H001 24642 J SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT YADKIH RIVER 1957 * HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL WA 675 P583 1957 JUL 3 1976 This book circulates for a 2-week period and is due on the last date stamped below. It must be brought to the library to be renewed Form No. 771 ^ REPORT ON SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT YADKIN RIVER 1957 HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY BURLINGTON, N. C. KERNERSVILLE, N. C. GREENSBORO, N. C. LEXINGTON, N. C. HIGH POINT, N. C. THOMASVILLE, N. C. WINSTON-SALEM, N. C. Engineers Piatt and Davis Wm. C. Olsen and Assoc. Hazen and Sawyer Durham, N. C. Raleigh, N. C. New York, N. Y. REPORT ON SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT YADKIN RIVER 1957 HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRAR; BURLINGTON, N. C. KERNERSVILLE, N. C. GREENSBORO, N. C. LEXINGTON, N. C. HIGH POINT, N. C. THOMASVILLE, N. C. WINSTON-SALEM, N. C. Engineers Piatt and Davis Wm. C. Olsen and Assoc. Hazen and Sawyer Durham, N. C. Raleigh, N. C. New York, N. Y. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Letter of Transmittal — Conclusions & Recommendations 3-6 2. Scope of Report 7-8 3. Description of Service Area 9-11 4. Population Data 12 Burlington, Greensboro, High Point, Kernersvillc, Lexington, Thomasville, and Winston- Salem — Alamance County, Davidson County, Forsyth County, Guilford County Appx. A 5. Existing Water Supply Systems L3-21 Descriptions — Burlington, Greensboro, High Point, Kerncrsville, Lexington, Thomasville, and Winston-Salem Summary of Capacities — Raw Water 20 Summary of Capacities — Treated Water 21 6. Past Water Consumption and Estimated Future Needs 22-27 Summary of Population and Water Consumption — 1956 22 Estimated Water Consumption— 1970, 1980, 2000— Average Demand — Maximum 3 Day Demand 23 Additions Required— 1970, 1980, 2000 25 7. Yadkin River Project 28-38 General Considerations 28 Quantity of Water to be Pumped — Raw vs. Filtered 29-30 Capacity to be Provided — Raw vs. Filtered 31 Relation of Pumpage to Stream Flows 31-32 Effect of Diversions on Downstream Water Users 32-36 Legal Considerations 36-38 Value of Upstream Storage • 38 8. Description and Cost Estimates — Yadkin River Projects 39-51 General Considerations 39 Donnaha Site— Intake Works 39-40 Styers Ferry Site — Intake Works 41 Comparison of Intake Sites '.'...' 42 Donnaha Site — Raw Water Project 42-44 Donnaha Site — Filtered Water Project 45-47 Styers Ferry Site — Raw \\'^ater Project 47-48 Styers Ferry Site — -Filtered Water Project 49-50 Comparison of Projects 51 9. Cost of Yadkin River Water 52-60 Filtered Water .System vs. Raw Water System 60 10. Appendices 61-72 Exhibits 1 through 18 Following Page 72 2 1. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL— CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS February 15, 1957 Seven Cities Water Committee Attention : Mr. V. B. Higgins, Chairman Gentlemen : In compliance with your instructions and in accordance with our contract dated April 16, 1956, we have investigated a Yadkin River water supply to serve the seven cities of Burlington, Greensboro, High Point, Kernersville, Lexington, Thomasville and Winston-Salem. The results of our study are presented in detail in the accompanying report. Our conclusions may be summarized as follows : 1. The total population of the seven cities and their suburbs is expected to increase from approximately 300,000 in 1956, to 450,000 in 1970, and more than 800,000 by the year 2000. 2. The average total water consumption in these cities will increase from 38.6 m.g.d. in 1956 to 70 m.g.d. by 1970, and to 160 m.g.d. by the year 2000. Peak daily requirements will be at least 35 per cent greater. 3. The total capacity of the existing raw-water supply facilities in the seven cities is 54 million gallons a day- This capacity could be increased to approximately 84 million gallons a day by additional works now under construction or likely to be built in the immediate future. Most of the local water supplies could be increased still further by building additional reservoirs, but the potential local development is limited because the streams are small, and their flow will be necessary to carry off sewage and industrial waste from the much greater population anticipated in years to come. Unless major additions are made to the existing local water supplies, the raw-water deficiency will reach 15 m.g.d. by 1980 and nearly 80 m.g.d. by the year 2000. 4. The treated-water capacity must be considerably greater than the average raw-water consumption in order to meet peak daily requirements during dry summer months. The maximum 3-day water demand is expected to increase from 52 m.g.d. in 1956 to 95 m.g.d. by 1970, and to 220 m.g.d. by the year 2000. The existing treated-water capacity, including additional works now under construction or planned, is 70 million gallons per day. If additional faciHties are not built, the deficiency in treated water capacity is expected to reach 27 m.g.d. by 1970, 57 m.g.d. by 1980 and 150 m.g.d. by the year 2000. 5. A regional water supply of excellent quality and ample capacity could be developed for the seven cities from the Yadkin River. The water would be taken from an intake near Donnaha just west of Winston-Salem, or at Styers Ferry, frequently considered in the past as a possible site for a hydroelectric plant. The Donnaha site is preferable to Styers Ferry because transmission mains would be shorter and pumping heads lower. Although the immediate cost of building and 8i?(B9 operatiiifj a regional water stijiply from the Yadkin River would be greater than augmenting local supplies, the cunnilative cost over the years would favor the regional system. Furthermore, the water requirements of this fast growing region, in time, will exceed the potential yield of the local streams. The Yadkin River could be developed successfully to furnish over 500 million gallons per day, and offers the best long range solution. 6. The development of a Yadkin River water supply for the seven cities would involve diversion of water from the Yadkin River basin to the Cape Fear River basin. The diversion would be small in relation to the normal flow of the river. The most serious efTect of the diversion would be the reduction of hydroelectric power generation downstream. Our studies show that this loss w-ould not be excessive, and that whatever damages had to I)e paid would not increase water costs substantially. The proposed water supply system would have such widespread bene- fits that we believe obstacles as to water rights could be overcome without much dif- ficulty. Construction of the Wilkesboro dam, as proposed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers, with adequate provision for low-stream-flow regulation, would be of great benefit to the seven cities water project, and should be fully endorsed. 7. A raw-water supply from the Yadkin River would consist of an intake dam at Donnaha, a raw-water pumping station, and transmission main to a storage reservoir at Kernersville. Winston-Salem and Kernersville would be served directly from the transmission main. Raw water would be delivered to the other cities through distribution mains from the Kernersville reservoir to the headwaters of the creeks now used as sources of supply by the cities. The first stage of a raw- water project with a capacity of 50 million gallons a day would cost approximately $9,600,000, including allowances for land, engineering, and contingencies, plus $530,000 for distribution mains at Kernersville. The unit cost of raw water de- livered to the cities would depend chiefly upon the amount of pumpage. The cost of furnishing raw water to Burlington, Lexington and Thomasville from a Yadkin River supply as proposed would be excessive, and there is little reason for these cities to participate in such a project. For a modified 4-city raw- water project serving Greensboro, High Point, Kernersville and Winston-Salem, the unit cost of water would range from $144 to $209 per million gallons for a total draft of 10 m.g.d. : .$76 to $108 per million gallons for a 20 m.g.d. draft; and $35 to $49 per million gallons for a draft of 50 m.g.d. 8. A filtered-water supply from the same point on the Yadkin River would include an intake dam, raw-water pumping station, filter plant, and transmission mains to a covered reservoir at Kernersville. Winston-Salem and Kernersville would be served directly from the transmission main. The other cities would take water through filtered water mains from the Kernersville reservoir. The construc- tion cost for the first stage including a 30 m.g.d. filter plant is estimated at $16,000,000 plus $7,200,000 for filtered water distribution mains, making a total of $23,200,000. The capacity of the system would be raised to 50 m.g.d. later by increasing the filter plant capacity at an estimated cost of $3,500,000. The cost of filtered water to each city would depend considerably upon the cost of the filtered water mains from Kernersville. For the seven cities, the filtered water cost would range from $273 to $2,148 ])er million gallons for a total draft of 10 m.g.d.; $150 to $1,087 per million gallons for 20 m.g.d.; and $101 to $519 per million gallons 4 for a total draft of 50 m.g.d. For Burlington, Lexington and Thomasville, the cost of filtered water would be prohibitive for many years, and we doubt that these three cities should participate fully in a Yadkin River project at this time. Ar- rangements should be made, if possible, to include them ultimately when local supplies become inadequate. 9. A modified filtered-water project serving only Greensboro, High Point, Kernersville and Winston-Salem would result in water costs to those cities not materially greater than that indicated for the seven-city project. 10. The unit water costs cited above are based upon an allocation of project costs among the participating cities, which would take into account not only the amount of water each city obtained from the Yadkin River project, but also the size of the city as reflected by its total water consumption. The final allocation of costs undoubtedly will require careful study by the Seven Cities Water Committee, and the method proposed may require modification. It is essential, however, that all participating cities contribute substantially to the payment of fixed charges, regardless of the quantity of water taken from the Yadkin River system, because the very existence of a regional water system will Ijenefit each city by assuring an ample water supply for new industries and future population growth. 11. Although a raw water supply from the Yadkin River would cost less than a filtered water system, the filtered water system is much to be preferred because it would relieve the cities of expanding their local works and would provide water service throughout much of the rural area between the cities. 12. It is estimated that from 18 to 24 months would be required for the preparation of plans and specifications ready for the receipt of construction proposals. It is further estimated that approximately three years would be required for con- struction of the project. It thus appears that approximately five years would be required from the time the preparation of plans and specifications is started until the project could be placed in operation. It is our recommendation that : 1. A regional filtered water supply from the Yadkin River be provided to meet future water requirements in Greensboro, High Point, Kernersville, Winston-Salem and the rural areas surrounding these cities. The cost of serving Burlington. Lexington and Thomasville from such a supply would be excessive for many years. However, provision should be made, if possible, for extending water service to these cities at such time as their local water resources prove inadequate or uneconomical. 2. Development of the Yadkin River supply be started promptly and pushed vigorously. If this is not done, growing water demands in the cities to be served will force enlargement of existing local supplies at substantial expense and will delay construction of a regional water supply system. 3. The participating cities proceed immediately with the formation of a water authority as permitted under H.B. No. 809. "North Carolina \Vater and Sewer Authorities Act" of the North Carolina Legislature of 1955. 4. Particular attention be directed to the following major questions: (a) Feasibility of including the counties as well as the municipalities in the authority. (b) Methods of financing the works. (c) Methods of allocating costs among the participants. (d) Legal steps necessary to establish water rights in the Yadkin River. 5. A copy of this report be sent to the District Engineer. U. S. Corps of Engineers, Charleston, S. C, together with a letter urging that adequate provision for low-stream-flow regulation be included in the Wilkesboro Dam Project. Respectfully submitted, PIATT AND DAVIS, Durham, N. C. By P. D. Davis WILLIAM C. OLSEN AND ASSOCIATES Raleigh, N. C. By C. W. Mengel HAZEN AND SAWYER, New York City By Richard Hazen 2. SCOPE OF REPORT This report describes a regional water supply to serve the seven principal communities of Forsyth, Davidson, Guilford and Alamance Counties in North Carolina and the surrounding territory betvi^een the Yadkin River and the Haw River. The limits of the proposed service area are indicated roughly on Exhibit 1. The service area contains approximately 2,000 square miles and a population in excess of 550,000. Except for a preliminary review of other possibilities, the investigation has been limited to the Yadkin River as the largest and most suitable source of water supply within reasonable distance of the seven cities. A regional water supply might be obtained successfully from the Dan River, but only if a reservoir were built to take care of downstream water users in Virginia and North Carolina during periods of low flow. Even then, the elevation of the Dan River at a suitable intake site is considerably lower than the Yadkin River west of Winston-Salem, and pumping costs would be greater for a Dan River project. A major water supply could not be developed from the Haw River or the Deep River without the construction of one or more large reservoirs. The dry- weather runoff of these rivers is small, and it would be necessary to store a large percentage of the flood flows in reservoirs. Furthermore, both the Haw River and the Deep River carry off sewage and industrial wastes from much of the region, and the water in these streams must be retained for dilution purposes. Even with the construction of modern sewage and industrial waste treatment plants, the much larger quantities of sewage and wastes in years to come are sure to increase the burden on these rivers. A regional water supply might be taken from the Cape Fear River, perhaps without a storage reservoir if the intake were located far enough downstream. A storage reservoir on the lower Haw River has been proposed by the Corps of Engineers which if not too heavily polluted, probably could be used in part for water supply purposes. The reservoir would flood much land almost to Chapel Hill and Durham and is not likely to be built soon. In any event the distance from intake to center of water consumption would be at least 60 miles, and the pumping head 800 feet, or more. A Cape Fear water supply for the seven cities project is not attractive. The ground water resources throughout the area are limited, with most wells yielding less than 30 g.p.m., and cannot be considered for large municipal supplies. A Yadkin River water supply for the seven cities could be developed in a number of different ways. The less favorable have been eliminated, and attention directed towards the diversion of water from the Yadkin River at either of two sites : (1) Near Donnaha, northwest of Winston-Salem (2) At Styers Ferry, almost due west of Winston-Salem In either case, there would be some legal questions as to the diversion of water from the Yadkin River basin to adjacent river basins. However, in view of the growing need for water supply projects of this type in North Carolina and elsewhere throughout the country, we believe that the legal problems should not be a major obstacle. In a later section of the report, we outline the effects of the proposed diversions on present downstream water users and note also the benefits to be derived from the construction of impounding reservoirs on the Yadkin River as proposed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers. Two types of project have been considered. Under the first, raw water would he delivered to the several cities as re(|iiired to supplement their existing local supplies. In this case, the cities would continue to pump water from their reservoirs, to filter their own supplies and to pump the filtered water into their distribution systems. In the second type of project, Yadkin River water would be pumped to a new filter plant within a few miles of the river, and filtered water would be delivered to the participating cities and intervening areas. The requirements and costs of both plans are stated fully in Section 7 of the report. Finally, the cost to each city for participating in a regional water supply from the Yadkin River has been estimated. These costs would dejiend in large measure upon the total water consumption and upon how much each community took. The first step has been to determine the characteristics of the cities to be served, the probable growth in population and water consumption and the potential capacity of existing local water supply works. