Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-29-1993 - VIII-D 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 29, 1993 Action Agenda Item # V.If1-A SUBJECT: Raw Water Allocations From Jordan Lake DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: County Manager or County Engineer Ext. 2300 EMC Request for Payment EMC' s Bill from COE List of Jordan Lake allocations TELEPHONE NUMBERS: and payments Hillsborough-732-8181 Section .0500 NC Administrative Durham-688-7331 Code Mebane-227-2031 Section 6 - Raw Water Transmission Chapel Hill-967-9251/968-4501 from Jordan Lake - Orange County Water Supply Study, Phase I, by Hazen and Sawyer PURPOSE: For the Board to determine if it wishes to maintain Orange County' s Level II (long range) 1.0 million gallon per day (mgd) allocation of raw water supply from Jordan Lake and if it wishes to pursue acquisition of all or a portion of the allocations relinquished by the Town of Hillsborough and the Orange-Alamance Water System BACKGROUND: In the spring of 1988, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) signed a contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers, owner and developer of Jordan Lake, to acquire the rights for 45,800 acre-feet of water supply storage providing 100 mgd yield of raw or untreated water. This contract requires that the portion of the lake' s development, construction, operation and maintenance costs associated with water supply be repaid by the state to the Corps over a fifty year period. Costs associated with Jordan Lake' s value and use for flood control, recreation, etc. , are to be borne by the Corps. In conjunction with the Corps-EMC contract, the EMC also adopted an administrative rule which provides guidelines for allocation of Jordan Lake water supplies to local water purveyors and for determination of the repayment of costs calculated on the basis of the amount of those allocations. The administrative rule specifies that water purveyors may apply for either a Level I allocation, with withdrawals beginning within five years of the date of 2 allocation, or Level II allocations, with withdrawals beginning at some date at least five years beyond the date of allocation. Under the terms of the administrative rule, Level I allocations holders are liable for the a pro rata share of the state' s capital and interest costs, as well as operation and maintenance costs. Level II allocation holders are liable for a pro rata share of the state' s interest, operation and maintenance costs only. Each water purveyor holding a Level II allocation becomes liable for repayment of capital costs when it converts its allocation to the Level I status or actually begins withdrawing water. Each water purveyor is liable one percent of the applicable state costs for each 1.0 mgd of its water supply allocation. The administrative rule also makes provision for modifications to the initial allocations, reallocations, new allocations and recalculation of allocation costs. The water supply allocations and associated costs are set to be reviewed by the EMC at five year intervals with necessary adjustments to be derived "equitably" . In July of 1988, Orange County joined with OWASA, the Town of Hillsborough, the Orange-Alamance Water System and Chatham County to submit a joint application for Level II allocations of water supplies from Jordan Lake. Chatham County also requested a Level I allocation. The application was submitted to the EMC and Division of Water Resources (DWR) staff for review and approval as per the procedures specified in the administrative rule. After an investigation and staff recommendations by DWR and a November 1988 EMC public hearing, the EMC determined the amount of each allocation. The administrative rule requires the EMC to hold at least 50 mgd in reserve and the EMC complied by not allocating 58 mgd. Including both Level I and Level II allocations, a total of forty-two million gallons were allocated to seven local jurisdictions and water purveyors. Of this total, Orange County received 1.0 mgd, OWASA received 10.0 mgd, Hillsborough received 5 .5 mgd; Orange-Alamance received 3.5 mgd and Chatham County received 6.0 mgd. No entity involved in the application with Orange County received a Level II allocation as large as it requested. All of the allocation holders in the County have always realized that transmission of water supplies, in either treated or untreated form, will be an expensive endeavor. Hazen & Sawyer' s 1987 report, "Orange County Water Supply Study, Phase I" , estimated that pumping 10 mgd of raw water to north-central Orange County would require expenditure of approximately $25,000,000 for construction of a raw water intake, granular activated carbon treatment (GAC) unit, pumping facilities and pipelines. The true capital costs involved in pumping raw water to north-central Orange County may be as much as $10, 000,000 less than Hazen & 3 Sawyer' s estimate. The costs of the raw water intake could be shared with OWASA and Chatham County and the water quality in Jordan Lake does not require the use of the GAC treatment system. Another option mentioned by the Hazen & Sawyer report and favored by OWASA is the construction of a water treatment plant at Jordan Lake and the transmission of treated water. The cost of constructing a raw water