in a given reservoir is a non-municipal intake (i.e. power generating facility or industry), it is noted in the table above. Otherwise,
intakes for industrial and power generating purposes are not reflected in the table.
4.
While many of these are multi-level intakes, the values represented above are the limiting lake elevations for operation of the intakes to meet current water
supply demands and the as-built pumping capacity of the intake.
5.
Mount Holly’s intake is noted as a critical intake in Mountain Island Lake, as the Duke Energy Riverbend Steam Station facility has been retired and intake
will soon be decommissioned, making Mount Holly the next highest and subsequent future critical intake.
6.
City of Belmont’s intake is noted as a critical intake in Lake Wylie, in addition to Clariant Corporation, due to the close proximity of operating elevation limits
for these intakes.
15.3
Existing Interconnection Evaluation
15.3.1
General
In addition to evaluating the capabilities of existing raw water intakes for CWWMG member
utilities during Phase 1 of this effort, an evaluation was also conducted to assess both regular
and emergency interconnections for each CWWMG member public water supplier. The intent of
this evaluation was to identify existing water supply sources available in the event a CWWMG
member’s intake becomes unusable. Meetings with each of the CWWMG members were conducted
to review and discuss specific details and capabilities of their existing interconnections with other
municipalities that may be used for water supply in the event their intake becomes unusable.
Following these meetings, these existing interconnections were evaluated and details were
identified that should be included in the CWWMG Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan. Potential
areas of the existing interconnections that warrant additional evaluation or exhibit a need for
enhancement during the next phase of the CWWMG Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan were also
identified as part of this assessment.
15.3.2
Summary
The extent of municipal water supply interconnections varies widely throughout the CatawbaWateree River Basin. Much of this variation may be attributed to topography and urbanization, and
is highly contingent upon the geographic location of municipal water utilities.
15-10
15.3.2.1
Upper Catawba-Wateree River Basin
The areas within the Upper Catawba-Wateree River Basin have a very minimal network of water
supply interconnections, primarily as a result of the highly variable topography in the foothill region
of the state. CWWMG members with intakes located in this portion of the Basin were previously
depicted in Figure 15-3. Challenges for establishing interconnections in this part of the Basin
exist due to variable pressure gradients and potentially excessive pumping requirements for the
transfer of water between municipalities. Additionally, the relatively rural demographic within this
part of the Basin results in very large distances between municipal water distribution systems that
would require a substantial investment in infrastructure to allow the transfer of water between
municipalities in the event of a water shortage. Several water suppliers in this part of the Basin have
regular wholesale interconnections to supply water to smaller municipalities or county systems.
However, very few emergency interconnections exist which are capable of supplying a significant
portion of each CWWMG member’s full water demand in this region. For these reasons, it was
determined that water supply interconnections are not a viable alternative water supply source for
most municipalities in this region in the event of a significant water shortage or intake failure.
15.3.2.2
Middle Catawba-Wateree River Basin
The majority of water supply interconnections are located within the middle third of the Basin,
around Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie. CWWMG members with intakes
located in this portion of the Basin were previously depicted in Figure 15-4. This area of the Basin is
the most urbanized and has the highest population concentration, with many municipalities adjacent
to one another. Additionally, the lower Piedmont topography of this section of the Basin is less
variable in elevation and more conducive to the use of interconnections because of similar pressure
gradients and reduced pumping requirements between municipalities.
Many of these emergency interconnections are capable of supplying a portion of each CWWMG
member’s full water demand in this region. Additionally, several municipalities have multiple
emergency interconnections which can provide water from multiple sources in the event of a water
shortage. The most extensive network of interconnections appears to exist between the City of
Mount Holly, City of Gastonia (Two Rivers Utilities) and City of Belmont. For these reasons, it was
determined that water supply interconnections are a viable alternative water supply source for most
municipalities in this region in the event of a significant water shortage or intake failure. It is noted,
however, that the largest water supplier in the Basin, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department
(CMUD), has no emergency interconnections that are capable of supplying more than a minimal
portion of their overall water demand.
15.3.2.3
Lower Catawba-Wateree River Basin
The area within the Lower Catawba-Wateree River Basin, between Fishing Creek Reservoir and
Lake Wateree essentially has no emergency water supply interconnections, primarily the result of
the sparsely populated area and rural demographic within this Piedmont region of South Carolina.
CWWMG members with intakes located in this portion of the Basin were previously depicted in
Figure 15-5. This area is much less urbanized than the Middle Catawba-Wateree River Basin and
has relatively low population concentration, with municipalities spread widely apart. While the
topography in this section of the Basin has little variation in elevation and is quite conducive to
interconnections between municipalities, the distance required for such connections is impractical
and financially infeasible in many cases. For these reasons, it was determined that water supply
interconnections are not a viable alternative water supply source for most utilities in this region in
the event of a significant water shortage or intake failure.
Several opportunities for alternative water supply and the establishment of water supply
interconnections in this part of the Basin were identified, but many were determined to be
impractical. The Catawba River Water Treatment Plant (CRWTP) could conceivably interconnect
15-11
with the City of Rock Hill to secure water from Lake Wylie in the event of low river flow at CRWTP’s
intake. However, the distribution line needed for this connection would be at least 15 miles in length
and Lake Wylie has been modeled to be a vulnerable reservoir during drought conditions, according
to the evaluations performed for the Master Plan.
Additionally, the CRWTP could connect with the Chester Metropolitan District or Lancaster Water
and Sewer District to supply water downstream to Chester Metropolitan in the event of reduced lake
levels in Fishing Creek Reservoir. However, the distribution line required for this interconnection
would be at least 10-15 miles long and both of these intakes are limited by low river flows, making
it impractical to connect them. The more logical connection would be with the City of Rock Hill,
although the distribution line for this connection would need to be approximately 30 or more miles
long.
The City of Camden and Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority could conceivably install an interconnection
for emergency water supply between the two utilities. However, as both of these utilities’ raw
water intakes are located in Lake Wateree and have similar operational limitations related to
minimum lake levels, the reality is that low lake levels during a severe drought would likely render
both intakes useless at similar times, thereby negating the effectiveness of an interconnection.
Additionally, while these municipalities are close to one another in distance, the utilities’ raw water
intakes, treatment plants and distribution systems are on opposite sides of Lake Wateree, meaning
an interconnection would have to cross either the lake or main stem of the Wateree River just
downstream of the Lake Wateree Dam.
15.4
Existing Contingency Plan Evaluation
15.4.1
General
In addition to the evaluation of existing raw water intakes and interconnections, an assessment
of existing water shortage contingency plans (if available) for CWWMG member utilities was
completed to determine the extent of existing emergency preparedness plans, as related to water
shortage response, and identify potential areas for enhancement of such plans or additional
evaluation that may be warranted. Meetings with each of the CWWMG member public water
suppliers were conducted in conjunction with the meetings held to discuss raw water intake
capabilities and water supply interconnections.
