Fayetteville

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: Fayetteville   PWSID: 03-26-010
Mailing Address:P. O. Box 1089
Fayetteville, NC 28302
Ownership:Municipality
 
Contact Person:Misty ManningTitle:Chief Operating Officer-W/R
Phone:910-223-4736Cell/Mobile:--
 
Secondary Contact:Jason Green Phone:910-223-4710
Mailing Address:508 Hoffer Drive
Fayetteville, NC 28301
Cell/Mobile:--
Distribution System
Line Type Size Range (Inches) Estimated % of lines
Asbestos Cement 6-16 17.13 %
Cast Iron 2-36 14.22 %
Ductile Iron 4-54 20.44 %
Galvanized Iron 2 0.07 %
Other 2-60 0.89 %
Polyvinyl Chloride 2-16 47.25 %
What are the estimated total miles of distribution system lines?   1,434 Miles
How many feet of distribution lines were replaced during 2024?   4,140 Feet
How many feet of new water mains were added during 2024?   48,836 Feet
How many meters were replaced in 2024?   1,097
How old are the oldest meters in this system?   11 Year(s)
How many meters for outdoor water use, such as irrigation, are not billed for sewer services?   6,309
What is this system's finished water storage capacity?   36.6000 Million Gallons
Has water pressure been inadequate in any part of the system since last update? Line breaks that were repaired quickly should not be included.   No
Programs
Does this system have a program to work or flush hydrants?   Yes, Annually
Does this system have a valve exercise program?   Yes, 2 Years or More
Does this system have a cross-connection program?   Yes
Does this system have a program to replace meters?   Yes
Does this system have a plumbing retrofit program?   Yes
Does this system have an active water conservation public education program?   Yes
Does this system have a leak detection program?   Yes

PWC performs unidirectional flushing of all our mains through our hydrants on a five-year cycle. PWC coordinates with area Fire Departments to inspect and repair hydrants annually.

All valves are inspected and operated during the unidirectional flushing program. All valves 16” or larger are exercised on an annual basis.

PWC utilizes various points of mechanical and electronic leak detection devices throughout the system to pinpoint any suspected leakage. Distribution staff utilize field spectrophotometers to determine whether leaks result from leaks or groundwater sources.

We also utilize the following incentive programs to encourage water conservation from our customers:
• Energy Star Clothes Washer - $30 per replacement
• Energy Star Dishwater - $30 per replacement
• High-Efficiency Toilet – ¼ of monthly charge or $75 per unit
• Rain Sensor – up to $50 per installed unit

Water Conservation
What type of rate structure is used?   Flat/Fixed, Increasing Block, Uniform
How much reclaimed water does this system use?   0.0000 MGD   For how many connections?   0
Does this system have an interconnection with another system capable of providing water in an emergency?   No

PWC utilizes the following rate structures:
• “Flat or Fixed” rate is used as a temporary rate
• “Increasing Block” is utilized for residential and irrigation customers
• “Uniform” is used for non-residential, non-residential irrigation, large water customers, and hydrant connections

PWC does have an interconnection with Harnett County via the Town of Spring Lake at Ft. Bragg systems. However, this interconnection has little value in meeting the daily requirements of PWC in case of an emergency. There are no other systems near either the pumping or line capacity to supply PWC’s customer base with water even during an emergency basis.

2. Water Use Information

Service Area
Sub-Basin(s)% of Service Population
Cape Fear River (02-3)100 %
County(s)% of Service Population
Cumberland100 %
What was the year-round population served in 2024?   206,281
Has this system acquired another system since last report?   No

The system annual service population is the number of metered residential connections multiplied by the “persons per household” (pph) figures derived from the current US Census Bureau “Quick Facts” data for the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland County. The "pph" figures" or have trended downward, in recent years, hence the 2024 service population is slightly lower than the previous year despite new customers being added.