main from Carrboro to Hillsborough could be eliminated with this option. The cost for ten mgd of treatment capacity at Jordan Lake, while substantial, should be similar to the cost for developing that capacity in north-central Orange County. As of April 1993, all entities receiving Level I and II allocations received requests for payment from DWR for their allocations. Orange County' s bill for fiscal year 1992-93 is $1572 .43; the estimated bill for FY 93-94 is $1860. The Town of Hillsborough received a FY 92-93 bill for $8650 and an estimated bill of $10,230 for FY 93-94, while Orange-Alamance' s 92-93 bill was for $5500 and its estimated 93-94 bill for $6500. The EMC and DWR have not yet provided the contracts specifying allocation and allocation costs to the entities holding allocations. However, some entities have already paid the bills submitted by DWR. Orange County has not yet paid and has indicated to DWR that payment will not be forthcoming until the contract between the County and the EMC has been approved by the BOCC. Both Hillsborough and Orange- Alamance have notified DWR that they are relinquishing their allocations. Both of these entities have apparently concluded that the Jordan Lake allocation is such that the costs of their allocations can be deleted from their budgets, at least for the time being, without serious adverse consequences. Both entities have expressed a belief that restoration of their allocations can be attained at some future time, if necessary, because a) there remains a significant allocation held in reserve and b) there appears to be little interest in or competition for those reserves. It may be possible for Orange County to assume all or some portion of Hillsborough' s and Orange-Alamance' s Jordan Lake allocations. DWR staff has indicated that it would not oppose any effort by Orange County to assume an increased allocation to compensate for the relinquished allocations of Hillsborough and Orange-Alamance. The matter would have to be presented to and approved by the EMC. Although the administrative code provides for a process consisting of a five year review of the 1988 allocations, DWR and the EMC have not at this time decided if any such formal process will be undertaken in 1993. There has apparently been little interest in revising existing allocations or acquiring new allocations indicated to DWR by any potential user of Jordan Lake water supplies. 4 RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board approve, in principal, a contract between the County and the EMC for a 1.0 mgd Level II allocation and that the Board designate that the $1572 .43 for fiscal year 1992-93 and the $1860 for fiscal year 1993-94 be set aside as necessary to address the costs associated with the County' s Level II allocation. State of North Carolina 5 Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources ATA Division of Water Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., , Secretary p FE I--1 N R Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary April 23 , 1993 C Mr. John Link, Manager ` Fo, �+ Orange County 109 Court Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Link: The Wilmington District, U.S . Army Corps of Engineers , has sent us the first bill for the water supply storage in Jordan Lake . See attachment #1 . Because Orange County has been allocated one percent (0 .01) of the storage in Jordan Lake, we are requesting that you send us a check for $1 ,572 .43 , made out to FAO, USAED, Wilmington. We ask that you send it to us by May 10 , 1993 , so that we can pay the Corps the entire amount by May 20 , 1993 . Attachment #2 shows the breakdown of costs for all allocation holders and an estimate of the costs for FY 1993-94 . The costs for FY 1993-94 are higher than those for FY 1992-93 because they are based on a full year of costs. Payment for FY 1993-94 will be due in January 1994 and we will mail you an invoice at that time. In the next couple weeks, we will also be sending you a draft contract between Orange County and the State of North Carolina for your share of the water supply storage in Jordan Lake. We will ask you and the other storage holders to comment on this draft. We will then revise and send it to you for signing. If you have any questions , please contact me at 919/733-4064 . Sincerely, • e 1 .■ John D. Sutherland, Chief Water Resources Planning Section JDS/va attachments cc: John Morris P.O. Box 27687,Raleigh,North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-4064 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper _ t Optional Form ttt4 (t2-79) 6 , Tit,e 7,GAO Martial! BILL FOR COLLECTION 501114-107 . . Bill No.�Q293D03? US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON a 20 APR_93 (Department or Establi,hment and Bureau or Office) PO BOX 1890, WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890 (Addres) • APR 22 1993 PAYER: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL ©IYISI thou(d be returned by the RESOURCES ATER RLgaitC, S,ir remittance, ATTN: JOHN D SOUTHERLAND SEE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW, 512 N SALISBURY STREET RALEIGH NC 27611 Date DESCRIPTION Quantity Unit Price Cost Per Amount WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR JORDAN LAKE CONTRACT NO. DACW54-88—C-0031 PAYMENT NO. 1 1.PROVISION FOR INTEREST ONLY ON PROJECT INVESTMENT COST AS OF 31 DEC. 92 $4,388,000 X 3.225% X (331/366 DAYS) 127,980.34 2.PROVISION FOR REPAYMENT OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES FOR' THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEP 92 $816,027 . 