Detailed discussions were held with those members that have an existing water shortage
contingency plan, either formal or informal, to review and discuss these plans, as well as to discuss
potential enhancement of these plans. Following these meetings, a detailed review of these existing
contingency plans was completed to identify actions and details that should be included in the
CWWMG Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan as well as to identify potential areas of the existing
plans that warrant further evaluation or exhibit a need for enhancement during future development
of the CWWMG Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan.
15.4.2
Summary
This evaluation determined that the majority of CWWMG public water supply members have some
sort of existing contingency plan in place in the event of a water shortage emergency. However,
most of these utilities’ plans are informal, with little documentation as to the standard operating
procedure that should be followed in the event of a water shortage due to failure of the raw water
supply intake. Additionally, the level of detail to which both the formal and informal plans have been
developed appears to vary widely throughout the Basin.
Of the contingency plans evaluated, there are many different contingency opportunities in place or
planned for these utilities, including, but not limited to:
temporary pump rental for lakeshore/riverbank pumping,
15-12
flotation of temporary pumps on barges to achieve lower intake levels,
temporary water impoundment or diversion,
use of groundwater wells,
use of emergency intakes,
reliance on water from alternate surface water sources (including outside of the CatawbaWateree River Basin),
trucking in drinking water to meet essential water needs, and
use of water supply interconnections.
Many utilities have stated they will either temporarily rent pumps to achieve greater intake depths
near their intake structure or they plan to rely on the use of interconnections with other utilities to
supply their demand in the event of a water shortage. Concerns with these options are that in the
event of a Basin-wide water shortage, the ability to rent temporary pumps may be limited due to
demand, and the use of interconnections may be limited by the internal water need of the supplying
utility. Additionally, many utilities with interconnections withdraw water from similar surface water
sources, with intakes at relatively similar limitations in operating levels. In this case, if one intake is
not functional due to low lake levels, it is possible that the interconnecting utility’s intake will not be
functional either.
One common conclusion resulting from the evaluation of these existing contingency plans is a
need to formalize the informal plans into a documented set of standard operating protocols and
considerations to be made by each CWWMG member in the event of an intake failure or significant
water shortage emergency. Actions that should be taken while developing formal intake contingency
plans include:
defining the specific details to be taken to secure water by alternate methods in the event
of an intake failure,
determining temporary pumping requirements (number of pumps, pump size, line size and
length),
initiating standing contracts with pump rental or bulk water hauling companies,
securing necessary agreements for emergency water supply from neighboring utilities (via
interconnections or temporary pumping), and
testing of these connections to determine capacity and water quality compatibility.
15.5
Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan Prioritization
15.5.1
General
After evaluations were completed for raw water intake capabilities and the extent of water supply
interconnections and details of existing contingency plans for each of the CWWMG member public
water suppliers, detail sheets for each intake were developed to summarize the critical information
gathered from the evaluation process. Items included in these detail sheets, for each CWWMG
member public water supply intake, included:
information related to the raw water intake,
water quality,
existing interconnections,
existing contingency plans,
identification of major vulnerabilities, and
possible contingency opportunities.
15-13
Using these detail sheets as a reference, a prioritization ranking of each of the twenty intakes within
the Basin’s reservoirs and main-stem river runs was completed using a pre-defined rubric. The
purpose of this ranking was to determine the level of detail needed to develop contingency plans for
these intakes during future CWWMG initiatives. Specific tasks in this effort included developing a
system to rank the susceptibility of intakes being unusable during water shortages and/or represent
the greatest vulnerability to water supply, in each reservoir, to be used in ranking the priority to
which intake contingency plans will be developed in the future.
This assessment also included prioritizing each of the CWWMG member public water supplier’s raw
water intakes based on the established ranking system and the results of intake, interconnection
and existing contingency plan evaluations, previously discussed. Finally, as part of the prioritization
process, a matrix was developed to identify emergency response opportunities for each utility,
such as floating barges with pumps into deeper portions of the reservoirs, trucking in emergency
water supply, use of interconnections, etc. that could be included in each public water suppliers
Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan developed during future initiatives. The number and type
of emergency response opportunities vary based on the prioritization ranking and unique
characteristics of each utility.
15.5.2
Methodology
Prioritization of each municipal intake was completed using a pre-defined scoring rubric which
assessed the results of:
intake structure evaluation,
interconnection evaluation, and
existing water supply contingency plans evaluation.
The ranking of each utility’s raw water intake serves to identify the intake’s failure vulnerability
(drought related or catastrophic failure), ability to meet water demand through alternate sources
and specific need for a formalized intake contingency plan, relative to other CWWMG public water
supply intakes in the Basin.
The scoring rubric was based on a 1 to 5 point scale for each area evaluated; with a possible total
score range between 14 and 70 points, where lower scores represent a higher vulnerability. For
the intake structure evaluation, six areas were assessed, with a total of 30 points possible. For the
evaluation of interconnections, four areas were evaluated, with a total of 20 possible points. The
evaluation of existing contingency plans assessed four separate areas with a total of 20 points
possible. Table 15-2 is an example of the scoring rubric used, and outlines each scoring area and
criteria upon which the evaluation and scoring was conducted.
15-14
Table 15-2 Intake Prioritization Scoring Rubric Template
Score
x / 30
Category
Evaluation Criteria
Intake Structure (Water Supply)
x/5
Effective Depth of Intake Evaluate relative depth in reservoir compared to other intakes
x/5
Intake Redundancy Evaluate per number of intake structures, pipes and screens
x/5
Emergency Power Supply Evaluate per availability and reliability of backup power
x/5
Alternate Water Supply Evaluate alternate water supply - available & meets demand?
x/5
Modeled Reservoir Risk
x/5
Evaluate the modeled reservoir failure risk (based on CHEOPS model results
from the Water Supply Master Plan)
Water Quality Issues Evaluate surface water quality issues at intake location
x / 20
Interconnection Network
x/5
Extent of Interconnections
Evaluate extent of existing interconnections for water supply
x/5
Interconnection Serviceability
Evaluate ease of operation, maintenance & testing schedule
x/5
Demand Addressed by
Interconnections
Evaluate extent to which existing interconnections can meet water demands
x/5
Water Quality Issues
Evaluate water quality issues related to mixing of source water through
interconnections
x / 20
Water Supply Contingency Plan
x/5
Extent of Existing Plan
Evaluate level of detail, formality & applicability of existing plans
x/5
General Need for Plan
Evaluate general need and priority for having a contingency plan
x/5
Reserve Storage Available
Evaluate the capability for water supply storage (raw plus finished) based on
number of days storage
x/5
Demand Addressed by Plan
Evaluate extent to which existing plans can meet water demands
x / 70
TOTAL
15.5.3
Summary
The prioritization exercise included the classification of CWWMG members’ raw water intakes into
three distinct categories for consideration into the need for development/enhancement of formal
contingency plans and the subsequent level of detail recommended for each. These categories
included “high priority,” “medium priority,” and “low priority” intakes. Categorization was based on
the prioritization rubric score for each intake, with “high priority” intakes scoring between 14 and
35 points, “medium priority” intakes scoring between 36 and 45 points, and “low priority” intakes
scoring between 46 and 70 points. Intakes designated as “high priority” were those representing
the highest need for a formal intake contingency plan based on their vulnerability to intake failure,
current inability to adequately respond to a significant water shortage, and/or lack of sufficient
alternative water supply in the event of an intake failure. Intakes deemed a “low priority” were those
which represented the least vulnerability to intake failure and had multiple options available for
alternative water supply in the event of a significant water shortage.