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA The area to be served by the proposed works indicated on Exhiliit 1 includes all of Forsyth, Davidson, Guilford and Alamance County. The northwest corner of Randolph County, including the towns of Archdale and Trinity, would probably also come within the service area because this area is quite close to High Point. The seven cities involved are Burlington, in Alamance County ; Greensboro and High Point in Guilford County ; Thomasville and Lexington in Davidson County ; and Winston-Salem and Kernersville in Forsyth County. The towns of Gibson- ville and Elon College are located adjacent to the railroad and highway between Greensboro and Burlington, and these communities would probably be interested in the eventual development. The area is served by the main line of the Southern Railway, running in a southerly direction to Greensboro and then in a southwesterly direction through High Point, Thomasville, and Lexington. The Greensboro-Goldsboro branch of the Southern serves Burlington and Greensboro, together with the communities between these two cities. A branch of the Southern runs from Greensboro to Winston-Salem, where there is a further branch, one running north and west to Mount Airy, Elkin and North Wilkesboro, and the other southwest to Mocksville, Mooresville, and Charlotte. High Point is also served by the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad, running south to Asheboro, and the High Point, Thomasville, and Denton Railroad, running southwardly to High Rock. Winston-Salem also is served by a Norfolk & Western branch from Roanoke, Va. and by the Winston-Salem Southbound extending south to and through Lexington and in general down the Yadkin River to Badin and Albemarle. The entire area is well served by primary highways. U. S. Highways 29 and 70 serve Greensboro, High Point, Lexington, and Thomasville with U. S. 70 extending east from Greensboro to and through Burlington. Winston-Salem and Greensboro are, in addition, served by U. S. Highway 421. U. S. Highway 220 serves Greens- boro from the north and south, and U. S. Highway 311 serves High Point and Winston-Salem. Winston-Salem is also served by U. S. Highway 52 and 158. Lexington is served by U. S. 52 and 64. The rural areas are interlaced by state and county highways, most of which are hard surfaced. The Winston-Salem Airport and the High Point-Greensboro Airport are both served by commercial airlines on regular schedules. The area is served with electric power by the Duke Power Company, and natural gas is available in all of the principal cities. Industrial development in the past has been primarily textile, consisting of spinning, weaving, and processing, but including relatively small further processing of cloth into manufactured articles for the retail trade. The principal industry in Winston-Salem is cigarette manufacturing. High Point, Lexington, and Thomas- ville are primarily furniture manufacturing centers, with some textile plants. Textiles are prominent in Burlington, Greensboro and Kernersville. Diversified industry is expanding rapidly in the area, prominent among which are manufactur- ing plants in the field of electronics, at Burlington, Greensboro and Winston-Salem. There are numerous desirable industrial sites throughout the entire area where 9 transportation facilities, either by rail or by highway, are eminently satisfactory. The topography is rolling, and the area well drained by small streams and creeks. Facilities for higher education are outstanding and well distributed to serve the entire area. A partial list is as follows : GREENSBORO, N. C. Woman's College of the University of North Carolina Greensboro College Agricultural and Technical College Bennett College for Women Immanuel Lutheran College HIGH POINT, N. C. High Point College WINSTON-SALEM, N. C. Wake Forest College Salem College and Academy Winston-Salem Teachers College Bowman Gray School of Medicine In addition to the above, the following schools are also located in the service area: Elon College at Elon College, N. C. Guilford College at Guilford College, N. C. Oak Ridge Institute at Oak Ridge, N. C. The Yadkin River, some twelve miles west of Winston-Salem, and the Dan River, about twenty-five miles north of Greensboro, are the only two large streams in the area. The Dan River at its closest point to Greensboro is approximately at elevation 500, while the Yadkin, west of Winston-Salem at Highway 67, is at elevation 750. Idols Pond on the Yadkin River below Highway 158 is at elevation 670. The Yadkin is the largest stream, and at the near points where it can be most economically reached, is at an elevation some 200 feet higher than the Dan River. The Yadkin River is the more desirable for development. Satisfactory disposal of industrial wastes and sewage from the area is of con- siderable importance, even now. Increased development with the attendant larger use of water producing additional industrial wastes and sewage, will materially aggravate this condition. Within the foreseeable future, as the area develops, it probably will be necessary to provide impoundments on some of the smaller drainage areas to augment the dry-weather stream flows to provide additional dilution to aid waste disposal. This might result in converting some of the existing raw-water storage capacity to the regulation of dry-weather stream flows for sewage and waste dilution. In this event the communities involved might be compelled to take their water needs from a more remote water supply developed for the entire area. The increasing use of water for irrigation is also a problem to be reckoned with. Farmers in the area are continuing to construct small, so-called, farm ponds, the water from which, during dry weather is used for the irrigation of growing crops. 10 Water used for crop irrigation does not find its way back into the tributary streams, but is dissipated by evaporation and transpiration. It is anticipated that the agricultural industry in North Carolina will become more fully aware of the value of irrigation and increase its use to the detriment of existing stream flows. However, up to the present time, irrigation developments have been limited to immediately adjacent farm ponds, and there is little or no pumpage from the larger streams. It is possible that existing impounded water supplies of the several cities could be economically applied in part to the irrigation of farm areas as well as to increase the dilution for waste disposal. Exhibit 2 shows the relative locations of the various communities, the Yadkin River, and the existing water supplies, together with the streams on which they are located. County lines are indicated, and principal highways are shown. Population data for the several communities, including past records and estimated future growth, follows immediately in Section 4 of the report. A brief description of the existing water supply for each community is given in Section 5. 11 4. POPULATION DATA Population data are presented herewith in tabular form for each of the seven cities under investigation and for the counties of Forsyth. Davidson. Guilford, and Alamance. Past population figures are taken from the census records for each decade. Population in 1956 is estimated for each of the cities based either on local census records and estimates, or on an estimated growth at approximately the same rate as past growth. Estimated future populations have been based on annual per- centage increases following in general the rate of past growth of the communities. In estimating future growth no attempt has been made to determine when corporate limit extensions would affect population within corporate limits. The estimated future growth for cities is more on a commimity basis than on a corporate limit basis, and it has been assumed that corporation lines would be extended from time to time as conditions justified. County land areas taken from Rand-McNally are shown for each county. In estimating future populations we have used a higher percentage of growth in the early years than in the later years. This would insure a reasonable life for proposed facilities should the actual growth be in line with the estimated growth. Should the growth not equal the estimates, the facilities provided would last some- what longer. A summary of present and estimated future population of the seven cities and the four counties is as follows : Cities 1956 1970 1980 2000 Burlington 28,482 40,240 49,053 72,8i)l Greensboro 92,000 139, 155 109,630 252,064 High Point 45,000 68,066 82,972 123,293 KernersviUe 2,860 4,327 5,275 7,838 Lexington 15,738 22,238 27,108 40,282 Thomasville 12,935 18,277 22,280 33,107 Winston-Salem 104,847 158,587 193,318 287,263 Sub-Total 301,862 450,890 549,636 816,738 Counties Alamance 80,123 105,679 128,823 191,426 Davidson 70,002 92,329 112,549 167,243 Guilford 228,122 312,840 381,352 566,674 Forsyth 174,485 239,285 291,688 433,437 Total including Cities... 552,732 750,133 914,412 1,358,780 % in 7 Cities 54.6 60.1 60.1 60.1 Detailed data for each of the seven cities and each of the four counties, in- cluding records of past population growth and estimated future population for each decade, are shown in Appendix A. 12 5. EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS We have investigated existing raw-water and treated water facilities of each City. It has been assumed that additional facilities now under construction, or for which construction proposals are about to be received, will be completed and these additions are included as existing facilities. Where raw-water capacity and treated water capacity are not equal, the approximate estimated cost of bringing the raw water and the treated water facilities in balance is indicated. Treated water capacity is based on a nominal rating of 2 gallons per square foot of filter area. A brief description of these facilities is presented herewith. Summarized tabulations follow the descriptions. BURLINGTON, N. C. The City of Burlington secures its water from both Stoney Creek and Haw River. A concrete dam was constructed in 1927 on Stoney Creek near its confluence with Haw River, impounding approximately 400 million gallons. The watershed area above the dam is approximately 104 square miles, and the surface area of the lake, 140 acres. The safe continuous yield is estimated at 3 M.G.D. On Haw River, between Troxler's Mill and Altamahaw-Ossippee, the City has constructed a low weir and pumping station, together with a twenty inch cast iron transmission main to the headwaters of Buttermilk Creek, a tributary of Stoney Creek. An electric motor driven pump, having a capacity of 4200 gpm has been installed. This installation is used only to augment the Stoney Creek supply during dry periods, and is operated at the beginning of the summer whenever the Stoney Creek reservoir level drops below the spillway crest. From the Stoney Creek Dam, raw water is pumped to the filtration plant through a 20-inch cast iron line and a 30-inch reinforced concrete line. The capacity of the raw water lines is ample to furnish raw water to the filteration plant in suf- ficient quantity for the ultimate filter plant development on the present site. The capacity of the two filtration plants located on the same site is ; two M.G.D. for the 1923 plant and, three M.G.D. for the 1949 plant. An addition to the 1949 plant, now under construction, will add two — one million gallon units complete, and three — one million gallon filter units in skeleton form complete except for piping, controls, gravel and sand. Settling basins will have to be provided later for the three skeleton filter units when they are needed. By the summer of 1957, the plants will have a rated capacity of 7 million gallons per day. Covered clear water ground storage consists of one reservoir having a capacity of five million gallons and, one having a capacity of one-half million gallons. The City is considering the construction of another dam on Stoney Creek, which will impound 1800 million gallons and will provide a supply, after accounting for evaporation losses, of approximately 7 million gallons per day. This reservoir would be held in reserve to maintain the level of the lower reservoir when needed. The combined storage from the existing and proposed reservoirs should furnish a dependable yield of 10 million gallons per day without pumping from Haw River. This would bring raw water capacity in balance with filter plant capacity and should last until about 1980. Pertinent elevations above mean sea level are as follows : 13 Burlington Stoney Creek Lake Spillway 530 Proposed New Lake Spillway 570 Settling Basins Filter Plant 649 Water Surface Clear Water Reservoir 637 Water Surface Distribution Tanks 798 General Elevation City Area 700 GREENSBORO, N. C. The Greensboro water supply is taken from Lake Brandt, an inipouiuling reservoir on Reedy Fork and Horse Pen Creeks. The dam is an earth dike with a 143 foot long concrete spillway. The crest of the spillway is about 30 feet above the stream bed. Taking into account the silting which has occurred, the capacity of Lake Brandt is now estimated at 800 million gallons. The reser\'oir has a drainage area of appro.ximately 70 square miles. A new 880 million gallon reservoir at the "Hamburg site" on Brush Creek, a tributary of Reedy Fork Creek, has been completed recently. The new reservoir is formed by an earth dam with a 100 foot wide concrete spillway section. The drainage area above this reservoir is about eleven square miles. The Hamburg reservoir will he used to release water to refill Lake Brandt during prolonged dry spells. The capacity of the Hamburg Reservoir is large with respect to the size of the drainage area, but with proper regulation the reservoir should refill every year. The combined safe yield of Lake Brandt and Hamburg Reservoir is estimated at 15.6 m.g.d. These estimates are based on reasonably long records, including the recent dry years which are among the driest on record. The Lake Brandt dam and spillway are not reliable and need to be repaired promptly. In the course of this work Lake Brandt can be raised 7 feet economically to increase the storage capacity by 1,400 m.g. This will increase the safe yield of the Brandt Hamburg development to 21.9 m.g.d. A still further increase of 1.5 m.g.d. can be obtained by installing flashboards on the Hamburg Lake spillway. No allowance has been made for the latter increase in this report because it is likely to be offset by occasional demands for water from Cone Mills which do not appear in the water consumption statistics. The raw-water pinnping station at Lake Brandt was built in 1907 and enlarged in 1926. The station contains two diesel-engine-driven pumps of 17 and 12 m.g.d. capacity and a steam-turbine-driven pump with 11 m.g.d. capacity. From the raw- water pumping station, transmission mains extend 5,300 feet to a 19 million gallon raw-water reservoir and continue 31,200 feet to the filtration plant. The mains vary in si;^e from 20 to 36 inches. The filtration plant is now being expanded from 12 to 20 m.g.d. capacity. The high-lift pumping station is adjacent to the filtration plant and contains three diesel-engine-driven pumps of 20, 11 and 9 m.g.d. capacity and two steam-turbine- driven pumps of 9.5 m.g.d. capacity each. Clear water storage of 21 million gallons is provided in two uncovered reser- voirs, one of 18 and one of 3 million gallon capacity. Limited pipeline capacity 14 between the reservoir and high-lift pumping station reduces the effective clear well capacity to about 12 million gallons. Pertinent elevations above mean sea level are as follows : Greensboro Lake Brandt Spillway 737 Surface Elevation Raw-Water Reservoir 864 Settling Basins Filter Plant 760 Water Surface Clear Water Reservoir 750 Water Surface Distribution Tank (3) 1005 General Elevation City Area 800 HIGH POINT, N. C. High Point receives its raw water supply from an impounding reservoir on the Deep River. The dam, built in 1925, is a reinforced concrete structure founded on rock; it is 370 feet long with the crest of the spillway about 45 feet above the stream bed ; earth dikes with a concrete core wall extend on both sides of the dam. Taking into account the silting which has occurred, the reservoir impounds ap- proximately 1200 million gallons. The reservoir has a drainage area of approximately 62 square miles and a surface area of 341 acres. The safe yield of the system is estimated at 10 M.G.D. The large drainage area above the reservoir makes it feasible to increase the safe yield by raising the existing reservoir or by constructing additional storage upstream. Although it has not been fully enforced, the City has agreed to release to downstream owners approximately 10 M.G.D. during such periods as the lake level is not more than 18 inches below the crest of the spillway. A 30-inch cast-iron transmission main extends 4,000 feet to the raw water pumping station. The pumping station, located adjacent to the Deep River, was built in 1919 and enlarged in 1925. The station contains three electric motor driven pumps with a combined output of 7.75 M.G.D. when operating together and a 3 M. G. D. gasoline engine driven pump. A new 7.5 M.G.D. electric motor driven pump was recently installed. From the raw-water pumping station, 24-inch and 12-inch cast-iron transmis- sion mains extend approximately 16,600 feet to the filtration plant. The filtration plant was built in 1919 and enlarged in 1951. Some parts of the filter plant require considerable maintenance to restore them to proper operating condition. The nominal capacity of the plant is 7.5 m.g.d., and the plant has been operated above capacity on occasion. The high-lift pumping station is located adjacent to the Alteration plant. This station contains four pumps with a total rated capacity of 16.5 m.g.d. Three of the pumps are electric-motor-driven and one 3.5 m.g.d. pump is gasoline-engine-driven. The maximum capacity of the station is 10 m.g.d. with three pumps operating. Clear water storage of 3j4 million gallons is provided in a single uncovered reservoir. Pertinent elevations above mean sea level are as follows : 15 High Point Lake Spillway 758 Raw-Water I'uni]) Statitm Moor 711 Settling Basins Kilter Plant 925 Water Surface Clear Water Reservoir 913 Water Surface Distribution Tanks 1094 & 1096 General Elevation City Area 880 KERNERSVILLE, N. C. The Town of Kernersville originally obtained its raw water from a small reservoir on Kerners Creek, with an estimated storage capacity of approximately 6 million gallons and a drainage area of one-half square mile. These works include one electrically-driven 700 g.p.m. pump and one dual driven 750 gpm pump installed in 1951. The water is delivered to the filtration plant through an eight-inch cast- iron pipe approximately one mile long. The original reservoir is now used for emergency supply only. The present raw water supply was constructed in 1950 and consists of an impounding reservoir on Belews Creek formed by an earth fill dam with a concrete lined spillway. The reservoir covers a surface area of 55 acres and has an estimated capacity of 115 million gallons. The drainage area tributary to the lake is 3.3 square miles. The maximum continuous yield of this supply, based on the dry year of 1933, is approximately 0.75 M.G.D. The decrease in yield, due to silting, will be minor due to the relatively small water shed The existing raw water capacity should suffice until about 1970. The pumping facilities at the new lake consist of two 700 gpm pumps. Static head at the pump is 200 feet and the total head witli one pump running is 270 feet. The water is delivered to the filtration plant through a ten-inch cement asbestos pipe 11,000 feet long, tied to 800 feet of eight-inch cast iron force main from the old lake at the filter plant end. Only one pump is operated at a time. The filter plant was constructed in 1927 with a nominal capacity of one M.G.D., and is in need of reconditioning. Average daily pumpage from the plant during June of this year was estimated by the operator at 620,000 gallons per day. There are no meter records. Covered clear water ground storage is 250.000 gallons. The raw water supply on Belews Creek can be increased by raising the dam and increasing the storage capacity of the reservoir. The maximum development of this site is approximately 1.5 M.G.D. continuous yield and would require 350 million gallons storage. The earth dam would have to be raised and the east abutment, which was used as a borrow pit for jjart of the original dam, would liave to be refilled. Existing pumps could be used. The pump station would have to be revised and a section of the force main replaced. The total cost of increasing the yield of raw water from the lake, as described above, would be approximately $160,000. This increased yield would be sufficient to supply the expected needs of Kernersville until 1980. A report dated June, 1956 by W. K. Dickson & Co., recommends modernizing the existing plant without increasing its capacity at an estimated cost of $92,000. An additional one-half M.G.D. capacit\' to balance the additional raw water supply is estimated to cost approximately $125,000. 