The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the data contained within this
Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) as a courtesy and service to our customers.
DWR staff does not field verify data. Neither DWR, nor any other party
involved in the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely
free of errors and omissions. Furthermore, data users are cautioned that
LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff. Subsequent
review may result in significant revision. Questions regarding the accuracy
or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system
and/or DWR.
1. System Information
Contact Information
Provisional
Water System Name: |
Kannapolis |
|
PWSID: |
01-80-065 |
Mailing Address: | 401 Laureate Way Kannapolis, NC 28081 | Ownership: | Municipality |
|
Contact Person: | Alex Anderson | Title: | Director of Water Resources |
Phone: | 704-920-4252 | Cell/Mobile: | -- |
Distribution System
Line Type |
Size Range (Inches) |
Estimated % of lines |
Asbestos Cement |
6-30 |
20.00 % |
Cast Iron |
3-18 |
5.00 % |
Ductile Iron |
6-30 |
12.00 % |
Galvanized Iron |
2-3 |
12.00 % |
Polyvinyl Chloride |
2-12 |
51.00 % |
Added an elevated tank this year. Programs
Water Conservation
2. Water Use Information
Service Area
Sub-Basin(s) | % of Service Population |
Rocky River (18-4) | 100 % |
|
County(s) | % of Service Population |
Cabarrus | 80 % |
Rowan | 20 % |
|
The LWSP for the CoK includes the following identification numbers. City of Kannapolis 01-80-065 and Shiloh Church 20-13-022. The population for the CoK is: 54,757, and Shiloh is: 3,312. Water Use by Type
Type of Use |
Metered Connections |
Metered Average Use (MGD) |
Non-Metered Connections |
Non-Metered Estimated Use (MGD) |
Residential |
21,558 |
2.3910 |
0 |
0.0000 |
Commercial |
1,597 |
1.7240 |
0 |
0.0000 |
Industrial |
0 |
0.0000 |
0 |
0.0000 |
Institutional |
0 |
0.0000 |
0 |
0.0000 |
How much water was used for system processes (backwash, line cleaning, flushing, etc.)? 0.3300 MGD
Water Sales
Purchaser |
PWSID |
Average Daily Sold (MGD) |
Days Used |
Contract |
Required to comply with water use restrictions? |
Pipe Size(s) (Inches) |
Use Type |
MGD |
Expiration |
Recurring |
City of Concord |
01-13-010 |
0.1770 |
366 |
1.5000 |
2031 |
Yes |
Yes |
6-24 |
Regular |
Town of Landis |
01-80-038 |
0.3070 |
366 |
1.0000 |
2026 |
Yes |
Yes |
12 |
Regular |
3. Water Supply Sources
Monthly Withdrawals & Purchases
|
Average Daily Use (MGD) |
Max Day Use (MGD) |
|
Average Daily Use (MGD) |
Max Day Use (MGD) |
|
Average Daily Use (MGD) |
Max Day Use (MGD) |
Jan |
6.0740 |
6.6960 |
May |
7.0270 |
8.9390 |
Sep |
6.4130 |
6.9040 |
Feb |
5.9660 |
6.2150 |
Jun |
7.3200 |
8.1830 |
Oct |
6.1380 |
6.6800 |
Mar |
6.1490 |
6.4630 |
Jul |
6.2190 |
7.2630 |
Nov |
5.5520 |
6.0510 |
Apr |
6.4890 |
6.9990 |
Aug |
6.2440 |
7.2220 |
Dec |
5.3260 |
6.0530 |

Surface Water Sources
Stream |
Reservoir |
Average Daily Withdrawal |
Maximum Day Withdrawal (MGD) |
Available Raw Water Supply |
Usable On-Stream Raw Water Supply Storage (MG) |
MGD |
Days Used |
MGD |
* Qualifier |
Coddle Creek |
Lake Howell |
0.0000 |
0 |
0.0000 |
2.6000 |
C |
5,296.0000 |
Irish Buffalo Creek |
Kannapolis Lake |
5.4420 |
366 |
8.1390 |
8.5000 |
SY50 |
1,100.0000 |
Second Creek |
Stream |
0.0000 |
0 |
0.0000 |
2.5000 |
SY50 |
1.0000 |
* Qualifier: C=Contract Amount, SY20=20-year Safe Yield, SY50=50-year Safe Yield, F=20% of 7Q10 or other instream flow requirement, CUA=Capacity Use Area Permit
Surface Water Sources (continued)
Stream |
Reservoir |
Drainage Area (sq mi) |
Metered? |
Sub-Basin |
County |
Year Offline |
Use Type |
Coddle Creek |
Lake Howell |
47 |
Yes |
Rocky River (18-4) |
Cabarrus |
|
Regular |
Irish Buffalo Creek |
Kannapolis Lake |
11 |
Yes |
Rocky River (18-4) |
Cabarrus |
|
Regular |
Second Creek |
Stream |
56 |
Yes |
South Yadkin River (18-2) |
Cabarrus |
|
Regular |
Lake Howell Reservoir has a contracted usable volume for Kannapolis of 2.6MGD by agreement between WSAAC and Kannapolis. A minimum flow is required downstream of Lake Don T. Howell in Coddle Creek
Operational Note – Coddle Creek and Second Creek pump directly to Kannapolis Lake. Kannapolis Lake flows represent the total of the blended flow from all three sources. Second Creek was pumped for 0 days with an average of 0 MGD and a max of 0 MGD. Coddle Creek was pumped for 0 days with an average of 0 MGD and a max of 0 MGD.
Water Purchases From Other Systems
Seller |
PWSID |
Average Daily Purchased (MGD) |
Days Used |
Contract |
Required to comply with water use restrictions? |
Pipe Size(s) (Inches) |
Use Type |
MGD |
Expiration |
Recurring |
City of Concord |
01-13-010 |
0.5180 |
366 |
1.5000 |
2031 |
Yes |
Yes |
6-24 |
Regular |
City of Concord |
01-13-010 |
0.7610 |
366 |
2.0000 |
2050 |
Yes |
Yes |
24 |
Regular |
City of Salisbury |
01-80-010 |
0.0000 |
0 |
3.1000 |
2016 |
No |
Yes |
16 |
Emergency |
Concord purchase amount includes IBT amount
Concord has stated they have two contracts with Kannapolis. One for IBT use that is billed its own way (0.761 MGD average use, and 2.0 MGD contract), and one for every day normal use (0.518 MGD average use, and 1.5 MGD contract). Water Treatment Plants
Plant Name |
Permitted Capacity (MGD) |
Is Raw Water Metered? |
Is Finished Water Ouput Metered? |
Source |
City of Kannapolis WTP |
15.0000 |
Yes |
Yes |
Kannapolis Lake, Second Creek and Lake Howell |
4. Wastewater Information
Monthly Discharges
|
Average Daily Discharge (MGD) |
|
Average Daily Discharge (MGD) |
|
Average Daily Discharge (MGD) |
Jan |
5.0580 |
May |
4.8430 |
Sep |
4.9990 |
Feb |
4.5230 |
Jun |
4.3310 |
Oct |
4.3640 |
Mar |
4.6730 |
Jul |
4.4170 |
Nov |
4.3440 |
Apr |
4.3560 |
Aug |
4.7180 |
Dec |
4.4890 |