19 X 5.4% X (240/366 DAYS) 28,895 39 3.PROVISION FOR REPAYMENT OF MAJOR REHABILITATION COSTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEP 92 $20,016. 23 X 2.8% X (240/366 DAYS) 367.51 INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE FOR LATE PAYMENTS AT A RATE OF 6.0% IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREASURY FISCAL MANUAL 8020. 20. INTEREST WILL ACCRUE FROM THIS DATE UNTIL DATE OF PAYMENT UNLESS THIS DEBT IS PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS BILL. • MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: . AMOUNT DUE THIS BILL, 5157, 203 . 24 FAO, USAED WILMINGTON AND MAIL TO ABOVE ADDRESS. This is not a receipt INSTRUCTIONS Tender of payment of the above bill may be made in cash, United States postal money order, express money order, bank draft, or check, to the office indicated. Such tender, when in any other form than cash., should be drawn to the order of the Department or Establishment and Bureau or Office indicated above. Receipts will be issued in all cases where "cash" is received, and only upon request when remittance is in any other form. If tender of payment of this bill is other than cash or United States postal money order, the receipt shall not become an acquittance until such tender has been.cleared and the amount received by the Department or Establishment and Bureau or Office indicated above. Failure ro receive a receipt for a cash payment should be promptly reported by the payer to the chief administrative officer of the bureau or agency mentioned above. C u,s,Government Printing Office: t983--421.646/SO5a 7 - Jordan Lake Payments No. 1 No. 2 Items FY 1992-93 FY 1993-94 1 . Interest $127 , 980 . 34 $141 , 513 . 00 1 2 . 0 & M 28 ; 895 . 39 44 , 280 . 00 2 3 . Rehabilitation 367 . 51 560 . 00 3 Totals $157 , 243 . 24 $ 186 , 000 . 00 1 Based on cost of $4 ,388 , 000 at 3 . 225% for entire year. 2 Based on annual expenses of $820 , 000 times the percentage allocated to water supply: 5 .4% . 3 Based on major rehabilitation costs of $20 , 000 times the percentage allocated to water supply: 2 . 8% . Proportional Payments Existing Water Supply Percent of No . 1 No. 2 Storage Holder Storage FY 1992-93 FY 1993-94 State 58 . 0 $ 91 , 201 . 08 $ 107 , 880 Cary-Apex 16 . 0 25 , 158 . 92 29 , 760 OWASA 10 . 0 15 , 724 . 32 18 , 600 Chatham County 6 . 0 9 , 434 . 60 11 , 160 Hillsborough 5 . 5 8 , 648 . 38 10 , 230 Orange-Alamance 3 . 5 5 , 503 . 51 6 , 510 Orange County 1 . 0 1 , 572 . 43 1 , 860 Totals 100 . 0 $157 , 243 . 24 $ 186 , 000 14;.44 EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL ;IfA,YAGEMENT 8 T15A: 02G .05011 SECTION .0500- ALLOCATION OF JORDAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY STORAGE .0501 INTRODUCTION To increase the availability of municipal and industrial water supplies, the State of North Carolina requested the.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to designate 32.62 percent of the Jordan Lake conserva- tion storage, between the elevations 202 mean sea level(nisi) and 216 msl, as water supply storage. The State, acting through the Environmental Management Commission, will assign to local govern- ments having a need for water supply capacity any interest held by the State in such storage, with proportional payment by the user to the State for the state's associated capital,interest, administrative and operating costs. Upon signing the water supply storage contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Corn- mission will apply the following procedures in allocating Jordan Lake water,supply storage. History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 14.3-215.3(.r)(1); 143-215,38 through 143-215.43; 143-3.54(a)(11); 14313-282; ,1f}: March 1, 1988. .0507 DEFTNMONS As used throughout this Subchapter: • (1) 'Capital costs"means initial costs of the project; (2)• "Commission" means Environmental Management Commission; (3) "Departrricnt" means the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development; • • • (4) "Division"means the Division of Water Resources; (5) "Effective date of allocation" means the date the Commission approves the allocation; (6) "Interest costs"means interest accrued on the unpaid balance; (7) "Local government" means any city, county, authority, sanitary district, metropolitan'water district, or other local unit; (8) "Operating costs" means Jordan Lake's state and federal operating, maintenance, replacement, and administrative costs associated with water supply storage: (9) "State" means the state of North Carolina;and (10) "Water supply storage" means storage of water for municipal or industrial use History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-354(a)(11); Eff March I, 1988. • .0503 FORMAL APPLICATION (a) The Commission may receive initial allocation requests from local governments beginning on this section's effective date. In order to be reviewed, applications must contain the following information: (1) Projected population and water use,including a detailed map of the existing and projected water