15.6
Contingency Opportunities
15.6.1
Emergency Water Supply Interconnections
Perhaps the most widely relied upon contingency plan during a water shortage is the use of
emergency water supply interconnections. These connections involve cross connection of two or
more utilities’ raw or finished water lines to supply water to one another in the event of a water
supply emergency. These connections can operate as a one-way or two-way supply, with water
able to be in only one direction to one of the municipalities or able to be sent each way between
each municipality. These connections are considered to be a permanent contingency option due to
15-15
the permanency of their infrastructure. However, there are some instances where interconnections
are achieved by cross connecting two municipalities’ fire hydrants and pumping from one to another
with a pumper truck from local fire departments. Examples of water supply interconnections are
show in Figures 15-6 and15-7.
There are many considerations which must be made when planning to implement these
interconnections and include, but are not limited to:
distribution line length,
sizing and capacity to meet water use demands,
pressure gradient compatibility or pumping requirements,
effects of blending water sources,
disinfection (if using a pumper truck operation), and
the necessity for routine maintenance and testing.
Additionally, the most reliable interconnections will be those that can be developed between
municipalities with different water source withdrawal points, as this provides an alternate water
source in the event a utility’s main water source has been compromised.
Figure 15-6 Water supply interconnection
15.6.2
Figure 15-7 Interconnection construction
Temporary Pumping from Floating Barges/Pumps
Floating pumps are a contingency option that can provide access to deeper intake locations
within water sources, as compared to a permanent, stationary intake structure. This option would
require either the purchase or rental of a pump and necessary piping. A barge can be fitted with
a submersible pump that can vary in elevation or a pump attached on the barge deck with intake
lines extending into the water source. Each of these setups would also require a raw water line
extending back to the intake structure, wetwell, pumping station or directly to the treatment facility.
Contingency plans can be developed to address various failure concerns from supplementing
intake lines, pumping from source to treatment plant, and pumping from source to intake structure.
If the deeper pumping location is closer to the treatment facility than it is to the intake structure, it
may be more efficient to pump directly to the plant and bypass the intake structure or pump station.
Examples of temporary pumping operations are show in Figures 15-8 to 15-11.
Fused high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe is often used to transport water from the source.
However, quick connections can also be utilized. A variety of regional pump rental companies
specializing in these applications have offices in or around the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
One example of such a provider is Rain for Rent which leases pumps of varying capacities, with
operating flow capacities up to 68,500 GPM. While many of these pumps can be installed on
floating barges, some rental companies (including Rain for Rent) offer floating pumps that are
an integral system requiring no additional barge vessel. In emergency situations, these rental
companies can mobilize quickly and implement a temporary solution, fusing approximately 1,000
15-16
linear feet of HDPE pipe in a work day. Pipes, fittings, and hoses, are typically rented on a weekly or
monthly basis.
Any temporary water intake facility must be installed under an authorized lake use permit and
in accordance with Duke Energy’s Catawba-Wateree Shoreline Management Plan (SMP ) and
Shoreline Management Guidelines (SMG) and secure all appropriate lake use permits in advance
of their installation. Duke Energy operates a comprehensive shoreline management program on
its reservoirs to balance private and public access while protecting the environmental, public,
recreational, cultural and scenic values of their hydroelectric project. Lake use permit applications
must be submitted to Duke Energy Lake Services for their review and authorization prior to
installing the intake. The intake system must be maintained appropriately to ensure it does not
become a hazard to navigation or public safety, and restore the area at the end of the intake’s
period of use.
Figure 15-8 Temporary pump barge
Figure 15-9 Floating pump
Additionally, Duke Energy must obtain approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) for any temporary in-lake modifications by CWWMG members wishing to install a
temporary intake facility as part of their contingency plan. Coordination between the CWWMG
members and Duke Energy is needed to determine how to request this FERC approval. Several
options could include submitting an application at the time the temporary intake modification
is needed, having each CWWMG member apply for approval individually, or completing a
comprehensive filing for FERC approval for all CWWMG members that intend to install temporary
15-17
intake facilities as part of their contingency plans. Regardless of the approach taken, plans
for securing all necessary permits for these temporary facilities should be made as part of the
contingency plan development process.
15.6.3
Temporary Pumping from Shoreline/Stream Bank
Similar to contingency options using temporary pumping operations from a barge, pumping from
shore involves the use of temporary pumps and piping that allow a water supplier to achieve great
intake depths within a surface water source. Pumps and piping can be purchased and stored
for emergency situations or they can be rented from a vendor. Examples of temporary shoreline
pumping operations are show in Figures 15-12 and 15-13. Contingency plans should be developed
to address various failure concerns from supplementing intake lines, pumping from the water source
to the treatment plant, and pumping from water source to intake structure. This option could be
utilized in situations where financial, accessibility, safety or environmental concerns limit the ability
to float a temporary barge into the water supply source. Similar mobilization, implementation, and
costs apply to pumping from shore as those applied to pumping using a barge. However, this option
may be slightly more cost effective since there is no need to supply a barge; although, intake depths
may be more limited by this option. Similar permitting requirements and considerations for waterway
navigation and public safety, as described for temporary pumping from floating barges/pumps, must
also be considered for this contingency opportunity.
Figure 15-12 Skid mounted pump
15.6.4
Figure 15-13 Shoreline pumping
Temporary Dam/Weir Structure or Reservoir
An additional contingency opportunity is to install a temporary dam to create a weir downstream of
a raw water intake structure to increase the depth at the intake structure. Most temporary dams on
the retail market can be built up to 12 feet in height. With the same materials, a temporary basin
can be built to hold a reserve supply of water. Portadam™ is an example of a regional vendor that
can supply such systems. With an office in Atlanta they are able to service both North and South
Carolina. Temporary basins can be built by Portadam™ to hold approximately 7 million gallons if a
large enough lay-down area is available for the basin footprint. Installing such systems must take
into consideration permitting requirements and potential impacts to downstream users. Examples
of this type of water storage measure are shown in Figures 15-14 and 15-15. Similar permitting
requirements and considerations for waterway navigation and public safety, as described for the
previous two contingency opportunities, must also be considered for this option.