Water Use by Type
Type of Use Metered
Connections
Metered
Average Use (MGD)
Non-Metered
Connections
Non-Metered
Estimated Use (MGD)
Residential 86,236 10.8650 0 0.0000
Commercial 7,119 5.6880 0 0.0560
Industrial 19 2.5820 0 0.0000
Institutional 0 0.0000 0 0.0000

How much water was used for system processes (backwash, line cleaning, flushing, etc.)?   3.4840 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
Brettonwood Hills 03-26-286 0.0120 366 0.0000 2017 Yes Yes 16 Regular
Brookwood South 50-26-018 0.1720 366 2017 Yes Yes 16 Regular
Cliffdale West 03-26-332 0.0000 0 Yes Yes 16 Emergency
East Gate 03-26-280 0.0160 366 2017 Yes Yes 16 Regular
Fort Bragg 03-26-344 1.5780 365 0.0000 2017 Yes No 24 Regular
Hoke County 03-47-025 1.1540 366 0.0000 2017 Yes Yes 16 Regular
Kelly Hills 03-26-300 0.0060 366 0.0000 2017 Yes Yes 8 Regular
Rain Tree II 03-26-375 0.0180 366 2017 Yes Yes 8 Regular
Stoney Point 03-26-341 0.0000 0 Yes Yes 8 Emergency
Tangelwood South 03-26-367 0.0150 365 2017 Yes Yes 8 Regular
Town of Spring Lake 03-26-020 0.6740 366 0.0000 2017 Yes Yes 16 Regular
Town of Stedman 03-26-030 0.0650 366 0.0000 2017 Yes Yes 12 Regular

Brettonwood Hills: no more than 864,000 per month
Fort Liberty: no more than 8 MGD (PWC began supplying 50% of all Ft Liberty water in 2010)
Hoke County: no more than 42,000,000 per month
Kelly Hills: no more than 486,000 per month
Spring Lake: 13,000,000 per month*
Stedman: no less than 1,035,000 and no more than 5,000,000 per month

*The minimum purchase for Spring Lake is 13,000,000 gal per month (.433 MGD). An upper purchase limit has not been set.
In order for Spring Lake to meet their projected demand with no more than 80% of supply, a purchase amount of 1.557 MGD
would be required from Fayetteville.

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 26.7370 31.6090 May 29.2390 31.7340 Sep 29.1770 33.4910
Feb 26.0540 30.2110 Jun 34.1220 40.4990 Oct 30.1960 32.6820
Mar 26.4260 32.4400 Jul 32.0570 37.0790 Nov 28.1020 31.0120
Apr 28.0750 31.5590 Aug 31.1150 36.8810 Dec 25.5500 30.4030

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
Big Cross Creek 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.9000 F 0.0000
Cape Fear - 2 19.6000 366 0.0000 40.4000 F 0.0000
Cape Fear River - 1 9.6800 293 0.0000 40.4000 F 0.0000
Little Cross Creek Glenville Lake 7.6100 53 0.0000 5.0000 SY50 250.0000

* 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
Big Cross Creek 15 No Cape Fear River (02-3) Cumberland Emergency
Cape Fear - 2 4,360 Yes Cape Fear River (02-3) Cumberland Regular
Cape Fear River - 1 4,360 Yes Cape Fear River (02-3) Cumberland Regular
Little Cross Creek Glenville Lake 9 Yes Cape Fear River (02-3) Cumberland Regular
What is this system's off-stream raw water supply storage capacity?   250 Million gallons
Are surface water sources monitored?   Yes, Daily
Are you required to maintain minimum flows downstream of its intake or dam?   Yes
Does this system anticipate transferring surface water between river basins?   No
Water Treatment Plants
Plant Name Permitted Capacity
(MGD)
Is Raw Water Metered? Is Finished Water Ouput Metered? Source
Glenville Lake WTF 18.0000 Yes Yes Glenville Lake, Cape Fear River
P.O. Hoffer WTF 39.5000 Yes Yes Cape Fear River
Did average daily water production exceed 80% of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2024?  No
     If yes, was any water conservation implemented?  
Did average daily water production exceed 90% of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2024?  No
     If yes, was any water conservation implemented?  
Are peak day demands expected to exceed the water treatment plant capacity in the next 10 years?  No

PWC has reported its Cape Fear River available raw water supply as 85.8 MGD (i.e., 42.9 MGD allocated to each of our two intakes). This value is based on a USGS study titled “Low-Flow Characteristics and Discharge Profiles for Selected Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina”, through 1998 in which the historical 7Q10 flow in the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville was estimated as 625 CFS or 404 MGD. Therefore, 80.8 MGD represents 20% of this 7Q10 value. Combined with the additional 5 MGD available from Glenville Lake, PWC has an estimated available Cape Fear River supply of 85.8 MGD. During Round 4 of the Jordan Lake water supply allocation process, DWR instruction to applicants with run-of-river sources was that available supply is assumed to be 20% of the 7Q10 flow as determined using the base-case scenario of the appropriate river basin hydrologic model. At Lock & Dam #3, the basin model (for the 2045 Baseline scenario) showed 7Q10 of 236 MGD, and 20% of that 7Q10 is 47.2 MGD. PWC requested a Jordan Lake allocation since its projected future demands are well over the calculated 47.2 MGD. However, the State did not grant this request and indicated in its Round 4 decision documentation that an approach using PWC net withdrawals (i.e., factoring in wastewater return flows) to compare against 20% of 7Q10 would mean far more available Cape Fear River supply for PWC.