16 Kernersville Pertinent elevations above mean sea level are as follows : New Lake Spillway Now 817 New Lake Spillway if Raised 830 Settling Basin Filter Plant 1011 Water Surface Clear Water Reservoir 1000 Water Surface Distribution Tank 1161 General Elevation of City Area 1020 LEXINGTON, N. C. Lexington secures raw water from two sources ; one, on Abbott's Creek without impoundment and, the other on Leonard's Creek where an impounding reservoir was constructed in the late thirties. On Abbott's Creek, near the water filtration plant, a low weir provides catchment facilities for the regular creek flow, but there is no storage as such. The reservoir on Leonard's Creek covers an area of 67 acres and impounds ISO million gallons of water. The dam is of earth and concrete. Water is delivered to the filtration plant by pumping through a twelve inch cast iron line. The water- shed area above the dam is small, and further development of this watershed does not appear desirable. During recent years, notably 1953 and 1954, the flow in Abbott's Creek dropped practically to zero and the entire supply had to be secured from the Leonard's Creek reservoir. During such periods the yield from both sources was less than two and one-half million gallons per day. Additional raw water storage is now being provided hy> the construction, jointly by the Cities of Lexington and Thomasville, of a reservoir on Abbott's Creek, between the Thomasville intake and the Lexington intake. Spillway level of this reservoir will be at elevation 685 and, at such level the reservoir capacity will be approximately 2,000 million gallons. Construction should be completed by July, 1957. A report by L. E. Wooten and Company, Consulting Engineer states, "It is estimated that after evaporation and silting, by 1985 the dependable supply will be about 12,200,000 gallons per day." The same report gives the drainage area above the dam as 70 square miles. The existing filtration plant was originally constructed between 1920 and 1925 and consisted of four one-half M.G.D. filter units. During the year 1948 additions were constructed, consisting of four three-quarter M.G.D. capacity filters, two of which were equipped. The remaining two are not yet equipped. The present effective capacity of the plant is 3.5 M.G.D. By equipping the two other filter units, the capacity can economically be increased to 5.0 million gallons per day. This should care for Lexington's needs until about 1975. Clear water ground storage of one million gallons is provided in a single covered reservoir. Pertinent elevations above mean sea level are as follows : Lexington Spillway Lake now under construction 685 Settling Basins Filter Plant 675 17 Water Surface Clear Water Reservoir 664 Water Surface Distribution Tank 916 General Elevation City Area 780 THOMASVILLE, N. C. Tliomasville secures its raw water from Abbotts Creek, using the regular flow of the creek with a low weir, providing only sufficient storage height to cover the intake pipe. The elevation of the creek bottom at the intake is 670. This source of supply has been used since 1925, and except for 1953, 1954, and 1956, has been ample. \\^ater is pumped through two cast-iron pipe lines, one 12" and one 16", to the filtration plant, a distance of approximately 4}4 miles. Thomasville and Lexington have under construction a combined raw-water supply, described previously in connection with the water supply for Lexington. It should be noted that, for the 2,000 million gallon storage capacity in the jjroposed reservoir, 1400 million gallons will be available above the elevation of the Thomasville intake. A new raw-water pumping station now under construction will be equipped with two pumps, having capacities of 2500 gpm and 1500 gpm. The pumping station floor elevation is 675. The filtration plant capacity for Thomasville is three million gallons per day, consisting of six one-half M.G.D. capacity filter units. Clear water ground storage oi 1% million gallons is provided in two reservoirs, one of one million gallon capacity and one of one-quarter million gallon capacity, both of which are covered. Encroachments of highways and other facilities are such that the existing plant cannot be enlarged further. Elevated storage consists of a one million gallon capacity tank. The existing plant should last until about 1970. Thomasville Pertinent elevations above mean sea level are as follows : Spillway Lake now under construction 685 Settling Basins Filter Plant 860 Water Surface Clear Water Reservoir 849 Water Surface Distribution Tank 998 General Elevation City Area 800 WINSTON-SALEM, N. C. Winston-Salem uses two sources of raw water. The source first developed is on Salem Creek and includes an impounding reservoir constructed in 1919. The dam is of concrete and was approximately 25 feet high when constructed. It has been raised 3 feet, giving the lake a total estimated original storage capacity of 1300 million gallons. This original storage has been reduced appro.ximately 140 million gallons by silting, leaving a present net of 1160 million gallons. The lake covers a surface area of 325 acres and has a continuous yield, based on the dry year 1933, of nine million gallons per day. This is not the maximum development of the twenty-five square mile watershed, but further development does not appear to be economically sound. The raw water flows by gravity through a 48" steel main from the impounding reservoir to the City's filter plant. 18 The other source is the Yadkin River, developed in 1950 when additional filter plant capacity was provided. This development consists of an electrically operated pump station at the Yadkin River with an intake constructed in the small lake formed by Idols Dam, owned by Duke Power Company. The location of this pumping plant is approximately three miles downstream from U. S. Highway 158 crossing and immediately below the Southern Railway line to Mocksville. By agreement with Duke Power Company, the City of Winston-Salem has the right to take up to forty M.G.D. from this source. The pumping station houses two vertical motor driven pumps, each capable of delivering ten M.G.D. to the City's filtration plant. Motors are synchronous 600 h.p. Static head under present operating conditions is 221 feet and pumping head with both pumps running is 244 feet. There is no provision in the pumping station for additional pumps. The water is delivered through a single 36-inch reinforced concrete force main 16,000 feet long, to a standpipe at the high point from which it flows by gravity through 58,000 feet of 36-inch reinforced concrete line to the filter plant. With certain piping revisions at the filtration plant, the combined continuous yield of twenty-nine M.G.D. from both sources of raw-water supply could be used. The estimated cost to make these revisions is $100,000. This rate of consumption will be reached about 1975. An additional pipeline to the Yadkin River and a pumping station to use the maximum amount of water covered by the agreement with Duke Power Company would further increase the raw-water supply to a total of 49 M.G.D. The cost of this additional pipeline and pumping station at present day prices would be approximatelv $2,900,000. The filtration plant has a nominal capacity of 20 M.G.D. By operating the newer units at above normal rates a maximum of approximately 23 M.G.D. can be treated. Clear water ground storage of 6 million gallons is provided in three circular uncovered reinforced concrete reservoirs. It is questionable whether the maximum filter plant capacity will last much beyond 1960. The maximum present pumping capacity is 28 M.G.D. The maximum daily use in June of 1956 reached 20.73 M.G.D. and the average of the three maximum consecutive days was 19.6 M.G.D. The peak rate of use during maximum days required the operation of all pumps. Additional filter capacity of 10 M.G.D. can be added, either at the present site or a new site, at an approximate cost of $225,000 per million gallons, totalling $2,250,000. This added capacity will balance the existing maximum raw water capacity and should supply the anticipated needs under normal growth until about 1970. Pertinent elevations above mean sea level are as follows : Winston-Salem Salem Lake Spillway 796 Idols Dam Spillway 670 Overflow Surge Tank 36" Raw Water Line 905 Settling Basins Filter Plant 781 Water Surface Clear Water Reservoir 771 Water Surface Ninth St. L. L. Distribution Tank 1060 Water Surface Reynolda Rd. H. L. Distribution Tank 1095 General Elevation of City Area 900 plus 19 The capacities of the existing raw-water and filtcred-water facilities at each of the seven cities are sununarized in the two tables following. The first column shows the capacities of works now availahle. The "maximum" cajjacity is the limit if the works now under construction, authorized, or easily accomplished, are liuilt. It includes, for examjjle. the additional yield of the Cireensboro supply if Lake Brandt is rejiaired and raised, the availahle filter ca])acity at Lexington if the two remaining filter boxes are ecjuipped, etc. I^xcept for a new reservoir at Burlington, it does not include major additions to supply and treatment works that may he authorized in the future. As shown by these tables, the developed raw-water systems have a capacity of 54.0 m.g.d., which may be readily increased to 83.9 m.g.d. The present filtered water capacity is 54 m.g.d. W'ith additions now underway, or easily accomplished, the filtered-water capacity would be 69.5 m.g.d. CAPACITY OF EXISTING RAW WATER FACILITIES ANNUAL AVERAGE IN M.G.D. Existing . Cost to Develop Development Maximum Maximum Burlington (1) 4.0 10.0 $1,0.')0,000 Greensboro (2) 15.6 21.9 1 , 500 ,000 High Point (3) 10.0 10.0 See Note Kernersville .8 .8 Lexington 2.0 \ 19 9 Combined Supply Thomasvillc 1.0 (' Under Const. Winston-Salen (4) . . . 20.0 2'J.O $100,000 Total 54.0 83.9 (1). 3 M.G.D. from existing storage. The added 1.6 M.G.D. represents the minimum additional supply available from Haw River over the lowest 30 day flow on record. By pumping from Haw River as soon as water in the Stoney Creek Reservoir falls below the crest of the dam, a supply of at least 7 M.G.D. would be available. New lake proposed will add 7 M.G.D. at estimated cost of $1,050,000. (2) Can provide additional 6.3 M.G.D. by repairing and raising Lake Brandt at estimated cost of $1,500,000. (3) Capacity of existing supply 10 M.G.D. City has agreed by letter to discharge 10 M.G.D. downstream during such times as lake is not more than 18 inches below spillway. This should not seriously affect yield. (4) Can revamp raw water piping at the filter plant site so as to use the combined supply of 29 M.G.D. from both Salem Lake and Yadkin River at estimated cost of $100,000. 20 CAPACITY OF EXISTING TREATED WATER FACILITIES ANNUAL AVERAGE IN M.G.D. Existing Cost to Develop Capacity Maximum Maximum Burlington (1) 7.0 10.0 $200,000 Greensboro 12.0 20.0 Under Construction High Point (2) 7.5 7.5 See Note Kernersville (3) 1.0 1.0 $92,000 Lexington (4) 3.5 5.0 $50,000 Thomasville (5) . 3.0 3.0 See Note Winston-Salem (6) .. . 20.0 23.0 See Note Total 54.0 69.5 (1) New facilities under construction will bring capacity to 7 M.G.D. in 1957. Can equip 3 additional 1 M.G.D. filters and construct settling basins to increase capacity to 10 M.G.D. at estimated cost of $200,000. (2) Existing plant barely sufficient for present needs. Can increase capacity only by building additional plant. (3) Physical condition of existing plant poor. Can revamp for estimated cost of $92,000. (4) Can equip 2 additional ^4 M.G.D. filters at an estimated cost of $50,000. (5) Can increase only by building new plant on new site. Existing facilities estimated to last until about 1975. (6) Indicated increase by operating existing units above normal rate. Can add new capacity at estimated cost of $225,000 per million gallons either at existing site or on new site nearer raw-water supply. Existing site limited. 21 6. PAST WATER CONSUMPTION AND ESTIMATED FUTURE NEEDS Following hereinafter in Appendix B are tabulations of past water consump- tion for each of the various cities and their estimated future needs, based on esti- mated future population and per capita use. The existing ])er capita daily use of water in the several communities varies considerably as indicated in the following summary of population and water consumption for 1956. SUMMARY OF POPULATION AND WATER CONSUMPTION 1950 Water Consumption Per Day Average Annual Average of Max. 3 Days Per Cap. Per Cap, Pop. Total Daily Total Daily % Avg. Annual liurlington 28. o 4.7 IH.') (i.O 210 128 Greensboro 92.0 10.0 109 13.5 147 135 High Point 45.0 5.4 120 7.3 102 135 Keruors villa 2.9 0.6 207 0.7 240 117 Lexington 15.7 2.0 127 3.0 191 150 Thomasville 12.9 1.3 101 1.8 139 138 Winston-Salem 104.8 14. G 140 19.6 187 134 Totals 301.8 38.6 128 51.9 172 135 Population in thousands to nearest tenth. Total water consumption in M.G.D. to nearest tenth. Average consumption per cap. per day for Max. 3 days is equivalent to 135'Tf of average annual daily use. The variation in per capita consumption is due to the amount and type of industrial development within the particular communities and to the further fact that most of the cities occasionally have been short of water over a considerable number of years. Privately owned systems furnish water in some of the communi- ties, particularly in Greensboro, where Cone Mills Corporation has its own system. The production of private systems is not included in our figures. The average annual per capita daily use of water for all of the communities during 1956 was 128 gallons. This includes water furnished by the communities to industry, but does not include private supplies. Burlington used water at a per capita daily rate of 163 gallons, and Kernersville at a rate of 200 gallons. The Kernersville system is not w-ell metered, and there is some question as to the accuracy of the Kernersville figure. It is unlikely that future needs of the separate communities will be equal on a per capita basis, but in estimating over-all needs, we have used the same unit figures for each individual community to arrive at the total expected need for the future. The water consumption estimates include allowances for growth in fringe areas around each city, but no estimate has been prepared for probable needs in county areas presently remote from any municipal water supply. These needs could gradually develop into a sizeable quantity. In estimating future water needs it has been assumed that the average daily 22 6.70 9.05 21.57 29.12 10.55 14.24 .86 1.10 3.45 4.66 2.83 3.82 24.58 33.18 use per capita, including that used by industry, will gradually increase to 200 gallons in the year 2000. Except for Burlington and Kernersville, we have used for estimating future needs, 140 gallons for 1960, 155 for 1970, 170 for 1980, 185 for 1990, and 200 for 2000. These per capita figures have been applied to the estimated future population in each of the seven cities to determine the total water needs in 1970, 1980 and 2000. The average and 3-day maximum demands are shown in the table following : ESTIMATED FUTURE POPULATION AND WATER CONSUMPTION Estimated Water Needs Per Day Year 1970 Population Avg. Annual Max. 3 Days Burlington 40. 2 Greensboro 139 . 2 High Point 68.1 Kernersville 4.3 Lexington 22.2 Thomasville 18.3 Winston-Salem 158.6 Total 450.9 70.54 95.23 Year 1980 Burlington 49 . 1 Greensboro 169.6 High Point 83.0 Kernersville 5.3 Lexington 27 . 1 Thomasville 22.3 Winston-Salem 193 . 3 Total 549.7 Year 2000 Burlington 72.9 Greensboro 252 . High Point 123.3 Kernersville 7.8 Lexington 40. 3 Thomasville 33.1 Winston-Salem 287 . 3 Total 816.7 163.44 220.64 Population in Thousands. Water Consumption in million gallons per day based on average use in year 1970 of 155 gallons per capita, in 1980 of 170 gallons, and in 2000 of 200 gallons. Maximum 3 days calculated at 135% of average annual daily use. 23 8.34 11.26 28.84 38,93 14.11 19.05 1.05 1.41 4.61 0.22 3.79 5.12 32.86 44.36 93.60 126.35 14.58 19.68 50.41 68.05 24.66 33.29 1.66 2.24 8.06 10.88 6.62 8.94 57.45 77.56 For the seven cities project, the raw water capacity has been calculated on the basis of the average daily consumption because peak drafts in excess of the average could be met temporarily from existing reservoirs. Treated water needs have been estimated as the average of the three highest daily demands in any year. This is designated as the "3 Day Maximum" in this report. No provision would be made for peak hourly drafts or fire flows in the Yadkin River project. These would be met from local storage reservoirs and elevated tanks, as at the present time. On the basis of past experience the total 3 day maximum demand is estimated at 135 per cent of the average demand. In many American cities the ratio of peak to average demands has jumped spectacularly in recent years, and allowances of 150 per cent to 200 per cent are common. The 135 per cent applied in this report may prove to be inadequate. However, the relatively large industrial water use tends to be uniform throughout the year and moderates the effects of peaks in domestic consumption during summer months, particularly those caused by lawn sprinkling. The marked increase in the per capita water consumption forecast for the seven cities is predicated on not only greater domestic use, but also sub- stantial industrial development. As an indication of current thinking on average and maximum jier cajjita water use throughout the United States, we have included in Ap])cndix C an estimate of future use by water works superintendents, from the December, 1956 issue of Public W'orks Magazine. In determining the capacity of works to be built, it is assumed that, at least for the present, each of the seven cities would continue to operate the facilities it now has. As the communities grow, and the need for additional water increases, it is expected that the increase would come from the Yadkin River regional supply. An existing supply may be abandoned later and the entire water needs for that particular commuinty drawn from the regional development. The trend in this direction, we believe, can be determined promptly enough to increase the proposed facilities from time to time as may be needed. In the case of a treated water supply for the area, it is anticipated that considerable use of water would develop along the transmission mains in presently rural parts of the counties. This would help carry the over-all cost of the development and its operation. The tabulation next following shows the needed additions to both raw water supplies and filter plant capacity provided all existing facilities are retained and operated at their maximum. Burlington will need no additional filter plant capacity until about 1980, and if the additional proposed raw water supply is constructed, will need no further raw water additions until after 1980. Lexington will need no additional treated water capacity until after 1970 and neither Lexington nor Thomasville will need raw water until after 1980, and only slight additions by 2000. Greensboro, High Point and Winston-Salem will need no raw water until after 1970. High Point needs additional filter plant capacity almost im- mediately ; Greensboro and Winston-Salem perhaps by 1965. Kernersville will need slight additions to both their raw water supply and filtered water capacity by 1970. 