15-18
Figure 15-14 Temporary water impoundment
15.6.5
Figure 15-15 Temporary water storage
Groundwater
Groundwater wells can be constructed to address the need for water. Locations that have
unconfined aquifers would not be a good location to rely on groundwater wells as a source of water.
Confined aquifers, on the other hand may contain pressures great enough to supply a necessary
amount of water. Both of these aquifer types can be subject to geological conditions that will
determine the ability of the aquifer to recharge. Testing would have to be performed to determine
the extent of the aquifer in the area of interest. Examples of municipal groundwater supply wells and
installation are shown in Figures 15-16 and 15-17.
Figure 15-16 Large municipal groundwater well
Figure 15-17 Groundwater well installation
While direct withdrawal of groundwater for municipal water supply is very subject to location and
geology and may have wide ranging levels of water production, many areas around the Southeast
United States have recently evaluated the use of rock quarries, surface mines and underground
mines as a potential source for water supply. These quarries have the potential to be developed as
water supplies during mining and after mine closure, often with significant storage volumes. Many
rock quarries used for water storage are utilized to either supplement primary water sources or
serve as a contingency source during water shortage emergencies. Examples of rock quarries used
as water supply reservoirs are shown in 15-18 and 15-19.
While some quarries’ water supply can be naturally replenished by groundwater or streams,
others must be filled. Quarries that do not naturally replenish their water supply can be filled from
primary sources when there is a sufficient quantity of water in this source. Filling can be achieved
using pumps or gravity flow through water transmission pipelines. During drought conditions,
quarries can be used to alleviate pressure on multi-utility sources that affect other downstream
users, or the quarries can be used during extreme drought conditions when a primary source is no
longer available. Other benefits to using a rock quarry as a potential water supply source can be
recognized through water source blending. Source blending can help alleviate water quality issues
found in primary sources such as 2-methylisoborneol (MIB), geosmin, and turbidity. Under certain
water quality conditions within a utility’s primary water source, an alternate rock quarry reservoir
15-19
source with sufficient volume could allow the utility to use the quarry water for certain periods of
time to stay within state water quality standards, as well as give a utility more time to determine
what problem is occurring in the primary source water.
Regulatory and environmental considerations must be evaluated when considering rock quarry sites
as an alternative water supply source. These sites should undergo chemical testing to determine
if there are any deleterious chemicals located at the site that were a result of mining operations. A
hydrogeological test should also be performed to determine the permeability and recharge ability
of the site to gauge whether the site can hold water and if it can naturally fill itself. Drawing down
the level of the quarry may affect other sources of water in the area including wells. A thorough
analysis of how the new potential quarry interacts with current water sources should be performed
to determine the feasibility of the quarry as a potential water source. Finally, necessary permitting
activities for such a water transfer and withdrawal must be completed.
Current Examples of Rock Quarries Used for Water Storage:
Stone Quarry Reservoir, OWASA, Orange County, NC, 200 million gallons of storage.
Morrison Quarry Reservoir No. 1, Morrison Colorado, 500 acre-feet of storage.
Figure 15-18 Filled rock quarry reservoir
15.6.6
Figure 15-19 Quarry storage and dewatering
Bulk Water Hauling
Bulk hauling of water is a contingency option that may be a solution for some smaller utilities with
limited demand requirements, but should only be considered as a temporary solution. Trucking
weight requirements on roads may limit the amount of water that can be hauled per vehicle to
the receiving storage tanks. Health concerns are an issue when transporting and storing potable
water. If proper steps are taken to clean the trucks and its appurtenances, this temporary solution
is feasible. Strict guidelines on disinfection would need to be developed as part of the contingency
planning process and followed in a water shortage in order to maintain the health of consumers.
Trucking of water from a raw water supply source to a water treatment plant could eliminate the
need to disinfect the trucks and their appurtenances. As part of the contingency planning process,
documentation or contracts with other municipalities and bulk trucking vendors to purchase and
provide water on a temporary basis should be generated. An example of a bulk water hauling
vehicle is shown in Figure 15-20. One additional contingency option for water hauling could
include establishing contracts with bottled water (see Figure 15-21) producers or suppliers for an
emergency supply of bottled water to supply essential drinking water demand as a last resort during
a severe water shortage. At least one CWWMG member has already developed such a contingency
plan.
15-20
Figure 15-20 Bulk water hauling vehicle
15.6.7
Figure 15-21 Bottled drinking water
Conclusions
The evaluations completed include collection of detailed information from each CWWMG public
water supply member related to their raw water intake capability, existing network of water supply
interconnections, and existing emergency contingency plans in the event of a water shortage. This
information proved valuable in assessing the vulnerability of each member’s raw water supply and
determining the level of detail to which formal contingency plans should be developed in future
efforts by the CWWMG. The information gathered and evaluations conducted thus far will provide
the essential background information needed to generate these contingency plans for the Basin.
It is recommended that formal contingency plans be developed for all eighteen CWWMG public
water supply members and the twenty water supply intakes owned by these members in the
Catawba-Wateree lake system or in the main stem of the Catawba River. Intakes that have been
identified as “high priority” should be given the most planning and detail when developing these
contingency plans as they represent the most vulnerable intakes. The formal contingency plans
which already exist for several utilities should be expanded to include plans for an intake failure
or low lake levels which render the intake useless, since some of these formal plans are more
generically related to general water supply emergencies. The final product anticipated for the future
effort would be a formal contingency plan containing the essential considerations and general
operating protocol for each CWWMG public water supply member so that in the event of a pending
water shortage or intake failure, the utility could reference their specific contingency plan and
respond proactively to maintain water service.
15-21
15-22
16.0
16.1
Introduction
The purpose of this section is to develop a decision framework that will assist the CWWMG with
identifying and rating projects based upon its strategic objectives. Potential funding agencies
previously identified have been updated to reflect changes and are included in this section.
16.2
Project Identification & Decision Framework
Recommendations in this Master Plan include specific projects, such as the lowering of critical
water intakes and public outreach and education programs that will require funding. In addition,
CWWMG members and external stakeholders will continue to suggest projects that align with
the CWWMG mission statement. To aid that process, a framework or matrix for making decisions
may be used as an identification and prioritization tool to assist with project selection. Table 16-1
provides an example of a decision matrix that can be utilized by the CWWMG:.
Supports Regional
Cooperation
10%
100%
2
9
120
30
90
0
560
10
1
5
2
200
150
15
75
20
0
585
3
4
8
8
8
2
Wt.
75
80
120
120
120
20
0
535
Raw
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
CWWMG has Ability to
Fund
15%
Protects Environment
Total to
Equal
100%
Protects or Improves
Water Quality
Strategic Objectives:
Conserves or Extends
Water Supply
Supports Public Education
& Awareness
Table 16-1 Decision Matrix
Projects:
25%
20%
15%
15%
Raw
10
2
2
8
Wt.
250
40
30
Raw
5
10
Wt.