According to Appendix B “Water Availability Behind Lock and Dam #3” of DWR’s December 2016 Cape Fear River Surface Water Supply Evaluation, Fayetteville PWC may be able to withdraw 174.5 MGD from behind Lock & Dam # 3, on an average day basis, without reducing the model-generated 7Q10 flow by more than 20 percent. Because this estimate is based on net withdrawals it depends on Fayetteville’s ability to maintain a similar ratio of wastewater discharges to water withdrawals in the future. On April 4, 2017, the EMC in its final decision inserted this same Appendix B into DWR’s Round 4 Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation Recommendations.

Minimum flow of 4 CFS must be maintained downstream of the Glenville Lake dam.

Little Cross Creek feeds four impoundments, which have a total capacity of 250 Million Gallons. This was considered by NCPWS as off-line storage when the P.O. Hoffer WTF was granted an uprating.

PWC has completed the design for a 16 MGD treatment capacity expansion at the PO Hoffer Water Treatment Plant (from 32 MGD to 48 MGD). The projected date for beginning construction is the year 2027 unless system demand increases dictate beginning sooner.

4. Wastewater Information

Monthly Discharges
Average Daily
Discharge (MGD)
Average Daily
Discharge (MGD)
Average Daily
Discharge (MGD)
Jan 27.0000 May 24.7000 Sep 28.3000
Feb 24.4000 Jun 23.5000 Oct 26.1000
Mar 25.6000 Jul 26.1000 Nov 24.6000
Apr 24.6000 Aug 29.9000 Dec 24.2000

How many sewer connections does this system have?   90,178
How many water service connections with septic systems does this system have?   5,304
Are there plans to build or expand wastewater treatment facilities in the next 10 years?   Yes

Design for the Rockfish Creek WRF Phase 3 Expansion project (21 MGD to 28 MGD) is complete with construction ac tentatively scheduled for FY28. PWC has on record an Environmental Assessment (EA) to expand the current rated capacity of 21 MGD to the new permitted 28 MGD for future planning purposes.

Wastewater Permits
Permit Number Type Permitted Capacity
(MGD)
Design Capacity
(MGD)
Average Annual
Daily Discharge
(MGD)
Maximum Day Discharge
(MGD)
Receiving Stream Receiving Basin
NC0023957 WWTP 25.0000 25.0000 11.2000 29.7000 Cape Fear River Cape Fear River (02-3)
NC0050105 WWTP 21.0000 21.0000 14.7000 30.2000 Cape Fear River Cape Fear River (02-3)
Wastewater Interconnections
Water System PWSID Type Average Daily Amount Contract
Maximum (MGD)
MGD Days Used
Cliffdale West 03-26-010 Receiving 0.0000 365
Eastover Sanitary District 50-26-027 Receiving 0.0990 365 0.5940
Hoke County 03-47-025 Receiving 0.0110 365 0.5000
NORCRESS 00-00-000 Receiving 0.1150 365 0.4000
Town of Stedman 03-26-030 Receiving 0.1760 365

Fayetteville PWC owns the Cliffdale West wastewater system, i.e., gravity lines and lift stations, but does not monitor the individual flow. Fayetteville accounts for the flow from Cliffdale West in their total discharge.

The wastewater discharge from NORCRESS includes the combined flow from collections systems for the Town of Wade, the Town of Falcon and the Town of Godwin.

5. Planning

Projections
  2024 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Year-Round Population 206,281 281,172 332,134 348,741 366,178 384,486
Seasonal Population 0 0 0 0 0 0
 
Residential 10.8650 15.5410 18.3570 19.2750 20.2390 21.2510
Commercial 5.7440 8.8670 10.4740 10.9970 11.5470 12.1250
Industrial 2.5820 6.4740 10.4340 15.4940 20.5540 25.6140
Institutional 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
System Process 3.4840 6.1630 6.1630 6.1630 6.1630 6.1630
Unaccounted-for 2.0707 3.6080 4.5110 5.2150 5.9430 6.6660

Future service population projections are based on an assumed percentage of the total Cumberland County population being served. Continuing the trend begun in 2016, the current year 2024 “Annual County Population Totals” from the NC State Office of Management are virtually flat for Cumberland County over the 30-year planning horizon. For the years 2016 through 2020, Fayetteville PWC reverted to the 2015 OMB numbers for LWSP population projections. For the LWSP 2021 Update and beyond, we projected 10-year population increases based on the approximate 5% growth in Cumberland County between years 2010 and 2020 per US Census data as provided by the Cumberland County Planning Department.