service areas; (2) A listing of water sources presently available,including estimated yields of these sources; (3) An analysis of the yield,quality,and cost of alternative sources of water supply other than Jordan Lake that could meet or partially meet projected needs,including regionalization of systems; (4) A description of conservation and demand-management practices to be used; (5) An outline of plans to use water from Jordan Lake, including proposed location of intake and water treatment plant(s), location of wastewater treatment plant(s),any proposed sharing of fa- cilities or other cooperative arrangements with other local governments,and a proposed schedule of development; (6) A plan for monitoring the quality of the raw and finished water in accordance with the require- ments of North Carolina's Department of Human Resources and the U.S. Environmental Pro- , tection Agency; (7) The estimated cost of developing water supply facilities at Jordan Lake, also costs of alternative sources of supply; and (8) A letter of intent to enter into a financial commitment for Jordan Lake water storage: (b) The Commission or the department may request such additional information as may be reason- ably necessary for a complete understanding of the allocation request. NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 11130189 • Page I r is 7 j 14;45 F rRU^f DEHNR WATER RESOURCE: TO 991S6443 e04 R.04 • 9 EHNR -ENVIRONMENTAL L.MANAGEMENT T15A: 02G .0500 . (a) The Commission will notify applicants of the decisions made regarding their allocation requests. (b) Recipients of Level I allocations are required to pay a proportional share of the state's total water supply storage capital and interest costs over a term suitable to the recipient and the Commission, but by 2012. Interest rates will vary with the payback term, and will be based on the state recovering the total federal capital and interest costs associated with water supply storage by 2012. After 2012, the Commission may review and adjust repayment requirements to assure equitable and efficient allocation of the resource. Level I recipients are also required to pay annually a proportional share of operating costs. (c) Holders of Level II allocations are required to pay a proportional share of the project's water supply,storage interest and operating costs. History Note; Statutory Authority G.S. 143-2113(a)(1); I43-354(a)(11); 1438.282; E,fj; March 1, 1988. .0506 RECIPIENTS'REQUIREMENTS • (a) Holders of Level I allocations rinust provide documentation meeting the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, G.S. 113A-1 thru 113A-10, at the time the holders propose to build facilities to use water from Jordan Lake. Such documentation shall include the environmental impacts of the proposed withdrawal,treatment,distribution, and disposal of the holders'allocated Wa- ter. . (b) Local governments must install and maintain suitable meters for the measurement of water withdrawn, report these withdrawals to the department on a monthly basis, and obtain the depart- ment's approval for the design,location, and installation of associated withdrawal facilities. (c) Holders of Level I and Level 11 allocations Must pay the required capital,interest, and operating costs when due. History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 11JA-1 through-113A-10; I43-215,3(a)(1); 143-354(a)(1 I); 1431?-282; • Eff. March I, 1988. • • -0507 LOSS OF ALLOCATION • (a) The Commission will review the Level I and Level II allocations at five year intervals, beginning on the effective date of the first allocation. (b) Level 1 allocations will be reviewed for possible reassignment if the recipient does not begin to • withdraw water within five years of the effective date of allocation or is not using and withdrawing the water as proposed in the application. (e) Level I and Level II allocations will be rescinded upon failure by the local government to meet the regulation requirements in .0506(a), (b), and(c). (d) The Commission may adjust, reassign, or transfer interests in water supply storage held by local goveniments, if indicated by an investigation of needs or changes in the project's water supply storage capacity. Capital, interest, and operating costs will be equitably adjusted to reflect the allocation re- •cipierits'proportion of total capacity. Holders of Level 1 and Level II allocations will receive appropriate refunds for any payments made if their allocations arc adjusted, reassigned, or otherwise amended with the approval of the Commission, Rescinded allocations will not be refunded. (e) The Commission shall hold a public meeting to obtain comments and information regarding the proposed loss of allocation_ • History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(I); I43-354(a)(11); 14311-282; • Ef March I, 1988. • • • NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 11/30/89 Page 3 TOTAL P.04 MAY-12-1993 14:45 FROM D-:HNR LJATER RESOUR+ O Tp + 4=t3804 °,0 131!NR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TI5A: 02G .0500 10 (c) Local governments may apply for two levels of allocation: Level 1 allocations are for applicants which have demonstrated an immediate need and will commence withdrawals within five years of the effective date of allocation; Level II allocations arc for applicants