24 INDIVIDUAL EXISTING CAPACITY IN RELATION TO FUTURE NEEDS RAW WATER FOR AVERAGE ANNUAL DAY Existg. Needed Addi= Needed Addi= Needed Addi= Max. 1970 tions 1980 tions 2000 tions Capacity Required Required Required Burlington 10.0 6.70 0.00 8.34 0.00 14.58 4.58 Greensboro 21.9 21.57 .00 28.84 6.94 50.41 28.51 High Point 10.0 10.55 .55 14.11 4.11 24.66 14.66 Kernersville 8 .86 .06 1.05 .25 1.66 .86 Lexington | 3.45 0.00 4.61 0.00 8.06 i TliomasviUe / " 2.83 0.00 3.79 0.00 6.62 / ^^ Winston-Salem... 29.0 24.58 0.00 32.86 3.86 57.45 28.45 Total 83.9 70.54 .61 93.60 15.16 163.44 79.54 TREATED WATER FOR MAXIMUM 3 DAYS Burlington 10.0 9.05 0.00 11.26 1.20 19.68 9.68 Greensboro 20.0 29.12 9.12 38.93 18.93 68.05 48.05 High Point 7.5 14.24 6.74 19.05 11.55 33.29 25.79 Kernersville 1.0 1.16 .16 1.41 .41 2.24 1.24 Lexington 5.0 4.66 0.00 6.22 1.22 10.88 5.88 Thomasville 3.0 3.82 .82 5.12 2.12 8.94 5.94 Winston-Salem... 23.0 33.18 10.18 44.35 21.36 77.56 54.56 Total 69.5 95.23 27.02 126.35 56.85 220.64 151.14 Quantities in Million Gallons per Day 25 ■^ Million Gallons per Day ^ '.•;nJSTON-SALEM ■;reensboro HIGH POIMT BURLINGTON LEXINGTON & THOMASVILLE KERNERSVILLE R A \! V; A T F, R Elxi stin g Maximum Capacity Needed 1970 1980 2000 10 20 30 'f '1 60 70 — T"^ 1 — I 1 r^ 1 r 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Million Gallons per Day WINSTON-SALEM GREENSBORO HIGH POINT BURLINGTON LEXINGTON In FILTERED WATER THOMASVILEE Legend KERNERSVILLE \ Ebcistin^^ Maximu m Capacity I I I Needed 1970 1980 2000 10 20 30 UP 50 6p 7p 8p Attention is directed again to the fact that the total water requirements in nearly all of communities may be greater than indicated because of the necessity for dilution water to carry off sewage and industrial wastes. The requirements at each city will depend upon the size of the receiving stream and the standards im- posed by the North Carolina Stream Sanitation Committee. However, it is obvious that the natural dry-weather flows of Muddy Creek ultimately will be small com- pared to the total waste from Winston-Salem, lower Reedy Fork Creek will be small for Greensboro, and the head waters of Rich Fork Creek and Deep River small for High Point. An analysis of the situation at Greensboro indicates that it may be necessary to divert as much as 30 or 40 per cent of the water supply capacity on Reedy Fork Creek for waste dilution, and that because of this Greens- boro ultimately must look to one of the larger, more distant rivers as its source of water supply. The effect of waste disposal on other municipal water supplies may be more or less severe than at Greensboro, but if the streams are to be cleaned up and kept free from nuisance, some regulation of low flows seems inevitable. Water consumption data for each of the seven cities are set forth in Appendix B. 27 7. YADKIN RIVER PROJECT General Considerations The capacity of works to be built and the average pumping from the Yadkin River to supplement existing local supplies will be the same regardless of intake location or route followed by the pipeline to serve the seven cities. Likewise, the potential intake sites are close enough together that the effects of pumpage on Yadkin River flows and the effects of diverting water from the Yadkin River basin will be substantially the same whichever site were selected. Before discussing the several possible projects in detail, some of the factors applicable to all will be re- viewed. Quantity of Water to be Pumped from the Yadkin River As noted in the previous section of the report, the over-all water supply deficiencies in the seven cities, if local works are not increased beyond improvements now underway or easily accomplished, are estimated as follows : Estimated Deficiencies in Existing Supplies — m.g.d. 1970 1980 2000 Raw Water Capacity (average daily) 0.6 15.2 79.5 Treated Water Capacity (3-day maximum) . . 27.0 56.9 151.1 The local works are more nearly adec|uate as to source of supply than filter plant capacity. This is natural, since it is unusual for a community to Iniild filter plant capacity beyond the available supply. Although detailed figures are used in the tables to assure accurate accounting of demands and existing capacity, the estimates arc necessarily approximate. They are adequate for determining what capacity should be provided in the Yadkin River system, particularly in the first step of a proposed stage development. The amount of water taken from the Yadkin River through the proposed seven cities supply would depend not only upon how fast the cities grow, but also upon whether the Yadkin River supply is a raw-water system or a fillered-water system. If a filtered-water system is built, the total pumpage from the Yadkin River will be substantially greater than if the river is used only to furnish raw water. The reason for this is that, although the local water works are designed for dry-weather conditions, much of the time the water available in the streams and reservoirs is substantially greater than the estimated safe dry-weather yield. As long as the municipal water works facilities include adequate transmission and filter capacity, the wet-weather flows could be used fully, and pumping from the Yadkin River would be required only during periods of drought. On the other hand, if a filtered-water supply were obtained from the Yadkin River, the local filter plants would not be enlarged, and the entire deficiency would be met by pumping water from the Yadkin River through the filter plant, probably 365 days in a year. An exact determination of the quantity of raw w-ater needed from the Yadkin River to increase the over-all output of the seven cities systems by a specified amount would require a hydrological analysis of each local source of supply and correlation with the raw-water transmission and filter plant capacity. Such a study is not justified because of the many variables involved and because changes in water 28 consumption forecasts for each city would affect the result. However, by comparing the average long-term yields with dry-year yields, and drawing on a study made in connection with the Greensboro demands, we estimate that on the average the raw- water requirements from the Yadkin River would be about one-half the filtered- water requirements to take care of the same total demand. In other words, to meet a deficiency of 40 m.g.d. in filtered water demands, approximately 20 m.g.d. of raw water would be needed on the average from the Yadkin River to supplement local flows. In this case, however, each city would have to build additional trans- mission and filter capacity to meet its total requirements. Furthermore, the capacity of the raw-water system would have to equal the average filtered water demands because in extremely dry weather, the yield of the local supplies would be much less than average. The details of the Greensboro analysis are shown in Appendix C. In estimating raw-water requirements, the amount pumped from the Yadkin River has been increased by 25 per cent to allow for evaporation and losses while flowing down the creeks to the existing reservoirs, and for filter wash water. The capacity of the Yadkin River works necessary to make up future de- ficiencies in municipal supplies is shown graphically in Exhibit 3. The upper portion pertains to a raw-water supply ; the lower to a treated-water supply. The two projects are described below by reference to this exhibit. Raw-Water Supply — Exhibit 3-A In this project it is assumed that raw water would be pumped from the Yadkin River to the headwaters of the several local water supply systems in order to refill existing reservoirs. The Yadkin River water would be pumped only when necessary, and during wet seasons, when the local runoff exceeded water demands, the local sources would be used exclusively. It is assumed that the pumping stations, transmission mains, and filter plants for each city would be enlarged as necessary to meet seasonal and peak daily water demands. Under this arrangement raw water would be pumped from the Yadkin River at a fairly steady rate, ordinarily not exceeding the average requirements from the river in a dry year. The local reservoirs would be kept reasonably full at all times, and the peak demands would be met from these reservoirs. In Exhibit 3-A the total raw-water demands, as determined in Section 5 of the report, are shown by the upper solid line extending from 70.5 m.g.d. in 1970 to 163. m.g.d. in the year 2000. The lower line, extending from 69.9 m.g.d. in 1970 to 83.2 m.g.d. in 2000, shows the raw-water capacity of the existing local supplies, with additions now contemplated or easily accomplished. The local capacity is not shown at 83.2 m.g.d. throughout the period simply because the excess raw-water capacity at Burlington, Lexington, Thomasville and Winston-Salem would not be available for use in the other cities during the early years of the project. Thus, until the raw-water demands have reached the local capacity in each community, not all of the 83.2 m.g.d. capacity could be utilized. The difference between the total demand and local supply lines represents the capacity to be provided in the Yadkin River project. As noted earlier, this has been increased by 25 per cent to allow for water losses. It should be noted that Exhibit 3 shows the raw-water capacity needed. The amount of water actually pumped from the Yadkin River would equal the capacity in a dry year. In a wet year the pumpage would be much less. In general, North 29 Carolina impounded water supplies yield 30 to 50 per cent more water during the average year than they do in an extremely dry year. Thus, the local supplies might furnish 100 to 110 m.g.d. instead of the 70 to 83 ni.g.d. capacity shown, and the average pumpage from the Yadkin River over a period of years would be pro- portionately less. Filtered-Water Supply— Exhibit 3-B In this plan it is assumed that Yadkin River water would be filtered near the intake and pumped directly to the distribution systems of the seven cities. It is also assumed that the local raw-water pumping stations, transmission mains and filter plants would not be enlarged and that peak demand deficiencies would have to be met from the Yadkin River. The 3-day ma.ximum water demand is shown by the solid line in Exhibit No. 3-B ranging from 52 m.g.d. in 1956 to 95 m.g.d. in 1970 and 221 m.g.d. in the year 2000. It is assumed that the capacity of the e.xisting filter plants would remain substantially as at present, as shown by the horizontal line at 69.5 m.g.d. The difference between the 3-day maximum demand and 69.5 m.g.d. represents the capacity that must be provided in the new Yadkin River system. The capacity of the works would be based on the 3-day maximum demands, which have been taken at 35 per cent more than the average. The average quantity of water to be pumped from the Yadkin River would be considerably less than the peak capacity required. The average total filtered-water requirements are estimated to range from 39 m.g.d. in 1956 to 70 m.g.d. in 1970 and 163 m.g.d. in the year 2000. The capacities to be provided in a Yadkin River water supply project and the average pumpages are summarized in the table following : Total Average Raw Water Filtered Wafer Water Required Aver. Annual Required Aver. Annual Consumption Capacity* Pumpage** Capacity Pumpage Year m.g.d. m.g.d. m.g.d. m.g.d. m.g.d. 1960 .0 .0 .0 1970 70.5 0.8 0.5 27.0 20 1980 93.6 19.0 11.9 56.9 42 2000 163.4 100.0 62.5 151.1 112 *C'apapitics developed in Section 5, plus 25% for losses. **Onc-half of deficiency (= capacity) plus 25% for losses. The most significant conclusions to be drawn from these data are as follows: 1. If the seven cities built a filtered-water project in lieu of additions to their own plants, the new Yadkin River water supply would be needed by 1965. If a raw-water project were planned, construction could be postponed for several years. 2. For a total average water demand of 94 m.g.d. (estimated 1980) in the seven cities, a project to furnish filtered water to the seven cities would need to be three times as large as a raw-water project. By the year 2000, when local supplies would be less significant, the ratio would drop to about Ij/z. 30 3. For a total average water demand of 94 m.g.d. (estimated 1980) in the seven cities, a project to furnish filtered water would require on the average about three times as much pumpage as a raw-water project. In later years this ratio would drop to about 1.3. 4. Even with a filtered- water project, the average pumpage from the Yadkin River is estimated at only 20 m.g.d. in 1970, 42 m.g.d. in 1980, and 112 m.g.d in the year 2000. As discussed in the next section of the report, these flows are small in relation to the stream flows of the Yadkin River. Capacity to be Provided In order to keep within reasonable limits the initial construction cost of the project and the unit cost of water, the Yadkin River water supply must be built in stages. The first stage should take care of estimated requirements for at least 15 or 20 years. Additions could be built later as needed to meet growing water demands. The pumping stations and filter plant could be enlarged economically from time to time by installing additional units, as long as the original works were designed with this in mind. Stage development of long pipelines is more difficult. If a pipeline it too small, its capacity may be increased within limits by the addition of booster pumping stations, but a major increase in load requires the laying of a parallel line. This is likely to cost fully as much as the original pipeline. On the other hand, it costs relatively little to provide excess capacity in the beginning by using a somewhat larger diameter pipe. This procedure has the advantage in that it reduces friction loss and pumping costs during the early stages of the project. The pumping head from the Yadkin River to the seven cities is high in any event, and the use of a fairly large pipeline is indicated. The project studies and cost estimates are based upon a 54-inch pipeline be- tween the Yadkin River and Winston-Salem and a 48-inch line beyond Winston- Salem. These lines would provide a capacity of 50 m.g.d. to Winston-Salem, and 33 m.g.d. beyond that point. It is assumed that about one-third of the total water from the Yadkin River would be used in the vicinity of Winston-Salem, and that the balance would be transmitted to High Point, Greensboro and the other cities. The same size pipeline is proposed for raw-water and filtered-water systems, although the quantities of raw water would be substantially less than filtered-water quantities for a number of years. The large-diameter line should be used because even if a raw-water system were built initially, it probably would be converted ultimately to a filtered water system. The proposed pipeline should be adequate for a filtered-water supply until 1980. If a raw-water supply is built, the transmission mains should be adequate for ten years longer. Relation of Pumpage to Stream Flows The drainage area of the Yadkin River above the U. S. Geological Survey gage at Yadkin College is 2,280 square miles. The discharge of the river since the gage was established in 1928 has averaged 2,880 c.f.s., or 1,860 m.g.d. The minimum daily flow of 330 c.f.s., or 214 m.g.d., was recorded on October 9, 1954, and again on September 23, 1956. The maximum flood flow of record was 80,200 c.f.s., in August, 1940. A higher discharge of 86,600 c.f.s. in July, 1916, has been estimated from flood marks. 31 The critical flows at Donnaha and Styers Ferry have been calculated from the Yadkin College records on the basis of drainage areas as follows : Yadkin College Styers Ferry Donnaha 2,2S() 1,870 i,(;2() 1,800 1,530 1,;520 Drainage Arm — s.m Mean Discharge — m.g.d. . . , Minimum Daily Discharge — m.g.d 214 175 152 The annual flows of the Yadkin River at Styers Ferry are plotted in F.xhibit 4. The daily flows at Styers Ferry during the calendar year 1954 are plotted in Exhibit 5 to illustrate the variations in flow. The year 1954 was selected because the runoff during September and October was as low as has been recorded and represents the most severe conditions. The flows during 1954 ranged from a high of 16,000 m.g.d. in January to a low of 175 m.g.d. in October. Except during the months of September and October and a few days in August, 1954, the flows of the Yadkin River at Styers Ferry were w-ell in excess of 300 m.g.d. It is evident from Exhibit 5 that except during a few weeks in the year, the withdrawal of 25, 50 or even 100 m.g.d. from the Yadkin River for water supply purposes would have only a small effect on the normal discharge of the river. Furthermore, it is anticipated that J/j of the water taken from the Yadkin River for water supply purposes would be returned to streams in the Yadkin River basin. Most of the return water would be discharged through Muddy Creek into the Yadkin River only a few miles below Styers Ferry. Thus, the effect of diversion from the river would be even less than indicated by the pumping rates. The low flows in 1954 and 1956 were the result of unusually low rainfall, which normally would not occur e.xcept at intervals of several years. We recognize, however, that a large number of farm ponds have been and are being constructed on the headwaters of the Yadkin River. These ponds are small, but in the aggregate they represent storage of many millions of gallons of water. The effect of farm ponds is to reduce low flows downstream, since the normal runoff is held for use by the farmer. We cannot estimate how much farm pond construction will reduce the low flows of the Yadkin River, but some diminution in flow should be expected. Effect of Diversions on Downstream Water Users The effect of diversions from the Yadkin River for a regional water supply would depend upon the magnitude of the diversions and when they were made. Some downstream water users are geared to local stream flows, and any substantial diminution in flow would be noticeable. Other users have storage reservoirs that compensate for periodic reductions in flow. These users would not be affected to any important degree. For the most part, diversions of water to the seven cities during periods of relatively large runoff would have no measurable effect on downstream users. The effects of diverting Yadkin River water for the seven cities are summarized briefly in the sections following. The water uses between Donnaha and Styers Ferry are insignificant, and these comments pertain equally to either intake site. 32 Rated Capacity Filter Plant 4.0 M.G.D. 1.5 0.25 0.50 4.00 t 20.00* " a. Municipal Water Supplies There are 64 public water supplies in the Yadkin River basin in North Carolina. Of these 36 supplies have ground water sources yielding a total of 12 m.g.d. ; 28 supplies take their water from surface water resources and have a total capacity of 75 m.g.d. Most of the surface water supplies are taken from small reservoirs on tributary streams and would not be affected by diversions of water from the main stem of the Yadkin River. The six municipal water supplies in North Carolina on the Yadkin River below Styers Ferry are as follows : Public Water Supplies from YadkiniRiver Population Albermarle 13,100 Badin 3,000 Mount Gilead 1 , 500 Norwood 2,150 Salisbury 26,600 Winston-Salem 100 , 000 30.25 *Salem Creek Reservoir furnishes 0.0 m.g.d. The deficiency in supply is met by pumping from the Yadkin River at Idols. Cheraw, S. C, a community of approximately 5,000 persons, obtains its water supply from the river further downstream. As indicated by the table above, the total potential municipal water consump- tion in cities served by the main stem of the Yadkin River is about 10% of the low flows of 200-300 m.g.d. If we eliminate the Winston-Salem Yadkin River supply as now developed, the ratio is less than 5%. Most of the water used in the cities returns to the Yadkin River as sewage or industrial waste, and the consumptive use of water is negligible. As far as we can see, the diversion of water supply for the seven cities would not affect appreciably the municipal water supplies down- stream even if these downstream requirements should double and redouble in the next 50 years. This comment applies particularly to those several communities which take their water from large hydroelectric power reservoirs on the Yadkin River. b. Irrigation Supplemental irrigation of crops and grazing land is increasing throughout the southeastern states. The total water requirements for irrigation are not large, because one or two applications during a growing season are usually sufficient. A total annual water consumption for irrigation of 12 inches would be high in most instances. The average is probably ^ to ^ as much. Most of the water for irrigation is obtained from small farm ponds on the headwaters of tributary streams. There is little or no pumping of irrigation water from the main stem of the Yadkin River or principal tributaries. Permits must be obtained from the Department of Conservation and Development for the construction of farm ponds for irii ation. In 1955, 5,540 acres of farm land were covered by such permits. 