Projections for industrial demand include a substantial allowance for addition of potential large water users.

Future Water Sales
Purchaser PWSID Contract Pipe Size(s) (Inches) Use Type
MGD Year Begin Year End
Fort Bragg - ONUS 03-26-344 0.0060 2030 2031 30 Regular
Fort Bragg - ONUS 03-26-344 0.0840 2040 2041 30 Regular
Fort Bragg - ONUS 03-26-344 0.1650 2050 2051 30 Regular
Fort Bragg - ONUS 03-26-344 0.2010 2060 2061 30 Regular
Fort Bragg - ONUS 03-26-344 0.2640 2070 2071 30 Regular
Hoke County Regional Water System 03-47-025 0.3510 2070 2071 16 Regular
Hoke County Regional Water System 03-47-025 0.2190 2060 2061 16 Regular
Town of Stedman 03-26-030 0.0500 2030 2031 12 Regular
Town of Stedman 03-26-030 0.0710 2040 2041 12 Regular
Town of Stedman 03-26-030 0.0890 2050 2051 12 Regular
Town of Stedman 03-26-030 0.1120 2060 2061 12 Regular
Town of Stedman 03-26-030 0.1410 2070 2071 12 Regular

Sales projections for PWCs three major bulk water customers are provided in the above table. The estimated figures represent the relative increase in sales over the respective 10-year reporting periods and are based on total demand data taken from those systems most recent available LWSP Update and the current trending for percentage of total system demand provided by PWC as follows:

(1) Fort Bragg MB (50%)
(2) Hoke County Regional Water System (30%)
(3) Town of Stedman (100%)

Demand v/s Percent of Supply
  2024 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Surface Water Supply 85.8000 85.8000 85.8000 85.8000 85.8000 85.8000
Ground Water Supply 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Purchases 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Future Supplies 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total Available Supply (MGD) 85.8000 85.8000 85.8000 85.8000 85.8000 85.8000
Service Area Demand 24.7457 40.6530 49.9390 57.1440 64.4460 71.8190
Sales 3.7056 3.7100 3.7100 3.7100 3.7100 3.7100
Future Sales 0.0560 0.1550 0.2540 0.5320 0.7560
Total Demand (MGD) 28.4513 44.4190 53.8040 61.1080 68.6880 76.2850
Demand as Percent of Supply 33% 52% 63% 71% 80% 89%

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 53 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.    

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?   

How does the water system intend to implement the demand management and supply planning components above?   

Additional Information

Has this system participated in regional water supply or water use planning?  Yes, Yes, PWC has participated in the Cape Fear River Water Supply Plan and the Cape Fear Lock and Dam Study. PWC has also been coordinating with Ft. Bragg and BRAC with regards to current and future regional water needs/expectations.

What major water supply reports or studies were used for planning?  PWC Water System Master Plan, 2002 Update (CDM)
Cumberland County Rural Water Demands and Preliminary Water District Evaluation (CDM, May 2001)
Cumberland County Preliminary Siting and Reservoir Feasibility Study (Geometrics Engineering, January 2000)
Site Feasibility Study for the P.O. Hoffer Raw Water Impoundment (CDM, July 1998)
Implementation of an Aquifer Storage and Recovery System, PER (Hazen and Sawyer, May 1997)
Cape Fear River Surface Water Supply Evaluation (DWR, December 2016)
Preliminary Engineering Report - PO Hoffer Water Treatment Facility Expansion to 48 MGD (November 2011)

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:   For the distribution system, PWC has implemented an annual program for rehabilitating selected water mains via an epoxy or cement mortar lining system. These mains are predominately unlined cast-iron pipe that have tuberculated with age.

PWC intake operations and water availability based on net withdrawal assumptions depend on pooled water in the Cape Fear River maintained by Lock & Dam No. 3 downstream of the PWC intakes. The Corps of Engineers is now conducting a Disposition Study that may affect the future condition and/or ownership of Lock & Dam No. 3.

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.