125
Raw
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Project 7
Weight:
Wt.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Raw
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Wt.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Raw
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Wt.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Raw
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Wt.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The decision matrix process should be updated annually and used as follows:
1.
Confirm the CWWMG strategic objectives.
2.
Update a weight factor for each strategic objective. Higher weights would be given to
the more important objectives. The total weighting should equal 100%.
3.
Evaluate how well each project meets CWWMG’s strategic objectives. Each project
16-1
would be assigned a raw score of 1 through 10 (1 = poor and 10 = excellent).
4.
Calculate the weighted score for each objective and sum the total weighted score.
5.
Rank the projects from highest weighted score to the lowest weighted score.
The outcome of a well-developed decision matrix is the identification of projects that best meet
the strategic objectives of the CWWMG. In addition, the use of a matrix allows for a logical and
objective process for project selection, as well as an evaluation of projects on their own merit before
comparing with other projects.
In addition to ranking projects that align with the strategic objectives, the CWWMG will need to
consider projects that best meet funding opportunities from external sources. A majority of the public
grant and loan programs, as well as private foundations available to the CWWMG, use their own
decision criteria for project identification. These criteria should be evaluated and weighted within the
CWWMG decision framework where appropriate.
16.3
Grants & Loans Funding
Potential grant and loan programs were previously researched by the CWWMG, and were
evaluated based partially on their applicability to future projects that align within this organization’s
vision and mission. A brief description of each grants and/or loans program is included below.
16.3.1
Public Funding Sources
16.3.1.1
USDA Rural Development – Water & Environmental Programs
Contact – Roger Davis, Program Director
[email protected], (919) 873-2061
Water and Environmental Programs (WEP) provide loans, grants, and loan guarantees for drinking
water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns
of 10,000 or less. Public bodies, non-profit organizations and recognized Indian tribes may qualify
for assistance. WEP also makes grants to non-profit organizations to provide technical assistance
and training to help rural communities with their water, wastewater, and solid waste needs.
Predevelopment planning grants (PPGs) may be available, if needed, to assist in paying costs
associated with developing a complete application for a proposed project. The applicant must meet
the eligibility requirements of Part 1780.7 of RUS Instruction 1780. The median household income
of the proposed area to be served by the project must be either below the poverty line or below
80% of the statewide non-metropolitan median household income. State directors are authorized to
make PPGs up to $15,000 or 75% of the project costs, whichever is less. Funding for the balance
of the eligible project costs not funded by the PPG must be from applicant resources or funds from
other sources.
The USDA also provides guaranteed loans to develop water and waste disposal systems in
rural areas and towns with a population not in excess of 10,000. USDA loans and grants target
infrastructure development in rural areas. Although areas of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin
qualify for USDA assistance, many CWWMG projects would not qualify for PPGs, due to the urban
areas within the study area. Future projects that target infrastructure development in rural areas
would be a viable option for funding.
16.3.1.2
North Carolina Division of Water Infrastructure
Contacts: – Mark Hubbard, PE Project Management Branch Head
Vincent Tomaino, PE Drinking Water SRF Branch Head
16-2
In 2013, the North Carolina Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF) programs were combined within the new Division of
Water Infrastructure. The goals and processes of each program are described below.
The DWSRF provides funding for planning, designing, and constructing for the purpose of
upgrading, expanding, extending, rehabilitating, or consolidating water systems. To fund drinking
water capital projects that protect public health, North Carolina makes loans at one-half of the
market rate for a period of up to 20 years. The actual term of the loan is determined by the State
Treasurer’s Office.
Eligible projects must address a threat to public health (as described in 15A N.C.A.C 01N and the
Operating Agreement). Eligible applicants include units of local government and non-profit water
corporations.
Since the DWSRF is federally seeded, the loans are subject to strict federal regulations regarding
environmental review and outreach for disadvantaged business enterprises.
The 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act replaced the Construction Grants program
with the CWSRF. Under the CWSRF, Congress provides the states with grant funds to establish
revolving loan programs to assist in the funding of wastewater treatment facilities and projects
associated with estuary and nonpoint source (NPS) programs. The states are required to provide
20% matching funds. In North Carolina, these funds are made available to units of local government
at one-half of the market rate for a period of up to 20 years. The actual term of the loan is
determined by the State Treasurer’s Office.
In order to receive funding, projects must be included on a Priority Funding List. Applicants can
have their projects added to the state’s Priority Funding List by submitting a written request, which
includes a general project description, estimated project cost, and schedule, on or before March
31 of each year. Projects are rated based upon the severity of the water quality problem and are
included on the list accordingly. While the number of priority points is important, the applicant’s
willingness and ability to proceed also plays a major part in the selection of projects actually chosen
for funding and included on the Intended Use Plan.
16.3.1.3
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
Contact(s) – Beth McGee, Deputy Director
North Carolina’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) was established by the General
Assembly in 1996. Located within the NCDENR, CWMTF receives a direct appropriation from the
General Assembly to issue grants to local governments, state agencies and conservation nonprofits to help finance projects that specifically address water pollution problems. The nine-member,
independent CWMTF board of trustees has full responsibility over the allocation of monies from the
fund. CWMTF will fund projects that (1) enhance or restore degraded waters, (2) protect unpolluted
waters, (3) contribute to a network of riparian buffers and greenways for environmental, educational,
and recreational benefits, (4) provide buffers around military bases, (5) acquire land that represents
the ecological diversity of North Carolina, and (6) acquire land that contributes to the development
of a balanced state program of historic properties.
Grants are available for state agencies, local governments, and non-profit corporations whose
primary purpose is the conservation, preservation, and restoration of North Carolina’s environmental
and natural resources. Funds may be available for projects targeting water quality, source water
protection, and the reduction of pollution in the waterways. Applications for the annual grant cycle
are due on February 1 of each year.
16-3
16.3.1.4
US Environmental Protection Agency – State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Contact – Elaine Curles, Section Chief, EPA Region 4
[email protected], (404) 562-8364 State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) are appropriations identified by Congress as “special
needs” projects by name and dollar amount for funding as grants from EPA. The NC Division of
Water Infrastructure administers these grants for the EPA in North Carolina. South Carolina grants
are administered through the EPA Region 4. The STAG grants are generally limited to 55% of the
eligible project cost. These grants are governed by federal grant requirements, which in many
cases differ somewhat from the state requirements. All STAG grants are subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and require an environmental review by the EPA. Although STAG
grants are typically awarded to local governments, non-profit groups may receive them under
special circumstances.
STAG grants are issued through Special Appropriation Acts Projects where the EPA is directed by
Congress to fund a project. To receive appropriations through the STAG program, the CWWMG
would need to solicit the support of congressional representatives with districts in the Basin, and the
project would need to be recommended for funding through the House Appropriations Committee.
In the House of Representatives, there has been some success of acquiring appropriations for river
basin needs through the use of a Congressional Task Force. Two examples are the Delaware River
Basin Task Force and the Upper Mississippi River Basin Task Force. The task forces are composed
of House of Representative members who organize to lobby and present projects for the river basin
they represent.