with documented longer range needs for water. (d) The applicant should include in thc application the assumptions and the methodology used to develop.projcctions. The Commission will assist applicants by providing a copy of departmental pro- cedures for projecting water supply demands and determining yields. (e) Using departmental procedures for projecting water supply demands and determining yields, the department will provide the Commission an independent assessment of the applicant's water supply needs. History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-2/5.3(a)(1); 143-354(a)(11); 143E-282; 1 T March 1, 1988. .0504 ALLOCATION OF'WATER SUPPLY STORAGE (a) The segment of Jordan Lake proposed for a water supply withdrawal must be classed by the Commission as a drinking water source prior to any allocation of Jordan Lake water supply storage. . Prior to thc first allocation of water supply storage at Jordan Lake, the Commission shall hold one or more public meetings on the amount(s) requested by each applicant, the suitability of Jordan Lake water for public water supply use, the availability of alternative water sources, and the best utilization of the water resources of the region. For future allocation decisions, additional public meetings may . be held as determined by the Commission. • • (b) The Commission will asskzn Level I allocations of Jordan Lake water supply,storage based on • an intent to begin withdrawing,water within five years of the effective date of allocation, on consider- ation.of'projected water supply needs for a period not to exceed 20 years, and on the design capacity of the associated withdrawal and treatment facilities. {c) The Commission will snake Level II allocations of Jordan Lake water supply to applicants based on projected water supply needs for a period not to exceed 30 years. (d) The Commission will initially keep 50 percent of the water supply storage unallocated to meet .future,water supply needs as they.develop. (e) If additional storage is requested by holders of Level II allocations,these parties must submit an application addendum to the Commission for review. (f) When holders of Level II allocations have documented an immediate need and wish to commence withdrawals within five years, their Level H allocations will be changed to Level I upon review and approval by the Commission. (g) The department will issue a notice,that it has received applications for Level I and Level II allo- cations and requests for increases in allocations,with a 30-day period for comment. If there is signif- icant public Interest, the department may hold a public meeting to obtain comments and information, with appropriate notice. (h) To protect the yield of Jordan Lake for water supply and water quality purposes,the Commission, will limit water supply allocations that will result in diversions out of the lake's watershed to 50 percent of the total water supply yield. The Commission may review and revise this limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed that will affect its yield. For applicants whose discharge or intake represents a diversion pursuant to G.S. 153A-285 or 162A-7,the Commission will coordinate the review of the diversion with the review of the allocation request. (i) Where applications for allocations exceed storage capacity, the Commission will assign, reassign, or transfer allocations based on the applicants' or holders' need(s) and alternative water sources avail- able (as defined in the application requirements), the existing or proposed average degree of utilization of the resource (relative to the total allocation application),the level of financial commitment (relative . to the applicant's or holder's total costs in developing Jordan Lake as a water supply source),the effects on the lake's yield,and the level of sharing facilities or other cooperative arrangements with other local governments. • History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143.54(a)(/1); 143-215.3(4)(1); 143B-282; . 153A-285; 1624.7; Eff.March /, 1988. .0505 NOTIFICATION AND PAYMENT • NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 11/36/89 Pie 2 li I I I ORANGE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY STUDY PHASE I otv_ °f go 751 rgko _ 17 :e3 •2, -47„ ‘444277 rata I COUNTY OF ORANGE 1 p HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C. Consulting Engineers RALEIGH. NOR?S CAROLINA I NOVEMBER, 1987 12 } SECTION 6 RAW WATER TRANSMISSION FROM JORDAN LAKE 6. 1 Background The transmission of raw water from Jordan Lake as an alternative to constructing a new reservoir in Orange County is evaluated in this section of the report. The 14,000 acre B. Everett 'Jordan Lake is located in northeastern I Chatham County. Portions of the lake extend into the bordering counties of Orange, Durham, and Wake. The construction of Jordan Lake was completed in late 1981 with Federal funds administered through the project engineers, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) . The COE has continuing responsibility for managing the lake. Jordan Lake was designed to serve the multiple purposes of flood control , water supply, water quality improvement, public recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. The conservation pool , which impounds storage reserved for water supply and