33 It is reasonaljle to expect lliat irrij;ation will i;row, particularly alon^ the trii)U- tary streams. Farmlaiul aluii}; the l)aiik.s of the Yadkin River enjoying; riparian rifjhts arc limited in area, and the (|uantity of water re(|uired to irrigate it is not likely to be significant. It is possible that fanners will join toj,'i'ther to establish irrigation districts with intakes and pumping stations serving a number of farms. In this case the water used will be obtained by diversion, rather than as a riparian right. While the North Carolina law is not .specific as to preferred water uses, there is little reason to believe that the irrigators would have [iriority over a municipal water supply for the seven cities. c. Hydroelectric Power There are a number of hydroelectric power plants on the Yadkin River below Styers Ferry. Pertinent data relating to each are summarized below : J'ower Depend- Power Draw- Installed able D.A. Total Storage Down Capac. Capac. Project Stream s.m. Head a.f. Feet k.w. k.w. Blcwctf FalU. . . Pec Dec (i,8ti0 .")1 10,000 S 21 ,W0 21,000 Norwood (Tillery) Pee Dee 4,000 75 30,000 02,000 02,000 Falls Yadkin 4,140 53 20,300 20,300 Narrows (Badin) " 4,130 171) 130, ()()() 28 81,200 81.200 IliRh Rock " 3,930 02 173,000 10 33,000 20,400 Idols " 1,905 10 1,411 1,411 Reference:.... 430 343,000 222,511 215,911 Ho. Doc. 652, 78th Congress, 2nd Session, 1944. The Blewett Falls and Norwood plants are owned by the Carolina Power and Light Co. ; Falls, Narrows and High Rock are owned by the Carolina Aluminum Co. ; and the Idols plant by the Duke Power Co. The hydroelectric plants arc interconnected with other generating plants and the discharges from the reservoirs are regulated for most economical power production. The Duke Power Company's Buck plant near Salisburv, with a capacity of 440,000 k.w., is the largest steam plant in the vicinity. The Carolina Alumnium Co. has applied to the Federal Power Commission for a license to develop an additional 57 feet by the construction of a new dam at the Tuckertown site between High Rock and Narrows. The location of the hydroelectric plants in relation to the tributaries of the Yadkin River has an important bearing on the effects of pumpage at Styers Ferry or Donnaha because much of the water jiumped from either site would return to the Yadkin River above the largest power plants. All of the plants except Idols are located below Muddy Creek and Abbotts Creek, which drain much of the area to be served, and presently carry off the sewage and industrial wastes from \\'inston-.Salem, Thomasville and Lexington, and from parts of Kernersville and High Point. The total water consumption in these cities is estimated at 60 per cent of the total pumpage from the Yadkin River. Allowing 10 per cent loss, the return 34 flow to the Yadkin River through Muddy Creek and Abbotts Creek would total 5 f per cent of the pumpage. The remainder would be discharged from Greensboro. Burlington and parts of Kernersville and High Point into the Cape Fear River basin. Thus, of the six hydroelectric plants, only the low head plant at Idols would suffer from 100 per cent loss of water. The maximum possible loss in hydroelectric power can be estimated by as- suming that all water diverted, less water returned above the lower plants, could be used effectively in all six downstream plants. In this case the water-head loss would be as follows : Other Plants Total Daily Power Loss Idols- -10' 42C (' Loss Av. Water Loss Water Loss X Pump. Loss X Loss X Head m.g.d. m.g.d. Head m.g.d. Head (E) k.w.h. @0.7^ 20 20 200 9.2 3,860 4,060 10,800 $ 76 40 40 400 18.4 7,740 8,140 21,700 152 eo 60 600 27.6 11,000 12,200 32,500 228 80 80 800 36.8 1.5,500 16,300 43,400 304 100 100 1000 46.0 19,300 20,300 54,000 378 1 m.g.d. falhng 100' @ 85% efficiency yields 11.1 k.w. Daily Power Loss = . Ill x 24 x E = 2.66 E k.w.h. Value of Power at bus bar = 7 mils/k.w.h. Value of lost hydro power = 76 = $3.80 per m.g. pumped. 20 Maximum Annual Lost Power Pumpage Dollars M.Q.D. 20 $27,800 40 55,. 500 60 83,300 80 111,000 100 138,000 Actually, the Yadkin River reservoirs are not large enough and the power plants are not equipped to utilize the full flow of the river. During periods of high river discharge the diversion of water to the seven cities would have little or no efifect on power production. The useful, or power, storage in the six reservoirs totals 343,000 acre-feet, or 1 12,000 million gallons. If these reservoirs were all regulated to best advantage, the storage would assure a steady flow not exceeding 40 per cent of the mean discharge, and much of the time water is necessarily wasted. The same conclusion is reached by consideration of the maximum quantities of water that can be passed through the water wheels at the several plants. While the capacity varies at each plant, it appears that the limit is 3,200 to 4,000 m.g.d., except at Norwood, which is about twice as large, and at Idols, which is much smaller. The daily discharge of the Yadkin River at the High Rock gage exceeds 3,200 m.g.d. at least 75 to 100 days in each year. At these times, there is excess water spilling over the dams, and the diversion of water to the seven 35 cities would have no effect. For this reason the actual power loss would he con- siderably less than the amounts calculated in the previous table. The previous computations are based upon averas^e punipages and power generation. If water were diverted at high rates during dry periods, when river flows were low, the water loss would be felt more keenly at the downstream power I)lants. However, the low-flow periods are likely to occur during summer and fall months, when power demands are not at a maximum, and there is some doubt that the loss of water then actually would be as serious as at other times in the year. If the power plants are used as "peaking plants," the value of power lost may be somewhat higher than we have assumed. These factors would have to be studied in detail later if the Carolina Alumnium Co., the Duke Power Co., and the Carolina Power & Light Co. should enter serious objections to diversion of water to the seven cities. For the present the important point is that if the diversion of water does harm the downstream power plants, the loss in power would not exceed $3.00 more or less per million gallons of water innnped. This is etiuivalent to 0.22^ per hundred cubic feet, which is relatively small, when compared to retail water rates of 10 to 30(' per hundred cubic feet. d. Industrial Water Supply There are only two industrial water supplies of any size taken from the main stem of the Yadkin River below Styers Ferry. The North Carolina Finishing Co. at Spencer uses 1 to 2 m.g.d. The Buck Steam Power Plant of the Duke Power Co. requires large quantities of condenser cooling water. The cooling water demand is equivalent to the total flow of the Yadkin River past the power plant during drought periods. Duke Power Co. ofificials have indicated that when and if the Buck plant is enlarged, the low flows will be insufficient for condenser purposes, and cooling towers will have to be built. The diversion of water to the seven cities at periods of low flow would aggravate this situation. However, the cost of building and operating cooling towers for condenser water is so small in relation to the value of water for municipal purposes that no serious difficulty should be expected. e. Navigation Commercial navigation is of no importance on the Yadkin River in North Carolina. Further downstream in South Carolina, where there is some shipping, particularly along the coast, the total flows of the river arc much greater, and the proposed diversions would have no appreciable effect. f. Recreation The Yadkin River and the several lakes behind power dams are used ex- tensively for boating, fishing and bathing. None of these uses should be affected adversely by diversion of the quantities of water contemplated. Legal Considerations The pumpage of water from Uoniiaha or Styers Ferry to the seven cities would constitute a diversion of water from the Yadkin River basin. Diversions of water for municipal purposes are common in the eastern states, but there have been 36 few such cases in North Carolina. Minor diversions of this type are presently made at Blowing Rock, where the municipal water supply is taken from the New River basin and part of the sewage is discharged into the Yadkin River basin ... at High Point, where the water supply is taken from the Deep River, and some of the sewage is discharged to the Yadkin River basin ... at Mooresville and Davidson, where water is taken from the Catawba River, and discharged to the Yadkin River basin . . . and at Asheboro, where the water supply is taken from the Yadkin River, and part of the wastes go to the Cape Fear River basin. In these instances the quantities of water involved are small, and apparently no serious objection has been raised. The seven cities have no riparian rights in the Yadkin River. They could not establish such rights simply by building an intake dam and pumping station. North Carolina water law is based upon the riparian rights doctrine, under which all riparian landowners are entitled to equal use of the water passing their properties. The state courts in applying this doctrine have introduced the element of "reasonable use." Damage claims on account of upstream diversions have been denied by the courts where the lower riparian owner has been unable to prove significant reduction in flow and actual damages. There is interest in North Carolina and other eastern states directed toward the establishment of the appropriation doctrine in place of the riparian doctrine. The appropriation doctrine is applied exclusively in the arid and semi-arid states of the west, and has distinct advantages where the water supply is limited. Under the appropriation doctrine, a water user establishes a right to beneficial use of water by filing an application with the proper state authority, building the necessary works and using the water. Under this doctrine the first in time is the first in right, and as long as the beneficial use is not interrupted, the right to diversion is protected. Downstream riparian owners have no special claim to water simply because their land happens to adjoin the stream. Beneficial uses under the appropriation doctrine include all of the ordinary uses of water, including municipal and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, etc. In areas of limited water supply the benefits of the appropriation doctrine are well recognized. As the available water supplies of the east are used up, it seems likely that this doctrine or some modification of it will spread to the states now using the riparian rights doctrine. The transition will not be quick or easy, because of the thousands of vested rights under the old doctrine. The courts in riparian rights states have consistently held that failure of a riparian owner to use water from the stream does not invalidate his right to do so. Therefore, strictly in- terpreted, every riparian landowner has water rights which cannot be disposed of without proper legal action. Furthermore, the right to the water use passes with the land on to his heirs or the next owner. This brief statement of water law and policy obviously is incomplete and oversimplified. It is intended merely to indicate the general nature of the problem. Regulation of water use in North Carolina is certain to be an important issue in years to come. The debate over different procedures and demands for general and special legislation may delay construction of a regional water supply such as proposed on the Yadkin River for the seven cities. However, if the people want such a supply, it undoubtedly can be accomplished. As competition for water in- creases in North Carolina, the legislature and courts are sure to see that the most 37 pressing demands are met. The seven cities project should fare well in such competition for a number of reasons : (1) The prosperity and welfare of a segment of North Carolina will he dependent upon the development of an adequate water supply. (2) Equally important, the health and welfare of the seven cities area will he jeopardized by inadequate sewage and waste disposal if the local streams arc developed exclusively fur water supply purposes. (3) Wherever priority of use has been established by legislation or has been an issue in the courts, municipal water supply has always been placed near the top of the list. (4) The quantity of water to be diverted from the Yadkin River is insignficant in relation to the total flow of the stream. Damage to downstream users would not be excessive. In any event, the extent of damages can be established under the normal processes of law and paid for. The cost of such damages would be small in relation to the total cost of the project and would not affect the price of water appreciably. (5) If the water resources of the Yadkin River are developed further liy the construction of storage reservoirs, as discussed in the next section of the report, the effects of diversion would be eliminated for all practical ])urposes. Value of Upstream Storage As noted in the jjrevious section, the diversion of Yadkin River water to the seven cities would be noticeable only in periods of low flow. If these low flows were increased by releases from upstream reservoirs, the effect of such diversion would be eliminated. For a number of years the Corps of luigineers has studied the feasibility of flood control and hydroelectric power reservoirs on the Yadkin River. Existing and proposed reservoirs are shown in Exhibits 6 and 7. Of the proposed reservoirs, the Wilkesboro reservoir is most likely to be built in the near future. This reservoir would have a usable storage of 328,000 acre-feet (100,000 m.g.) and would be built essentially for flood control purposes. The District Engineer has indicated that a "conservation pool" would be provided in the reservoir to assure releases of at least 65 m.g.d. during periods of low stream flow. If a second reservoir is built on Reddies River nearby, the low flow releases would be increased to 100 m.g.d. These releases would exceed the maximum diversions for a seven cities water supply for years to come, and should eliminate entirely the question of damages to downstream riparian owners. The construction of the Wilkesboro reservoir as proposed by the Corps of Engineers would be of substantial help to the seven cities. A smaller storage reservoir for water supply purposes alone could be built. However, in this case, the unit cost would be much greater because of necessary allowances for siltation in a main stem reservoir, or more costly construction if the reservoir were built on one of the tributary streams. 