16.3.1.5
Appalachian Regional Commission – Supplements To Other Federal Grants
Contact – Olivia Collier – Appalachian Program Manager
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) awards grants to projects that address the goals
identified by ARC in its strategic plan and that can demonstrate measurable results. Typically,
ARC project grants are awarded to state and local agencies and governmental entities (such as
economic development authorities), local governing boards (such as county councils), and nonprofit organizations (such as schools and organizations that build low-cost housing). ARC targets
special assistance to economically distressed counties in the Appalachian Region, allowing up to
80% participation in grants in distressed areas.
General Goal 3 of ARC’s strategic plan emphasizes preservation and enhancement of natural
assets, as well as building and enhancing infrastructure. Projects that target the counties within the
Appalachian Region would be eligible for funding from the ARC.
16.3.1.6
North Carolina Division of Water Quality & South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control – Section 319 Grants
Contacts – North Carolina – Kim Nimmer, Grant Program Coordinator – kimberly.nimmer@
ncmail.net, (919) 807-6438
South Carolina – Shawn Clark –[email protected] (803) 898-3993
Section 319 is a grant program established with the Clean Water Act of 1987. It helps fund
innovative NPS management strategies expected to achieve reduction in non-point sources
of pollution. EPA is the granting agency and allocates North Carolina and South Carolina each
approximately $5 million annually. There is currently only one funding cycle per year, and grant
applications are typically due in the spring of the year. Projects that target reduction of NPS
pollution have the potential to be awarded grants.
16-4
16.3.1.7
South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control – State Revolving Fund
Contact – Shawn Clark –[email protected], (803) 898-3993
The State Revolving Fund (SRF) program provides low-interest-rate loans for building or repairing
wastewater and drinking water plants or distribution systems. The program is run by the Department
of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and the Budget and Control Board (BCB). SC
CWWMG members may use this program as a funding source for infrastructure improvements.
16.3.2
Private (Corporate) Funding Sources
Potential funding resources in the private sector were researched and evaluated for applicability
to the Master Plan as presented in Section 3. It is recommended that the CWWMG continue to
consider these private sources, and others, in its overall funding plans for future projects. Listed
below is a brief description of each foundation.
16.3.2.1
The Duke Energy Foundation
The Duke Energy Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit supports the welfare of the communities
Duke Energy serves, focusing in four areas: environment, economic development, education, and
community vitality. Within the environment focus area, the foundation is committed to programs
that support conservation, training, and research related to environmental initiatives, as well as
initiatives that support the efficient use of energy. The education focus area supports K-12 and
higher education focused on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Both of these
focus areas appear to have direct applicability to CWWMG’s initiatives of water conservation and
public education.
16.3.2.2
Coca-Cola Foundation
The Coca-Cola Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, was founded in 1984 as the global philanthropic
arm of the Coca-Cola Company. The support initiatives of the foundation are focused upon healthy
and active lifestyles, community recycling, education, and water stewardship. In 2007, Coca-Cola
set a long-term goal to return to nature and communities an amount of water equal to what the
company uses in beverages and production, and set a target date of 2020 to meet that goal. The
strategies to achieve this goal are through programs targeted toward the principles of reduce,
recycle, and replenish. The “replenish” goal is achieved through investing in locally relevant
projects that focus on watershed protection, conservation, and providing access to clean water and
sanitation.
The Coca-Cola Foundation has created the Community Water Partnership program as a platform to
raise awareness of water resource challenges and to engage the global community. The program is
in its sixth year and has engaged in more than 250 community water/watershed projects in over 70
countries. In the southeastern US, Coca-Cola has partnered to protect river and stream resources
in the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile River Basins. Coca-Cola’s goal in these basins is to
harmonize rapid urban growth with the protection of freshwater ecosystems in drought-threatened
areas by increasing the implementation of sustainable water policies and practices.
16.3.2.3
PepsiCo Foundation
The PepsiCo Foundation is the branch of PepsiCo, Inc. responsible for providing charitable
contributions to eligible non-profits. Established in 1962 with an initial focus on promoting health
and fitness, the foundation has evolved its goals to include nutrition, safe water and water use
efficiencies, and education and empowerment. In 2009, the PepsiCo Foundation contributed $27.9
million toward charitable causes.
The foundation contributes to programs that will lead to sustainable outcomes and impacts for
the global community. To achieve these goals, the foundation invests resources by strategically
partnering with non-profits and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that have demonstrated
16-5
expertise and the ability to magnify positive outcomes through action. To be considered for funding,
organizations must demonstrate a defined and purposeful fit to PepsiCo Foundation’s funding
priorities and have a track record of success. With respect to the foundation’s safe water and water
use initiatives, PepsiCo seeks environmental programs that protect water sources and improve
usage of existing water to help minimize the growing water crisis faced by millions of people around
the globe. The strategic focus areas include water security, sustainable agriculture, and adaptive
approaches to climate change.
16.3.2.4
Wells Fargo Foundation
Contact – Jay Everette – [email protected] – 704-383-8287
In 2012, Wells Fargo invested $316 million in 19,500 non-profit organizations, including $8
million to more than 400 environmental organizations and causes nationwide. Wells Fargo mainly
concentrates its environmental charitable donations in three areas: clean energy, green buildings,
and environmental giving. Most of the grant decisions are made at the local level. To encourage
giving to environmental organizations in the communities Wells Fargo serves, the company
established a matching grant program. This program provides a pool of matching funds to support
giving to local environmental organizations and projects, most of which follow the priority funding
areas described previously. Conservation and education are key components of environmental
giving and may align with the CWWMG strategic objectives.
16-6
17.0
17.1
Introduction
17.1.1
Purpose
The CWWMG has invested much time and effort to develop a this Master Plan that is expected to
become the cornerstone for water resources planning in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. One
of the critical objectives of this ambitious plan is to produce an actionable, practical strategy to
substantially extend the time before the safe yield of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin is reached.
CWWMG members have their own unique communities and their own existing public education
programs. However, the CWWMG recognizes that a concerted public awareness, education and
outreach program directed toward the entire Catawba-Wateree River Basin area is necessary for
the long-term protection and conservation of the area’s water resources. It is important that all water
consumers in the region realize the impact of their individual water-related actions and decisions on
the area as a whole, understand the true cost of producing water, and are knowledgeable about the
constraints of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
In the CWWMG Organizational Five-Year Self-Assessment prepared in November 2013 by The Lee
Institute, representatives from CWWMG member utilities were surveyed. According to the report,
“75.7 percent of survey respondents indicated that raising awareness about the Water Management
Group in the wider community, beyond CWWMG members, is a challenge.” In addition, survey
respondents noted that “maintaining a sense of urgency for the organization and educating new
member representatives about CWWMG history” is a challenge.
