AG 1995 07 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Table 7 Future Population and Water Demand Residential Industrial/' Average Day Peak Year Population use other Total Day Concord 1992 47,500 2.24' 4.19 6.43 9.04 2000 57,500 2.71 5.08 7.79 10.95 2010 72,500 3.42 6.40 9.82 13.81 2020 87,500 4.13 7.72 11.85 16.66 Harrisburg 1992 2,200 0.16 0.08 0.24 0.36 (1) 2000 4,180 0.30 0.15 0.45 0.68 (1) 2010 5,000 0.36 0.18 0.54 0.81 (1) 2020 6,000 0.44 ' 0.21 0.65 01~8 (1.) Kannapolis 1992 29,500 1.61 6.52 8.13 11.22 2000 42,300 2.31 8.27 10.58 14.60 2010 51,150 2.79' 10.51 13.30 18.35 2020 61,400 3.35 12.65 16.00 22.08 Mt. Pleasant 1992 1,200 0.23 0.03 0.26 0.44 2000 1,600 0.30 0.07 0.37 0.63 2010 2,300 0.44 0.09 0.53 0.90 2020 3,300 0.62 0.14 0.76 1.29 County Dist. 1992 9,517 0.62 0.34 0.96 1.44 (1) 2000 9,785 0.64 0.50 1.14 1.71 (I) 2010 10,065 0.66 0.51 1.17 1.76 (1) 2020 10,357 0.67 0.54 1.21 1.82 (1) Totals (excludia~ Harrisburg and the County District except for Population) 1992 89,917 4.08 10.74 14.82 20.70 2000 115,365 5.32 13.42 18.74 26.18 2010 141,015 6.65 17.00 23.65 33.06 2020 168,557 8.10 20.51 28.61! 40.03 (1) Assumed 1.5 times the average flow Note: Residential Use was based on the 1992 average annual residential use. Peak Day water demand was calculated using the ratio of peak day to average day in 1992. Safe yield data was provided by each WTP owner. However, in 1992, both of Mount Pleasant's sources had a 7Q10 of zero, making their safe yield equal to zero. Figures 1 and 2 show a comparison of water demands and safe yield for Concord and Kannapolis. Both graphs show that the water sources will be able to meet demand. Harrisburg and the County District receive their water from Concord and are included in Concord's safe yield and average daily demand calculations.