38 8. DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATES— YADKIN RIVER PROJECTS General Considerations Regardless of which intake site is selected, or whether a raw water or filtered water project is built, the following works must he provided on the Yadkin River : (1) An intake pool 10 feet deep to be formed by a low dam across the river. (2) A spillway to discharge the maximum flood, estimated at 240,000 c.f.s. (3) A raw-water pumping station, including intake screen, pump suction well, facilities for flushing silt from the well, and electric-motor-driven pumps and power supply. The intake dam and pumping station structure would be built to the ulti- mate capacity. The initial pump installation and electric equipment would be limited to first-stage requirements, but space v/oukl be provided for the addition of larger units. The cost estimates are based upon the initial installa- tion of two 10 m.g.d. and one 20 m.g.d. pump. The pumps would be vertical pumps, submerged in the pump well with electric motors mounted on the pumping station floor above, where there would be no danger of flooding. Electric power for the pumping station would have to be brought to the site from the high-tension lines of the Duke Power Co. about 5 miles away. The sale of power would be profitable, and the Duke Power Co. undoubtedly would assume the cost of the service line upon assurances of a reasonable consump- tion over a period of years. DONNAHA SITE— INTAKE WORKS The Donnaha site has been mapped by the Corps of Engineers and the sub- surface conditions determined in a preliminary way by test borings. The cross- section of the Yadkin River valley at Donnaha is shown in Exhibit 10. The rock line is approximate only. Some of the District Engineer's records at Charleston, S. C, were destroyed by fire, and it has not been possible to locate the borings exactly. On the east side of the river the rock is close to the ground surface and would provide support for a concrete spillway structure and pumping station. On the west side of the river the rock falls away rapidly and could be reached only by struc- tures of considerable depth. Therefore it is proposed that the masonry structures be confined to that part of the river within 600 feet of the east bank and that an earth-fill dam be used on the western side. The underlying rock is of shale, badly fractured and weathered near the surface. For a high storage dam the rock un- questionably would have to be thoroughly grouted with cement to prevent excessive leakage. For a low intake dam the water pressure on the rock would be much less and grouting should not be a serious problem. Two types of intake dam have been studied. In the first the dam would consi.st of a simple concrete ogee spillway section with crest at elevation 744. In the second the sill would be held at elevation 734 and the extra 10-foot depth would be 39 provided by means of roller or tainter gates. The gates would he opened during flood flows, and the earth ]iortion of the dam could he lower than with the fixed spillwa)-. The general arrangement of the structures is shown in h'.xhihit lU. The intake screen, pumping well and jjuinping station would l)e substantially the same with either type. The project cost with the two types of dam are estimated as fol- lows ; exclusive of allowances for engineering or contingencies: DONNAHA INTAKE DAM AND PUMPING STATION Unit Overflow Weir Gated Design Price Quantities Cost Quantities Cost Land $250.00 1U(J .\.. $100,000 400 A. $100,000 Flowage Rights 25.00 1200 A. 30,000 1200 A. 30, (XK) Sub-Total «130,000 $130,000 Dam Clearing & Grubbing. . 200.00 10 A. 2,000 10 A. 2,(X)0 Earth Fill 1.00 1.00 17000 CY 49500 CY 17,000 49,500 25200 CY 35780 CY 25,000 Earth Excavation . . . . 35,780 Rock E.Kcavation 5.00 9650 CY 48,250 7340 CY 3(5,700 Concrete-it. Sees ()().00 3325 CY 199,500 Concrete-Massive. . . . 40.00 24:^70 CY 974,800 14310 CY 572, 4(X) fi'ltOS LS 234,000 L.S. 250,000 250,000 Sub-Total $1,341,550 $1,355,580 Pumping Station Earth P'xcavation . . . . 1.00 20400 CY 20,400 10200 CY 10,200 Rock Excavation 5.00 230 CY 1,180 140 CY 700 Concrete-It. Sees 00.00 2840 CY 170,400 3050 LY 183,000 Pumps and Motors . . , L.S. 1(50,000 1(50,000 Pumps Install, and Switchgear L.S. (54,000 64,000 Sub-Total $415,980 $417,900 Grand Total. . . . $1,887,530 $1,903,480 Use $1,900,000 $1,900,000 The estimated costs would be practically the same, whichever type of dam were used. Since the overflow weir is the more reliable and requires no operating or maintenance expense, it probably would be the preferable type. Additional borings at the site and detailed design studies should be made before a final decision is reached. For purposes of project estimates the $1,9(K),000 figure has been used. 40 STYERS FERRY SITE— INTAKE WORKS The Styers Ferry site has been explored by the Corps of Engineers and by the City of High Point, which proposed to build a municipal hydroelectric power plant there several years ago. As a result of these studies, the site is well mapped and adequate borings are available. A cross-section of the site is shown in Exhibit 11. The geology at Styers Ferry is much the same as at Donnaha, except that the underlying rock does not fall off so rapidly towards the west. An ogee spillway section and gated structure have been studied for the Styers Ferry site. The overflow spillway would be 600 feet long with crest at elevation 692. The gated spillway would be 500 feet long with a sill at elevation 680, and supporting gates 12 feet high. At the Styers site the project with fixed overflow section is estimated to cost $1,800,000. The project with gated structure would cost $1,700,000. The dif- ference is relatively small in terms of the over-all project cost, and a final decision as to the type of dam should be delayed until after more detailed design studies have been completed. The higher figure, $1,800,000, is used in subsequent estimates to be on the safe side. The cost breakdown for the two types of construction is summarized as follows : STYERS FERRY INTAKE DAM AND PUMPING STATION Unit Price Land $250.00 Flo wage Rights 25.00 Sub-Total Overflow Weir Quantities Cost 200 A. $ 50,000 2500 A. 62,500 Gated Design Quantities Cost 200 A. $ 50,000 2500 A. 62,500 $112,500 $112,500 Dam Clearing & Grubbing. Earth Fill Earth Excavation . . . Rock Excavation. . . . Concrete-It. Sees Concrete-Massive. . . Gates Stream Diversion .... Sub-Total . Pumping Station Earth Excavation . . Rock Excavation . . . Concrete-It. Sees. . . . Pumps and Motors . Pumps Install, and Switchgear. . . . Sub-Total . . . Grand Total . Use 200.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 60.00 40.00 L.S. 11 A. 26650 CY 53190 CY 12170 CY 20550 CY 2,200 26,650 53,190 60,850 822^000 250^000 11 A. 28290 CY 34480 CY 7590 CY 2810 CY 9690 CY 2,200 28,290 34,480 37,950 163,600 387,600 234 000 L.S. 250 000 $1 ,214,890 $1 ,138,120 1.00 5.00 60.00 L.S. 18320 CY 270 CY 3460 CY 18,320 1,350 207,600 160,000 9380 CY 240 CY 3120 CY 9,380 1,200 187,200 160,000 L.S. 64,000 64,000 $ $1 $1 451,270 ,778,660 ,800,000 $ 421,780 $1,672,400 $1,700,000 41 Comparison of Intake Sites From the standpoint of construction costs the Donnaha and Styers Ferry sites are practically on a par. At the Donnaha site the water level would be at elevation 744, or 52 feet higher than at the Styers Ferry site. The jjuniping head, therefore, would be less with the Donnaha intake site. It should be noted, however, that if the proposed hydroelectric power dam is built at Styers Ferry, it will back the water up to elevation 750 and flood out by 6 feet the intake dam at Donnaha. It is assumed that if the intake were built at Styers Ferry, the pumping station would be moved upstream above the new dam in order to take advantage of the higher water level. Thus, the pumping head at Donnaha and Styers Ferry ultimately might be the same. The Corps of Engineers has studied also a power dam at Donnaha, which if built would raise the water level there by 148 feet to elevation 877. However, the Corps of Engineers' studies prove little economic justification for the Donnaha dam. and, if it is ever built, it is likely to be the last undertaken on the Yadkin River. DONNAHA SITE— RAW WATER PROJECT The location of the Donnaha intake site and raw water transmission main are shown in Exhibit 8. The pipeline would follow a direct route from the intake across the northern part of Winston-Salem, near the airport, and continue to Kernersville. An approximate plan and profile along this line is shown in Exhibit 12 upon which is also shown the hydraulic gradients for various flows as indicated. The ground rises steeply from the Yadkin River to elevation 910 plus, continues for a distance of 10 miles in general between elevation 800 and 900, and rises to high points at elevation 1.000 north of Winston-Salem and 1020 at Kernersville. The pipeline would be 54 inches in diameter to the first takeoff northeast of Winston-Salem, some 16 miles from the river. Raw water for Winston-Salem would be discharged here into the headwaters of Lowery Creek to feed the W'inston- Salem reservoir. The line would be reduced to 48 inches at the Winston-Salem take-ofT, and the remaining flow discharged through the 48-inch pipeline Sj^ miles long to a distribution reservoir to be provided at Kernersville. The Kernersville reservoir would have a flow line at elevation 1030. Water would be released from the Kernersville reservior through pipelines of various lengths and sizes into the headwaters of the streams feeding the supplies of the several communities, as indi- cated on Exhibit 14. Thus, water would be discharged into the Haw River for Burlington, into Reedy Fork Creek for Greensboro, into the Deep River for High Point and into Abbotts Creek for Lexington and Thomasville. Raw water for Kernersville would take off nearest the filter plant and discharge directly into the mixing chamber at the plant. Hydraulic profiles for assumed pumping rates of 10, 30 and 50 m.g.d. are shown in Exhibit 12. In preparing these profiles, the water consumption was distributed as follows : Winston-Salem 35% Lexington 5% Greensboro 30% Thomasville 4% High Point 15% Kernersville 1% Burlington 10% 100% 42 'o These percentages are approximately in proportion to the estimated future water consumption in the seven cities. They include not only the water consumption within the city, but also that to be taken in the suburban areas expected to build up adjacent. All water pumped, except the 35% delivered to Winston-Salem and that taken by Kernersville would be delivered to the Kernersville reservoir for distribu- tion to the remaining cities in the proportion indicated. The actual water con- sumption might differ substantially from the assumed percentages, particularly in the smaller communities, without changing materially the hydraulic conditions. In the initial stages of the project, when the pumping was less than 30 m.g.d., it would be more convenient and very nearly as economical to pump all the way from the Yadkin River to the Kernersville reservoir, and our profiles are shown on this basis. A booster pumping station could be built at the Winston-Salem takeoff at a later date when more capacity was needed in order to avoid pumping the water used by Winston-Salem the extra height necessary to reach the Kernersville reservoir. The total pumping head would depend upon the pumping rate. Typical values are as follows for pumping through to the Kernersville reservoir : Raw-Water Project with Donnaha Intake Pumping Total Rate Head 10 m.g.d. 294 30 m.g.d. 336 50 m.g.d. 414 If a receiving basin and booster pumping station were provided now at the Winston-Salem takeoff, pumping heads from the river could be reduced by 20 feet for the low rate of 10 m.g.d. and still deliver over the hump north of Winston- Salem. Pumping heads would then be as follows : Raw=Water Project with Donnaha Intake Pumping Rate Head at Yadkin Pumping Rate Head at Booster Pump 10 m.g.d. 30 m.g.d. 50 m.g.d. 274 300 350 6.5 m.g.d. 19.5 m.g.d. 32.5 m.g.d. 20 36 64 Attention should be called to the fact that if raw water is delivered to the several cities, it will be necessary, except for Winston-Salem and Kernersville, to repump this raw water from the existing city supplies to their treatment works. Burlington would also have to repump the quantity delivered to them from their Haw River emergency intake to their existing storage. The cost of a raw water project from the Yadkin River at Donnaha, including the intake and pumping station costs, is estimated as follows : 43 DONNAHA SITE RAW WATER PROJECT ESTIMATE OF COST Supply Works and Transmission Mains Divfision Dam -Intako Works and I'umpiiin Station .$1 ,900, (KM) Real Estato and RiKli»s-Of Way Raw Water Line 1 10, (»()() Rock Excavation Pipe Line ' 10,000 c. y. (g* 1(1.00 100, ()()() Highway and Railroad ( 'rossings L.S Ill ,0(M) 54" Class 200 Lock Joint Pipe 84,000 ft. @ 47.50 :i,',i'.)(),0(H) 48" Class 150 Lock Joint Pipe 29,200 ft. @ 34,50 1 ,007, 100 Misc. Valves, Gates, Meters and Structures ■19(),4.")0 25 M.G. Concrete Uncovered Reservoir at Kernersville .">08,000 Sub-Total System Cost $ 8,279,850 Engineering and Contingencies 15% 1 ,241 ,980 Total Estimated System Cost $ 9,521 ,830 Use $ 9,600,000 Distribution Mains from Kernersville Reservoir To Haw River for Burlington lo.OOO'-lG". . . . l.')5,.')()0 To Reedv Fork for Croenshoro 1 ,000'-30". . . . 2.'), 400 To Deep" River for High Point t;,000'-24". . . . 118,100 To Kernersville Filter Plant 3,0Ot)'-lG". . . . 38,700 To Abbotts Creek for Lexington and Thomasville 8,000'-16". . . . 104,200 Winston-Salem Takeoff from Main Line 300'-30". ... 12,800 Sub-Total Diversion Lines Cost $ 4.")4 ,700 Engineering and Contingencies 15% 68,210 Total Estimated Cost Diversion Lines $ 522,910 Use 530,000 Use Total Estimated Cost of $10, 130,000 The raw water supply project including intake works, pumping station, trans- mission main and reservoir at Kernersville would cost $9,600,000. The distribution lines from the Kernersville reservoir to the streams would cost $530,000. It is assumed that all seven cities would share the cost of the supply works to the Kernersville reservoir but that each city would pay for its own distribution main. The cost of raw water distribution mains for each city, including engineering and contingencies, would be as follows: Burlington $180,000 Greensboro 30,000 High Point 138,000 Kernersville 45,000 Lexington & Thomasville 1 22,000 Winston-Salem 15,000 $530,000 The raw-water system described above would have a capacity of 50 m.g.d. throughout, except that additional pumps would have to be installed in the pumping station. Provision would be made in the original construction for adding pumps later, and the cost would be limited to the pumps, motors, switchgear and installation. An allowance of $200,000 is made for this in later estimates. 44 DONNAHA SITE— FILTERED WATER PROJECT In the filtered water project using the Donnaha Site, the pipeHne would follow the same route shown for the raw water project. The river pumping station would lift the water to a filter plant located about three miles from the river northwest of Winston-Salem. A suitable site exists at elevation 940 for the filter plant and filtered water pumping station. Its location is indicated on Exibits 9 and 12. The pipeline would continue past Winston-Salem to Kernersville. However, in this case the water for Winston-Salem would be taken off north of the city and pumped directly into the Winston-Salem high level distribution system. Shifting the Winston-Salem takeoff to the west would reduce the length of 54-inch pipe and increase the length of 48-inch pipe by about three miles. In the filtered water project, all water would be pumped to the filter plant and then repumped to the same elevation as previously indicated for raw water. This is high enough to serve Winston-Salem through low head pumps and deliver the balance of the water into a distribution reservoir at Kernersville without repumping. System pumping heads to Kernersville for the various rates indicated are as follows. Twenty feet head loss is allowed through the filter plant. Total Pumpage to All Cities 10 M.G.D. 30 M.G.D. 50 M.G.D. Yadkin River to Filter Plant— ft 197 203 214 Filter Plant to Kernersville Reservoir— ft 117 153 220 Total feet 314 356 434 From the reservoir at Kernersville, water could be delivered to the corporate limits of Greensboro, High Point, Thomasville and Lexington without further pumping. However, under certain conditions, pumping would be required at each of these four cities to elevate the water into the existing distribution system tanks. Static pumping heads would vary inversely with the system delivery rate through the transmission mains. Burlington's needs could be delivered directly to the distribution system without further pumping. Water for Kernersville would be delivered directly to the existing clear water reservoir at the filter plant without pumping. Reference is made to Exhibits 15, 16, 17 and 18 for location plans and profiles of the transmission mains from Kernersville. It is assumed that each of the seven cities would take treated water from the transmission mains at the most convenient point and pump their needs into their own distribution system through pumping equipment and lines which they would own and operate. Water to Kernersville could be delivered directly to the existing clear water reservoir with little loss of head and repumped with existing pumps. Water could be delivered to Burgington's distribution system directly without repumping up to a rate of over 4 M.G.D. The remaining 5 cities, under certain conditions, would need to pump against varying heads depending upon the delivery rates through the system transmission mains. Static heads between the elevations of the several distribution systems, and the hydraulic gradient in the adjacent transmission main at varying rates of flow in the mains would be as tabulated below. Friction heads between transmission mains and distribution systems are not included. 45 10 M.( 3.D. 30 M.Q.O. 50 M.G.D. m.g.d. Pt. m.g.d. It. ni.g.cl. i"t. :\A) - 21 U.O i.'i.o :U) l.r, 71 4.0 10:5 7.5 l.iit . "> -W.i 1.0 - 3(J 2.r) SI .4 - 24 1.2 27 2.0 11') 3.:) (12 10.. 'i 47 17.. T I'J % Greensboro 30 High Point \^ Lexington Ft Thomasville 4 Winston-Salem 35 Negative figures indicate gravity flow to distribution systems without pumping. It should he noted that no additional pumping head would be required at Greensboro and Lexington for system rates of 10 and 30 m.g.d., and none at Thomas- ville for the lower rate of 10 m.g.d. It should be further noted that pumping heads at Winston-.Salem decrease with the increase in system delivery, because the level control is at Kernersville some S'/^ miles beyond the point of takeoff. The cost of a filtered water project from the Yadkin River at Donnaha, in- cluding all works through the Kernersville reservoir and filtered water distribution mains, but excluding connection lines and pumps between the distribution mains and the individual cities, is estimated as follows : DONNAHA SITE FILTERED WATER PROJECT ESTIMATE OF COST Supply Works, Filter Plant and Transmission Main Diversion Dam-Intake Works and Pumping Station $ 1 ,000,000 54" C'las.s 200 Lock .loint line to Filter Plant including right-of-way and all accessories 15,00!)' 777,000 Filter Plant complete with Controls and Pump Station 30 M.G.D. Capacity @ $175,000 per IM.CJ 5,2.50,000 Real Estate for Plant .50 Acres @ 3.50.00 17 ,500 Pipeline to Kernersville Reservoir Real E.state and Riglits-Of-Way— Pipeline 125,000 Rock Excavation Treated Water Line 8,500 c. y 85,000 Highway and Railroad Crossings L.S 1 10,000 54" Class 200 Lock Joint Pipe 54,000 ft. (§^ 47.50 2, .5(15, 000 48" Class 150 Lock .Joint Pipe 44,200 ft. @ 34.50. .. . 1 ,.524,000 Mi.sc. Valves, Gates, Meters and Stnictures 435,8.50 25 M. G. Concrete Covered Reservoir at Kernersville 810,000 Sub-Total System Cost. $13,600,250 Engineering and Contingencies 15% 2,041 ,390 Total Estimated System Cost $15,(1.50,(140 Use $1(1,000,000 Distribution Mains Kernersville Reservoir to Greensboro 82,(100'-42" 2, 01 3,. 500 Greensboro to Burlincton 100,000'-20" 1 ,.500,975 Kornersville Reservoir to High Point (13 , 400'-30" 1 ,34(1,200 High Point to Thomasville 31 , I0()'-20" 478, 125 Thomasville to Lexington 27 ,400'-16" 318,800 Sub-Total Distribution Mains $ 0,2(16,600 Engineering and Contingencies 15% 939,990 Total Estimated Cost Distribution Mains $ 7, 206,. 