The Lee Institute also conducted face-to-face interviews with CWWMG board members,
representatives from member utilities and outside stakeholders. When asked what CWWMG
should start doing, “respondents indicated that the group should start improving communications,
marketing and public relations strategies and developing education outreach strategies to engage
the general public and elected officials. Similarly, interviewees suggested that the CWWMG should
do more to develop a comprehensive communications strategy and improve member engagement.”
CWWMG members are prepared to initiate and execute an organized public awareness, education
and outreach program that incorporates a variety of delivery methods to bring consistent messages
related to water source protection, water supply, drought management, and water rate sustainability
to Catawba-Wateree River Basin water consumers. This proactive approach to improving public
awareness and understanding can strengthen the likelihood of maintaining a viable water source for
decades to come.
17.1.2
Previous Public Awareness and Education Studies
In 2012, CWWMG commissioned a study1 (Demand Management Study) that identified current
demand management programs within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. In the context of that
study, “demand management” is represented by a host of opportunities, from educating the public
about the importance of water to implementing potable water offset programs (i.e., rebate programs
for residential toilets). A summary of existing public awareness and education programs within the
Basin is presented in that study.
The Demand Management Study also included a benchmarking survey that described nationwide
water demand management programs and presented relative levels of success and potential
applicability in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Below are a few of the unique and successful
education programs described in the Demand Management Study.
Project WET: This nonprofit organization is dedicated to reaching teachers, students, and
1
Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group Benchmarking Survey of Current and Successful Water Demand Management
Programs; Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc. in association with Maddaus Water Management.
17-1
community members with water education. Project WET publishes water resource materials in
different languages, provides training workshops, and organizes water events. Project WET is
active in 25 different countries on five continents, and the materials available have been tested with
thousands of students and teachers worldwide.
Summer Teacher Internship, Tucson, AZ: Tucson Water offers a two-week paid internship for
middle and high school teachers that introduces them to water management issues relevant to
Tucson. The program is designed to provide teachers from all curriculum areas with information to
take back to the classroom.
“Use Only What You Need,” Denver, CO: After the severe drought in Colorado from 2002 to 2004,
the City of Denver started the “Use Only What You Need” campaign to maintain community interest
in water conservation. The ongoing advertisements and public service announcements have kept
water conservation relevant to the citizens and have encouraged a permanent change in water
conservation habits.
Block Leader Program, Cary, NC: This community-run program provides water conservation
information to neighborhoods. Residents who volunteer to be block leaders are furnished with
promotional materials to distribute to their neighborhoods, helping get community members actively
involved in water conservation education.
Save Lots of Water (SLOW), Cary, NC: This game teaches children how to save water while
demonstrating how individual efforts can make a big difference collectively. Students perform watersaving activities for a week and chart their progress. The amount that the entire class saves each
day is recorded on a large picture of a water drop that represents 100 gallons. Each class that fills
its water drop is rewarded with a party provided by the Department of Public Works and Utilities.
17.2
Goals
Engaging and educating the public and external stakeholders is critical to achieving CWWMG
multiple strategies for preserving the water resource. The goals of the CWWMG public awareness,
education and outreach program may include, but not be limited to, the following:
Catawba-Wateree water consumers will be familiar with the Master Plan and understand
its value.
Catawba-Wateree water consumers will be knowledgeable about the current condition of
the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and its expected safe yield.
Catawba-Wateree water consumers will understand why lowered intakes and other
changes may be necessary, how decisions are made about lowered intakes and other
changes, and how lowered intakes and other changes may affect property owners.
The Catawba-Wateree River Basin region will be prepared to effectively weather future
drought situations so that water supplies are not threatened.
The Catawba-Wateree River Basin region will reduce water consumption by established
goals.
Catawba-Wateree water consumers will be empowered to make informed decisions about
their water-using behaviors with the understanding of how such decisions and behaviors
impact the regional water source.
Catawba-Wateree water consumers will understand the associated environmental, health,
personal, recreational, aesthetic and environmental benefits of water conservation, water
supply, source water protection and drought management.
Catawba-Wateree water consumers will understand the concept of water rate
sustainability.
17-2
The next generation of water champions—those who will actually be more likely to face
the potential water shortage in the river basin—will recognize, understand and accept the
true and realistic cost of water, and will understand how their water-using behaviors impact
the regional water source.
17.2.1
Value of the Master Plan
The first goal cited above is that the Catawba-Wateree water consumers will be familiar with the
Master Plan and understand its value. Furthermore, water consumers must understand that the
potential solutions to extend the water supply (such as lowering intakes) are not approved or
definitive decisions. The message must be communicated that if this region wants to continue to
grow, consumers must take action to extend the water supply, and that this Master Plan provides
a roadmap of potential solutions to do just that. The consolidated Executive Summary should
be readily available to all “first responders” who are likely tasked with responding to consumer
questions and inquires.
17.2.2
Long-term Goals
It is assumed that some outreach efforts will take a long time to develop. For example, determining
how to engage public school systems, develop relationships with teachers and help to deliver new
curriculum (i.e., via Project WET) may take time to implement. A series of workshops and/or focus
groups may be needed.
17.2.3
Rapid Response Goals
One of the goals of the CWWMG public awareness, education and outreach program is drought
management. This requires fast delivery of information by CWWMG members to news outlets
as soon as drought conditions become apparent. CWWMG members should not wait to develop
that plan or products (i.e., bill stuffers or direct mailing), but rather should begin planning now. To
expedite the message, a consistent theme or topic accessible to news agencies, such as river water
levels or “days of water remaining,” may be beneficial.
Part of the successful mitigation efforts of the 1998-2002 and the 2007-2009 droughts were the
consistent and unified theme that all agencies utilized within the Basin. As soon as one member
was entering a drought condition, all member agencies informed their customers that the river
supply was being threatened (even those that were not yet in drought conditions). This consistent
and unified outreach was very powerful in communicating to the public. This type of approach
needs to continue in collaboration with the Catawba-Wateree Drought Management Advisory
Group.
17.3
Audience
The intended audience for the CWWMG public awareness, education and outreach plan may
include, but not be limited to, water consumers and water utility workers within the CatawbaWateree River Basin area, water management supervisors, elected officials, regulatory agency
representatives, riverkeepers and other environmental groups and organizations, and other
governing bodies. The “water consumer” portion of the audience may consist of adults and children,
as well as residential and commercial users.
In Georgia’s Water Conservation Implementation Plan, the authors recommend targeting education
and outreach programs toward the community’s “most inefficient uses and users to produce the
greatest results quickly.” This may prove useful for CWWMG as well.
17.4
Messages
The CWWMG public awareness, education and outreach program should include simple and
concise messages that address the appropriate target audiences and that “fit” the planned delivery
methods. Many effective messages include practical information, tips, interesting facts, and/or a
17-3
consistently used tagline, such as Colorado’s “Use Only What You Need.” The messages may be
divided into specific areas of education, such as water conservation, water source protection, water
supply, drought management, and water rate sustainability.
