Demorest Approves Water-System Model as Meter Capacity Questions Persist

Demorest City Council unanimously approved a $73,000 hydraulic water model on July 2, 2024, directing the city to move forward with an analysis intended to test water flow and pressure throughout its distribution system. The action, approved 4-0 at the regular meeting, puts an engineering tool behind a question that had been raised by city officials: whether the system has sufficient capacity for meters being sold to customers and where service may need to increase.

The decision matters because water-meter policy is inseparable from the physical limits of the pipes, storage and pressure that serve existing and future customers. A hydraulic model will not itself add water capacity or replace infrastructure, but it is designed to show how water moves through the system and identify weak points before the city makes consequential choices about added connections or capital improvements. Officials described Demorest’s network as more than 307 miles of waterlines, underscoring the scale of the system the study is meant to examine.

The model emerged from a March 23, 2024 council retreat, when officials outlined water-model services proposed on an hourly basis with a not-to-exceed cost of $73,000. That proposal did not settle the matter. At a July 2 work session, council members again discussed analyzing the distribution system and storage facilities, linking the work to uncertainty over meter capacity and to water-loss concerns. Officials said the analysis could take three to five months; later that evening, the council converted the proposal into an approved 4-0 motion.

City officials presented the model as a practical planning exercise rather than a simple yes-or-no answer on new meters. At the work session, they said a hydraulic analysis could help determine capacity for meters being sold and address water loss. The council’s unanimous vote signaled agreement to pursue that analysis, while the stated purpose of the model—testing flow and pressure and identifying locations where service may need to increase—places the eventual focus on system performance and potential upgrades.

What is established is the council’s July approval of a model with a $73,000 price point. What remains unclear is its implementation: the cited council actions do not state when the analysis began, whether it was completed, who performed it, or what findings it produced. Nor do they establish that the city changed its approach to selling meters, authorized particular construction, or identified a final list of needed improvements. The three-to-five-month estimate was presented during discussion, not proof that the work reached completion on that schedule.

The next public question is whether Demorest will disclose the model’s results and use them to guide decisions on meter connections, water loss or infrastructure spending. Residents looking for a clear answer on capacity will need a later council record, a professional-services agreement or a completed study identifying the analysis’ findings. Until then, the council’s approval establishes an intended path for evaluating the system, but not the capacity conclusions or investment choices that path may produce.