Wastewater Interconnections
Water System |
PWSID |
Type |
Average Daily Amount |
Contract Maximum (MGD) |
MGD |
Days Used |
City of Concord |
01-13-010 |
Discharging |
0.0870 |
366 |
1.5000 |
WSACC |
01-13-999 |
Discharging |
4.5910 |
366 |
6.0890 |
Wastewater flows are based on billing.
5. Planning
Projections
|
2024 |
2030 |
2040 |
2050 |
2060 |
2070 |
Year-Round Population |
58,069 |
63,970 |
73,864 |
81,694 |
89,424 |
97,137 |
Seasonal Population |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Residential |
2.3910 |
2.6300 |
3.0400 |
3.3600 |
3.6800 |
4.0977 |
Commercial |
1.7240 |
1.8500 |
1.9800 |
2.1000 |
2.2200 |
2.3400 |
Industrial |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
Institutional |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
System Process |
0.3300 |
0.3350 |
0.3400 |
0.3450 |
0.3500 |
0.3550 |
Unaccounted-for |
1.7920 |
1.9412 |
2.1609 |
2.3403 |
2.5197 |
2.7385 |
Demand v/s Percent of Supply
|
2024 |
2030 |
2040 |
2050 |
2060 |
2070 |
Surface Water Supply |
13.6000 |
13.6000 |
13.6000 |
13.6000 |
13.6000 |
13.6000 |
Ground Water Supply |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
Purchases |
3.5000 |
3.5000 |
3.5000 |
3.5000 |
3.5000 |
3.5000 |
Future Supplies |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
Total Available Supply (MGD) |
17.1000 |
17.1000 |
17.1000 |
17.1000 |
17.1000 |
17.1000 |
Service Area Demand |
6.2370 |
6.7562 |
7.5209 |
8.1453 |
8.7697 |
9.5312 |
Sales |
0.4840 |
2.5000 |
2.5000 |
2.5000 |
2.5000 |
2.5000 |
Future Sales |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
Total Demand (MGD) |
6.7210 |
9.2562 |
10.0209 |
10.6453 |
11.2697 |
12.0312 |
Demand as Percent of Supply |
39% |
54% |
59% |
62% |
66% |
70% |

The purpose of the above chart is to show a general indication of how the long-term per capita water demand changes over time. The per capita water demand may actually be different than indicated due to seasonal populations and the accuracy of data submitted. Water systems that have calculated long-term per capita water demand based on a methodology that produces different results may submit their information in the notes field.
Your long-term water demand is 41 gallons per capita per day. What demand management practices do you plan to implement to reduce the per capita water demand (i.e. conduct regular water audits, implement a plumbing retrofit program, employ practices such as rainwater harvesting or reclaimed water)? If these practices are covered elsewhere in your plan, indicate where the practices are discussed here.
No changes
Are there other demand management practices you will implement to reduce your future supply needs?
What supplies other than the ones listed in future supplies are being considered to meet your future supply needs? The City of Kannapolis is evaluating a backwash recovery and recycling plan at the WTP.
How does the water system intend to implement the demand management and supply planning components above? We have an engineering firm currently working on options for this project.
Additional Information
Has this system participated in regional water supply or water use planning? Yes, The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Master Plan.
What major water supply reports or studies were used for planning? The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Master Plan was finalized in 2024. Along with the WSACC Master Plan, the City of Kannapolis is working on updating our CIP plan and hydraulic flow model. This information will be used to develop capital projects and meet growth demands.
Please describe any other needs or issues regarding your water supply sources, any water system deficiencies or needed improvements (storage, treatment, etc.) or your ability to meet present and future water needs. Include both quantity and quality considerations, as well as financial, technical, managerial, permitting, and compliance issues: The City of Kannapolis is currently undergoing the addition of ground-level storage and has added an elevated storage tank this year.
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the data contained within this
Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) as a courtesy and service to our customers.
DWR staff does not field verify data. Neither DWR, nor any other party
involved in the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely
free of errors and omissions. Furthermore, data users are cautioned that
LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff. Subsequent
review may result in significant revision. Questions regarding the accuracy
or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system
and/or DWR.
|