conservation needs, extends from the normal lake level of 216 feet to 202 feet. The COE has estimated that the portion of the conservation pool which is allocated to water supply has a safe yield of 100 MGD. This estimate may be revised after the COE has completed a hydro-topographical survey of the conservation pool . The results of the survey are expected to be published early in 1988. The State of North Carolina, acting through the Environmental Management Commission and the Division of Water Resources, has authority over the conservation storage that is allocated for water supply. The Commission has issued proposed rules for assigning this storage to local governments in need of water supply capacity. These rules are included, for reference, in Appendix F. Orange County, OWASA, and other water utilities in the region, have expressed an interest in obtaining an allocation of water from Jordan Lake to meet long-term water supply needs. The Commission has granted no I 6-1 t f ' 13 allocations to date but is in the process of doing so through the proposed rules. In this study, Orange County' s allocation is assumed to be 10 MGD, which is roughly the midpoint between the projected deficits shown in Table 3. 11 for moderate and high growth. For the purpose of estimating pumping costs, this allocation is assumed to be evenly split between northern and southern Orange County. 6.2 Cost Analysis Preliminary costs for transmission of 10 MGD of raw water from Jordan Lake to Orange County are presented in Table 6. 1 . The total project cost,project cost in terms of 1987 dollars, includes the first costs for construction and purchase of facilities and the present worth of annual costs . Costs have not been included for the installation and operation of a new raw water pipeline extending from the Chapel Hill area to Hillsborough. This pipeline would be necessary for the transmission of raw water from either the north to the south or from the south to the north of the County and would be common to all of the alternatives evaluated in this report. The total project cost shown in Table 6.1 can therefore be compared on a fair basis with the costs for new reservoir construction. As is discussed later in this section under Transmission Main, the total cost for the installation, operation, and maintenance of this pipeline is estimated to be $5,500,000. Note that the costs given in Table 6. 1 are based on an independent County system that would not benefit from any of the regional system concepts that are currently under discussion. The Triangle J. Council of Governments has proposed a separate study to evaluate the feasibility of regional systems. Further, the costs in Table 6. 1 relate only to the direct transmission of raw water to the County' s water treatment plants, with additional costs included to address water quality concerns. The transmission of finished water from a central water treatment plant would provide a means to help defray project costs through sales of water en route and might well be a more attractive alternative for the County to pursue. This and other potential regional alternatives could not be evaluated under the scope of this study. Alternative schemes for transmitting finished/raw water from Jordan Lake should be evaluated in future studies if the County elects to pursue the acquisition of water from this source. ' 6-2 1 14 TABLE 6. 1 COSTS FOR TRANSMISSION OF 10 MGD OF RAW WATER FROM JORDAN LAKE TO ORANGE COUNTY First Costs Costs in 1987 Dollars Intake, Pumping Stations and Pipeline $ 8,900,000 Water Cost 600,000 GAC Treatment 6,000,000 Engineering and Contingencies 4.700.000 1 Total First Cost $20,200,000 Annual Costs Pumping Costs $ 310,000 GAC Treatment* 510,000 Operation and Maintenance 80.000 Total Annual Costs $ 900,000 A Present Worth of Annual Costs . $11 ,000,000 .s Total Project Cost $31 .200.000 Cost per gallon of supply $3.12 *Granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment: refer to discussion under Water Quality in this section. The following paragraphs discuss the major considerations involved in developing the project' s costs shown in Table 6. 1 . Lake Intake The lake intake facility will be a critical component in any proposal to develop Jordan Lake for water supply. The Environmental Management Commission will likely restrict the total number of intakes at the lake to two or three 4 structures due to the limited number of sites that meet water quality goals and other design criteria. The Commission also wishes to minimize the effects I I 6-3 c 15 of water supply structures on recreational use of the lake. For these reasons , the Commission will consider a proposed intake development plan for a regional system more favorably than one that would serve only Orange County. From the standpoint of cost, a regional—based system would almost certainly be the more feasible approach for the County. This study does not address the selection of a specific raw water intake location at Jordan Lake. For preliminary cost estimating purposes , a potential intake location known as Bells Landing was selected. This site, shown in Exhibit 18, was evaluated in a previous report to OWASA by Hazen and Sawyer and was found to be the most feasible of the alternatives evaluated in that report. Transmission Main Exhibit 20 shows the