Other examples of messages that have proven successful for other organizations include:
Dallas, TX—“Save Water—Nothing Can Replace It”
Augusta, GA—“Water Is Life”
Madison, Wisconsin—“Rebuilding and Renewing”
AWWA—“Only Tap Water Delivers” or “Water At Your Service”
WEF—“Water Is Life, and Infrastructure Makes It Happen”™
17.5
Delivery Methods
In an effective public awareness, education and outreach program, the delivery method must fit
the message and the audience. Selecting an inappropriate delivery method may undermine the
effectiveness of the message.
Delivery methods for the CWWMG public awareness, education and outreach program may
include, but not be limited to, the following:
Public meetings
Presentations to civic groups, environmental groups, etc.
Social media (website, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, GooglePlus+, Pinterest,
Tumblr, Flickr, YouTube)
School programs / educational lessons and materials / field trips / scholarships /
internships
Direct mail / flyers / brochures
Newsletter (See Attachment 17-B.)
Blogs
Newspaper ads
TV spots
News releases
Radio ads
Public service announcements (PSAs)
Poster contests
Photo contests
Speaker’s bureaus
Collaborate with educational centers within the Basin (i.e., Blue Planet and Energy
Explorium)
Enhance the CWWMG website with more educational information.
Develop relationships with professional organizations, teacher’s organizations,
conservation groups, etc.
Initiate local versions of national or community programs outlined in the Demand
Management Study, such as Project WET, summer teacher internship, Dallas’ “Use Only
What You Need,” Cary’s “Block Leader Program” and/or “Save Lots of Water (SLOW).”
17-4
Georgia’s Water Conservation Implementation Plan includes best management practices (BMPs)
that may be applicable to specific target audiences within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin,
including the following:
17.5.1
BMPs for water providers or local governments in domestic and non-industrial
public uses
Integrating water conservation into existing educational curriculum. [NOTE: An example
is North Carolina Project WET. This program is an award-winning, a National Science
Teacher Association (NSTA)-recommended, water education-based curriculum for grades
K-12. Typical cost is $20 per teacher for a four to six hour one-day workshop. Teachers
are provided with water education curriculum, a guide book, and training on how to deliver
the curriculum. One idea for CWWMG is to sponsor teacher participation in North Carolina
Project WET because, often, teachers will not get reimbursed for these types of activities.
This is quick and relatively inexpensive way to target teachers.]
Employing professional water conservation coordinators or educators.
Informative water bills.
Distributing information about efficient outdoor water use; for example, BMPs regarding
efficient use of home pressure washers or home car washing can be strategically delivered
at hardware stores and garden centers.
Reducing waste and loss within the water system by implementing leak detection, repair
and prevention practices.
Reducing water waste within the water system.
Installing efficient fixtures.
Considering new practices from AWWA, specifically the Water Loss Control Manual (M36).
Conservation-oriented rates.
Retrofit and rebate programs.
Incentive programs.
Sub-metering.
Building codes and local ordinances.
Guidance documents for outdoor water uses.
17.5.2
BMPs for golf course superintendents and managers
Educational workshops on agronomic practices.
Education for staff, members and community about water conservation.
Develop BMPs for others.
Educate the public about golf water use and conservation efforts.
17.5.3
BMPs for agricultural irrigation
Irrigation water metering.
Real-time metering.
Data collection on cropping and water conservation practices.
Determination of variability in water needs by crop variety.
Irrigation audits.
Irrigation workshops
17-5
17.5.4
BMPs for landscape irrigation in residential and commercial landscapes
Adapt existing educational programs.
Hire or contract with conservation educators.
Distribute information to high-use customers.
Distribute checklists and certification for sustainable landscapes.
17.6
Post-Evaluation/Effectiveness Assessment
It is essential to periodically measure the results of a public awareness, education and outreach
programs to determine if the message is connecting with its intended audience, if the delivery
methods are working, and if goals are being met. Measurements and assessments should occur
every 6 to 12 months.
17.7
Recommendations
The following recommendations are intended to help implement the CWWMG public awareness,
education and outreach program.
17.7.1
Create and distribute a Master Plan Executive Summary
Distribute the concise, brief and easy to understand Executive Summary to all “first responders”
who are likely tasked with responding to consumer questions and inquires.
17.7.2
Hire a public relations / marketing contractor or firm.
A public relations firm can help the CWWMG with the following:
Establish a budget.
Fine tune the public outreach and education goals.
Define the intended audiences.
Develop the message(s).
Develop the delivery methods that match the message to the audience.
Assist in implementation.
Assist in evaluation.
In CWWMG’s recently completed Five-Year Self-Assessment report, The Lee Institute recommends
that a public relations / marketing firm be tasked with:
creating and distributing a quarterly newsletter in non-technical language for elected
officials and regulatory agencies;
developing a PowerPoint or Prezi to be shared annually with elected officials,
communicating the goals, mission and projects of CWWMG; and
building a public marketing campaign to grow awareness of CWWMG and to encourage
residents to participate in efficient water management.
17.7.3
Create an ad hoc external relations task force.
This recommendation by The Lee Institute suggests building relationships through:
an annual breakfast for regulators and elected officials, sharing CWWMG
accomplishments;
regularly scheduled briefings and conversations with regulators and elected officials; and
targeted communications, including distribution of the quarterly newsletter. (See above.)
17-6
17.7.4
Raise awareness through conference presentations.
The Lee Institute proposes that the CWWMG raise awareness of its accomplishments by
presenting at regional and national water management and utility conferences. The focus of these
presentations should include:
the unique nature of the CWWMG collaboration;
projects and accomplishments to date; and
structure and financial model that could be replicated elsewhere.
17.7.5
Develop partnerships.
NC AWWA-WEA and its parent organizations, WEF and AWWA, are continuously developing new
public education and awareness programs. CWWMG can take advantage of these programs and
use them when applicable.
For example, both AWWA and/or WEF offer stock and customizable educational materials such as
brochure and bill stuffers, presentations, and videos pertaining to establishing new conservation
ordinances, and sample print ads and radio public service announcements that can be adapted to
meet local needs.
17.7.6
Make meetings more accessible.
Several suggestions surfaced in The Lee Institute’s Self-Assessment Report regarding improving
education and awareness by making CWWMG meetings more accessible. Ideas included:
Rotate meeting locations (farther upstream and downstream) to encourage participation by
interested parties who are not proximate to the current meeting facility.
Invite elected officials and representatives from regulatory agencies to CWWMG meetings.
One suggestion was to “possibly engage elected officials by scheduling a yearly breakfast
session to brief them on the accomplishments of the group.”
17.7.7
Research other initiatives.
Research other sources of water-related initiatives including, but not limited to, the following:
http://thevalueofwater.org/
http://www.waters-worth-it.org/
http://www.awwa.org/
http://www.wef.org/
17-7
17-8