590 Use $ 7,200,000 Use Total Estimated Cost of $23,200,000 46 The preceding estimate of cost for the filtered water project at the Donnaha site is based on a capacity of 50 m.g.d. except for the filter plant and pumping stations which would have an initial capacity of 30 m.g.d. The only increase needed to bring the over-all capacity up to 50 m.g.d. would be the addition of 20 m.g.d. capacity to the filter plant and pumping stations. Real estate estimated for the filter plant site is sufficient for the ultimate estimated capacity in the year 2000. The addition of 20 m.g.d. capacity is estimated to cost $3,500,000. It is assumed that the $16,000,000 cost of the supply works, filter plant, transmission main and reservoir at Kernersville would be shared by all of the seven cities. The distribution mains from the reservoir would be paid for by the cities using them. Kernersville and Winston-Salem would draw their needs di- rectly from the feeder main to the reservoir and would not need to construct separate distribution mains from the reservoir to the cities. During periods when pumps were not operating, the main feeder would serve as a distribution main from the reservoir back to Kernersville and Winston-Salem. The cost of distribution mains, for the five remaining cities, including engineering and contingencies, would be as follows : Filtered Water Project — Both Sites Use Kernersville to Greensboro 82 , 600'-42" $3 , 005 , 525 $3 , 000 , 000 Greensboro to Burlington 100 , 900'-20" 1 , 736 , 470 1 , 740 , 000 Kernersville to High Point 63 , 400'-30" 1 , 548 , 1 30 1 , 550 , 000 High Point to Thomasville 31 , 100'-20" 549,845 545,000 Thomasville to Lexington 27,400'-16" 366,620 365,000 Total $7,206,590 Use total Estimated Cost of $7,200,000 Some of these distribution mains would serve more than one city. The allocation of these costs, and over-all water costs, among the several cities, is taken up in detail in Section 9 of the report. On the basis of that analysis the cost of building distribution mains would be charged to each city, as follows : Amount of above chargeable to Buriington $2,190,000 " Greensboro 2,550,000 "High Point 1,085,000 " " " " "Lexington 865,000 " " " " "Thomasville 510,000 Total $7,200,000 STYERS FERRY SITE— RAW WATER PROJECT The location of the Styers Ferry intake and raw water transmission main to Kernersville is shown on Exhibit S. The pipeline would pass south of Winston- Salem and then almost due east to a raw water storage reservoir at Kernersville, where the water would be distributed as described in the Donnaha Project. An approximate plan and profile along the proposed line similar to that for the Donnaha project is shown in Exhibit 13. The ground is cut frequently by creek valleys 100 to 150 feet deep, but otherwise rises steadily from the Yadkin River to Kernersville. The first 17 miles of pipeline to the Winston-Salem takeoff would be 54-inch 47 diameter pipe, terminating in a small storage reservoir. The remaining 6.7 miles to the Kernersville reservoir would he 48-inch jiipc. Water would he delivered to VVinston-Salcm from the storage reser\'oir through a 30-inch pipe 3000 feet long into the headwaters of a small creek, flowing into the Salem Creek reservoir as indi- cated on Exhihit li. The remaining water would he rc]nimped through the 48-inch main to the Kernersville reservoir. For the Styers Ferry Raw Water Project, the pumping heads would be as follows : Pumpage Lift At liooster Pumping Station M.Q.D. Yadkin River I'umpage Lift In In Feet M.G.D. Feet 10 2.J1 6.5 93 30 288 19.5 104 50 3.53 32.5 125 In this case the savings in pumping costs by repumping after the Winston- Salem takeoff would be considerable and double pumping would be warranted even at low flows. Distribution from the Kernersville Reservior would be the same as described for the Donnaha Reservoir. Reference is made to E.xhibit 14. The cost of a raw water project from the Yadkin River at Styers Ferry, including the intake and pumping station costs, is estimated as follows : STYERS FERRY SITE RAW WATER PROJECT ESTIMATE OF COST Supply Works and Transmission Mains Diversion Dam — Intake Works and Pumping Station .$ 1 ,800,000 R(>al Estate and Rights-Of-Way 1. -).->, 000 Rock Excavation 11,000 c.y. @ 10.00 110, 000 Ilishwav and Railroad Cro.ssings 141 ,000 54" rias.s 200 Pipe 88,. 500 ft. @ 47.50 4,'_'0:'.,7.-)0 48" Class 1,50 Pipe 35,200 ft. @ 34.50 1 ,214 ,400 Misc. Valves, (tatos, Meters and Structures 51S,S.')0 3 M.G. Reservoir and Pump House at Winston-Salem Takeoff 1(10, 0(K) Pumps, Motors and Control.s — In place 1 18,000 25 M.G. Reservoir at Kernersville .508,000 Sub-Total System Cost $ 8,932,000 Engineering and Contingencies 15% 1 ,389,800 Total Estimated System Cost $10,321 ,800 Use $10,400,000 Distribution Mains To Haw River for Burlington 15,000'-U)". . . $ 1.55, .500 To Reedy Fork for Greensboro 1 ,000'-30". . . 25,400 To Deep River for High Point 6,000'-24". . . 1 18, 100 To Kernersville Filter Plant 4 ,0n0'-16". . . 49,300 To Abbotts Creek for Lexington and Thoma.sviile 8,000'-16". . . 104,200 Winston-Salem Takeoff from Main Line 3,000'-30". . . (56,400 Sub-Total Diversion Line Cost $ 518,900 Engineering and Contingencies 15% 77,840 Total Estimated Cost Diversion Lines $ .590,740 Use $ (J00,000 Use Total Estimated Cost of $11,000,000 48 STYERS FERRY SITE— FILTERED WATER PROJECT In the Styers Ferry filtered water project, the pipeline would follow the same route as selected for the raw water project. The filter plant and filtered water pumping station would be located along the line, about two miles from the river, as shown in Exhibits 9 and 13. A suitable site at approximately elevation 830, and within easy reach of paved highways, is available at this location. Water would be pumped to the filter and repumped as described for the Donnaha Project. The first large takeoflf to serve Winston-Salem would be just east of N. C. Highway 150 where a storage reservoir would be provided and water for Winston- Salem pumped by the City to its low level distribution system. The transmission mains would be 54-inch from the filter plant to this reservoir and 48-inch for the remaining 12.2 miles to the Kernersville reservoir. Water would be repumped to the Kernersville reservoir for distribution to the various cities as previously de- scribed. Distribution conditions from Kernersville would be the same as for the Donnaha Filtered Water project. System pumping heads to Kernersville for the various rates indicated are as follows : Twenty feet loss is allowed through the filter plant. Total Pumpage to All Cities 10 M.Q.D, 30 M.G.D. 50 M.Q.D. Yadkin River to Filter Plant— feet 139 143 152 Filter Plant to Winpton-Salem takeoff—feet 93 112 147 Total 232 255 299 Pumping heads from the Winston-Salem takeoff to the Kernersville reservoir do not apply to water taken by Winston-Salem. Heads from this takeoff would be as follows : Total Pumpage to Cities Except Winston=Salem 6.5 M.Q.D. 19.5 M.G.D. 32.5 M.Q.D. Winston-Salem takeoff to Kernersville 133 ft. 154 ft. 192 ft. Static heads to the low level distribution system of Winston-Salem would be 161 feet for all system delivery rates since the level is controlled at the takeoff point and does not vary with delivery rates. Static heads for the remaining cities would be identical to those required for the Donnaha project. Reference is made to Exhibits 15, 16 17, and 18. The cost of a filtered water project from the Yadkin River at Styers Ferry, including distribution mains from Kernersville, but excluding connecting lines and pumps between system transmission mains and the individual cities, is as follows : 49 ST\ r:RS FLRRN SITU I ll.THRrU W ATHR I'RO.IUCT LSTIMATEl or COST Supply Works, Filter Plant and Transmission Mains Diversion Dam — Intake Works aiul I'lmip Slatioii $ 1,800,000 54" Class 200 I'ipcliin' to Fillor Tlaiit iiuliulint; Uighls-of Way and all accessories -11 ,')()0' 015,450 Filter Plant complete with Controls and Pump Station 30 M.CI.D. capacitv ^i, $17."), ()()() per M.C. 5,2r)0,(MK) Heal l':state for Filler Plant .">() Acres (5, $350.00 17, .500 Pipeline to W inston-Salem Takeoff Hishts-Of-Way 54" Line to Winston-Salem 48,000' 48,000 Rock Excavation— 4,500 c.y. fe $10.00 45,000 IIi;;h\vav and Railroad Crossings (30,000 54" Class 200 Pipt-^8,000 ft. @ $47.50 2,280,000 Misc. Valves, Clates, Meters and Structures 234,900 25 M.Ci. Covered Reservoir and Pumi)inf; Station 825,000 Real FiState for Reservoir and Pump Station 4,200 Pumps (5-10-15) Motors and Controls — In place 153,000 Pipeline Winston-Salem Takeoff to Kernersville Rights-Of-Wav CK^OO ft. (a, $1.00 64,200 Rock Excavation— 5,300 c. y. ^ $10.00 53,000 Highway and Railroad Crossings 74 ,000 48" Class 150 Pip«^(;4,200 ft. @ $34. .50 2,214,1)00 Misc. Valves, Gates, Meters and Stnictures 208, ,500 25 M.G. Covered Reservoir at Kernersville 810, (KK) Real Estate for Reservoir 4,200 Sub-Total System Cost $14,799,650 Engineering and Contingencies 15% 2,219,950 Total Estimated System Cost $17,019,600 Use $17,100,000 Distribution Mains Kernersville Reservoir to Greensboro 82,600'-42" $ 2,613, .500 Greensboro to Burlington 100,900'-20" 1 ,.509,975 Kernersville Reservoir to High Point 63,400'-30" 1 ,346,200 High Point to Thomasvillo 31 , 100'-20" 478,125 Thomasville to Lexington 27,400'-16" 318,800 Sub-Total Distribution Mains $ 6,266,600 Engineering and Contingencies 15% 939,990 Total Estimated Cost Distribution Mains $ 7,206,590 Use « 7,200,000 Use Total Estimated Cost of $24,300,000 The precedng estimate of cost for the filtered water project at the Styers Ferry site is based on a capacity of 50 m.g.d. except for the filter plant and pumping sta- tions which would have an initial capacity of 30 m.g.d. The only increase needed to bring the over-all capacity up to 50 m.g.d. would be the addition of 20 m.g.d. capacity to the filter and pumping stations at an estimated cost of $3,500,000. Real estate estimated for the filter plant site is sufficient for the ultimate estimated capacity in the year 2000. 50 Comparison of Projects The construction costs of the several projects are compared in the table below : Raw=Water Project Donnaha Intake Styers Ferry Intake Supply system $9,600,000 $10,400,000 Distribution mains 530,000 600,000 Total first stage 10,130,000 11,000,000 Future additional pumps 200,000 200,000 Total 50 m.g.d. capacity $10,330,000 $11,200,000 Filtered=Water Project Supply system 16,000,000 17,100,000 Distribution mains 7,200,000 7,200,000 Total first stage 23,200,000 24,300,000 Future additions to filter plant and pumping stations 3,500,000 3,500,000 Total, 50 m.g.d. capacity $26,700,000 $27,800,000 For both raw water and filtered water the Donnaha projects would cost approximately $1,000,000 less than the Styers Ferry projects. As previously noted, the pumping head would be approximately 52 feet less at Donnaha than at Styers Ferry, and the power cost would be 15 to 20 per cent less if the Donnaha site were used. We recommend the Donnaha site as the better of the two, and have based our estimates of water costs on an intake at this site. It is possible that extended borings and design studies would show up construction difficulties at the Donnaha site, but we doubt that they would be such as to change materially the relative costs of the two projects. 51 9. COST OF YADKIN RIVER WATER Raw and filtered water costs have been estimated for a Yadkin Kivi-r project taking water from an intake at Donnaha. If the intake were located at Stvers I'erry, the construction and operating costs would be slightly higher. Costs have been estimated for average pumpages of 10, 20, 30 and 50 m.g.d. Beyond 50 ni.g.d. major additions would have to he built, and the cost would de])end somewhat upon which cities had grown fastest, where the water demands were greatest, etc. A capacity of 50 m.g.d. should meet fitered-water demands until 1975 or 1980, and raw-water demands until 1990. Interest and amortization have been calculated at 5.5 per cent of the capital cost of the works. This is equivalent to equal annual payments over a period of 30 years with interest at 3.5 + per cent. The cost figures do not include the fi.xed charges on the distribution mains, which are considered later in the report. Power for pumping is calculated from Duke Power Co. Schedule No. 10 for Municipal Service. Pump and motor efficiencies are taken at 80 per cent from wire to water. Filtration costs, including supervision, labor, chemicals, maintenance, and repair, are estimated to range from $18 per m.g. for a draft of 10 m.g.d. down to $12 per m.g. for drafts of 50 m.g.d. Estimated Cost of Raw Water (not including distribution) Total dcficionev-m.ir.d. .. . 10 20 30 50 " 'mfr-.mn... 3,tJ50 7,300 10,950 18,250 Average pumpage from Yadkin River m.g.d 5 10 10 25 Plus 25% allowance for losses, m.g.d G.25 12.5 18.75 31.25 Annual pumpage— m.g 2,280 4,550 0,850 11,400 Approximate pumpage rate -m.g.d 18 25 30 35 Power cost of pumping, per m.g $13.48 $11.39 $10.43 $9.42 Capital Cost $9,000,000 $9,600,000 $9,800,000 $9,800,000 Operating Costs Electric Power $ 30,730 $ 51,820 $ 71,4.50 $ 107,390 Pump House operators. .. . 8,000 8,000 15,000 20,000 Maintenance and repair. . . 5, .500 8,000 10,000 15,000 Transportation 1 ,000 1 ,500 2,000 2,. 500 Superintendent 10,000 12,000 15,000 18,000 Total $ 55,2.30 $ 81,320 $ 113,450 $ 162,890 FLxed Charges® 5.5%. .. $ 528,000 $ 528,000 $ 540,000 $ 540,000 Total .\nmial(\)sts $ 583,2.30 $ 609, .320 $ 053,4.50 $ 702,890 Average cost per m.g $ 160.00 $ 83.00 $ 00.00 $ 39.00 Average cost per 100 c.f. ., . 12.0*! (i.2i A.oi 2.9i Note that the unit costs shown are not the costs per m.g. of water actually pumped from the Yadkin River, but rather the cost per m.g. of additional water made available by supplementing local sources with water from the Yadkin River. Thus, a raw-water deficiency of 20 m.g.d. could be met for an expediture of $626,500 per annum, or $86 per m.g. Power cost of pumping per m.g. based on unit power cost calculated from Duke Power Company schedule number 10. 52 Estimated Cost of Filtered Water (not including distribution) Average supply from Yadkin River— m.g.d 10 20 30 50 Annual pumpag(^m.g. .. . 3,650 7,300 10,950 18,250 Power cost of pumping perm.g $9.68 $8.95 $9.29 $10.82 Capital cost $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $19,500,000 $25,000,000* Operating Costs Electric power $ 35,330 $ 65,340 $ 101,730 $ 197,470 Pump house operators.. . . 16,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 Maintenance and repair... 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Filtration 66,000 117,000 153,000 219,000 Transportation 3,000 5,000 7,000 9,000 Superintendent 15,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 Total $ 145,330 $ 243,340 $ 330,730 $ 507,470 Fixed charges @ 5 . 5% . . . . 880 , 000 880 , 000 1 , 075 , 000 1 , 380 , 000 Total annual charges $1,025,330 $1,123,340 $1,405,730 $1,887,470 Average cost per m.g $ 281.00 $ 154.00 $ 128.00 $ 103.00 Average cost per 100 c.f. .. . 21. U 11.6^ 9.6^; 7.7f! * When the average consumption of filtered water from the Yadkin River reaches 50 m.g.d., peak daily requirements would be 65 m.g.d. or greater, and substantial additions would be required throughout the system. We have not estimated exactly what these would be or their cost, but the $25,000,000 total shown is sufficient to indicate the probable trend in water costs. Power cost of pumping per m.g. based on unit power cost calculated from Duke Power Company schedule number 10. The average costs of raw and filtered water determined in the preceding section do not include the cost of distributing water from the transmission main or Kerners- ville reservoir to the several cities. The booster pumping requirements would be small in all cases, and the operating costs negligible. The fixed charges on dis- tribution mains, particularly filtered water mains, would be substantial and would affect the cost of water to each participant. In order to estimate the cost of water to each city, it has been necessary to allocate the project costs among the participating cities. This cannot be done precisely and in the last analysis probably would be affected by how the project was financed — entirely through the sale of water, or partly through the sale of water and partly by fixed annual payments by each of the seven cities. The counties should be included also, if possible. A final determination of these matters obviously is beyond the scope of an engineering report. However, we have con- sidered several methods and suggest the following approach. For a raw-water project, each city would pay in proportion to its estimated water consumption in 1980 and to its estimated raw-water deficiency for that year. The percentage allocation has been calculated as follows: 53 Percentage of Totals — 1980 Water Consumption Burlington 8.9 (irooiLsboro 30.8 HiKh Point 15.1 KertUTSvillo 1.1 Lexington 4.9 Tliomasvilie 4.1 W'inston-Salcm 35. 1 100.0 Raw-Wa iter Deficiency Average 4.45 45.8 38.30 27.1 21.10 l.G 1.35 2.45 2.05 25.5 30.30 100.0 100.0 Our estimates show that Burlington, Lexington and Thomasville will not need raw water before 1980, and that beyond that time the total requirements will be only a few million gallons per day. These relatively small additional raw-water supplies undoubtedly could be obtained locally at less cost than going to the Yadkin River at Donnaha. We cannot justify participation in a raw-water project by these three cities. If they were eliminated, the adjusted percentages would be as follows: Percentage of Totals- 1980 Raw-Water Water G)nsumption Deficiency r.roonshoro 37.6 45.8 High Point 18.4 27.1 Kcrncrsville 1.4 l.G Winston-Salem. . , 42. G 25.5 100.0 100.0 Average 41.70 22.75 1.50 34.05 ioo.no For a filtered-water project, each city would pay in proportion to its estimated water consumption in 1980, and to its estimated filtered water deficiency for that year. In this case, the percentage allocations would be as follows : Percentage of Totals -1980 Water Burlington Greensboro . . . . High Point . . . . Kernersville . . . Lexingtion Thomasville. . . Winston-Salem . Filtered=Water Consumption Deficiency 8.9 2.2 30.8 33.3 15.1 20.3 1.1 0.7 4.0 2.2 4.1 3.7 35.1 37.6 loo.n 100.0 Average 5 . 55 .32.05 17.70 0.90 3.55 3.90 36.35 100.00 There is more reason for Burlington, Lexington and Thomasville to participate in a filtered-water project, although costs would be relatively high. However, for comparative purposes, the allocation between the four cities most easily served would be as follows : 54 Percentage of Totals — 1980 Filtered=Water Water Consumption Deficiency Average Greensboro 37.6 36.1 36.85 High Point 18.4 22.1 20.25 Kernersville 1.4 0.8 1.10 Winston-Salem 42.6 41.0 41.80 100.0 100.0 100.00 Allocation on the basis of both total consumption and deficiency, rather than deficiency alone, is recommended. Regardless of how much water it took from the Yadkin River project, any city participating in it would derive substantial benefits from the fact that the water is available whenever the city needed it. These benefits obviously are greater for the large cities than for the small. This fact is reflected in some regional water supplies and districts by charging to each participant a share of the fixed charges calculated on the basis of total real estate valuation. Selection of 1980 for determining percentages is somewhat arbitrary, but re- flects reasonably well conditions expected within the next 20 or 30 years. In applying the percentages to the Yadkin River project, we have assumed that fixed charges would be apportioned in accordance with the "average" percentage ; operating expenses would be apportioned on the basis of water taken from the Yadkin River system. The fixed charges on each distribution main have been charged directly to the city benefited. The cost of filtered water mains serving 2 or more cities has been allocated between the cities in proportion to their "average" percentages, as indicated below. 