southernmost section of a potential Jordan Lake—Orange County transmission main. To minimize right—of—way costs , the transmission main was assumed to be routed along the State highway right—of—ways. To the north, the transmission main would pass along US 15/501 and SR 1919 to Chapel Hill—Carrboro. From there, a new pipeline would parallel the existing 16—inch pipeline along Old NC 86 to Hillsborough. The estimated pipeline lengths are as follows: Length (ft. ) Intake to OWASA Water Treatment Plant 88,000 OWASA W.T.P. to Hillsborough W.T.P. 72,000 The 72,000 feet of piping between the OWASA water treatment plant and Hillsborough would be common to all of the alternatives considered in this report. Therefore, to maintain a consistent basis for the economic comparison of alternatives, the costs for this section of the pipeline, estimated to be $5,500,000 inclusive of operation and maintenance costs, have not been included in the project totals given in Table 6. 1 . 6-4 4 EXHIBIT 20 '�— 1; ' I I.c% ,`��� 16 Z4, ,, .. . .- . 4 - . ..-- ....I . .. ' 1 N 2 r t f 0.•IC K 1' _ - _-. %� ltJ i I i er Q 0 Li H c.._ ."10Ar tr. � U O $ ` � w�� Z ..\p,(00 ve, //, . , _ . It a 't z ya:4 ° K O J J W W r- �y "'d O J - .1 .Ws^ . ILI Z 4 1.' VI c: \41 I. II iitojoi* .4%, ..eor cz 1101 =( ,��r-7r7sie I_ _\.;:".. ..-C- .— .1. 411 1 . OZ.J‘.. irk r I W W \ ' Kr J / �f �� MS i! 1 0 / I r - I , ^ i I 1 f el 4.. H I g g e!' i 4100 .___L Til;: . _ . i ( y I 6,J0.../1•1,1 I /' 9 I °=Ws , • A I= •r I i a[00� �t• r • ! _ _ W A A fl 1.7 N ! '1' 2 < S ! , J ' ; t N / ' 1 W E it %'-c--/- c__ . .... r ' t . .... = W �Z ,�\. -4..-__N , is y N O r _v N M 7 6- 5 . 17 Pumping Costs Pumping costs are based on an average daily flow of 10 MGD, with 5 MGD being drawn off at the NASA water treatment plant and the remaining 5 MGD being pumped to northern Orange County. It was assumed that the County' s water utilities would take advantage of the economy that would be achieved by increasing the pumping rates from existing sources to meet peak demands. It was further assumed that raw water would not be pumped from Jordan Lake during wet weather periods when the natural streamflow of existing sources would exceed the total demand. It is estimated that this practice would reduce the total energy costs by approximately half. Water Quality The water quality of Jordan Reservoir has received considerable attention since conceptual planning of the lake was initiated. These concerns were prompted by the large number of permitted point source wastewater discharges located upstream of' the lake. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) is conducting a continuous sampling and monitoring program to provide a history of the lake's development, as well as to monitor water quality. The COE has also conducted extensive sampling studies to define lake water quality. Water quality evaluations of Jordan Lake are summarized in the DEM Report, "Toxic Substances in Surface Waters of the B. Everett Jordan Lake Watershed and September 1985 Update" (March, 1985) . Important findings of this report are as follows: • Metals - In the past, concern has existed for levels of metals in tributary sources to Jordan Lake and associated effects on aquatic life. Data indicate that these levels appear to be declining, perhaps as a result of pollution control initiatives . Studies indicate that urban non-point source pollution is the predominant source of lead, copper, and zinc. This may also be the case for other metals. Metal levels in the lake are lower than those in the tributary inflows and in-lake standards are rarely exceeded, except 6-6 18 for iron and manganese, which can typically occur at elevated levels- in North Carolina lakes. • Synthetic Organic Chemicals - Information on synthetic organic chemicals is not complete. Analyses for samples from the Haw River and other tributaries to Jordan Lake have indicated the presence of several pesticides and other synthetic organic chemicals in very low (mostly below the level of quantification) levels. Three EPA priority pollutants were identified in the Haw River: Naphthalene, 1 , 2, 4 trichlorobenzene, and toluene. Neither naphthalene or 1 , - 2, 4 trichlorobenzene were detected at levels which could be quantified, and toluene was detected at a level that was 4,000 times less than EPA' s health criteria. Organic analyses performed on samples from Jordan Lake have not identified any synthetic 1 organic chemicals. However, these analyses do not completely characterize these chemicals and some questions remain unanswered. COMMENT: DEM studies have shown that the New Hope arm of Jordan Lake is less affected by sources of pollution than the Haw River arm. AI Therefore, this would be the preferred location for an intake. It is suggested that this arm may compare with Falls Lake in terms of exposure to point sources. • Bioassays - Bioassay evaluations for effects on aquatic life have been performed on all major discharges in the watershed. These assessments are most strictly applied to aquatic life, but are also considered to have some implication for human health. However, they should be used only as an indication and not as final determinant for human health effects. Available information from these evaluations does not indicate widespread effluent toxicity problems. Problems that have been identified occur in Burlington, Reidsville and Greensboro, all located a substantial distance from the lake. At present, continued efforts are being undertaken to minimize effluent toxicity. Subsequent to the 1985 studies, additional assessments were reported in the DEM Report, "Water Supply Suitability of Jordan Lake" (December, 1986) . 6-7 19 Effluent toxicity problems were noted in the Durham Farrington Road Wastewater Treatment Plant, but these appear to have been resolved. These assessments also identified several synthetic organic chemicals in Jordan Lake at concentrations that were well below levels of concern for finished drinking water. One set of samples indicated the presence of significant levels of methylene chloride. However, this was considered to be an anomaly that resulted from analytical error associated with widespread use of methylene chloride in the laboratory. This report advocated the concept of segmenting Jordan Lake into the Haw River Arm and the New Hope River Arm for the purpose of assessing water quality. It was pointed out that the New Hope River Arm compares with Falls Lake, an existing water supply, with respect to the influence of urbanization and point source discharges. Overall , the report concluded that "all available data indicate that Jordan Lake is suitable as a water supply. " Based on these reports, available evidence indicates that Jordan Lake can be treated to achieve present drinking water standards. However, the limitation of available data should be recognized. It should be understood that questions remain with respect to possible future standards and concerns that exist for water quality characteristics that are not now regulated. The future possibility of additional treatment requirements must be considered, especially in the case of organic compounds which have not been fully examined or which cannot be identified within the limitations of existing technology. Additionally, because of concerns for point source discharges to the Haw River arm and the possible influence of this arm on water quality in the New Hope arm, Jordan Lake is likely to continue to be exposed to a greater degree of questioning relative to overall acceptability as a source when using conventional water treatment processes. f Costs for additional treatment of raw water from Jordan Lake have been included in the project costs shown in Table 6. 1 . Additional treatment costs are based on granular activated carbon treatment. It is assumed that this treatment would only be applied to raw water obtained from Jordan Lake, which would require the operation of parallel treatment trains at the County' s water treatment plants. Granular activated carbon treatment improves the quality and safety of drinking water by removing many organic compounds not removed by 6-8 a 1 20 conventional treatment and is considered to be appropriate in situations where low levels of synthetic organic chemicals are present. While granular activated carbon treatment provides a substantial degree of protection, it cannot remove all contaminants. Future studies should evaluate alternative advanced treatment processes that might prove more effective and/or economical . I t 1 j 1 t } 6-9 UN-29-93 TUE 16:06 0. W. A. S. A. rAX NO. 9199684421 P. 01 /1/4— -,,'9-3 /`h Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road 1OWASA P.O. Box 366 t I Carrboro, NC 27510 �,,,,...,�'' (919) 968-4421 June 29, 1993 py Facsimile.Tr ,,smission Mr. John M. Link, Jr. Orange County Manager Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 SUBJECT: JORDAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATIONS Dear Mr. Link: Item Number VIII-D on tonight's Board of Commissioners agenda presents an excellent summary of the Jordan Lake water supply storage situation. One point of information not mentioned is that Orange Water and Sewer Authority paid this year's $15,724.35 billed for the 10 percent (10 mgd) Level II storage allocation assigned by the Environmental Management Commission, and appropriated funds in the FY 94 Budget for next year's billing as well Decisions by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange-Alamance, Inc. to allow their respective Level II allocations of 5.5 and 3.5 mgd to lapse represents the potential loss of a 9 mgd raw water source, The supply and demand forecasts which provided the basis of the joint application submitted to the EMC by Orange County, Chatham County, Orange-Alamance, Inc., Hillsborough, and OWASA in 1988 are essentially unchanged, and the development of an additional raw water supply in central or northern Orange County remains some years in the future, at best. This matter will not be discussed by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors until late July, In the meantime, however, it may be useful for staff to discuss the possible application by the County and/or Authority for the Hillsborough/Orange-Alamance storage allocation that will revert to the EMC. Regardless of who eventually treats, delivers, or uses the water, such a long range action would appear to benefit all citizens of Orange County. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further. You R.very truly, 75 ..11-,1 "-'S-1--"4- e"-i/ Everett Billingsley Executive Director cc: Board of Directors An Equal Opportunity Employer