15% of Cost of Line — Kernersville to Greensboro chargeable to Burlington 14% of Cost of Line — Kernersville to High Point chargeable to Lexington 16% of Cost of Line — Kernersville to High Point chargeable to Thomasville 52% of Cost of Line — High Point to Thomasville chargeable to Lexington The cost of water to each of the cities is summarized in the tables following. As noted earlier, a raw-water project serving all seven cities has been eliminated because of the negligible benefits to Burlington, Lexington, and Thomasville. The raw water costs are for a 4-city project, including Greensboro, High Point, Kerners- ville, and Winston-Salem. 55 Table I FOLk-CITY RAW VVATIZR PROJECT Annual and I nit Costs Total Draft M.Ci.D 10 20 30 50 Million Gallons per Annum 3,G50 7,:}0() 1(),9')0 18,250 Fixed Charfrc-Systcm $ 528, (KM) 8 .")28,0(H) if r>W,W){) $ ')!(), (MM) Total Operating Cost $ 55,230 * 81,320 fjS 113,450 $ 1(J2,S'.)() GREENSBORO Fixed Charge-System (41.7%)$ 220,180 $220, ISO $ 225, ISO $ 225,180 Fixed Charge- Distrib. Main .. . 1,050 1,IJ50 1,050 1,050 Operating Cost (45.8%) 25,300 37,240 51,960 74,000 Total $247,130 $259,070 $ 278,790 $ 301,430 Cost per Million Gallons $ 148.00 $ 77. (M) $ 50.00 $ 3(i.00 Cost per lUO Cubic Feet 11.1c 5.8f 4.2« 2.7(( HIGH POINT Fixed Charge-System (22.75%,)$ 120,120 $120,120 $ 122,850 $ 122,850 Fixed Charge-Distril). Main .. . 7,590 7,590 7,590 7,590 Operating Cost (27. 1%) 14,970 22,040 30,740 44, 140 Total $142,080 $149,750 $ 101,180 $ 174,580 Cost per Million Gallons $ 144. (M) $ 7ii.(M) $ .54.00 $ 35.00 Cost per 100 Cubie Feet 10. 8e 5.7? 4.U 2. Of KERNERSVILLE Fixed Charge-System (1.5%). . $7,920$ 7,920 $ 8,100 $ 8,100 Fixed Charge-Distrib. Main .. . 2,480 2,480 2,480 2,480 Operating Cost (1.6%,) 880 1 ,300 1,820 2,610 Total $ 11,280 $ 11,700 $ 12,400 $ 13,190 Cost per Million Gallons $ 193.00 $ 100.00 $ 71.00 $ 45.00 Cost per 100 Cubie Feet UAt 7.5)i 5.3f 3.4)i WINSTON-SALEM Fixed Charge-System (34.05%,)$ 179,780 $ 179,780 $ 183,870 $ 183,870 Fixed Charg(-Distrib. Main . . . 830 830 830 830 Operating Cost (25.5%) 14,080 20,740 28,930 41,540 Total $194,090 $201,350 $ 213,630 $ 220,240 Cost per Million Gallons $ 209.00 $ 108.00 $ 77.00 $ 49.00 Cost per 100 Cubic Feet 15.7fJ 8.1(i 5.8)i 3.7(( Power cost of pumping per m.g. based on unit power cost calculated from Duke Power Company schedule No. 10. 56 The range in raw water costs for various drafts is estimated as follows : Draft in m.g.d. Cost per m.g. Cost per 100 cu. ft. 10 $144 - 209 10. 8f! to 15.7fi 20 76 - 108 5.7i to 8.1!! 30 54 - 77 4.1,i to 5.8,4 50 35 - 49 2.6,! to 3.7,! These figures indicate that until the total draft reached 20 ni.g.d., the cost of raw water would be relatively high. Thereafter, the cost would drop rapidly to low figures. The effect of levying part of the cost against all cities regardless of the amount of water taken from the project is shown by the relatively high cost of water for Winston-Salem. As long as Winston-Salem kept its Idols plant in operation, it would require a relatively small amount from the proposed regional supply. If the Idols plant and pipeline were given up in favor of the regional supply, the unit cost of water would be less. Table 2 SEVEN=CITY FILTERED WATER PROJECT Annual and Unit Costs Total Draft M.G.D 10 20 30 50 Million Gallons per Annum 3,650 7,300 10,950 18,250 Fixed Charges-System $880,000 $880,000 $1,075,000 $1,380,000 Total Operating Cost $145,330 $243,340 $ 330,730 $ 507,470 BURLINGTON Fixed Charge-System (5.55%) . $ 48,840 $ 48,840 $ 59,060 $ 76,590 Fixed Charge-Distrib. Main .. . 120,450 120,450 120,450 120,450 Operatmg Cost (2.2%) 3,200 5,350 7,280 11,160 Total $172,490 $174,640 $ 187,390 $ 208,200 Cost per Million Gallons $2,148.00 $1,087.00 $ 778.00 $ 519,00 Cost per 100 Cubic Feet 161.0,! 81.5,! 58.4,! 38.9,! GREENSBORO Fixed Charge-System (32.05%)$ 282,040 $ 282,040 $ 344,540 $ 442,290 Fixed Charge-Distrib. Main .. . 140,250 140,250 140,250 140,250 Operating Cost (33.3%) 48,390 81,040 110,120 168,990 Total $470,680 $503,330 $ 594,910 $ 751,530 Cost per Million Gallons $ 387.00 $ 207.00 $ 163.00 $ 124.00 Cost per 100 Cubic Feet 29.0,! 15.5,! 12.2,! 9.3,! HIGH POINT Fixed Charge-System (17.7%).$ 155,760 $155,760 $ 190,280 $ 244,260 Fked Charge-Distrib. Main .. . 59,680 59,680 59,680 59,680 Operating Cost (20.3%) 29,500 49,400 67,140 103,020 Total $244,940 $264,840 $ 317,100 $ 406,960 Cost per Million Gallons $ 331.00 $ 179.00 $ 143.00 $ 110.00 Cost per 100 Cubic Feet 24.8,! 13.4,! 10.7,! 8.30 57 KERNERSVILLE FLxed Charge-System (0.9%). $ 7,920 $ 7,920 $ 9,680 $ 12,420 Fixed Charge^Uistrib. Main ... Operating Cost (0.7%) 1,020 1,700 2,320 3,550 Total $ 8,940 $ 9,620 « 12,000 $ ir),970 Cost per Million Gallons $ 350.00 $ 188.00 $ 157.00 $ 125.00 Cost per 100 Cubic Feet 26.2(i 14. Id 11. 8^ 9.4^ LEXINGTON Fixed Charge-System (3.55%).$ 31,240 $ 31,240 $ 38,160 $ 48,990 FLxed ( ;harge-Distrib. Main ... 47 , 580 47 , 580 47 , 580 47 , .o8() Operating Cost (2.2%) 3,200 5,350 7,280 11,160 Total $ 82,020 $ 84,170 $ 93,020 $ 107,730 Cost per Million Gallons $1 ,021 .00 $ 524.00 $ 386.00 $ 268.00 Cost per 100 Cubic Feet 76 . 6 (i 39 . 3 cr i Cent 1 ncrcasc Year Daily Consump. Total Annual Max. 3 Days I'.i'iii 2.07 •2.89 i',):?() 2.41 Hi. 4 3.87 3.73 1940 :?.2i 34.4 3.01 4.20 1950 4.ti<) 44.7 3.78 ti.OO 1956* 5.39 14.9 •2.35 7.2G Total Increase 1926-19.5(j— 100% Average Annual Increase 1920-1951J — 3.20% *Estimatod Estimated Future Consumption 19()0 7.09 31.5 7.08 9.57 1970 1()..")5 48.8 4.06 14.24 1980 14.11 33.7 2.94 19.05 1990 18.71 32.6 2.86 '25.26 2000 24. GO 31.8 2.80 33.29 KERNERSVILLE, N. C. Past Consumption Average Annual Per Cent I ncrease Year Daily Consump. Total Annual M ax. .3 Days 1911) .171 1948 .302 76.6 32.90 76.6 1950 .283 - 6.7 .418 1952 .323 14.1 6^82 .432 1954 .373 15.5 7.46 .540 1956* .578 55.0 24.5 .660 Total Increase 1946-1956—338% Average Annual Increase 1946-1956 — 12.95% ♦Estimated Estimated Future Consumption 191)0 .64 10.7 2.58 .86 1970 .86 34.4 3.00 1.16 1980 1.05 22.1 2.02 1.41 1990 1.'28 21.9 2.00 1.72 2000 1.66 29.7 2.64 2.24 Kernersville is now using 207 gpc per day antl we have 200 in Estimated Future Consumption. 66 Appendix B Continued LEXINGTON, N. C. Past Consumption Average Annual Per Cent Ii ncrease Year Daily Consump. Total Annual Max. 3 Days 1946 1.64 1.98 1948 1.85 12.8 6.20 2.45 1950 1.83 - 1.1* 2.40 1952 2.03 10.9 5^31 2.85 1954 1.80 -12.8* 2.53 1956** 2.00 11.1 5^41 2. 90 Total Increase 1940-1956—21.95% Average Annual Increase 1946-1950 — 2.02% *Decrease assumed to be due to short supply. **Estiraated imatec 1 Future Consumption 1960 2.43 21.5 4.99 3.28 1970 3.45 42.0 3.57 4.66 1980 4.61 33.6 2.94 6.22 1990 6.11 32.5 2.86 8.25 2000 8.06 31.9 2.81 10.88 THOMASVILLE, N. C. Past Consumption Average Annual Year Daily Consump. 1940 .58 1945 .74 1950 1.00 1952 1.05 1954 1.22 1956* 1.30 Total Increase 1940-1950—124.1% Average Annual Increase 1940-1956- *Estimated Per Cent 1 ncrease Total Annual Max. 3 Days 27.6 5.00 1.00 35.1 6.20 1.35 5.0 2.47 1.48 16.2 7.75 1.80 6.6 3.25 1.80 -5.12% Estimated Future Consumption 1960 2.00 53.8 11.40 2.70 1970 2.83 41.5 3.54 3.82 1980 3.79 33.9 2.96 5.12 1990 5.02 32.5 2.86 6.78 2000 6.62 31.9 2.81 8.94 67 Appendix B Continued WINSTON SALEM. N. C. Past Consumption Aver age Annual Per Cent I ncrcase Year Daih . Consump. Total Annual Mi u\. .1 Days 1920 1 . oT 1030 7.19 57.3 4.64 1940 7.69 7.0 0.68 9.29 1950* 10.11 :?1.5 2.78 i:i.sl 195G* 14.64 44.8** 6.:58 19.56 Total Increase 1920-19.56—320% Average Annual Increase 1920-1956—3.30% ♦(Fiscal) **Xc\v Supply in 1950 Estimated Future Consumption 1960 16.52 12.8 3.06 22.30 1970 24.-58 48.8 4.06 .33.18 1980 32.86 33.7 2.94 44.36 1990 43.60 32.7 2.86 58.86 2000 .57.45 31.8 2.80 77.. 56 68 Appendix C AVERAGE WATER CONSUMPTION, QPCD, PAST AND ESTIMATED FUTURE BY WATER WORKS SUPERINTENDENTS City and State 1936 1946 1956 1966 1976 NewYork, N. Y 134 146 138 153 162 Baltimore, Md 131 150 159 174 ^gg Philadelphia, Pa 163 171 igQ igg Springfield, Mass 100 127 175 230 278 Hartford, Conn 80 100 111 122 134 Charlotte, N. C 79 95 109 144 i7g Lynchburg, Va 83 95 114 134 156 Raleigh, N. C 82 102 120 136 Baton Rouge, La 88 89 85 93 102 Atlanta, Ga 99 115 122 130 138 Buffalo, N. Y 210 214 242 Toledo, Ohio 123 127 149 169 171 ^^011. Ohio 91 120 138 150 162 Cedar Rapids, la 91 135 170 2OO Madison, Wise HO 135 150 I6O 175 Des Moines, la 100 100 114 117 125 Omaha, Nebr 140 155 18I 190 207 Wichita, Kans 93 117 145 148 iqq Oklahoma City, Okla 79 82 114 154 183 Dallas, Texas 100 116 143 158 175 Austin, Texas 99 122 140 140 138 Sacramento, Calif 21O 258 236 240 250 Oakland, Calif 72 102 130 159 177 Portland, Ore. (Water Auth.) 97 114 104 115 120 San Diego Co., CaUf 162 180 190 190 San Diego, CaUf 114 139 126 149 145 Salem, Ore I39 Reference-Public Works Magazine, December 1956. 156 207 224 69 Appendix C Continued MAXIMUM PER CAPITAL PER DAY WATER USE, PAST AND ESTIMATED FUTURE. BY WATER WORKS SUPERINTENDENTS City and State 1936 1946 1956 1966 1976 New York, N. Y 182 174 172 190 200 Baltimore, Md 171 200 243 271 Philadelpliia, Pa 195 221 230 240 Springfield, Mass 135 195 285 284 308 Hartford, Conn 106 132 101 177 194 Charlotte, N. C 103 132 157 195 243 Lynchburg, Va 118 120 152 190 225 Raleigh, N. C 89 153 179 200 Baton Rouge, La 114 115 112 123 135 Atlanta, Ga 128 145 170 189 208 Buffalo, N. Y 286 287 243 Toledo, Ohio 185 179 235 204 207 Akron, Ohio 147 157 197 217 244 Cedar Rapids, la 230 280 320 Madison. Wise 220 250 300 320 350 Des Moines, la 161 142 184 200 215 Omaha, Nebr 254 204 428 440 440 Wichita, Kans 175 219 292 317 320 Oklahoma Citv, Okla 137 107 221 321 383 Dallas, Texas 194 220 277 300 340 Austin, Texas 237 237 312 275 270 Sacramento, Calif 358 430 424 440 450 Oakland, CaUf 108 174 200 247 267 Portland, Ore 179 243 237 245 250 San Diego, Calif 176 191 199 210 220 Salem, Ore 340 385 450 475 Reference-Public Works Magazine, December 1956. 70 § fab Appendix D O u o ca z u u o o u. u u I ID > O S8S (N OO ^ ^ e O 00 t^ lO Tj< 1-H W) ca CO (M E •+'(m'-h 0. ^H T— ( © ■^ ■s -4^ £0 o oo I^ 00 65 ea 0(M 00 u C CO ^ Tt< i-^im' ■* Q J2 tIh'o'^" < u O u. <; o o o ^ O lO Id C O CO (M eg - ^ - — " -rt< <© 00 * O o o lO CO o • CO (N o o O o o o lO lo lO (>J CO • • C C3 O C5 t^ (N E o O P -^ O CO Q. iiis < U. o z o 00 U > Q H < e^x 02 ooo >0 00 t^ 05 —1 ^ cd c O O IX) T)HlO o L. CS (N ■* Q a 1— 1 V M CS b- <1> >■ < < ooo * ^ lO lO o -* o o u. B en CO o o i2 o o ^ r~' im' o t^CO 1-H d CO >> s . — ■ 03 ■s s 13 >i c ^ •s-o lO CO CO • CO (N •<*< t^ a ^ faC a o •S _■ -O >H Son C 1 -T3 s-/ ^ f"^ t. =* rt I o S Cj I— 1 iH — .3 0^ fl > 03 a' S O fail's g Oh OS c!=* — 3 '^ ^ °3 fl 0,03 3 p O O I t- be t- t< 4J g&HfL< o.>; > oj 1-^ 3 03 > >H t. a if O ■frj 03 o' i^ |2 ap=H oj Q, a; 03 »2 q; &1 -^ ^ O .a a^ If g P^ pa H-c Appendix D Continued The pumping requirements under three separate operating plans are presented : Plan A applies to fdtered water from the Yadkin River. Under this plan the water obtained locally would be limited to the safe dry-weather yield of the source. In a year the local supply would total 365 x 17.4 m.g.d. = 6,350. The Yadkin River supply would be used continuously to make up the difference between the total demand and local supply. Plan A would require the greatest amount of water from the Yadkin River. Plan C applies to raw water from the Yadkin River. Under this plan the local water supplies would be used to meet all demands until the local reser\oirs were depleted. Thereafter, the Yadkin River supply would be used until rains and increased runoff provided enough water in the local reservoirs. Plan C would require the least possible total water from the Yadkin River, but when the water was needed, it would have to be pumped at relatively high rates. Full realization of Plan C would be practically impossible, since no prudent operator would be will- ing to empty his local reservoir before turning to the auxiliary supply. Plan B is a compromise between Plans A and C. and is the one most likely to be used if a raw-water project from the Yadkin River were built. Under Plan B the local reservoirs would be kept substantially full li\- pumping water into them from the Yadkin River during the drv months when the demand exceeded the natural flow in the local streams. The only objection to Plan ]'> is that the operator cannot foretell when it will rain and whether or not pumping from the Yadkin River will be necessary, and to be on the safe side there is bound to be some unnecessary pumping. During a heavy local storm, the reservoirs fill naturally in any event, and the money spent on pumping up to that time may be wasted. The percentage of water obtained locally and from the Yadkin River under Plans A and B is summarized below : PLAN A PLAN B (Filtered Waten (Raw Water^ Local Yadkin R. Local Yadkin R. For average draft, of .SO m.c.d.. 58% 42% 83% 17% For average draft of 40 m., n.d... 43% .'^7%, 69% 31% For a total draft of 30 m.g.d. in Greensboro, the ([uantity of raw water re- quired from the Yadkin River would be 40 per cent of the filtered water needs (17%-T-42%); for a demand of 40 m.g.d., the ratio would increase to 55%. A figure of 50 per cent can be used safely. For much larger quantities the local supply would become less and less important and the raw water pumpage would approach more nearly the filtered water re<|uirement. 72 EXHIBIT ■ 1 ^- ^='— — ^ =n o ^^ \\ •»• UJ /^T?'^-^ A -5 ff€^ V ■- o cc a. < cc < UJ o 1 I jy^ \ ^ [ 'V ° LlJ < > cc UJ t f Vv? ^ - UJ UJ i // (1 H O 0. j// \1 ^ O o 1 r^ ^ t z a. < A, '- UJ > UJ 01 < V/- z ^ "=^— ~ -i ) o / z 3 o q: / ^ a: r § 1 < (£ a. O J <- . 1 o // z Q. 1 o • i - o 2 > 1 • 1 r * i : V \ ' V \ X ' \ \ < ' • ■ o - \ QC O \s EXHIBIT 2 Ul -» o o z a. K in V> K X -1 Ui UI CL H Ik 3 < o Wl 9. z (K to UJ o ft Ui ft t- u » EXHIBIT 3 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT ESTIMATED FUTURE WATER REQUIREMENTS EXlIIlilT 4 1 H O UJ >- -5 (E o UJ oc U. Q. $ UJ d d a: UJ o >- -1 t- lO in o o y- U. W) 6 3 O o in 2 ID < 5 ^ ^ 1 3 c K o 3 4> 1 « 1- < q: c 1 >• « o O w o z a - O V > z Q ^ c - W > < UJ < >- > £ < > UJ V cc 5 \ T P, (O lO O < lO 1 1 CO U- CO : : o a> 0> c/o CO : i^ en 'cc w < 1 « 3 O ^^^-^ ( -' LU >- h- llJ _J 6 Q Z UJ 2 t3 is L U. I> «> 3 O ^— *'' 1 <0 \: ; \ N SS6I -^ i ' '1 to U ., I < C\J 1- o _I N it ''\ 1- < 00 o -^ ^ ^l----t' 1 q: — (n — oD ^ CT>- o o UJ < UJ z 'C ^"S- ' i 0S61 UJ m UJ 1- Q. tiJ v> z ^ ! > cr cr < UJ < z o < >- 1- < — -^^ V 1 -^ -_^ \ 1 > 1 J _______ — ^ -""^^ ^ 1 ' ^^^-^ 1 . 1 1 ~~~--^_^ 9^61 Q < ^*^ -k ^ 2 d q 2 us" in < >- o a: Q o _l Li. ' p* A o z o 2 UJ ""^^ ~^_ 1 " ~. 1 ^-^ 1 -' 1 ^^ _) z ^^^ ' / < ? 5 u. o ^ 1 i/ i Ofrei 3 3 U- U- jT 1 ^^^ ! 2 < Q / UJ > ^ i • ' ■ UJ CO f ' cr < < s. ^ 1 1- CD ^s^ "v , 1 < Q Q ^\ .,^ 1 -— . . *"■"-_ 1 1 S£6I ""—•'-— —...^ l"^ ^ ' UJ 1 5 '^ i 1- X ^ o < - Z S 5 ( 1 " " -1 \ 1 1 — --^ 1 i ' ' ^^ __---<--" 0C6I .^'^''''^ ' O o o O' O O o o o; o If) o lO CM ■Q-OVN Moid 1 1 EXHIBIT 5 o o o I 8 o 8. o o I 8 o si £: A M «•• SS u 00 « :: S n 2!! is M N ► m M >Z J a « -» - o n m M ki (* 1 £ o • ID n 1? o M Bt M • • « is Is • m n S8 ?; ■ .__ -^' u sg n w M ;l " Z n M N Ss ff> o CM Z si SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT DAILY FLOWS YADKIN RIVER AT STYERS FERRY 1954 __, \J 5> *■ _ ^^ — J - -" " = > r ^ *~- ^ * — — " rS r- => -== — s" ^^ 1— s- - 1 : UJ • M N "> '-\ 2 a a M ■ a - 0. 2* n tk \\ ' < 2» o N «l Si sS o « o ^ °5 n 3 ' z 0* ■«=:-" -7- ~> c q: oe UJ u. • \;, '5. a: UJ > z :«: o U. o 1 < r^ r-" 9 ^ — ^ _J^ > ^"^ >' lO 0) q: o u. O t» o S < u K < ____=- ~7 ^S " ^ ^ > S r" z • ^ > — -^ I' ^ > , ' ~ _^_^ . ^ . _ = . " < ) r> ^^J — ■ •e -*■ ' ^ 1 8 oow - MOid wvawis EXHIBIT 6 NORTH REFERENCE: House Document 652, 78th Congress, 2n0 Session — ■ — CO m < m z m X o ^ y> H o 2 H m Z m z X o en m < JO m 33 > z « f- o > X H ■0 m o m r > m :d z X "0 < o o XI m 3J 3J o O <_ m o H EXHIBIT 7 1 vNiioMvo Hxnos o a: Q. (T UJ •- < bJ O z liJ > UJ (O O o > n (T o UJ oc «j (r z 1- z or UJ tu o UJ UJ Q. I C K (/I c CM C o o £ s o c 5 oo ID o o o X UJ a: UJ u. UJ a: •TSM-133d Nl N0liWA3n3 I ! •- o EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT 10 133J - IIOI1VA3T3 o c B a < I 5 C >■ > I ? c Z o < ^"-"fta^ ■SaOA* X z Q. 2 nC 1 ^-^ a. \ { K <; h" r""" ■>. \, "i r t\ 1 1 ^ h - i -I » I ^ -1 i Is ^ I , ■ ■ 1 1 tt t =" r *i i A" '■ 1 o f y o w w O o f A - 1 1 k 1 — - t 2 / < / ^ r*. O I r« »- / q: /« -T J\ w < /J Ul > ? o O r / ^-' i o o O 1 c o / a w < ^ 1 — ►^ / 1 *- / O a a. / / < j ^ ? a: " O — S S < J § 5 ? I ? ? > < t i33J - NO:j.VA3n3 1333 - NOIIVASTS EXHIBIT 11 \- o liJ s ~3 o o o o n o o * ■■» » '^ o ® 2 ? S 8 o o o 5 : c c ij I 1^. « «) » (D t£> f- UJ I 1- t C9 \ \ o \ ^ o c a; 3 K— \ \ \ i X \ \, Q in V -^ UJ 0. ^ \ / ~v K >- \' < ^ ' ^ r ^ e3 \ 1 \\ K >%-s r UJ CO P ^. - ^ „/<^ -l.^ s x < ~ r3 ^y t - 2 8 ,'^ o - o "CTF*"' / I \ < 1- o ft -1 _f I*! ' ^ 'e'"''' ^ — ^.l_ ' >V- h- J pi vj' ' ^ 1 t~ o ^ - o 2 J 1 _ vj' " V o ifi ^ i- . 51 h"**^ ."- c i V2 J O L -■ *1 2 V tr i'o *n ^ a J _, . , a J _ls I'- 5 » ' w _ § >-,:; ll I X ' !.. s t 1 J - H' % r " 1 w -H -' |A- 2 8 .V =; 1. ' r _L Vi '^■^- 1 1 1 V: , V , s V \ < UJ q: 1- / ■- •s. 2 A. , 1 o < V\ 8 10 a. 3 1 2 . _^ o In O ■a K- 1 1 Kl o - cr — O z ' I ^ lU UJ J j U ^ K ^ o < -^ o o _l D 1 z O / -1 -■^ o J ; o s £ ^ V /- 1 a: p / A Ul 1- ■ ! / 1 ^ .^ : 21 1 { 1 / j UJ A ■V A ■- o ! V (- ( (r - X \ V \ } s/ ! o \ V \ I V' 3 o ) y ) fJ 'x / e\ ■^ / X / z - \/ / •.1 V t- / \^ A. \ ( -t X 1 i? u \ tn , \ o CC - < t< \ o o o 3C \ 1 UJ _i \ ^ o ^ <<. < _-< k^ / < ^^ -^ \ CO ^ K"^' / * / s ■ \ o o / / / ^ / _Z *- S $ £ 1^ >- r. 1 § § I S § c Q ' o S S s o Q o fi O S S 5 s i i33i -N01iVA313 1333 - - NOI1VA3T3 EXHIBIT 12 ribufion er voir RANSMISSION . I r ibut ion 161 1000 600 400 SCALE 6 8 10 Thousand Ftet ! EC Miles (200 1000 6 00 SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT TRANSMiSSlON MAIN- DONNAHA TO KERNERSVILLE RAW AND FILTERED WATER PROJECTS PLAN AND PROFILE 600 o 400 SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT TRANSMISSION MAIN-STYERS FERRY TO KERNERS VILLE RAW AND FILTERED WATER PROJECTS PLAN AND PROFILE N c o <) o >- u. > = tr c ^ o o V) E c" 4?' c o ■ O ^ O O o _o o Q. 993 937 < > eoo 600 o <0 SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT FILTERED WATER SUPPLY-TRANSMISSION MAIN KERNERSVILLE TO HIGH POINT PLAN AND PROFILE 4 00 EXHIBIT le To "LEXINGTON SCALE 8 10 Thousand Feet Miles 1200 Lexington Distr System Elev. Cieor Well Flev Punnping Head ibuti on 916 664 54'± ICOO 2 4> > O -IT < c o SCO > UJ SEVEN CITIES WATER PROJECT FILTERED WATER SUPPLY-TRANSMISSION MAIN HIGH POINT TO THOMASVILLE AND LEXINGTON PLAN AND PROFILE J CH HEftUlH SCIEMCES 1.16RAR* H001 24642 J .vnxmiB: laci Tiir I